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, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
1. If he will consider imposing a further bonus tax on banks to fund job creation for young people who are unemployed.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The bank payroll tax is a one-off measure, but the Government have gone further by imposing a permanent bank levy that will raise £10 billion over the course of this Parliament. Those funds will help to pay for the youth contract, introduced this month, which will provide up to 500,000 young people with new education and employment opportunities.
Mr Skinner
So the answer is no: they are not going to introduce a bank bonus tax that could provide jobs for 100,000 young people and still leave money to spend on providing a training facility at Markham vale, which would serve all the constituencies of south Yorkshire and the north midlands. What an opportunity! If this posh, arrogant Government will not do that, the next Labour Government will do it for them.
Mr Hoban
We have heard the same old stuff from the hon. Gentleman for the last 42 years. Perhaps it is time for him to help youth unemployment by creating a vacancy. We are providing young people with more help to get into work, with an extra quarter of a million apprenticeship places. I would have thought he would have welcomed the fact that the city of Sheffield enterprise zone is at Markham vale in his constituency. That is the sort of practical action this Government are taking to ensure that jobs are being created.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister explain to employers—in Bolsover and elsewhere—that as of this month there is a youth contract that will pay them to take on unemployed young people?
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us how many young people have now been out of work for more than six months, and how that compares with the figure of a year ago?
Mr Hoban
I would have thought the shadow Chief Secretary would have welcomed the fact that youth unemployment fell last month. That demonstrates that the Government are taking action to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment—a problem that did not emerge under this Government, as youth unemployment also rose when her party was in government.
Rachel Reeves
The Minister failed to answer my question, so let me tell the House that 170,000 young people have been out of work for more than six months. That is an increase of 114% since just a year ago. Does the Minister think it is fair that families with children are being asked to pay a higher price for deficit reduction than the banks, and if not, will he reconsider reinstating the bank bonus tax to support young people back to work—especially as his Budget has given a tax cut worth £40,000 to 14,000 millionaires?
Mr Hoban
I just point out to the hon. Lady that the last Labour Government ruled out introducing a bank levy. That levy is raising £2.5 billion, and it will raise £10 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. I think it is right that banks should pay a fair contribution for the risks they have posed for the UK economy, and I would have thought she would have welcomed both the bank levy and the fall in youth unemployment last month.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Youth unemployment is clearly more acute in some parts of the country than in others. Why does the Minister think youth unemployment over the last two years has fallen in over a third of the country, including Bolsover, but not in some constituencies, such as Bradford West, where it has increased by 500?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes the important point that the pattern of youth unemployment varies across the country. It is important that the necessary support is in place to help young people looking for work, and the Work programme is likely to help 100,000 young people this year. That is just one of the practical measures we are taking to tackle the problem of youth unemployment—which, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) said, started under the last Labour Government.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
With the disgrace of having more than a million young people unemployed up and down this country, does the Minister not now regret scrapping the future jobs fund during the first few months after coming to power?
Mr Hoban
It was clear that the future jobs fund was not cost-effective in helping young people, and we have found that the work experience programme is 20 times more effective. We have introduced a range of measures to help young people find work. We have already talked about the increase in the number of apprenticeship places, the number of people being helped by the Work programme and the number of wage incentives in place through the youth contract. We are going to see more voluntary work taking place and more job experience. Those are the practical measures needed to tackle youth unemployment.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
2. What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage investment and growth in the manufacturing sector.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Government have taken a number of steps to support manufacturing industry, including: reducing corporation tax rates, with the main rate falling to 22% by 2014, which is the lowest in the G7; introducing a new above-the-line credit to support research and development in the UK; and introducing the patent box to reduce tax on profits from patents.
Tom Brake
Was the Chief Secretary as shocked as I was to hear the shadow Chief Secretary say on “Newsnight” that she opposed the coalition Government’s corporation tax cuts? Will he set out what particular measures could help businesses such as Monument Tools, a manufacturer of tools in my constituency that is able to compete with Chinese competitors?
Danny Alexander
I was indeed shocked to hear the shadow Chief Secretary say on “Newsnight” that she opposed the cut in corporation tax. I would have thought that the Labour party would welcome such a measure, as it is designed to increase investment in British businesses and support economic growth—that is something that Labour Members say they want to see. The constituency firm to which my right hon. Friend refers could benefit from the national loan guarantee scheme and the credit easing scheme that the Chancellor announced at the Budget, and it could participate in the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has announced, whereby £125 million is being spent to help manufacturers improve their performance.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Manufacturing businesses in the black country are adamant that what will help them improve their investment is an increase in capital allowances, rather than cuts and cuts in corporation tax. Why do the Government not do that?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have put in place enhanced capital allowances in a number of enterprise zones around the country, particularly to focus investment in plant and equipment in such areas. We announced in the autumn statement improvements to the short-life capital allowances regime, which had been a major request by manufacturing and, in particular, the engineering sector. I would have thought that he would have welcomed those changes.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The Budget identified a number of sectors for fiscal support. All Departments and all of us can think of deserving cases, particularly in our constituencies, but is it not the Treasury’s job to hold the line on industrial policy, remove the implicit subsidy from banking and other industries, and ensure that economic resources, through, for example, corporation tax cuts, flow to businesses that can succeed without state support?
Danny Alexander
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he would agree with me that the Vickers report on the banking sector does precisely the first thing he mentioned, and that our approach to corporation tax—reducing headline rates year by year to the lowest level in the G7 and one of the lowest levels in the G20—precisely achieves the objective that he set out.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether he read the explanatory notes on his VAT on caravans proposal? If he did read them, why on earth did he support a proposal that reduces demand in manufacturing by 30% and hits tourist industries, such as those in my area, 100%? Will he now review it?
Danny Alexander
Of course I did read the explanatory notes. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have listened to the representations in favour of extending the consultation period and have extended the deadline to 18 May to enable individuals such as him, and his constituents, to make representations as part of that consultation.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
3. What recent representations he has received on reducing the budget deficit.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
Every significant business organisation and international body has welcomed this Government’s decisive action to deal with the record budget deficit that we inherited from our predecessors. Not only has that action brought low interest rates for families and firms, but it has made Britain a safer haven in what, as everyone can see today, remains a very volatile European debt storm.
John Stevenson
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s Budget report stated that the interest paid on our national debt will be about £43 billion this year, rising to about £60 billion by the end of this Parliament. That rise in interest payments is a direct consequence of the previous Government’s action, but what action is the Chancellor taking to ensure that this interest rate bill does not rise any further?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right to remind us all that the Government have to pay interest on the enormous debts that the Labour party racked up and the budget deficit it bequeathed us. The action we have taken means that we are paying £36 billion less in interest payments over this Parliament, which completely dwarfs any initiative ever put forward by the shadow Chancellor.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Why are the Government now forecasting that they will borrow £150 billion more than they envisaged a year ago? Has not cutting back too far, too fast completely backfired?
Mr Osborne
As a former teacher, the hon. Gentleman read that very well. He should also study the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ statement that if we had stuck to the plan left to us by the Labour party we would be borrowing £200 billion more than we are borrowing at the moment and, as I just said, paying £36 billion more in interest payments to creditors of the British Government.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
24. In May 2010, the level of yield on UK Government 10-year gilts was the same as those of Italy and Spain. Now we are at record lows and they are at 7%, so what does that say about the credibility of the UK Government’s plan?
Mr Osborne
Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have very low interest rates in an environment in which many other European countries have much higher interest rates. That is a reflection of market confidence in the UK’s deficit reduction plan, and of course if we had pursued the path advocated by the Opposition—the same path that led us into this economic mess—we would be paying a higher interest rate, and there would be higher interest rates and families would have higher mortgage bills.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
May I very gently and in the friendliest way possible suggest that the Chancellor should not be quite so arrogant about his record on public borrowing? In Washington this weekend, he said that
“we have sorted out our problems.”
That is what the Chancellor told us. We have high unemployment and slow to non-existent growth. When will he realise that public borrowing is £150 billion higher than he predicted in his spending review?
Mr Osborne
As today’s public finance numbers show, we have hit the deficit reduction target we set out in the autumn statement and in the Budget. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman brings up Washington and the IMF summit. Perhaps we will hear later from the shadow Chancellor, as we did not have a chance to yesterday, what he thinks about the fact that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer completely disagrees with the position that he has taken on behalf of the Labour party.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to increase the availability of credit to small businesses.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
Lending to small businesses is a real concern at a time of stress in the financial markets. That is why the Government acted last month by launching the £20 billion national loan guarantee scheme. It is still in its first few weeks, but the signs are that businesses are getting cheaper loans, which will help support recovery.
Karen Lumley
Small businesses are obviously the key to the economic recovery. Will the Secretary of State reassure business people in Redditch that the Government will continue to look at funding for SMEs to ensure that finance reaches even the smallest companies?
Mr Osborne
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and say to businesses in her constituency and others that the national loan guarantee scheme is now available through most of the high street banks. We are also investing through something called the business finance partnership in non-bank financing of businesses. Some of that money will be for very small businesses, too, through peer-to-peer lending. As everyone accepts, I think, financial markets across the world, particularly in Europe, are stressed. That is why the Government have to step in and help, and that is what the £20 billion of guarantees that we are offering under the scheme will do.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware of the pressures being exerted by banks on small and medium-sized businesses. What more can he and his Government do to get the banks to assist by making credit available rather than undermining many of those very good businesses?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman is right that small businesses face difficult financing conditions because of the stress in the financial markets and the fact that banks are not able to access funding in the way that they were four or five years ago. That is why we have taken the step of credit easing, which is not something that a Government would do in more normal economic times, and it is why we have the finance partnership and are expanding the enterprise finance guarantee. Those are all designed as Government interventions, using the good credit worthiness that we have earned for this country, to ensure that those lower interest rates can be passed on to small businesses.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that in a banking sector where only up to about 2% of bank balance sheets is invested in the real economy, what we really need is a revolution in competition in that sector? What is he doing to ensure that there will be more new entrants into the banking industry in future?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which is that the banking industry has become very consolidated in recent years, because of the various mergers and failures during the financial crisis. Our ambition as a Government is to increase competition on the high street, and we took an important step towards that with our decision to sell Northern Rock back into the private sector and to support Virgin Money as a new lender on the high street, but of course other divestments are due to take place, and the ambition in the Vickers report, which we are implementing, is to increase competition.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
With 50 businesses going bust every day, but still getting battered by the banks with high interest rates and charges, when is the Chancellor going to get a hold of the banks and get them to put some money into the country and into British business? After all, we are the ones who bailed them out.
Mr Osborne
I am glad the hon. Gentleman reminds us that the previous Government bailed out the banks with no conditions attached, and we are having to pick up the mess. We want to help small business lending by using the Government’s balance sheet and the low interest rates we have earned with a credible deficit plan. We intend to increase competition in the high street: we sent Northern Rock back into the private sector with Virgin Money, a decision that was welcomed in the north-east of England, but opposed by the shadow Chancellor. We are taking the steps necessary, but yes, we are dealing with one enormous mess left to us by Labour.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
5. What assessment he has made of the effect on pensioners of the proposed changes to age-related income tax allowances.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
No one will pay more tax in 2013-14 than they do today as a result of the changes. There are no cash losers. The Government remain absolutely committed to supporting pensioners. We have introduced a triple guarantee for the basic state pension, ensuring that it will increase each and every year by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. We have also protected other benefits that make a real difference to the lives of millions of pensioners.
Nick Smith
What does the Minister have to say to those who are turning 65 in just under a year’s time? They are set to be more than £25 a month worse off than they thought they would be, but they have no time to plan for that change.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
In the past couple of weeks, I have read in leaflets that pensioners have been hit by the Government axing free bus passes, free prescriptions and free television licences. Did I miss something in the Budget, or are those simply lies from the Labour party?
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Chancellor claims to be credible and consistent in his decision making, including his decision to withdraw the age-related tax allowances—the so-called granny tax that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) just asked about. In that case, will the Minister confirm why, in February 2009, the present Chancellor explicitly called for the tax-free allowance for pensioners to be increased?
Mr Gauke
In the light of the very substantial increase in the general personal allowance and of the concerns raised by the Office of Tax Simplification that the current structure does not have support, that is the right move. Pensioners are well protected by our policies and will continue to be so, but that move is one that results in a simpler and fairer tax system.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
7. What progress the Government have made on the implementation of the national infrastructure plan.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
We published an update on the national infrastructure plan alongside the Budget, showing the progress that has been made on all the priority investments. As an example, the Budget was able to confirm that the pensions infrastructure platform that we have established to enable British pension funds to invest in infrastructure in this country will be able to make its first wave of £2 billion investment by early 2013.
Iain Stewart
I very much welcome the plan and congratulate the Government on prioritising rail investment, such as the east-west line through my constituency. May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue that investment in the classic network, as well as finding the funds for High Speed 2?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The investment in High Speed 2 will not affect the amount of investment in the traditional rail network. It will allow us to go forward—for example, with the investment in the Oxford to Bedford rail line, which I know will affect his constituency, create 12,000 jobs and give a boost of £38 million to that area’s economy.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister realise that those of us who represent the squeezed middle in this country—the northern and midland regions—are sick to death of seeing London and the south-east getting all the infrastructure investment, all the cranes, while we are waiting patiently for investment in our part of the world, where we have been in recession for three years?
Danny Alexander
In that case, the hon. Gentleman ought also to welcome the substantial investment, for example, in the northern hub rail project. He ought to welcome the substantial investment in the electrification of the trans-Pennine railway. He ought to welcome the substantial investment in the capital infrastructure around ports to enable the north and the north-east of England to benefit, particularly from the investment in renewables that we will see over the coming years. A fair picture would represent those things too.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the rate of income tax paid by those earning over £150,000 per year.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax. The percentage of total income tax paid by the top 1% will be more than 27% in 2012-13 and in subsequent years, compared with an average of less than 23% between 1997 and 2010. Budget 2012 announced a package of measures to ensure that those on the highest incomes contribute more. This includes a cap on previously uncapped income tax reliefs, which will increase effective tax rates.
Graeme Morrice
The Prime Minister claimed in the House last week that the 50p top rate of tax had raised barely anything at all, yet the HMRC document sets out a figure of more than £1 billion, and the Minister confirmed in the House on the same day that it had raised £700 million. Should not the Prime Minister come to the House and set the record straight?
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
It is important to remember, though, that for 12 out of the 13 years that they were in government, the Opposition thought it appropriate to have a top rate of tax at 40p. Is not the important thing the yield that is raised by the top rate of tax, not having a tax rate that is punitive just for the sake of having punitive taxes?
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
22. Following on from the question from my hon. Friend and namesake the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), we are aware that Treasury data published last week gave details of the levels of tax avoidance among top-rate taxpayers, but can the Minister confirm that someone earning £1 million a year will benefit to the tune of £40,000 a year from these taxes?
Mr Gauke
The point is that the assessment made by HMRC, supported by the assessment of the Office for Budget Responsibility, is that the 50p rate failed to raise the revenue that was anticipated. It failed to raise the revenue that we needed. Instead, we are taking measures that will succeed in getting money out of the wealthiest, not failing.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
To what extent does the Minister believe that having the top rate of tax in the G20 helps British competitiveness?
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
17. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, one year is not long enough to judge the effectiveness of the 50p tax rate. According to HMRC, the taxable income elasticity is highly uncertain. Therefore, will the Minister admit that his decision to scrap the 50p tax rate was ideological, rather than based on some flimsy evidence that does not actually exist?
Mr Gauke
It is not flimsy evidence; it is evidence that shows two different models. It is consistent with the academic literature in this area, and it is supported as a central and reasonable estimate by Robert Chote, head of the Office for Budget Responsibility and former head of the IFS.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
9. What assessment he has made of the effect of energy costs on the Government’s growth strategy.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
Energy costs have an impact on the economy. The plan for growth in the autumn statement and the national infrastructure plan announced a programme of more than 250 economic reforms and investment in infrastructure, with action in the energy sector, including electricity market reform. The Government are focused on ensuring that the UK can deliver the investment it needs to provide a secure, affordable and decarbonised energy sector.
David Mowat
The Minister will be aware that gas is an important feedstock in many industrial processes. As of this morning, the price of gas in the US was four times less than it was in the UK and Europe, which is driving GDP and reducing fuel poverty. Is she willing to speak with her colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change to ensure that we can emulate the US by driving GDP and also reduce carbon emissions?
Miss Smith
Gas prices in Europe and Asia are higher than those in the US, which commentators have attributed mainly to the impact of the large-scale development of shale gas in the US. The Government are examining the potential barriers to investment in gas-fired electricity generation in the UK and the role gas can play in delivering a secure and affordable low-carbon electricity supply. That would include examining the potential role of shale gas in the UK. The Government, including the Treasury, DECC and other Departments, are working together and will shortly issue a call for evidence to inform our strategy for gas generation, which we will publish in the autumn.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Energy prices and uncertainty surrounding the support for low-carbon energy, alongside uncertainty about electricity market reform, are causing some companies to reassess their business plans in this country. Can the Minister assure us that the Chancellor and the Treasury will support market reform in the next Session of this Parliament and ensure that the subsidies are in place to get the jobs and prosperity that the country needs?
Miss Smith
The Treasury supports electricity market reform, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. He will also know that we have also laid out our support for energy-intensive industries. I have no doubt that he will be able to direct questions about programming to the Leader of the House.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
10. What steps he plans to take to ensure taxes owed are duly collected.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
HMRC has managed both to reduce debt levels and to help businesses through difficult economic times. It offers help to businesses that are in genuine difficulty, including through time-to-pay arrangements. Where appropriate, it is taking faster and firmer action against those who fail to engage with it. The amount of customer debt owed to the Exchequer decreased by about £2.4 billion between February 2011 and February 2012.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and I must congratulate the Government on their plans to close loopholes, particularly for the super-rich, including through the gift aid system. Will he ensure that the Government do not weaken their resolve in that regard, and ensure that gift aid genuinely goes to support charitable activities?
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
19. Why has not the Exchequer Secretary given Members of Parliament, or even the House of Commons Library, copies of the figures he released to the press last week suggesting that 330 millionaires are paying less than 10% tax, which he connected directly to charitable giving? Will he make those figures available to Members through the Library?
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
11. Whether caravans designed and constructed for continuous occupation will remain zero-rated for VAT purposes under his proposals when used as holiday homes.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government have proposed a new definition of a zero-rated caravan, based on whether it has been designed and constructed for residential purposes. To achieve that, we have proposed a test, based on British Standard 3632, indicating that the caravan has been designed for continuous, all-year-round occupation. We are consulting on whether additional criteria should be added to ensure that the zero rate applies only to caravans intended for residential use, although I know that my hon. Friend argues that such additional criteria would not be desirable.
Gordon Henderson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, which demonstrates clearly the need for further consultation. There are 45 holiday caravan parks in Sittingbourne and Sheppey which will be hard hit by the imposition of VAT on static caravans. Will he listen carefully and sympathetically to representations from the holiday industry before making a final decision?
Mr Gauke
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will listen carefully and sympathetically to the arguments that are put to us. He, indeed, has already made strong representations on this point, and we have of course extended the consultation period to 18 May, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury pointed out earlier.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain to my constituents why VAT on ski lifts in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s constituency is being reduced, but in my constituency thousands of people are going to lose their jobs with the implementation of the Government’s plans to increase VAT on static caravans?
Mr Gauke
VAT is chargeable on mobile caravans, camper vans, narrowboats, beach huts and tents, and we are seeking greater consistency in the area.
With regard to ski lifts and other forms of cable-based transport, there is a reduced rate in France, Germany, Austria and Italy, and most areas of public transport are zero-rated.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for agreeing to extend the period of consultation. During the consultation, however, will he not only reflect on the scope of VAT, but give some thought to the many thousands of people throughout the country who could lose their jobs if the proposals are implemented as originally announced? Will he give some thought to them before he decides whether to phase, delay, amend or withdraw these plans?
Mr Gauke
Of course, we will listen to the representations that are made, and my right hon. Friend has made representations to me on behalf of his constituents. We are seeking to have a fairer VAT system, but of course we want to listen to those concerns that are raised about the implementation of these matters.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
12. Whether he plans to re-establish the euro preparations unit within his Department.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
My hon. Friend asks whether we plan to re-establish the euro preparations unit in the Treasury, and the answer is no we do not.
Bob Blackman
I am delighted that we, unlike the Labour party, are committed not to join that foreign currency, which is failing at the present time. No doubt my right hon. Friend, before he became Chancellor, calculated the cost of the unit. How many police, doctors or nurses could we employ for the money that was wasted?
Mr Osborne
I only have the figures for the Treasury, but of course other Departments were also embarked on that Labour scheme. The Treasury spent £5 million on the civil servants required for the euro preparations unit, and that for example would pay for 17 nurses and five consultants. I guess, given that the Labour leader is committed to joining the euro, the unit would be re-established.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Chancellor will have seen that the euro fell significantly deeper into crisis yesterday. Is the Treasury making contingency plans for the abandonment of the euro and the creation of national currencies?
Mr Osborne
As I have said previously in the House, the Treasury does make contingency plans for whatever the world economy and, indeed, the European economy throw at it, but I will not spell them out in detail.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
13. How many families in (a) the UK and (b) Liverpool, Riverside constituency receiving child tax credits will be economically disadvantaged by the changes introduced in the Budget.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
Data limitations mean that we cannot assess impacts at a constituency level, but, taking into account the Budget’s unprecedented £1,100 increase in the personal tax allowance and the other measures that the Treasury can robustly model by household, I note that more than half of households entitled to child tax credits are better off and will gain on average £175 per year in 2013-14. There are less than half as many losers as winners, and their average loss is more than four times smaller, at £40 per year.
Mrs Ellman
I thank the Minister for her answer, but more than 825 households in Liverpool, Riverside will lose all their child tax credit or working tax credit. How can it be fair to penalise hard-pressed families when millionaires are gaining £40,000 from the very same Budget?
Miss Smith
The top 20% of earners in this country continue to make the biggest contribution to reducing the deficit, as has to be the case. The hon. Lady knows as well as anybody in the House that under the previous Government, spending on tax credits was out of control, with nine out of 10 families being eligible. Six out of 10 families will still be eligible for tax credits after our reforms.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
14. By what means his Department determined which core cities would participate in the tax incremental finance scheme; and if he will make a statement.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The main tax increment financing scheme will be available to all local authorities in England from April 2013 as part of the business rates retention scheme. We will set out more details on how it will work shortly. A second pot of longer-term funding will be allocated to the core cities—the eight largest cities outside London—on a competitive basis. We will invite applications from those cities for that pot soon.
Mr Cunningham
Why was Coventry left out of the eight core cities, against the promise of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2010? Does the Chief Secretary realise that that will have a bearing on the Friargate scheme in Coventry, which will employ a lot of people when it is finished?
Danny Alexander
The eight core cities are a well-established group that have a proven role in driving economic growth in England. As I said, the main tax increment financing scheme will be available to all local authorities in England, including that of the hon. Gentleman, from 2013. We will set out the details of that shortly as part of the business rates retention scheme. Other pools of funding, such as the Growing Places fund, may be able to help with the scheme that he mentioned. The local enterprise partnership allocates those funds.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. If the city pilots are successful, will he consider extending this method of financing to all county authorities?
Danny Alexander
Tax increment financing has great potential in helping local areas to develop infrastructure projects and supporting economic growth across the country. As I said to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the main tax increment financing scheme will be available to all local authorities in England from April 2013. That will apply to the kind of local authorities that my hon. Friend described.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
15. What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to working tax credit on couples in households where one person is retired.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
Working tax credit is a payment for working households that was introduced by the previous Government to improve work incentives. Retirement is not recognised in the tax credit system. However, there are separate eligibility rules for those over 60, and a level of income for those in retirement is guaranteed by pension credit.
Katy Clark
My constituent, Mrs Orr, is losing £290 a month as a result of the tax credit changes. She lives with her husband, who is retired, and her 13-year-old daughter. She works for 20 hours a week at Crosshouse hospital and has tried to increase her contractual hours, but has been unable to do so. She works any overtime that is available. How do you suggest that she makes ends meet?
Miss Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that example in which the couple’s ages are more distant from each other than is the norm. She makes an interesting point. However, as I said in my initial answer, there are arrangements for those over 60 and for those in retirement in the tax credit system, the pensions system and other benefit systems. As I have said in previous Question Times, the economy is moving, there are work vacancies out there and we believe that the changes to working tax credit are fair. For example, they place couples on a par with lone parents.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
16. What steps he is taking to increase the availability of credit to small businesses.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Government have announced a range of initiatives to help small businesses access finance from a wide range of sources, including the national loan guarantee scheme and the business finance partnership.
Andrew Bingham
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the Government’s efforts on this matter. Does he agree that in constituencies such as High Peak, micro-businesses are still having difficulties finding loans, despite the assurances of the banks that they are open for business? What words of support and advice can he offer the small, independent business owners upon whom the recovery depends to such a great extent?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and having visited his constituency, I know it is very rural. He might encourage businesses in his constituency to apply for the rural economy grant scheme, which is worth £60 million and is open to businesses operating in rural areas in certain markets, including agri-foods, tourism and digital media technology. I would encourage them to do so.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
18. What estimate he has made of the revenue which would accrue to the Exchequer from maintaining the additional rate of income tax at 50 per cent in 2013-14.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The 50% rate raised a fraction of what was expected, which is why we are reducing it to 45% from April 2013. Maintaining the 50% rate would accrue an extra £50 million on top of what is expected in 2013-14, rising to £100 million a year once the impact on self-assessment receipts is included. However, any additional yield could be offset by reduced indirect tax revenues, and as such it may raise nothing relative to the 45% rate.
Kerry McCarthy
I think the Minister has somewhat deliberately obfuscated matters. What I wanted was a figure. It has been estimated that the 50p tax rate could have raised £3 billion in future years when there was not a forestalling effect. Have not the Government made a deliberate decision that they want tax cuts for millionaires as opposed to money being put back into the pockets of hard-working people?
Mr Gauke
It is worth pointing out that this £3 billion figure that the shadow Chancellor and others recite suggests an entirely static process. Nobody believes that a 50p rate has no behavioural impact whatever, but that is the Labour party’s ridiculous position. That was not its position when in government, and it is not a position that any credible economist would support.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability of the economy, promote growth and employment, reform banking and manage the public finances so that Britain lives within her means.
Jane Ellison
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to support successful small businesses that wish to take advantage of export opportunities?
Mr Osborne
We want to get small businesses exporting more, and UK small businesses have traditionally not exported as much as, for example, continental European small businesses. That is why UK Trade & Investment, under Lord Green, has set the specific ambition of doubling the number of small businesses helped by the Government. We want small businesses to be ambitious and look to overseas markets.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor has had a difficult few weeks since the Budget. To be told by his own side that he is an out-of-touch posh boy who does not know the price of milk must be particularly hard to take. I will ask him today not about the price of milk but—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me say once and for all to the junior Whip, sitting next to a senior Whip: be quiet, do not heckle, and if you cannot keep quiet, leave the Chamber. Make a habit of that.
Ed Balls
Shall I start again at the beginning of the question? I am going to ask the Chancellor today not about the price of milk but about a price that he surely must have considered at Budget time. I will ask him a specific question. What is—[Interruption.] I am going to ask the Chancellor a specific question that he must have considered at Budget time. What is the price of a litre of unleaded petrol at the pumps today, and what was it on Budget day a year ago?
Mr Osborne
Of course, the price of petrol today is about £1.40 a litre. It was less a year ago, but the international oil price has gone up since—I think it is 10% higher than it was last year. That is why we have cancelled some of the fuel duty increases that the right hon. Gentleman voted for when he was in government, cut fuel duty and got rid of the fuel escalator that he supported in government.
Ed Balls
That is an answer that we will hang around the Chancellor’s neck for the next four months. He has admitted that the price of petrol is higher today than a year ago, when he decided it was too high for petrol duty to go up. Let me ask him a second question. His duty increase is due in August. If the price of petrol is still higher than the £1.33 a litre price of a year ago, will he commit now not to go ahead with the duty rise, or is the truth that he cut taxes for millionaires but does not understand about family budgets? Out of touch, out of friends and way, way out of his depth.
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman says it is my duty increase, but we are talking about his duty increase, which was set out in the March Budget before the last general election, which he voted for and helped to write.
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman says I am the Chancellor, and he is right. Since inheriting those fuel duty plans from him, I have cut fuel duty, cancelled the fuel duty increases that he voted for and got off the fuel duty escalator that he supported. That is what I have done to ensure that families are better able to cope with the economic mess he presided over when he was in the Treasury.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
T2. I welcome the Financial Services Bill, which we debated yesterday. It is a significant step towards re-instilling confidence in the financial services industry, but does the Minister accept that regulators, including the current Financial Services Authority, have an obligation to work with other regulatory bodies that go beyond their competence to bring about negotiated settlements when the product is far more complicated than is covered by their jurisdiction, such as in the Arch Cru affair?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
My hon. Friend raises an important question. There are a number of cases—Arch Cru is one of them—in which different parties are in different jurisdictions. It is important that regulators work together, along with the parties involved, to ensure that a good deal is put in place to help investors.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
T3. A listed building that is dismantled and rebuilt as a new dwelling will be zero rated, but people will not be able to renovate an empty barn for the same price if it is VAT-able at 20%. Is that or is that not a perverse incentive to demolish empty listed buildings?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
As financial advice, I am not sure it is necessarily wise to dismantle and then rebuild a listed building to make a saving, but there is an anomaly in the tax system: people pay VAT for a repair on a listed building, but they do not pay VAT for an alteration. That does not seem right.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
T7. What action have the Government taken to prevent multinationals from funnelling their profits into tax havens, as some do, rather than paying their taxes to the developing countries where they have subsidiaries?
Mr Gauke
The Government have taken great action to increase tax transparency, and on ensuring that there is more of an exchange of information between jurisdictions. We have taken action to prevent Switzerland, for example, being used as a place to facilitate tax evasion. In addition, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs provides considerable support to developing countries to improve their capability and capacity to collect tax revenues, which are very important.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T4. Ramtech Electronics is a small business in my constituency that supplies wireless products to the static caravan industry. Tony Strickland, national key account manager, says that the effect of the Government’s decision to put VAT on caravans will be “catastrophic” for the industry and that it will“undoubtedly result in job losses.”Why does the Chancellor think that a tax cut for millionaires is more important than my constituents’ jobs?
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
T8. In 2005, Germany exempted businesses with fewer than 10 workers from unfair dismissal regulations and created flexible mini and midi-jobs. Since that date, youth unemployment in Germany has halved. What steps are the Government taking to improve flexibility and to get more young people into jobs?
Mr George Osborne
We need to reform the labour market, which is why, as my hon. Friend will know, we have this month extended the qualifying period for unfair dismissal cases from one to two years. That has been welcomed and will encourage people to take on new employees. We also have a call for evidence on compensated no-fault dismissal. I have no doubt that she will make a submission to that call for evidence.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
T5. In view of earlier answers on corporation tax, will the Chancellor tell the House how many FTSE 100 companies paid full corporation tax in the last available tax year? It would be understandable if he does not have the figure now, but will he place it in the Library of the House for hon. Members?
Mr Osborne
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is an experienced Member and sits on the Treasury Committee, there is a very important principle of taxpayer confidentiality, so I am not shown the individual tax returns of businesses or indeed individuals. We have recently published data on the average tax rate that people on the highest incomes were paying under the last Labour Government, and we can see that it was very much lower than Treasury Ministers were telling us.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
T9. Can the Chancellor tell me how many of my constituents will benefit from the lifting of the personal tax threshold?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Information is not available at constituency level, but I can confirm that for the east midlands government region 1.7 million people will benefit in 2013-14 from the largest ever increase in the personal allowance, which was announced in the Budget. Some 152,000 people will have been taken out of tax altogether in the east midlands by the policies of this Government.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
T6. It has been reported in the papers that the Chancellor is prepared to meet with charities so that he can explain his tax hike and tell them how he can get it right in the future. For the sake of consistency, will he also meet with the purveyors of pasties, church leaders and caravan operators and manufacturers so that he can tell them how he will get it right in the future and they can tell him to drop these VAT hikes?
Mr George Osborne
What I find extraordinary is that we have a Labour MP supporting the idea that the very wealthiest people in this country pay no income tax. That is an extraordinary thing for a Labour MP to advocate. As I say, we have made reforms in the Budget to improve the tax system and to ensure that people at the very top of the income scale pay some income tax.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
T10. The Thatcher Governments unleashed a decade or more of enterprise in this country. Young entrepreneurs today are still key to a private sector-led recovery, but only 3% of 18 to 24-year-olds set up their own business. Will the Chancellor consider further support for the new enterprise allowance and other schemes to increase assistance to young entrepreneurs?
Mr Osborne
The new enterprise allowance has been introduced and already some 10,000 people are developing their own business ideas using the incentive of the allowance. As I set out in the Budget, we are considering the case for enterprise loans. The Government provide a loan for people going to university, but what about a loan for people who want to start their own business? We will come to the House with ideas on that subject later this year.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Rather than giving £10 billion to the IMF for the European bail-out fund, would it not be better to invest that money in a growth strategy in places such as Swansea to generate jobs and growth, and avoid the situation of the Chief Secretary suddenly announcing a further 5% cut in departmental spending, allegedly for a rainy day?
Mr Osborne
The political opportunism and empty opposition of the Labour party was brutally exposed yesterday when the shadow Chancellor opposed the contribution to the IMF and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and one of the few people to emerge with real credit from the last Government, completely contradicted him. Not only are the Opposition not taken seriously at home, they are not taken seriously abroad either.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Will the Chancellor join me in welcoming the announcement by GlaxoSmithKline of a £0.5 billion investment in advanced manufacturing in the north of England? Taken together with the £800 million investment by Tata in Wales and the IMF’s upgrade of our growth forecast by nearly 20%, does this not suggest that the Budget for business is working?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right to point to the GSK investment. The chief executive of GSK explicitly credited the falls in corporation tax and the patent box for that decision. We have also had the investment from Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands, the great news of Nissan’s investment in Sunderland and steel-making has returned to Redcar.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
International connectivity is crucial to business in the north-east, and Newcastle international airport provides a vital link. Will the Government therefore support calls from regional airports for a congestion charge to be applied to air passenger duty to ensure the future viability not only of jobs and tourist income, but of international trade routes?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
As briefly discussed during last week’s debate on the Finance Bill, the Government are undertaking various pieces of work on aviation strategy and, more recently, received representations on regional congestion charges and other things during the APD consultation. I can confirm to the hon. Lady that, although I have not spoken to her personally about the matter, I am happy to meet her, her colleagues and representatives of those airports to hear more evidence of what they believe might occur if we set different tax rates.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I am sure we have all received letters from constituents over the years saying that they did not want their taxes spent on one thing and preferred them to be spent on something else. It is right in principle, therefore, that the Government cap the ability of the super-rich to allocate taxes to charities of their choice. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor acknowledge, however, that universities and medical research charities have always depended on philanthropic support? In reviewing the cap on tax relief, will he ensure that those institutions’ interests are safeguarded?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the policy. As we said at the time of the Budget and in the Budget document, we are looking to explore with charities dependent on large donations how this can be implemented without it having a major impact on them. Of course, we will take into account the concerns of universities and others.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Why does the Chancellor think his Budget is now widely seen as a complete and utter shambles?
Mr George Osborne
We cut business tax to make this country more competitive and to create jobs; we delivered an income tax cut for 24 million working people; we took 2 million low-paid people out of tax altogether; and, above all, we continue to clear up the economic mess left to us by the Labour party.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What will we get for the £64 billion extra spending this year compared with the last year under Labour?
Mr Osborne
The plans we set out for public expenditure were measured, but they involved reducing the deficit. That has been very important. The public finance figures, published today, show that we are on track to meet our deficit targets. At the same time, we have found resources for things such as extra nursery education for disadvantaged youngsters, the pupil premium and all sorts of other things that support our objectives of a fairer and more balanced economy. [Interruption.]
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
West Dunbartonshire is the most difficult local authority area in the whole of the UK in which to find a job, yet the Scottish National party Government have refused us any help and refused to meet me. Have this Government also abandoned West Dunbartonshire or can we expect help to do one thing—to create jobs?
Danny Alexander
It is disappointing to hear that members of the Scottish Government have refused to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the help they could provide to her constituents. This Government’s actions—the youth contract, in particular—will be of significant importance to many young people in her constituency. In particular, there are the additional jobs subsidies available to businesses to take on young unemployed people in her constituency. I hope she will welcome that and promote it to businesses in her area.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Tomorrow, the European Commission will publish its proposed 2013 budget. Will Her Majesty’s Government do everything they can to ensure that there is no increase in that budget? More importantly, will they use their veto on the multi-annual framework to ensure that there is no increase?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. At a time when Governments across Europe are making difficult decisions to curb spending, it is completely unacceptable for the Commission to propose an inflation-busting increase in its budget and the medium-term financial framework. The Government will work with their allies to tackle those issues.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
In normal times, the mortgage standard variable rate rises or falls as the base rate goes up or down, but we are aware that some banks—not all—are increasing their standard variable rates now, while the Bank base rate remains near the zero-bound. Will the Chancellor take this opportunity to fire a warning shot across the bows of some of those banks not to increase their standard variable rates and so put more pain on to people likely to have had pay cuts and wage freezes over the past two or three years?
Mr Hoban
It is important that we stick to the fiscal course to ensure that UK interest rates remain low for as long as possible. However, many banks face increased funding costs, partly because of the turbulence in the eurozone and partly because there is more competition for savings on the high street, and that works its way through to mortgage rates. It is important that banks provide the help they can to their customers to ensure they have the support necessary to deal with higher mortgage interest rates.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry. Treasury questions have long been an appealing fixture to colleagues, but demand has exceeded supply and we must now move on.
Petition
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I have a petition from 240 residents of Dodworth in my constituency about the quality of broadband services in their area.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Dodworth,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that broadband provision in the Dodworth Water Royd and Rose Hill estates is inadequate and is among the slowest service in the UK; further declares that the Petitioners believe that as time goes on the area will lag further behind in broadband speed, still struggling with a connection measured in megabits per second while the rest of the country has access to speeds measured in gigabits per second; further declares that this disparity will have a negative impact on those living in the area who will be unable to access internet services in future, which will have knock-on effects on lifestyle, prosperity, and in all likelihood, property prices; further declares that the Petitioners believe that the problem in this area is that there is no access to a local fibre street cabinet, which means that connections are made through around 6.5km of copper wire, resulting in slower connection speeds; and declares that the Petitioners believe that such a cabinet could be installed without the need to dig up roads or pavements.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that residents of the Dodworth Water Royd and Rose Hill estates in Dodworth are able to access broadband services that are of comparable speeds to those available elsewhere in the country.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001021]
Stephen Lawrence
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether she will establish a public inquiry into recent allegations that corruption within the Metropolitan police force interfered with the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
May I first apologise to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is overseas on Government business?
It is a matter of deep regret that it took 19 years to achieve convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. In the years since he was murdered, the Lawrence family fought tirelessly for justice and, without their efforts, it is unlikely that either Gary Dobson or David Norris would have been convicted. I hope that the verdicts in January will finally have delivered some comfort to the Lawrence family.
Allegations of corruption in the murder investigation have been looked at on two previous occasions. They were examined by the Macpherson inquiry, which concluded that
“no collusion or corruption is proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder.”
The allegations were also looked at by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2006, which again was unable to find any corruption in the original murder investigation. Following the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris, further allegations of corruption have come to light. As a result, the solicitor acting on behalf of Mrs Lawrence has written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asking her to set up a public inquiry.
Allegations of police corruption must always be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. It is essential that we ensure that the actions and behaviours of any corrupt police officers do not undermine public confidence in the police’s ability to respond to, investigate and fight crime. The Metropolitan police are currently carrying out an internal review into these corruption allegations and we await their findings. I would like to reassure Members of the House that my right hon. Friend is treating these issues with the utmost seriousness. She is currently considering her decision and has offered to meet Doreen Lawrence to discuss the issues further. My right hon. Friend will keep the House updated.
Clive Efford
I welcome the Minister’s statement, as far as it goes. The murder of Stephen Lawrence, and his family’s campaign for justice, led to the Macpherson inquiry, which was a landmark for policing in this country. One of Macpherson’s conclusions that remains in doubt relates to whether police corruption hampered the inquiry into Stephen’s murder. We have now seen fresh evidence that might call that conclusion into question.
Over the past two months, I have tabled questions on two occasions but have been fobbed off with holding answers. Yesterday, however, reports in the press that had clearly been sanctioned by the Home Office suggested that the Home Secretary had told the Lawrence family that she shared their concerns. If that is the case, can we take it that the Minister accepts that there is evidence of police corruption that is worthy of further inquiry?
There is also speculation that one of the Secretary of State’s reasons for not setting up an inquiry is cost, and it has been stated that there could be swifter and cheaper ways of dealing with the matter. According to reports, the police have taken six weeks and still cannot confirm whether all the relevant documents relating to Operation Russell were sent to the inquiry. In the light of that, will the Minister tell us what constitutes “swift” in the context of an inquiry? We cannot have any more bluster and delay. There has been far too much since the moment Stephen Lawrence was murdered.
Stephen’s family are asking for an inquiry into this matter. Will the Minister now answer my questions? Does he accept that only an independent, public inquiry will satisfy public concerns over the new allegations? Does he also accept that, as there has already been too much delay, such an inquiry should be expedited as quickly as possible, either by reconvening the Macpherson inquiry or by setting up a new inquiry team to follow on with its work?
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and underline the seriousness we attach to the current allegations. The Home Secretary is looking very closely at this matter, but wishes the Metropolitan police’s internal review into the current allegations to conclude to inform her determination of what next steps are appropriate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those investigations should be carried out by the Metropolitan police swiftly in order to inform further consideration of whether a public inquiry is or is not appropriate.
I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this matter will be looked at speedily and closely by the Home Secretary, who will continue to have discussions with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It is essential to have trust and confidence in the policing provided within London and in the rest of the country. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office has not sought in any way to brief this out, and that any decisions made by the Home Secretary should be reported to this House first. I can assure him that this matter will be dealt with entirely appropriately to provide the necessary reassurance on this significant matter—to him, to his constituents and to the Lawrence family.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friend will, in time, be able to give fuller replies to the questions put by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), to whom I pay tribute, along with John Austin, for calling for the original inquiry.
I suggest that the Home Secretary or my hon. Friend consult the original commission—including John Sentamu, now Archbishop of York, and Dr Richard Stone—and acknowledge that, although we recognise that possible criminal proceedings may follow in this case, it was possible for criminal convictions to take place after the original Macpherson inquiry.
We all know that most police want to nick criminals and bring them to justice, and that most police officers are not racist by institutional or any other means, but those who are need to discover that the time has gone when the colour of someone’s skin should be viewed as more important than the colour of their eyes or their hair.
James Brokenshire
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s last comment: racism has no part and no place in the policing of our country. I pay tribute to the important steps that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has taken in underlining that message and to some of the actions that he is already taking to ensure that that message on policing in London is sent out loud and clear, including the introduction of CCTV cameras into some vehicles to provide greater transparency and accountability. These are issues that the Home Secretary is taking into careful consideration. As I said, she wishes the response of the current corruption investigations conducted by the Metropolitan police to be reported to her; she will then be able to determine the appropriate next steps in that regard.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Minister has confirmed the evidence given by the Home Secretary to the Select Committee on Home Affairs this morning on this very point. Doreen Lawrence has written to me and other members of the Committee about the issue of an inquiry. What concerns me is the fact that the inquiry conducted by the Metropolitan police is an internal one. In order to satisfy the public and all those Members who have been aware of this issue over a long period, would it not be better if this were conducted not by an external force, but by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, so that the Lawrence family can feel that a proper look has been taken before the issue of a public inquiry can be decided on?
James Brokenshire
The appropriate course of action is for the Metropolitan police to conclude its current investigations appropriately, but as speedily as is practicable. Following the receipt of that report, the Home Secretary will determine what further action may be appropriate to give necessary reassurance about the process to the family and to the community. My right hon. Friend will then consider whether a public inquiry is or is not appropriate in the light of the responses she receives from the Metropolitan police.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The whiff of corruption has long hung over the investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder, and I hope very much that, as a result of these inquiries, the truth about just how incompetently it was conducted will finally emerge. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that having faced the charge of institutional racism, the Metropolitan police have risen to the challenge and have left no stone unturned in trying to bring the killers finally to justice, and does he share my confidence that this inquiry will be expedited with accuracy?
James Brokenshire
I think we should recognise the steps that have been taken since the Macpherson inquiry to try to root out racism in the Metropolitan police and, indeed, in other police forces, but there is clearly more to be done. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said recently:
“We have a duty to challenge or report any behaviour by colleagues which is less than the high standard demanded by the service and Londoners themselves”.
He added:
“ You cannot avoid that duty. Nor can I."
He also said:
“I will not stand for any racism or racists in the Met.”
I entirely endorse that message.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), and also his persistent campaigning and determination to secure justice for Stephen Lawrence on behalf of his family.
Stephen Lawrence was murdered in an unprovoked racist attack 19 years ago on Sunday. The country was shocked both by the murder and by the failure of the initial investigation to bring Stephen’s murderers to justice. It is only the determination and dignity of the Lawrence family that has persisted, and has led to the two recent convictions.
Two new allegations of police corruption in the original inquiry have been reported in the media. Those allegations are very serious. The first is that information on corruption was available, but was not passed on to the Macpherson inquiry. The second is that additional witness testimony about corruption in the original inquiry is now available, and must be looked at afresh.
I urge the Home Secretary to go further than simply organising an internal Met review. The new information should be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission immediately so that it can pursue a full criminal investigation of the allegations. I also support the call by Doreen Lawrence, and by my hon. Friend, for a public inquiry, perhaps through a reconvening of the Macpherson inquiry. We need to know not simply whether criminal corruption was involved, but whether information was withheld from the original inquiry and whether that has implications for the inquiry’s conclusions. A public inquiry could also take the opportunity to review the progress that has been made in implementing the 70 recommendations of the Macpherson report.
There have been progress and change over the last decade, but people are still rightly concerned about the recent serious allegations of racism against individual officers, which are now being investigated. The Minister quoted the new commissioner, who has rightly made clear his determination that there should be zero tolerance of racism in the Met and, of course, any force. In support of his work, a new inquiry could review the progress that has been made and could also make further recommendations.
Confidence in the police must be complete, and the mistakes of the past cannot be left to fester. We owe it to Stephen’s memory to ensure that these allegations are investigated in full now.
James Brokenshire
I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s recognition of some of the important steps that have been taken since the initial Macpherson inquiry. I think it essential for us to emphasise that racism has no place or part in modern policing, and to be robust in confronting issues of corruption.
It is notable that some of the more recent claims, cases and allegations involving racism in the police have come from within the force itself. That, I think, underlines the fact that the police are taking these issues much more seriously, and are ensuring that officers who engage in unacceptable behaviour are dealt with appropriately.
The right hon. Lady has identified some of the serious new allegations made about the original Macpherson inquiry and also about the availability of information or otherwise. It is precisely those matters that the Metropolitan police are examining. The Home Secretary is awaiting their response before considering any appropriate next steps and whether a public inquiry is needed to give the necessary reassurance to the Lawrence family, the community and the public. It is therefore appropriate that the investigation be undertaken appropriately, but also with due speed, to ensure that we can take the necessary action and that the necessary support and safeguards are put in place. We therefore look forward to receiving that report from the Metropolitan police, so that the Home Secretary can then determine what is appropriate in the context of the next steps.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate the interest of colleagues, but doing so requires brevity, both in questions and in answers.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for public confidence in the Metropolitan police that any instances of racist behaviour by individuals in the organisation should be dealt with and be seen to be dealt with?
James Brokenshire
I absolutely agree, which is why the cases are being considered by the Metropolitan police. Also, there are separate, ongoing investigations into other allegations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. However, it is important that we take broader steps to deal with issues of corruption. The Government have set in train a number of inquiries and reports, and we shall be following through on that, underlining the point that if such incidents are not dealt with appropriately, they undermine the very confidence in the police service that we all want to enable it to get on with the job of protecting our communities.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the circumstances of the death of Stephen Lawrence echo down the years. He will know—and I remember—that in the early years after the death, it was impossible to get interest in the case, either in this House or in the media. In fact, the then Conservative Government refused an inquiry over and over again. Given the history of this case and the slowness of the past Government to act on it, does the Minister agree that in order to give closure to the Lawrence family, affirm the importance of public confidence in the police, and say to the wider society, “Racist violence and collusion with racist violence in these current, difficult economic circumstances will not be tolerated,” it is important that the coalition Government should bring forward an inquiry in which everybody can have confidence?
James Brokenshire
I accept the hon. Lady’s general points about the need for public assurance. Our judgment is that it is appropriate for the Metropolitan police to investigate the current allegations of corruption, and that once that has been provided, it is absolutely right and proper for the Home Secretary to look at that and consider whether a public inquiry is or is not required to provide the necessary reassurance to the public.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
We must listen to the Lawrence family. They have lived with the tragic death of their son and with police incompetence for nearly 20 years. Will the Minister comment on whether a public inquiry might also need to consider earlier cases of police corruption, such as that involving Daniel Morgan?
James Brokenshire
I certainly pay tribute to the work of the Lawrence family. As I think I said in my opening response, I am sure that if it were not for their tireless fight for justice, we would not have seen the convictions that we have. I do not want to speculate on what the response may be once we see the outcome of the response from the Metropolitan Police Service. However, let me say to my right hon. Friend that the Government take the issue of corruption in the police service extremely seriously. That is why we have established the Leveson inquiry, why the Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Police Complaints Commission to provide a report on corruption in the police service, and why she commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Will the Minister update the House on investigations involving the other defendants in the original trial? Will he also say why the Home Secretary has such confidence in an internal review given all that has happened in the Met in relation to allegations of corruption, and why in this case it is not thought that the IPCC should be engaged in any review?
James Brokenshire
In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, what I can say is that the police have been very clear that investigations in relation to this matter continue, and it is right and proper that all appropriate lines of inquiry are followed through. I say in response to his second question that I think it is appropriate for the Metropolitan Police Service to be able to look at this matter and provide a response, and then for the Home Secretary to determine what the next steps should be.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The vast majority of serving Metropolitan police officers abhor racism in all its forms, but clearly there are still pockets of concern. What discussions have taken place with the commissioner on protecting whistleblowers who bring such matters to the attention of senior police officers, because officers must be protected and feel confident about reporting misdeeds?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an important point: police officers should be able to air their concerns and be confident that those matters will be dealt with appropriately. A number of recent cases have been brought as a direct consequence of reports being made by police officers. I hope that that will continue and give confidence that if matters of this kind are referred, appropriate action will be taken clearly and robustly.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
While recognising both the progress that has been made in the Metropolitan police since the Macpherson inquiry and the determination of the current commissioner to root out corruption and racism in the Met, as a south-east London MP—whose constituency is very close to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who raised the urgent question, and in whose constituency Stephen Lawrence was murdered—the Minister will, I am sure, recognise that the legacy of this case has had a corrosive effect on the local community’s confidence in the integrity of the police, and that nothing less than a genuinely independent examination of these latest allegations will suffice.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I am under no illusions as to the impact this appalling case has had within the south-east London community, and more broadly, and the need for proper examination. That is what is happening in the current corruption investigation that the Metropolitan police are undertaking. We judge it to be appropriate for that to be followed through, and for the report on that to go to the Home Secretary and for the Home Secretary to decide what steps might then be appropriate in the light of that report.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
In my constituency, many young people from the black and minority ethnic community do not believe the police force is their police force. One of the principal reasons is that they think racism still manifests itself in a minority of police officers. Regardless of the Home Secretary’s deliberations and decisions, does the Minister agree that the true cost that should be paid is for senior police officers to get hold of these individuals and sack them for gross misconduct?
James Brokenshire
Any allegations that have been made should be investigated properly and thoroughly, and anyone found to be responsible for wrongdoing should be dealt with in the firmest and most robust way. I think it is appropriate that matters are allowed to be investigated, but I do not in any way underestimate the seriousness of the issues at hand, the need for matters to be resolved speedily and the need for the public to have the necessary confidence in the police.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)? What we do not want is a rerun of what occurred after the murder, when all attempts to get an inquiry were dismissed. I was one of those who, along with my hon. Friend, was urging such an inquiry at the time. Was not the inquiry set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) fully justified? Just imagine what the position would have been if it had not been established. I hope the Home Secretary will seriously consider the latest requests from the family.
James Brokenshire
Certainly I recognise the very important recommendations made as a consequence of the Macpherson inquiry. As I have said, the police service has taken really important steps since then to deal with racism in the police. The police service is not institutionally racist, but further steps do need to be taken. The lead that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has provided on this in his recent statements should be followed throughout the police service across the country.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Given how long it took to bring Stephen’s killers to justice, is it not important that we get swift answers to these latest allegations in a way that instils public confidence, not just for the sake of Stephen’s family, but because of the urgent need to build confidence in our police among black and minority ethnic communities and because a single allegation of corruption or racism against one officer undoes all the good work that so many officers do on our streets?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend has, again, made a very important point about the impact that allegations of corruption have on confidence in our police. This is why the Home Secretary takes these current allegations extremely seriously. In this broader context, it is also why she has set in train a number of steps to provide assurance on these issues. Obviously relevant inquiries have been undertaken in respect of corruption to provide recommendations so that we can all have that confidence in our policing. So many good police officers are out there doing a difficult job day in, day out, and it is important that these matters are dealt with appropriately so that their work is recognised and they can get on with their job.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Is not the principal allegation currently that the Russell report, which investigated the behaviour of a key police officer in the original matters, was not given to the inquiry members? As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has pointed out, it is possible to ask current inquiry members whether they got that report. Given that the allegation is that the Metropolitan police were able to suborn a public inquiry, I am deeply concerned at the extent to which the Minister seems to think it is all right to leave the timetable in the hands of the police. Can he reassure the House on this?
James Brokenshire
I certainly can reassure the hon. Lady as to the absolute seriousness with which the Home Secretary takes this matter; I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be having further discussions with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the timing of the investigations, in recognition of the public concern attached to this.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On a day when some parts of the media have not necessarily had the most cordial of exchanges with politicians, would the Minister like to put on the record, with me, the thanks of many hon. Members for the work of the Daily Mail in campaigning for justice for Stephen Lawrence and his family, and trying to stamp out racism?
James Brokenshire
As I said, the tireless work of the Lawrence family in seeking to bring about justice has been extraordinary, and I know that others have campaigned tirelessly in support of them. Obviously, convictions have been secured and investigations continue in relation to this appalling crime. I very much look forward to the police’s further work in seeking to follow all appropriate lines of inquiry in their continuing investigations into the Lawrence murder.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is not the nub of the issue the fact that communities often do not feel that the police are accountable to them? What measures are the Government taking to improve police accountability?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are taking a number of different steps to create greater professionalism within the police service with the establishment of the new police professional body to lead work to develop professionalism and set standards for the service. Obviously, we will also look to the introduction of police and crime commissioners later this year to provide more direct accountability between the public and the police and to ensure that the police remain in close connection with the communities they seek to serve.
Mr Speaker
Patience is rewarded for the representative of Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has got the message from London MPs and from others that although we absolutely applaud the new commissioner’s robust attitude, everybody now wants the new Mayor, whoever that will be, and the commissioner to refer independently for assessment the continuing racist allegations as regards the Lawrence case as well as other racist allegations? Does he agree that the best thing the Government can do is to ensure that every one of our 43 police forces in England and Wales better reflects the community it serves, particularly in the ethnic mix at the highest level?
James Brokenshire
My right hon. Friend has highlighted the point about the need for the police service to reflect the diversity in our communities. Although the proportion of black and minority ethnic officers has more than doubled since 2000, there is clearly more work to be done, particularly among the more senior ranks. We are examining whether direct entry or quicker progression might be able to assist in that regard. I can assure him that these matters are considered with the utmost seriousness by the Home Secretary and by me. Let me make it absolutely clear: racism and corruption have absolutely no part to play in our police service.
Points of Order
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that you have had advance notice of this point. I seek your guidance on how best to elicit a response from the Treasury on a number of questions that I tabled about the average tax paid at different high income levels. On 28 February, I tabled three written parliamentary questions to the Treasury, numbers 97755, 97800 and 97801, for named day answer on 5 March. I received a holding reply and on 27 March I tabled a further named day written question, asking when I would receive a response to the previous written questions. On 16 April, I received a further holding reply. As the House is shortly to prorogue and as there is a danger that the questions will fall if they are not answered before Prorogation, I would appreciate your advice on how I might best receive a response. Whether it was intentional or accidental, this is inexcusable and an insult to democracy and I hope that you can help me.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me advance notice of her intention to raise it. Ordinarily, I would say to the hon. Lady or to any other Member who was dissatisfied with an answer that they should consider taking the matter up with the Procedure Committee, which monitors such matters. In general terms, I stand by that advice. When the objection of the hon. Member is not to the content of an answer being in some way unsatisfactory or out of kilter with the spirit of what the House expects but rather to the fact that there has been no substantive reply at all, that is an extremely serious concern. It was flagged up several times earlier in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament and I hope that the presence of the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House on the Treasury Bench will suffice to ensure that the relevant Ministers are chased with some urgency to provide substantive—not holding—replies to the questions posed by the hon. Lady before the House prorogues, thereby avoiding the need for the hon. Lady to have to return to the matter in the new Session.
Mr Speaker
It will not do for Ministers simply to wait several days or even weeks and then to reply by saying, “I will reply as soon as possible.” The Leader of the House and I share a distaste for that practice.
Bill Presented
Housing (Selective Licensing of Private Landlords in Exempted Areas) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Graham Jones presented a Bill to give local authorities the power to apply selective licensing conditions to private landlords in exempted areas with social housing stock.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 330).
Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat)
16:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 70 / Noes: 73 - Question accordingly negatived.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat and products containing halal and kosher meat by retailers at the point of sale; and for connected purposes.
I thank the large number of colleagues from both sides of the House who have contacted me to support the Bill. I am grateful also to organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which have also given the Bill their support. As I hope hon. Members will see, my Bill is supported by colleagues not only in the Conservative party, but in the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Democratic Unionist party.
As many hon. Members will know, I am a firm believer in individual freedom of choice, and with my background in customer service and marketing at Asda, I believe in particular in consumers’ freedom of choice. That is why today I am introducing a Bill to make labelling of halal and kosher meat and products containing halal and kosher meat by retailers at the point of sale compulsory. My sole reason for introducing the Bill is to give consumers more information, so that they can exercise their freedom of choice.
Current British legislation requires the stunning of animals before slaughter, with religious exemptions for halal and kosher meat for communities whose religious traditions sometimes require slaughter without stunning. The religious exemption dates back to the Slaughter of Animals Act 1928, which applied to Scotland, and the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which applied to England and Wales. The EU also granted derogation from stunning to those religious communities in Council regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009.
In recent years, animals rights groups, notably the Farm Animal Welfare Council, have advocated the labelling of meat from non-stunned animals to reduce the amount of such meat purchased, and therefore the amount produced. Neither the British nor the European Parliament has passed a law requiring slaughtered meat to be labelled, but implementation of such laws has been much discussed in recent years. In 2003, the Labour party announced a consultation on a voluntary labelling scheme for slaughtered meat, but a parliamentary question in April 2007 revealed that there had been no real progress on labelling. The matter was raised in November 2009 in a report in the European Parliament, which passed a proposal to have a category labelled, “Meat from slaughter without stunning”, but that proposal was not contained in the final EU food information regulations. In the past two years, Members of this Parliament and of the European Parliament have expressed interest in continuance of a labelling law, but no such law has been set in place. In November 2010, the Government’s position on labelling was summarised by Lord Henley, who stated:
“I can say that we have no plans whatever to make the practice of halal or kosher killing illegal. However, we think that it is worth considering the appropriate labelling of all meat so that people know exactly what it is that they are eating and how the meat has been killed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2010; Vol. 722, c. 1006.]
It is not often that I parrot statements from Ministers, but on this occasion I could not agree more.
I propose to make labelling of halal and kosher meat compulsory, because as a strong believer in freedom of choice, I think one of the consumer’s fundamental rights is to know what they are purchasing. At present, consumers cannot satisfy their preferences because not all meat products are labelled, so legislation to require retailers of meat to label their products is essential to enable consumers to practise their right to make an informed decision.
According to the EU Dialrel project, the exemption for religious slaughter in schedule 12 of the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 clearly states that it applies to people of that religion, not to everybody. This implies that halal and kosher meat should be consumed by those of Muslim and Jewish faiths, respectively, because this type of slaughter is specified for their religious needs. This is obviously not the case at present because Muslims make up around 3% of the UK population, yet the Halal Food Authority estimates that halal meat makes up about 25% of the meat market. Similarly, it has been estimated that 70% of the kosher meat was not consumed by the Jewish community.
There have been cases of state schools, hospitals, pubs, sports arenas, cafes, markets and hotels serving halal meat to customers without their knowledge. In fact, many of my hon. Friends may be interested to know that, according to The Scotsman in November 2010, halal meat has even been served without labelling in House of Commons canteen. To my dismay as a former retailer, I recently learned that Britain’s largest supermarket chains, including Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco, are selling halal meat without notifying unsuspecting shoppers. Some of the large food chains, including Pizza Hut, Dominos and KFC, are doing the same. I am ashamed to say that even my former employer, Asda, has been guilty of this.
If consumers knew what kind of meat was being sold to them, many might decide to make different purchases. For example, in August 2010 there were protests when Harrow council announced its plan to serve halal-only menus in the borough’s state primary schools. Parents complained that it was unfair that meat slaughtered according to sharia law was being forced upon non-Muslim children.
There are some people who wish to ban halal and kosher meat on animal welfare grounds. I want to make it clear that I am not one of those people. I am very happy for people to make the decision for themselves, but they should be able to make an informed decision. My Bill would benefit those people who want to make sure that their meat is kosher or halal before purchasing it, just as much as those who want to make sure that it is not kosher or halal before purchasing it. My Bill does not favour one or the other; it seeks to help everybody.
I had a supportive letter from an individual who wrote that
“as a Sikh and someone who doesn’t eat or believe in halal and kosher meat, I think this is a great idea as it does not feel like there is choice anymore for those who do not wish to eat halal meat.”
Some may argue that this can be left to the market and that we do not need any legislation—an argument with which I would generally have a great deal of sympathy. However, I believe that for practical reasons we need some legislation to help consumers. When people go to an Indian restaurant they are entitled to expect to eat halal meat, but when they go to Subway or KFC, they do not expect to do so and should be told.
Interestingly, Masood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority, in September 2010, said:
“As Muslims have a choice of eating halal meat, non-Muslims should also have the choice of not eating it. Customers should know it is halal meat.”
In an article in the Daily Mail in September 2010, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), secretary of the all-party group on animal welfare, said:
“I don’t object to people of different religious groups being catered for but it’s not something that should be imposed on everybody else . . . The outlets have a duty to let their customers know because some will object very strongly, not least because of the animal welfare implications of halal.”
These two gentlemen agree with me, and I hope many other hon. Members in the House will do so too.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I oppose the Bill. I declare an interest. I am an orthodox Jew and I was brought up in a household where only kosher meat was eaten. None of these issues was raised throughout my childhood, adolescence and early adulthood.
I do not believe for a moment that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has the tiniest anti-Semitic feeling in him and I am sure that he is not proposing the Bill for that reason. However, large numbers of Jews would be very greatly distressed if what he proposes were to become law. I speak not only about Jews, but Muslims. I represent many thousands of Muslims in my constituency—good, decent, law-abiding people who, because of their religious allegiance, will eat only halal meat. I do not see why Jews and Muslims alone should be compelled by law to have the meat they eat labelled in a way that no other meat is labelled.
If the hon. Gentleman’s proposed Bill had a wider remit—for example, if it said that all chickens had to be labelled in a certain way if the birds had been battery hens—or if he had proposed that meat had to be labelled in a certain way if the animals had been kept in dreadful conditions before being killed, and killed in an extremely brutal way, as shown in the documentary narrated by Sir Paul McCartney, which revealed the astonishing, abominable and utterly dreadful conditions in which large numbers of animals, whether cows, pigs or whatever, are kept, I would at least regard him as consistent. But he is not being consistent. He has picked on two small minorities who share the way in which the meat they eat is killed. Indeed, when Muslims first came to Manchester and Leeds and wanted their animals killed in a halal way, they went to Jewish slaughter houses in order to do so.
During my whole upbringing, I ate only kosher meat. I am afraid that I did not keep to that in later years, but I still will not eat pigmeat of any kind because my mother and father brought me up in such a way that that meat is what we call “trayf” in Yiddish, and I will not eat trayf food. I think that the hon. Gentleman is picking out two small minority religions that have a special way in which the meat they eat is killed and asking that they, and they alone, have their meat labelled.
I say this as someone who has spoken on animal welfare in this House for many years. I was the leading person who got the hunting ban passed, because of my understanding of the procedures of this House—I say that with some vanity, but it is a fact. I have been involved in the campaign to ban the keeping of wild animals in circuses, something on which I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman as having been hyperactive.
The proposed Bill would have profound implications for religious feelings, and I would be letting my faith and my family down, alongside many good, decent, fine and religious Muslims in my constituency, if I did not state my total opposition to it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the motion so that the House does not even have to vote on it.
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his observations on faith, family, eating habits and the legislative record; the House is indebted to him.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport assured the House that in respect of the News Corporation bid for BSkyB, he was acting as Secretary of State in a quasi-judicial capacity, and above all in a way that was impartial and fair. In view of the evidence that has been adduced before the Leveson inquiry today, it appears that the Secretary of State has fallen woefully short of the standards expected from him in his office and in the public interest. I believe that the right thing for the Secretary of State to do would be to come to the House to offer an apology and tender his resignation.
Mr Speaker
I will take a very brief further point from the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), a former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and then respond to the point of order.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that on 20 July last year, the Culture Secretary himself said that any conversations that the Prime Minister had had with James Murdoch were irrelevant, specifically because he, the Culture Secretary, was taking the decision in a quasi-judicial way, is it not paramount that the Prime Minister also come to the House to correct the record at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Speaker
If a matter of privilege is being raised, hon. or right hon. Members should write to me about it. I feel, on the strength of what I have heard, that I am quite able to respond. I say to the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and to the right hon. Member for Exeter that I have received no indication from the Secretary of State that he intends to come to the House. The point that the right hon. and learned Lady and the right hon. Gentleman have made is clear, on the record and will have been widely heard.
Mr Speaker
I do not intend to allow this matter to run for any length of time, but I am prepared to hear the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and then we will see how it goes.
Chris Bryant
I am very grateful. Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, there may be an issue of privilege, and you are absolutely right that if any Opposition Member wants to allege that the Secretary of State has lied to the House, that is a matter of privilege and we should write to you, notwithstanding the fact that the Committee of Privileges is in the slightly complicated position of being reconstituted. However, surely the matter may also be one for the House in a different way, because the code of conduct for Ministers is a not only a matter for the Prime Minister but written into a resolution of the House. Surely it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should come here to explain himself in relation to the code of conduct.
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will also have noted, I hope, what I said, which was that what the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Exeter said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. I think it is a safe prediction that it will have been heard by the Secretary of State at whom it is directed, and I do not think there is anything that I now need to add or can usefully add. The observations have been made, and they are on the record. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their comments.
Mr Speaker
I would not want the hon. Lady to feel that she has been unjustly excluded or discriminated against in any way, for that is not my practice, as she knows, so we must hear her.
Margaret Curran
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is another dimension of the evidence heard today and the revelations at the Leveson inquiry. May I ask that the Secretary of State for Scotland be called to the House because of the implications of those revelations for the people of Scotland and the allegations against Alex Salmond and his involvement in those matters? They are of great concern to the people of Scotland and I believe they bear further examination.
Mr Speaker
I would say to the hon. Lady that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has to say. The person to whom she has just referred will also have heard, or will hear very soon. It is not a matter for the Chair today. I have heard the points of order, and have responded in such a way as I think is proper at this time. I think we will have to leave it there for the present.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 222 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 227 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 1B. If the House agrees to the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 1
Lord Chancellor’s functions
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendments 2B and 196B, the Government motion to insist on its disagreement with Lords amendment 31, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Mr Djanogly
As you have reminded the House, Lords amendment 1B, dealing with the statutory duty for legal aid, impinges on the financial privileges in this House. I should also say that my interests remain as I declared at the last stage of ping-pong on 17 April. I ask the House to disagree to this amendment, and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so.
Let me first address Lords amendment 31, which concerns the sensitive and important issue of mesothelioma, in the light of the amendment we have tabled. I should emphasise at the start that the Government take very seriously the plight of mesothelioma victims and do not believe that mesothelioma cases are being brought inappropriately. We should appreciate that the issue in mesothelioma cases is not so much causation as process. In effect, the challenge for the Government, employers and insurers is how we ensure that we have procedures in place that enable sufferers to receive compensation more quickly and without the stress of having to pursue protracted litigation.
Much has been done by recent Governments to improve the position of mesothelioma sufferers when the employer’s insurer can be traced. There is now also a consensus that more needs to be done in respect of sufferers who cannot trace their employer’s insurer. Let me be clear that the Government are committed to action on that point. We are working closely with insurers and other stakeholders on this pressing issue with a view to making an announcement before the House rises in July.
I have considered very carefully the points that have been made both in debates in the House last week and the other place last night. We have also held ministerial meetings with campaigners on behalf of mesothelioma victims, including with Lord Alton, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).
The Jackson reforms in part 2 of the Bill are due to come into effect in April next year. We have reviewed that timetable in the context of mesothelioma. On careful reflection about the special position of mesothelioma sufferers, I can now give the House the assurance that we will not commence the relevant provisions in clause 43, on success fees, and clause 45, on after-the-event insurance, in respect of mesothelioma claims in April next year. Rather, we will implement the clauses in respect of those claims at a later date, once we are satisfied on the way forward for those who are unable to trace their employer’s insurer. The amendment commits the Lord Chancellor to carrying out a review of the likely effect of the clauses in relation to mesothelioma proceedings and to publish a report before those clauses are implemented.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The concession that the Government are making goes some way to dealing with the concerns that many on both sides of the House have expressed in relation to mesothelioma, but it does not deal with the point raised in the other place by Lord Thomas yesterday, which was that success fees should not be claimed in such cases because liability is not in issue. What will the Government do about that?
Mr Djanogly
As I have said, this is not an issue of causation. I heard Lord Thomas speak in the other place yesterday, and I very much agree with what he had to say, which was essentially that in cases in which causation is not an issue, there is—in many respects—no reason why solicitors should have a success fee for that type of work. But the Opposition have made their case, as have others, and the Government have to deal with things as they stand. That is why we are offering to make this concession, but it is a time-limited concession only. The overall Jackson reforms stand as our preferred way to move forward.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for having listened closely to the debate last week and to the debate in the House of Lords. But is it not the case that this legislation facilitates a solicitor recovering a success fee from the client’s damages, and that if this legislation did not proceed, that could not happen?
Mr Djanogly
No. The hon. Gentleman rather distorts the implications of the legislation. We are capping success fees, which are currently 100%, at 25%.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On the point about the delay until the review has been undertaken, is that merely a delay or is it a genuine review? If it is a review, what will it consider and will he give an indication of its timetable?
Mr Djanogly
Given the timing of this development, we have not thought through the exact procedures of the review, but it will certainly be undertaken before we move to ending the provisions that remain.
We now come to the amendment in lieu passed by the other place in respect of clause 1, and what has been described as a purpose clause. It was suggested variously in the other place yesterday that this amendment would have no effect; that it would have some effect, although that effect was not entirely clear; and that it would have a future effect in guiding successive Lord Chancellors when consideration was being given to what services might be added to the scope of legal aid under clause 8(2).
The difficulty the other place has so far had in establishing the precise effect of the amendment is instructive as this House decides whether it should stand. A duty with an uncertain effect is desirable neither in legislative terms nor for the person attempting to discharge that duty. However, it is the Government’s view that the effects of this duty can be described and are highly undesirable. The amendment would remove the uncontroversial, unambiguous duty the Bill places on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that legal aid is made available according to part 1 of the Bill. This made a clear link between the duty and legal aid. In terms of a clear duty, it does not get much clearer than this. However, the amendment would not only remove that but would replace it with a duty that would bring ambiguity and uncertainty. It refers to “legal services” rather than “legal aid”.
The argument was also made in the other place that the amendment had no effect other than to underline the Government’s commitment to the principle of access to justice. We contend that the imposition of any duty on the Lord Chancellor in legislation must create in law a potential course of action through challenges to the discharge of that duty. If it is accepted that the imposition of such a duty must give rise to a potential course of action, the amendment’s effect must be to bring into question the range of services provided under the Bill. The matter would then turn on the question of which legal services meet people’s needs. That contrasts with the clear and unambiguous duty in clause 1(1) requiring the Lord Chancellor to
“secure that legal aid is made available in accordance with”
part 1.
The Government believe that the question of which legal services meet people’s needs is not relevant to the Bill. Schedule 1 lists the services that Parliament, following consideration of first principles and extensive consultation, believes it appropriate to make available under legal aid. To reopen that question via an ongoing duty would frustrate our intention to bring certainty and clarity to the scope of services funded by legal aid. The amendment would result in only one thing: numerous expensive judicial reviews—more than likely at taxpayers’ expense as the boundaries of the new duty are tested and because the question of which services should be provided would be reopened.
It was said yesterday in the other place that such JR applications would almost certainly fail, and that consequently there would be no cost implications to the amendment. However, even rejected applications have an inherent cost: lawyers are paid legal aid fees for their work up to that point and the Government pay their own lawyers to defend such cases.
I would also like to address the argument put forward in the other place about the amendment’s effect in guiding future Lord Chancellors. It seems novel to include in the Bill an overriding duty that activates when the Lord Chancellor considers adding a service or services to the scope of legal aid. I am not convinced this is possible, and I am certain it is unhelpful. Adding services to the Bill requires the affirmative approval of both Houses. Such a process will be more than adequate to ensure that the Lord Chancellor takes account of the relevant factors when considering what, if any, services should be added to the scope of legal aid.
I emphasise, however, as Lord McNally did in the House of Lords yesterday, that the Bill’s present form arises from extensive debate and consideration across both Houses and reflects decisions about the future nature of legal aid. In short, the amendment is incompatible with the Bill. It would muddy both the duty to which the Lord Chancellor is subject and the scope of services that might be funded.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am not arguing that the House should agree to the Lords amendment, but the Minister will know, as the Lord Chancellor does, that I have asked that the Government consider bringing immigration matters—whether onward appeals by judicial review or when a judge gives permission for a case to go to a higher court—back within the scope of legal aid. Will he put on the record the response to that plea, which I have made to the Lord Chancellor and him several times?
Mr Djanogly
My right hon. Friend finds the right moment to ask about something not subject to the amendment. It is an important point, however. My right hon. and learned Friend has written to him about onward appeals in immigration cases. The Department will conduct a review of the impacts of withdrawing legal aid in such cases once we have sufficient data and after implementation of the reforms. I envisage allowing about a year for the reforms to take effect before starting such a review.
Lords amendment 2 was passed in the other place yesterday by the extremely narrow margin of three votes. Unusually for this topic, no one spoke other than the mover and my right hon. Friend Lord McNally. That indicates how far we have moved. I remind the House of the main points. First, and crucially, legal aid to obtain the full range of injunctions and orders to protect against domestic violence will remain exactly as at present. There is no evidential gateway for legal aid for these remedies, and those who need legal aid to protect themselves can get it, regardless of their means.
Secondly, although we have removed most of private family law from the scope of legal aid in favour of funding mediation and less adversarial proceedings, we have made an extremely important exception for victims of domestic violence. That is so that they can take or defend proceedings about child contact or maintenance, or about the division of property, without being intimidated by their abuser during the proceedings.
We have made significant changes to the detail of this exception in response to concerns expressed in both Houses. We have accepted in full the Association of Chief Police Officers’ definition of domestic violence. We have also significantly widened the list of evidence that we will accept as demonstrating domestic violence for the purposes of the exception. That list will now include undertakings, police cautions, evidence of admission to a refuge, evidence from social services and evidence from GPs and other medical professionals. That is in addition to the range of evidence that had already been confirmed, including the fact of an injunction or order to protect against domestic violence having been made, a criminal conviction or ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic violence, a referral to a multi-agency risk assessment conference and a finding of fact by the courts that there has been domestic violence. We have also doubled the previously announced time limit for evidence for this exception from 12 months to two years.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
We all noted the Lord Chancellor’s commitment in the Chamber last week to extending the time limit to two years. Will the Minister clarify whether that will also apply in cases of child abuse, which seem to be encompassed by the definition of domestic violence that now applies in the Bill? Clarification would be welcome on that, as there are clearly instances in which proceedings might be brought in relation to child abuse after more than 12 months, including in care proceedings, in which it would be entirely appropriate to grant legal aid.
Mr Djanogly
Yes, I am pleased to be able to confirm to the hon. Lady that that is the case.
We think that we have struck the right balance, although some will disagree. However, such disagreement misses the fact that there are two important safeguards to our system, which will provide genuine victims with a route into legal aid even if they do not have the headline forms of evidence. First, when a court has to consider whether domestic violence is a factor in a private family case, it may consider any relevant evidence, including police call-outs or evidence from domestic violence support services, or other types of evidence that have not even been suggested by the Opposition. This is also relevant in regard to the time limits. When a case involves older incidents of domestic violence and a court considers that the matter is still relevant and makes a finding of fact, legal aid funding could still be triggered. There is also the more generic safeguard of the exceptional funding regime.
We continue to believe that the evidential requirements should not be in the Bill. The level of detail required means that those requirements will be much better left to regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than to primary legislation. Given how far we have moved on this topic, and the safeguards that I have outlined today, I invite the House to disagree with Lords amendments 2B and 196B.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I shall try to keep my comments short, as I know that a number of colleagues wish to speak in the debate. The Bill sustained 11 defeats on Report in the Lords, which is a record for this Parliament, and a further three yesterday. The Government need to show some humility when they have suffered 14 defeats, and I am pleased that we have seen some evidence of that today.
It is still unclear why the Government are so resistant to Lords amendment 1B. They have given different reasons on different days for their opposition to Lord Pannick’s amendment. A statement of legislative purpose is frequently included in legislation of this nature. Lord Pannick’s drafting of the amendment would result in a statement of purpose within the financial limits set out in the Bill. The key question is whether there should be a duty on the Lord Chancellor to take into account citizens’ needs before making arrangements for legal aid provision. The amendment has been drafted with reference to the financial resources available, and would therefore not incur further expense for the Government. The Government cannot have it both ways. They say that the amendment replicates provisions that are already in place, and that it is therefore unnecessary. They also say that it would add to Government expenditure. We will be voting against the Government on Lords amendment 1B.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has touched a raw nerve. Plymouth is a hot spot for mesothelioma, and it also has an extremely low-wage economy. These people are not millionaires, and losing a significant proportion of their damages simply is not fair on those who have this horrible disease and whose families have had to live with it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he is doing in attempting to change the present position.
Sadiq Khan
What my hon. Friend has said echoes some of the powerful speeches that were made last week.
It is worth bearing in mind that the progress that has been achieved is due to work done by Members in all parts of both Houses. We welcome the concessions that have been made today, we welcome the pause, and we approach the amendment in good faith. For reasons that we appreciate, the details could not be fleshed out today, but we assume that there will be an independent assessment of the evidence gathered during the due diligence phase.
We hope that the review will consider the impact on victims’ damages. According to some, they will increase by up to 10% as a result of the Government’s proposals, but others disagree, and we expect the review to look into that.
Mr Djanogly
It would, in fact, be a matter for the judges who would apply the 10% increase, rather than for the Government.
Sadiq Khan
Of course the Minister is right, but if there is to be a review of the impact on those who suffer from this disease, we will expect the impact of the Jackson changes on the level of damages to serve as a benchmark, rather than the changes affecting victims per se. We hope that the pause will lead to a rethink by the Government.
We hope that the review will consider the impact on access to justice—some say that lawyers may be unwilling to take on such cases, and that as a result they may not be heard—and the interaction of the reforms with the new employers liability insurance bureau. We also believe that the data should take real-life experience into account.
Andrew George
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my intervention on the Minister, when I sought to distinguish between a mere delay in the implementation of the policy and a genuine review. I hoped that the Minister would give me some indication that if the findings of a review required the Government’s policy to be amended in some way, there would be an opportunity for a rethink.
Sadiq Khan
Given the calibre of the Ministers involved and that of the Members of both Houses who have engaged in discussions over the last few hours and days, I believe that this will be a genuine review. I am sure that not only sufferers from the disease but colleagues who have been involved would be devastated if it were not.
We welcome the review, but the report needs to be based on proper evidence, and the genuine concerns that exist must be addressed. We support the proposal for a pause, and we are willing to work with the Government to ensure that we get this right.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Hon. Members can see how many of their number wish to take part in the debate. As it will end at 5.40 pm, I ask them to be mindful of others when making their contributions.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
In the light of your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a short speech, and will confine my remarks to the Government’s amendment to Lords amendment 31.
Let me first pay tribute to the work of Lord Alton, Lord Avebury, the late Lord Newton, and others in the House of Lords for tabling the original amendment. Without their dedication and commitment to ensuring a workable outcome for those with mesothelioma, we would not be where we are today.
I welcome the fact that the Government have listened carefully to the case presented in both Houses for exempting mesothelioma victims from the current proposals. It is not right to force victims of an extraordinary disease—when no fraud is possible and compensation is certain—to shop around for a lawyer during their last few months of life in an attempt to pay the lowest possible success fees as a proportion of a payment that they deserve. Discussion of this issue should never have been a fight about compassion for those with mesothelioma —it is a pretty heartless person who does not show compassion for those who suffer from the disease—but, rather, should have dealt with how best to protect the interests of the people who find themselves victims, and those of their families.
Without the amendment, the practical implications of the law as drafted for victims of mesothelioma would have been hugely damaging. Regardless of what colleagues on either side of the House may think of lawyers and insurance companies, it would ultimately be the victim, who would be going through intense suffering through no fault of their own, who lost out. The amendment rightly exempts mesothelioma from the overall package of reforms in the Bill, but it should be considered the beginning, not the end of the discussion. If ever there was an opportunity to kick-start progress on speeding up compensation payments to victims, it is now.
Like others, I seek assurances that there will be proper parliamentary debate on the commencement order and the report from the Lord Chancellor, and that future legislation will be synchronised with other initiatives that the Department for Work and Pensions is working on. However, more than anything, I urge the Government to conduct the review not with lawyers or insurers in mind, but with the sufferers at the centre, and to come forward with alternative proposals to ensure that they are protected, financially and otherwise, as soon as possible.
I started by thanking the noble Lords for tabling amendment 31 in the first place. It is only right that I finish by saying that I am sure that the late Lord Newton of Braintree, a co-sponsor of Lords amendment 31 who passed away recently from a respiratory disease, would have been pleased, as a former Leader of this House, that the Government have listened, that cross-party consensus has been achieved and that common sense has prevailed.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has played a brave and important role in discussions over recent days. I pay tribute to her for that. In relation to Lords amendment 31 and amendment (a) in lieu, the whole House is rightly paying tribute to Lord Alton and his supporters in another place for raising the issue in the first instance and for then persisting in their opposition to what the Government have until now been proposing in the Bill.
I also want to thank Lord McNally and Lord Freud for the constructive approach that they took in a meeting that I attended with Lord Alton last week, and in the days since. I welcome the concession that the Minister is offering this afternoon, and I appreciate that he cannot go into great detail about any proposals, which he said he hoped the Government would be able to bring forward before the summer recess. However, I can tell the House that his ministerial colleagues made it clear in the meeting I attended that they are striving to negotiate and implement a system of compensation and support for mesothelioma victims that is swifter and more sympathetic than the one currently in place. I am sure that the whole House would want to encourage them in their endeavours.
Whether amendment (a) in lieu is sufficient will depend entirely on the answers to a number of questions. In particular—this has already been raised—what will the extent and conduct of the review be? Crucially, how will the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Bill be aligned with the proposals that the Department for Work and Pensions hopes to publish before the summer recess? I would be happy to take an intervention from the Minister if he wishes to make a clear commitment this afternoon that he will not seek to implement the relevant provisions in the Bill unless and until an improved system of compensation is in place.
Mr Djanogly
I do not want to give any binding commitments about the process today, because things have not been finalised. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if the process is to be improved by the Department for Work and Pensions, which we hope it will be—he will have some insight into our proposals from the discussions he has had—that could well require DWP legislation, in which case we would look to roll the ending of the provisions into the commencement of the DWP provisions. That is how I foresee the process now, but again, I am not making that a commitment.
Paul Goggins
I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention, because if there is to be legislation to introduce the new system, there will have to be full parliamentary scrutiny of those proposals in both Houses.
It has been a privilege and a pleasure to support Lord Alton in his efforts to protect mesothelioma victims. He has asked me to say that he is grateful for the cross-party support he has received from this House, and that, along with other Members of both Houses, he awaits with interest the outcome of the review and the details of the new compensation scheme. Above all, he is pleased that Parliament has acted to protect mesothelioma victims.
For my part, I am pleased that the Minister’s comments of last week—in particular that the families of dying mesothelioma victims should, and would, be watching the lawyers’ clock as fees mounted—have now been overtaken by an acceptance that mesothelioma victims are not part of a compensation culture and that they should not be expected to pay their lawyers a success fee out of their damages, and, finally, that through the amendment in lieu and other measures that will follow Parliament should continue to do all in its power to give mesothelioma sufferers the best possible help and support.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s concession and amendment on mesothelioma. This issue vexed many of us last week. The original amendment was somewhat wider, in that it related to respiratory diseases in general, and that caused a lot of us pause for thought. The new amendment is appropriate, however, as it deals specifically with this deadly condition. It reflects the will of both this House and the House of Lords. It promises a proper review and a report at the end of that. It has also been introduced in recognition of the fact that there is a genuine sense of urgency as many mesothelioma sufferers —including constituents of mine in Swindon, which, like many other industrial towns, has a proud heritage but also, sadly, a deadly legacy in the form of this awful disease—do not have time on their side. That is why this is an exceptional case. That is why in this instance, in which a House of Lords decision has put causation beyond any doubt, we are dealing with a particularly unusual set of circumstances.
It has already been observed that lawyers charging success fees need to take care to ask themselves questions in cases where causation is not part of the equation, and where, frankly, the argument is first about making sure all the facts are marshalled so the evidence can be put in train to prove liability and, secondly, about questions of quantum. As those matters do not involve complex issues of law, lawyers should ask what sums it is appropriate for them to charge their clients.
As I have said, there is also, necessarily, a sense of urgency in these cases. We must create a system that will allow for a more speedy resolution of mesothelioma cases. In particular, we must address the issue of the traceability of insurers of former employers as that is often a challenge for mesothelioma sufferers and those representing them. Mention has been made of the Motor Insurers Bureau. Many accidents are caused by uninsured drivers who then go on their way. It can be difficult to trace them, but victims can claim from that bureau, which is funded by the insurers, in a civil court. I know all Members would like to see a similar scheme adopted in the months ahead, and the Government have made a welcome early concession that they will report back on that before the summer recess.
We have had debates in Committee, the House and another place about domestic violence, and the Government are to be commended on the progress made on that. I reiterate that it would be better to put the criteria for the assessment of evidence in regulations rather than in the Bill, as it is patently clear that regulations can be amended more swiftly. If there are genuine injustices as a result of the operation of the new rules, regulations can be amended by negative or affirmative procedure. They provide a far more flexible way of dealing with the challenges ahead than primary legislation. For those reasons, I am happy to support the Government on the vexed issue of the domestic violence criteria.
It has been a long journey; this Bill has taken a considerable amount of my time and that of everybody else who has taken a keen interest in legal aid. Some extraordinarily important debates have taken place, and I pay tribute to all Members in this House and in the House of Lords for engaging in a very constructive, important and challenging set of debates as the Bill has proceeded. It is now coming to the last stage, and I am glad that the Government have, in many respects, listened, adapted their position and made appropriate concessions.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I wish to say a few words about the Government amendment. I hope that it means that the Government will come up with a satisfactory system by which mesothelioma sufferers can be fully compensated, without them or their families being robbed of the compensation they receive and so richly deserve.
Hon. Members may well be aware that, in years gone by, Rochdale was home to the world’s largest asbestos factory, so this is a massive issue for my constituents. It is fair to say that they suffer from the connections that they have had with asbestos over many years. Just last Saturday, I was knocking on doors in my constituency, as I do every weekend, and I called upon a lady in Littleborough, Mrs Beryl Greenwood, who told me about her experience with this disease. She had been married to her husband, Kenneth, for many years, and he had contracted the disease from having worked as a welder on the railways. He had worn asbestos gloves at that time and, no surprise, he passed away a couple of years ago. I suppose the good news is that she was served well by solicitors; she and her family received a fair amount of compensation and were treated reasonably. She told me that the issue was that none of that compensation will ever bring back her husband, whom she loved dearly. The point I am getting to is that the Government now need to amend this Bill—we are asking them to be genuine in this—so that the people and the families who suffer from this terrible disease are treated fairly, responsibly and respectfully.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I do not intend to detain the House for long, because I am aware that plenty of other hon. Members wish to speak. I just wish to add my voice to those thanking the Government and the Ministers for their concession on this matter. My constituency is very rural but, like the constituency of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), it contains a large asbestos-related industry. That industry was born and based in High Peak, so my constituency has a higher level of mesothelioma than the national average. The Government’s movement on this issue is to be commended. Last week, I, along with one or two of my hon. Friends, voted in the Opposition Lobby on this matter. I subsequently received an e-mail from a constituent telling me that he was actually proud of his MP—he said that this does not happen very often.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), because she has driven this through, along with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and those in the other place. I welcome the amendment in lieu and am particularly pleased to see that a report will be published on the conclusions of the review. That gives me great confidence that the review will be meaningful and searching, and will come forward with something that all of us across the House can support when the day comes. I look forward to that report.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
When the Lord Chancellor introduced the statement to the House which preceded this Bill, I asked him about the provisions in relation to domestic violence. He thought that I would be pleased with the answer, because the Government had recognised that domestic violence was, to some degree, a special case. I was not pleased with the answer, because at that point the definition of “domestic violence” was unique to this Bill, it did not cover all cases and it was, in my view, fundamentally flawed. So the first thing I wish to say is how glad I am that the Government have now decided to use the Association of Chief Police Officers definition of “domestic violence”.
I need to push one point further, however. The failure of the Government to understand the reality of the lives of victims of domestic violence is reflected in how they have constructed this Bill. I will never forget the moment when I talked to two local police officers in my constituency who dealt regularly with victims of domestic violence and who told me about a case that they had just dealt with of a woman who had been beaten up by her husband 12 years earlier but did not report it until he started biting pieces out of her body. That case, although it made me tremble with horror, is shockingly not that exceptional. We should not forget that, in this country, two women are murdered every week following a history of domestic violence. We should not forget how few women ever report it. Why do they not report it? Overwhelmingly, the victims of domestic violence think, “It was my fault.” That is how they feel, so they do not go to the police or to social workers. They conceal it, as they think it is caused by something that they did.
Such women often report because of someone else. When women are pregnant, they will report their victimisation by their partner because they want to protect the child in their womb. The problem with the distance travelled by the Government is that they have not yet gone far enough. I hope to be able to persuade the Minister to take that last step and to accept wider forms of evidence. We know that women do not necessarily go to a refuge; they go to a place of refuge. They might go to their sister, to their school friend or to their mum, and they are the people who women will tell first about their experience of victimisation.
Some very perturbing evidence from Welsh Women’s Aid suggests that the average time—the average, not the extreme—that a victim might take before reporting a domestic violence incident and getting to the stage of resolving the private family law issues is five and a half years. That average time would be excluded by the route that the Minister is pursuing. I beg him to recognise that the House of Lords got this one right and to say that he will take the last step and ensure that the other victims are properly protected. That is important because by allowing these women to use private family law to protect themselves and their families, we will prevent future domestic violence homicides. The Minister could do that by changing his position on the amendments.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and I pay tribute to the work done by her and other Opposition Members when they were in Government. They undoubtedly made huge advances in the prosecution of people who had committed offences of domestic violence and put protection in place to enable victims of domestic violence to come forward in both the criminal jurisdiction and the family and civil jurisdiction. That protected not only those women but their children. We part company, however, on this matter as I believe that the Government have gone as far as they should in their acceptance of the definition of domestic violence and what should support any allegation of domestic violence.
I do not think that it is fair simply to criticise those on the Front Bench for not understanding domestic violence, especially if it were suggested that they did not do so by virtue of the sex of the ministerial team or the Secretary of State. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Slough said that herself, but others have. It was interesting that in her speech she told us that the peculiarity and horror of domestic violence, which is demonstrated in the fact that women will often suffer for year after year without making any formal complaint or any complaint at all and that they suffer in silence, came as a surprise and a shock to her when she first learned of it in a conversation with two police officers.
Many Members on both sides of the House have experience by virtue of their work in the health service, the criminal justice system or—I am thinking in particular of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant)—as a solicitor in the family division. Unless one has had that first-hand experience, some of the appalling stories one hears beggar belief. It is difficult to accept the fact that appalling abuse can go on, year after year, unreported.
It has been generally accepted across the House that we still have a long way to go. Members of this House conducted an admirable investigation into the inadequacy of our stalking laws, notwithstanding the efforts made by the previous Administration. We know that more legislation is needed to protect from stalking which is, in my opinion, not only an offence of abuse but, in effect, an offence of violence because of the psychological damage it causes. Recent events in Nottingham, which my Broxtowe constituency touches on, show that we still have police officers who, when it comes to domestic violence, simply do not get it. A woman was murdered who had repeatedly complained to the police.
Ian Lucas
I thank the Minister for his letter today setting out the concession that has been made, and I am grateful to him and the Lord Chancellor for that concession.
I thank my constituent, Mrs Marie Hughes, whom I quoted extensively last week. I also thank the peers who listened to last week’s debate in the Commons and, as a result, sent this matter back to this House. Had they not done so, we would not have had the concession.
I pay tribute to those Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs—I think there were five Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats—who voted against their Whip last week. They listened to the debate, participated in it and contributed to the expression of the overwhelming view, both in this House and in the other place, that the measure could not proceed in the form in which it appeared last week. It was clearly wrong, and I am pleased that we have reached a different position.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I shall be brief. I pay tribute to the Government for the moves that they have made on the Bill and I welcome the progress on the definition of domestic violence. Although they have extended the range of evidence that will be required, there is still some way to go. I recall that last week the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) suggested that the time limits might be up to three years.
I am speaking on behalf of a constituent who came to see me a few weeks ago. She had been habitually abused—emotionally abused—over a number of years. The last straw for her was when her husband tried to set fire to her. She went to hospital. She has medical evidence but she did not want to press any charges. She is, understandably, so traumatised by the experience that she has been through that several months after the incident she can barely speak. She is years away from being able to take to a court or tribunal the levels of evidence that have been suggested. I support amendments 2B and 196B, particularly on her behalf.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), I welcome the amendment on mesothelioma and the moves towards a review, if there is to be one. Oldham is not far from Rochdale and many of my constituents worked in the industry. Once people are diagnosed with the disease, they are, unfortunately, likely to be dead within 18 months. It would be outrageous if 25% of the damages were taken from them. I support amendment 31, but I acknowledge the moves that the Government have made.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I wish to place on record my gratitude to the Lords for their amendments and for their hard work. I also place on record my gratitude to the Opposition Front-Bench team for all the hard work that they have done on all aspects of the Bill, and to my hon. Friends and some on the Government Benches who have fought against certain provisions of the Bill.
I welcome the Minister’s concession on industrial diseases, including mesothelioma, and the fact that the Government will review the issue. I hope they will abandon the proposal to make victims contribute to the lawyers’ costs if they are successful. I ask the Government to consider other industrial diseases that should be placed in the same category, such as industrial deafness, industrial blindness, severe spinal degradation, leukaemia, cirrhosis of the liver and other organ damage.
It cannot be said that people suffering from those conditions are out to make a quick buck. Although we support the idea of a limit on insurance claims or the suggestion that the victim should pay a contribution towards the damages, it is disgraceful that the provisions should apply to people affected by serious illnesses. To say to people who suffering from such illnesses, “By the way, once you have gone through the process of proving your case, your lawyers will have to take their costs from your damages” cannot be right. It is plainly unfair and unjust. I can see that the Lord Chancellor disagrees with me. If I am wrong and he wishes to intervene, I am more than happy to give way.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I just want to say that the lawyers do not have to take 25% of the compensation. All the costs are recovered from the defendants in a case that has been won. It is only those costs that are irrecoverable from the defendants that can sometimes be recovered. In a straightforward case there is no reason for anything to be recovered over and above that, and lawyers should not automatically take 25% of the claim and say that it is for their costs.
Yasmin Qureshi
But there is nothing to stop them doing so. The legislation should be simple and straightforward: a person’s compensation, whatever it might be, should be theirs and the legal costs should be a separate item that they can claim for. If I am awarded damages worth £100,000, I should get £100,000 and not have to pay £25,000 to someone else. Any legal costs should be paid separately by defendants’ insurance companies, which are incredibly rich and have loads of money that they can—
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has announced on Radio 4 within the last hour that he will make a statement to the House this afternoon, presumably arising from the contributions made to the Leveson inquiry. Has he made that request to you, has it been granted, and if so when will the House hear the statement?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
No message has been conveyed to me, and I know nothing of it.
Before Clause 43
Resolved,
That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 31 and proposes its amendment (a) in lieu.—(Mr Djanogly.)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1B, 2B and 196B;
That Mr Jonathan Djanogly, Mr Shailesh Vara, Mr Andy Slaughter, Yvonne Fovargue and Tom Brake be members of the Committee;
That Mr Jonathan Djanogly be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Jeremy Wright.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 281 / Noes: 228 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I beg to move,
That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which forms the basis of the UK’s Convergence Programme.
I welcome this opportunity to debate the information that will be provided to the European Commission this year under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. As in previous years, the Government will send to the Commission data on the UK’s economic and budgetary position, in line with our commitments under the EU stability and growth pact.
The Government will submit their convergence programme by 30 April, after debates in both Houses. It explains our medium-term fiscal policies, as set out in the autumn statement, the Budget and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts, and it is drawn entirely from previously published documents that have been presented to Parliament. It makes it clear that this year’s Budget reinforces the Government’s determination to return the UK to prosperity, and it reiterates our No. 1 priority of tackling the huge deficit that we inherited from the previous Government.
It is because of the decisive action this Government have taken to tackle that deficit since the June 2010 Budget that we have secured and maintained the stability of the UK economy. Last month’s Budget builds on those strong foundations, safeguarding our economic stability; creating a fairer, more efficient and simpler tax system; and driving through reforms to unleash the private sector enterprise and ambition that are critical to our recovery.
As the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, Britain will earn its way in the world, but we can succeed in that goal only if we continue to safeguard our economic stability, tackling the record deficit and debt we inherited from the previous Government. That is why this year’s Budget has a neutral impact on the public finances, implementing fiscal consolidation as planned, and keeping us on course to achieve a balanced structural current budget by 2016-17 and debt falling as a percentage of national income by the end of this Parliament in 2015-16.
Fiscal sustainability is the vital precondition for economic success, but we are doing much more to catalyse growth. First and foremost, we are undertaking far-reaching reform to ensure that our tax system is simple, predictable and fair, and that it supports work.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Given that the requirement for the Government’s assessment was passed under the Maastricht treaty, for which no one in the country voted, and that it must go to a Commission that no one in this country has elected, why does an independent British Parliament have to go through this procedure—this charade—every year?
Mr Hoban
We have signed up to certain aspects of the stability and growth pact. One precondition is that we present this information, as we have done every year since the Maastricht treaty. I will set out later why the UK is treated differently in this process from other European Union member states, but there is nothing new in the information that we will supply and it has been presented to the House. When the EU sought to revise its economic governance package, we were very clear that, whereas other member states provide information to the Commission in advance of their budget-setting process, the UK will provide it after our process.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister believe the UK is bound by the Maastricht rules that its deficit should be 3% per annum and no more, and that it should have a stock of debt of only 60% of national income?
Mr Hoban
We are required to endeavour to achieve the Maastricht criteria. A very different regime is in place for the UK because of the opt-out that John Major negotiated under the Maastricht treaty. We have been clear, as the economic governance package has developed in recent years, on preserving that opt-out and the different treatment for the UK as compared with other European member states. One achievement is that we are not subject, for example, to the sanctions regime to which other member states are subject.
We jealously protect our particular position in the process, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would want us to do. Clearly, were we to follow the Leader of the Opposition’s policy—he wants us to join the eurozone at some point—we would have to give up those safeguards and protections. That is not a policy that this Government or the Conservative party would support.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Setting aside my views on the Budget, which are probably not printable, is not talking about the stability and growth pact at this time simply building castles in the air? We have neither stability nor growth in any part of Europe at the moment. It might be that we are waiting for things to turn, but even in Britain we face savage deflation if we do not change our policies.
Mr Hoban
Europe needs to tackle its fiscal deficit and put in place the policies that will lead to economic growth. One reason for such uncertainty in the eurozone is that a series of imbalances have built up in different European economies. It is important that we tackle them and set out a very clear course for growth. I shall come later in my remarks to some of the actions that the UK Government have led to ensure that the EU spends more time talking about growth and finding ways in which we can accelerate economic progress in the European economies.
Let me mention some of the measures we are taking at home that were set out in the Budget. We are committed to creating the most competitive tax system in the G20. We are cutting the rate of corporation tax to 22% by 2014, which will be the lowest rate in the G7 and the fourth lowest in the G20. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) pre-empts my remarks, because I was about to say that we will remove the ineffective and uncompetitive top rate of tax.
I should say to the hon. Gentleman that I talk to businesses that wish to grow and businesses that want to locate here in the UK. They commend the Government for the corporate tax reforms in which we have engaged. In Treasury questions earlier, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to remarks made by the chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, who responded positively to the tax changes that we introduced. He is not alone—other businesses are moving to the UK as a consequence of our corporate tax arrangements.
Clearly, when we are trying to attract international business men to work here in the UK, and if we want to retain high-paid, talented business leaders here, the 50p tax rate is an issue. It is an outlying issue in G7 countries and affects location decisions for businesses. Cutting the top rate of tax is therefore the right thing to do. We set out the cost—£100 million—in the Red Book and highlighted measures that would raise five times that amount from the very wealthiest in society.
That was a difficult decision, but I believe it was the right one if we want the economy in this country to grow. As was mentioned earlier, one consequence of the higher rate that the previous Government introduced—they did not bother to introduce it in the first 12 years they were in office—was that 20,000 people moved from the UK to Switzerland. That demonstrates the negative impact of a 50p rate. If we want to be competitive, we need a competitive tax regime for both personal and corporate taxes.
Kelvin Hopkins
I do not believe that nonsense about people moving because of the top rate of tax. In France, the socialist opposition have suggested a top tax rate of 75% and said that if people move away because of it, plenty of other people who are just as talented will be prepared to take their jobs because they will still earn a lot of money.
Mr Hoban
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect he is one of the few Opposition Members who supported the 50p rate throughout the period of the Labour Government, and is not one of the late converts that many of his hon. Friends have become.
As I have said, it is important that we create the right competitive conditions for business to flourish, and this Government will continue to invest in our nation’s future. We have announced that we will take forward many of Alan Cook’s recommendations on roads and develop a national roads strategy; we have confirmed investment to provide ultrafast broadband to 10 cities across the UK, with a second wave of cities to be identified in future; and we will continue to support the establishment of a new pension infrastructure platform to unlock an initial £2 billion of investment by as early as 2013.
However, a return to prosperity in the UK depends not only on what is happening here, but on what happens beyond our shores.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a coherent argument, but we have been told on many occasions that what happens in the eurozone is important for exports. Without any monetary stimulus, and without major fiscal changes or major structural reforms, how can a cumulative 3% year-on-year reduction of budgets in southern Europe in countries such as Portugal, Greece and Italy possibly assist us in growing our economy out of the recession of the past few years?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend needs to recognise that, in several countries that have a programme in place, there is a requirement to make structural reforms. A number of member states are already embracing structural reforms, tackling issues such as restrictions on the labour market and looking at ways to tackle the burden of regulation. We are seeing the structural reform that goes hand in hand with fiscal consolidation to create a stable and sustainable platform for economic growth. Here in the UK, we are undergoing fiscal consolidation, but at the same time we are engaging in supply-side reforms to help stimulate growth in the economy. I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. Indeed, they need to go hand in hand if we are to deliver growth.
Kelvin Hopkins
I shall reserve most of my remarks for later when I hope to have the chance to speak. However, I must say that supply-side reforms are all very well, but if there is no demand in the economy, it will not grow but contract.
Mr Hoban
It has been demonstrated time and again in a host of different economies that supply-side reforms are vital, because they reduce some of the costs on businesses and enable them to invest and improve productivity, and in that way they stimulate demand and growth.
Hon. Members are right to focus on events beyond our shores. As the Office for Budget Responsibility said in its March report,
“the situation in the Euro area remains a major risk”
to the UK’s economic forecast. More than 40% of our exports are to the euro area, and recent events in the markets remind us that euro area countries need to make painful adjustments to their public finances and external deficits. It is a difficult path that they have to walk, although new Governments in the likes of Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy are walking it. That is the logic of the single currency to which they are all committed, and progress is being made.
The European Central Bank’s monetary loosening has helped to stabilise the banking system, and the trillion dollars pumped in through the long-term refinancing operation has been helpful. There has been progress in stabilising Greece, and—as I have said—a number of countries have announced important economic reforms.
As well as these measures, important longer-term reforms have been made since we last debated the convergence programme. Those reforms include a stronger, more effective stability and growth pact following agreement of the “six pack” in December 2011. A new macroeconomic imbalances procedure will provide an assessment of potential economic risks across Europe, with sanctions for euro area countries that fail to take action. Importantly, the Commission has put forward proposals to improve co-ordination of budgetary processes between euro area countries.
The treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance—the fiscal compact—was signed in March by 25 member states and it also has the potential to embed stronger rules on fiscal discipline. Together, these reforms represent a stronger, reinforced system of economic governance for the EU and the euro area in particular. While many of these stronger measures may not be right for the UK, they can support stability in the single currency area.
Mr Hoban
If I may, I will finish my paragraph as it may clear up any misapprehensions that the hon. Gentleman has.
I would like to reassure the House that following these reforms the UK is still not subject to sanctions under the strengthened stability and growth pact—the EU treaty is clear that they apply only to EU area countries. Unlike other countries, the UK will only present its convergence programme to the Commission after the Budget is presented to Parliament—the procedure that we are following today.
Graham Stringer
Does the Minister read the newspapers? Has he not noticed that Europe is getting less and less politically stable and that many of the European economies are shrinking? Whatever titles are put on the policies, that is what is really happening. Would it not make sense for the Government and this country to support an as stable as possible break-up of the euro, which would provide growth in Europe and in the United Kingdom?
Mr Hoban
It would be inappropriate for the UK Government to dictate the economic policies to be followed by those in the eurozone. Members of the eurozone have made it very clear that they wish to remain part of it, and there are even member states queuing up to join it. Indeed, if we have an independent Scotland, it might consider joining the eurozone. There are challenges, but there is a strong political commitment in the eurozone for the euro to remain in place.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
The Minister is making a genuine argument in favour of stability, but the rise of the far right—and Marine Le Pen receiving one in five votes in France—shows that whatever was said before, when all these treaties were signed, may not be current now. There is great unrest on the part of the public about what is being done in their name, both abroad and here.
Mr Hoban
It is not appropriate for any of us to provide a running commentary on the French presidential elections, but it is important that Governments, whether inside or outside the euro, make their argument as to why they believe that the measures required to bring about fiscal stability and economic growth are necessary. Those arguments need to continue to be made, because that is vital to Europe’s long-term interests. We will wait and see what the outcome of the French presidential election is and what the view of the new President is on the fiscal compact.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
What will the Minister tell the millions of people in the eurozone when it goes horribly wrong—as it will—and their lives are ruined, given that we have had the chance, as has been suggested, to rebalance the euro from a position of control? It will collapse.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend should recognise the strong political consensus in the eurozone for the continuation of the euro. The actions of member states have sought to stabilise the situation in the eurozone, and that is why they have set up the European stability mechanism and boosted it with funds to strengthen the firewall. They are also looking at recapitalisation of banks and trying to stabilise the situation. The actions of eurozone countries are attempts to reinforce the stability of the eurozone, and they have also embarked on reforms to try to bring about closer fiscal integration, and the fiscal compact is part of that.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister accept that even though we are not members of the eurozone, this country is still teetering on the brink of another recession? Does he also accept that the euro will continue for many decades to come—probably ad infinitum—albeit without some current members?
Mr Hoban
I remind the hon. Gentleman that as a consequence of the actions taken in the Budget one of the rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s, reaffirmed the UK’s triple A rating—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Nottingham East paid attention and read the newspapers—he accused me of not doing so—he would have seen that post-Budget one of the big rating agencies reaffirmed our credit rating with a stable outlook. Actions have been taken to stabilise the UK economy, and that is important.
This is not a debate about the future of the eurozone and whether individual members should be in or out, because that is a matter for the national Governments of those member states, not for us. What we cannot ignore is that the stability of the European economy is a vital factor in determining the level of economic growth in the UK. As I said, 40% of our trade is with Europe. We still export significant amounts to places such as Ireland and, historically, we have exported more to Ireland than we have to Brazil, Russia, India or China combined. It is important to recognise that jobs in all our constituencies are dependent on trade with the European Union and the strength of European economies.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I agree entirely with what the Minister has said about the need for stability, not least for UK recovery. I also welcome what he said about the fiscal compact and the other measures being taken. Does he agree that if there is a legitimate debate in any country about growth versus austerity, it is not—as some more excitable colleagues suggest—any indication of political instability in the eurozone, but merely a debate about the direction of travel that a country’s economy might take?
Mr Stewart Jackson
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being his normal generous self. Do we not have a responsibility to the millions of young people in southern Europe who are on the edge of penury and economic misery, essentially because of this institutionalised, obdurate approach, principally from the Germans, and the failure to accept that the European Central Bank should be the lender of last resort? This political project, which the euro is, is plunging millions of working people in southern Europe into poverty for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. Surely we have a moral duty not to be complicit.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend would, I think, be the first to criticise other member states seeking to lecture us on our economic policy, so we need to be careful not to lecture them either. As I said, there is the political will in the eurozone to keep the euro, and its actions are consistent with that. Whether through closer fiscal integration or increased firepower for the European stability mechanism, those signs are there. The fiscal compact is a significant step towards closer fiscal integration.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Minister talks about the political will in Europe to continue with the euro, but one wonders about the popular will among the peoples of Europe. He knows that the Irish Republic will shortly hold a referendum on these measures. Does he welcome that and would he encourage other countries to go to their people and seek their views, as opposed to the consensus among the political elites?
Mr Hoban
Different member states have different constitutional requirements and different histories on the use of referendums, so it is not necessarily appropriate for a politician here in Westminster to lecture others on how to ratify treaty changes.
Before I took the intervention from the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who has now disappeared, I was talking about how the UK fits into the economic governance measures. We will present the convergence programme to the Commission after the Budget has been presented to Parliament—the process we are going through at the moment. The EU, alongside other international institutions such as the OECD and the International Monetary Fund, can comment on the Budget, but, crucially, we are under no obligation to take action. It is up to the Government, not Brussels, to decide what action to take in the UK.
Of course, as the euro area moves towards closer fiscal integration, we must remain vigilant to protect the UK’s interests. Where matters are rightly for discussion or agreement by all 27 member states—for example, on the single market or financial services—they must be agreed by all 27 member states. In case there is any doubt, I can reassure Members that the UK remains at the heart of the EU’s economic debate. It is because of the Prime Minister’s recent letter with 11 other Heads of State or Government ahead of the March European Council that the Council conclusions were agreed with a commitment to ambitious structural reforms at the EU level. That included concrete Council conclusions on strengthening the single market and its governance; completing the digital single market by 2015; making further progress in reducing administrative burdens; and boosting trade by removing trade barriers and ensuring better market access and investment conditions.
The Government will push for even more ambition, however, because a return to sustainable growth is the only way for EU member states to pay down their debts and exit the current crisis. It is essential that the Commission uses EU-level policy levers fully to support growth, but member states must continue to take tough decisions to prioritise the most growth-enhancing reforms, matching the kind of ambition that the Government have demonstrated since coming to office, including in our most recent Budget. The Budget information we are providing to the Commission in the convergence programme is part of the European semester process, now in its second year, and will be something that the Commission will look at.
Mr Redwood
Does the Minister think that, when the Commission reviews the British Government’s homework, it will say that we need to go further and faster with the cuts or endorse the Government’s programme?
Mr Hoban
I do not wish to pre-empt the Commission’s conclusion—it would be wrong to do so—but when other international organisations have looked at the Budget and the Government’s path to fiscal reform, they have clearly endorsed keeping to the path and sticking to the course. That is important. It has meant that we have retained the confidence of international markets, and interest rates are low as a consequence, which is to the benefit of households and businesses. That is vital to the programme of continued economic reform in the UK.
It is important that we discuss these matters with international partners and have a debate about economic policy in Europe, but at home we have to stick to the path required to deliver the necessary reforms. The Budget builds on the Government’s ambition to create a stable and prosperous economy, it shows our commitment to fiscal consolidation and economic growth, and, along with the OBR’s forecast, forms the basis of the UK’s convergence programme. We are taking the right path, and I hope that—
Kate Hoey
I want to be clear in my own mind, because obviously this is important. If the House was to say no to this tonight and say, “Actually, we don’t think it’s got anything to do with the Commission what we are doing in our independent country. We’re not part of the eurozone,” what would be the repercussions? What would it matter?
Mr Hoban
No, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to make his own contribution in his distinctive style, and doubtless I will have a chance to wind up and respond to the points made. However, I have gone on for nearly 30 minutes, and other hon. Members want to take part. I will now allow him to do so.
Chris Leslie
(Nottingham East): My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked an extremely pertinent question, and I want to come back to it later. First, however, I commend hon. Members from both sides and all parties for spotting that this debate was so relevant. The motion, as framed, does not leap out from the Order Paper, and when hon. Members go to the Vote Office to find these convergence documents, they are met with a little mystification. Let us turn to page minus-2, so to speak, of the Budget Red Book.
Chris Leslie
Indeed, I was here this time last year making a very similar, uncannily parallel speech, but I will point it out again. Underneath where it talks about Crown copyright, the ISBN number and where it says:
“Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre”,
it reads:
“The Budget report, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s…fiscal outlook, constitutes the Government’s assessment under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993”.
That is relevant to today’s debate. It is written in very small font for those who might have difficulty reading it. It mentions the European Communities (Amendment) Act, which sounds like a very British piece of legislation, but, being eagle-eyed, hon. Members will have spotted that all that Act does is refer to the Maastricht treaty, article 2 of which states:
“The Community shall have as its task…a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth”.
Of course, it also relates to article 103, which talks about economic policies being a “matter of common concern” that should be co-ordinated within the Council. These are the sorts of words that some find difficult to stomach, but the article continues:
“For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy”.
In a sense, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was right to say that this is the homework that has been set by the European Commission, and we are completing our homework today.
Mark Hendrick
We will oppose the Government tonight, but we will do so not because we disagree with the European Union having a look at our Budget—these multilateral surveillance procedures have been going on for the best part of 20 years—but because we disagree with the measures in the Budget.
Chris Leslie
People will have their different reasons for opposing the motion, and my hon. Friend is right to state his reason for opposing it. My reason for opposing it is that, essentially, it asks the House to approve the Government’s assessment of the economy. That is the nub of the question. We are being asked to approve the Budget Red Book as their assessment of the economy. Sadly, we know that the Government are out of touch not only with the public but with economic reality. Their grip on what one might call the actuality of the real economy leaves a great deal to be desired.
This is an opportunity not only to take stock of the Government’s approach to the economy as a whole but to look at their analysis of what is happening. We know that they are pursuing failing policies on jobs, economic growth and deficit reduction. The Minister proudly defended the cut in the 50p top rate of income tax for the wealthiest 1% in society. The Government are giving a tax cut of about £40,000 to millionaires at the expense of pensioners and working people. Is it any wonder that their popularity is falling precipitously as a result? I am glad to have an opportunity, every time the Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, to remind those watching these proceedings of the Government’s priorities. Living standards are being squeezed, and the VAT rise is hitting people hard, as are the cuts to tax credits and the cost of living generally. Independent experts say that a typical family will be worse off by £511 this year, but that is the Government’s choice; they want to give millionaires that advantage.
The motion relates to the Government’s assessment of the economy. Such a poor analysis as that presented in their Budget Red Book betrays either extreme wishful thinking on the part of the Treasury or, more likely, a dangerous detachment from the key decisions that Ministers need to confront. Their understanding of what is happening to business, employment and the cost of living is far removed from the experience of the vast majority of the public.
I urge all hon. Members to look at the facts and to examine the way in which the Budget Red Book is so detached from reality. On page 11, the Government claim that growth is
“strengthening over the forecast horizon”.
Growth was minus 0.2% in the last quarter for which we have figures, and the economy has been flatlining for a long time. It has performed very poorly since the spending review, while that of the United States has grown by more than 2%. The Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting growth of just 0.8% in 2012. Last year, in this very debate, we heard that the OBR was forecasting growth of 1.7% in 2012, and that was after several downgrades. There is clear evidence that the Government’s assessment of the economy is entirely out of touch with reality. The OECD is predicting good things for the United States, Germany and Japan, which are all predicted to grow faster than the United Kingdom this year.
What is worse is that on page 15, the Red Book states that we will experience
“positive growth, consistent with experience from past financial crises”.
Last year’s Treasury Red Book said that we were expecting a recovery that was
“in line with previous recoveries”.
I know that my hon. Friends who are students of these matters will be familiar with the charts and analysis produced by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and others that compare the progress of recessions and recoveries across the decades, from the great depression to the recessions in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. When we consider our present position, we see that we are still 4% off the pre-recession peak. We have not yet clambered out of the hole. This is proving to be one of the longest and deepest financial crises, and the Government have failed to make any headway in ensuring our recovery. Their claims that we are in a parallel situation to previous recessions and financial crises prove that they are not in touch with reality.
Mrs Main
I note that the shadow Minister is making a principled argument and that he disagrees with the figures. If he did agree with the Budget figures, would he still feel that we had to submit them for scrutiny? We are a sovereign country. Do we really need our homework to be checked by Europe?
Chris Leslie
That is an interesting question. Obviously, I believe in the rule of law, and there is a legal obligation on Her Majesty’s Government to abide by the treaties. This is where we come back to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall asked earlier. She asked the Minister what the consequences would be if the motion were not passed by the House today. That is the key question that all hon. Members should be pressing the Minister on when he winds up the debate. I will give way to him now if he can answer it. What would be the consequences for us if we did not vote in favour of the motion today? I am happy to give way to him. For the reasons that I have suggested, the Government’s poor assessment of the economy does not inspire me to vote for the motion. I do not see why we would want to support their woeful assessment. The Minister is not giving us a reason for voting for it.
Kelvin Hopkins
I entirely agree with not submitting the report to the European Union, but is not the growth situation even worse than my hon. Friend suggests? Even as we speak, the eurozone is plunging into a deeper crisis. Because of the weakness of the euro, the pound is unfortunately strengthening against the euro, which is going to make it harder for our manufacturers to export. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday that we needed to make even more cuts than those already planned. So far, we have experienced only about a quarter of the planned public expenditure cuts. Is not the situation far worse than my hon. Friend suggests?
Chris Leslie
We have a blinkered and, in many ways, deluded approach to austerity—or über-austerity, as some might characterise it—which is hurting not only in the eurozone but here as well. What angers many people is that the Government’s approach to helping the eurozone out of its difficulties is to throw money at it. Technically, that money is going to the International Monetary Fund, but everyone knows that it is all about eurozone bail-out funds. We are giving a further £10 billion loan, even though the Americans and the Canadians are all saying that we should stand firm and negotiate with the wealthy eurozone countries, including Germany, and make them dip deeper into their own pockets. If they do not do that, and if Britain, China, America and others provide the money, those eurozone countries will not do the deep, serious thinking that they need to do, and they will not take the consequences of their situation within the single currency. They will not put up a proper firewall, as they ought to do; they will not build what has been characterised as the “big bazooka”.
That is why we have consistently expressed our scepticism about the Chancellor’s decision to cave in and give extra resources—British taxpayers’ money—to the IMF, which we all know is going to be used for that particular purpose. We like the IMF for its work with other countries in the developing world, and of course we want a strong IMF, but we should not be letting those wealthy eurozone countries off the hook. They need to confront those issues.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I apologise for coming in late, but I have just got off the plane from Denmark where I was meeting the chairmen of the scrutiny committees of all the other national Parliaments of the European Union. We have recently witnessed the resignation of the Dutch Government and the consequences of the French elections. Would the House be interested to know that there is deep disquiet behind the scenes throughout the whole of Europe, as I discovered through speaking to those chairmen in the last couple of days?
Chris Leslie
I am afraid that I am not surprised to hear that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman spends a great deal of time and effort monitoring how these issues progress. Personally, I feel we need to find ways of supporting and stabilising the situation in the eurozone, but I do not think that the Government’s strategy is the right way to do that. However, I digress.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I feel it appropriate to give the shadow Minister some friendly advice. One reason why my party was not credible on the economy until quite a few years after we lost the election was that in many respects we did not face up to the fact of the legacy we left. I remind him that he really should be looking at the wider picture of Europe rather than focusing on the national situation here. The fact is that real-terms public expenditure rose by 53% from £450 billion to £700 billion between 2000 and 2010. His party ran a structural deficit in times of economic growth. That is the situation in which we find ourselves now.
Chris Leslie
I obviously disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment, but he made an important point earlier about the plight of those who are suffering as a result of the austerity approach being applied in southern European countries in particular. I worry greatly about that; it is a matter of concern. It is also a concern, however, for our constituents here in the UK. We take a different approach on principle about the right ways to repair our economy. We believe that a stronger emphasis on growth is necessary to generate revenues; it is not just about public expenditure cuts, which do not provide the way out of the situation. I also disagree that the motion is a general debate about the state of the European economies. We are debating whether the Red Book provides a right, accurate, fair and good assessment of the state of the British economy such that we can submit it, as we are required to do by the treaties, to the European Commission. I am simply following the strictures placed on us by the Maastricht treaty.
Stewart Hosie
That is the key point. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the 1993 Act—a Tory Act, of course—about the need to submit information to the European Commission, including information on industrial investment. We have seen forecasts of 6.7% business investment growth ending up being a negative 0.8% out-turn. He is thus absolutely right that the Red Book is not credible in terms of the objective set out in the 1993 Act.
Chris Leslie
It is that lack of credibility that makes me want to oppose the motion. The hon. Gentleman picked up on the point about business investment. I encourage hon. Members to turn to page 16 of the Red Book, which says:
“business investment will pick up and make an increasingly strong contribution to growth in each year of the forecast as confidence builds and credit conditions ease”.
Just yesterday, the trends in lending data came out from the Bank of England. Year on year, net lending to all businesses—small and medium-sized enterprises in particular—has fallen in every single month since the Government took office. That is despite Project Merlin and all the attempts at credit easing, which have still not come into effect and will do nothing to help credit availability. Last year, they said in their document that
“Credit conditions have shown signs of stabilisation.”
That has not come to pass, so I have no confidence that their current propositions will come to pass either.
On borrowing, page 12 of the Red Book claims that we are heading for
“£11 billion lower over the forecast period than was projected at Autumn Statement 2011”,
which is sophistry because we know that in the spending review figures from October 2010, the Government projected a set of borrowing statistics that have had to be ripped up, because we are on a trend that takes us into £150 billion of further borrowing over the lifetime of this Parliament. The new borrowing figures out this morning confirm that particular trend. That is where things are going.
The Chancellor keeps restating that the UK is “a safe haven”, although he slipped a little bit today in saying that it was “a safer haven”. There he was in Washington this weekend, saying that the UK has “solved our problems”. That is our Chancellor’s assessment of our economy. Such dangerous complacency beggars belief, and I think that it is a sign of arrogance.
Stewart Hosie
The hon. Gentleman picks up on our Chancellor’s reference to “a safer haven”. Does he think that could be because the debt figures on the treaty calculation are no longer expected to peak at 87% of gross domestic product as was forecast a year ago, but at 93% of GDP—a catastrophically high figure?
Chris Leslie
Of course, that is because of the Government’s record of high unemployment, with statistics showing not much improvement, an increase in welfare costs and so forth. All those things are a drag on public expenditure; they are making things no better. That is the result of the Government’s misguided strategy. On the wider issue of employment and unemployment, I challenge hon. Members to find much in the Red Book that provides an assessment of what is going to happen to them. We know that we have the highest unemployment in 17 years, with 2.67 million people on the dole. We know the story that long-term unemployment doubled in the last year and that youth unemployment is at a record high. My hon. Friends do not need me to repeat these figures.
On inflation, the Red Book says that
“inflationary pressures, which the OBR considers to have been the main drag on UK growth over the past 18 months, have started to abate, easing the pressures on household incomes and improving the outlook for consumers.”
Well, consumer prices index inflation rose, I think, in the last month. We are at around 3.25%. We should not forget that the Chancellor’s target for the Governor of the Bank of England is 2% inflation. Indeed, Paul Tucker, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, warned this week that inflation is likely to stay above 3% for much of 2012. Again, even on inflation, the Government’s assessment of the economy is just not correct. There is no mention of consumer confidence in the analysis. Although there is a section on “Investment and confidence” on page 14, it does not mention consumer confidence at all. The consumer confidence indices have been down and are worsening at minus 31%.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend talks about confidence. Did he see the comments of Barney Frank, a leading US congressman, when he talked yesterday about this Government’s obsession with austerity measures, which went right to the heart of the credibility of whether or not they could reduce the deficit? Coming from Washington as he did, he was clear that this Government’s key measure for reducing the deficit in their period of office was counter-productive.
Chris Leslie
Indeed. All across the globe, developed countries are realising that a strategy focused singularly on austerity alone will not be the solution. We must have a greater focus on growth and job creation as a way of generating revenues.
I have spoken for too long. Labour Members believe that this motion is flawed because the Government’s assessment of the economy is poor. Others will have their own reasons for voting against it. I want to hear the Minister’s justification for the motion and to find out why it would be cataclysmic if it did not go through. The consequences of that are a key point. As I see it, the Government misunderstand the economy, they are misreading the growth prospects of the UK and they are misconstruing what is happening in the employment markets and business investment. I therefore urge the House to reject this mistaken assessment of the prospects for our economy.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I have some sympathy with the Minister in this debate, which is about colossal issues, such as the future of economic prosperity throughout the European Union and its impact on our own economy, yet it is also a rather absurd debate. Successive Governments have felt that they have to table documentation and figures to the European Union, but they are embarrassed by that fact because they know that many of us feel that it is this Parliament, which answers to the British people, that should debate and settle these issues, and that what we are doing is none of the EU’s business. If we do a good job, we will stay in office; if we do a bad job, we will be thrown out of office, and the British people will rightly choose another group of people as they decided to do in 2010 as this crisis developed. We think that that is the right approach.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that if the Opposition had tabled a motion suggesting that the House should tell Brussels that we would no longer send it these documents, I would probably vote with the Opposition, because I would consider that a sensible way of trying to send an obvious message to Brussels. However, we are being invited to spend more time debating the crucial topic of what kind of economic policy would best promote growth and stability in our own country, and what contribution wider economic policies can make to stability and growth in the European Union as a whole.
The description of the pact that we are debating as a stability and growth pact is a grotesque bad-taste joke at the expense of the European peoples. It is clear from the way in which it now operates in the euroland countries that it is actually an instability and recession pact. It is a pact for mutually assured deflation. It is intended to do more damage at the very point in an economic cycle when an economy is performing very badly, to withdraw spending power from both the private and the public sector in an economy with too little demand, and to take jobs away in an economy with a problem of mass youth unemployment.
Mark Hendrick
I accept that the policies of many euro area member states are deflationary, but it is ridiculous to deride them simply because those countries are members of the eurozone when our own Government’s policies are equally deflationary.
Mr Redwood
As I shall make clear shortly, our policies are rather different. For one thing, the coalition Government decided to increase current public spending, which is running at £64 billion a year more this year than in the last year of Labour government. The Red Book shows that real current public spending has risen in each of the two years of the coalition Government, although not by very much. The Government are clearly not trying to deflate the economy by introducing massive current spending cuts, given that overall current spending has been rising.
Stewart Hosie
The right hon. Gentleman, who knows the Red Book inside out, will recall that it makes it clear that the Government’s projected discretionary consolidation by 2016-17 amounts to £155 billion a year, of which 81% will be delivered by cuts in services and the remainder by tax increases. The hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) was right: the Government are embarking on precisely the policies for which the right hon. Gentleman is criticising others.
Mr Redwood
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Red Book intelligently. The 80:20 statistic on which Members seem to rely relates to changes compared with much bigger growth in public spending that was in inherited programmes. It is not the reality. The reality of the Government’s strategy is a massive increase in taxes over the planned five years of the present Parliament to pay for rather modest increases in current public spending over the life of the Parliament, and to get the deficit down. The 2010 strategy suggested that tax revenues would be £171 billion a year more in year 5 than they had been in the last Labour year. The Government have now had to reduce that figure a bit because—as other Members have pointed out—the expected growth has not been forthcoming, for a variety of reasons.
We need to promote growth vigorously and actively, which is common ground between the Government, coalition Back Benchers and many Opposition Members. The argument, surely, concerns what measures are most likely to bring that about. It appears that over the last four years both Governments have operated policies involving actively increasing public spending, with the exception of capital spend—certainly overall spending has risen—and actively promoting massive borrowing, while at the same time the economy has bombed very badly. I am not suggesting that that is causal, but it should lead Opposition Members to ask why that fiscal injection—massive borrowing and an increase in current public spending—has not done the job. There seems to be some disconnection between the remedy that they recommend and the reality of what is happening.
When we look at the way in which other countries have pulled out of crises of this kind, and, indeed, the way in which Britain has pulled out of similar but, perhaps, less aggressively damaging crises than the one that we inherited, we see that there is nearly always a period during which public spending must be reduced or controlled quite strongly to make room for a private sector recovery, and that a series of measures to promote that recovery will then be necessary. As I have explained at length in the past, banking reform and competitive banking are crucial. The Government’s theory favours a tight fiscal policy and a loose monetary policy. They want to allow more money to circulate through the private sector through credit and through the banking system, and they want to lower the deficit gradually in the public sector so that the fiscal policy becomes a bit tighter.
Mark Hendrick
The right hon. Gentleman makes great play of tax revenues. We all know where they come from—they come from those who can least afford to provide them—but given that only one private sector job is coming along to replace every 10 jobs that are being lost in the economy, where will they come from in future?
Mr Redwood
So far the strategy has generated quite a lot of new private sector jobs, which is very welcome, but it is obvious that it needs to generate many, many more over the next three years if it is to secure the savings on welfare benefits that I am sure all Members wish to see.
It is nonsensical for Opposition Members to say that the poor will be paying the taxes. We have just seen a big increase in thresholds which takes many people out of income tax altogether at the lower end of the income scale. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Red Book, he will see that there will be a sharp acceleration in self-assessment income tax—the income tax that is paid mainly by the rich—once we get the rate down. I know that Opposition Members do not like reading the figures in the Red Book, but it provides a much better case than Ministers ever provide for why we need to get back closer to Labour’s rates of income tax.
One of the things that I most admired about the former Prime Minister and last Chancellor of the Exchequer but one was his insistence that 40% was the highest rate of income tax that could be charged to optimise the amount of money obtained from the rich. He stuck to that view throughout his time as Chancellor and most of his time as Prime Minister. We all know that he only put it in as a political trap at the end of his period in office when he could see the writing on the wall, but it is obvious from the Red Book figures that he was right: 40% is about as high as we can go to optimise the revenue.
According to the forecast in the Red Book, the revenue will stream in after the rate falls to 45p. If Opposition Members look at the Red Book, they will see that last year, under the 50p regime, self-assessment income tax fell by an amazing 9%. That was because rich people who have a lot of freedom and ability to decide how much to pay themselves—I know that Opposition Members do not like that, but it happens to be the state of play—decided to pay themselves a great deal less. Both the outgoing and the incoming Governments had said that the tax was temporary, so they decided that they would hold back their income. It was obvious that they would do that.
Gavin Shuker
The right hon. Gentleman is talking like a cheerleader about the Laffer curve. Why does he think that the UK economy is not growing?
Mr Redwood
I think that the UK economy may be growing. We will know the facts tomorrow, when we see the first quarter figures, but I suspect that the economy will grow this year. I accept the Government’s forecast of a slow and modest rate of growth. Why, though, is the economy not growing more quickly? There are two main reasons.
The first reason is banking. All the cash that the Bank of England is printing is not going into circulation in the private sector. It is very helpful to keep the Government’s rate of interest down, and it is very helpful to make the increase in public spending more affordable because it controls the interest rate cost for the Government; but the money cannot enter the private sector in any real quantity because the banks are under a huge regulatory cosh to hold more cash and capital at what is, in my view, the wrong stage in the cycle, which means that we cannot secure the growth in banking credit that would finance a better recovery.
The second reason is that taxation is now very high overall in the United Kingdom, which—combined with the inflation tax that has resulted from the high inflation rate that we inherited, which has remained persistently high—means that real incomes are being badly squeezed. It is plain to us all that real incomes started the squeeze under Labour, when the recession really hit, and that that squeeze has continued. A progressive squeeze on the scale that we have experienced since 2008 hits demand and makes recovery that much more difficult.
Graham Stringer
Is there not a third reason: that we are in the wrong part of the world, next to the eurozone, which has no mechanism for the poorer countries to get rid of their trade imbalances or for Germany to get rid of its trade surplus? Normally that would be done by revaluing or devaluing those currencies, but having one currency makes it impossible.
Mr Redwood
I know that you would like me to wind up quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker, because others wish to contribute, but it is such a pity, as this is a crucial issue. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is great difficulty in financing the big balance of payments deficits in the eurozone. Now that a mechanism has been found—German surplus deposits in the ECB being routed to weak member states’ banks through the ECB—the Germans are kicking up a fuss, because they suddenly realise that they have €600 billion at risk and they are not very happy. However, as the main surplus country, Germany has to finance the transfers in the union, and until she does so actively and in an encouraging way, there will be all these kinds of problems.
We have problems in Greece, Portugal and Ireland, which we know about. We now have deep problems developing in Spain, and we even have a problem in the Netherlands—which was meant to be one of the good guys—because of a falling out over the rather modest cuts needed to hit the Maastricht criteria. I agree that we need to get to 3% and 60% in due course—I have no problems with the European targets—but I feel strongly that we should do so for our own reasons, in our own time. It is nothing to do with Europe how we run this economy, and the sooner Ministers have the courage to tell Europe that, the better.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Let me say first that the Minister is heroic to take this brief, which is—to understate the matter—a difficult one. I do not envy him his job of having to try to sell it.
There are two good reasons for not sending the Budget report to the European Union. One reason, on which the Opposition agree, is that it is not a good Budget. The other reason, on which many of us on both sides of the House agree, is this: why should we send our Budget report to the European Union? If the EU wanted a copy, it could buy a copy. It is not a problem.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am not as skilled as the hon. Gentleman in using the internet. Old-fashioned though it may be, I go to shops and buy books, I am afraid.
As for the Budget, the reality is that it will not solve our economic problems. Our problems are not really about the deficit; they are to do with unemployment. Looking back, another time when we had an enormous public debt and enormous deficits was the second world war, after which the then Labour Government ran a full-employment economy, which was the way they overcame our problems. If our Budget was directed towards creating employment, we too would solve many of our problems. The important thing is to generate directly in labour-intensive areas, which are not expensive. We are talking about relatively low-paid workers in the public services or the construction sector—labour-intensive sectors with low import content, which are just the sort of sectors where we want to be generating. However, public services and construction are the very sectors we are cutting.
If we had a massive Government-driven house building programme, along with the creation of more public service jobs, we would bring down unemployment and people would be paying taxes rather than living on benefits, and over time the deficit would solve itself. That is what the Labour Government did after 1945. We were living in Keynesian times then, and I think that Keynes was absolutely right. I like to think that if he were here now, he would be saying what I am saying, albeit possibly in a more sophisticated way.
Richard Drax
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say where all those homes would be built. I believe the last Government had a target of some 1.8 million, but I recall that something like half were on a floodplain. Where are we going to build all those homes?
Kelvin Hopkins
That is a problem for Ministers and local authorities, but it has been estimated that we need another 4.5 million homes over the next few years if we are going to house our people. However, I will not go into that now, because I want to talk about the European Union.
I do not agree with the Budget—I think we ought to have a different one—but even if it were a good Budget, I nevertheless do not think that we should necessarily be required formally to send it to the European Union. I say that because the motion before us refers to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—the Maastricht Act—which, I am pleased to say, my party voted against. Indeed, some Government Members voted against it as well. It is the Act that requires us to send the report to the European Union. Personally, I do not feel bound by that, because my party voted against it, and I do not think it is sensible anyway.
However, let us return to the stability and growth pact, which, as I have suggested, is like building castles in the air. What stability? What growth? We have grotesque instability at the moment—terrifying instability, in fact—and absolutely no growth. Indeed, even the powerhouse economy of Germany has serious problems. There is talk of convergence, but who do we want to converge with? Greece? Portugal? Some of the countries that are actually contracting, with mass unemployment? In Spain there is even talk of unemployment rising to 6 million, which, as a proportion of the population, is the equivalent of 9 million in Britain. This is absolutely insane. I do not want to be “disable-ist” about this, but anybody running that economy must want their head examined, quite frankly.
Mr Cash
Given the hon. Gentleman’s important comment about the convergence criteria, does he accept that it is absolutely clear that what was thought would happen in 1993, when the Maastricht treaty went through, has gone completely off the wall, as we predicted at the time and as everybody now knows? The Prime Minister said recently that he thought there ought to have been a referendum on that treaty. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, therefore, that there is a powerful case for having a referendum on the current situation with the euro and the eurozone?
Kelvin Hopkins
Indeed, and I think many of the peoples of the European countries that are now suffering would like a referendum as well. What I find difficult to understand is why so many people in the countries facing difficulties still support the euro. I do not know why, because supporting membership of the euro is almost like having a death wish. If only there were some courageous politicians who could say, “The way out of our problems is to recreate our own currency, depreciate it against the countries we’re competing with and reflate behind that barrier,” those countries would start to solve their problems. However, they cannot do it because they are tied into the euro.
We have collective deflation, right across the entire European Union, and although this country is perhaps tinkering round the edges compared with some other countries, that is entirely the wrong way to go. One thing that is causing us problems at the moment is that the eurozone is in such trouble that the euro is now weakening, which, by contrast, is strengthening sterling and making life more difficult for our manufacturers. That is causing problems in many ways. However, if there were a sensible, managed deconstruction of the euro, with the re-creation of national currencies in many, or possibly all, of those countries, thereby allowing them to reflate their economies, they would benefit, as would we, and the whole European Union would then start to work properly—as a group of democratic, independent nations co-operating voluntarily for mutual benefit, rather than something driven by people in central banks or people in Brussels in the Commission.
Kelvin Hopkins
I hope we do too. As for the repercussions, will we be taken to the European Court of Justice? I suppose that is what happens; however, I think the European Union has other things on its mind rather than punishing us for not sending the Red Book across to Brussels. It has more problems than it can deal with at the moment, and it will not be taking us to court simply for refusing to send across our Budget book, which it can buy in the shops anyway.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I apologise for not being here for the whole of the debate, but I was in the Finance Public Bill Committee. Does my honourable friend in European matters not agree that the Government have behaved much, much better this year, by allowing the debate in Parliament to take place before the book is sent to Brussels, and that we should encourage the Government in this reformed behaviour?
Kelvin Hopkins
Indeed. I think we ought to debate many more of these things on the Floor of the House. I would like to think that many more colleagues, from all parties, would take part in these debates and appreciate some of the things that some of us, on both sides, have been saying about the nonsense of the European Union at the moment.
I have been speaking for rather too long, so I ought to stop. There are two extremely good reasons for not sending the Budget report to Brussels. I hope that many Members will agree with that and vote against the motion this evening.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
As always, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). He referred to the fact that only a few Conservative Members voted with the then Labour Opposition on the Maastricht treaty—I rather suspect that I may have been one of them at that time.
May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one matter, however? He referred to our sending the Red Book. I wish that it were so, but we are not sending the Red Book; instead we are sending the 210 pages of the “2011-12 Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom, submitted in line with the Stability and Growth Pact”. It is a specially produced document. As last year, I oppose the submission of this convergence document to the European Union.
No doubt by contrast to the previous speaker, I entirely accept that the Government are pursuing a sensible economic policy that is designed to enable this country to start to live within its means once more. Of course there is a debate to be had in the House about whether taxation is at the right level in certain areas or whether public expenditure should be reduced further and faster, but those matters are not what this debate is about. It is specifically about whether the Government assessment of our economic position should be approved
“for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993”,
which requires this country to submit an assessment every year of how well we are progressing on convergence. I object to that, as, I suspect, do many millions of my fellow Britons.
I wish to raise three questions about this convergence. First, what are we supposed to be converging with? Is it the eurozone? It probably is, and I certainly suspect that that is what the Eurocrats want us to do, but why on earth would anyone want to converge with the eurozone at present? It has a failing currency and is based on a failed idea that is continuing to survive in its current form only thanks to bail-out after bail-out and the failure of European leaders in Brussels to wake up and accept the reality that, as any sensible independent commentator can see, it is folly to try to tie together the economies of different countries with such widely divergent characteristics. Such a plan is doomed to fail.
Secondly, who are we supposed to be converging with? Surely not the struggling economies of southern Europe. Things are still going very badly wrong across the eurozone, as we saw only yesterday with the collapse of the Dutch Government because of the fall-out from the eurozone crisis. In addition, there are the economic data: first-quarter GDP shrank by a further 0.4% in Spain, and the eurozone’s own composite purchasing managers index—a useful measure of progress in the eurozone—has slumped to 47.4 in April, down dramatically from March’s 49.1, and we must note that any index figure of less than 50 means contraction. That collapse was both in services, down from 49.2 to 47.9, and in manufacturing, down from 47.7 to 45.0. Even the mighty German economy is being affected by the struggling eurozone. Its overall purchasing managers index figure is down to 50.9, with even German manufacturing at a 33-month low of 46.3. It is clear, therefore, that despite all the bail-outs and the firewalls and the new IMF fund that has just been created, the eurozone remains mired in deep crisis, and I submit that we do not want to converge with it.
Thirdly—and perhaps most importantly—why are we converging? Has anybody bothered to ask the British people if they want to be converging with the countries of the eurozone? We ought to be pursuing the policies that are right for this country, regardless of what the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels think.
Mr Nuttall
I am most grateful, as I am sure are all Members, for that confirmation from the Minister. That answer raises the following question, however. No doubt many officials at the Treasury have been engaged in the preparation of this convergence document, spending many hours of precious time and energy on it, but why? What a complete waste of time! As was ascertained last year, anybody who is interested in this information could glean all of it from the internet, without any need to move any paper about. This is a complete, gigantic waste of time. It is a giant, paper-shuffling exercise.
Mr Cash
As someone who took a very active part in the Maastricht debates, I can say that this current debate is a case of déjà vu. As my hon. Friend said, we are being required to submit this report under the provisions of section 5, even though everything has changed and it is utterly impossible for us to set out to achieve the stated objective, because it is impossible for us, in the national interest, to attempt to apply the convergence criteria. The whole thing is a complete mess, which is why we need to have a referendum on the whole issue, including our relationship with the European Union.
Mr Nuttall
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both those points: first, this is a complete waste of time, and secondly, we certainly ought to have a referendum. That is not, of course, the matter before us tonight, however. Instead, this is the question under discussion tonight: what is the point of sending this document to Brussels?
The Minister admits that we pay no attention to what Brussels says to us, and that we govern our own affairs, so what is the point of producing this document? We should be honest with the people in Brussels and say, “Look, we’re not going to listen to you anyway. We’re independent in these matters, and we’re going to stop sending you this document every year.” It is a complete waste of time to send it this year—and I would be very interested to know what happened to last year’s document.
Mr Redwood
Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is a cruel paradox that the EU lectures member states to get their deficit down and then demands more money from them by way of public spending?
Mr Nuttall
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it prompts the following: if the bureaucrats in Brussels are keeping an eye on the eurozone, something has gone pretty badly wrong because right across the eurozone nobody is sticking to the rules and regulations. The growth and stability pact went west years ago. If the bureaucrats had stuck to it a bit more closely, all the bail-outs, mechanisms and IMF funds would not have been necessary. If they had spent a little less time reading convergence documents and a little more time concentrating on the problems in the eurozone, our country might be better off because our European neighbours might be better off too and would therefore want to buy our goods and services.
There is no useful purpose to our constituents in this document being sent to Brussels, and I urge the House to vote against the motion.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who has dealt with one side of this issue—how the documentation goes to Europe—with his usual rigour and care. I wish, however, to focus on the appropriateness of the Budget Red Book for the UK economy.
The Red Book has created a cacophony of confusion. We have had the pasty tax, the granny tax, the caravan tax, the churches tax and the tax on philanthropy—the list goes on and on. This is an omnishambles, if ever we had one. This Budget is neither fair nor effective. Indeed, Frank and Shirley, two pensioners, came to see me at my recent surgery and told me that they are really concerned about the impact of this Government’s policies on them. They are worried about the pensions move from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index and the effect of the granny tax. At the same time, they see their energy prices, fuel prices and other costs rising. That is what is happening to real people in the real world.
This was a Budget in which millions were asked to pay more so that millionaires can pay less: 14,000 people earning £1 million or more get a tax cut of more than £40,000 a year, while the average family lose £511 as a result of tax rises and cuts this year. A family with children earning just £20,000 lose £253 a year—that is in addition to the VAT rise, which is costing families in my constituency up to £450 a year. This Budget also includes a £3 billion tax raid on pensioners for the next four years.
This is not a fair Budget, so the issue becomes whether it is an effective one. The Government promised change. They promised that things would get better, but things have got worse. Their policies are clearly failing on jobs, on growth and on the deficit. We have 1 million young people unemployed—that is a shocking statistic—and women’s unemployment is at a record high. The economy has stalled, and there is speculation about tomorrow’s growth figures—not about how much the economy has grown, but about whether the economy is merely flatlining or is going back into recession. By contrast, in the United States, where investment is taking place in infrastructure, the economy is growing, albeit slowly. Our Government are set to borrow £150 billion more than they had planned because of this slower growth, so this Budget is not fair and it is not effective.
I represent Scunthorpe and the surrounding villages, where manufacturing is key. There is not enough in this Budget to address the needs of manufacturing; it does not contain an industrial policy. A promise was made about introducing a commitment for intensive energy users. The promise remains but that is still not happening; it is still in the long grass. Likewise, infrastructure spending and getting construction going, so that construction can drive the economy forward, are not happening although they need to happen. This Budget, as set out in the Red Book, which we are considering sending to Europe tonight, is neither fair nor effective. It is certainly an omnishambles. It is both heartless and hopeless, and I hope that the House votes against it.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I just wish to contribute a few words at the end of this debate, which I have listened to with interest. I am extremely concerned, but not because we are having to justify our Budget. I think that our Government are doing absolutely the right thing in cutting back on the deficit left to us by the previous Government, putting our house in order and putting the public first. That is where I would like to be: putting the public first. I do not wish there to be any consideration of whether Europe agrees that we are putting our public first or that we are putting European issues first. The European issues must be sorted out in Europe, among the people there. I do not feel that, as a sovereign Parliament, we should have to submit our Budget, regardless of whether the Opposition oppose or agree with it. It is up to us to decide the best for the British people and deliver the best for the British people—whether or not that causes “convergence” is neither here nor there.
The convergence that was perhaps envisaged in 1993 is not a route we would even want to go down now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, we are not sure what we are trying to converge with. I do not know why we are submitting documents that have the word “convergence” on the front of them, unless people are giving us marks out of 10 for converging with something.
Mr Redwood
I fear that the convergence programme began so that countries could converge with the Maastricht criteria to join the euro. As it is clear that we do not want to join the euro, we should in no way be talking about convergence.
Mrs Main
I shall not be supporting this motion, because I fundamentally disagree with what is on the front of the document—convergence. I do not think that our currency or our country should be converging with anything in Europe. Our sovereign Parliament should not have to hand in its notes to see whether or not they are acceptable to Europe. If there is convergence, I am sure that somebody is marking us out of 10 on how far down the road we have gone. If we have gone down that road, I would happily stop doing so right this minute. I conclude by saying that at some point this Parliament has got to stand up for itself and say, “We are not going to do this any more.” I would like this to be the year when we are not going to do this any more.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I simply wish to say that I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) really put his finger on it. He told us exactly what the position is with regard to which paper we were considering and he identified the questions that needed to be asked, as did my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). This is about whether that treaty that we entered into all those years ago, after all that contention, has or has not done its work. It has failed, and it has failed not only this country but Europe as a whole. That is why we need to vote against the motion; this motion makes an assumption that this treaty is still alive. It is as dead as a parrot.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That must be the shortest speech that Mr Cash has made.
Question put.
Data Protection in the Areas of Police and Criminal Justice (EU Directive)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 24 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5833/12 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a Draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data; and supports the Government’s recommendation not to exercise its right to opt out of this draft Directive under Protocol 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (The Schengen Protocol).
The motion stands on the Order Paper in my name and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the proposed data protection directive, which the European Commission published on 25 January. The directive would repeal and replace the 2008 framework decision on data protection in the police and criminal justice sector. It is an important instrument for law enforcement in this country and across the European Union, and it is right that this House is given the opportunity to consider the effect of the proposals on both the security and the freedoms of UK citizens. The debate fulfils the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to seek Parliament’s views on an opt-in decision in justice and home affairs matters, as well as opt-out decisions under the Schengen protocol, and I am keen to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In the Ministry of Justice’s impact analysis, the summary is that the overall impact is
“likely to be substantially negative”.
Given that, can the Minister explain why he does not want to opt out?
Mr Blunt
I will deal with that, but in deciding whether to exercise the opt-out, the Government looked at the most pessimistic reading of events. The conclusion to which my right hon. Friend refers has been before the European Scrutiny Committee, but that impact assessment does not take into account some of the consequences that would flow if we exercised an opt-out. I shall talk about those consequences later in my speech, but they include negotiating all the bilateral data protection arrangements that would be required were we not party to the directive.
Having held the responsibility of Europe Minister, my right hon. Friend, of all people in this House, will understand the complexity of the legal basis—complexity that has increased considerably since he and I were serving in the Foreign Office together, I as a special adviser and he as a Minister. If he will forgive me, I will get my arguments on the record, give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to contribute in the light of that, then respond to their remarks at the end of the debate. I will therefore resist taking too many interventions. This area is complex enough without adding further to that complexity—
Mr Blunt
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, let me get our position on the measure on the record, then I will be able to respond to interventions and points made in a more disciplined way.
It is the Government’s view that the proposed data protection directive can be classified as a Schengen building measure; therefore, under protocol 19 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which governs how the Schengen acquis are integrated into the UK framework, the UK does have the option of opting-out of the directive. The deadline for notifying the Council of the European Union of an opt-out decision is 14 May.
The Government's position is that the continued ability to share information on crime and justice matters between nations is of fundamental importance. In an increasingly globalised world, crime does not stop at national borders, but reaches across jurisdictions and involves people of many different nationalities. The Government therefore support proportionate, clear and coherent data protection rules that keep personal data safe, protect the rights of citizens and enable our police to pursue criminals to protect the lives and interests of our citizens.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Minister give way to the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee for that point, but I will have to take advice on what was received and when before replying to him. I am trying to explain that, in this area, there is considerable confusion between opt-ins and opt-outs, so if he will forgive me, I shall try to explain this complicated matter and its consequences in as simple terms as I can, as much for my own benefit as for anyone else’s.
To address specifically the subject of debate this evening, we support the transfer of data across borders and between organisations where it improves our ability to prevent crime, increase security and keep our citizens safe. We must therefore protect the arrangements that have allowed EU member states to share information about suspected criminal activity in a regulated and proportionate manner. The challenge of the directive is that, although parts of it are welcome and will help in the fight against crime, some of the provisions are excessively bureaucratic and unwieldy. As it is drafted, we have concerns about the costs it would impose on UK law enforcement agencies. We are particularly concerned about the fact that it has been drafted so as to apply to internal processing of data—that is, information being shared by police forces or other criminal justice authorities within the borders of one country.
The Government's approach to the directive has been to establish the best way of securing the benefits of continued data sharing with EU member states, while minimising any resultant costs. Having gone through this analysis, our judgment is that, despite concerns about the current text, we should not opt out of the directive. There are three main reasons for this. First, the directive is at a very early stage of negotiation. There is substantial room for improvement, and it is clear that the UK has significant allies within the Council of Ministers who share our concerns. We believe that we can secure a more effective deal by working with our partners than by going it alone.
Mr Blunt
No. Secondly, the legal base of the measure gives the UK an effective exemption on the issue about which we are most concerned: internal processing of data. The directive is based on article 16 of the TFEU—the new data protection competence created under the Lisbon treaty. Under article 6a of protocol 21, which gives the UK and Ireland particular provisions and protections in the areas of freedoms, security and justice, the UK has what we believe to be a firm protection that provisions on internal processing will not apply to us.
Mr Blunt
No. My intention was to respond to the intervention made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but he is no longer in his place, so I shall come back to it later.
Thirdly, and most important, exercising the opt-out would endanger our continued ability to share information across borders without necessarily freeing us from the bureaucratic and unwelcome obligations potentially created by the new directive. That is because in the absence of the directive, the UK would have to negotiate new data-sharing arrangements bilaterally with each of the other member states in the European economic area. Notwithstanding the significant time and cost of those separate negotiations, the fact is that each of the member states with which we would be negotiating would be bound by the terms of the new directive, and of course would press the UK to adopt similar requirements to their own. The effect would be that we would end up taking on similar obligations to those of a directive that we had not participated in negotiating, and whose content we had not had the opportunity to influence.
The Schengen instruments contain their own specific and extensive data protection provisions, which will not be affected by the directive and will continue to operate, so in effect we would be opting out of very little, with little potential benefit for the United Kingdom, but potentially to our detriment. Furthermore, there are broader consequences to an opt-out.
Mr Blunt
If we were outside the directive, our ability to negotiate essential data-sharing agreements, such as we are in the process of doing on the passenger name records directive and the European Union third-country passenger name records agreements, could be significantly undermined. Equally fundamental, exercising our opt-out on this measure could throw our participation in other, broader Schengen measures into question and the Council could take the decision not allow us to continue to participate in valuable data-sharing arrangements under the police co-operation provisions of Schengen. This would be a serious problem for our law enforcement agencies, which benefit from the sharing of criminal data under Schengen.
It is therefore our careful collective judgment, based on the most pessimistic view of costs and benefits, shared with the European Scrutiny Committee, that our national interests are best served by participating in this directive so that we are party to the framework governing data-sharing for policing and criminal justice across the European Union.
Mr Blunt
I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The directive is important for the security of our citizens. I will go on to give an example of the kind of co-operation that we wish to protect under these arrangements. If we are not party to these arrangements, we will have to start negotiating at least 27 bilateral arrangements, which would take us to precisely the same place as the directive, without the benefit of negotiating under the directive.
Mr Blunt
Let us be clear about what is at stake here. Rules enabling the sharing of data have made a tangible difference to the United Kingdom, and we take steps that imperil them at our risk and at risk to our citizens. Let me give an example, which concerned a 32-year-old Romanian national who was arrested in the United Kingdom on suspicion of raping two women within the Metropolitan area. A request for conviction data identified that the suspect had a previous conviction for rape in Romania. Just prior to the trial, the individual disputed the Romanian conviction, but through close liaison with the central authority and the police liaison officer at the Romanian embassy in London, a set of fingerprints relating to the Romanian rape conviction was obtained and proved the conviction beyond doubt when they matched the suspect.
An application to use the previous conviction as bad character evidence was made by the prosecuting counsel and was granted by the judge, allowing the Romanian rape conviction to be put before the jury. The defendant was convicted of four counts of rape and other offences at the Inner London Crown court in July 2010. The defendant was given an indeterminate prison sentence, with a recommendation that he serve at least 11 years in jail as he presents a “high risk” of further sexual offences. The investigating officer on the case said:
“The use of foreign conviction data can be of great importance to police investigations. In my case, by working with the UK Central Authority I was able to draw on their professionalism and expertise to secure details of”—
the individual’s—
“previous conviction for rape in Romania which was put before the court and used as bad character evidence. This information undoubtedly assisted in providing a successful outcome, convicting a dangerous offender who will now spend a considerable number of years behind bars.”
Perhaps I hope that under European Union and Council of Europe prisoner transfer agreements, a good proportion of those years will be spent behind Romanian bars, but if I follow that up, I may be diverging from the immediate subject of the debate.
Mr Blunt
That case is far from unique. We should be clear that the Government want to remain within the directive precisely to enable such practical, common-sense sharing of data. It is not because we do not have concerns about the precise details or think it cannot be improved. It is because we make the judgment that we stand a much better chance of securing a sensible deal within the tent than outside it, and without risking the likelihood that by having to negotiate dozens of bilateral deals, we would endanger co-operation that the public depend upon.
It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that press coverage has warned about new rights for criminals under this measure. Let me set the record straight. All UK citizens under current law are able to know what information the state holds about them and can ask for data to be erased. But the ability of criminals to enjoy this right is, for obvious reasons, qualified. Put simply, the rights of the law-abiding public to security come first. Nothing in this proposed directive creates any new right for criminals or for anyone else.
Mr Raab
On that point. May I quote to the Minister directly from paragraph 50 of the impact assessment? It says that criminal justice sector agencies may also be prosecuted directly or via the Information Commissioner’s Office if they fail to protect personal data. This will represent a cost to them in terms of defending themselves in court and in paying fines and/or compensation that may result from these cases. Does that not conflict directly with what he has just told the House?
Mr Blunt
No, because these rights already exist. The suggestion in the newspapers yesterday, which I am sure my hon. Friend had nothing to do with, was about whether we were creating some new set of rights for criminals under the directive. No new set of rights is being created, any more than exist now under our own data protection laws.
Mr Blunt
No. Let me turn to the substantial content of the proposed directive and the policy issues that are raised. We want to see a system that allows police and judicial authorities to continue to protect and serve the public effectively and which also allows individuals to be confident that their privacy, safety and freedom will be safeguarded. The Government believe that these two objectives are not contradictory, but may be achieved in tandem, by creating a data protection framework that is founded on the principles of necessity and proportionality.
In the light of this position, there are legitimate concerns regarding the content of the directive. The United Kingdom believes in a principles-based approach that allows the necessary amount of flexibility in processing data. In some areas, the proposed directive seems far too prescriptive to meet this requirement.
Mr Blunt
Our priority in negotiations will be to resist the application of the directive to all domestic processing—that is, data sent between two United Kingdom agencies. Although article 6a of protocol 21 means that this will not apply to us, we feel that it is important to remove this expansion as such data processing should not be the subject of European Union rules. We will seek to remove that for all European Union countries.
As further examples, the proposal lays down new obligations for data controllers regarding the documentation and records that they must keep and the consultations that they must hold with the Information Commissioner’s Office in order for the processing to be considered compliant with the rules. We also have reservations about the compulsory appointment of data protection officers, a role that will need to be filled ostensibly to ensure that data controllers fulfil the various obligations presented to them, including those that I just outlined.
We already expect robust data protection governance as a matter of course in public authorities. However, we question the necessity of having the European Union telling us how to create, organise and run these arrangements. The more prescriptive and burdensome aspects of the directive are opposed by the Government and we will seek to remove or mitigate them during negotiations in the Council of the European Union. This is the beginning of a lengthy process of negotiating new data protection legislation, not the end. The UK will seek to influence negotiations in order to bring about outcomes that are more in line with our policy objectives, which is to end up with an effective but proportionate framework.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) could put the question on costs better than I could.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Minister, please resume your seat for a moment. Sir Peter, I thought that you wanted to intervene. You have been in the House a long time and know that you cannot stand up and then ask someone else to speak for you, unless you have lost your voice, which you have not.
Sir Peter Bottomley
You are right to correct me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think that I am also right in saying that every word in “Erskine May” may create a new precedent. My question, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dover would have put better, is this: will my hon. Friend the Minister start talking about costs at some stage during his very good speech?
Mr Blunt
I will not. I am unable to, because work is still ongoing on the impact assessment to try better to identify the precise costs of each measure. If my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the impact assessment, he will have noted that much of the assessment in this area is based on fairly tentative criteria. What are not included in the impact assessment are the benefits of a successful negotiation or the costs that would be inflicted on us if we chose to opt out and had to live with the consequences.
As I was saying, this is the beginning of a lengthy process of negotiating new data protection legislation, not the end. We will seek to influence negotiations in order to bring about outcomes that are more in line with our policy objective, which is to end up with an effective but proportionate framework. I note that every other member of the European Union faces that same challenge of finding the right balance between the two principal objectives: the privacy of our citizens and the protection of their data; and the protection of their interests through the operation of our police and criminal justice agencies. However, it is worth noting that the proposed directive is one part of a two-part package of revised data protection instruments that the Commission proposed in January; it also proposed a regulation that would cover general and commercial data processing by public and private bodies. The regulation is neither the trigger, nor the subject of this debate.
To return to the directive, which is the subject of today’s debate, let me summarise our position. We believe that an opt-out decision is a possibility for the Government but that it would be the wrong choice for the United Kingdom. We would need to replace the directive with bilateral agreements with each member state, which would be a time-consuming and tortuous process, and it is likely that in those negotiations we would find ourselves bound by aspects of the directive that we feel confident we can remove in negotiations.
The Government’s position, therefore, is clear: we want to be part of a European data protection framework that enables practical, common-sense sharing of data between member states’ law enforcement agencies engaged in the fight against international crime. We believe that the limiting effect of article 6a on the aspects of the directive that relate to data exchanges within the United Kingdom means that we should be content to be part of it, which will of course substantially reduce the costs identified in the impact assessment. Although there are areas of the proposal that the Government will seek to alter, I can unhesitatingly commend the motion to the House.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I will begin by saying that it is not the Opposition’s wish to divide the House on this resolution—
Mr Slaughter
I think I will take interventions a little later in my speech.
It is not my wish to speak for long. These debates, a number of which it has been my privilege to speak in over the past few months, are always animated, if only on the Government side of the House—indeed, sometimes I think mine is the last friendly voice the Minister hears.
Mr Slaughter
He is in a pretty desperate situation if that is true.
The animation in these debates often comes from what I might call the meta-issue of why we are discussing European law expansion at all, rather than the precise statutory powers being considered, or at least that is my observation. I intend neither to engage in that debate, nor—other than briefly—to discuss the matter of principle that the draft directive raises. In dealing with the matter of processing personal data for the purposes of preventing, detecting and prosecuting crime, there will always be a balancing act. On the one hand, the prevalence of cross-border crime, including serious and organised crime, crimes of violence, sexual crime and terrorism, is growing, and criminals and criminal gangs are becoming more organised and sophisticated and making better use of technology and information systems, so the police and prosecuting authorities must have the means to match them. On the other hand, the issue of data protection and privacy from the prying eyes of the state in particular is important, contentious and topical, from data storage to the Leveson inquiry.
In opposition, both Government parties set themselves up as opponents of data collection where it could be seen as intrusive, yet I read the following in today’s edition of The Guardian:
“Ministers are planning a shakeup of the law on the use of confidential personal data to make it far easier for government and public-sector organisations to share confidential information supplied by the public. Proposals to be published next month by the Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, are expected to include fast-track procedures for ministers to license the sharing of data in areas where it is currently prohibited.”
The Cabinet Office Minister said:
“In May we will publish the proposals that will make data sharing easier”.
The home affairs editor of The Guardian notes that
“databases continue to proliferate across Whitehall, even before the extension of data-sharing powers. Now the Cabinet Office minister…says government must be ‘smarter and more effective’ at sharing such sensitive data.”
It is not only the EU that has to undertake this tricky balancing of civil liberties with security and the pursuit of crime.
The issue before us is not one of principle, but whether the proposals achieve that balance. That question may be answered only in the further examination of the directive. As I have indicated, we do not oppose the Government’s decision today not to opt out, and I hope that that is clear.
Mr Slaughter
I do, and I was going to deal with that matter after raising a number of specific points of concern.
I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for its report, which states that
“there is now the possibility of establishing a comprehensive data protection framework ensuring both a high level of protection of individuals’ data in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and a smoother exchange of personal data between Member States’ police and judicial authorities, fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity.”
The report then adds:
“The Commission concludes that the practical difficulties encountered by a number of Member States in distinguishing between rules for domestic and cross-border data processing could be solved through a single set of rules covering data processing both at national level and in a cross-border context”.
The aim might be laudable, but the solution appears to say that, in order to avoid confusion, principles of subsidiarity should in fact give way to an overarching system controlled centrally. One consequence of that that the Minister has already alluded to is an extension of the scope of data processing to include domestic processing for the purpose of policing and judicial co-operation. In other words, the directive will regulate the passing of data between purely domestic organisations, such as neighbouring county police forces, and I share the Minister’s concern in raising that.
In the area of data protection, the draft directive is stronger and, I think, should be broadly welcomed. It includes: new rights of access and information for data subjects, such as the identity of the data controller, the purpose of the data processing and the period for which the data will be stored; a right for data subjects directly to demand the erasure of their personal data by the data controller; an obligation on data controllers to inform supervisory authorities and data subjects of data breaches, informing the former within 24 hours of discovery and the latter without undue delay; and an obligation for data controllers or processors to appoint data protection officers. The incorporation of human rights legislation—the Human Rights Act 1998—into UK law by the previous Labour Government has improved the right to privacy and to protection from intrusion into family life, but we still have some way to go.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said so far, but will he look in particular at the issue of Europol and how this exchange of information affects our obligation to it?
Mr Slaughter
I am happy to do that, and I am even happier to note the support from my Back Benchers—the almost unanimous support—[Interruption.] No, 50% might be a better figure.
The key to the balance that I have talked about is the drafting of the directive within very prescribed bounds to restrain the opportunities for data sharing, thus the controls for in-country transfer, to which the Minister has referred, are restricted—if one accepts what the draft directive says. As currently drafted, it covers data transferred between two UK regional police forces with no cross-border elements, but that will apply to the UK only when such processing is pursuant to an EU measure on police or judicial co-operation, and that is indeed what the draft directive states.
I just worry that sometimes the intention is not carried out in practice, and I cite—on a perhaps analogous subject—from the same Guardian article today this note of caution:
“Last week the European parliament ratified plans to allow airline passenger records, including credit card details, for all transatlantic flights between Europe and the US, including in and out of the UK, to be handed over to the US department of homeland security to be stored for 15 years.”
If these proposals are to go ahead, they need to do so in such a way that there are the tightest possible controls on the exchange of data.
Sir Peter Bottomley
First, does the hon. Gentleman, who is doing well, if I can say so without being patronising, think that when those data rules are breached the victim of the breach should be notified? Secondly, and separately, does he agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the problems of cost and of value for money are a matter for another day?
Mr Slaughter
I accept what the Minister has said—that the matter is at an early stage and we should not press him on those points. I am very happy to be patronised by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and whether he is asking by himself or by proxy—
Charlie Elphicke
I am proud to be the proxy for my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the generosity with which he has taken interventions and for the great courtesy that he brings to the House.
My concern is that we will end up with a free-of-cost subject access request. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Tony Blair, who wrote in his book, “A Journey”, that freedom of information requests and such costless information requests are one of the biggest mistakes and that one should be very careful about them?
Mr Slaughter
I must get around to reading that book, because it is quoted to me so often in these debates and exactly the same point is made. I am sure it is a very good read.
I conclude by quoting one paragraph from the proposed directive which sums up its laudable intention:
“When personal data moves across borders it may put at increased risk the ability of individuals to exercise data protection rights to protect themselves from the unlawful use or disclosure of that data. At the same time, supervisory authorities may find that they are unable to pursue complaints or conduct investigations relating to the activities outside their borders. Their efforts to work together in the cross-border context may also be hampered by insufficient preventative or remedial powers, inconsistent legal regimes. Therefore, there is a need to promote closer co-operation among data protection supervisory authorities to help them exchange information with their foreign counterparts.”
That neatly encapsulates the two principal aims of the proposals, as set out in the impact assessment: dealing with the fragmentation of data, when it prevents cross-border law enforcement, and allowing individual citizens to control their personal data. Those are proper aspirations, and we are prepared to give the directive the benefit of doubt at this stage, but I do await with interest, as I always do, the rest of the debate and, indeed, the Minister’s response.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I have a number of concerns about the motion. First, it is not just about introducing a directive, because it undermines existing British opt-outs in justice and home affairs; secondly, the Government’s own impact assessment raises serious concerns about the administration costs of the directive; and, finally, on a point to which the Minister alluded, the Government are themselves still undertaking consultation and work in this area. I shall put forward the novel proposal that we make a decision on this matter after that work is complete, not before it has been done.
On our opt-out, under a very unusual quirk of the Lisbon treaty, Britain has what is sometimes described as an opt-in protocol, meaning that by 1 June 2014 we have to make a very big decision. There are about 130 justice and home affairs measures, and we have a right to opt out of each and every one should we want to. We have to opt out of all of them en bloc, and we have to make our mind up within the next 18 months.
We should make that decision now. Let us look at all 130 powers, and let us be very clear that we are going to opt out of all of them en bloc. If we do so, we will have three options: abandon the whole lot but do some bilateral work in the area; agree with some and opt back into them but on our own terms; or do something similar to Denmark by opting into some or all of them but doing so outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
The problem with the directives, as they emerge, is that they subject us to the jurisdiction of the ECJ in a way that we are not subject at the moment. Every time we accept one of the new directives that are put before us, we replace an existing framework decision and lose the power to opt out of that area. The opt-out falls by default, so we should not take such decisions lightly, because the decision tonight is a decision to scrap a British opt-out, not just a decision to wave through an amendment.
One or two Members have touched on the explanatory memorandum, and it is quite damning. Paragraph 25, which relates to domestic processing, states:
“We…consider the impact of this on law enforcement agencies, in particular regarding the administrative burdens it places on them”
could be significant. It continues:
“The Data Protection Framework”—
which went before—
“does not cover domestic processing. We are considering the implications of this.”
Paragraph 28, which relates to data protection and design, states:
“The DPFD did not impose obligations to protect personal data by design and default and their inclusion in the Directive could prove to be a disproportionate cost and burden on the functionality of law enforcement bodies.”
Paragraph 30, on the data breach notifications requirement, states:
“This could add a resource burden on low enforcement agencies and be count-productive if it distracts data controllers from mitigating the adverse effects of the breach.”
Finally, the impact assessment refers to financial implications, and paragraph 33 states:
“The Directive, if adopted as is, poses a number of financial implications. In particular, police and law enforcement authorities would need to comply with specific obligations, such as the requirement to employ Data Protection Officers. We are examining the implications of these requirements further to determine how significant they would be”.
The memorandum is dated 13 February. When I contacted the Ministry of Justice today, it said that it had launched its consultation, but that it had not yet been concluded.
We should have gathered all the evidence together before making this decision. We must question why we are being asked to make this decision tonight, when all the information is not before us. The answer is that there is an arbitrary EU timetable that says that we have to make the decision by the middle of May. This is exactly what is wrong with the European Union: we are presented with these matters, but we are not given time to gather the evidence that we need before we are bounced into making a decision. That is a complete mistake.
I want to return to my first point about our opt-outs. People sometimes say that it is impossible to do anything in the European Union because it is too difficult to renegotiate matters and because treaty changes are needed. This area is the one exception to that: we do not need to renegotiate anything and we do not need a new treaty. Our opt-outs are already provided for. We must not allow the 130 British opt-outs to wither on the vine. We must decide now to opt out of all those provisions and adopt a more strategic approach to the ones that we will accept in future.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I intend to speak very briefly. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) made an eloquent and thoughtful speech, which indicated that we ought to spend much more time discussing justice and home affairs issues on the Floor of the House. I would like a debate on the European arrest warrant, because it has created enormous problems for the British judicial system. However, we have only an hour and a half and there are probably only about 30 minutes left, so I will be brief and raise only one point with the Minister, which is about the operation of Europol.
Last Friday, the European Commission had a meeting to which it invited the Chairs of the Home Affairs Committees of all the EU countries to discuss the future of Europol. I am concerned about how the directive might affect the way in which the Europol databases operate. I support what the Government are trying to do. They are clear that the reason why they want better data sharing among our EU partners is to combat Europe-wide crime. We have to share data if we are to deal with the organised criminal gangs that exist in the EU in so many areas of criminal activity, including drugs and human trafficking. However, we need to be careful about who gets the data and what use they make of them. That is why I am such a strong supporter of Europol. Anyone who has visited it will know that it has a particularly British dimension. The information that we give that organisation is kept very much under our control.
The Minister mentioned the case of a Romanian who came to this country and whose criminal record tracked him back to Romania. I would have thought that Europol should provide that assistance. It does not necessarily have to be done through bilateral help. I raise with the Minister the case of the Albanian who worked in a hotel in the midlands and beheaded his manager after a row with him. Only after he had committed that terrible criminal act was it discovered that he was wanted in Sweden and Switzerland on other charges before he came to the United Kingdom.
In looking at data sharing, I am concerned that we do not have enough information about those who come into this country. The Minister described the case of the Romanian and I have described the case of the Albanian—this is not an attack on eastern Europe, but since we have mentioned the nationality of these people, we may as well be open about it. It would have been better if we had known about the offences committed by those people at the time of their arrival. I do not think that the directive would have ensured that that information was provided, although perhaps I am wrong. However, it is important to know the criminal background of those who arrive at our borders and who come to live and work in this country. That would be sensible data sharing, as opposed to data sharing after the event. I hope that in his winding-up speech—if he does not make one, perhaps he will write to me—the Minister will speak about the implications of the directive for Europol.
Finally, I pay tribute to the European Scrutiny Committee and its Chairman. They do a splendid job. It is important that we have more such debates on the Floor of the House, even though they might sometimes be an irritant to Ministers. As with pre-summit debates in the House, which seem to have gone by the board, it is important that we have as much time as possible to discuss directives that will have far-reaching effects in the justice and home affairs area of EU policy.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The issue here is one of process as well as substance. I am sorry that the Lord Chancellor has just left the Chamber. I was glad to note that he was here before I rose, but he seemed to depart rapidly. I can only assume it was because some of the remarks that I am about to make may not be entirely to his liking or that of the Under-Secretary.
This is a Lidington debate, and the significance of such debates is that Parliament has an opportunity to debate, and vote on, motions that clearly set out the Government’s recommended approach—that they wish to exercise their right either to opt into a title V proposal or to opt out of a Schengen-building title V measure.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for his remarks on the substance of the matter, but there is a very important question to be asked about scrutiny. I speak as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, having just this afternoon come back from duties in relation to the Danish presidency.
I say to the Minister that the way in which this matter is being handled is a disgrace. I will of course refer to the Committee this quite blatant breach of the spirit of the proposals that we have agreed in the past, and I intend to ask the Committee whether it wants to bring him in front of us to explain himself and how this has been handled. It is that serious.
No mention of the Schengen protocol or offer of an opt-in debate was made in the Government’s explanatory memorandum of 13 February, as it should have been, nor was any formal correspondence to that end received by the European Scrutiny Committee. I also mention that the Schengen protocol gives the United Kingdom and Ireland three months to opt out of legislation that builds on the Schengen acquis. The Government’s omission is very significant and has meant that the Committee has not had the opportunity either to scrutinise the opt-in/opt-out decision or report to the House on it prior to a debate taking place.
It may be a matter of some interest to the House that there is no report before the House on the matter. Members can go to the Vote Office and get the Committee’s previous paperwork on the provision, based on our consideration of the explanatory memorandum of 13 February. In that document, we stated:
“It is regrettable that the Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum did not mention any of”
certain opt-in considerations, in blatant breach of Baroness Ashton’s undertaking to Parliament of 9 June 2008. We continued:
“We ask the Minister to keep us informed of progress in negotiations on the points of concern for the Government…We assume, therefore, that the negotiations are unlikely to be completed under the Danish Presidency, and would be grateful to be informed if and as soon as this assumption appears to be incorrect.”
On every single element of what I have just described, the Minister is completely in breach of undertakings and of the requirement to refer matters to the Committee appropriately.
The manner in which the decision has been explained is a disgrace. There has been no attempt to explain it, or its implications, to the House properly. I have to go further and say that Members will need an explanation for the Government’s omission, and I hope the Minister will find an opportunity to provide one before we conclude these proceedings. It must have been obvious to the Government that the draft directive was a Schengen-building measure, because several of the recitals state explicitly that it is and because the framework decision that it replaces was stated to be a Schengen-building measure. Recital 43 states that the UK is
“taking part in this Framework Decision, in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union.”
In order to have a meaningful and informed debate on the Floor of the House under the Lidington arrangements, the Committee should have had reasonable notice of the Government’s recommended approach. A mere 24 hours is clearly inadequate.
I could refer to many other matters, but the question on which I shall conclude is simply this: what negotiating strategy will the Government adopt to mitigate the negative impact of the proposal as drafted, and what is the Minister’s estimation of the likelihood that the Government’s strategy will succeed?
This is a very sorry day in the scrutiny of European legislation. I am only sorry the Lord Chancellor is not here, because if he were, I would invite him to go to the Dispatch Box instead of the Minister, who has let us down so woefully.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Were there to be a meeting of Ministers of European Union countries during the next few days, and were there to be either a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory outcome, how could it be reported to the House and how could we take a decision that supports or negates any decision that is taken this evening?
Mr Cash
I find it extraordinary that my hon. Friend should seek to defend the Government’s breach of a series of requirements as prescribed in the spirit of the orders before the House, but in addition, it is perfectly clear—to me at any rate—that these proceedings are happening because of the timetable of Prorogation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I wonder whether the real reason why this is being done in this appalling way, completely ignoring the proper forms of scrutiny, is that the Government know they have an absolutely rotten argument and thought they would push this through quickly while people were thinking about Prorogation and the Queen’s Speech and what will be in the next programme. It is little more than prestidigitation.
Mr Cash
I concur. Other hon. Members wish to speak, so all I can say is that this matter will not to be allowed to rest. We will look into it further. The Committee will expect the Minister to give an explanation in person to us. I shall leave my remarks at that for the time being.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who is just leaving the Chamber, made an excellent speech. I agreed with practically every word he said, as I did with the hon. Member for Stone, who outlined that the way in which the measure is being put through the House is totally against the way in which the new Government supposedly intended to treat European legislation. That is wrong but rather typical of Governments. This Government and the previous one, and everybody in the establishments of the parties at the top level, want to avoid a genuine debate––and certainly any debate in the country––and rush measures through.
I, too, read the directive checklist for analysis on EU proposals. I happen to feel sorry for poor Mr John Bowman, who is the lead policy official who wrote it, because everything in it points towards why we should not support the motion to not opt out of the directive. That is not just because of the cost analysis, but it is worth quoting that for the public, who may well be listening. It states:
“The proposals would impose substantial costs which would largely fall on the criminal justice agencies”
and ultimately on the taxpayer.
The checklist also states:
“The overall impact is likely to be substantially negative”.
I heard not one single word from the Minister on that. He should have listened to the previous European debate just an hour and a half ago, when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury took many questions and ended up getting a lot more information. This Minister simply wanted to get through his speech and was prepared only very rarely to give way. He did not in any way respond to all the arguments against supporting this motion tonight.
The ministerial sign-off—presumably by the Minister tonight—reads:
“I have read the analysis above of the potential impacts of this proposal and I am satisfied that, given the significance of the proposal, the time and evidence available, and the uncertainty of the outcome of negotiations, it represents a proportionate view of possible impacts.”
That is precisely why the people of this country are sick, sore and tired of everything that this Parliament does on the European Union.
If the outcome of the case of the Romanian rapist, who has suddenly become a very famous person tonight—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) also mentioned him—was possible before we had this directive, why do we need it? The system worked perfectly well in that case. It even worked for the Albanian head chopper. It seems to me that we are struggling for reasons to prove that this directive will help, but the real reason we are pushing it through quickly is, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said, that there is a whole raft of European Union regulations coming that we will have to make a decision on and this Government know that on their Back Benches, and increasingly on this side I am glad to say—although there are none here tonight apart from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East—resentment is felt towards the European Union and its regulations, its burden and its undemocratic nature. The Government therefore want to get this through as quickly as possible.
I cannot understand why we cannot have bilateral agreements. If we have the agreements there already, why cannot we strengthen them?
Henry Smith
Is it not the case that if we opt in to this directive, it will be a one-way decision that we cannot back out of? It will be decided through qualified majority voting, so we may not get exactly the sort of directive that would suit the United Kingdom, which is yet another reason.
Kate Hoey
I absolutely agree, and that is precisely what some of us wanted to ask the Minister about, but he was not prepared to take interventions. I hope that he will respond to some of these questions. He himself said that he does not like bits of it—some of it is excessively bureaucratic and it is far too prescriptive. He said that the Government do not like the domestic aspect of it, but that they will negotiate. He actually thinks that we are going to believe that we would manage to change very much of this, when the reality is that we rarely change things and we ultimately give in. We will give in on this. If this is put through tonight, no matter how much we decide that it is not a good thing, we can do nothing about it.
It is an absolute disgrace that after a one and a half hour debate, and my party refusing to even vote on it, this will be pushed through. This is just one more sign. I remind the House of the people’s pledge campaign, which is all-party—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East. We are keen to see a referendum on the European Union. It is holding by-election-type referendums across the country. In Thurrock, just before Easter, 90% of the people who voted—in a higher turnout than in most local elections—voted for an in/out referendum. Anyone who has been watching this debate tonight and listening to the arguments put by the Minister will even more strongly believe that we need a referendum and an opportunity for the people to decide their destiny.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This debate concludes at 9.20 and I would like to leave a few minutes at the end for the Minister. Members could help each other out by perhaps not speaking for quite so long, and then everyone can get in.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I will be conscious of your remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is, as always, a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). If this motion is passed tonight, it will result in yet another slice of the sovereignty of this House passing to Brussels and to the European Union. We have no obligation to do it. This country has every right to opt out of the measure, and that is exactly what we should do. The rest of the EU would, of course, continue to be bound by the measure, and if there was a benefit to our citizens, they would benefit too. If the House felt the need to legislate independently of the EU, we could do so, but we should not simply accept the measure as it stands.
We have a choice. The Government propose to inch further down the path to greater European integration—a path that, I submit, runs in the opposite direction to that in which the vast majority of the British public wish to go. Although the two Front-Bench teams might agree, I suspect that millions of people outside this place agree with those who have spoken from the Back Benches who, in this argument, are on the side of the British public. Once we have chosen not to exercise our right to opt out, there will be no option to reverse that decision, and we will have slipped yet further into the EU’s clutches.
The Minister expressed concern that if we did not accept the measure, other European countries might choose not to co-operate with us. My first thought to that was, “Simple. Let’s tell them we’ll stop sending the cheque every month.” That might soon get them into order. Then there is this nonsense that we might be obliged to enter bilateral agreements and that it is all too difficult. What nonsense! We have thousands and thousands of civil servants who must surely negotiate bilateral agreements all the time.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Not only would it not be too difficult but we have an agreement in place already under which it is a requirement of the EU that every effort be made to maximise its effectiveness in the event of it being replaced. So the Government’s argument does not stand up.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would not be at all difficult, as the Minister suggested, for us to reach separate bilateral agreements, not just with the remaining 26 members but with the other European countries that are not members. We need to be doing deals with them as well, if this is such a good idea.
As pointed out, if we adopted this measure, it would have significant resource implications, as paragraph 33 of the Government’s explanatory memorandum, dated 13 February, makes clear. At a time when the whole thrust of Government policy is aimed at reducing the amount of regulation, our public services will have to contend with yet more rules and regulations. Many will rightly question why we are subjecting them to more Brussels red tape. The bundle of papers available from the Vote Office on this motion demonstrates the size of the problem. It contains well over 300 sides of A4 paper. So we have more regulations, the cost of which we know not. In essence, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. We should not be taking this step, and I urge the House to vote against the motion.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who powerfully and eloquently put the constitutional case against the measure.
The motion gives the House an opportunity to assess the latest proposals from Brussels on the processing of personal data by the police and other law enforcement agencies. Like others, I am surprised and disappointed that the motion endorsing the opt-in, which is an important step for the reasons already mentioned, first appeared on the Order Paper this morning. Now we learn that the Ministry of Justice impact assessment—the basis on which the House is scrutinising this measure—is fundamentally flawed, having omitted the decisive considerations Ministers have relied on. That is a poor basis for Parliament to exercise its scrutiny prerogatives on.
The Commission argues that the provisions are needed because of the speed of technological change and the increasing amount of information being transferred, but the draft directive would make data protection obligations more onerous and more expensive for UK police forces. The police would have to appoint specialist data protection officers. There would be restrictions on the information that could be held, and rules to allow suspects and criminals to know what data are being held on them and to request amendments and deletion of that information. These are clearly and palpably new rights; it is completely wrong to suggest otherwise.
The directive will apply not only to cross-border investigations but to data transferred between two UK forces, subject to what the Minister has said. The EU sees the proposals as a safeguard but, in reality, they risk creating a bureaucratic straitjacket, sowing legal confusion and adding to the costs of police forces on the front line. The Ministry of Justice impact assessment put it very clearly when it stated that
“many of the new obligations appear disproportionate and unnecessary leading to an overall negative outcome.”
So why are we opting in, against departmental advice?
I listened to the new arguments advanced by the Minister this evening, but I find it unacceptable that they are wholly missing from the impact assessment and that they have not been reviewed by the European Scrutiny Committee. We have heard the standard boilerplate arguments for meekly submitting to extra EU regulation, and there has been no analysis at all of the countervailing arguments, which, if they are as serious as has been suggested, we really ought to be scrutinising properly. At the very least, should we not wait until Ministers have quantified the administration costs of the measures to police forces?
The impact assessment estimates that there will be substantial costs to the police and other agencies, but we have no further details. When will a proper assessment be made? Has the Association of Chief Police Officers, or any individual police force, been asked for a view of the operational impact of the measures? We know that the Ministry of Justice has looked at them; have the Home Office or police forces in general done so? We ought to learn a lesson from the Abu Qatada saga, which is dragging on, and be acutely aware of the real risk of European legislation, judicial or otherwise, tying the hands of UK law enforcement.
When it comes to data protection and related privacy rights, we have been here before. The House will remember the case of Gary Ellis, a serial thief and burglar. In 2003, Essex police were forced to abandon a crime-fighting campaign that would have displayed his picture across his home town of Brentwood in an attempt to deter him and warn potential victims. The courts banned the posters because they breached his privacy rights under article 8 of the convention.
In 2008, the Serious Organised Crime Agency had similar problems with 41 criminals under financial reporting orders. It was forced to protect their privacy and therefore not publish the orders, which led to SOCA’s head, Sir Stephen Lander, publicly expressing his frustration. I appreciate that those cases involve a slightly different set of rights, but they are related and the impact is similar. Is not the reality that this opaque directive will risk arming offenders with yet another legal weapon with which to sue those whose job it is to put them behind bars and protect the public? Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the impact assessment also highlight the cost of civil litigation brought by offenders and suspects against the police and others, and even the prospect of prosecution by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
I note the Minister’s statement that there were no new rights, but paragraph 47 of the impact assessment states that it is likely that this proposal—not existing rights—could have
“a large impact on CJS agencies.”
The risk of such unintended legal consequences is aggravated by the fact that the new directive will be subject to the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is why assurances about the limits of its application cannot be relied on.
When it comes to pan-European co-operation, as opposed to data sharing within the UK, the impact assessment is equally sceptical. It states that, far from making us more secure, there will be an increased risk from criminal acts because the directive will gum up international data sharing by adding burdens that will discourage co-operation. Overall, this is a bleak assessment. It raises the question why is Brussels micro-managing policing and law enforcement? If we need a change to our data protection rules, it should be tailored to the problem under national law and in relation to national law enforcement agencies. Why, given the Ministry’s lousy impact assessment, are we even contemplating opting in?
Bitter experience suggests that we may end up with gold-plated provisions protecting UK criminals while other EU countries would apply the provisions selectively, if at all. The obvious course, which I understand is available—I stand to be corrected by the Minister or hon. Members who are lawyers if I am wrong—is to remain at the negotiating table, albeit without a vote, and to decide whether or not we like the end product in due course. Why have Ministers opted against that specific course of action? Why cannot we go down that route? As to relying on bilateral co-operation outside the justice and home affairs regime, can we seriously say that the prospect of negotiating bilateral treaties has harmed public protection, national security or law enforcement for the Swiss or the Norwegians?
Beyond these practical problems, there is a constitutional dimension. The new directive would replace the 2008 EU rules on data protection. These are part of the 130 measures in respect of which we need to decide whether to repatriate or to accept the full jurisdiction of the European Court from 2014. Any laws amended or replaced are not subject to that block opt-out, so by opting out of this measure, we will prevent the UK from opting out of this area of EU policy making later. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) made that point eloquently and powerfully.
As with most international law enforcement co-operation, effective data sharing is achieved through practical co-operation between national authorities, not through top-down bureaucratic schemes. We do not have a proper analysis of the cost of the directive, and we do not have a proper assessment of the operational impact. The impact assessment has not even been signed off by a Minister. In those circumstances, frankly, it would be irresponsible to commit the UK to this measure without further detail and without further scrutiny. I cannot support the motion.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
A number of Members have commented on the process, and it will be appropriate for the Minister to respond to them. I suspect that I am not in agreement on European issues with most of those who have spoken so far, but we can agree that European issues need to be discussed in more depth. In my view, if we had that in-depth debate, some people would reach different conclusions on European matters than they do now.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the draft directive. I want to highlight the fact that this is about the processing of personal data for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution. I emphasise “investigation” because much of the focus has been on criminals, as has been the case with the Mail Online, but many of the people we are dealing with and much of the data being exchanged are relevant to investigations. People who are being investigated may not, of course, be criminals at all.
The Commission highlights the fact that new technologies require a refresh of some of the standards that are in place. We are also debating communications and how we are going to address the new technologies. The Commission is seeking to achieve greater efficiencies in law enforcement co-operation. We have heard a lot tonight about the cost of this particular proposal, but we have heard a lot less about the cost of trying to negotiate this 27 times over in the European Union. We should bear that in mind, too.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said—I am not sure whether it was in a speech or an intervention—that this is all very complicated, but I do not think it is. The directive’s content is quite straightforward. It deals with the principles governing personal data processing and the rights of individuals to access their personal data, to rectify or erase them. It talks about obligations on data controllers and data processors and so forth. All that is fairly straightforward.
It is interesting to note that the Mail Online is running a campaign on issues to do with the communications database, which I welcome. It talks about standards and who can have access to and control data, yet for this particular proposal, which in many respects is about the same issue of maintaining standards, it has adopted a different position.
This is about cross-border co-operation on crime. I look forward to the debate that we will have—in fact, it may be a debate times 130—about the different proposals that we as a nation may wish to opt in or out of at some point before the end of 2014. I expect us to debate whether measures such as the European arrest warrant, which I accept could be improved on, are helping to bring to justice rapists, murderers and paedophiles. That is what they are there for and what the police believe they are being effective in doing, and that is what we will debate in the Chamber many times over the next couple of years.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
So many instruments in the security and home affairs field are being either repealed or amended that it may not be open to us to make the decision about large numbers in 2014, because we will no longer have any ability to make a choice as a nation other than through a referendum on our membership of the European Union.
Tom Brake
I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I certainly think that we need to embark on the debate on these measures sooner rather than later because of the potential for Parliament to grind to a halt, which I hope all Members agree would not be in its interests.
The Minister touched on the issue of the directive being a Schengen-building measure. I ask him to reassure me that that is absolutely certain, because I think that there is some uncertainty. I am glad that the Government intend to make it clear that there should be no attempt to impose standards in relation to internal processing.
It has been alleged that the directive might allow criminals to gain access to, or indeed delete, information about themselves. Article 12 of the draft directive states that the right to know the purpose of processing and to whom personal data have been sent can be refused by the police on the grounds that it would obstruct
“official or legal inquiries, investigations or procedures”.
The directive has clearly taken on board the concerns expressed by some Members and parts of the press.
The Government have rightly highlighted concerns about the requirement to act immediately on data security breaches, and I expect them to seek to negotiate on that in the discussions that will take place.
I welcome the position adopted by the Government. I am sure that this is just one of very many similar debates that we shall have over the next 12 or 18 months, which I think will give us an opportunity to highlight many of the positive proposals that have been implemented at EU level to ensure that the police and the judicial system become more effective.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I represent what are probably some of the most Eurosceptic electors in the country, but they feel passionately about one issue: the need to ensure that Europe works when it comes to dealing with international crime. We see at first hand the problems of people-trafficking and people-smuggling, particularly the disgraceful exploitation of women who are carted secretly over our border and slipped into such places as Soho.
We see drug running, international organised crime, gun running and all the rest of it—that is, some of the most serious international crimes, on which we absolutely have to have co-operation. I therefore strongly support measures to ensure effective international co-operation. However, we have to ask whether this directive is on the side of international co-operation to tackle crime. Is it on the side of law enforcement, or is it on the side of the villain and protecting the villain’s rights? Is it yet another villain’s charter by proxy, emanating from the European Union?
For me, the balance shows the right intent—that we should co-operate—but what we have from the European Union is the wrong way of going about that. We need to give our law enforcement agencies the strongest possible tools to fight crime and the serious international gangs, and so on. However, I am worried because, having listened to this debate, it seems to me that we do not need to opt in at this stage. From the discussion and debate so far, it seems that we could take part in the negotiations, reserving our position, and decide to opt in later. We have the possibility of co-operating bilaterally. Up to now, we have co-operated quite successfully, and to date we have managed to data-share. Why will that suddenly come to a crashing halt if we have a right of privacy and a right not to data-share for criminals and villains, whom we should be fighting with all the data at our disposal?
I am concerned about the lack of attention to detail. Let us look at the checklist analysis that has been provided in the Vote Office, which no Minister has signed. It is a basic thing, but no one paid sufficient attention to detail to ensure that it was signed. Let us look at the Order Paper. The first thing we knew, late last night, was that this motion would be on the Order Paper in the form that it is. Why do Ministers not reach out to Back Benchers, to make the case and to win friends and influence people? The one example given by the Minister—the example of the Romanian—seems a stronger argument for reforming the European arrest warrant than for supporting this directive.
My principal concern, and the principal concern that my constituents will have, is this. Of course we should have international co-operation, and of course we should combat international crime, but are our Ministers going to make the case passionately in Europe, on a line-item basis? Are they going to show that attention to detail, when they will not even accept an intervention from Members on their own side, which in my case was going to be helpful? I am concerned that we should be making sure that we are not frit when we put the case in Europe—that we are strong and trenchant, and that we ensure that our European friends focus on the necessity of ensuring that our law-enforcement agencies are sent into battle not with one hand tied behind their back, but with the full support of all European nations to ensure that we deal with the scourge and evils of international crime.
Many workers in my constituency work tirelessly on the front line for the UK Border Agency. Paragraph 30 of the impact assessment says that the UKBA is seriously concerned, because although people would normally be charged a tenner for a data request, under this proposal it will be completely free. That means that people could be bombing them in all the time, at great administrative expense and effort—for the UKBA, in this case. The UKBA receives 22,000 such requests every year. At the moment, the charge of a tenner wards off ever more requests. Indeed, the UKBA says that the charge should be higher, in order to ward off more vexatious requests. Its preference is for
“an increase in the fee limit to above the present £10 level.”
The UKBA is not going to be happy that the Europeans come along and say, “Actually, it should all be free.” We need Ministers to go to Europe to make the case passionately to our European colleagues that we must ensure that we do not give a blank cheque to anyone who wants to be vexatious in order to protect the so-called privacy of potential villains and criminals. We must send our law enforcement agencies into battle with our strong and passionate support, so we can deal with the great evils of international crime.
The one area on which my constituents support the EU is in respect of co-operation, but we must also ensure that our criminal justice services are not under threat of prosecution, as suggested at paragraph 50 of the impact assessment. I am deeply concerned that the overall impact of this will be substantially negative, even if it is difficult to be specific about that. I hope that Ministers will make a strong and passionate case for taking away the bad things in this directive and ensuring we keep the good things. I urge the Minister not to be frit. Instead, he must be strong and trenchant and win the day.
Mr Blunt
After that contribution, it is clear that I owe my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) an apology for not having taken his intervention, not least because he welcomed the Government’s general objectives and the balances we are seeking to strike. However, he did then say that this was another villain’s charter from the EU—an argument that some in the press have also made.
The rights of United Kingdom citizens under our existing laws under the Data Protection Act—their rights to access information and for information to be erased—are pretty much the same as what is being proposed in this directive. The same rights of the authorities not to have to erase data that are important for criminal investigations will also continue to exist in the future.
Let me turn to the important question of process, and address the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I am perfectly happy to concede that these matters could have been handled better. One of the constraints we have placed on ourselves in the so-called Lidington debates is to bring the measures relating to opt-ins or opt-outs under the Schengen protocol to the House and give Members the opportunity to debate them. My hon. Friend pointed out that there is the small matter of prorogation. The decision on the opt-out must be taken on 14 May. [Interruption.] Well, that is what is in the treaties of the EU. The Government have to decide whether to opt-out by 14 May, and we are also committed to coming to the House and giving Members the opportunity to debate.
The information given to my hon. Friend—which was given within 10 days of the directive being published—made no reference to Schengen. I will examine why that was the case, but I am advised that whether or not the matter fell within Schengen was still under examination at the time. There is also an element of legal opinion as to whether or not the Schengen acquis can be correctly claimed by the Commission when it comes forward with these measures. There is an element of process to be applied, therefore, rather than our just taking at face value Commission statements on regulations and directives and whether measures are compliant with Schengen.
Mr Cash
When the Minister reads the transcript, he will see that the matter is specifically referred to in the framework decision recitals. I do not think there is any debate about this point, therefore. What I would like to know is whether the Minister for Europe consulted the Minister on this matter; after all, the Lidington debates are based on an assumption in the context of decisions taken by this House in the light of what the Minister himself specified.
Mr Blunt
No, I did not speak directly to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. Yes, it is in the recitals, but the regulation published by the European Commission in parallel with this also asserts some involvement with Schengen, which we dispute. These issues are not always very straightforward. On the timetable we have placed on ourselves to have this debate in time for the Government’s decision on the opt-out, which has to be taken, and on parliamentary arrangements, I accept that things could always have been done better—
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would appreciate your ruling on the appropriateness of commencing this important debate on the national planning policy framework with only about half an hour of parliamentary time available. Surely this is shambolic organisation, mirroring the NPPF process itself. Would it be possible to have the debate rescheduled, bearing in mind the commitment given by the Minister in this House on 27 March to have a full parliamentary debate on the subject?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The time available for this debate was always to be a function of the amount of time taken by earlier proceedings, and therefore what was left at the end. However, as the scheduling of business is a matter for the Government and as the Minister leading the debate is here, and no less a figure than the Deputy Leader of the House is in his place, it is open to, though not obligatory for, either of those distinguished hon. or right hon. Members to respond to the hon. Lady’s point of order, if either wishes to do so.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
Mr Speaker, I am anxious to get on with the debate. I have had some indications from my right hon. and hon. Friends that, although we may commence the debate this evening, it will be possible for us to continue it in the days ahead. I hope that we can make a start and that Members can make their contribution on this very important subject.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has just said.
We now come to the motion relating to the national planning policy framework, and I shall deny the Minister, who is so eager and enthusiastic, not a moment longer.
National Planning Policy Framework
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the National Planning Policy Framework.
It is a pleasure to open this debate, as we promised to have at the earliest opportunity a debate on the national planning policy framework. I did not expect it to be in two parts, but never mind. Good things come to those who wait.
I begin with a word of thanks to colleagues in all parts of the House who contributed to the consultation on the national planning policy framework, including the Chairs of the two Select Committees who gave distinguished reports and who are present here tonight and will, I hope, be able to speak later in the debate. I thank those who contributed in previous debates that we have had in the House. We have had one debate here and two in the other place, all of which were important contributors to the scrutiny of the framework.
I want to thank every Member who wrote on behalf of their constituents. My own constituency, Tunbridge Wells, is famous for its letter writers. I thought we were unparalleled in the volume of correspondence that we could generate, but I have discovered during the past few months that there are many such constituencies, including Cheltenham, Hitchin and Harpenden, and West Worcestershire. So Tunbridge Wells must respond to a challenge that I had not anticipated. All the points that have been made by Members during debates, by the Select Committees and in letters have been carefully taken into account. I hope that as we conduct the debate we will reflect and Members will be able to identify the particular contributions that they made and they will see them preserved for posterity in the framework.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the postbag was bulging with representations from the constituents of Devizes. He will be glad to hear that when I took members of the Trust for Devizes through the current proposals, they warmly welcomed the changes and thanked him for listening.
Greg Clark
I am delighted to hear that from my hon. Friend. She is right in saying that the contribution of the constituents of Devizes to the NPPF has been signal and will be there for posterity.
It has been right to conduct this consultation using an approach that seeks to build consensus. After all, the consequences of planning extend beyond any particular Government or Parliament. It is right to have sought to reflect all the different contributions.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
What importance is to be attached to the protection of the natural environment, particularly where it abuts existing urban communities, and what about the protection and the greening of the urban environment where it already exists in our towns?
Greg Clark
Both points are of the utmost importance and were reflected by my hon. Friend in his contribution to the consultation. I will have more to say about that as I make progress.
It was, I think, Sir Winston Churchill who said, “We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.” That might be applied to planning policy, so it is right that we have taken the approach that we did. Our reforms have three objectives—first, to transfer power to communities, to give them more power and authority in the planning system than they have been used to having for many years; secondly, to ensure that we support the building of the homes that the next generation will need and the jobs that all our constituents need now and in the future; and thirdly to ensure that the next generation inherits an environment, natural and historic, that is at least the equal of the environment that we inherited. In my view, it should be better than the environment that we inherited. I believe in progress.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Will the Minister recognise that as a result of two years of almost unprecedented chaos and confusion about where planning policy is going, we now see the lowest level of housing starts that has been recorded in recent history? Does he accept that what he has done is to create a climate where the entire house building industry is deeply worried about the prospects of new homes, and the custodians of the countryside are equally worried about whether the countryside is safe? That is the record that he has achieved over the past two years and he should apologise for the mess that he has caused.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman, of whom I am fond, is confusing his own record with that of the Government. It was his Government who, in over a decade in power, built on average the lowest number of houses in peacetime in the past 100 years. Since the low point for house building during the recession, housing starts are up by 25%. I commend to him what his right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has said:
“I inherited the regional spatial strategies”.
I think that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) had something to do with those.
Greg Clark
Another person who is keen not to be associated with the strategies—I understand that. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne said that he
“quickly found that they had…few friends”—
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is another ex-friend. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
“our regional spatial strategies and our approach to planning…was too top-down”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 272WH.]
That is a matter of consensus across the House.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that he probably inherited a planning system that meant that constituents such as mine felt completely divorced from any achievement in the planning system? In fact, they had no say whatsoever in the chaotic system of house building that meant that constituencies such as mine were inundated with planning applications that they had no say over.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I am delighted to welcome a new convert to localism. I chided the shadow Secretary of State when we published the framework and said, perhaps unfairly, that he was an old centralist. It must have had quite an effect, because he has now published an article, in The Daily Telegraph of all places, in which he gives a paean of praise to localism. He writes:
“I want to see a radical devolution of power to local communities. We should do this both because it is right and because there is so much skill and potential in every community to make more of its own decisions.”
I could not have put it better myself and am delighted that he has been converted to the cause.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I am sure that the Minister will agree that if we are to have efficient planning policy there needs to be consistency in planning decisions right across the United Kingdom.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There were more than 1,000 pages of planning policy across 44 different documents of various vintages, so contradictions between them were inevitable, and that was one of the reasons for the inconsistency. Part of the point of consolidating them into a single document is to make it easier to have consistency.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Residents of Bromley are reassured by the reiteration of protections for the green belt, but can my right hon. Friend guarantee that metropolitan open land and urban open spaces will continue to enjoy the protections that they currently enjoy under the new NPPF?
Greg Clark
Yes, and I know how important that is in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
This debate on the NPPF is timely, because the Public Administration Committee today highlighted the dire absence of a strategic approach to complex challenges from the Government. Can the Minister begin to reassure us that he really understands the need for strategic leadership by telling us what resources, guidance and assistance he will provide to ensure that local authorities have the capacity to deliver carbon reductions in line with the Climate Change Act 2008, as foreseen by the NPPF?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that, as we transfer power to local authorities, it is right to support them in producing local plans, including those on environmental matters, and setting ambitious standards that they expect for local buildings and contributions to the built environment, and we will support them in that. If she talks with her colleagues in the Local Government Association, she will see that they recognise that the engagement we have had has been very productive.
Let me make progress and mention some of the features of the new NPPF, which reflect the contributions that Members from both sides of the House have made. The NPPF makes it crystal clear, as most people recognise, that the local plan is the keystone of the planning system. It continues to protect our green belt and other areas, such as sites of special scientific interest and national parks, which are of great importance to us. It recognises the intrinsic value of the countryside as something we hold very dear. It establishes the importance of bringing brownfield sites back into use. It recognises and reinforces the importance of town centres. It embraces the five pillars of the UK’s sustainable development strategy, something that I know the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pressed on us during the consultation, but it goes further, because that was not stretching enough, and it requires net gains for nature. It has the most exacting design standards ever seen in the English planning system, it allows councils to protects gardens, it provides robust protection for playing fields, it gives 12 months’ transitional arrangements and it ensures that no council is disadvantaged if it has done the right thing and prepared local plans.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Members have been quick to congratulate the Minister, as I do, on listening to the feedback that he received about the draft NPPF, but is he as confident that, as a result of those changes, local authorities will make changes to their local plans, or do we risk them carrying on in the same direction that they were heading in before?
Greg Clark
We have seen great enthusiasm on the part of councils, which have campaigned for as many years as many Members to have the ability and the authority to produce plans themselves. Despite the fact that they have been required since 2004 to adopt local plans, only about half have been able to do so, and we want to see that speeded up, because the essence of localism is that local decisions are taken locally in accordance with a plan that reflects all the views of local people.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I am completely with my right hon. Friend on the consistent application of the plans, on the local plans themselves and on local people being involved, but what then of the final piece of the jigsaw, the reform of the Planning Inspectorate, which in many rulings completely contradicts all local input?
Greg Clark
Part of the problem with the Planning Inspectorate is that, in the regime to date, it has been required to interpret voluminous national planning regulations—many times in a state of inconsistency—and to apply regional spatial strategies. The conflict between those things, caused by successive Governments and, in particular, by the previous Government’s imposition of regional strategies, often leads in the planning system to a real tension and often antagonism, which is a disaster for the future prosperity of our country.
By putting power into the hands of local people so they see that decisions are going to be taken locally and respected locally, part of the purpose of our reforms is to move away from the situation in which decisions taken locally are overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. I have made that very clear to the inspectorate. I went to speak to the inspectorate the morning after we published the NPPF, and I made it very clear that the framework is a localist document which it is to respect.
Greg Clark
I shall give way to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee and then make some progress.
Mr Betts
The document that the Government have now produced is clearly an awful lot better than the draft, and the Minister has complimented the Committee on the report that we produced, but in the end the real test is whether the new guidance is better than the old guidance—presumably whether, as a result of the changes, we get more houses built, more green energy projects approved and more development in general. But, if the sum total of all local decisions to which the Minister has referred does not account for the amount of growth that the Government want to see delivered in the economy as a whole, what will be the Government’s answer to that?
Greg Clark
We do expect to see more homes delivered, and one feature of the previous system was that, despite having national and regional targets, it bore no relation to what was being built on the ground. Our contention, which has been established through the consultation, is that if we work with the grain of people, if people have the types of homes that they want to see in their environment, and if we raise design standards so that people feel that they are a positive contribution to the built environment, we are likely to avoid the contention that has thwarted the delivery of homes. Such delivery is crucial to all our constituents: we cannot go on with a situation in which we fail to provide homes and employment spaces for them.
The outcome of the consultation has proved satisfactory to many commentators. Almost everyone who commented did so favourably, and they might give the hon. Gentleman some confidence in the idea that the people who gave evidence to his inquiry feel positive about the results.
It is fair to say that the outcome is going to be good for the economy. The CBI said that it
“gets the balance right between supporting jobs and growth, and serving the interests of the environment and society.”
The Institute of Directors said:
“It is great to see hundreds of…unnecessary rules being cut out of the planning system... Britain needs to get building again and these reforms allow that to happen”.
That addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point directly.
The NPPF is good for anyone who needs a home. The National Housing Federation, which, as Members know, represents social housing providers, said:
“The NPPF will give England the simpler, speedier and more positive planning system it needs.”
The Home Builders Federation said:
“The new system strikes a sensible balance between economic growth, social need and environmental considerations.”
It also stated that it is
“a sound basis for a more pro-growth planning system”.
The NPPF is good for the countryside and rural prosperity. The Country Land and Business Association said:
“The section on supporting a prosperous rural economy is excellent, laying the foundations for the growth of all types of business in rural areas.”
The framework is good for town centres. The British Retail Consortium said:
“The NPPF should do a lot to boost the country’s high streets and encourage vibrant town centres.”
It goes on:
“These practical measures…should help bring a boost to local economies.”
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On the future of the countryside, the Minister will be aware that the exceptions approach to housing in rural areas is helpful in delivering affordable housing to rural communities, particularly in deeply rural areas. Will the Minister reassure me and the House that after the transition period, when I am sure many rural authorities will not have put their local plans back in place, the exceptions policy will be deliverable across the countryside, because that is essential?
Greg Clark
It certainly will be. What I did not say was that the National Housing Federation specifically commended the inclusion of the exceptions policy in the draft NPPF.
The framework is good for sport. The Rugby Football Union, the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Lawn Tennis Association and the Rugby Football League said:
“We all welcome the safeguards for sport contained within the NPPF. Thank you for your support and commitment to the sports sector—we are extremely grateful”.
The NPPF is good for excellence in design. The Royal Institute of British Architects said:
“We are delighted that the Government has accepted many of the key recommendations put forward by the RIBA.”
It stated that the framework
“will send a clear message to developers, planning officers and committees that poor quality development will no longer be accepted.”
The Design Council said that it
“wanted to say how much we welcome the fresh approach to design and to raising the bar on design standards to new heights”.
The framework is good for wildlife. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said:
“We had 3 red lines for a successful NPPF and these have all been met. The NPPF properly reflects the ambitions of the”—
natural environment White Paper—
“to halt the decline in biodiversity and to secure net gains”.
The NPPF is good for the arts. The Theatres Trust said:
“we celebrate a national planning policy that not only recognises culture, it also creates specific policies that both plan positively for cultural facilities and guard against their loss.”
It is good for our historic assets. English Heritage said:
“Thank you for your confident engagement with EH. Between us we should have secured our fabulous historic environment. We are well pleased with the result”.
The NPPF is good for local democracy. The Local Government Association said that
“local people will have a real say”
and that the framework will
“make it easier for town halls to tailor the planning system towards supporting growth that meets the area’s needs.”
The National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish and town councils, said that the proposals
“will empower communities and local councils to energise their neighbourhoods”.
The NPPF is good for everyone. The National Trust said:
“Thank you for listening to our concerns and those of our members. It is a remarkable achievement to have united almost all of the disparate voices involved”.
I think that the “almost” might have referred to some Opposition Members, but I have not given up on them.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is coming to this point, but as the chair of the all-party parliamentary save the pub group, I commend him and the ministerial team on including pubs in the national planning policy framework for the first time. Will he ensure that the message goes out strongly that this is not the end of the matter? Local authorities will have the responsibility of ensuring that local services such as pubs, post offices and local shops are protected. Council planning departments can no longer ignore that consideration, because it is becoming their responsibility.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend has made a distinguished contribution to the debate. Modesty alone forbade me from including the praise that was sent by the representatives of the pub companies.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister on all his congratulations, which are well deserved. When it comes to local democracy, the framework compares very favourably with the regional spatial strategies, which wasted tens of millions of pounds and generated tens of thousands of objections. Does he accept that there is a slight risk that when local plans come to be examined in public, we will again see the influence of the Planning Inspectorate and elements of the local plans may be overturned? Does he agree that when it comes to local plans, the default answer from the Planning Inspectorate ought to be yes?
Greg Clark
I met the Planning Inspectorate and almost all the planning inspectors who were in conference in Bristol the day after the NPPF was launched. I made it crystal clear that it provided for a localist approach and provided a framework for local decisions, and that I expected decisions to be taken in that vein. I will also expect to see a sample of the decisions that are being taken, including after the examination of plans, to ensure that that is happening. On the basis of my direct discussions with the Planning Inspectorate, I am very confident that that is understood.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for allowing me to interrupt his long line of congratulations. We half expected a telegram from the Queen and a note from his mum at some point. They are on their way. The serious point is that the Government have promised a lot on the subject of localism, but two years in, many local communities feel that even the reforms that the Minister has put forward have not delivered localism. What will he do to encourage communities to be confident that the Government will not turn their back on them?
Greg Clark
I confess that I was not able to include a telegram from the Queen, but I understand that the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community is extremely positive about the NPPF.
We find great enthusiasm across the country. In fact, I believe the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) is one of the champions of a neighbourhood plan in the city. Right across the country, people are taking up their new rights with great interest and enthusiasm.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for being so generous in allowing interventions. Has he found from talking to parish councils, as I have, that one thing that appeals to them about the NPPF is the simplification of the system, which means that they and their local residents can actually understand the framework without needing a highly paid solicitor or lawyer to give them advice as they did before?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To have a localist approach and allow people to engage with the planning system locally, the NPPF needs to be intelligible to them. People have concluded that it is not only shorter but written in a style that is accessible to people in communities. That is what planning is about—people coming together in communities to express a vision for their future. We have to let them in.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend encouraged, as I am, that although it was feared that neighbourhoods would not accept development, the very first neighbourhood plan to come forward—in Dawlish, I understand—included proposals for a new housing development? Does he find that as encouraging as other Government Members do?
Greg Clark
I do indeed, and that is not untypical. In the town of Thame, in the constituency of my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), a neighbourhood plan is being promoted that involves the provision of housing for local people. We are seeing that across the country.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on an excellent consultation, which showed all Departments how it should be done. Localism really matters to our constituents, and nowhere more so than in Totnes. Their only regret is that it has come late, and they would like to be able to set back the clock and have local consultation on a number of projects, such as the Riverside development, that are causing great local concern.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What Totnes does today, the rest of the country will do tomorrow. We are taking the spirit of Totnes around the country and people are responding with enthusiasm.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Did the Minister receive letters of congratulation from planning lawyers?
Greg Clark
Not especially, but I hope they will have time on their hands in future to engage in some retraining.
I am grateful for all the time and effort that many Members put into the consultation. We took it seriously, and I am glad to say that the framework has been strengthened as a result. I am determined that having had that role in the development of the framework, Parliament should continue to supervise its implementation. It will have a further opportunity to do that when the debate is continued in the days ahead. Beyond that, as well as the work of Select Committees and Question Time, I hope we will have the opportunity in the years ahead to have regular debates on planning policy in the Chamber.
The fact that over the past few months planning policy has come into the public eye and been widely debated is a good thing. I want to continue in that vein not only so that people get involved in planning locally, but so that the subject engages the whole House, as it is entitled to do.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given you notice. Very recently, in the course of an Adjournment debate, both an hon. Labour Member and myself were refused by a Minister the opportunity to make a brief intervention while he had the floor. He explained in all sincerity afterwards that he thought one had to ask permission in advance of an Adjournment debate—both of the hon. Member whose Adjournment debate it is and of the Minister concerned—whether one could make such an intervention. For the sake of the clarity, would you make an pronouncement on that? If, as I suspect, interventions do not require that sort of prior permission, would you undertake to let Ministers know for the future?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his advance notice of his intention to raise it. The answer is that permission to intervene in an Adjournment debate is not required from the Minister, the Member whose debate it is or the Chair. Permission is required if a Member is seeking to make a speech in the debate. I am constantly struck by how little understood that important distinction is between interventions, which do not require permission, and speeches, which do. I hope the position is now clear to the hon. Gentleman and the House, and I am very happy to inform Ministers more widely, either directly, or through the good offices of the right hon. Gentleman who serves as the Patronage Secretary, and who conveniently is loitering, with or without intent, at the Bar of the House. I hope that is helpful.
Business without Debate
Broadband Services (Dodworth, South Yorkshire)
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I have a petition from 240 residents of Dodworth in my constituency about the quality of broadband services in their area.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Dodworth,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that broadband provision in the Dodworth Water Royd and Rose Hill estates is inadequate and is among the slowest service in the UK; further declares that the Petitioners believe that as time goes on the area will lag further behind in broadband speed, still struggling with a connection measured in megabits per second while the rest of the country has access to speeds measured in gigabits per second; further declares that this disparity will have a negative impact on those living in the area who will be unable to access internet services in future, which will have knock-on effects on lifestyle, prosperity, and in all likelihood, property prices; further declares that the Petitioners believe that the problem in this area is that there is no access to a local fibre street cabinet, which means that connections are made through around 6.5km of copper wire, resulting in slower connection speeds; and declares that the Petitioners believe that such a cabinet could be installed without the need to dig up roads or pavements.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that residents of the Dodworth Water Royd and Rose Hill estates in Dodworth are able to access broadband services that are of comparable speeds to those available elsewhere in the country.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001021]
Group Lotus
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the situation currently facing Group Lotus, the largest employer in my South Norfolk constituency, and the potential threat to 1,200 local jobs. I am very pleased to see parliamentary colleagues here from Norfolk and I have received messages from my hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), both of whom would have wanted be here in their capacity as local Norfolk MPs, but who are both sadly overseas on Government business.
Group Lotus is a local and a national icon. It is a famous sports car manufacturer with a very special heritage, and also an important global engineering consultancy. The central concern is that following the Malaysian Government’s recent sale of its stake in Proton Holdings—a Malaysian company that is the owner of Group Lotus—to another Malaysian company, DRB-HICOM, the new owner may respond to what are said to be a number of Chinese businesses that would like to buy Lotus and relocate the manufacturing to China.
The CEO, Dany Bahar, has stated publicly in a recent interview that it would “make no sense” to move manufacturing. However, he also stated the exact opposite at the Paris motor show in October 2010 and at the Los Angeles motor show in November 2010, when it was stated that production would shift abroad and that a new factory site would be decided on before Christmas. One Chinese business, China Youngman, has had a commercial relationship with Lotus for many years. The great fear in South Norfolk is that there will be a repeat of the MG Rover saga when the remnants of a once great British car company were picked up from the scrap heap and put on a boat to China.
It is worth setting out why Lotus is so important and why its continued presence in the UK is so important. The company was founded in 1952 by Colin Chapman, a legendary designer and inventor who, it is probably no exaggeration to say, was an engineering genius. At the heart of Chapman’s philosophy for automotive design was his famous maxim, “Simplify, then add lightness.” His approach was driven by the belief that while adding power made a vehicle faster on the straights, subtracting weight made it faster everywhere, and so he focused on lightness and fine handling rather than on huge horsepower. To this day, Lotus is well known across the world for its unparalleled understanding of drive dynamics.
Lotus has made so many contributions to the history of automotive engineering which are still influential—and in many cases in use today in one form or another—that it is not possible to do justice to all of them in this short debate, although they include the first ever use in a Formula 1 car of a reclining driving position; a monocoque chassis design; aerofoil wings; a wedge-shaped front; adjustable suspension; and many other important innovations. This approach was rewarded with seven Formula 1 constructors championships and six drivers championships, and Lotus’s cars have twice appeared in James Bond films, notably in “The Spy Who Loved Me”, when a Lotus Esprit memorably transformed into a submarine.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman says that there is a lot of Chinese interest. I also understand there is interest from the Formula 1 Lotus team in taking over the firm and protecting every one of those jobs. Does he agree that its bid should be the one that is chosen?
Mr Bacon
I certainly agree that it should be given the most serious consideration. I understand that the owners of Lotus F1, which by the way came second and third in the recent Bahrain grand prix, have expressed an interest and said that they would see no reason to move any of the business away from the UK. Their views should be treated with the greatest care and consideration.
The production side of the business has been doing very well and has built tens of thousands of relatively affordable and cutting-edge sports cars, employing many local people in the process. The consulting side has been so successful over the years that it is said that one in 10 cars in Europe has something in it that derives from Lotus’s intellectual property.
Lotus moved in 1966 to Hethel in South Norfolk to a purpose-built facility on the site of a former US air force airfield. The business now employs around 1,400 worldwide, some 1,200 of whom work at the Hethel headquarters. In 1996, Lotus was bought by Proton Holdings, a Malaysian car manufacturer. Lotus has experienced financial difficulties at times, but it was profitable as recently as 2008-09, when the Group Lotus annual accounts show a profit before tax of £1.5 million. It is important to emphasise this point as one will find many incorrect references in the automotive press to the “fact” that Group Lotus has never made a profit since it was bought by Proton, when the actual facts are that the company has been profitable quite recently. Lotus has a great story to tell and is at the heart of an innovation cluster. The recent and growing success of the Hethel engineering centre in nurturing a variety of high-tech small businesses has been due, in large measure, to the presence of Lotus nearby. There are also wider benefits along the A11 corridor that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) will address if he catches your eye, Mr Speaker.
If Lotus were removed, it would be a body blow to the growing success of a local economy that is succeeding precisely as part of the shift away from the overdependence on financial services that the Government wish to see.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on a hugely important employer and an iconic name for Norfolk. Does he agree that one reason we can highlight Lotus’s excellent forward thinking is its recent fantastic work on alternative energies for vehicles that has led to products such as the Tesla?
Mr Bacon
I can confirm that. I will talk later about the Tesla, which is a great example of the leading-edge technology that makes Lotus very interesting to a wide variety of potential financiers.
In common with many businesses since the beginning of the worldwide financial crunch, things have been more difficult, but many observers believe that Lotus continues to have a bright future and tremendous potential, particularly given the company’s expertise in areas such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) mentioned, including electric and hybrid vehicles. These skills make Lotus a very sought-after partner for car companies across the world.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that engineering skills are vital for Norfolk and that the creation of the proposed maths and science free school for 16 to 18-year-olds will be important to the development of those skills and to Lotus and other engineering companies across the county?
Mr Bacon
I agree that the so-called STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—are vital to firms such as Lotus, and I am keen to see those developed through the proposal for a school specialising in them.
It is important to note that although Lotus’s contribution to the history of technology and innovation is already imperishable, it has not stopped. In this Olympic year, it is worth pointing out that Chris Boardman won the 4,000 metre pursuit gold medal at the Barcelona Olympics riding a revolutionary lightweight and aerodynamic carbon composite monocoque bicycle developed by Lotus. He also rode the Lotus “superbike” to smash the world 5,000 metre pursuit record by more than 8 seconds.
Tesla Motors, which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth mentioned, is a business based in California whose investors included, among others, the owners of Google. It asked Lotus to develop a fully electric car, and the Tesla roadster was built in Norfolk and then exported to California with extraordinary success.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a subject that is so important for Norfolk’s economy. Whenever I have visited Lotus, I have been impressed to learn about its advances in low-carbon vehicle technologies. The UK car industry is a world leader in this area. Does he agree that if Lotus were to leave Norfolk and the UK, it would risk losing access to skills and expertise and jeopardising its ability further to develop its reputation in low-carbon technologies?
Mr Bacon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have talked about Lotus’s heritage, which is of stunning historical importance, but it is the future we are concerned about. Lotus has demonstrated, with things such as the Tesla project, the tremendous contribution it can make to the future and its expertise in hybrid and electric vehicles.
Proton, the Malaysian car manufacturer that has owned Lotus since 1996 and invested considerably in it, was founded in the early 1980s under the stewardship of the then Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir, who, it is fair to say, is something of a visionary who has probably done more than anyone else to create the Malaysia we know today—a modern country with a powerful economy and global connections. The Malaysian Government held a large stake in Proton for many years, but made it clear that they no longer wished to retain this stake. In early January, Tun Mahathir gave his public blessing to the sale of the stake to DRB-HICOM, a major industrial conglomerate with a wide variety of interests.
On 16 January, HICOM announced that it had bought the Malaysian Government’s stake in Proton and thus become the ultimate owners of Group Lotus. Incidentally, on the same date, Group Lotus announced the opening of a major brand store in London’s Regent Street. Only three days earlier, on 13 January 2012, a UK-registered company, Lotus Youngman UK Automotive Company Limited, company number 7909455, was incorporated at Companies House—that was just three days before HICOM bought Proton—with the chief executive officer of Group Lotus, Dany Bahar, as one of its directors. Curiously, that was not announced to the Malaysian stock exchange until several months later, on Thursday 12 April.
That is of particular concern because, as has been reported in the newspapers, the CEO of Group Lotus, Dany Bahar, has a financial incentive in his contract to sell the company, and because Group Lotus no longer owns the right to use the name “Lotus” on cars sold in China. That right is now owned by a small Taiwanese company, which licenses it to China Youngman, a potential buyer of Group Lotus that is already importing Lotus cars into China. That is an odd thing for any car company to do, particularly one whose brand and the heritage are so important. The brand is a central part of the company’s value, and it is hard to imagine selling it to others so that it could not use its own brand name in a territory without let or hindrance, but that appears to be what has happened.
By coincidence, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in Malaysia recently, and he spoke to the head of Proton, Dato’ Sri Syed Zainal. Unfortunately, it appears that only hours after our Prime Minister had spoken to the head of Proton to emphasise the importance of British jobs at Group Lotus, Dato’ Sri Syed was in China seeking a buyer for Group Lotus. That has naturally caused immense worry and concern for the 1,200 employees at Group Lotus. It is also unnecessary, because there are well-capitalised potential buyers for Group Lotus with a credible plan to keep the business and the jobs in the UK.
When I raised the issue with the Prime Minister last week at Question Time, he emphasised the importance of Lotus, saying that he had raised the issue with the Malaysian Prime Minister and that the Government were monitoring the situation closely. My fear is that, even if an agreement is reached, any guarantees that might be provided about British jobs will later turn out to be worthless. The Kraft Foods takeover of Cadbury comes to mind in this respect.
One way of accomplishing a transfer to a Chinese owner against the wishes of many of the interested parties would be to reach an agreement in principle to sell Group Lotus but to present it as a joint venture rather than a sale, then to wait until after the Malaysian elections—Lotus is rightly valued by many in Malaysia as a jewel in Proton’s crown and the issue could become politically divisive—and have a Chinese buyer such as China Youngman acquire 100% of the business after the Malaysian elections were safely out of the way, transferring manufacturing to a new Chinese owner later. One could even have a private side agreement to that effect.
People in Norfolk, most notably the loyal and hard-working Lotus employees, want to ensure that that does not happen. I have asked HICOM to consider carefully its responsibilities to local employees and I hope that it will do so. However, I remain extremely concerned. The fact that KPMG has been appointed with a mandate to sell Group Lotus to the Chinese is not an encouraging sign. Nor is the fact that the Malaysian banks want their money back from Proton. I fear that Proton will say that it has decided to keep Lotus, while negotiating with the banks for as long as possible to write off or reduce debt, then either hand what is left of Group Lotus to the Chinese or liquidate it. The question for Proton in such circumstances would be: is it planning to pay the suppliers? That is relevant because there are tens of millions of pounds of accounts receivable outstanding, and many further jobs in the supply chain beyond those at Group Lotus itself are affected.
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
Following my hon. Friend’s logic, what does he think our Government can actually do, apart from using persuasion and nudging the people who might be carrying out the actions about which he is rightly pessimistic?
Mr Bacon
The job of Her Majesty’s Government is to make it very clear to the Malaysian Government and to the company that is the ultimate owner—DRB-HICOM—that we take this matter very seriously, and that if it goes the wrong way, there will be serious consequences for our relationship with Malaysia.
To sum up the situation, the CEO of Proton Holdings—who is now in any case only a temporary figure—was in China seeking a buyer for Group Lotus only hours after our Prime Minister spoke to him in Malaysia recently. A UK-registered company, Lotus Youngman, was set up in January 2012, only three days before HICOM bought Proton, with Group Lotus CEO Dany Bahar as a director, but this was not announced to the Malaysian stock exchange until a fortnight ago. The CEO of Group Lotus is incentivised in his contract to sell Group Lotus and has recently been in China. Any letter of comfort guaranteeing jobs in Norfolk that might appear from a Chinese buyer is unlikely to be worth much, if anything at all, especially given that KPMG has a mandate to sell the business. However, there are well-capitalised would-be buyers of Group Lotus who would definitely keep the business and the jobs in Norfolk, and 1,200 jobs are at risk in my South Norfolk constituency if this goes the wrong way.
I would urge the Minister and all his colleagues, including the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, to put all possible pressure on the Malaysian Government to ensure that DRB-HICOM permits the sale of Group Lotus only to a bidder who will provide credible guarantees for the future of the business as an ongoing concern in Norfolk. I would like the British Government to make very clear to the Malaysian Government, and to DRB-HICOM, that they consider the issue of local jobs in Norfolk to be of crucial importance and that a betrayal of the kind we have seen elsewhere in the corporate sector is unacceptable and would have far-reaching consequences.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak. While Lotus is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), it is only a mile over our shared boundary and many of the 1,200 employees and the affected families live in Mid Norfolk, particularly around Wymondham. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on setting out the arguments so clearly. I am keen to give the Minister as much time as possible to address the important issues, so I shall make just three simple points.
First, the presence of Lotus and its legacy has led to the creation in the area of a world-class cluster of engineering, manifested in both the world-class factory and the expertise around it, and in the Hethel engineering centre—a successful and now full incubator of successful start-up businesses, feeding off and around the centre of excellence around Lotus. A cluster of former Lotus employees, many of them successfully trading and innovating, often from small premises around the area, provide an important part of our local economy.
Secondly, the engineering cluster is central to the Norfolk economy and, indeed, the wider East Anglian innovation economy and to the wider rebalancing mission that I know is central to the mission of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Thirdly, these engineering and manufacturing skills are central to unlocking the full value of the wider innovation economy—in particular, the science we have on the Norwich research park in the form of biomedicine, agriculture and environmental science, and indeed, dare I say it, down the A11, in the innovation corridor in Cambridge. We have huge intellectual property skills in our area. In the past, we have sometimes been weaker in the ability to turn that intellectual property into products that we can sell. The skills in this cluster are central to developing and retaining that value within our Anglian economy.
I am sure I am speaking for other hon. Members across East Anglia, some of whom are in their places and some of whom are not, in urging the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the points raised by my hon. Friend are given all possible attention, and to bring as much pressure to bear as possible to keep this iconic and important business in the UK.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this debate and on his energetic advocacy on behalf of his constituents, not just today, but previously. He is right to say, as other Members have pointed out, that Group Lotus is one of largest private sector employers in the area, so I understand the importance that he and––as is plain from the attendance this evening––the vast majority of Norfolk representatives attach to the issue. They want to ensure that we as a Chamber understand how importantly their constituents view this matter.
Today’s debate follows on from parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend, from correspondence and, indeed, from considerable speculation in the media. I know that he will appreciate that I cannot comment on media speculation, but as I made clear to him last night, when we had an opportunity to discuss the issue—with him having raised it and me wanting to ensure that I understood the detail of his concerns—he should understand that the whole of the Government take this matter extremely seriously, and we are already actively engaged in it.
Let me respond to the sensible points, if I may say so, about the calibre of the company that we are dealing with. Lotus is a world-class design engineering company, and, as we have heard, a manufacturer of highly desirable sports cars, supported of course by a dedicated and experienced work force. The group, which has more than 60 years of history behind it, comprises Lotus Cars, Lotus Engineering and Lotus Racing. As my hon. Friend observed, its journey was from humble beginnings. I think it was in the late 1940s that Colin Chapman was first in a lock-up garage developing a trial racing car, but that has led all the way to a globally renowned company manufacturing high-performance products.
This is a business that has always been at the cutting edge. It makes an important contribution to the UK automotive sector, not just through the exports of its iconic cars but through the world-class design engineering to which my hon. Friend referred, which, although particularly relevant to the automotive sector, is—as he said—also relevant throughout the engineering field. Lotus is a globally respected business which works with many of the world’s most prestigious car manufacturers and tier 1 suppliers. Lotus engineers spearhead research in crucial areas such as hybrids, electric vehicles and renewable fuels, which is one of the reasons why many people understand that the business has a very strong future.
The Government believe that the company’s work must continue and that it should continue in Norfolk, but, as a number of Members have pointed out, it is important to view Lotus in its wider context. This country has one of the most diverse and competitive automotive sectors in the world. When considering the prospects of both individual businesses and the sector as a whole, we should take account of the key investments that have been made. Some £4 billion has been invested in the last 18 months. That sends the important signal that international investors recognise the calibre of the work force, and also the opportunities that they can gain by basing their firms here.
The sector is strong and growing. Vehicle production has risen by 5% in the last year, and more than 1.4 million vehicles have been produced. Engine production has also increased. I am thinking particularly of the strength of powertrain in the UK automotive sector: some 2.5 million units have been produced in the last year. One of the encouraging features of the whole sector is that not only is its productivity strong and its work force capable, but it exports a significant proportion—some 80%-—of what it produces. Last year exports were up by 15%, and they are now at an all-time cash high of just short of £30 billion. Lotus is part of that: last year it recorded production of 1,458 cars of which 1,189 were for export, so it clearly has a strong export programme.
Despite a difficult international economic environment and a contracting European market, global demand for UK-made vehicles has risen, which shows that UK producers are generating what customers throughout the world are looking for. That is why our car trade deficit is at its lowest for more than 36 years. There are a number of good examples. Nissan has invested £250 million, creating the possibility of some 3,000 new jobs in both its own business and its supply chain. Jaguar Land Rover has announced that it will take on a further 1,000 people and increase shifts at its Halewood plant. Honda is to double production at its main European plant in Swindon. Those are all important investments in the sector. It is important for everyone—both the existing sector and potential investors—to understand that the UK automotive sector has real strength and depth, and is backed by a Government who are actively supporting those who seek to invest here in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend briefly mentioned ultra-low-carbon vehicles. As he said, Lotus is a key participant in that regard, as it is clear from its world-class range-extended electric vehicle technology and its role in the development of the important emerging technology of hydrogen fuel cells. The Government are pursuing a programme which seeks to ensure that we have a marketplace in which those technologies can develop, because we cannot assume that past technologies will be revived. As the new generations of ultra-low-carbon vehicles develop, it is important for those who wish to invest to recognise that the expertise and know-how are resident here.
Let me turn to the details of the current situation, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The takeover by the Malaysian company DRB-HICOM of Lotus’s parent, Proton, was begun in January, as we heard, and completed around the middle of March. DRB-HICOM is one of Malaysia’s leading companies; indeed, it is the country’s leading automotive manufacturer. Its values, stated clearly and openly, include excellence, innovation, quality and teamwork. Since then, DRB-HICOM has been carrying out what we understand to be standard due diligence checks on Lotus and other assets related to its takeover of Proton. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Prime Minister raised the issue of Group Lotus with the Malaysian Prime Minister and Proton while he was in Malaysia recently. He stressed, as I do today, that the Government continue to wish to work with the company.
In response to media speculation, DRB-HICOM issued a press statement last Saturday stating that no decision had been taken on whether to sell Lotus. In the meantime, DRB-HICOM has also stated that it continues to support the company, including through management help. I understand that additional funds have been made available by DRB-HICOM to enable Lotus to resume production while the due diligence continues. That would follow on from the £100 million invested in Lotus at Hethel in recent years.
Mr Bacon
May I ask my hon. Friend to interrogate closely the question of how much support is being provided so that manufacturing can “resume”, as he puts it? My understanding is that DRB-HICOM is drip-feeding small amounts of cash to the business, that there is little manufacturing going on and that there might not be too much manufacturing going on in future unless we are careful. If he could press the Malaysians—indeed, the Government of Malaysia—on that point, so that they put pressure on DRB-HICOM to reach a resolution in the interests of workers in Norfolk, I would be very grateful.
Mr Prisk
I am more than happy, as we continue our close contact with the companies, to ensure that those questions are tested. My hon. Friend will know that I do not generally take no for an answer, and I intend to ensure that we as a Government have the full facts before us.
My hon. Friend is right that although the statements we have heard are important, we also need to recognise that this is a rather unsettling time for the work force, their families and the business community locally. Let me make it clear to him that we as a Government—all the Ministers engaged—intend to maintain close contact with all the key stakeholders. That is why the British high commissioner in Malaysia recently wrote to Proton, following on from the Prime Minister’s meeting. It is also why this afternoon the Secretary of State spoke to Mr Dany Bahar, the Lotus chief executive, making it clear to him that the Government are fully behind ensuring that the company and its work force remain an integral part of the Norfolk economy. The Government will seek to make further contacts with the Malaysian Government, as my hon. Friend requested, because we recognise that we need to be talking at all levels on this important issue.
Let me turn briefly to the regional growth fund. My hon. Friend will understand that we have made a conditional offer of financial support for Lotus’s growth plans. That offer has been on hold since the acquisition of Proton by DRB-HICOM in January. We have made it clear to Proton and the companies that the Government stand ready to reactivate the RGF grant offer—subject to the normal due diligence—but only if the vehicle development programme goes ahead in Norfolk. That is an important principle to establish.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I understand that this is an unsettling time for the employees, and I trust that the situation will be clarified shortly. I want to make it clear again that the Government wish to see Lotus continuing to build on its rich industrial heritage in Norfolk, and we stand ready to use the regional growth fund if it seeks to do that. In conclusion, Ministers at the highest level are taking the matter very seriously. I can tell my hon. Friends here this evening that we will remain in close contact with the companies and will work to ensure that the new owners understand that Norfolk is the home of Lotus.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona Mactaggart
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has with A4e; and what the (a) purpose and (b) monetary value is of each such contract.
[Official Report, 1 March 2012, Vol. 541, c. 436W.]
Letter of correction from Peter Luff:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 1 March 2012.
The full answer given was as follows:
Peter Luff
The Ministry of Defence does not have any contracts with A4e.
The correct answer should have been:
Peter Luff
The Ministry of Defence has one contract with A4e. This is for the provision of a trial of early leaver services, to assist service personnel leaving the armed forces with their transition back into civilian life. The contract is for a period of 12 months, commencing February 2012, and has a nil value contract management fee.
Petition
Prevention of Development on Green Belt Land
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
School Funding
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. There is a very strong representation from the south-west here today, including the Chair, and we welcome that.
School funding is an issue that has bedevilled the country, particularly for those of us who represent underfunded areas. In many ways, the problem of school funding reminds me irresistibly of the late 19th-century question of Schleswig-Holstein, about which Lord Palmerston says:
“Only three people…have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it.”
Although I would not suggest for a moment that the Minister responsible for schools and the Secretary of State for Education are the only two people who really know about school funding, it is fair to say that I certainly got lost early on in the quagmire of the local authority central spend equivalent grant—or LACSEG, which sounds very similar to some medicine that I once took for Barrett’s oesophagus.
None the less, the issue is clear to us all. There are many schools across the country, including all those in my constituency, whose pupils effectively lose out significantly in terms of the amount of money spent on them per year relative to pupils in the large metropolitan areas. In fact, there are some 2.5 million pupils in the F40 areas, which are the poorest-funded local authorities in England. Therefore, on average, £5,000 less per child is spent on children’s education in my county of Gloucestershire and other counties represented here today.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is exacerbated by the rural nature of constituencies in the south-west? Certainly, in Devon, that makes the problem of underfunding even more acute.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and speaks powerfully for children in rural areas. Of course, there can also be a problem for those in urban areas within a rural county. In my case, one of the reasons why some of us in Gloucester feel so passionately about the issue is that we are a relatively poor city and a relatively rich county. I am sure that other hon. Members have similar situations, and I am happy to take interventions from them on that point.
Richard Graham
With great pleasure. I see a spokesman for Swindon emerging.
Mr Buckland
I cannot resist an invitation like that. Swindon has a similar demographic to that of Gloucester. We are in a relatively rich part of the world and have historically been underfunded. We are doing our best with the resources that we are given, but the option set out by the F40 campaign—an extra £99 million—would be a good interim way to deal with an historic problem that Governments of all parties have wrestled.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point that relates perhaps to a later stage of the argument that I will develop. I agree with him absolutely that although, as the saying goes, size—or, in this case, money—is not everything, it does go a long way towards improving the opportunities for children in our constituencies. As we all know, above all else, the Government are concerned with aspiration and providing equal opportunities for children across the country.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Would it not be a travesty if areas of social deprivation lose out on the school funding formula when the Government’s ethos is to encourage young people into education and perhaps to go on from that to vocational studies?
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman is implying that my argument is to beggar my neighbour, to give pupils in Gloucester a better chance. He is right in saying that a charge to the lowest common denominator to achieve equality is not necessarily what we are looking for, and that is not what I intend to propose. However, perhaps we will come on to the specifics of that in a moment.
Broadly, we have already established a degree of consensus in the debate—and I suspect across the House—that the principle of equal funding for every child in the country is one that we would all happily sign up to. The Secretary of State for Education has made it clear that that is his principle as well. Of course, the Government have, in a sense, made deprivation much easier to deal with by introducing the pupil premium, which hugely helps those children who come from very deprived backgrounds and who therefore deserve additional money being spent on them to give them the same opportunities as those children from more stable family backgrounds. We all agree on the principle, but what can be done about it? Given the length of time that the issue has been with us—some 20 years or more—and, I regret to say, the previous Government’s complete failure to tackle the problem, it falls upon the coalition Government to deal with it.
During the various debates that have already taken place in the House since the Government came to power, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has perfectly summarised the issue. He has said:
“The current system is not only ludicrously bureaucratic, it is also unfair as schools in different parts of the country are not funded on a rational basis. Moreover, the sheer complexity of the system gives schools less incentive to respond to the needs of local parents by expanding or establishing new provision.”
With the exception of not alluding to the Schleswig-Holstein issue, he could not have put it better, and I do not suppose that any hon. Member here today would disagree with him. How do the Government therefore propose to create a fairer system that will enable those authorities in which our constituencies lie to be reassured that the Government can right the wrong that has been with us for more than 20 years?
Of course, I should say that the Government first launched a consultation. At the announcement of the consultation, Lord Hill determined that it would address the disparities and inequalities within our school system. The consultation was the first step towards ensuring fair funding. None the less, the Department for Education has been unable to find the additional money that would have provided the top-up to all those areas in the F40 group. That would have provided us with the simple one-stop solution of equal funding for all pupils across the land. In times of extremely constrained finance, it is not surprising—no one in our constituencies could conceivably blame the Government for this—that the additional significant amount of money needed to solve the problem in one go has not been found.
However, there has been good news in terms of a significant reduction in the factors that local authorities can consider when constructing school formula. The number of factors that need to be considered have dropped from 37 to 10, which will slightly reduce the complexity of the education funding formula, to which I alluded earlier, and make it easier for schools to understand the rationale behind their budgets. The consultation also arrived at a much greater delegation of funding to schools and will ensure that local authorities can no longer top-slice school budgets. Above all, given that 75% of the secondary schools in Gloucestershire are now academies, the consultation provided for academies to be funded using exactly the same formula as maintained schools, because there had been a year’s lag under the system inherited from the previous Government. That single change will make a significant difference to the academies in my constituency of Gloucester and elsewhere.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
It is a bit like watching Martin Luther King in his prime. Is it not right that my hon. Friend has a dream, not only for all schools to be equal, but for the Schools Minister to give us the first step, the first indication and the first rung on the ladder to an equal and fair funding for all the schools we represent?
Richard Graham
Yes, apart from an alarming analogy with Martin Luther. [Hon. Members: “King.”] Martin Luther King—even more puzzling. Martin Luther was of course responsible for the great saying, “Who loves not wine, women and song remains a fool his whole life long,” but I do not think that that was the object of my hon. Friend’s attempt to introduce him into the debate. However, my hon. Friend’s fundamental point—that we are looking for an early gesture from the Government to reassure our constituents that they do not just have warm sounds, but an initial step towards resolving the funding problem—is absolutely right, and one that I think all hon. Members endorse.
There are budgetary challenges to finding a solution, but the F40 group has submitted various suggestions for interim funding proposals that would improve the situation considerably. It has put forward four options to make steps towards equality, not all of which are hugely expensive. It is not for me to ask for a specific amount of money or a specific formula for the Government to start the ball rolling, but I urge the Government to look closely at the F40 group’s proposals in the hope that one of them is attractive and affordable, and, above all, can be introduced for the academic year 2014-15—before the funding settlement of the next Government.
My main wish is for the Minister to take from the debate the thought that not only are the Government able to agree with the principle and the direction of travel, but they can make the first steps to implement financial change to show that this long, 20-year inequality will finally be tackled.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend has mentioned timing on three occasions. Is that not one of the crucial points? Given that we have had that inequality for 20 years and that we have a very strained economic environment, it is vital that we resolve this problem as soon as possible and in the best way possible.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, the difficulty is in the words, “as soon as possible” and “the best way possible”. Neither he nor I have control of the finances, but I think we both agree strongly that this is our opportunity to lobby the Minister and for him to reflect the strength of our conviction to the Treasury in the hope that additional moneys can be found as soon as possible.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
This is happening because for more than 20 years civil servants have recognised that there will be winners and losers. As a group, we, and my hon. Friend in particular, must impress on the Minister that the most important thing is to get on with it now and have no further delay. There have always been winners and losers, and the F40 group are the losers every single time. We need to ensure that we level things out very quickly, because it has been 20-odd years.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend makes a good point about winners and losers. Personally, I am not trying to advocate taking money away from deprived areas in large metropolitan cities. They have benefited from generous settlements in the past 20 years, which is absolutely right, but this is not necessarily the moment to rob Paul to pay Peter. I am looking for additional funding from the Treasury to the Department for Education in a formula that allows gradual progress over a period to resolve this inequality of funding.
The Secretary of State sent a letter to a number of us, in which he commented on the consultation:
“Support for reform was widespread but responses also suggested this model would need careful planning. Getting the components and implementation of a fair national funding formula right is critical and we need to manage transition carefully”.
I think that we all agree with him. We would like him to move on as quickly as possible, rather than delaying until the next Parliament—the issue on which I will close my speech. This situation is not of the Secretary of State’s making. This is a 20-year legacy problem that could and should have been tackled by the previous Government. God knows, they had long enough to consider it carefully. None the less, the issue of fairness echoes powerfully for all of those involved in education in our constituencies, which is why so many of us are here today to engage with the Minister, who has once again kindly picked up the cudgel. I am sure he will respond with his usual positive and encouraging noises, but we are looking for more than just noises. We encourage him to take the message back to the Treasury that the strength of feeling is strong.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, perhaps those who intend to speak will remain standing for a moment. There are six hon. Members, so there is no necessity to impose a formal time limit. Perhaps those who intend to speak can be aware that we have approximately an hour before the Front Benchers reply to the debate. I was going to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I will make an intervention but not a speech, Mr Gray.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Let me be the first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on a superb introduction to this important issue, which has drawn a large number of hon. Members to the Chamber. It would have been nice to see a few hon. Members from Her Majesty’s Opposition, but they seem to be somewhat absent. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the sensitive way in which he has raised this important issue.
We all have a duty to speak up for our constituents. Central Bedfordshire council is in the unique position of having a local authority on one side of it, Luton, which is generally poorer than central Bedfordshire, and a local authority on the other side of it, Buckinghamshire, which is richer. Both authorities receive more money per child than central Bedfordshire. I put it to the Minister that it is very hard, as a Bedfordshire MP, to explain to my constituents why the authorities on either side, one of which is poorer and one of which is richer, receive more money. It makes an eloquent case for why the formula has no logic or rationale.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I am intrigued by the disparity and lack of clarity in Bedfordshire. Three years ago, Cheshire county split into two unitary authorities—east and west. Cheshire East, which includes Macclesfield and Congleton, receives £10 million a year less than Cheshire West. The reason for the disparity is not clear at all, which highlights my hon. Friend’s point. The formula needs clarity and transparency, as well as fairness.
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illustrating a problem similar to the one in the bottom part of Bedfordshire. That adds to my argument.
Each child in central Bedfordshire receives £4,658, compared with a child in Luton who receives £5,315 and a child in Buckinghamshire who receives £4,814. A child in Luton gets £657 more and a child in wealthier Buckinghamshire, our neighbour, gets £156 more. Every political party across the spectrum in central Bedfordshire is unhappy about that. The leader of Central Bedfordshire council wrote to the Secretary of State on 25 January to express the views of the whole council on this matter.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate.
If my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) would like another example, Leicestershire is the lowest-funded local authority per pupil head in the country. One disparity between the county and neighbouring Leicester city—I am sure that hon. Members have examples of a city next door to a county—is that pupils in Leicester get £900 per head more than pupils in Leicestershire. Yet books and teachers’ salaries do not cost any more in the city than in the county.
Andrew Selous
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point powerfully, because that is my point, too.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) made about teachers’ salaries is vital, because those constitute, as all hon. Members who have been school governors know, the vast majority of a school’s budget. I am not in favour of differential salaries throughout the country. We need standard salaries. It is all the more important that schools funding should be fair, per head, because those basic costs should be the same throughout the country.
Andrew Selous
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking with passion and for further illustrating the point, which all hon. Members are making.
Some hon. Members have already mentioned that relatively wealthy areas often have significant pockets of deprivation. That is true in my constituency. There is deprivation in Houghton Regis, for example. The indices of multiple deprivation in some wards in that town are not dissimilar to those in much higher-funded Luton next door. The formula fails poorer children in wealthier areas. We need to look at that to see whether the formula could drill down and give additional funding for poorer children in slightly wealthier areas.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the pupil premium has been a great advance for poorer children, but in many counties there is quite a low level of unemployment and poorer constituents often do not qualify for free school meals and miss out, and are not being helped by the differential funding that he rightly condemns.
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding that important point to the debate.
This Government made an impressive start on this issue by publishing “School funding reform: next steps towards a fairer system” a few weeks ago. I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues at the Department for recognising the problem and setting out a route map for dealing with this issue. Having looked through the document, I understand that it will look to vary funding between different areas to try to deal with some of the discrepancies by up to 1.5% variance from the minimum funding guarantee per year. That will apply in both 2013-14 and 2014-15. That is an important start for which we are all grateful.
It is worth putting on the record that this Government came into office inheriting a complete economic shambles. We are still having to borrow £120 billion just to pay for public expenditure this year and we are honouring our commitments on increasing funding to the NHS and on international development. Notwithstanding that, Ministers in the Department have maintained cash budgets for schools, which is no mean achievement. That should go on the record in this debate. Many hon. Members know that the only way to deal with this issue, and the unfairness that many of us are rightly raising, is to get the economy growing and get real economic growth. In a time of rising budgets, I believe that by doing so we will be able to make significant progress towards dealing with these inequalities. I should welcome some reassurance from the Minister that that will happen as the economy grows.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on leading the charge on this matter. I am not from the south-west and have no real knowledge of Schleswig-Holstein. Warrington is one of the lowest funded of the F40. Periodically, I visit primary and other schools, as we all do, most recently Broomfields in Appleton. Over and over, governors take me to one side, show me spreadsheets and say, “Why does this school in another part of the country, which has the same characteristics as our school, have so much extra money? Can you explain to me, as our MP, why an incoming Government with a Front Bench bristling with talent, energy and reforming zeal, can acknowledge the problem and understand it has to be fixed, yet does not seem to have the appetite to have a go at it?”
Warrington is not a wealthy place. It has wards that are among the most deprived in the country. Over the weekend I looked at many spreadsheets—I congratulate the Department on the volume of spreadsheets on its website—and noticed that there is a 50% discrepancy between the funding level of Warrington and Westminster, where I live during the week. Is Westminster that much worse off than Warrington? Are the deprivation indices that much more difficult? I do not think so.
In preparing for this debate I read a lot of papers on websites and various materials that are around. A lot of words have been written about how difficult it all is, but none of the analyses attempt to justify the status quo. I have seen no serious attempt to say that where we are now is the right place. None of the hon. Members who will speak or have spoken already are asking for a national funding formula to be put in place and implemented immediately. We are asking for a start to be made.
I recognise—perhaps the Minister will address this in his remarks—that it could take 10, 15 or 20 years to fix this in its entirety, but that is all the more reason at least to make a start. That is what I find most difficult to explain to my constituents. I have a suggestion for the Front-Bench spokesman.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that even a modest increase in the budgets of low-funded local education authorities would make a significant difference to the education that could be offered to children?
Picking up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, Leicestershire is the lowest-funded area in the country. Coalville, the most deprived town in Leicestershire, is in my constituency. Even in the centre of Coalville there is below average take-up for free school meals, so we will not benefit from the pupil premium to the extent that the Government might expect. There are a lot of proud people out there and they are reluctant to take up free school meals because a great stigma is attached to them.
David Mowat
I agree. Clearly, every hon. Member has places in their constituencies that are deeply deprived and lose out in this regard.
It is said that it is difficult to put in place a national formula, but I do not think it is. An exercise to decide the inputs to the national formula, indices of deprivation, London weighting and historical issues could take place over a long period. Several things could be done, and I find it difficult to understand why they have not been, because there is a precedent in a national formula for health funding. The way in which all our primary care trusts are funded is driven by the ACRA formula—called after the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation—which appears to work reasonably well. A characteristic of the ACRA formula is that it gives different numbers and numbers that one might not want to adjust to immediately because they are too far up or down in the next year. The Department of Health deals with that with what it calls a direction of travel adjustment—adjustment to the correct number takes place over a number of years. I see no difficulty in the education community doing something similar because, as I said, no one is asking for the problem to be fixed quickly. We want to know that there is a direction of travel and that over the next decade, say, it will be sorted out.
Finally, I very much support our policy and what we are doing with academies and free schools. For me and for people in my constituency on the wrong end of the formula, however, the funding issue is more potent. It is disappointing that our Front Bench is on the same side as the teaching unions, which should give Ministers pause for thought. We are asking not for the problem to be fixed now but for a start to be made.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is good to see such a well subscribed debate under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am mindful that Worcestershire’s lowly place near the bottom of the league tables for school funding is only one above that of Wiltshire so, although as Chair you can make a limited contribution to the content of the debate, it is appropriate for you to be presiding over it.
I declare an interest as an unpaid member of the executive of F40, a cross-party group that campaigns on behalf of Wiltshire, Worcestershire and the other authorities that are among the lowest funded in the country. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing today’s debate. He and I have worked closely together on a number of issues, representing as we do two of England’s finest cathedral and rugby-playing cities. It is always a pleasure to hear him speak eloquently and wittily for the interests of his constituents and schools, interests on which Gloucester, Worcester and, it appears, Warrington are fully united.
I am pleased to speak before a Minister who understands such a complex and difficult area of policy extremely well. He has a firm grasp of the issues facing our schools and has given a great deal of time to colleagues and to campaign groups, for which I thank him. He has previously expressed the clear and unequivocal view that the current system of school funding is flawed and that reform is necessary. Indeed, before I express my pleas and concerns, it is important to recognise that there was much to be warmly welcomed in the Government announcement of 26 March, “Next steps towards a fairer system”. The Secretary of State, in his foreword to the paper, said:
“The current system is opaque, inconsistent and unfair with huge differences between areas.”
I could not agree more. He promised a new national funding formula after the next spending review—the right answer on the wrong timetable in my opinion, but nevertheless the right answer.
The Secretary of State also announced moves to simplify significantly local funding formulae and to create much greater transparency—I welcome the latter in particular, because transparency might be the key to breaking down the vast disparities and lack of consistency in the current system. If Ministers mean school governors to have more notice of their funding arrangements in future, I strongly welcome such a move, which has been called for by pretty much every school governor I have ever met. If, too, we will see the per pupil funding that is actually received school by school and area by area—rarely possible to date—I welcome it all the more. Ministers could be providing the decisive weapon to expose once and for all the disparities of the system; organisations such as F40 will use it to the best of their abilities.
Fiona Bruce
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work co-ordinating Members in the F40 group, of which I am one. I highlight again the anomalous funding position of the adjacent large unitary authorities of Cheshire East and of Cheshire West and Chester. Cheshire East runs from Poynton near Stockport in Greater Manchester in the north right down to Audlem, near Shropshire, in the south; within that range, we have severe pockets of deprivation. Meeting with head teachers, I have the sense that not only do they see the funding as unfair but they feel the injustice. Is it not right that we address the issue as a matter of justice, and that we do so expeditiously?
Mr Walker
Absolutely, I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. That injustice would be made all the more clear if there were greater transparency on school-by-school funding.
There have also been some moves to protect special needs funding and to simplify arrangements for early years provision, all of which we welcome. The Government set out plans to end disparities within local authority areas but, with a perhaps understandable concern to limit turbulence, they have so far resisted dealing with disparities between authorities until 2015. There is much to praise, therefore, but that last point is a profound mistake.
The biggest and most obvious flaws in the current funding system, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, are the yawning gaps left in per pupil funding between neighbouring authorities. There is a gap of £1,088 between annual per pupil funding in Worcestershire and neighbouring Birmingham; my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) mentioned the gap of almost £900 between Leicester and Leicestershire, the lowest funded authority; and there is the stunning gap of nearly £5,000 between the lowest and the highest authorities. We have often discussed such disparities before, and I accept that there are many historic and political reasons for them, but the Minister has accepted the point that no firm formula underpins them any longer. The successive layers of government priorities that created those gaps have ossified over the years, and the gaps have grown ever wider as spending has grown, creating an unfair and indeed unjustifiable system.
It is extremely welcome that the Government have recognised the problem, and the previous Government suggested that they were beginning to do so, but it is not enough to recognise a problem—the challenge is to correct it. When the previous Labour Government opened a consultation on funding reform but proposed no preventive action, I and many others present would have accused them of dithering. Now that my own coalition Government, whose education reforms I support strongly and whose pupil premium I have praised, are proposing no action until after the next spending review, I cannot do otherwise with them. To accept the need for fundamental reform but to postpone any move towards it is similar to a dentist recognising the cause of a toothache making a patient’s life unbearable and then offering to deal with it in three years’ time. If such a case came to our surgeries as MPs, we would react with outrage. On behalf of all the teachers, head teachers, parents and—above all—pupils in our schools, we must demand swifter action now.
The question is not about a system that rewards the neediest areas and gives least to the best off. If that were the case, the City of London would hardly be the best funded authority in the country, nor Kensington and Chelsea in the top 10. Since the introduction of the pupil premium, many F40 authorities have received a good chunk of pupil premium funding, despite the factors mentioned by my hon. Friends, showing that there are significant levels of deprivation in many F40 areas. In my own urban constituency, I have wards that are among the most deprived in the entire country. However, the low level of underlying funding, before the allocation of the pupil premium, means that many head teachers in those wards tell me that they need the extra money to break even—to keep their schools afloat—and that they cannot spend the money on what it was intended for, to improve the chances of the most deprived.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend and neighbour might be interested to hear about my recent discussions with some schools in Wyre Forest. Usually, a school expects to pay somewhere between 80% and 85% of its budget on staffing. Now, because of the very low funding formula, we see typical schools in such lower funded areas spending nearer 90% or even more than 90% of the budget on staffing—an intolerable situation for their head teachers to manage.
Mr Walker
Absolutely right. My hon. Friend from Worcestershire points out that the extra money from the pupil premium is sometimes needed to support such costs and it is not necessarily reaching the target at which it is aimed.
We all recognise that it is impossible to correct the problem overnight. Ministers have said that their consultation threw up widespread support for reform but also much concern about turbulence. Interestingly, the teaching unions came out strongly in favour of postponing the issue; in doing so, they might have been representing many of their members, but they were certainly failing to represent the interests of those members in F40 areas whom we meet day in, day out.
The many MPs I have spoken to and the volunteers who make up the F40 executive recognise the need to avoid setting one part of the country against another in a scrap for funding. We also recognise that it is incredibly difficult to change the system radically when spending is under extreme constraint. We can idly wish that the previous Government had been quicker to act and more determined to deliver, but what is done is done; the opportunity to correct the glaring inequalities in the system during the days of ready money has now been lost forever. In the tough conditions of today, however, the need for fairer funding is all the greater. Worcestershire school leaders tell me that they understand the need for constraint and, like other public servants, they are straining every sinew to deliver more with less, but they are harder pressed to do so when there is an open and acknowledged injustice in how they are funded. In Worcestershire, we have schools within a few miles of the boundary with Birmingham that must deliver lessons on a budget hundreds of pounds per pupil lower, that must compete for teachers with a much better funded authority down the road and that are now being asked to accept the same constraints as that neighbouring authority, having missed out on many of the benefits of easier times. It would be neither fair nor reasonable to make no move in the lifetime of this Government to right such wrongs.
I am grateful that, within days of his March announcement, the Secretary of State met the Chairman of F40 and some of its local authority members to hear their concerns. Neither he nor the Minister would have been surprised at the profound disappointment they expressed at the decision to postpone until 2015 the move to a new formula. At that meeting, it was agreed that further representations would be accepted from the group on changes that would not hurt the funding of other authorities, but would mark a first step, however small, towards greater fairness. F40 has since sent in its suggestions, which I strongly support.
We have heard about Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, and I want to introduce Mark Twain to the debate. He wrote:
“The secret of getting ahead is to get started”.
F40 has suggested some options for getting started. It looked at the cost of bringing the lowest-funded authorities up to the level of Lincolnshire, which is the 41st worst-funded authority, and found that that would cost almost £300 million. It considered giving each of the lowest-funded authorities a small flat cash bonus to help, but found that the difference would be too small, and the process would simply rearrange the league table, pushing some authorities outside the F40 down the tables. Under its preferred option, it has proposed making the shift towards Lincolnshire levels of funding, but doing so proportionately, taking each of the lowest 40 one third of the way towards that level. That modest suggestion has the advantage of giving most help to those who need it most, while not altering the fundamental balance of funding.
F40 has suggested that Ministers should seek the £99 million cost directly from the Treasury. I think all hon. Members here would support the Department for Education in applying for that. However, knowing the harsh constraints on public spending that are Labour’s unfortunate legacy, will the Minister consider whether any of it can be found from other sources within the education budget? The sum of £99 million is less than the set- up costs of the new Education Funding Agency, and a very small amount relative to the £1.25 billion earmarked for the pupil premium next year, or the £2.5 billion that it is set to reach by 2015. It could make a major contribution to the work of that vital premium, ensuring it had its intended effect in the areas that it currently has difficulty reaching.
The sum of £99 million is a tiny amount compared with the £36.5 billion paid out under the dedicated schools grant to local authorities and schools around England. If that £99 million were taken equally from all those authorities better funded than Lincolnshire, it would equate to just 0.4% of their DSG funding, and cost no single authority more than £4 million. I hasten to add that that is not what F40 nor I propose, because we prefer no authorities to lose out in the quest for fairer funding, but such a change would be a small step towards a fairer system at a cost that would enable them to stay well within their minimum funding guarantee that no school lose more than 1.5%. At the end of the day, it is up to Ministers to decide the best way of meeting the challenge. We are here today to urge them to do so.
I shall illustrate how the problem has developed. During the first year of the Labour Government, when my predecessor in Worcester used his maiden speech to promise fairer funding as a result of the abolition of assisted places, the gap between Worcestershire and the national average stood at £230 per pupil, and was £380 between us and our neighbours in Birmingham. By the end of that Labour Government, the gap with the national average had risen to £371 per pupil, and with Birmingham it had doubled to £760.
The coalition agreement focused on fairness, but it is disappointing to record that under the coalition Government the unfair gap has widened further. In the current financial year, it stands at £482 per pupil against the national average, and £1,088 against Birmingham, almost three times the gap in 1997. For too long the system has been working against us. For too long we have faced an ever-widening gap. The Government have been brave to recognise the flaws in the system, and right to recognise the need for fundamental reform. However, as Benjamin Franklin said:
“Well done is better than well said."
Today, we are asking for a down payment on reform, a firm signal that the changes that we all agree are needed will be delivered, and a first step towards delivering them. The last Government failed completely to deliver on the issue. The present Government not only can, but must deliver. I urge the Minister to respond positively to the urgent representations from F40 to set much-needed change in motion, and to deliver a real improvement to schools in Worcestershire and across all the areas that have hitherto been left behind. We must not just talk the talk on fairer funding; we must walk the walk. As Shakespeare said: “Action is eloquence”. The Government have displayed great eloquence in dealing with the issue. Now is the time for action.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
It is a great pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this important debate. It is not the first we have had in Westminster Hall on this matter. We have had a debate on Worcestershire, and the Minister is well aware of my views, so I will not speak at length.
A good education is the right of every child in this country. I was educated in the state system, as were both my children. Every child deserves the best education we can provide, and the state should provide it. Imagine my shock when I moved to Redditch 12 years ago to find that my children were in a postcode lottery for education funding. We had arrived from Wales where funding per head was far more than in Redditch. I have campaigned for those 12 years to rectify the situation, and I thought that when we finally got the Conservative-led coalition we would see the end of that disgraceful situation. I am disappointed that again the children of Redditch will have to wait at least three years before they get a fair deal.
Will the Minister explain directly to all the children, teachers and parents in Redditch just why they are worth less than those who live 7 miles up the road in Birmingham? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said, funding per child in Redditch is £1,000 less than in Birmingham.
Mark Garnier
In neighbouring Wyre Forest I share the same problem as my hon. Friend. Does she accept that it is a tribute to the teachers in our constituencies of Redditch and Wyre Forest in Worcestershire that they choose to work in those financially constrained conditions when they could take the easy option and move 8 miles up the road to Birmingham where they would received 45% more money? They choose to look after our students and pupils, and we should pay tribute to them for that.
Karen Lumley
I certainly pay tribute to those teachers, and I will come to that. I used to be chair of the governors of a first school in Redditch, and if it had received the same funding as Birmingham, it would have had £400,000 more. One of my first jobs then was to appoint a new head at Vaynor first school. She came from a school in Birmingham, and was shocked at the funding level. She did not stay long.
I know that fairer funding is on the agenda, and I am grateful for that. I acknowledge that we have inherited the worst deficit from the previous Government, but that should motivate the present Government to address the structural deficiencies in the system now, and not continue to the next Parliament with an unjust system that jeopardises the future of young people in Redditch. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s response.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I want to take the Minister and all hon. Members here in their minds to a road in my constituency—Soundwell road. The east side of the road is in King’s Chase ward in South Gloucestershire council, and is one of the 10% most deprived wards according to the lower layer super output area indices. To the west is the city of Bristol, which includes wards in that local authority, such as Clifton and Stoke Bishop, which are in the top 10% of local super output areas. Yet funding for a pupil on one side of Soundwell road in South Gloucestershire council is £4,487, but for a pupil on the other side of the road it is £5,469. That differential is £982. As hon. Members have said, the differential is growing. Three years ago it was only £468.
Who are the Government, and who are we to suggest that a pupil in leafy, wealthier areas such as Stoke Bishop and Clifton are worth nearly £1,000 more than pupils in areas such as Cadbury Heath and Kingswood, which are within the bottom 5% of lower layer super output areas? Such areas and indices of multiple deprivation have been brought up because they are important. We are formulating funding on a local authority basis, but we now have the data and ability to differentiate between individual pupils in a way that we could not 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. We have the tools to go beyond even free school meals. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) said, although the Government’s proposals for a pupil premium are fantastic, free school meals are an inexact science.
There is an issue with our welfare reforms because many pupils who receive free school meals have parents on benefits. Understandably, that will probably decline as our welfare reforms progress. We have the data, and the ability to ensure, for the first time, that we differentiate genuinely deprived areas. We do not want anyone to miss out, and we don’t want an attack on deprived areas. We have the ability to pinpoint deprived areas, even within postcodes. I am sure that, although it may be difficult, the Department can do so, and I encourage it to do so. In places such as the Soundwell road—all hon. Members will know of similar roads between local authorities where there is a differential—we have the equivalent of an educational Berlin wall. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I say to the Minister, “Tear down that wall!”
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this debate. I want to pay tribute to the 35 schools in my constituency, all of which aim for the highest standards, not just academically but in extra-curricular activities. I thank the staff for everything that they do in keeping those standards high, and ensuring an enriching and fulfilling education for the children in my constituency.
Funding in South East Cornwall is a big issue. For 2012-13, the pupil premium grant was just under £4,700 per pupil, which is half of that allocated to a child in the City of London. We are, therefore, no better off than a lot of the other areas about which we have heard today. Cornwall comes 134th out of 151 local authorities, and in South East Cornwall the guaranteed unit of funding does not even begin to help the schools in the way that was intended. The Department for Education states:
“As the GUFs are based on previous spending levels, which will have reflected previous allocations, differences will roughly reflect the level of educational disadvantage in each area, area costs, and sparsity (i.e. the fact that very small rural primary schools are more expensive to run).”
I believe, as many hon. Members have said, that we should be spreading the money more equally to assist all children in the same way, regardless of where they live.
The pupil premium is a fantastic innovation of which the Government can be proud—at least they are taking steps to try to address the balance. In 2011-12, 10,700 pupils in Cornwall’s state-funded schools, including academies, qualified for the pupil premium, with total funding of just over £5 million. For 2012-13, the provisional figures are 16,000 pupils—24.6%—and £9.5 million.
Many of the schools in South East Cornwall that I have visited say that the pupil premium rules contain an anomaly, on which several hon. Members have touched. The pupil premium is based on the number of people who are registered for free school meals, but many parents are reluctant to claim such assistance for reasons that range from pride—we see a lot of that in rural farming communities—to simply being unaware of their entitlement. Surely, information is available to the Government that would enable them to identify those who are receiving financial assistance and are therefore entitled to free school meals. Rather than leaving it up to parents to register, it would make common sense for the pupil premium to be based on figures that are already held, and that would ensure that the superb schools in my constituency receive the right funding. Will the Minister consider such a move?
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
From the extreme south-west of England to the extreme north-east.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate that was so ably secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). We know that this is a debate about schools because everybody has started quoting famous names. By my account, we have had Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and Reagan snuck in at the end. I prefer to take the Minister back to the ancient Chinese proverb of Lao Tzu who—as our eminent Education Minister will know—was the founder of Taoism and said that the longest journey begins with a single step. Is not the essence of this debate that we are all seeking that first step? It is not a large step; it could be a short step.
Richard Graham
Since my hon. Friend introduced Lao Tzu, he will no doubt also be aware of the more recent Chinese philosopher and statesman Deng Xiaoping’s great remark, “Yi bu yi bu”—one step at a time. Does my hon. Friend think that that is appropriate for the way in which we might resolve the issue of fair funding for schools?
Guy Opperman
I do, and I will reply with words from Sun Tzu who, when he talked about the art of war, said, “Know your enemy.” That is interesting given that there is no enemy present today, but does not the absence of Opposition Members—save for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who will no doubt act robustly in defending the 13 years during which we all endured a funding gap—speak volumes?
I will move on from the happy badinage in which I and my hon. Friend have been engaged to say that like other hon. Members, I represent schools in Northumberland that look enviously at counties and cities that have a greater degree of funding. To put it simply, no change is not an option. As has happened to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), school governors and head teachers have drawn me to one side and whispered surreptitiously in my ear, “Do you really understand how badly off we are compared with X, Y or Z?” To be frank, they are correct in that analysis of the deficiencies in the present funding system, and significant issues need to be addressed.
We all accept the fair point raised earlier about the fact that there is a financial deficit and restrictions apply, meaning that progress is slow. However, when I go to areas of social deprivation in my constituency—of which there are a significant number—I see schools that survive only because of head teachers and governors who go so far beyond the extra mile that I shake my head in wonder.
I remember going to Prudhoe Castle first school where the head explained how she bought things out of her own pocket because the budget would not cover many of the basics, including essentials such as pencils. I was taken round that school by the head girl who said, “We really would like the lighting to be improved, because at times we cannot see the blackboard.” On a day when I welcome St Joseph’s school to the House of Commons, it is significant that everybody—quite rightly—has made the strong and eloquent point that we are gravely indebted, particularly in schools where there is less funding, to the unbelievable work and unstinting commitment of our head teachers, governors, teachers and staff who work in those schools. I pay tribute to the many members of staff whom I have had the opportunity to meet, but with more than 40 schools in my constituency I have not been able to meet every one of them thus far.
I will conclude my remarks because it is important that we hear from the shadow Minister and the Minister. However, I echo everything that has been said and believe that we should be spending the money more equally. I endorse the great support for the pupil premium, and eagerly await the Minister indicating how far the first step will be.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate and on the erudite way in which he introduced his argument. When discussing an issue of local government finance, by law it is necessary to invoke the Schleswig-Holstein question, which he wisely did. When looking at education funding and the many complex questions about welfare expenditure and the formulae for allocating funding to local authorities, it is right to reflect on the complexity and difficulty of such issues, which the Government are discovering to their cost.
I understand that many hon. Members today made sincere and heartfelt arguments in defence of their own local communities and about some of the funding discrepancies that occur between local authority areas, reflecting the differences in local authority funding formulae broadly, not just in education, and some of the discrepancies that occur between individual schools in their local communities. A common thread seemed to be an argument for additional spending on education. That is absolutely fine, but it does not quite fit with some of the concern expressed about the record of the Labour Government and the deficit. The fact is that we saw a dramatic increase in investment in education and in schools during those years and we are now seeing a squeeze on schools funding within which some of these difficult issues need to be played out.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said, that this is a long-standing issue. It goes back far longer than 20 years. The entire problem of discrepancy that we are grappling with reflects the fact that the education funding formula has a historical root. Allocation to schools and to local authorities was based on an incremental change in existing historical patterns. Then there were changes, many of which were introduced by the Labour Government, to make that system more progressive through the various specific grants that were introduced and to achieve particular ends and outcomes in education through those specific grants. The aim was also to begin the process—it was begun—to try to deal with some of the funding discrepancies through such means as the dedicated schools grant.
Therefore, it would not be fair to say that the Labour Government were not engaged in finding ways of dealing with some of the inexplicable and difficult variations in funding. The then Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Buscombe, reflected that fact when the dedicated schools grant was introduced, saying:
“We welcome the principal policy behind the regulations, the new ring-fenced dedicated schools grant, the multi-year budgets and the rationalisation of standards grants.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 2006; Vol. 678, c. 1340.]
Progress was being made.
However, there are tensions in relation to what hon. Members want. All of us wanting to see fairer and more progressive funding need to recognise that there are tensions between those two objectives. It is sometimes difficult to be more progressive and invest money in education outcomes that deal with some of the disadvantages that children have in schools and at the same time have a more equal funding formula that flattens some of the discrepancies to allow schools to have similar levels of funding.
David Mowat
Three times now the hon. Lady has used the word “progressive”. Can she explain to us how it is more progressive that Warrington, which has a substantially lower income per head than Westminster, has 50% less funding for its schools? That does not seem progressive to me.
Ms Buck
There are several answers to that. As a Member of Parliament for Westminster, I was anxious that we should not be drawn too far into our own local experiences. I just point out that the last time I looked, which was a year ago, my local authority had the ninth-highest entitlement to free school dinners—the imperfect but accepted measure of deprivation for funding purposes—in the entire country. The school deprivation is significantly greater than the deprivation of the local authority area as a whole. One of the other difficulties that we must face is that school populations are not necessarily the same as resident populations. That is another area of tension that must be dealt with. I am completely at one with those who say that not all the discrepancies can be explained, but some are more easily explicable than others.
Richard Graham
Can the shadow Minister confirm that she, like every other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, supports the principle that every pupil in the country should receive the same basic funding?
Ms Buck
The issue is more difficult than that. The core of the debate, which I want to come on to, is this. There need to be—the dedicated schools grant was taking us in this direction—some basic building blocks of education funding. The issue then is that although we do not have unlimited money—we did not have unlimited money even in the more generously funded years—we must also recognise that we need to address not just the deprivation element, but things such as special educational needs funding, which is a very difficult issue as well. It is very difficult to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve without significant additional funding and without some of the consequences that none of the hon. Members who have so far spoken has been willing to deal with.
Sheryll Murray
The hon. Lady mentioned the pupil premium entitlement. Did she mean entitlement or did she actually mean people who are claiming free school meals?
Ms Buck
I was about to come to the issue of free school meals. Of course it is difficult to accommodate, as an indicator of deprivation, any element that involves a degree of take-up. All Governments have had to and will continue to grapple with that. Some changes in local government allocations in the funding formulae, which have factored in the index of multiple deprivation and the take-up of tax credits, have proved to be even more difficult, because that variation is even more challenging. Obviously, if we could come up with a deprivation funding formula without dealing with take-up, that would be better. If we could find a way of doing that, I could understand why people would want to do so.
To return to my point, there is a tension between fair funding and progressive funding that we have not managed to resolve. There is also a tension between the core desire to see all schools and all pupils have a basic funding allocation to which a progressive element—a pupil premium or whatever people want to call it—is a relatively small top-up, and the historical desire for local authorities to have a say and for local democracy to be an element in deciding how funding is allocated. In another context, the Conservative party would argue that case quite strongly. One reason why it proved to be such a challenge, not just under the Labour Government but before that, was that local authorities were receiving funding for schools but not passing all that funding on to schools or were making their own decisions about how to share out the grant. Accusations can be levelled at all political parties, in different ways, because of what was done, but of course some of that is intrinsic to local democracy. If we take it out of the equation completely, that throws up other and very difficult questions.
We recognise that school funding is extremely complex, that there is a case for further reform and that that reform is of course far harder to achieve when funding is as tight as it is now. We are seeing the squeeze on school budgets. Even with the pupil premium, funding will fall. At the time of the 2010 spending review, the Department for Education said that total funding for the schools budget would be increased by 0.1% in real terms in each of the following four years. However, subsequent higher projections of economy-wide inflation have changed the real-terms calculation. They indicate, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a real-terms cut over the whole period of about 1% and a small real-terms increase in only one year. Of course, that is at a time when pupil numbers are expected to increase. That gives us an indication of the broader context in which some of these demands have arisen.
To make the position even more complicated for the Government, there is an absolute shambles going on because the Department for Work and Pensions has failed to work out a system whereby the new universal credit can accommodate a proper indicator for school dinners. It is struggling to find a way of doing that. That means that the way of calculating the deprivation indicator is moving even further away from what the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) is saying should be the case. We are, at the moment, at a complete loss to know how the deprivation factor will be properly assessed when it comes to future funding. Both those things—the squeeze on funding and the inability to calculate a future pupil premium, because of the free school meal entitlement shambles—undermine the Government’s case that the problem is so desperate that an immediate solution must be found.
Following the Government’s consultation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies brought out an absolutely damning critique of the Government’s thinking. The report exposes the rather arrogant belief, which we see in so many other areas of public policy, that the problems can be sorted now that we have a Conservative Government, and that the previous Government had, by definition, got everything wrong. When it looked at the small print, however, it found that things were much more difficult.
The report, which I encourage all Members to look at, shows that: the Government’s plans would lead to a large funding transfer from secondary schools to primary schools; the average gains and losses could be 10% or more; one in six schools would face budget losses of 10% or more; there would be huge numbers of winners and losers; and, even over a transitional period lasting six years, some schools would incur annual cash losses of up to 5%. The Secretary of State has therefore started to row back from his enthusiasm for seeing early movement on finding a response.
David Mowat
I am sure the IFS’s list of problems, which the hon. Lady has just read out, is correct, but does that not demonstrate the size of the problem that must be fixed? The fact those problems will exist if we move to a fair formula demonstrates how much inequity there is at the moment. However, will the hon. Lady clarify the Opposition’s position on introducing a new funding formula? Would they like us to carry on as we are doing, or would they prefer to see a new formula developed, albeit over time?
Ms Buck
As I thought I made clear in my opening remarks, I completely understand that there are arguments about similar schools with similar characteristics receiving different grant funding because of an historical pattern. I am merely pointing out that that was difficult to tackle when we had a generous funding framework, because of the impact on schools and the numbers of winners and losers. If it had been easy to tackle those issues, and there had not been large numbers of winners and losers, much greater progress would have been made, and some of the winners and losers would have been secondary schools in Conservative Members’ constituencies. Now, however, we are in a time of public spending constraint, so most of the challenges are far greater and could be far more damaging for schools, including some in the constituencies represented by Members here, who have made a powerful case, in principle, for having a fairer formula. My critique relates to the fact that the Government are rushing in and saying, “This can all be solved. The previous Government made a complete shambles. We’ll be able to oblige you with a solution,” when they cannot, of course, offer one or answer many of the questions that have been asked.
I want to finish by asking the Minister a few questions. How many winners and losers will there be as a result of the “Next steps” proposals and the Government’s decision to dictate to local areas how they organise their funding? Do the Government propose any modelling or pilots to test their proposals? In the light of what head teachers, collectively, want, why are the Government restricting local formulae to 10 centrally chosen criteria? Why will they not allow some flexibility to reflect differences in local circumstances?
What is the cost of using the Education Funding Agency to administer the budgets of increasing numbers of academies? Can academy chains gather all the funding and distribute it as they see fit, including holding back money for central services? If that is the case, does the Minister propose any restrictions? Is he taking any steps to monitor salaries in academy chains? Obviously, top pay will impact on the money spent on pupils.
How will the introduction of universal credit affect the Department’s thinking on free school meals and the pupil premium? The Department acknowledged it will cause “turbulence”. What exactly did that mean? Is free school funding per pupil per actual pupil or per notional pupil? Finally, will the Minister confirm that, as a result of the Government’s botched efforts, there will be no major overhaul of school funding during this Parliament?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing a debate on a topic of great importance to us all; indeed, I met him and other colleagues on 12 March to discuss it.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. Gloucestershire is ranked 136th out of 151 authorities for funding allocations per pupil. In 2011-12, funding per pupil was £4,661, compared with the national average of £5,082. My hon. Friend’s opening remarks and the whole debate reflect concerns across the sector about the school funding system.
My hon. Friend is the Martin Luther of school funding reform; indeed, I found a letter from the F40 chair, Councillor Ivan Ould, nailed to the door of the Department for Education. It listed four options or grievances, and we will respond to it in due course. I should, however, point out that option 3 would cost £99 million, which is not an insubstantial sum, given the current financial climate.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the passion, commitment and perseverance he has shown in campaigning for a fairer funding system and formula. He has raised these issues on countless occasions, including when I visited Tredworth junior school, Finlay community school and Gloucester academy in his constituency last July. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who has provided the leadership and steering for the F40 campaign in Parliament.
I wholeheartedly agree with hon. Members that the current system for funding schools is in desperate need of reform. It is based on an assessment of need that dates back to at least 2005-06, if not further, so it has not kept pace with changing demographics and the needs of pupils across the country. It is also too complex and opaque, so head teachers and governing bodies are often unable to understand how their budgets have been calculated.
It is not right that schools with very similar circumstances can receive vastly different funding for no clearly identifiable reason. We have found that funding between similar secondary schools can vary by £1,800 per pupil. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, the neighbouring areas of Luton, which is poorer than central Bedfordshire, and Buckinghamshire, which is richer, receive more funding per pupil than central Bedfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) made a similar point, when she said that Leicestershire, which received the lowest amount in the country, received £900 less per pupil than the city of Leicester. That seems unfair.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, there is a 50% discrepancy in funding between Warrington and Westminster local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) said that Redditch receives £1,000 per pupil less than Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) noted that one side of the Sandwell road in his constituency receives £4,487 per pupil, while the other receives £5,469 per pupil. I have never been compared to Mr Gorbachev, but I accept the challenge to tear down these walls and end these absurd inequities.
The Government remain committed to reforming the funding system so that it is fair, transparent and reflects the needs of pupils across the country. On 26 March, the Secretary of State for Education announced our intention to introduce a new national funding formula during the next spending period. I am sympathetic to my hon. Friends’ wish to see us move faster and address the system’s inequities much sooner. However, in reforming a system that is so entrenched, we need to proceed with caution, and it is important that we introduce full-scale reform at a pace that schools can manage. At a time of economic uncertainty, stability is crucial.
Our priority must be to ensure that schools are able to focus on delivering high educational standards and are not side-tracked by destabilising shifts to their funding. Attempting to introduce any dramatic change to the funding system at a time when we are, by necessity, addressing the budget deficit could cause problems in those schools where there might otherwise be significant changes in their funding.
We will move towards introducing a new funding system, but at a pace that gives us sufficient time to agree the construct of a new formula and that allows schools enough time to adjust to changes in their funding arrangements. Since last spring, we have consulted widely on how to create a funding system that is fair and logical and that distributes extra funding towards the pupils who need it most. The Department for Education has had a number of conversations with key groups, including schools, local authorities, unions and academies, to consider how we can move towards a fairer funding system.
The announcement made by the Secretary of State for Education on 26 March not only reaffirmed our commitment to introducing a new national funding formula during the next spending round, but set out detailed funding arrangements from next year. The funding arrangements from 2013-14 will make the local funding system simpler and more transparent for schools, early years provision and high-need pupils. Under the new arrangements, education provision will be funded on a much clearer, more comparable basis than under the current system. Head teachers, parents and governors will be able to see precisely how their budgets have been calculated, and why.
The first step—we have heard a lot today about first steps, in various languages—to simplifying local funding will be to work on the basis that as many services and as much funding as possible will be devolved to schools. I firmly believe that schools are best placed to decide how to meet the needs of their pupils and to target funding effectively.
Richard Graham
Just to clarify, I think that we all welcome the announcements made by the Education Secretary on 26 March, which will, as the Minister says, simplify things considerably; but does the Minister see that as a first step, which can be improved during this Parliament?
Mr Gibb
It is certainly a first step, and an important one that should not be underestimated; but the national funding formula, to which we want to move in the longer term, will commence in the next spending review, not the present one.
Our approach of simplifying local administration and the local formula and of maximum delegation to schools will give head teachers, principals and governors much more control over how funding is spent.
The second step on our journey is to reduce the number of factors that local authorities can use to distribute funding to schools. At present, they can use 37 factors when deciding how to allocate funding—a point that the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) raised. Each of those 37 factors can be interpreted widely and applied in different ways. That has resulted in long and complex local formulae, with huge variations across the country. We are reducing the number of factors that local authorities can use from 37 to 10.
The 10 remaining factors are clearly defined and help to ensure that funding is used to support the attainment of pupils. They are a basic per-pupil entitlement; a deprivation element; an element for looked-after children; low-cost, high-incidence special educational needs; English as an additional language for the first three years after the pupil enters the system; a lump sum, and we are consulting on whether to set a maximum cap of between £100,000 and £150,000; split sites; rates; and private finance initiative contracts. Also, for the five local authorities some but not all of whose schools are within the London fringe area, we will allow some flexibility to reflect higher salary costs in those areas. No longer will local authorities fund schools based on historic factors that we consider less important, such as the number of trees, or the number of ditches surrounding the property. It is right that, at a time of austerity, funding should be focused on supporting pupils to achieve. Each local authority will be required to publish details of its formula on a simple, clear and consistent pro-forma.
To strengthen local decision-making, the third step will be to make some changes to the schools forum arrangements. We will make improvements to their composition and operation, so that their business is more transparent and decisions better reflect the views of education providers. For example, we expect that schools forums should operate similarly to other council committees. Meetings should be held in public and decisions should be publicised.
Mr Buckland
An issue has arisen in the local authority in Swindon, where decisions on the allocation of moneys relating to the pupil premium have caused consternation, as some schools are entitled to more premium than others. I welcome my hon. Friend’s remarks about more transparency in schools forums.
David Mowat
Are the 10 factors, which the Minister has read out, that are to be used within a local authority to achieve a fair allocation potentially the basis for a national funding formula by which the money would get to the local authorities in the first place, which is the nub of the problem?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend raises a good point. Those are the very issues on which we are consulting, in moving to a national formula. We must move away from the phenomenally complicated formulae that currently apply in allocating funds to local authorities.
To ensure that we are better placed to introduce a national funding formula over the coming years, we are also making changes that will substantially improve how local authorities are funded. They will continue to be allocated amounts for each pupil through the dedicated schools grant based on previous funding levels. The difference will be that that grant will be allocated in three notional blocks: for schools, early years and high-needs pupils. The notional blocks will not be ring-fenced, so local authorities will continue to have flexibility over how they spend their money. That approach will benefit pupils and schools from all sectors and phases.
We will use the October census, rather than the January census as we do now, to calculate budgets for the schools block. Therefore, mainstream maintained schools will receive their budgets earlier, giving them more time to plan. The separate high-needs block will help to secure a more transparent and sustainable approach to funding pupils with high needs. Schools and other providers will be expected to contribute to the costs of a pupil with high needs, up to a clearly defined threshold. Any cost above that threshold will need to be met from the high-needs block. That will ensure that funding for high-needs pupils is funded in an equivalent way, whatever type of institution they attend, and it will improve consistency when young people move from one part of the country to another. The early years block will continue to be funded on the basis of the January census, but that funding will be adjusted to reflect actual numbers by the end of the financial year, to take into account the fact that young children join the school system at different points in the year. It will ensure that local authorities have greater certainty about funding for early years children.
We are aware that we need to reform the administration of the local authority central spend equivalent grant, which is very dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, so that there is greater comparability and transparency. We are exploring a new Department for Education grant that would substitute an element of the formula grant that is currently paid by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The new grant would cover relevant central educational services and be paid on a national basis, per pupil, to local authorities and academies. That, combined with the maximum devolution of funding to schools, would replace the need for LACSEG. Making the local system simpler and more transparent will mean that, when we come to address the national system, there will be far less complexity for us to untangle. This is the start of the process for which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South calls.
I am aware of the concerns covered in the opening remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, including those about small schools, which were also discussed by other hon. Members during the debate. We have considered the additional needs of small rural schools in developing the new funding arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) pointed out, very small schools are very expensive. We have built enough flexibility into the proposed system to allow local authorities and schools forums to support successful small schools—for example, through the lump sum that I referred to earlier.
In the remaining period of the spending review, schools are being funded at flat cash per pupil, in addition to which schools receive £600 per pupil eligible for free school meals. However, to support our proposed changes and to protect all schools, including small schools, from significant locally decided fluctuations in their budgets, we will continue to operate a minimum funding guarantee of minus 1.5% per pupil for 2013-14 and 2014-15. Therefore, in most circumstances, schools across the country can be assured that, over the next two years, their budgets will not be reduced by more than 1.5% per pupil each year.
Our analysis has shown that those measures will protect the majority of small schools. However, we are consulting on the issues and listening to all the sector’s concerns. Formal decisions on protection for small schools and, indeed, other areas of reform will be announced in the summer.
Uganda (Human Rights)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue, which is of great importance to many people both inside and outside my constituency. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I thank hon. Members who have taken the time to participate in the debate.
Let me set the scene. Picture with me a quiet village on the Ugandan plains at night. There are lots of shacks, and the peaceful silence is interrupted only by the odd bleating of an animal. The children are asleep; all is at rest. The silence is suddenly destroyed by the noise of trucks, shouts and guns being fired. Families are literally dragged out of their homes. Children watch as their fathers are shot and their mothers are taken.
A little boy is pulled from his brother to stand in front of a man who points a gun at his head and tells him to shoot his mother. If he does not shoot her, he and his brother will be shot. He looks into his mother’s eyes as she slowly nods her head urging him to do it. He pulls the trigger, turns to his captor who says, “You are on my side now. You are my comrade in arms. You are a soldier in the Lord’s Resistance Army.” All that little boy knows is that he has killed his own mother. All that he believes is that he is evil and worthless, and all that he hopes for is that he never comes back to this place. Some people say that such events happen only in the movies and that it is not real life, but the fact is it is real life for far too many in Uganda.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It is not only real life for children now, but it has been real life for people in Uganda for 25 years. Some 1.5 million have been forced to flee their homes, 20,000 children have been abducted to become soldiers or sold as sex slaves. They are used as cart horses, force-marched and kept hungry for days. Other children are used as target practice. Babies are slaughtered for cannibalism and villages are abandoned. Again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this matter and hope that in this debate we can highlight the atrocities right across this country and beyond because action must be taken to stop this.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her words. She is well known in this House for her compassion and interest in many countries across the world where abuse takes place on a regular basis. In my comments, I will probably touch on some of her points.
In some areas, what I have outlined is still life and something must be done to change it. Some 20,000 children from Uganda have been kidnapped by the LRA for use as child soldiers and slaves. That is 20,000 childhoods stolen, 20,000 hearts broken, 20,000 children ripped from their mother’s arms and forced, as in my example, into terrible situations, and 20,000 reasons for us, as Members of Parliament, to stand here today and ensure that everything possible is done to make a difference to those lives.
The Lord’s Resistance Army, or the Lord’s Resistance Movement, is a so-called militant Christian group. There is certainly nothing Christian about its activities. It operates in northern Uganda, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic and is accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, sexual slavery and forcing children to participate in hostilities—all grievous charges. Initially, the LRA was an out-growth and a continuation of a larger armed resistance movement waged by some of the Acholi people against the central Ugandan Government whom they felt marginalised them at the expense of southern Ugandan ethnic groups. The group is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself to be the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium.
Since 1987, Kony is believed to have recruited between 60,000 and 100,000 child soldiers and displaced about 2 million people throughout central Africa. The LRA is one of the foreign organisations that the United States Government has designated as terrorist, and its leadership is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
On 23 March, the African Union announced its intentions to send 5,000 soldiers to join the hunt for the rebel leader, Joseph Kony, and to neutralise him—its words—while isolating the scattered LRA groups, which are responsible for 2,600 civilian killings since 2008. This international task force was to include soldiers from Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Those are countries in which Kony’s reign of terror has been felt over a great many years.
Before that announcement, the hunt for Kony was primarily carried out by troops from Uganda. The soldiers began their search in South Sudan on 24 March, and that search will last until Kony is caught. Over the weekend, hundreds of people turned out for a rally in Northern Ireland to highlight the atrocities in Uganda and to call for tough action, ever mindful of the fact that the African Union’s 5,000-strong army has pledged to catch him.
The Americans have laid their cards on the table and are supportive of this hunt. In his response, will the Minister tell us how we are supporting the capture of this evil man and his army? There is also the issue of his dynasty. This is a man who is rumoured to have 88 wives and 46 children—he has been a busy man—and his ideals are certain to be carried on. We must do all that we can to ensure that there is no succession in this case.
The ravages of war have left the country literally dying and in great need of help. The conflict in the north of the country between the Ugandan People’s Defence Force and the LRA has decimated the economy, retarded the development of affected areas and led to hundreds of thousands of gross human rights violations. Those violations have centred on the poor emergency provision for internally displaced persons fleeing their homes to avoid the LRA. It has been estimated that 2 million Ugandans had to flee their homes. Many ended up in refugee camps, rife with disease and starvation—almost a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. Disease has spread further through Uganda due to the number of people who are passing through these camps. Many are suffering in rural areas. A simple shot or course of antibiotics could almost instantly end the pain and stop the spread of disease. Will the Minister tell us what medical help has been given directly to Uganda?
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while we cannot even begin to understand this travesty or the human pain that exists within the country, there has also been a radical growth not only in murder—pastors have been killed and children have been forced to shoot their mothers—but in human trafficking and we need to do something radical about it. As the United Kingdom pays a lot of funding to these countries, surely something can be done.
Jim Shannon
Yes, human trafficking is a massive issue. My hon. Friend is well known for supporting and championing that issue. Northern Ireland had its first human trafficking conviction yesterday. Hopefully, that will be the first of many such convictions in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom as well.
In the six years since the signing of the cessation of hostilities agreement, many displaced persons have returned to their homes and a rehabilitation and redevelopment programme is under way. However, standards of living are nowhere near what we in the western world would deem to be acceptable. I know that it is unfair to draw a comparison between the western world and Uganda, but in fact the conditions in Uganda remain closer to shocking than to any semblance of acceptability. If we think of the worst standard of living and then go beyond that, that is what it is like in some places in Uganda.
What is Uganda like now in terms of its Government? The President of Uganda is Yoweri Kaguta Museveni; I say that with my Ulster Scots accent. He is both Head of State and Head of Government. The President appoints a vice-president, who is currently Edward Ssekandi, and a Prime Minister, who is currently Amama Mbabazi, and they aid him in governing the country. The Parliament is formed by the national assembly, which has 332 members, of whom 104 are nominated by interest groups, including women and the army, so there is some representation for other groups in the country. The remaining members are elected for five-year terms in general elections.
Uganda is rated by Transparency International among the countries that it perceives as being “very corrupt”. Transparency International has a scale measuring corruption ranging from zero, which means “most corrupt”, to 10, which means “clean”. Uganda has a rating of 2.4, so it is right up there when it comes to human abuse and the violation of rights.
Under Idi Amin in the 1970s, Christians suffered restrictions and even intense persecution. The current Ugandan Government does not officially restrict religious freedom any longer. However, religious oppression still occurs in individual cases.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that, although the human rights situation in Uganda improved after Idi Amin, since Museveni’s so-called re-election a few years ago things have got decidedly worse? In Uganda, there have been a lot of arrests, restrictions on the press and abuse of human rights on a general scale that is getting worse by the day.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I will speak about some of the human rights abuses in Uganda shortly, but they are at a worse level now than they have ever been in the past. Idi Amin was ousted, but at the end of the day what took his place was not necessarily for the betterment of the Ugandan people, and the hon. Lady has very clearly said that.
As I was saying, religious oppression occurs in individual cases, especially against Christians from a Muslim background. Where such Christians are threatened, the Ugandan state does not always seem able to protect them effectively prior to an attack or to provide them with justice following an attack. I will give three examples to illustrate that point. I know of these examples because of the Open Doors charity, which is a group that works on behalf of persecuted Christians right across the world.
The first example is that of Bishop Umar Mulinde, who was an Islamic teacher before his conversion to Christianity. Since then, he has often criticised Islam and has had to rely on police protection while preaching at large Christian gatherings throughout Uganda. Because of the threats he received, he and his family had to relocate within Kampala, the capital city. On 24 December 2011—Christmas eve—he was attacked by Islamic extremists outside his Gospel Life church in Kampala. The attackers were able to pour acid down his back and on to his face, leaving him with severe facial burns. The acid blinded one eye, which doctors had to remove, and threatened the sight in his other eye. His attackers were able to contact him after the incident to say:
“We are happy that the acid has disfigured your face, and also disappointed because our intention was to kill you.”
The second example is also important. It is that of Hassan, a former sheikh and a former member of a violent Islamic group. In 2007, he started exploring Christianity and was warned by his associates not to
“make such a mistake again—we are ready to help you. If you continue with this move, then we will destroy you.”
He reported the threats to the police in the sub-county of Insanje, in the Wakiso district. In response, his associates sent other threatening letters. He became a Christian in June 2011 and received more death threats, which forced him to flee to Kenya. He returned to Uganda in September 2011 and received further death threats. He reported those threats to the police in Chengera, who told him that they would investigate. However, in October 2011 he heard of a plan to kill him and he again fled Uganda. He is now in hiding in Kenya again, and his movements are severely restricted following yet more threats to kill him.
The third example is that of a 13-year-old girl from the Kasese district. She was placed under house arrest for converting to Christianity. Her father threatened to slaughter her publicly with a knife for converting, before locking her up instead. For six months, he kept her in a room with no sunlight. She survived only on the food and water that her little brother managed to smuggle to her under the door. When she was rescued, she weighed less than 44 lb and had many medical complications. In fairness, the local police acted quickly when they were made aware of the case and arrested her father. However, they released him without charge soon afterwards. Again, where is the law of the land in Uganda when people, such as that young girl, need it most?
What support is being given by Britain to deal with cases such as those? Perhaps the Minister, in his response to the debate, can indicate whether Britain has had any direct contact with the Ugandan Government, particularly regarding these types of cases. I understand that we cannot police Uganda, but surely we can guarantee that any help and support that is given by Britain is going to the right people. I know that the needs of Uganda are great and I also know that there are Members in Westminster Hall today who have visited the country. I have not visited Uganda itself, but I have visited nearby countries. A good foundation is needed in Uganda and the open protection of Christians is required to show that persecution in any form will not be tolerated, that religious freedom is a protected freedom and that all people should be able to live in peace and practise their faith as they strive together to rebuild Uganda.
Amnesty International has said:
“The Uganda government and various public authorities have in recent years resorted to illegitimate restrictions on the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in response to some of the critical voices on a number of governance issues. In particular, journalists, civil society activists, opposition political leaders and their supporters risk arbitrary arrest, intimidation, threats and politically-motivated criminal charges for expressing views”.
That echoes the point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) made in her earlier intervention.
Margot James
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous in doing so. I wanted to share the experience that I had while visiting Uganda in 2009 to mark international women’s day. I was appalled to read recently that Amnesty International have reported that Ingrid Turinawe has been arrested. I met Ingrid on my 2009 visit. She was an officer of the opposition party, the Forum for Democratic Change, and a leading women’s campaigner. It is appalling to think that she has been arrested for nothing other than organising assemblies and trying to exercise her right to protest.
Jim Shannon
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is absolutely scandalous that that should happen. We live in a democratic society where we exercise our democratic rights and the people who vote for us do so as well, and examples such as that of democratic rights being restricted, blatantly wrong imprisonment and so on, are issues that I wholeheartedly want to highlight today, and hopefully our Government can get some response from the Ugandan authorities about such cases.
Amnesty International has also said:
“The measures taken by the authorities violate Uganda’s international and domestic human rights obligations”—
I share that view and the hon. Lady has also made that point—
“and have culminated in widespread official intolerance of criticism of some of the government’s policies and practices and a crackdown on political dissent.”
We cannot accept that, we cannot let it happen and we have to highlight it today.
A recent report by Amnesty International also highlights its concerns about official repression of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as well as the failure to hold to account the perpetrators of human rights violations committed against political activists, journalists and civil society activists. Those perpetrators are not being held to account and they should be. The report focuses on the general clampdown on the right to freedom of expression, in particular press freedom, between 2007 and 2011, and on the official intolerance of peaceful public protests regarding rising costs of living in April and May 2011. The official response to those protests involved the widespread use of excessive force, including lethal force on many occasions, to quell protests. It also involved the arrest, the ill-treatment and the levelling of criminal charges against opposition leaders and their supporters; the imposition of restrictions on the media; and attempts to block public use of social networking internet sites.
A proposal by the President in May 2011 to amend the Ugandan constitution to remove the right to bail for persons arrested for involvement in demonstrations and other vaguely defined “crimes” points to increasing repression of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. That proposal also illustrates that what we have today in Uganda is a repressive system of Government that is taking away the basic rights of Ugandan citizens. Of course, Ugandan officials deny that there are undue restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly, and they contend that various Government actions are justified. However, international human rights law places clear limits on the restrictions that may be imposed on the exercise of those rights. A number of proposed laws in Uganda contain provisions that, if enacted, would result in impermissible restrictions on the exercise of those rights, which I believe would breach Uganda’s obligations under international law. So, Uganda is stepping outside the rules and regulations of international law. Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea of how this Government—our Government and my Government—are working to ensure that we address these issues.
Some cynics will say that we have enough difficulties in our own nation without borrowing trouble from others. I have even heard some people say that we should not give other countries financial aid when we are reducing the deficit, and that we should not become embroiled in political situations. I say clearly that we have to help other countries. This Government have led the way and have increased their portion of financial aid. I say well done to them for what they are doing. Christian Aid is one of the organisations that has lobbied us all. I fully and totally support the Government.
David Simpson
On the point about aid, I agree with my hon. Friend: this United Kingdom has led the way in helping countries that are deprived in many ways. Does he agree that there needs to be some way of controlling the aid? The LRA is moving into villages and removing food, clothes and water. People are being left to die from starvation and thirst. There needs to be some way of putting pressure on the Ugandan Government to control the aid and make sure it gets to those who need it.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable contribution. Indeed, the questions we ask in the Chamber often address how to get aid, food and resources to the people who need it most, and how to do that without some of it being siphoned off at different places. That happens in many countries, where people whose activities are criminal siphon off some of the aid that we send through. The Government have led the way in championing financial assistance and aid to other countries. I welcome and support that, as I think everyone in the House does.
Although I consider the needs of my community and work together with others to see that those needs are met, I also understand from history that when we stand back and wash our hands of events, as Chamberlain did in the second world war, it does not mean peace and it certainly does not absent someone from evil or wrongdoing. We cannot live untouched by the suffering of those around us, and today is an opportunity to highlight the suffering of those in Uganda. I recently had the opportunity to visit Kenya with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I was somewhat shocked to see what I had only ever seen depicted in films: absolute poverty. The standard of living there is something that, in our worst dreams or figurations, we will never completely grasp.
When I read about the atrocities, I understood that there was something that this Government and this people could do. Some might ask why we bother. Why do we have such debates in Westminster Hall or highlight such issues in the main Chamber? It is quite simple: evil triumphs when good people do nothing. That terminology is often used, but it is true. I have always loved history and there is a poem that I want to read out because everyone here will be familiar with it right away. What it refers to certainly will not be said about me, about many others in this Chamber or about this great House—this mother of Parliaments—that we have the privilege to serve in. I also hope it will not be said about this great nation, of which I am a member. The poem refers to Nazi Germany in the second world war. It states:
“ First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,”—
they are being persecuted in Uganda—
“and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
I do not believe for one second that the same circumstances that have happened in Uganda will happen to me, but will there come a time when we need help and support as a nation? Almost certainly. We all need each other. We can only hope that if and when such a time arises there are those who will speak for us. This House is the spokesperson today for those in Uganda who are suffering tremendous persecution.
A constituent recently sent me a letter, which touched me greatly, regarding the plight of those in Uganda. The letter was comprehensive, detailed and clear about what was required of me, and of all MPs. At the end of the letter was something that caused me to pause:
“Mr Shannon, I am not a charity worker, I am not a political activist, I’m a sixteen year old politics students who would like to politely ask you to forward my concerns”.
Some people will say that a 16-year-old is a child, but he is a young man who wants to do what he can to see change, and wants his MP to do likewise. We cannot do any less today.
In conclusion, we must speak out for those in Uganda who cannot speak for themselves. We must support our words with deeds. We must ensure that we help the people of Uganda in a practical and, I have to say, prayerful way. I pray for them every day. The Department has received many queries from MPs and Lords who are seeking to ensure that adequate action and help is effected. I seek assurance from the Minister that we will not wash our hands, but get them dirty and do our bit for Ugandans who are being oppressed: the 20,000 young children; the 2 million people who have been displaced; the hundreds of thousands who have been conscripted into the army; the Christians, with their civil and religious rights, who are being persecuted by militant Muslims; members of civil rights organisations; members of unions in opposition and in government; and women in government, whose rights have been violated. We can make a difference and we are dedicated to their plight.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, particularly as you are my parliamentary neighbour, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate and on the sincere way in which he put his case. He is gaining a great reputation in the House for the way that he handles things. He is entirely right to raise the issue of the Lord’s Resistance Army. My understanding is that, through military activity, the LRA has largely been driven out of north-east Uganda, which is more peaceful today than it has been for many years.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr Kony, the leader of the LRA, is indicted for war crimes and is still perpetrating atrocities in the countries in which he operates—South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic. The United Nations has operations in those countries, particularly in the DRC, but it does not have the resources to go after Mr Kony properly, and he is committing some of the worst human rights atrocities in the world. I hope that the UK will devote more attention to the matter.
Fiona Bruce
Would it be right to say that we should not only devote more attention to the matter, but work in partnership with other nations who want to see it resolved? That is how we can be most effective.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is entirely right. We do not have the resources to send troops in directly, but through the UN, we can help to bolster operations, perhaps in the DRC, so that we can put greater efforts into trying to capture a man who is, I repeat, an indicted war criminal. He is highly mobile and never sleeps in the same place, so capturing him requires considerable resources, particularly helicopters, so that our troops can keep ahead of the game and catch up with him.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said, in recent weeks and months, we have seen a rapid descent and some of the most appalling abuses of human rights under the regime of the Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni. The police and security forces now regularly use lethal force, especially during political demonstrations, and I should like to address the crackdown on opponents of the Museveni Government. Ever since his so-called re-election in May 2011, there has been a wave of opposition demonstrations, many of which have ended up in violence. Opposition politicians, their supporters and journalists all too often face harassment, beatings and arrest.
The leader of Uganda’s main opposition party, the Forum for Democratic Change, Dr Kizza Besigye—a reasonable man whom I have met on a number of occasions—was recently attacked at an FDC rally, where police and military personnel surrounded him and cut him off from his supporters. They crushed his car screen and prevented him from leaving the scene.
Ever since the advent of the first multi-party elections in 2006, the Museveni Government have done whatever they can to prevent any opposition from playing on a level playing field. Before those elections, Dr Besigye was arrested on trumped up charges of treason and rape in an effort to prevent him from standing. On the occasions that I have met him, he has had to get special permission to leave the country, because he is still subject to those trumped up charges.
In another, more recent, incident, which I discussed with the Minister for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), Dr Besigye was leading a small demonstration by Activists for Change—the so-called A4C—outside a Government building, when a rock thrown from within that building hit a plain-clothes policeman, who subsequently, and unfortunately, died. The Minister for Africa told me these facts, so I know them to be correct. It seems reasonably clear that this was nothing whatsoever to do with Dr Besigye or any of his followers, yet scores of people were arrested, along with Dr Besigye, who was subsequently charged with unlawful assembly and placed under house arrest for a time.
The Ugandan Government declared on 4 April 2012 that A4C was an “unlawful society”, ahead of a planned demonstration on 5 April. The Ugandan Attorney-General, Peter Nyombi, also declared that, should members of A4C attempt to form a new group, that would also be banned—something that transpired after the members of A4C formed the new group called “For God and My Country”. The same Attorney-General said:
“If the old pressure group members are the same office bearers, the group remains illegal.”
Police and security forces continue to harass and disturb events and rallies organised by opposition supporters. At a recent meeting of the International Democrat Union’s Africa branch in Kampala, delegates—international delegates coming into Uganda—were harassed by the police force, which forced the Fairway hotel to cancel the IDU’s booking and attempted to force the Grand Imperial hotel to deny the IDU space.
Last week, several people, including a 12-year-old girl, were injured and shops closed in a one-hour battle between police and supporters of Dr Besigye, as the police attempted to stop him from accessing the Nakasero market simply to have his lunch.
Only yesterday, several women were arrested as they protested at the brutal manner in which the opposition FDC Women’s League leader, Ingrid Turinawe, was arrested last Friday. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) has already mentioned that incident, but it bears repetition. Ms Turinawe was assaulted on Friday as the police blocked a rally called by the opposition in Nansana, outside Kampala. Ugandan television footage clearly shows that, as several officers tried to pull her out of her vehicle, she was sexually assaulted and she is heard shouting out in pain. This is all part of a downward trend in the ability of political opposition in Uganda to fulfil its basic rights and to protest peacefully.
Worryingly, a proposed Public Order Management Bill, which is before the Ugandan Parliament, could further limit freedom of expression for demonstrators, if passed in its current form. Under the Bill, public meetings will be prohibited in certain circumstances. It will prohibit public meetings that are aimed at discussing Government policies and affairs of management. For journalists, the Bill will limit their role of seeking, receiving and imparting information, which is a vital aspect of freedom of expression and democracy. Journalists, along with political demonstrators, are also increasingly coming under attack by police and security forces.
The Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda documented 107 cases of attacks on journalists in 2011, compared to 58 in 2010 and 38 in 2009. That demonstrates a worrying trend.
Margot James
My hon. Friend mentions a number of repressive measures currently before the Parliament of Uganda. Is he aware of another Bill, which is being introduced in this session, that seeks to institutionalise further discrimination against the gay and lesbian minority and reintroduce the proposals current 18 months ago to implement the death penalty for having same-sex relationships? Is he as appalled as I am about that? Does he call on the Government to review aid strategy in the light of all the human rights abuses that we are hearing about this morning?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend does the House a service in bringing attention to such matters. When the highly discriminatory measures that she mentions—I totally deplore them—came before the previous Ugandan Parliament, they were subject to a lot of international criticism. If they are to be persisted with, which it seems that they are, I hope that Britain will join further international protests to try to prevent them from happening. The proposals are highly discriminatory.
Journalists in Uganda have been subject to shootings, attacks, arrest and detention. They have been prevented from accessing news scenes and their equipment has been taken away. Such actions are in violation of international human rights law and must be deplored. The UK has a particular responsibility in respect of Uganda and a deep-seated interest in the events taking place. As a member of the Commonwealth, we have a long and shared history with that country. Through the Department for International Development, we will spend an average of £98 million per year in Uganda until 2015.
As the country has many natural resources—in particular, emerging finds of oil— Uganda has transformed from a failed state to a fast-growing economy. The abuses of human rights taking place, however, are simply unacceptable. The Minister with responsibility for African affairs is fully aware of events on the ground in Uganda—he visited the country recently, when he met with President Museveni and Dr Besigye—so I hope that he takes note of what has been said today.
Through the African Union and the Commonwealth, pressure must be applied to the Ugandan Government to uphold their responsibilities to their people. As a country, Uganda has huge potential. It must, however, take action to rectify the seriously deteriorating human rights situation that has developed and that has accelerated since the recent election. I am always hesitant about criticising people who cannot answer for themselves, but my perception is that in the past Ministers and Foreign Office representatives on the ground in Kampala have been far too timid in their meetings with President Museveni in protesting about human rights abuses and, in particular, the right of the opposition to carry out their normal democratic functions. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is not the case.
I urge the UK Government to continue to support the rights and freedoms of all Ugandans and their efforts to persuade the Ugandan authorities to respect people’s constitutionally guaranteed right to the peaceful exercise of the freedoms of speech and of assembly that we expect in any civilised, modern, democratic state. Furthermore, the UK Government must encourage the Ugandan Government to ensure that the actions of the police and the security forces should be proportionate to the events that actually take place on the ground.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to follow the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) in the debate. I was in Uganda for the 2010 elections, and to see the deterioration in the atmosphere in Uganda and the violent acts taking place at the moment was horrific.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing today’s debate. His speech touched on the effect of “Kony 2012”, which was astonishing, mobilising people throughout the world. While there has been some criticism of the film, the intention was clearly to simplify the issue and to communicate it to the masses, which it certainly did. Young people took to the streets in cities throughout the world during the weekend to show solidarity with the victims of the Lord’s Resistance Army in the great lakes region.
Although the LRA has now been driven from Uganda, it is still active in the regions. Tragically, as the hon. Gentleman stated, tens of thousands of people in Uganda are still suffering from the aftermath of Joseph Kony’s terror spree. Families are displaced from their homes and villages. Men, women and children are living with the shame of being raped under Kony’s command, while others have to cope every day with the disabilities forced on them after being mutilated by the LRA. Joseph Kony remains a wanted and indicted war criminal, and I hope that the attention that has shone on him through the campaign will lead ultimately to his capture.
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the many non-governmental organisations that are working in the area to rehabilitate former child soldiers who were captured by the LRA. Voluntary Service Overseas is working with young people in north Uganda to empower them with skills to develop their own businesses. One of those young people is Betty, and a synopsis of her story will provide a good example of the tens of thousands of children that VSO is helping.
Betty was abducted aged just 15 and immediately married to an older man who was a lieutenant in the LRA. She was forced to kill people with an axe. She once tried to escape with a group of other women, but when they were caught, she was beaten with 100 strokes and still has health complications as a result of that attack. When she did finally escape, she discovered that she was HIV positive and had to return to her village with two children as a result of her marriage. She said that she felt stigmatised and was no longer accepted in her village, and she was left on her own to look after her children. With the support of VSO, Betty and other women and children like her have been able to set up their own businesses. Betty now has her own bakery in Gulu in northern Uganda. Help is getting to the area, but I ask the Government to do what they can to support such ventures and help the rehabilitation of victims of that war.
I wish to touch on another subject that has been briefly mentioned today and concerns human rights, which is the situation of homosexuals in Uganda and the abuse and vilification of that community. Last year, shortly after I returned from Uganda, the first man to live openly as a homosexual in Uganda paid the ultimate price—his life—for standing up for the courage of his convictions. His name was David Kato, and he was the executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda. His brutal murder in his own home shocked people throughout the world, including many Members present in the Chamber today.
As chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, I have been privileged to work with David’s successor, Frank Mugisha, who I am pleased to say was recently awarded the Robert F. Kennedy human rights award. He is respected in the United States and in this country for his work in Uganda, and he is currently risking his life to lead the fight against the anti-homosexuality Bill that is going through the Ugandan Parliament at the moment. As we know, that Bill could introduce the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda. Not only would that be a retrograde step for human rights, but it could be severely damaging for public health in Uganda, given the HIV epidemic that still has hold of the country.
Criminalising a section of the population that is highly at risk of contracting HIV and denying people access to basic services, health care and education about the epidemic undermines individual human rights and could pose a devastating threat to public health in a country where more than 1 million people have been diagnosed as HIV-positive. Such a situation would be further undermined by the Bill on HIV and AIDS control and prevention that threatens not only the confidentiality of clients, but efforts to prevent the spread of the disease.
To make progress against the HIV epidemic we must encourage Uganda to take a pragmatic, public-health orientated approach, much like the one I saw when visiting Kenya, Uganda’s neighbour. There, even though homosexuality remains an offence, reaching out to homosexuals and educating them about the risk of HIV and how to protect themselves is seen as a public health matter and beyond that legislation. What works is to respect human rights, including the human rights of men who have sex with men, to enable to them to get access to HIV prevention and education services.
One of the most challenging aspects of the issue is that myths surrounding homosexuals and their activities are propagated by outsiders in Uganda. They have helped to perpetuate myths associating homosexuality with paedophilia, and politicised an issue that had previously remained underground for many years. When I was in Uganda, I saw publications such as Rolling Stone, which was allowed to out homosexual men in Kampala, leading to horrific violent attacks against them. However, outsiders can make a positive difference, too, and I welcome the strong line that the UK Government have so far taken with countries that impose harsher penalties for men who have sex with men. International pressure played a huge role in the withdrawal of the anti-homosexuality Bill in Uganda last year, and I hope that that will continue.
The issue is a difficult and controversial one to raise. Talking so openly about sex and relationships can be difficult in our own culture and society, never mind in Uganda, but it is imperative that we frame the concerns in the context of human rights abuses, rather than solely talking about gay rights. The things that have happened are human rights abuses. As I have said, I am privileged enough to have visited the beautiful country of Uganda several times, and it is close to my heart. Like many countries, Uganda has a huge diversity of cultures, peoples, attitudes and beliefs. We cannot assume that the intolerance and hatred that are propagated in some sections of the press are reflected in the whole of society in Uganda. As Frank Mugisha has said:
“Still, I continue to hope. There are encouraging times when my fellow activists and I meet people face to face and they realise we aren’t the child-molesting monsters depicted in the media. They realise we are human, we are Ugandan, just like them.”
The right to marry is far from the minds of homosexuals in Uganda. All they are asking for at the moment is the freedom to live their lives without fear and discrimination—or possibly, even, the freedom to live at all. The message that I have from activists for homosexual rights in Uganda is that they do not want our country to withdraw aid from theirs. As they told me, they need to eat, too, and they need health care, too. What they want is for us to use our influence and discuss human rights for everyone in Uganda, as we are doing today. I hope that the Government will continue to use their influence in Uganda to stress that message at the highest level.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I, too, had the pleasure of visiting Uganda—first in 2006, with Oxfam, and then again in 2007, when I was one of the guinea pigs for the Voluntary Service Overseas parliamentary scheme, in which MPs are sent to work on short-term placements in the summer. I spent a few weeks at VSO head office in Kampala, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) that it is a beautiful country, with very friendly people. I very much enjoyed my visits there, although on my first one, with Oxfam, I was taken up to Kitgum, to the camps for internally displaced people who had been driven from their villages by the Lord’s Resistance Army.
It was my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa, and it was certainly one of the most tragic sights I had seen—people living in huge camps. I think at that time about 1.8 million people had been displaced from their villages. They were in their mud huts, surviving on one meal a day. I always remember the sight of a young boy, who was probably about 11 or 12, and who was wearing a three-piece suit that had obviously been donated to a charity in a place such as the UK. It was 10 sizes too big for him, the trousers were all rucked up, and he had a little waistcoat. He was wearing it in the baking sun, but was obviously proud of his suit.
When I was there, there was talk of the peace talks beginning to make some progress. There were talks in Juba. However, it was several years later before people who had spent nearly two decades in the camps were able to return to their villages. It is important that the Kony 2012 campaign has drawn attention to the atrocities that have been perpetuated by the LRA, but it is somewhat ironic that it has come to international attention—and that so many celebrities have become aware of it and are drawing it to greater public attention—at a time when the LRA is no longer operational in Uganda and people have been able to return to their villages.
It is clear that the LRA has no popular support in Uganda and no clear political agenda. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, virtually all Christians would be absolutely appalled at Joseph Kony’s claim to be inspired by the ten commandments and that he is acting through some sort of Christian imperative. The UK leads on the LRA at the UN Security Council, and Lord Howell said recently in the other place that
“the UK Government remains 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.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2012; Vol. 736, c.GC199.]
I am not quite sure what that entails. I appreciate that the Minister may be in difficulties and that if operations are under way, he would not want to reveal them to us. However, it is not clear to me whether there are active attempts to track down Kony and bring him to justice, or whether it is a question of containment and of trying to prevent him inflicting more atrocities.
One thing that struck me when I was in Uganda is that the Acholi people have a concept of reconciliation that involves a ceremony. I cannot remember the details, but it is something to do with drinking something from a tree. When I spoke to people there, they were very keen to implement that and forgive people who had been abducted by the LRA and had committed atrocities, even if it came down to killing or raping people of their own tribe. That is their culture of forgiveness and they wanted those people back in their villages. Surely that process should not extend to the likes of Joseph Kony and the leaders of the LRA. It is incredibly important that he is brought to justice.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Lady share the concern of many people—including myself and many in this House and outside it—who are fearful that Joseph Kony could be going underground? In other words, he could hide for a certain period of time when there are 5,000 soldiers trying to find him and, at some time in the future if he is not caught, he could come out of the woodwork again and resume his violent activities and brutalisation of the people.
Kerry McCarthy
I do, indeed. I remember when I was in Uganda that Kony’s deputy, Vincent—his surname escapes me—was phoning in on Bush radio and taking part in talk shows. It seemed rather strange that although technically they were in hiding, in some ways they were quite visible. Yet, no one had managed to track them down and arrest them. We know that the LRA has been seen in the DRC and in South Sudan, and there is a real fear that it could be regrouping or that atrocities are being carried out in those areas, too.
The UN has also expressed concerns about acts carried out by the Uganda People’s Defence Force. There have been allegations of rape, torture and use of lethal force, especially during political demonstrations. Opposition politicians, their supporters and some journalists have faced harassment, beatings, and arrest. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) listed in some detail the pressure that Opposition politicians have been put under. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) mentioned—I think she was talking about the same incident—that, in January 2011, the police arrested 35 female activists from the inter-party co-operation coalition, who were protesting against the Electoral Commission of Uganda and accusing it of partiality.
There have also been reports—for example, by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women—that violence against women and girls in Uganda remains widespread. There is an inordinately high prevalence of sexual offences and although it is promising to note that Uganda has ratified the protocol to the African charter on the rights of women in Africa, much more needs to be done.
On press freedom, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, last year, Uganda dropped 43 places to 139th position out of 170 countries in the world assessed by Reporters Without Borders. Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda documented 107 cases of attacks on journalists in 2011, up from 58 in 2010 and 38 in 2009. Those incidents include shootings, physical attacks, unlawful arrest and detention, incarceration, denying the media access to news scenes, confiscation of equipment, defective and trumped-up charges and verbal threats. According to Amnesty International, at the end of 2011 up to 30 Ugandan journalists were facing criminal charges for activities that were a legitimate exercise of their right to freedom of expression.
[Katy Clark in the Chair]
Since the general elections in February 2011, a blanket ban has been in place against all forms of public assembly. I understand that President Museveni has been pressing Parliament to approve constitutional amendments that would curtail bail rights for people facing certain charges, including participation in protests. The proposed constitutional law would allow judges to deny bail for at least six months to people arrested for treason, terrorism, rape, economic sabotage and rioting.
It is the case that 56% of Uganda’s prisoners—more than 17,000 people—have not been convicted of a crime and are locked up awaiting resolution of their case, sometimes for years. According to Human Rights Watch, conditions in the prisons are appalling. Limited use of bail and inadequate legal representation contribute to the delays.
In the time left to me, I want to return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts—the anti-homosexuality laws. I am quite surprised: when this debate on human rights in Uganda was first called, I thought that the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights would be at the top of the agenda, because it has achieved much coverage lately. I hope that when the hon. Member for Strangford quotes, “When they came for the communists”, “When they came for the trade unionists” and “When they came for the Jews”, he also includes in that list “When they came for the homosexuals”.
When I visited Uganda in 2007, the issue had just begun to raise its head. That was because LGBT activists had started campaigning for their rights to be recognised. I was shocked on one occasion when I was walking down the road to see a billboard for a newspaper saying something like “Homos arrested in march”. I had no idea that such language was still used. What was often said to me then was, “If only they’d keep it to themselves, they wouldn’t be bringing this attention on themselves and would be able to just carry on quietly.” That language has been used since time immemorial to stop people asserting their rights against discrimination and persecution.
As was mentioned, the Ugandan tabloid newspaper Rolling Stone published in 2010 the full names, addresses and photographs of 100 prominent and allegedly gay Ugandans, accompanied by a call for their execution. The headline was “Hang Them”. One of those on the list was leading gay rights activist David Kato, who was beaten to death in January 2011. He was murdered shortly after winning a lawsuit against a magazine that had published his name and photograph, identifying him as gay and calling for him to be executed. There was a suggestion that he had been robbed by someone, but most people do not give that allegation much credence.
Then there is the anti-homosexuality Bill currently before the Ugandan Parliament. The Ugandan penal code already prohibits consensual sex between individuals of the same sex. However, the Bill goes much further. It originally called for the death penalty for consensual same-sex acts, but now calls for life imprisonment. However, it still introduces the death penalty for the offence of “aggravated homosexuality”, which is defined as an HIV-positive man having intercourse with a man who is HIV-negative. It also punishes those who do not report within 24 hours violations of the Bill’s provisions. That applies to people who do not accuse others of being involved in homosexual activity if they believe that they have been. The Bill also criminalises the “promotion” of homosexuality.
The Bill has been widely criticised by human rights organisations and Uganda’s diplomatic partners. President Obama called the Bill “odious”. Thankfully, President Museveni publicly distanced himself from the Bill when it was brought before the Parliament in 2010 and 2011.
I was in Ghana recently with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and ended up spending a day with a group of Ugandan MPs, who raised the subject with me. They said, “Whenever we see anyone from your country, all they want to talk about is our anti-homosexuality Bill.” It was disturbing that only one of the group was opposed to the Bill. All the others were supportive in varying degrees, and presented the old idea of predatory homosexuals preying on children as a child protection issue. They said that they did not care what people got up to in private, and that promotion was the real problem, but when I pressed them and asked why they were not just banning promotion, and why they were trying to impose life imprisonment—quite a few supported the death penalty—for consensual acts, they could not answer. That shows that there is still a long way to go.
Although the conversation was polite, it put us in a slightly difficult position. As one MP said, we took religion to them, and encouraged them to believe in certain things. We had a debate about whether it was a human rights issue, or a matter of religious belief, and whether that outweighs other people’s human rights. As they said, we told them that homosexuality was wrong when proselytising Christianity, but we are now saying that they must believe something else that we tell them. The colonialist agenda of trying to impose western values on them became quite an issue.
Pamela Nash
I have had similar conversations with Ugandan politicians. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that we are not seen as promoting a view or way of life on Ugandan people, but that the issue is human rights abuse? We need countries throughout the world to exert the sort of pressure that the UK Government are exerting. We must work with other Governments to ensure that we are not seen as an old colonial power imposing a belief on Ugandan people.
Kerry McCarthy
I agree with my hon. Friend. I was in Jordan recently, and was talking to a couple of women political activists from the Islamic Action Front, which is the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. We got on to issues such as gay rights, and alcohol consumption. Parts of Jordan are tourist destinations and women wear bikinis on beaches, and so on. We could not claim that wearing a bikini on a beach is a fundamental human right, but with gay rights there may be certain values, and we should not accept that people’s cultural or religious beliefs allow them to persecute or discriminate against people because of their sexuality.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s speech so far, and I have listened carefully. The thrust of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who introduced the debate, was the persecution of Christians in Uganda. I am interested to hear what the two Front-Bench spokesmen say about the representations about Christians. The hon. Lady has not placed much emphasis on that so far.
Kerry McCarthy
Uganda is quite a strongly Christian country. I have worked with organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the Barnabas Trust and so on that have campaigned on the persecution of Christians in other countries. I had not had representations about persecution of Christians in Uganda until the hon. Gentleman spoke. I appreciate that there is a particular issue for people who have converted from Islam. They may have particular problems, and obviously their security should be protected because their right to practise whatever religion they choose is important, but that right cannot extend to supporting discrimination or persecution of people whose sexuality is different. It is important to flag that up in this debate.
I know that the Minister wants to spend some time responding to the debate, so I will finish. There are concerns about the HIV/AIDS prevention and control Bill, which was retabled in the Ugandan parliament in February 2012. It calls for mandatory HIV testing, and forced disclosure of HIV status in certain cases. I appreciate what a devastating impact the AIDS epidemic has had in Uganda and many other sub-Saharan African countries. When I was there, I saw the work of public education campaigns, and particularly those targeting older men who single out under-age girls because they think they will not be HIV-positive. I appreciate that the country wants to do more to tackle the AIDS problem, but forced disclosure and mandatory reporting and testing are likely to violate human rights on a number of grounds, so they are a matter for concern and vigilance. The Bill has also been criticised by gay rights activists because it excludes homosexuals from prevention programmes.
Finally, I return to UK financial assistance to Uganda. At one point, we withdrew some direct budget support to the Ugandan Government because of concerns about the 2006 elections. We enter dangerous waters when we introduce an element of conditionality into aid—the debate in the past has always been about economic conditionality, such as linking support to water privatisation programmes—but we should require certain standards from the countries to which we offer aid. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts that it would be a dereliction of our duty to the people of Uganda if we withdrew aid, but it is important that any aid we give the country is accompanied by strong messages and, where appropriate, criticism of Uganda’s human rights record. We should use aid not as a strong-arm tactic, but as leverage to get across our points to the Ugandan Government.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
This is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Ms Clark, and it is a privilege to do so. I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on raising this topic. He contributes to many debates on foreign affairs, and he always does so with great passion and authority.
I congratulate everybody else who has participated in what has been a very consensual debate, even though it has been full of strong feelings. It has also been full of important insights from Members on both sides of the Chamber, many of whom drew on their own direct observations. The passion communicated in all their speeches will be heard way beyond the walls of this room, including by many people in Uganda, whether or not they are in government.
Given that I have a little longer than is sometimes the case in such debates, let me, for the benefit of hon. Members, lay out in greater detail the British Government’s position on the wide range of subjects that have been raised. We condemn in the strongest possible terms the atrocities carried out by the Lord’s Resistance Army. I assure hon. Members that we remain active in working with international partners to disband the LRA and to bring Joseph Kony to justice. Apprehending him will not be straightforward. About 300 remaining LRA fighters operate across remote and hostile terrain in a region the UN estimates is comparable in size to the United Kingdom. However, concerted international effort will overcome those obstacles and see Joseph Kony held to account and the LRA cease to exist. That is, very strongly, our objective.
Jim Shannon
I do not want to steal the thunder of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), but he asked what help the Government can give the 5,000 members of the African Union army in pursuing Joseph Kony. He mentioned helicopter support. Are the Government considering that? If not, could it be considered?
Mr Browne
I do not have information specifically about the use of helicopters, but I was starting to explain what we are doing to try to bring the LRA’s activities to a conclusion.
The LRA, as many Members will know, was forced out of Uganda in 2006 and does not now pose a security threat to the country. It still operates in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan. Supporting those countries in efforts finally to rid central Africa of the scourge of the LRA remains our Government’s priority. Our efforts to do so have been set out by the Minister of State with responsibility for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), in correspondence that he has sent to all Members of the House of Commons.
In our role as UN Security Council lead on LRA issues, the UK secured the UN Security Council presidential statement of November 2011, which tasked the UN to deliver a regional strategy to combat the LRA. We have pressed the UN to make this strategy coherent, co-ordinated and results-focused and then to deliver on it swiftly.
Furthermore, we have ensured the specific inclusion of LRA issues in mandates of UN peacekeeping and political missions across the region. We have also pressed for robust language on civilian protection in these mandates and for better co-ordination and intelligence-sharing between peacekeeping operations.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UK offers vital financial support to the UN peacekeeping force, providing important protection to civilians from armed groups, including the LRA. We also support the UN’s disarmament and demobilisation efforts that are reintegrating remaining LRA combatants back into communities.
In Uganda, the Department for International Development is halfway through a £100 million programme committed to supporting development in northern Uganda as it recovers from two decades of conflict and from the terrible legacy left by the LRA. Through this programme we work with the Ugandan Government’s peace, recovery and development plan for the north, which has allowed the vast majority of Ugandans displaced by the LRA’s activities to return home. In terms of institutional endeavour, financial support and practical assistance, I hope Members will be reassured that the United Kingdom is taking the pre-eminent role in the world.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I had not intended to focus part of my speech on the LRA, but I do know a bit about it. The problem is that Joseph Kony is highly mobile. He never sleeps in the same place twice. He goes into a village and terrorises the villagers. What those forces require are helicopters to keep ahead of him and clever intelligence to find out where he has been and where he is going. Those two things have been lacking so far, which is why he has been able to get away with what he has.
Mr Browne
I am grateful for that additional insight from my hon. Friend. Let me bring his observations to the direct attention of the Minister for Africa and, if it is necessary, of the Ministry of Defence, so that we can consider how we can more effectively assist in the ways in which he describes. I do not wish to go down the path of operational detail in this speech because I am ill-equipped to do so, but we all share the same objective of providing practical assistance wherever we can.
Like many countries in East Africa, Uganda has a turbulent history. We are all aware of the horrors the country suffered during the era of Idi Amin and the conflict that followed. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, Uganda remains staggeringly poor. As people who know the country well know, after decades of political turbulence and violence there is a lot to be depressed about.
It is also true to say that over two decades Uganda has developed from a one-party state to an emerging multi-party democracy with a strengthened Parliament. It has a largely independent judiciary. There is a budding, if fragile, culture of political debate, and its media is able to criticise the Government. There has been progress on gender equality—women play an active role in politics and Uganda has a system that actively encourages the election of female MPs. There is also growing freedom of religion, and faith groups are able to express themselves freely. As a predominantly Christian country, the church is politically active and plays an important role in society.
Jim Shannon
As the Minister has clearly outlined, there is religious freedom. But hon. Members have been saying that there are many examples of Christians being persecuted and the police and the Government of the land have not backed those people up. That is our point. Although I appreciate the Minister’s contribution, I want to underline that matter, because it is important that we do not let it pass.
Mr Browne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for further underlining that important point. I say unequivocally that the Government—I am sure that I speak for hon. Members from all parties—deplore discrimination against Christians on the basis that the hon. Gentleman describes and always look to support the freedom of all citizens to practise whatever faith they hold true to themselves, as we do in this country. We will make further representations to reflect the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has brought vividly to our attention this afternoon.
Although I do not wish to make an overly flattering portrait of the situation in Uganda, we feel that there has been some genuine progress in terms of civil liberties and the wider debate in Uganda. It is important that Uganda has responded positively to the United Nations’ universal periodic review of the country, which was published in October 2011 and assessed the human rights concerns in the country. We are assured that the Ugandan Government are taking steps to create a national action plan for the implementation of universal periodic review recommendations on tackling human rights concerns, which were raised in that report. We will work with Uganda to do what we can to make sure that those honourable intentions bear fruit.
However, Uganda still needs to address a number of serious human rights issues to ensure that it makes further progress. Many of those issues were raised in our debate. The UK remains concerned about developments in the country that pose a threat to freedom of expression. In April and May 2011 there was heavy-handed suppression of opposition protests. Since then the authorities in Uganda have imposed further restrictions on freedom of assembly for protestors.
The Ugandan Parliament is currently considering legislation that aims to regulate public demonstrations. There are rules and regulations in all countries, including our own, but it is important that the right balance is struck between maintaining law and order and allowing freedom of assembly. The Minister for Africa raised our concerns about this issue with President Museveni when he visited Uganda in February. We will continue to raise concerns where we feel that that balance is not being correctly struck.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am concerned that the perception of my hon. Friend or the Foreign Office and what is happening on the ground in Uganda seem to be at variance. Since the lure of having held the Commonwealth games and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda, Museveni has been given greater free reign to carry out human rights abuses, which seem to have got significantly worse since the election. I should not like the Minister’s perception—what he said in his speech—and what is happening on the ground to be ignored. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
Mr Browne
I certainly will. I confess that I do not speak from first-hand experience on these matters. I am not the Minister for Africa—he is in Africa, which is why I am replying to this debate—but I want to ensure that the Foreign Office’s understanding of the situation is entirely in accord with the reality, as perceived by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). We will take his advice seriously and I will ensure that it is understood and scrutinised properly by the African department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Fiona Bruce
This is particularly important. As I understand it, DFID has committed £100 million to post-conflict development in northern Uganda over the current five-year period. Building legitimacy, improving the capacity of local government to deliver services, supporting government, civil society and communities to engage peacefully and reconciliation are all important post-conflict work but, as we have heard today, conflict is still happening. There is still abuse and oppression, and I ask the Minister to discuss with his counterpart for Africa the £100 million dedicated to post-conflict work while so much trouble is still occurring.
Mr Browne
We do not always get a clean break between conflict and the absence of conflict. The assessment of DFID and the Foreign Office is that progress is sufficient for us to make a difference with the types of programmes described by my hon. Friend. I understand her concerns, and in the time available I will address some of that issue and others, if I may continue my speech.
Laws against and repression of homosexuals were rightly mentioned at length by the hon. Members for Bristol East and for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) and others. For the avoidance of doubt, I will spell out the British Government’s clear position. The United Kingdom is strongly committed to upholding the rights and freedoms of people of all sexual orientations. The Prime Minister made the United Kingdom’s opposition to the criminalisation of homosexuality clear at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October 2011. In Kampala, the United Kingdom continues to lobby strongly against the proposals in the Bill and is working closely with civil society groups campaigning against them. The Minister for Africa expressed our concerns to the President when they met in February, and the Minister for Equalities, who arrives in Kampala this evening, will underscore the United Kingdom’s opposition to the proposals when she meets the Ugandan Government. We are doing all that we can to give formal force to the views that were rightly strongly expressed by Members during the debate.
On the nature of the assistance that we provide to Uganda, to return to the previous intervention, UK aid is aimed at reducing poverty and at helping the most vulnerable people. Often those at greatest risk of human rights abuses in developing countries need our help the most. We do not attach conditionality to our aid for that very reason. We do, however, hold full and frank discussions with recipient countries about issues of concern, including human rights, as we have done with the Ugandan Government on the importance that we attach to equality and non-discrimination. We hold those Governments that receive aid through direct budgetary support to account, to ensure that that represents the best way of getting results and value for money for the United Kingdom taxpayer. If we cannot give aid directly to Governments, because we are not sufficiently confident about how that aid is being spent, we find other routes to help people whom we assess need our assistance because of the straitened circumstances in which they live.
Jim Shannon
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on the £100 million available in aid, is it possible to review how to enable the benefits from Uganda’s oil reserves to filter down to those at the lower levels—in poverty—in those discussions that Ministers will be having with the Ugandan Government? That is a moral issue as well, but can the Minister introduce it into discussions with the Ugandan Government?
Mr Browne
That may be a more appropriate matter for the Minister for Africa to discuss than for the Minister for Equalities, but I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s representation, I shall communicate it and we shall see if it can contribute to any such discussions.
Women in Uganda continue to face a number of very serious threats, including high levels of domestic violence and the continuing traditional practice of female genital mutilation. Again, there has been some progress. Uganda has agreed to ratify the optional protocol to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Uganda passed the Domestic Violence Act 2010 and the Prevention of Female Genital Mutilation Act 2009, which are significant steps for protecting the rights of women. The task is for those good intentions to be implemented. Through the Department for International Development, the UK supports civil society initiatives to promote knowledge and implementation of the legislation, and protection centres for victims. This week, our Minister for Equalities will visit those projects and lobby the Ugandan Government to ensure they implement its legislation to protect women from violence. This is a topical issue, which is being afforded attention by the Government at ministerial level this very week.
The Ugandan human rights commission’s 2010 report noted a high number of complaints about the use of torture. The UK condemns unreservedly the use of torture. However, there have been some recent improvements. Uganda has signed up to the optional protocol to the UN convention against torture. As Uganda reported at its universal periodic review, 36 police officers have been charged in court for torture-related offences. The UK continues to support Ugandan non-governmental organisations in their efforts to bring forward a private Member’s Bill aimed at enshrining the convention in domestic legislation and ensuring that those who torture are individually liable for their acts. We understand that the Ugandan Government support the Bill, and we look forward to it passing into law and being implemented. We also support civil society efforts against the death penalty and will continue to lobby for the Ugandan Government to abolish it entirely.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for raising this subject. He participates in almost every debate that I take part in as a Minister, which is to his great credit. His passion and interest in foreign policy issues, and the sincerity with which he contributes, shines through. He has given us a welcome opportunity to discuss Uganda and the wide range of concerns that exist regarding freedom of religious practice, intolerance and the persecution of gays, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the abuse of women. I hope that some of the encouraging signs demonstrate progress. The British Government will try to give maximum effect to that progress and will contribute in whatever way that is most useful. We are committed to having a strong and fruitful relationship with Uganda. I hope that that was demonstrated when I talked about the Minister for Africa’s direct interest and this week’s visit by the Minister for Equalities. Uganda is important to us. It has experienced turmoil and strife, and we want to ensure that the views expressed in the debate contribute to creating a much more prosperous, successful and peaceful Uganda.
Association of Chief Police Officers
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I am pleased to have secured this debate. Police officers do fantastic work on the streets of our constituencies, but of late there have been many instances of the police themselves being under investigation. For example, there are allegations that the police have been too cosy in their relationship with journalists, and in my part of the country, North Yorkshire, the outgoing chief constable has been found guilty of gross misconduct after an investigation that cost taxpayers £300,000. There are also investigations into Cleveland police.
Our police leaders should be beyond reproach, but the example set by the leadership, the Association of Chief Police Officers, leaves much to be desired. We all agree on the need for a co-ordinated approach to policing in this country, and that cannot be run county by county. However, the organisation that provides such leadership needs to be professional and clean, but ACPO is riddled with conflicts of interest and poor governance. I want to examine the way that ACPO operates and what it has been up to in recent years, and shine a spotlight on the organisation as the Government consider its future.
ACPO was incorporated as a private limited company in 1997, and it is that status that causes such tension and concern. The organisation is primarily funded by the taxpayer, and it receives hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Home Office and police authority budgets around the country. Millions more come via special projects that ACPO undertakes on national policing issues, and its staff are entitled to generous civil service pensions. Despite receiving large amounts of taxpayers’ money as a private company, ACPO was initially not open to the scrutiny of freedom of information legislation. Last year, ACPO was subjected to FOI legislation for the first time, although that does not appear to have opened up the organisation as the Government hoped. ACPO is being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards transparency.
Last month, via a freedom of information request, Rob Waugh of the Yorkshire Post found that hundreds of thousands of pounds were being paid in contracts to consultants who were often former senior police officers. More worryingly, he discovered that in many cases those consultants were employed without any of the procurement processes and controls that ACPO tells individual police forces to follow. Most of the payments were made through personal service companies.
According to the Yorkshire Post, more than £800,000 was paid to 10 consultants, largely over the past three years, from ACPO’s central office. The payments include over £190,000 for the services of a former chief constable of Essex at a rate of around £1,000 a day, with payments made through a consultancy company. One former detective superintendent received over £200,000 through his company, and a former assistant chief constable in Cumbria was paid £180,000. ACPO has its own guidelines that require three quotes for expenses over £1,000, and tendering for amounts of £50,000. Alarmingly however, the Yorkshire Post was unable to find any evidence that those rules were followed in any of those cases. In the case of Linda van den Hende, paperwork was present for a 12-month period, although she worked for four years.
ACPO is an organisation charged with ensuring best practice for the police service of our country, and it is funded largely by taxpayers’ money. There is, however, form in this area. Last year, the Independent Police Complaints Commission found that £30,000 had been paid to the deputy chief constable of North Yorkshire police, without any auditing to find out how it had been spent. Graham Maxwell leads North Yorkshire police and he has been found guilty of gross misconduct. He is also the finance lead on ACPO.
ACPO seems to feel that the Freedom of Information Act should be only partially applied, and it has published details only of those consultants employed at its head office. I took up the case in a letter to Sir Hugh Orde who chairs ACPO, and I asked for copies of contracts and details of the procurement processes for every consultant engaged by the organisation over the past three years. He responded by saying that he would set up a review that will be led by ACPO’s head of professional standards, overseen by ACPO’s council, and monitored by Transparency International UK. So Sir Hugh will not respond directly to a request by an elected Member of Parliament. He has tasked the person and board who should surely have been looking at the matters in question on an ongoing basis, and they will be checked and supervised by an organisation the bulk of whose work is advising corrupt Governments.
I urge the Minister to support my call for ACPO to release details of every consultant engaged over the past three years in each of its business areas, with details of how those payments were calculated and what procurement processes were used. I also ask for his support in referring the matters to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which has thus far been vague with me about whether it will check the tax situation pertaining to the arrangements in question. Will the Minister confirm how much the civil service pensions of ACPO staff currently cost the taxpayer?
As ACPO is a private company, it has also been able to engage in commercial activities. It is impossible to get a picture of what it gets up to commercially, because the set-up has no central source of information. For the most part, the publication of limited accounts has been permitted, as the concerns in question are small businesses. Two companies that have spun off from ACPO are ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd and Road Safety Support Ltd. Those are both not-for-profit companies, which are limited by guarantee. Both appear not to use confidential data held by police forces, but much of their business is obtained because of their close links with ACPO and their links to former senior police officers.
For example, ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd is entirely owned by ACPO and its registered office for the last company accounts was the same as ACPO’s. Its directors, as listed in the last available return from Companies House, include an assistant chief constable from Northamptonshire, the former chief constable of Lincolnshire police, the current ACPO chief executive, a former Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner, a former Sussex police officer and a former assistant chief constable of Strathclyde police. Just like the consultancies that have been dished out by ACPO, using public money, to former senior police chiefs, those companies seem to provide tasty directorships for senior police officers. In one case it appears that a chief constable was a director on a company while still in his role as chief of police.
ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd is funded through partnership with companies whose products meet technical standards identified by the company. In return, the licensed company is able to utilise the Secured by Design logo and, on those products which meet the technical standard, the title “Police Preferred Specification” can be used. By offering “Police Preferred Specification” as a slogan, the line is blurred, with many people who buy products with that slogan expecting approval to come from taxpayer-funded police services, rather than from a private company that is given permission by ACPO to use the name.
Road Safety Support Ltd was formed in 2007. It provides training to speed camera operators and advice and information on camera placement. In the last set of accounts from Companies House it had three directors, one of whom is the recently retired former chief constable of South Yorkshire police. He, for some time, was also the representative for ACPO on road policing. Curiously, the same three directors are also directors of another company, NDORS Ltd, which is registered at the same address as Road Safety Support Ltd. That company runs speed awareness courses—presumably for those who have been caught by cameras, which may have been placed on advice from Road Safety Support Ltd.
In those companies, which all make use of their close links to the police, directorships and jobs are provided for former senior police officers who have left forces across the country, and the crossovers in what are, supposedly, separate limited companies, are clear to see. As police chiefs collected gold plated pensions, they were able to top up those already huge pensions with either a consultancy with ACPO or a directorship with one of its spin-off companies. I am today writing to Sir Hugh Orde to ask for a list of every individual who has been a director at an ACPO-related company over the past three years and whether they were also working in any capacity with ACPO or with a police force at the time. I want to know what projects they were working on and how much they were paid. I have also asked Sir Hugh for copies of the full accounts of every ACPO-related company and not just the redacted small company version that appears at Companies House.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the vagueness and the secrecy that he identifies only lead to suspicion? Therefore, it is vital that our police service is beyond reproach.
Julian Smith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My experience in my constituency is of excellent policing. What I am trying to get at in this debate is that some of the things at the top appear to be not beyond reproach.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and the Yorkshire Post on its investigative work. It is clearly important that transparency is brought to bear on all of the matters that he has raised. What implications does he think that all of this has for the future status of ACPO, bearing in mind the importance of combining independence, accountability and freedom from political interference?
Julian Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am just about to get there. I would like the Minister’s support in getting all of the information on these ACPO companies.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I too congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is clear that some significant concerns about transparency have been raised here. Is my hon. Friend able to say something about ACPO perhaps giving some reassurance to the victims of crime whom it has failed through its conduct? My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She has done some fantastic work with victims in this area. The lack of consideration of both victims and the people whom the police chiefs serve has been the cause of many of the issues I have raised today.
I would like some additional thoughts from the Minister on these companies. For example, what will happen to them when, inevitably, ACPO changes or is wound up? These companies have traded on the taxpayer’s name. Going back to my hon. Friend’s remarks about victims, if there is some benefit from selling these companies, perhaps it could go to the victims. I would be grateful to the Minister if he could tell us how we ensure that the taxpayer fully benefits from the wind-up of these companies.
Towards the end of last year, the Home Secretary told the House in a written statement that a new police professional body was to be created to develop policing as a single profession, representing the entire service and acting only in the public interest. It also envisaged the setting up of a chief constable’s council to enable senior officers to assess and discuss critical operational issues. I understand that ACPO is resisting that development and the idea of becoming part of a broader professional body because it wants to maintain some form of chiefs’ club. As the Home Affairs Committee recently stated, all levels of the police family should be represented in the new professional organisation. Many of the problems at ACPO seem to have come from an arrogance, a lack of challenge from the lower ranks and a belief that command and control means that the chiefs are accountable to no one.
My message to ACPO is that I and a number of colleagues will relentlessly pursue what it has been doing. It will all come out in the end, so get it out now and respond quickly to our questions. What does the Minister see as the timetable for the future of the organisation and what discussions have the Government had with the president of ACPO to ensure a smooth transition to the new body? Can he confirm that the Government are pushing ahead with a new all-level professional body for the police? What measures are the Government taking to ensure that the new body is fully transparent and accountable? The role of this country’s most senior police officers is vital in protecting our country and our constituents, but I urge the Minister and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to reject point blank any idea that ACPO should be retained or revived. Of course there should be a strong professional body for the whole of the police service, and of course there should not be a special cosy club for police chiefs.
Many people involved in ACPO have, at best, been negligent or, at worst, corrupt in how they have managed the resources and opportunities they were granted. I have seen that locally in North Yorkshire, and we have seen it nationally. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) found similar issues with the National Police Improvement Agency. The Government’s policing reforms are right, but they should be even bolder. ACPO should be wound up as quickly as possible, and such gold-plated, dodgy clubs for any leaders of public organisations should be consigned to the past.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Clark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) on raising a number of significant and important questions relating to the Association of Chief Police Officers to which I will respond.
My hon. Friend has made a number of criticisms about the leadership of the police service in England and Wales, but I welcome his positive statement about the work of front-line officers. We must be clear that police officers and staff throughout the country have our support in their fantastic work in keeping us all safe day in, day out.
In the context of some of the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised, I am aware that Sir Hugh Orde, president of ACPO, has written to my hon. Friend about the issues he has raised, and I am satisfied that ACPO has taken and is taking those criticisms seriously. That was demonstrated by the decision of the ACPO cabinet earlier this month to conduct a review of spending on consultants within ACPO. As its president outlined in his letter to my hon. Friend, that review will also look at how financial controls have been applied over the last three years. The whole process will be subject to external scrutiny by Transparency International, and the results will be made public.
A review is the right course of action, and it is appropriate to allow it to proceed and its report to be published before commenting further on the details. I agree that every organisation that receives money must be open and transparent about how that money is spent. Sir Hugh Orde stated that clearly to my hon. Friend in his response to him, and I note that he has agreed to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any further issues in detail.
My hon. Friend highlighted a significant point about ACPO’s independence. It is a private company limited by guarantee. It is not owned or controlled by the Home Office, and is operationally independent. The discussion of ACPO’s future role and funding must be framed in the light of the wider work taking place on police reform. As part of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s intention, which is laid out in the White Paper, “Policing in the 21st century”, the Government have embarked on the most radical programme of reform to policing in 50 years. We are currently developing the bodies necessary to support and reinforce those reforms. That work will help to deal with many of the concerns raised today regarding accountability and transparency within policing in England and Wales. We are grateful that ACPO agrees that change is necessary and for the constructive way in which its presidential team are engaging with the Home Office regarding the future of ACPO.
In August 2010, the Home Secretary asked Peter Neyroud to carry out a fundamental review of the delivery of leadership and training functions in policing. In response to the review, the Government announced their intention to create a new police professional body, which presents a unique opportunity further to professionalise policing and increase public accountability. As part of that work, the National Policing Improvement Agency will be phased out by the end of this year.
The Home Secretary has acknowledged a continued need for chief constables to come together for discussion on key operational issues and also when it is in the public interest for them to do so. Indeed, we are clear that chief officers will continue to play a vital role, both within the professional body and as part of a chiefs council, which will work with the new professional body. Together, those two bodies will equip the service with the skills that it needs to deliver effective crime fighting in a changing, leaner and more accountable environment. We are currently working with ACPO and key partners to consider the precise remit of the chiefs council, its relationship with the new body and the transition of ACPO functions. The Government have agreed to continue to fund ACPO’s grant-aid during the 2012-13 financial year while those discussions take place.
Mr Andrew Smith
Is it the Government’s intention that the two bodies to which the Minister refers will take on all ACPO’s present responsibilities, or will certain areas—perhaps co-ordination on counter-terrorism or serious crime—be the responsibility of a separate body?
James Brokenshire
It is precisely those issues that are the subject of the detailed discussions between the Government and ACPO. We will come forward in due course with further details of the police professional body and its precise functions. That will be the right time for the Government to set out in detail proposals for the police professional body, but it may help the right hon. Gentleman if I say this. As the Government have made clear, the challenge for the police service is to reduce crime to make communities feel safer. At the same time, forces must deliver significant savings to meet the challenges set by the spending review. Tackling those two challenges together will require transformational change; it cannot be done by relying on the existing structures at national level in policing. They require a fresh way of thinking. In particular, they require the development of a professional model for policing. At the heart of that model is the creation of the police professional body.
The new body will safeguard the public and fight crime by ensuring professionalism in policing. It will develop skills and leadership, facilitating the drive to reduce bureaucracy, and will have greater public accountability. The professional body will speak for the whole of policing and will directly support police officers at all ranks and civilian policing professionals. It will set and improve standards of professionalism in the police service and will take responsibility for specialist police disciplines. Work is under way on the detailed design of the new body.
The role of the professional body must be understood within the wider policing landscape and, in particular, the transformation in accountability that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will bring. It will need to reflect that shift in how it is constituted, in what it delivers and in how it delivers that. Its most important role will be to act in the public interest.
Key to that, and reflecting the move towards greater accountability, will be the way in which the professional body is structured. It will be chaired by someone independent of the police service, and its board will have an equal balance of police service and non-police service representatives, including police and crime commissioners. It will be open and transparent. In taking its work forwards, it will need to take into account public need in setting and inculcating standards among officers and staff. It will also need to take into consideration the cost of any changes it recommends to develop professionalism. That will form a crucial part of its ability to enhance the British model of policing by consent.
Many criticisms have been made today of the accountability and transparency of decision making by senior police officers. There are, however, clear examples of where the police have responded impressively to the need for change. This is one public service whose leaders generally recognise the difficult economic times and understand the benefits that reform can bring. Greater Manchester police, for example, have saved £62 million a year from their support functions, releasing 348 police officers from those roles so that they can get back to front-line work. Surrey police have carried out a significant restructuring, which has allowed them to commit to increasing constable numbers by up to 200 over the next four years.
Some forces are going even further, moving beyond restructuring and outsourcing, to building strategic relationships with the private sector. This is not about privatisation; policing will remain a public service. However, by harnessing private sector innovation, skills and economies of scale, forces can transform how they work and improve the service they provide to the public.
As well as saving money, our reforms are about making policing better. We are rebuilding the link between the police and the public. In November, the first elections for police and crime commissioners will take place. Elected by local people, commissioners will have the democratic mandate to set their local police force budget, and they will respond to local people’s concerns by setting the force’s priorities.
The direction of police reform provides a clear basis for the way in which the police professional body will operate. The police service is becoming more open, more transparent and more accountable to the public, and it is right and proper that that is the case.
In “Policing in the 21st Century”, we said that we expect chief police officers to continue to play a key role in advising the Government, police and crime commissioners and the police service on strategy and best practice. We will also expect chief constables to play a leading role in driving value for money and to have the capability to drive out costs in their forces.
ACPO is operationally independent of the Home Office, so it is a matter for the company directors to determine its future. ACPO has played a valuable role since it was established in 1948, providing a means for chief constables to come together to agree a common way of working in the absence of any federal policing structures. I re-emphasise that the Government fully appreciate the contribution that chief officers continue to make at a national and local level, particularly those chiefs who are directly supporting the substantial reform agenda. We look forward to building on all that ACPO has achieved.
The Government’s agenda for police reform is strong and coherent, and will free the police to fight crime at a national and local level, deliver better value for taxpayers and give the public a stronger voice.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Clark.
Staff at the Equality and Human Rights Commission are experts in their field and are deeply concerned about the attack on equalities represented by the proposed 62% budget cut and 72% staffing cut by 2015 from the original levels in 2007. They and their trade unions—the Public and Commercial Services Union and Unite—believe that those cuts amount to the closure of the EHRC as we know it and its transformation into little more than a think-tank.
The eminent QC, Sir Bob Hepple, states in a recent article for the Industrial Law Journal that the Commission’s
“ability to use effectively even its restricted powers will be compromised by severe cuts in its annual budget”.
The EHRC is an independent statutory body established by Parliament under the Equality Act 2006. As a regulator, the commission is responsible for enforcing equality legislation on age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation or transgender status and encouraging compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Its powers include promoting understanding and encouraging good practice in relation to human rights, monitoring the law and providing legal assistance, providing information and advice, conducting inquiries and judicial reviews, providing a conciliation service, and grant making powers. In addition, European directives contain requirements for an equality body within member states.
Let me turn for a few moments to the Scottish dimension, given the very different political, legal and economic landscape. The proposed cuts would threaten high-profile work in Scotland, such as the disability harassment inquiry, the human trafficking inquiry, guidance to public bodies on their obligations under equality law and the EHRC hosting of Independent Living in Scotland.
The Scottish helpline deals with more than 5,000 calls per annum, the largest proportion of which are from Scots who have been subjected to disability discrimination. The Scottish helpline also provides a UK-wide service. The nature of the advice is highly technical. No other organisation with equivalent experience and knowledge can fill the gap and provide a similar quality of service.
The fact the commission is losing its funding function is already leaving a gap in the finances of well respected organisations such as the Govan Law Centre, the Glasgow Disability Alliance, the Equality Network and the Central Scotland Racial Equality Council—to name just a handful. What impact will the 62% budget cut have? The work force will be cut by more than half; legal enforcement capabilities will be reduced; the helpline will close by September 2012; and current provision in Scotland and Wales will end.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an organisation that is of great importance to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Does she share my concern that there has been absolutely no planning or any sign of planning about how a service will be offered to vulnerable people who are suffering discrimination in Scotland that understands the specific context of Scotland in terms of devolution? The Secretary of State for Scotland has failed to meet the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland, and the last time that he met the organisation was in July 2010.
Sandra Osborne
I very much share my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I am very disappointed to hear that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not met anyone about this important issue.
Regional offices will be shut or reduced. For example, the Bristol and Nottingham offices have already been shut for about a year, and further offices planned for closure are Birmingham, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Bangor, Guildford, Cambridge and Leeds, and the offices in Manchester, London, Glasgow and Cardiff are to shrink. In addition, grant functions will end—some ended in March 2012 and the rest will end March 2013.
I want to go into more detail about the cuts and pose some questions to the Minister. The EHRC helpline currently provides direct advice to callers, and staff can refer cases for consideration for legal support by the commission. Of the more than 70,000 calls received every year by the helpline, despite the fact that it has never been properly advertised, the majority group calling for advice is disabled people. The helpline will be closed and replaced by September 2012 with a referral service signposting callers to potential sources of help. The outsourced referral line will not have the conciliation powers or legal assistance powers that the commission has under the Equality Act 2006.
A recent Guardian article by David Hencke on 3 April reported that the jobs agency at the centre of a fraud inquiry, A4e, is the preferred bidder for the EHRC helpline service. The Government Equalities Office has informed staff that the preferred bidder said that it will not keep any provision in Scotland or Wales.
More than 30% of staff who currently work for the helpline are disabled, some 20% are from black and minority ethnic communities and 20% are carers. Given the impossibility of relocating for many, particularly in Scotland and Wales where provision will end, and high likelihood of workers opting for redundancy, the expertise of those highly experienced advisers will be lost.
Ann McKechin
My hon. Friend may be aware that helpline workers in Scotland were advised last year that their contract with EHRC would terminate at the end of March. However, they have now been advised that they are requested to work until the end of June, because as yet no provider has been identified and an award of contracts has not been made. Does she agree that this is an utterly chaotic way to conduct a Government agency?
Sandra Osborne
Yes; that is typical of how staff have been treated in the agency.
The chances of a smooth transition to the referral line and retention of expertise, as the Government claim, are therefore negligible. Given the one third of operators who are disabled, one fifth from BME communities and one fifth who are carers, what equality impact assessment has been made of the changes to the helpline provision? Why the delay with the announcement of the new helpline provider? The announcement was supposed to be made in mid-February, but it is now rumoured to have been pushed back to the middle of May.
The closure of regional offices will exacerbate the problems of advice deserts, where no other advisory services exist, and the commission will lose its vital link to the public and vital access to crucial evidence of emerging issues. Instead of remaining regionally focused, teams have been reassigned to undertake national support work. The loss of those offices and the intelligence-gathering work that they do at grass-roots level, which my hon. Friend mentioned, will have a significant impact on the understanding of equality and human rights across Great Britain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House. Does she agree that in these days of cuts, which we are now shaping up to, there is a danger that we are preventing some people from taking advantage of legal guidance and legal aid? As I suspect that she is aware, we should consider one section of the community in particular: ladies should get legal aid and advice at the time of their life when they need it most.
Sandra Osborne
I could not agree more, and I hope to mention that later.
What research has been done to ascertain the impact of the closure of regional offices on the problem of advice deserts and gathering evidence on emerging local issues?
Legal grants—projects providing specialist legal advice and representation in equality and human rights—ended on 31 March, and strategic grants providing guidance, advice and advocacy services, infrastructure development, capacity building and good relations will end in March 2013. Many disability and race groups have benefited from the EHRC grants programme, as they did before the EHRC’s creation. A grant received by a local equality body from the EHRC could, and often did, lead to additional sources of revenue from other funders, such as the lottery, charities and local authorities.
The warnings by experts such as Race on the Agenda in 2007 that the local BME infrastructure would suffer significant funding reductions have been realised, not because of the EHRC’s creation, but because of Government cuts to the EHRC grants programme. The Government have argued that the grants function, among other services, should close because they claim grants have little impact and the service function has not been well managed. Although there is an ongoing complaint about the Government’s statement in this regard, it is perhaps most telling to note that the experts and stakeholders also challenge the Government’s assertion. A survey of providers by the Discrimination Law Association indicated that, without EHRC grants, advice organisations such as citizens advice bureaux and law centres would not be able to sustain their services and that some might have to close down completely. My question to the Minister is, from whom have the Government and/or EHRC received protestations about the withdrawal of the grants programme?
The EHRC’s mediation services have ended. Contrary to the Government’s claims that legal aid will take up the shortfall, once the legal aid reforms are implemented, the only legal aid available for discrimination cases will be for goods, facilities and services cases, which are in the minority and are complex and involve large sums. Employment cases will not be eligible for any legal aid support.
I want to turn now to the loss of independence and United Nations “A” status. In 2009, the commission became one of just 70 United Nations “A” status accredited national human rights institutions. The EHRC is Britain’s first accredited NHRI. The “A” status confers special rights and entitlements to work with the UN Human Rights Council. To determine this status, the UN reviewed the work and structure of the commission at the time and found it to be compliant with the Paris principles. Key Paris principles are that the NHRI must be independent of government and not be subject to financial control that might affect its independence. The commission must also have adequate funding to conduct its activities. The loss of independence, lack of financial control and lack of funding due to 62% cuts mean that this status is in jeopardy.
The commission recently published its framework agreement with the Home Office, which includes details of spending controls and an obligation on the commission to provide a business case for approval to the Home Office’s director of communications for all projects with an element of spend on advertising and marketing. If the project is spending more than £100,000, the business case, once approved by the HO director of communication, should go to the Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities. Once HO Ministers have approved it, the EHRC must complete the Cabinet Office’s exemption template and submit the case for approval to the Cabinet Office Efficiency and Reform Group and the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
The agreement also states that the Home Office should receive near final versions of external EHRC communications 48 hours before issue. I do not know whether that is independence. Many MPs will be surprised that the framework agreement dictates how the commission interacts with Parliament and yet states categorically that the commission must be politically neutral and abide by the Cabinet Office’s rules on lobbying for non-departmental public bodies.
The commission is also instructed to issue guidance to staff, outlining when and how briefings for Parliament are developed, the style of briefings and how briefings should be internally cleared. Does the Minister believe that the framework agreement complies with the Paris principles, particularly relating to independence? Has he assessed the impact of the proposed budget cut to £26 million by the end of this year on the commission’s independence?
The current restructuring at the EHRC repeats many of the mistakes identified in the Public Accounts Committee report of 2010. The report highlighted the problem of staff with valuable skills leaving through an early exit scheme and went on to recommend that the Treasury and the Cabinet Office should ensure that they provide clear guidelines on the need to consider the retention of key skills when devising early exit schemes.
According to an answer to a parliamentary question, the EHRC spent £500,000 a month at one stage on consultancy fees and expenses for interim staff who are leading the work on reforming the commission. That is neither an acceptable use of public money, nor is it in the interests of the taxpayer. These major changes are occurring as questions about the commission’s new chair go unanswered. What assurances can the Minister give that the commission will not lose more skilled and experienced staff through more early exit schemes and that it will not replace staff already lost with costly consultants in the future? Can he say whether the Treasury and the Cabinet Office have produced the guidelines recommended by the PAC to ensure the retention of skilled staff, and has the commission followed that guidance? When will its next chair be announced?
Key stakeholders who responded to the Government consultation on the future of the EHRC, which was called “Building a fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission”, made clear the need to maintain the EHRC’s funding and remit. However, the Government have so far refused to publish the results of the consultation in detail, despite freedom of information requests, parliamentary questions and an official letter to the Home Secretary from the general secretary of the TUC. So I have another question for the Minister. I am asking lots of questions, but that is because there are lots of questions to be answered. Will he publish the responses to the Government consultation on the future of the EHRC and, given the Home Office’s report on its own website that the majority of respondents opposed the changes to the EHRC, will the Minister halt further cuts?
There are many reasons for the EHRC to be proud of its achievements in its first two years. In fact, those achievements are too numerous to mention all of them in the time that I have available today. To mention just a couple of them, the EHRC has ensured protection against discrimination in employment for 6 million carers and exposed exploitation of migrant workers in the meat-processing sector.
There are still many equality challenges facing Britain today that require the presence of an effective EHRC. The annual reports of the Tribunals Service show a substantial increase in the number of claims lodged in employment tribunals since 2008-09. In addition, there are planned cuts to legal aid worth £350 million, and there will be a £1.166 billion reduction in grants to local government. At the same time, confidence in the voluntary sector is at an all-time low, and a voluntary sector in crisis cannot fill the vacuum left by funding cuts to local government grants, legal aid and the EHRC. A Government who take equality seriously would be committed to a future-proofed EHRC.
However, I acknowledge—as do many of the EHRC’s natural allies—that it has not all been plain sailing for the EHRC. Its first three sets of accounts were qualified by the National Audit Office, and obvious tensions between staff, senior management and the commissioners have no doubt had an impact on the EHRC’s ability to achieve its goals. The Government have sought to attack and undermine the work of the EHRC, particularly because of financial management issues. However, responsibility for those issues does not lie with those who work on the helpline, the grants team and the mediation service, or in regional offices. Any such issues should be sorted out, but they should not be used as an excuse to cut essential services to those who are in need and to those who are suffering discrimination.
As I have already said, despite concerns about the EHRC’s performance, non-governmental organisations, unions and others still want to see an effective, robust and independent EHRC, and I agree with them as the chair of the all-party group on equalities. Those bodies want a future in which an outward-looking, integrated and well-resourced commission that is in touch with the grass-roots concerns and needs of ordinary people provides much-needed enforcement powers, advice and support to the people of Britain, as they face the dire economic challenges brought about by this Government’s policies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) on securing this debate, and on her commitment to equality. I apologise for the fact that the Minister for Equalities is unable to be in Westminster Hall this afternoon to respond directly to the debate.
I know of the hard work done by the hon. Member in chairing the all-party group on equalities, and how rigorous that group is in its approach to equality and fairness. Although we may have differences in relation to a number of the issues that she has raised today, the Government welcome the group’s rigour because we are unequivocal in our commitment to equal treatment and equality of opportunity. That is why we have taken a number of significant steps since we were elected to tackle the barriers to equal opportunities and social mobility. Although there will be differences between us this afternoon, I think that there is common recognition of these important issues.
However, on our own the Government will only ever make limited progress. If we are to stamp out prejudice and give everyone the chance to achieve their potential, we need concerted action by individuals, businesses and voluntary organisations across our communities. We also need a strong and effective equality body and national human rights institution to monitor our progress, make recommendations about how we can do better and ensure the law is working as intended.
Although I recognise the EHRC has struggled with a number of issues over the past few years, I pay tribute to several of its ordinary members of staff. However, the commission has struggled with its remit and to demonstrate that it is delivering value for money. As the hon. Lady highlighted, its first three sets of accounts were qualified, attracting criticism from the Public Accounts Committee. Its helpline and grants programmes were found to be poorly administered and poorly targeted. Its conciliation service was not cost-effective, costing almost £5,000 per case—almost 10 times more than those of other mediation providers.
Sandra Osborne
I share the Minister’s disappointment that the Minister for Equalities is not here. She sat with me in the Committee that considered what became the Equality Act 2010. No matter what the previous Government wanted to do, she wanted to go further—how things have changed. However, will the Minister confirm the costs I mentioned, as well as the costs the Government have paid for consultancies?
James Brokenshire
We will no doubt come on to consultancy. One challenge the commission has faced relates to its use of interim staff, which has caused it some real issues. Over 2009-10, it spent almost £9 million—almost a third of its total pay bill—on an average of just 85 interim staff, or just 16% of its total work force for that year. There is nothing fair about that for the taxpayer.
That is why our Government-wide review of non-departmental public bodies concluded in October 2010 that the EHRC should be retained, but substantially reformed. At the same time, we announced in the spending review that we would more than halve its budget, from £55 million to £26.8 million. I know those cuts are a source of significant concern for the hon. Lady, but she will recognise, although perhaps not agree, that the Government have had to deal with real challenges as a result of the budget deficit left by the previous Government. Difficult decisions and reforms are needed to reduce that deficit.
Moreover, it is clear that even after the budget cuts, the EHRC remains well funded compared with similar bodies in other countries. As an arm’s length body, it is for the EHRC to decide how to manage the budget reductions. The location of the EHRC’s offices and the number of staff it employs at them are operational matters for the board and the management to decide after consultation with staff. If the EHRC is to deliver maximum value for taxpayers’ money, however, it must focus on its core remit—the areas where it alone can add value.
Sandra Osborne
Does the Minister think it is for the EHRC to decide completely to withdraw a service from Scotland and Wales? Surely, that is something the Government should be interested in.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady will be aware of the statutory functions imposed on the EHRC, as well as the duties it has in relation to devolution as a consequence, and it has underlined that it will continue to engage with local partners. Decisions on the deployment and location of staff are obviously operational matters for the EHRC, but it has specific legislative responsibilities in relation to the devolved nations, such as the requirement to have specific decision-making committees for Scotland and Wales. It remains committed to working with local stakeholders.
The hon. Lady will know that in March 2011 we set out detailed proposals to reform the EHRC to achieve the focus on its core remit by clarifying its remit; stopping non-core activities and, where appropriate, making alternative provision where those activities can be done better or more cost-effectively by alternative providers; and strengthening its governance and systems to provide greater transparency, accountability and value for money. We received almost 1,000 responses to the consultation. While I recognise that she is impatient for the Government’s response, it is right that we take the time to consider the views expressed before announcing a way forward, and we hope to respond to the consultation shortly. A number of non-legislative reforms are, however, already under way.
I am aware of the hon. Lady’s concerns about the closure of the EHRC’s helpline and the ending of its grants programmes, and I will respond to them directly. I can reassure her that people will be able to receive expert advice and support on discrimination, which is tailored to their individual circumstances, from the new equality advisory and support service that we are commissioning. She challenged me on whether there is a preferred bidder. No, there is not a preferred bidder. The procurement process for a new equality advisory and support service is continuing and no preferred bidder has been selected. The intention is that the process should be completed in May, with the new service becoming operational in September.
Central Government funding for legal advice on discrimination will continue to be available through legal aid to ensure that limited public funds are targeted on those who need it most—the most serious cases in which legal advice or representation is justified. On conciliation, the Ministry of Justice website provides information on, and links to, good quality, accessible and effective mediation for individuals in England and Wales. In addition, a means-tested service for those who cannot afford the fees is available through LawWorks. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that similar provision is also available in Scotland.
We have sought to impose tighter financial controls and to stop waste. The operational independence of the EHRC—a publicly funded body—should not be a justification for financial indiscipline. In March, a new framework document clarifying the relationship between the EHRC and the Government was agreed between the Home Office and the EHRC board. The new framework document makes it clear that the EHRC will comply with Government-wide rules on managing public money, and with public expenditure controls, where they do not interfere with the EHRC’s ability to perform its statutory functions. In addition to establishing tighter financial controls, the new framework document sets out how the EHRC and Government will work together to increase the EHRC’s transparency to Parliament and the public about how it operates.
There have been signs of progress following action by the Government. The EHRC has reduced its dependence on interim staff and now has fewer than 20 in post. It plans to have no interim staff by 1 April 2013. It is moving swiftly to deliver significant reductions to the cost of its corporate support functions through agreeing arrangements to share back-office services with other organisations. It has set out plans to rationalise its accommodation in the next 12 months, including moving out of its expensive central London offices, which will result in further savings of more than £3 million a year. In November last year, there was a significant sign of progress when its first satisfactory set of accounts were laid before Parliament.
On the telephone helpline, the hon. Lady asked whether there had been an equality impact assessment. An equality policy statement was published by the Home Office in December, and the new service will provide a better service for people from disadvantaged groups than the helpline it is replacing. We want the EHRC to become a valued and respected national institution. To do so, it must focus on the areas in which it alone can add value, and it must be able to demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money. We will respond to the consultation shortly. We will also appoint a new chair shortly. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support our plans.[Official Report, 10 May 2012, Vol. 545, c. 1MC.]
Local Authorities (Procurement)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Clark.
The Government, I am delighted to say, are committed to a localism agenda, which I fully support and welcome. A key element of the agenda involves freeing up local government so that more decisions are made locally, ensuring that central Government funding is less prescriptive. Even now, we remain a highly centralised country and more needs to be done to give greater freedom and more power to local authorities, giving them the ability to make decisions on local matters. With greater powers comes increased responsibility, and local authorities will have to rise to the challenge that the Government are offering them, which I believe they can do. Whether or not we think that they can rise to the occasion, we must realise the important role of local government in our country. We national politicians and national Government often underestimate the influence and importance of local government.
As well as acknowledging that power needs to be decentralised, the Government have recognised that the regions and large cities of the country can and should be economic drivers. They can boost economic activity and bring prosperity and jobs to their own city or locality. That concept not only applies to the large urban centres, but can be of equal significance to the smaller cities such as Carlisle and the smaller towns such as Stevenage. Even smaller towns and regions throughout Britain can also play a role. It is therefore clear, certainly to me, that local government has an extremely important role in ensuring the economic success of our country, and not only in the success of its own local economy.
Part of that role is the recognition by councils that they are significant purchasers of goods and services. To some extent, they can influence the success or otherwise of local businesses. In the UK, government spends in the region of £220 billion each year procuring goods and services; £42 billion of that is spent by local authorities alone—almost 20% of the national procurement spend. It is therefore abundantly clear that such procurement is of significant importance to local communities as well as to local economies. When a local authority purchases goods and services from local businesses, it is spending money in its own community, which benefits the local economy and local people.
Take the example of a local business providing a service or a variety of goods to an authority. The business will employ local people to deliver the service or to provide the goods to the authority; those local people employed by the business will, in turn, spend their wages in the same local economy, feeding directly into the general economic activity of the area. Such a virtuous cycle can have enormous benefits to a particular town or city, especially the smaller ones. Again, good examples are my own city of Carlisle and somewhere such as Stevenage. By the same token, procurement of services outside an area might save the council some money in the short term, but could easily have a detrimental effect on the local economy in the long term.
Before raising a number of issues with the Minister, I accept that proper procedures have to be in place and that appropriate rules need to be applied to any procurement policy. I also acknowledge and accept that any procurement policy of an authority has to take into account European law and other international agreements, as well as our own domestic law and, in particular, competition policy. The size and value of the procurement is also a key issue.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that European Union directives on public procurement are often gold-plated by local authorities and act as a barrier to the ability of local companies to provide services for those authorities?
John Stevenson
Yes, I do accept that. It probably happens at the national level as well. National Government should look at the issue and encourage local government to follow what could be their example if they watered down some of the policies coming out of Europe.
Clearly and rightly, an authority that wants to make a substantial purchase of goods or services must follow strict procedures, but there can and should be flexibility, particularly for smaller purchases of goods and services by local authorities. I accept that there must be clear procedures in place for smaller procurement contracts, that there must be openness and transparency, and that there must be no opportunity for inappropriate contracts. However, there are opportunities for local authorities through their procurement policies to help to support and to develop their local economy by procuring from local businesses and thereby benefiting the wider local community.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
On procurement, surely we will cut off our nose to spite our face in many cases. The whole idea is to drive the economy locally for local companies, but many of those companies miss out because of the very point that the hon. Gentleman has raised about European legislation.
John Stevenson
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Local economies and local businesses are the way to drive our economy. They are a key player, and we underestimate their importance. We must take into account the European dimension, and if that frustrates local businesses, we must try to do something about it.
I have taken the opportunity to look at Government advice on procurement policy, and the key point is that procurement must be value for money, normally through competition. I accept that that is generally the correct approach, and will often be the one that authorities will follow, but how we interpret the definition of “value for money” is a much wider issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) successfully navigated through Parliament the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. It requires local authorities, when they enter into procurement contracts, to give greater consideration to economic, social and/or environmental well-being during the pre-procurement stage. That is hugely welcome, and it is extremely important that councils are made fully aware of the Act’s provisions, and the potential benefits for their areas.
I firmly believe that it is incumbent on councils to take into consideration the impact that their procurement can have on their local economy, and the success or otherwise of local businesses, especially small ones. Local government procurement can be beneficial in giving local businesses the ability to grow and expand. That creates jobs, skills and investment in areas throughout the country, particularly those that are badly in need of investment. However, a negative effect can be created as easily, and can go beyond having a direct impact on a local business. It can spread into the wider community, lowering employment, and preventing money from being recycled through the local economy, leading to less money being invested in businesses in that area. It is clear how local government procurement has the ability to create a much less vibrant and successful local economy very quickly.
I want to be parochial for a moment. In 2010, the university of Cumbria produced a paper entitled “The Impact of Local Authority Procurement on Local Economies, The Case of Cumbria”. It found that increasing pressures on local authorities to be efficient and effective in their use of public resources may contradict the need to support local communities, particularly during a period of economic downturn. The findings suggested that many small and medium-sized enterprises throughout Cumbria relied on local authority contracts for business stability. Those interviewed throughout the county confirmed that when a more formal approach to public procurement is taken, coupled with a more defined definition of “value for money”, SMEs become more vulnerable.
To its credit, Cumbria county council's procurement strategy aims to increase the proportion of suppliers based in the county from 60% in 2010 to 65% in 2012. Collectively, the Cumbrian authorities have an annual procurement spend in excess of £300 million, more than half of which is spent locally. That sort of money can have a profound effect on any local economy, so I want to ensure that local authorities have the appropriate power and tools to ensure that they can promote and support local business through their individual procurement policies. I therefore ask the Minister to consider three key issues.
First, does he believe that the power of general competence for local authorities, which was granted by the Government in recent legislation, gives them sufficient additional powers to introduce or pursue a procurement policy that can examine the wider effects of their current policy beyond best practice? Secondly, to what extent does the Minister feel that the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, is on the radar of local authorities; and how widely is it being used across the country? Finally, what measures does the Minister intend to pursue to help with the issue and to ensure that local authorities have policies that truly benefit their own locality?
I want Carlisle to have a vibrant, local economy, creating jobs and prosperity for local people.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case, and the circumstances that he outlines as affecting his part of Cumbria are replicated in my constituency, in northern Lincolnshire. Does he agree that the important thing about encouraging and supporting local businesses is that they transmit skills to the younger generation and help with youth unemployment? Only last week I was at a business that had taken on apprentices, and that must surely be an important part of any local economy.
John Stevenson
I completely agree. If the contracts from the local authority are with local businesses, those businesses clearly have an incentive to invest and create jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities for future generations.
I believe that local decisions that affect local communities should be made by local people, away from central Government. If local authorities were to adopt a more flexible but robust procurement policy, local economies throughout the country would reap enormous benefits. It would also be beneficial to the national economy.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for securing such an important debate.
The Minister is aware that more than £70 billion a year is spent by local government on the procurement of local goods and services, and even a small saving would make a huge financial difference. The Local Government Association is promoting the use of procurement hubs, which can save councils millions of pounds, and it should be congratulated on trying to develop tools to help councils come together to form those groups and deliver better value for money. It also promotes greater innovation: a subject close to my heart is that of using technology to promote jobs and growth. I commend the development of e-auctions in particular. Those are electronic reverse tenders, in which potential suppliers compete online in real time to win a contract. Case studies show a 15% to 30% saving.
My constituency of Stevenage is in the county of Hertfordshire and the 10 district councils have joined up with the county council to create Supply Hertfordshire, our own procurement hub. That has expanded to include the local NHS, the probation trust, Hertfordshire police, some housing associations and a range of other organisations.
John Stevenson
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I have been talking about local authorities, but he seems to be pursuing the line not only that local authorities have a role to play, but that other public bodies, such as the NHS and police, can be equally significant in their procurement policies and in effective local economies.
Stephen McPartland
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. In a county such as Hertfordshire, when the police, probation service and NHS are brought in, the amount of money that the Government are handing over to be delivered locally runs into billions of pounds.
Supply Hertfordshire’s ambition is to become the focal point for supplying to the public sector in Hertfordshire. That is an inspiring ambition and it has my full support. However, I am keen to ask the Minister what support the Government can give to help turn that ambition into reality and provide jobs and growth for my local economy. I am patron of an organisation called biz4Biz, which is a collection of local businesses. In Stevenage it is considered to be the voice of the small business community. It is involved in a range of projects, but we are all keen to understand why it is difficult for small companies, including many with multi-million pound turnovers, to get access to public sector contracts locally. I have been approached by businesses from all over the country that are concerned they are missing out on huge opportunities locally that would boost jobs and local economic growth because they cannot navigate the labyrinth of public sector procurement locally. Some companies have informed me that they have missed out on tenders a number of times, with very little feedback. As a result they can no longer afford the time and cost to their company of attempting another tender.
Other companies have been told that EU public procurement rules prevent them from even applying in the first place. I know that those EU rules are gold-plated locally at the expense of local companies, but that leads to a loss of opportunity, particularly for the younger members of our community trying to get their first job and first step on the road to a career. We can change that and we can make a difference. The Government are giving local people more powers under the Localism Act 2011, but we must go further.
Will the Minister consider asking local authorities to sign up to the principle that they, like the Government, should aspire to give 25% of their contracts to small businesses? In the case of local government, it would have to aspire to give 25% of its contracts to small businesses in the locality. Will he go further and urge local authorities to publish all successful tenders on their website, so that companies that do not succeed can benchmark their own bid against that of the successful bidder? They could then learn from their mistakes or possibly even challenge the local authority to have another look into it under the powers contained in the Localism Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Clark. My congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for their contributions. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle on securing the debate.
I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased, but not surprised, to hear that the Government are as keen as my hon. Friends to ensure that local government spends its money as effectively as possible. It is interesting that several different figures for that have been mentioned: my brief says that the figure is £62 billion a year. Whatever the amount is, it is certainly an awful lot of money and, clearly, there is significant scope for it to be spent better. That can help to save taxpayers’ money, reduce the overall deficit we face and, in many cases, lead to local authorities commissioning better and more appropriate front-line services.
I agree with my hon. Friends that local government has a good record. Indeed, if one were to speak to local government representatives, they would be quick to point to various studies that suggest that their value for money is, on the whole, better than central Government’s value for money. I do not want to convey the wrong impression in my contribution by suggesting anything different.
I want to use the available time to set out what the Government are doing to help the sector build on its procurement practices and to refer hon. Members to the parliamentary answer that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), made, in which he set out a table showing the procurement expenditure in the last financial year for each local authority in England. He also set out the steps that the Government and the Department are taking. However, we are very much talking about a project led by the Local Government Association in England to develop a package of work to take forward the agenda.
Overall, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Government are aiming to put councils and communities back in control of their own destinies through the devolution of power and control over budgets to councils. Local authorities are therefore increasingly responsible for taking their own procurement decisions, subject to the requirements of best value legislation and the EU and UK regulatory framework.
There is no doubt that difficulties are faced by local contractors seeking to win contracts. In particular, smaller contractors may find that they are squeezed out, as has been mentioned. In fact, the EU procurement rules are not nearly as severe or draconian as is often suggested. Nevertheless, they are a constraint.
Value-for-money pressures can be balanced legitimately and legally by social value and environmental value. It is entirely right, legitimate and proper for those seeking tenders to set out such requirements in the tender process. Local authorities can therefore use the procurement rules to promote local enterprise, and the Local Government Association’s guidance “Buying into communities” is designed to help local authorities do that within the EU procurement rules. It helps councillors and officers in authorities to see how other authorities have utilised the rules to get the outcomes they want from their public spending. I therefore commend it to hon. Members, and I invite them to make sure that their local authorities are fully aware of the advice and support it offers.
Good procurement practice by authorities can help to promote opportunities for local small and medium-sized enterprises, helping them to bid for all or a part of a contract and to develop local skills. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage about the work Hertfordshire is doing, and we heard about Cumbria from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle.
Essex county council has recently done work highlighting how its golden triangle of procurement has utilised savings of £120 million per year and created about 200 apprenticeships. The Federation of Small Businesses has acknowledged that that has improved access to council contracts. It is clear that SMEs are a key ingredient in strong local economic growth, and public procurement is just one way in which an authority can help those in their area to grow. That said, it is a surprise and a disappointment that local firms still regularly mention obstacles such as pre-qualification questionnaires and duplicate tenders, as well as the difficulty of discussing forward work with local authorities and, therefore, of planning a sensible work stream and a sensible bidding strategy.
Recently, therefore, the Cabinet Office has announced a series of actions it will take to help SMEs get a greater percentage of contracts. One pledge involves reducing or removing the necessity for pre-qualification questionnaires, particularly where they are for work below £100,000. There is no sensible reason why an SME bidder would have to fill out multiple questionnaires several times over to compete for procurements, and such things do not give the impression that councils welcome SMEs’ business and trade. Aside from pointing out that such PQQs are unnecessary below £100,000, the Cabinet Office has produced its own model, four-page PQQ, which can be used instead of the often far too elaborate examples used by tenderers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage drew attention to the electronic tendering that takes place in Hertfordshire. He also mentioned the biz4Biz scheme. That is another area where local authorities can play a helpful part in supporting local small businesses. My local authority, Stockport, organises business-to-business fairs in the town hall, where large local enterprises are put in touch with small ones, and trade links are established. That is not about spending public money; it is about the council accepting that it has a role and some responsibility for ensuring that large companies in the area—or small companies for that matter—look first to the local providers of services before they look further afield.
The Local Government Association is working with the Federation of Small Businesses and with individual authorities to highlight exactly how procurement can be simplified and access broadened. There is, therefore, a lot of good practice and quite a lot of good understanding. Sometimes, procurement officers and councillors say that they cannot do such things because of EU rules or this or that piece of legislation, but quite a lot of what is said in those circumstances is purely and simply mythology.
That brings me to the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle raised about whether the new provision in the Localism Act to give every local authority a general power of competence allows them to deliver a better performance on procurement. The answer to that is a straightforward yes. The general power of competence allows any local authority to do anything that an individual can do, which gives them a great deal of flexibility. Of course, they must obey the law and have regard to reasonableness. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, we could not have a wild west contracting situation. It is absolutely right and proper that due process should be followed, but within that councils have a great deal of discretion about how they proceed.
My hon. Friend asked whether local authorities were sufficiently aware of the legislation of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White). Perhaps the fact that he has had to bring the matter to this Chamber today suggests that they are not. I am sure that he and I will want to contribute to a process of increasing awareness. Moreover, let me draw his attention to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in notifying councils about some of the opportunities that exist in their partnerships with the voluntary and community sector. Again, that underlines the point that they should be taking into account not just short-term, straightforward cost savings but the wider social and environmental impact of their decisions.
Beyond Cumbria, the north-west procurement portal is a good example of how the region is helping businesses to identify contracts more easily. At a quick look, there are numerous opportunities there, broken down by council areas and sub-regions, and the portal links to other portals around the country. Of course that is producing results in many places.
Through the efforts that have been made with the north-west portal, it has been possible for the 10 authorities in the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, including mine, Stockport, to establish that they spend jointly £2.5 billion a year, that £300 million of that spend is different authorities spending with common suppliers, and that they are redirecting what they do such that 56% of their spend is now with providers based within the 10 local authorities and 69% of what they spend is spent with companies within the north-west. I am sure that there is further to go for many local authorities, but that gives an indication of what can be achieved when local authorities put their heads together and work at it hard.
My hon. Friend’s third question was whether I would be forcing local authorities to do things—
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Malawi
(12 years, 6 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)
President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi died of a cardiac arrest on 5 April. Vice-President Joyce Banda was declared President on 7 April, following due constitutional process. President Banda has declared a period of 30 days of mourning for the late President. In her inauguration speech President Banda emphasised the need to focus immediately on mourning President Mutharika, and for healing and reconciliation and encouraged the people of Malawi to work together to address the many challenges that face the country. The President has continued this theme, and made it clear that her top priorities include getting back on track with the IMF and normalising relations with the UK.
In my statements to the House of 28 April, Official Report, column 13WS and 14 July 2011, Official Report, column 46WS, I set out the Government’s response to the Government of Malawi’s unwarranted decision to expel the British high commissioner. In both of those statements, I told the House that, while the UK would maintain formal diplomatic relations with Malawi, I would not appoint a new high commissioner at that time.
I have now decided that the time is right to appoint a new high commissioner to Malawi. The Prime Minister has written to the President to convey this decision to her and a copy of this letter will be placed in the Library of the House. I will instruct the new high commissioner, once appointed, to monitor developments in Malawi closely.
Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 98207 on 5 March, Official Report, column 411W and subsequent comments made by the Secretary of State for Transport in debates held on 8 March, Official Report, column 1035 and 23 March, Official Report, column 1049 about how many miles of railway track were electrified between May 1997 and May 2010.
The correct answer is approximately nine route miles were electrified between May 1997 and May 2010, not 39 route miles as previously stated. This total does not include newly constructed railways.
Social Fund Budgeting Loans
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
On 6 December 2010 I announced that in the forthcoming Welfare Reform Bill, we intended to introduce legislation to make social fund budgeting loans available to help families to buy maternity items or items for a new baby or to help them towards meeting some of the costs of a relative’s funeral.
I am pleased to report that these changes to budgeting loans will be implemented from 8 May 2012 and will apply to all applications made from this date. This help will be available in addition to the Sure Start maternity grant and the social fund funeral payment.
I will place a copy of the new direction covering these changes to social fund budgeting loans in the House Library later today.
House of Lords
Transport: Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to use automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems to reduce the number of uninsured drivers and the use of unregistered vehicles.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the police use automatic number plate recognition to spot vehicles that are being used without insurance or with no registered keeper. Under the continuous insurance enforcement scheme, the DVLA has powers to issue fixed-penalty notices, clamp a vehicle or prosecute offenders who keep a vehicle with no insurance. Contractors for DVLA are able to wheel-clamp uninsured vehicles, and have access to ANPR. The DVLA also has its own ANPR equipment to detect unlicensed vehicles.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Does the Minister agree that the estimated loss to ordinary insured drivers is £500 million a year in higher premiums? Has he seen the reports about forecourts saying that they will not let you buy petrol if you are unregistered? Has there been any increase in the effectiveness of enforcement where people are uninsured or unregistered?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the cost of uninsured drivers is considerable. Uninsured drivers are also vulnerable to legal difficulties. The situation is highly undesirable, which is why we are taking steps to reduce the level of uninsured driving. The idea of using ANPR on petrol forecourts is innovative and being considered, but further work is needed to establish how it will work in practice alongside existing enforcement measures.
Lord Bradshaw
Will my noble friend take this fact away? ANPR is cutting-edge technology. It is very capable and can detect uninsured or stolen vehicles, people who are wanted by the police, and myriad other things. However, the legal system, which is in the hands of the Home Office, is not keeping pace. I have been on ANPR checks that have had to be stood down after about an hour because all the available space in a police station to process the prisoners has been quite overwhelmed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend is right about the advantages of ANPR technology. It detects a considerable number of unlicensed vehicles. I was out with the police last week and we caught an uninsured driver. It is not the only technique available. Under continuous insurance enforcement, the DVLA is able to issue fixed-penalty notices to anyone who operates a vehicle that is not insured and not declared to be off the road. That will also be a very effective deterrent.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, if we have so many facilities for tracking these people and bringing them to charge, why is the system not operating? What will the Government do to use the facilities properly? Will they not consider employing people who are unemployed to chase these people, which will make the system cost-effective at the same time?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I said that I was out with the police very recently using this technology and we detected an uninsured driver. However, we need to be careful that when we interfere with motorists, and possibly seize or clamp their vehicles, the people doing that work are properly trained and qualified to do so.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
Will the Minister comment on the number of occasions when ANPR has been used in the detection of serious terrorist offences and serious organised crime, where it is extremely valuable?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the use of ANPR. I cannot give examples because I am not briefed on them, but when I went out with the police, I was in an unmarked police car and the police were interested in all types of crime, not just vehicle crime.
Lord Geddes
My Lords, in my ignorance, and perhaps for the benefit of the House, will my noble friend explain whether ANPR is a mobile device or is fixed?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, ANPR technology can be fixed or mobile. Both technologies are used where appropriate. However, if you want to use ANPR technology for a prosecution, the equipment has to be Home Office approved, and there are some issues there.
Lord Davies of Oldham
We note that the Minister has been closely involved with the police and has been helping them with any inquiries which they make, and I am very glad to see him back in his place today. Will he address his mind to the fact that the cost of motor insurance, which, after all, encourages those of a less respectable bent to try to avoid it, went up by 14 per cent last year? For young people getting their first car, if it is of a fairly clapped-out variety, insurance could be twice the cost of their vehicle. What are the Government going to do about that?
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord is absolutely and precisely right, as usual. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is shortly to chair a working group looking at the cost of motor insurance for young people.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Will the noble Earl tell the House that in a case where death or injury is caused by an uninsured driver, the agreement made between the Ministry of Transport and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau in or about 1930 still remains valid and effective?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, unfortunately I am not aware of what the noble Lord is talking about, but I will be delighted to write to him.
Museums and Galleries
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the status of the national museums and galleries in England.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced funding plans for national museums and galleries as part of the spending review in 2010. There are no plans to review the status of national museums and galleries. The Government remain committed to maintaining free admission to national museums and galleries. We believe that in the current difficult economic climate it is important that national museums remain free and continue to provide an important cultural and educational resource that is available to all.
Lord Sheldon
It is always very interesting to hear what the noble Baroness has to say, but the national museums and galleries in England have had considerable respect in detailing their programmes. If they are questioned, would not their comment be fully understood?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, many of your Lordships will know of and appreciate the invaluable contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, to the All-Party Parliamentary Arts and Heritage Group: he is its president, and a very fine one. We share his deep appreciation of national museums and galleries in England and their contribution to public life. Our national museums and galleries are among the finest in the world. I reassure him that their trustees and directors set an admirably high standard of collections care, exhibitions and public programmes. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport shows its confidence in them by providing four-year funding settlements.
Baroness Hooper
My Lords, as a former trustee of national museums and galleries of Liverpool, and given that the Liverpool museums and galleries are the only national museums and galleries outside London, can my noble friend reassure me that there is absolutely no question of any change in this unique status, especially considering the enormous development and improvement there has been to those museums and galleries?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lady Hooper makes a very good point and I know of her great involvement in the Liverpool museums. She can rest assured that we have no idea of changing their status, and fully support them as usual.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, as a trustee of the Science Museum, I express my appreciation for what the noble Baroness said in her first answer about the role of trustees and the contribution that they make. Her commitment to maintaining free admission is very important and will also be welcome. Does she agree that that is not only an important ingredient in attracting record numbers of visitors—which certainly all the museums in the Science Museum group can now claim—but is a way of levering in private finance to assist with particular projects?
Baroness Rawlings
Yes, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Seven out of the top 10 UK visitor and tourist attractions are free, DCMS-sponsored national museums. Since the introduction of free admission in 2001 that he mentioned, visits to museums which previously had charged increased by 128 per cent, rising from 7.2 million to 16.3 million in 2009-10.
Lord Storey
My noble friend will be aware of the huge importance of museums to our heritage, tourism and economy. She will also be aware that some museums have unique national collections but are not designated national museums. The director of National Museums Liverpool, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, alluded to, has called on the Government to consider developing a museum strategy. Will the Government consider that?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend is absolutely right. The Government are considering and looking into various different ways, covering not only ideas but other incentives.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, most of the UK’s national museums and galleries were originally founded through the contributions, substantial in many cases, of individual philanthropists. Today, most rely heavily on donations to compensate for the cuts being made in public funding to maintain their buildings and to acquire original artefacts and artworks. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the financial implications for our cherished national museums and galleries of the Government’s plan to cap tax relief on charitable donations? Can the Minister comment on where this leaves the Secretary of State’s 10-point plan, which I understand was intended to “catalyse and facilitate” individual and corporate giving?
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, practically makes this a topical question. Given the macroeconomic climate, fundraising will continue to be a challenge and the Secretary of State will continue to drive the entire charitable giving agenda to help museums and galleries maximise their funds so that they are able to continue to raise money from generous benefactors. The Government, DCMS and all of us want to recognise the profound generosity of donors and benefactors.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extent to which, on the world stage, the unique character of our national museums, including their existence as proper public spaces, has contributed not only to cultural growth but to significant economic success, but that that economic success will be threatened by long-term cuts?
Baroness Rawlings
The economic success of galleries and museums is foremost in the mind of the Secretary of State. As for the aspects of the present taxation policy, what goes into the Budget will be the prerogative of the Chancellor. I am afraid that I cannot go into detail in your Lordships’ House regarding discussions between Ministers, but the Government will keep open all options regarding the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether these national museums will be affected by the changes announced in the Budget to charge VAT on alterations to listed buildings? I declare my interest as president of the Sulgrave Manor trust—a Tudor manor house and the ancestral home of George Washington which now operates as a museum. These museums are very old buildings. Will they be protected?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend raises a very valid point and I can tell her that the answer is no. National museums are able to recover VAT paid on building alterations and repairs through Section 33A of the VAT Act 1994, which also allows free entry to museums.
Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland
My Lords, is not the Minister slightly embarrassed? At a time of severe public expenditure cutbacks you would expect a Tory Government to be increasing charitable tax relief, not reducing it.
Baroness Rawlings
I am not embarrassed by the many productive points established by DCMS. The Government’s consultation on the detail of these policies and their implementation will be published in the summer. I shall give some examples from April 2012. The inheritance tax rate was reduced from 40 per cent to 36 per cent for estates where 10 per cent or more is left to charity. We are committed to an online filing system for charities to claim gift aid, which is planned for 2013. We are also working with the sector to develop a gift aid database for charities as well as implementing several other suggestions.
House of Lords: Reform
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kakkar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of potential risks arising from proposals for reform of the House of Lords.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, does characterising House of Lords reform in exchange for House of Commons boundary changes as coalition civility risk an erosion of confidence in democracy, as the people of our country are coming to terms with the spectacle of one party in coalition attempting better to control the House of Commons in exchange for the other party trying to achieve control of a future elected second Chamber, all being pushed through using the Parliament Act in what would amount to a monumental gerrymander?
Lord McNally
That is a rather harsh judgment on the Government. It is right that the case for boundary reform and House of Lords reform are judged on their merits. The Government put them through this House for scrutiny separately. They are not interlinked but are part of the Government’s and the coalition’s overall commitment to constitutional reform.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Government will carefully consider the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. He may have observed that the committee did not achieve exact unanimity in its conclusions. But the one issue on which all members seem to be agreed is that Clause 2 of the Bill will not do. Will the noble Lord say what the Government’s response will be? Will he also respond to the evidence given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in relation to the Parliament Act 1911, in which they say it is very clear that that Act was introduced to govern the relationship between an elected and an unelected House?
Lord McNally
My Lords, less than 24 hours after the publication of a carefully considered report, it would be impudent of me to start pronouncing on some of these issues. As to the opinions of the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord on the 1911 Act, the strength and the powers of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts were recently tested in court.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government have made an assessment of the risks of not proceeding with legislation for the reform of this House? For example, does he appreciate that if each incoming Prime Minister wished to rebalance the party representation in this House, we would soon exceed 1,000 Members? Does he also recognise that the public at the moment are more in favour of abolition of your Lordships’ House—by a very considerable margin—than retaining the all-appointed element?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the best thing this House can do for its own reputation is now to deal with the issue of Lords reform, aided and assisted by the report we have just received and by our normal process of debate. I do not think the country will be satisfied with a House of Lords that seems self-confidently smug about its own rectitude—and that groan of noble Lords will, I suspect, only confirm the country’s opinion of that. Let us proceed with dignity and responsibility. If we allow the status quo to develop—which I do not want to see because I love this House of Lords—the House will drift into public contempt because of its lack of reform.
Lord Soley
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we move to a situation where a part—perhaps 80 per cent—of this House is elected, we will be moving down the road of a written constitution? Is that his intention?
Lord McNally
I have no intention of going down the road to a written constitution. This country has probably for 300 years been extremely successful in adjusting its constitution to the age in which it is there to serve the people. Now, in the 21st century, the time has come for the House of Lords to make a similar adjustment.
Lord Cormack
Has my noble friend had a chance to read the alternative, unanimous report produced by 12 members of a committee of 25? Will he ensure that all Ministers see it, read it, mark it, learn and inwardly digest it, because it offers a sensible way forward?
Lord McNally
I have not yet read that report. Yesterday I was fully engaged in the fruitful debates on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. However, I can assure my noble friend that I have a box by the side of my desk marked “weekend reading” which has in it that report and the main report. I look forward to reading both over the weekend. I cannot compel other Ministers as to their reading but I hope that all Members will take this issue forward with a sense of responsibility and a sense of the dignity of this House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, in response to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, the Minister said that the AV and boundary legislation requiring a second vote by the House of Commons and passage of the House of Lords Reform Bill were two entirely separate and distinct issues. Does this mean that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, publicly disowns the comments freely made by many of his Lib Dem colleagues that the two of them go together and that without the one there would not be the other?
Lord McNally
No. Every time I open my newspaper, there is some new, exciting story about some Minister or somebody in the other place taking a position one way or the other. What I said was that those two Bills had been presented to Parliament quite properly, and debated separately. They stand on their merits. However, over the next few months, we will have to get used to all kinds of scaremongering, rumours and the rest. That is why it is important that we all keep calm—and noble Lords will know how good I am at keeping calm.
Value Added Tax: Listed Places of Worship
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Northbrook
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will reconsider the extension of the standard rate of VAT to alterations to listed places of worship and the restriction on the amount of VAT claimable on repairs to those places.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Budget removes a VAT distinction, which is notoriously difficult to apply in practice, between alterations to protected buildings, which include listed places of worship, and repairs to all buildings. The listed places of worship grant scheme, which makes grants towards the VAT incurred on works of repair and maintenance for listed places of worship, currently allocates £12 million a year. We are exploring options with the church authorities, including committing more money to the scheme, so that listed places of worship are not adversely affected by the Budget proposal.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of my local listed church restoration committee. What progress was made at the meeting yesterday between church leaders and the Treasury to mitigate the reported £20 million VAT effect of these measures for listed churches, which is causing concern for church building projects throughout the land?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that there was an important meeting on this topic yesterday, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My understanding is that they had a very open and constructive discussion. The Chancellor made it clear that the £5 million which the Government have committed to the listed places of worship grant scheme in the Budget is on top of the £12 million which the scheme already had. We accept, having seen the churches’ numbers, that the VAT change will indeed be more than £5 million and that we need to commit more money, and discussions will continue next week to look at what the projected numbers and our commitment should be.
Lord Newby
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that the VAT changes are particularly damaging to projects that are already under way? For example, for a project in Kingston, the church reckons that it may have to pay as much as £400,000 additional VAT as a result of this change, when it has already raised several million pounds. Can the Government, at the very least, give a commitment that schemes that are already under way and on which there has already been significant fundraising will not be disadvantaged by the more general proposals in the Budget?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I confirm that there are indeed transitional arrangements in place for approved alterations to listed buildings, which cover contracts in place before Budget day. Contracts in place on that day will retain the zero rate if the work is performed by 20 March 2013. Our consultation paper specifically asks for comments on whether the transitional period is sufficient. We will of course listen to any reasonable comments about these transitional arrangements and will consider whether any more generous arrangements could be implemented.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
My Lords, of the 563 churches in my diocese, 503 are listed—some 89 per cent. Their upkeep relies almost entirely on voluntary fundraising and support from their congregations. In promoting the big society, many wish to open those buildings to wider community use. What incentive does the Minister believe is being created for congregations to do so by making them pay VAT up front only to claim it back through a scheme that is not adequately funded? Would not a simpler and real incentive for local churches to improve their buildings be to retain the current exemption on VAT?
Lord Sassoon
The right reverend Prelate raises some important points. I can give him only partial comfort, or the answer that he wants, in respect of some of his question. First, as I have already explained, we intend to make sure that the compensation number fully reflects the additional costs of the Budget change. The element that troubles us most is that under the previous VAT arrangements the incentivisation worked in favour of alterations of listed buildings as opposed to repair and maintenance. We do not want to see anything that incentivises people against repairing and maintaining and therefore preserving the core heritage features of the property, so we think that it is right to put alterations, repairs and maintenance on an even basis. Therefore, although I cannot give the right reverend Prelate the comfort that we intend to revisit that issue, I stress again that we want to make sure that the churches are fully protected against the impact of the Budget change.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, is this a good time to reduce demand for the construction industry? In January this year, its output fell by 14 per cent. It is true that there was a slight improvement in February, but in the first quarter of this year output from the construction industry is certain to fall, with all the implications that that has for economic growth. Can the Minister look at this issue again?
Lord Sassoon
My noble friend was perhaps being excessively charitable to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, in saying that he was always right on matters. I am afraid that on this one he has not got it right. As I explained, the Government are fully compensating churches for the changes in VAT so that there will be just as much money available to listed places of worship before and after the change for them to put into something that we want to protect—the ongoing repair and maintenance of our listed places of worship.
Procedure of the House
The Chairman of Committees
That the 12th Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 283) be agreed to.
Scotland Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
In moving that the Bill be now read a third time, I wish to inform your Lordships' House that since the Report stage of the Bill the Scottish Parliament has given its full support to the legislative consent Motion in favour of the Bill, with no Division required. The Government welcome the Scottish Parliament’s support for the Bill.
Clause 12 : The Scottish Government
Amendment 1
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, these minor and technical amendments, which are a cue for those who wish to leave to do so, will ensure that all references to “Scottish Executive” in Section 44 of the Scotland Act are amended to “Scottish Government”. Clause 12 of the Bill renames the Scottish Executive as the Scottish Government. This clause was included in the Bill following increasing use of the term Scottish Government by the Scottish Administration, indeed by the UK Government and the public as well. Clause 12 will ensure that the use of its legal and public name is consistent. The current clause does not encapsulate every mention of the Scottish Executive within Section 44 of the Scotland Act and these amendments will ensure that the policy intention underlying Clause 12 is fully implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am not going to make a speech about the relevance of the definite article, but I wonder whether my noble and learned friend might help me by giving some understanding of why it was felt necessary to change the name of the Scottish Executive to that of the Scottish Government, but not at the same time to change the name of First Minister to that of Prime Minister. Given that we apparently have a Scottish Government and a Scottish Cabinet, why has he not felt it necessary to make a change to the title of the leader of that Government? I ask that question not in order to make mischief but to underline the point as to what is going on here.
The Scottish Executive were called the Scottish Executive with very good reason: in order to demonstrate that power devolved is power retained, and that we did not have competing governments in a unitary system. If you are going to have separate governments, you have to have separate roles within some kind of federal structure. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend even considered changing “First Minister” to “Prime Minister of Scotland”. Looking at the behaviour of the First Minister in Scotland, Prime Minister is probably not a grand enough title—there may be other titles which would be more appropriate, given the all-encompassing role which he carries out—but in order not to delay proceedings, I will not elaborate on that matter. I would be most grateful if my noble and learned friend could explain to me why it was thought necessary to change just this aspect of the nomenclature of the Scottish Administration.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising a pertinent point. As I explained in moving the amendment, the term Scottish Government, albeit technical, is widely used publicly. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that it was first ever used by the Scottish Administration in a document which I rather suspect the late Donald Dewar and I co-signed in 1999 or 2000. It is not only used by the Scottish Administration but has been used by the UK Government, and is used widely within the public. We therefore think it makes sense to amend the Act to reflect this public perception and avoid the potential for confusion, if indeed the popularly used name differs from the one required for legislation, contracts and legal matters.
As I am sure my noble friend will agree, while there have been regular references to the Scottish Government as opposed to the Scottish Executive, the term “First Minister” is one which has stuck. There has been no attempt or suggestion to use the term “Prime Minister”, or any public use of it, to refer to the person who holds that office and there is a clear distinction between the two. I hope that I am not giving anyone encouragement, or they might start to use the term “Prime Minister”. Clearly, that has not happened. We are seeking here to bring into line the public perception and the legal requirements. On that basis I hope that your Lordships’ House will agree to these amendments.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, during the Committee and Report stages my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean tabled amendments to give Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations to make provision for regulating the speed of all classes of vehicle on special roads in Scotland. We had some spirited and interesting debates on this topic and at Report stage I indicated that the Government’s position was to accept the principles underlying my noble friend’s amendment and I committed to bring forward amendments at Third Reading so that the amendments properly deliver the desired effects that my noble friend set out. In particular, I highlighted that the amendment would require redrafting to ensure that the power to set different speed limits for different classes of vehicle applied to all roads except those covered by the 30 mph limit, not just special roads, which are effectively motorways in this context. That is what the Government have done and what Amendments 3 to 7 achieve.
The Government have included powers in Clause 21 of the Scotland Bill to allow Scottish Ministers to determine the national speed limit on roads in Scotland, and a power to make regulations to specify traffic signs to indicate that limit. The powers currently set out in the Bill are limited to cars, motorcycles and vans under 3.5 tonnes. We listened carefully to the arguments presented by my noble friend and other noble Lords on the Benches opposite. Together with the case made by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government for the Bill to provide for the devolution of powers to set different speed limits for different classes of vehicles, we decided to accept the position put forward by my noble friend.
Amendments 3 to 7 will give Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations regulating the speed of all classes of vehicle on roads in Scotland and will make some consequential amendments. This will enable Scottish Ministers to set a national speed limit that is different for different classes of vehicle. On that basis, I ask noble Lords to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for tabling this amendment and for accepting the principle of the amendments that, as he indicated, I tabled at an earlier stage of the Bill. After I do not know how many thousands of words that I have spoken on the Bill on all the issues that have been raised, he will realise that it is a matter of great comfort to me to know that I have extended the powers of the Scottish Parliament to enable it to set speed limits for caravans and lorries. That no doubt will be my epitaph in respect of the consideration of the Bill. Just to ensure that this is on record, I think that it is ridiculous to have different speed limits north and south of the border, but if we are going to go down that track then clearly it is essential that there should be consistency.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I know may have had to press the Department for Transport a little in order to ensure this minor victory for extra powers to the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I think I am right in saying that, since the Bill was introduced, this is the only amendment that will actually extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament. For that, I am extremely grateful to him.
“( ) Section 86 (speed limits for particular classes of vehicles) is amended as follows.
( ) For “Secretary of State” in each place substitute “national authority”.
( ) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) The national authority in this section—
(a) as respects the driving of vehicles on roads in England and Wales, is the Secretary of State;(b) as respects the driving of vehicles on roads in Scotland, is the Scottish Ministers.(8) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(9) Before making any regulations under this section the Scottish Ministers must consult with such representative organisations as they think fit.””
“( ) In section 134(4) (provision as to regulations under sections 86 and 140) after “Regulations made” insert “by the Secretary of State”.”
“(b) omit paragraph (f) (sections 86(2) and 88(1) and (4)).”
“( ) The Lord Advocate or the Advocate General for Scotland, if a party to criminal proceedings before a court consisting of two or more judges of the High Court, may require the court to refer to the Supreme Court any compatibility issue which has arisen in the proceedings otherwise than on a reference.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the amendments that I tabled in Committee reflected some of the points made in Committee and the agreement that had been reached between the Government and the Scottish Government to ensure that a legislative consent Motion in support of the Bill was tabled in the Scottish Parliament. The amendments at that stage included provision for compatibility issues to be referred to the higher courts in certain circumstances to allow these issues to be dealt with quickly.
On Report, I said that I was still considering whether the law officers should be able to refer certain compatibility issues to the Supreme Court without the permission of the High Court, and what the role of the High Court should be. I also indicated that I would continue to discuss these matters with the Lord Advocate.
The amendments that I have tabled extend the powers of the law officers and allow certain compatibility issues to be ultimately considered by the Supreme Court where the law officers consider it appropriate to do so. The Lord Advocate is content with these amendments.
Clause 35 already makes provision for the law officers to require a lower court to refer a compatibility issue to the High Court. This can be done before the trial is concluded. On receiving the referral, the High Court can either decide the compatibility issue itself or refer it to the Supreme Court. We expect the High Court, in making this decision, to take account of the views of the law officers.
Amendment 9 ensures that if the High Court decides to determine the compatibility issue itself, then the law officers will have a right to appeal the compatibility issue to the Supreme Court once it has been determined by the High Court. In these circumstances, the law officers will not need the permission of the High Court or the Supreme Court to appeal. This means that where one of the law officers refers a compatibility issue to the High Court then either law officer can ensure that the issue is ultimately considered by the Supreme Court, should the High Court decide to look at the issue itself.
In addition the Bill already allows the High Court to refer a compatibility issue to the Supreme Court, where the compatibility issue has not been referred to it by a lower court and the High Court is considering the issue on an appeal. Amendment 8 extends this power, by allowing the law officers to require the High Court to refer the compatibility issue to the Supreme Court. Law officers can only do this if the compatibility issue has not been referred to the High Court by a lower court, and the High Court is considering the issue on an appeal. Referring the issue will enable the Supreme Court to decide on it earlier, which will be helpful where the compatibility issue will have implications for other cases. These amendments improve the Bill and enable compatibility issues to reach the Supreme Court more quickly, where this is appropriate, while respecting the importance of the role of the High Court in relation to these issues.
As I said in our earlier debates, we have come a long way in reaching agreement on the role of the Supreme Court in Scottish criminal proceedings, and I am grateful for the contributions made to the debate, including those made by the expert group that I set up chaired by Sir David Edward, by the review group led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and by other members of your Lordships’ House. I trust that all who have been involved in this work consider that the provisions in the Bill will result in improvements to the way in which convention and European Union law issues are dealt with in Scottish criminal proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey
My Lords, I welcome both Amendment 8 and Amendment 9, which, I understand, are being taken together. As for Amendment 8, I wrote to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for Scotland some time ago suggesting that this would be an appropriate power to be included in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. My view, which he has echoed, is that this power, used when thought necessary, could sometimes be useful to speed up cases going through the courts. It is clear that the two law officers, the Advocate-General and the Lord Advocate, can be trusted to use this power only in circumstances where it would serve the interests of justice, namely by preventing delay.
I believe I understand the purpose of this amendment and of Amendment 9, but could the noble and learned Lord explain one or two matters? The first is the exception made in the words that conclude Amendment 8,
“otherwise than on a reference” .
Could he explain precisely the purpose of those words? The second point relates to Amendment 9, to Clause 36. This disapplies subsection (5) to certain appeals taken by either of the two law officers. Why is this particular subsection disapplied? The answers will assist those practitioners who may have been confused by the considerable changes that have taken place, both in the Bill itself initially, and in the proceedings in this House to what is now Part 4 of the Bill.
Would the noble and learned Lord also explain under what circumstances and at whose instance a criminal case might be referred to the Supreme Court before the stage at which the facts of the case have finally been determined, and before the case itself has been finally determined by the court below? May I ask in particular, with regard to the commencement provisions in this Bill, when it is envisaged that Part 4 of the new Act will be brought into force? In asking that, I recognise that the Lord Justice-General—the Lord President—will have a considerable amount of work to do in preparing an act or acts of adjournal to cover the new matters. I have no doubt that he will have to consult widely on that; however, I hope that it could be done within months, rather than in any longer period. When is it envisaged that Part 4 will be brought into force?
I made an error in speaking to the Committee some time ago. I referred at that stage to the judges who had been consulted by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, before he put in his written representations. I mentioned that one of them was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. In fact, the two judges referred to were the Lord Chief Justice of England, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, for that mistake.
Finally, I express my thanks to the Advocate-General for Scotland for the very careful and considerate way in which he has dealt throughout with the Bill and all the representations he has received. Two groups made a considerable contribution to the shape of the Bill and I shall mention them in a moment. The Advocate-General said that he would listen, which he undoubtedly did. He also made judgments with which I am happy to say that I agree. The two bodies are those mentioned by him. The group led by Sir David Edward, known as the expert group, made a substantial contribution to analysing the problems. Secondly, there was the group of experts that I had the honour to chair. We could not call ourselves the expert group because that name had already been appropriated by Sir David Edward’s group, so we called ourselves “the Supremes”. However, we kept that name to ourselves for reasons of modesty and to avoid confusion with the pop group of the same name. Between us and with the help of others in your Lordships’ House, we now have in the Bill a scheme for appeals on human rights issues in criminal cases in Scotland in the Supreme Court, and for other compatibility issues, that is greatly superior to the one that somehow found its way unannounced into the Scotland Act 1998. Time will show whether I am right.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, for the reasons set out in his initial remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I also support these amendments. They improve the provisions of the Bill, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd of Duncansby has made a significant contribution over time, as have those others mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I understand that the exercise of a power of this nature has proved beneficial in the past to the administration of justice in Scotland and that it would be to the detriment of the powers if it were not included in the provisions of the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for their welcome for these amendments. As I indicated, they reflect listening and working together, not only between the various groups but between the Lord Advocate and me and the respective officials in the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made the point that the amendments will allow an opportunity for cases to be expedited in certain circumstances. Very often, these are circumstances in which a number of cases are waiting for a determination before they can be resolved.
The noble and learned Lord asked why the words,
“otherwise than on a reference”,
appear in Amendment 8. As I sought to explain, these relate to circumstances in which a case is being heard by the High Court on appeal. Therefore, it is different from a situation in which the High Court deals with a case on referral. Those words apply to an issue that comes up on an appeal that should be referred to the Supreme Court.
The disapplication of subsection (5) is the subject of Amendment 9. As I tried to explain in speaking to the amendment, it is anticipated that if there has been a referral from a lower court to the High Court on appeal, it will be possible for either law officer then to refer to the Supreme Court without a requirement for leave from either the Supreme Court or the High Court of the Justiciary. I hope that explains it.
The noble and learned Lord also asked when it is anticipated that these changes will come into effect. I cannot give him a clear date but I share his expectation and hope that it can be done in a matter of months. As he rightly points out, there is considerable preparatory work to be done. I strongly suspect that an act of adjournal will be required, which will need work by the Lord Justice-General, the Lord Justice Clerk and the court authorities in Scotland. However, we hope to make good progress in implementing this.
Lord McCluskey
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he reflect on this debate and draw the attention of his colleagues in government to the fact that the considerable improvements that have been made to the criminal justice appeals system in Scotland were achieved in a Bill discussed in this House by unelected Members who made all the necessary changes, including those that he made? There is perhaps a lesson there for those who are considering what changes to make to the constitution and powers of this House.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble and learned Lord is, I suspect, going slightly wider than the Bill, but I am sure there will be many lessons learnt from the way that the Bill has progressed—not least the way in which we have dealt with it. I pay tribute to those within your Lordships’ House who have contributed in debates and representations, as well as to others outside your Lordships’ House who have contributed too. What we have at the end is something worth while, given that some months ago we did not have the easiest circumstances. I obviously wish to confirm that although the group that I set up was referred to as the expert group, that in no way detracts from the expertise of the group chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I was very conscious that when he, along with Professor Sir Gerald Gordon and Sheriff Charles Stoddart, came to see me, I was in the presence of the two people who had taught me criminal law in the late 1970s. I certainly listened very carefully to what they and the noble and learned Lord said, and I am pleased that the position we have reached appears to command support across the House. I therefore commend the amendment.
“( ) Subsection (5) does not apply if it is an appeal by the Lord Advocate or the Advocate General for Scotland against a determination by the High Court of a compatibility issue referred to it under section 288ZB(2).”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am not terribly keen on this Bill, but I do think it is appropriate that it should say on the tin what is contained in the Bill. The title “Scotland Bill” is somewhat bland, replicates the previous Scotland Bill and gives no indication whatever as to what it is about. I was struck the other day—in the way that one is struck when reading the Sunday papers in Scotland—to read an article by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in the other place, Margaret Curran, in which she said that it was ridiculous that no one in Scotland had acknowledged how much was in the Scotland Bill. She also said that although the Scottish Parliament had finally given—what a surprise—its legislative consent to a Bill that was actually enormous in terms of its implications and the powers it transferred to the Scottish Parliament, no one had gone out and explained to people how much was contained in the Bill.
I come from a slightly different side of this argument, but I entirely agree that it is a matter of extraordinary surprise to me that the Scottish media and the Scottish people seem to be completely ignorant of what is contained in the Bill. What my amendments—I am also happy to move Amendment 11—do is change the title from the “Scotland Act” to the “Scottish Income Tax, Enabling of Scottish Taxation and Borrowing, and Miscellaneous Provisions (Scotland) Act”. It is a modest proposal. It meets all the rules in terms of Bill titles, and I am sure that in the way that my noble and learned friend has shown such generosity of spirit in respect of caravans and the speed with which they travel on our roads, he will not have the slightest difficulty in accepting the amendment because it will help Margaret Curran and others who believe that by appeasing nationalism we will avert the catastrophe of the balkanisation of Britain and the break-up of the United Kingdom. It will help them to show just what has been achieved, and it may also warn the electorate of what it is about to face. Nothing in all the discussions that we have had on the Bill and all the amendments has really changed the potential damage that the Bill could do.
The provisions in respect of Scottish taxation need to be highlighted in the Title. In order to increase expenditure by 8.5 per cent, the Scottish Parliament will need to increase the basic rate of income tax by 25 per cent. We are back with the poll tax and local government capping where, in order to achieve comparatively small increases in revenue, very large increases in taxation are required because of the gearing effects. Despite my best efforts and those of a number of other noble Lords, the coalition Government have refused to have any kind of referendum procedure or lock on the use of these powers. At the very least, we ought to make it clear that the Bill is introducing for the first time since 1707 a separate Scottish income tax which can be set at any level and where the revenue from it, relative to the baseline expenditure of the Scottish Parliament, is such that very large increases in tax will be required to achieve comparatively small increases in expenditure.
It is also important that the Title lets people know that the really big issues arising from devolution and the instability created by the creation of the Scottish Parliament without addressing the West Lothian question or the Barnett formula—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, a man who has been forced to travel through life bearing the burden of a formula named after him with which he profoundly disagrees, is not in his place—have not been addressed. There is the whole issue of moving to a needs-based system of funding before introducing a taxation plan. None of those things is included in the Bill. Therefore, to call it the Scotland Bill is misleading because it is clearly not dealing with the key issues arising for Scotland as a whole; it is concerned mainly with tax.
I resisted the temptation to table any further amendments. I regret that my noble friend Lord Sassoon is not in his place. I received a copy of a letter which he sent to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, concerned with those sections of the Bill which create the extraordinary power for this Parliament by Order in Council to create new taxes thought up by the Scottish Government. That is a huge, monstrous constitutional step, but these days they come along every day. We have to deal with them, not least in our domestic environment in this House. A huge constitutional innovation is being made.
My noble friend Lord Sassoon sent me the copy of the letter. I saw it just after the deadline to table amendments, which is probably just as well, because I might have been tempted. I can only assume that the people who drafted the letter in the Treasury were the same people who thought that they could change the tax regime for charities and that it would go through without any difficulty. In the letter, my noble friend says that there is nothing to worry about in respect of the exercise of these powers because the Treasury will have a code, a set of criteria as to what taxes Mr Alex Salmond and the Scottish Parliament can ask this House and the other place to pass on a secondary legislative procedure. That is startling in its naivety. It will mean that from the moment the Bill receives Royal Assent, which is before any referendum campaign on independence, the Scottish Parliament and its First Minister will be able to exploit its provisions to create mischief. If the Scottish Parliament decided that it wanted a window tax or something even more disastrous—perhaps a tax on salmon fishing or estates owned by landlords who are not resident in Scotland, or to introduce a local income tax or any other kind of tax—the notion that the Treasury would be able to say, “Actually, it doesn’t meet the relevant criteria so we’re not going to put those measures through on secondary legislation in both Houses”, is startling in its political naivety and opens up a whole new area of conflict between Westminster and Edinburgh in the area of taxation which should not arise.
Therefore, at the very least we should make it clear in the Title of the Bill that it is enabling of Scottish taxation. That is very important because the tax powers that the Scottish Parliament enjoys—the variable rate and the limited ability to change only the basic rate of income tax by 3 pence in the pound—are abolished by this Bill. What people voted for in a referendum is being abolished. The Government have repeatedly refused to allow a referendum to bring in these new additional sweeping powers. At this late stage, exhausted by my efforts, I plead with my noble and learned friend at the very least to put in the Title of the Bill some indication of what he is about to explode unexpectedly on the hard-working people of Scotland. There is an issue here because the Bill also provides for additional borrowing powers, and borrowing is simply tax deferred. Therefore, Scotland’s yet unborn will have to pay higher taxes on the back of these borrowing powers.
I know that people say, “Ah well, these are only powers. They may not be used”, but anybody who has read Alex Salmond’s manifesto will know that the chances of these powers not being used are pretty remote. They are about as great as the Deputy Prime Minister deciding that he is not going to put Lords reform in the Queen’s Speech. It would require a damascene conversion and a huge change, and it is not going to happen. To be fair to the First Minister, the numbers are against him. The Chancellor gave the Scottish Parliament a free ride in the run-up to the Scottish elections—which shows how generous of spirit he is—meaning that it did not have to make any reductions in expenditure to deal with the budget deficit. That has meant that in year two it has had to make two years’ worth of reductions.
Alex Salmond is making all kinds of additional promises. If the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, gets his way and Scotland is funded on a needs basis, according to Professor Bell at Stirling University the Scottish block budget will be reduced by £4.5 billion. As it happens, on current yield, the entire product of Scottish income tax which can be raised on this 10p rate comes to the same amount—£4.5 billion. Therefore, if Scotland were funded on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom and if the gap were made up by increasing taxation, you would have to double the basic rate of income tax. That might make Alex Salmond a bit unpopular at the polls and he might lose the election, but I suspect that he will make use of these arguments and point to the inequity of the Bill. The Bill provides a means of funding on too narrow a tax base. I agree with Alex Salmond and the nationalists when they say that you cannot fund a country on that basis. If you are going to go down this road, you need to broaden the tax base available to Scotland.
In short, in the brilliant image put forward by my noble friend Lord Lang, this Bill is a Trojan horse. It creates further instability and will not be the last word. It is another step down the slippery slope. When I was Scottish Secretary, my shadow, George Robertson—now the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—issued the immortal judgment that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. I am sorry that he is not here to enjoy his triumph as we take yet another step down this road of appeasing nationalism, which in my view will simply add to more and more demands for powers. On this new journey on which we are embarking, the case for additional taxation powers will be valid because of the very narrowness of the tax debate.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I suspect that the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth are a substitute for what would in the House of Commons be a debate on Third Reading of the Bill, which we do not have in this place. I have four things to say about the Bill’s passage.
First, I echo strongly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said a few moments ago about the significance of the amendments that we have debated in this House against the relatively skimpy progress that the Bill made through the other place. He made a serious point, although he did so with his typical good humour. It demonstrates again the value of this House as a revising Chamber that has done very serious work on the Bill.
Secondly, I express my thanks and, as I am sure that the whole House agrees, I pay tribute to the Advocate-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for the skilful, attentive and good-humoured way in which he has piloted this Bill through all its stages. He has been a model of how a Minister should react and I am very grateful to him. My mind goes back to the days when I stopped him being the prospective Liberal candidate for Dumfries to make way for an SDP candidate. He was slightly cross at the time but I think it was the best thing I ever did for him as he has done extremely well since then. I thank him warmly for his role as Minister on this Bill.
Thirdly, picking up a point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, it is interesting that the SNP Government have given their consent to the passage of the Bill despite earlier having called it everything from a poisoned pill to a dog’s breakfast. In other words, they have suddenly realised, late in the day perhaps, that this UK Government—London Government as they like to say—are doing something constructive and useful for the people of Scotland, and not just in the area of criminal law, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred, but in the area of taxation. Although I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Forsyth for the assiduous way in which he has tabled a whole series of amendments and enlivened our debates, I fundamentally disagree with him in his pessimistic view of the role of the Bill, shortly to be Act. First, it sets the requirements of the Scottish Parliament not only to spend money on services for the people of Scotland but to take some responsibility for raising that money. We should support that objective.
My noble friend may have a legitimate point in suggesting that the tax base is too narrow but, as I have said on previous occasions, I am quite sure that this Bill is not the end of the story. There will probably have to be other devolution measures on taxation matters in the future, but this is a substantial first step. This issue will not just affect the Parliament. In my view, it should affect the whole level of political debate in Scotland because there will not only be an obligation on each of the political parties to spell out to the electorate what they would like to do in education, health, employment and all the other things for which they are responsible, but they will also have to say how they will raise the money and how much they will ask the citizens to pay.
Far from being pessimistic about this, as my noble friend is, I am optimistic about it. I believe that it will enliven and should certainly deepen political discourse. For all those reasons I welcome the Bill and I look forward to it being an Act of Parliament very shortly.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I strongly endorse and echo what the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, said in tribute to the Minister. His patience has been exemplary; he has had to exercise it a lot. I promise that I shall not test him very much this time.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, about the Title of the Bill but for slightly different reasons. It is a bit of a ragbag Bill, as it includes Antarctica, speed limits and so on, and I think the miscellaneous provisions bit of his Title would have been quite appropriate. However, I do not press the point. I am more concerned that under the Title “Scotland Bill” one would expect to see the great issues dealt with. My feeling is that we have missed an opportunity to deal with the great issues. It seems to me that we have not, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, addressed the real accountability deficit issue, particularly because the tax changes permitted in the Bill are so small, and although we have debated its merits and demerits, we have not addressed the problem of the Barnett formula at all. I have also discovered—I am sure everyone else knew this before—the extraordinary animal, the no detriment principle, which seems to reduce greatly the accountability of the Scottish Parliament.
If we are to have, as we probably will have, an option in the referendum for further devolution, it seems a great pity that we have not defined its parameters and its ground rules in the Bill, with a sunrise clause. I would have liked it to do that because I am Scottish and Scots like to know what things mean. I am sure that between now and the referendum date, there will be definitions of further devolution. I am sure that the position taken by the Prime Minister in his speech in Scotland—that there will be no definitions until after the Scots have said no to independence, and that further devolution will be on offer but will not be defined until later—is unsustainable. I hope it is unsustainable as I think it is a very dangerous position. It would lack credibility in Scotland—and does lack credibility. People do not know whether he means it.
There is a need to define what we mean by it. If the option means complete fiscal autonomy—and the Scottish consultation document suggests that this is in the mind of the Scottish Government—surely the ground rules need to be spelt out in advance. If we see Scotland as the Athens of the north—and of course it is—we need to take great care to ensure that we are not building in a relationship similar to that today between the other Athens and Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels. How would we reconcile fiscal autonomy for Scotland with the continuing monetary integration of the United Kingdom? What changes would we need to make to arrangements in London? Would the composition of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England need to be changed to ensure that there was a voice on it responsible for representing the distinct interests of the Scottish economy?
Conversely, would there not need to be some ground rules constraining fiscal autonomy in Scotland that were similar to the failed stability and growth pact in the European Union that did not save the real Athens? These issues need examination and I am sorry that we have not done that during these debates. However, perhaps we are not the right people to do it. The debates in this House have been of a very high standard, but on the whole the participants have been advocates, principally of the status quo. Unfortunately we have not had among our number a single representative of the advocates for independence.
What we need for our own education and the education of the Scots before a referendum is not advocacy but analysis. Therefore, although I agree with most of the arguments made today by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, I do not think that the kind of continuing debate that he hopes will take place—he claimed that we had not heard the end of the story—will necessarily be very satisfactory. As he said, it will be conducted by the political parties, and there is a fair degree of cynicism out there about the parties. And to an extent it is justifiable, since the majority party up there favours not further devolution but independence, and down here there are strong voices, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, expressing concern about this degree of devolution, let alone any more.
Some of my arguments could also be applied to the independence option. How would fiscal autonomy work? What is the likely depletion rate from the North Sea? It is a function of the likely world oil and gas price. The political parties are not best placed to produce credible estimates of the range of possible prices of North Sea oil and gas five or 10 years ahead. What is the likely assumption about the price of electricity? If the Scots go ahead with their renewables programme, and if the coal-fired power stations are closed down after the nuclear ones, Scotland will presumably—I do not know; I am not an advocate—become an importer of electricity. What would be the price of that electricity?
In short, what are the economics of autonomy? What would the tax take have to be to make the books balance, assuming no Barnett formula? I do not think that the electorate will take an answer that comes from politicians. Quot homines tot sententiae. Politicians will not produce a single answer. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether we do not need, as a complement and a supplement to the very useful debates that he has conducted so well on this Bill, to encourage an agreement between London and Edinburgh on the establishment of some kind of independent commission to look at fiscal autonomy, in both possible scenarios.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Forsyth, raised a series of questions about the significance of the Bill that are perhaps taking us further than the Government intended this afternoon. I want to add one comment to what has been said. If the discussions of the consequences of this Bill, let alone of a referendum that includes a so-called devo-max question, are to be spread to other political parties and other political views, they should also be spread to the people of the rest of the United Kingdom because this Bill makes the West Lothian question more pointed and full fiscal autonomy would certainly make the West Lothian question more pointed. It is pointing towards the federalisation of Great Britain, which is not a question for the Scots alone. It is a question for the whole of the UK.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord has just said. First, I have two past interests: as an MSP for eight years and as a member of the Calman commission. I note with pleasure that all five Members of this House who served on the Calman commission are in their place. We had the support of a significant number of very highly qualified academics who gave us some expert advice during the time we sat, which was well over a year, when a great deal of evidence was taken. I particularly remember evidence being taken in the constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as well as in many other parts of Scotland. What was very significant was that a decisive majority welcomed the Scottish Parliament and believed that it had been a success.
I think the Minister should be strongly congratulated on his handling of the Bill, which has not been altogether simple or straightforward, but I think he has done it with tremendous skill. One point I would make is that it has been overshadowed, to some extent undeservedly, by endless arguments about the processes needed for the Scottish Government’s planned referendum. It is very welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has put down this amendment giving us this opportunity for this debate because the Bill produces the largest transfer of fiscal power from Westminster since the union.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said that there is an accountability deficit. I submit that the Calman commission and this Bill in particular address that deficit and make it very clear that—to sum it up in one sentence—if there is a reduction in the block grant from Westminster, there should be the opportunity for substitution. More than that, the elephant in the room throughout our discussions on the Calman commission was that there is a possibility that if a needs-based grant replaces the Barnett formula, the provision for Scotland might be greatly reduced, and if that were the case, it would be very necessary for the Scottish Parliament to have the flexibility to find the best level between essential services and taxation. I have to say that if a Government cut essential services far too far or raise taxes far too far, they will be voted out of office. The sanction is, of course, electoral and of the people. Certainly for me—and, I think, all members of the Calman commission—the two principles that weighed were accountability and equity. I mention equity because if in future there are proposals that go further than the Calman commission, it is extremely important that the representatives of all parts of the United Kingdom be consulted and thoroughly involved because it would have implications for their countries as well.
The Scotland Bill, so titled, is important because its very existence demonstrates that the present devolution settlement is not set in stone and can be adjusted to meet Scottish aspirations without destroying the United Kingdom. I note the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister in his speech in support of the union, which he made in Edinburgh earlier this year. In that address he made a point of saying that the changes made by the Scotland Bill need not necessarily be,
“the end of the road”.
He went on to say:
“When the referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further. And, yes, that does mean considering what further powers could be devolved. But that must be a question for after the referendum, when Scotland has made its choice about the fundamental question of independence”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If my noble friend thinks that there are further powers that could be devolved, why did the Calman commission not recommend them?
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My noble friend is putting into my mouth words that are not there. I am not making any such suggestion, but if he listens to what I have to say, he will see the logic of my argument. As the Prime Minister said, let us hold the referendum, preferably on a less dilatory timetable than the Scottish Government are proposing, with a single question—to that extent, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—asking whether or not the Scots wish to leave the United Kingdom. Time should also be given for the implementation of the new powers and to see how they work. That is the answer to my noble friend Lord Forsyth.
Any moves beyond the terms of this Scotland Bill would be bound to affect the constitutional future of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and MPs and other representatives in other professions would have to be very fully involved in any future discussions. I thought we got the balance right when we were on the Calman commission. We took an enormous amount of evidence; we considered it very thoroughly, and at the end of it all the commissioners came to a unanimous conclusion. I certainly stand by what was expressed by that commission, and I believe that all the other commissioners do as well, including the other four who are with us this afternoon.
A great many will advocate the clear merits of Scotland remaining as part of the long-standing, extremely successful partnership that is the United Kingdom. I do not believe that a unionist stance is in any way incompatible with giving support to the increased powers granted to the Scottish Parliament in the legislation that we have been debating.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Parliament has agreed that the UK Parliament should consider the proposals in this Bill and, by passing that Motion unanimously, has given it its backing. I checked this morning, by ringing the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, SPICe, whether this had gone through unanimously, and it did; there was no vote. I say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that that includes the Conservative group of 15 MSPs, and I welcome that.
We have before us a very significant and substantial reordering of devolution. It should be enacted in timely fashion and, in my humble opinion, the title should be kept in place.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, it was not my intention to speak on this. Briefly, it was with great pleasure that I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, use the term “poll tax” instead of “community charge”. He actually proved the point that the Minister—who has done an excellent job, I have to say—made in the very first debate this afternoon, that if something becomes the common parlance, it should be used as the common parlance.
The real point is that there has yet again been confusion—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, did it—between devolution, the democratic process of devolution and independence. They are not the same thing. That is why, although I support what this Bill is doing, I am not sure that this is the right time to do it. I am not at all sure that we should not, first, have had the referendum on independence in order for Scottish people to make up their minds as to whether they want to be an independent country totally separate from the rest of the United Kingdom or they want further devolution. We should let them decide on that first. The second question is just a confusion. There should be one question—independence or nothing else. For me, devolution was always about democracy and not about the separation of the Scottish state.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who made great play of the fact that he sat in the Cabinet and could talk to the Prime Minister when he was Secretary of State, that that is fine. Perhaps he could but he did not represent the people of Scotland when he did so because he did not have the majority of Members of Parliament in Scotland when he was putting Scottish legislation through.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out my role as opposition while in government. Is it not precisely because his party used that kind of language—of people not having a mandate in one part of the United Kingdom—that the Labour Party now finds itself wiped out by the nationalists in Scotland? It was a very foolish thing to do and by doing so as unionists the Labour Party undermined its own position.
Lord Maxton
That may or may not be the case. It will be shown in both the independence referendum and in future elections after that. The fact is that separate Scottish legislation was passed through this Parliament without the mandate of the people in Scotland for that legislation. If it had been part of the same United Kingdom, there may have been a case for it but it was not. It was for separate Scottish legislation passed through Parliament by a party and a Government with no mandate in Scotland to push that legislation through. There is no better example than the poll tax, which the noble Lord himself first raised.
I support what this Bill is doing but I wish that we had waited until we had had the referendum on independence so that that could be put out of the way before we move on to see what further action can be taken on devolution.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, it had not been my intention to speak in this debate but the nature of our discussion since the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, introduced his amendment has spurred me to my feet. A lot of the debate we are having today is the debate we have been having in Scotland for the past 50 years. The argument for devolution began at the time of the Act of Union. Had the Act of Union been framed in a different way, there would have been no need for devolution. The noble Lord was Secretary of State for Scotland some years before I held that post. When he was Secretary of State for Scotland he oversaw the equivalent of 13 different government departments because of the nature of the legislative settlement post the Act of Union and the growth of Scottish legislation; namely, everything from the nature of the Scottish church to the nature of the Scottish legal system to the nature of Scottish education, and then some.
I am a committed devolutionist. I came to it rather later than some of my colleagues, such as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. I came through the trade union movement and looking at some of the issues that affected trade unionists in Scotland and the history of the very distinctive Scottish Trades Union Congress, which has very different origins from the Trades Union Congress. It is rooted in communities rather than in organisations and its history grew from that. Out of that I became committed to devolution.
I have to say that I have been extremely sceptical about this legislation. I do not disparage the work of the Calman commission. I pay tribute to it. In another time and place, it would have been appropriate to have this legislation. But I have to say that the people of Scotland are not remotely interested in it because there is a bigger debate. There is a more significant debate that we need to enter into. Some of it has been touched on today and it is unfortunate that, in this kind of forum, very little of it will be disseminated to the people of Scotland.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, those who have been engaging in our deliberations on the Bill and following its process cannot have failed to notice that not only have we been able to consider it today—a Tuesday—but that we have not had to wait until the fag end of the day’s business to do so. Of course the deep irony is that this is the day on which we least needed to get on early to consider the matters before us. However, we are moving through the Bill at a pace, and as we are nearing the end of our consideration of it I think it appropriate for me to make a few remarks.
I do not think that anyone could disagree that the Bill has been subject to rigorous scrutiny during its passage through this House, and I am confident that it is a better Bill because of that scrutiny. At least two Members of the House—my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Drumlean—have made significant contributions.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am sorry—it is Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. On this occasion I cannot even give the excuse that I am tired. In Committee and at Report these two noble Lords paid assiduous attention to almost every detail of the Bill and ensured that we all had the opportunity to scrutinise it rigorously.
I also want to thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister. I extend my thanks beyond him to the Bill team and to officials in the Treasury who have shown me the greatest courtesy. In a sense they have supported me by giving me access to substantial amounts of information on the Bill. Throughout this process they have engaged with our Benches and with my noble and learned friends Lord Davidson and Lord Boyd of Duncansby, and my noble friend Lord Eatwell, who have shared the responsibility for our Front-Bench work on the Bill. They have engaged with us very positively and I am exceptionally grateful to them for that: it has made my job much easier. I think that we have improved the Bill particularly on the issue of references to the Supreme Court—a process in which my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd of Duncansby has been intimately engaged. The process has been wholly satisfactory and I think that we can all be satisfied with the final result.
I feel duty bound to inform noble Lords of the conversations with the Government that have taken place since Report on the issue of the conditions for using the extraordinary power to add new devolved taxes that is now contained in, I think, Clause 23. There was significant consensus across the House that it would be valuable to place in the Bill the conditions for using this extraordinary power—first, to safeguard its use by the Executive, and, secondly, as a way of obtaining the buy-in of the Scottish Parliament on these criteria. As I was substantially responsible for encouraging that consensus across the House, I have a responsibility for, in a sense, disappointing the House at this stage in the debate.
As I have also been very careful to say at all stages of the Bill, we have to be mindful of the political realities that we currently face. We have been treated to some interpretation of those political realities in our rather extended and diverse debate on the Bill, but one has become used to that in considering some of its aspects. The political realities are such that the Government’s commitments at Report were unsatisfactory, as I said in the debate. In essence, a year after enactment they are to bring forward a report on implementation of the financial provisions which will make specific reference to the list of conditions for using this power. That is the issue that exercised my and other noble Lords’ minds. Significantly, we have learnt since Report stage that the report will also be submitted to the Scottish Parliament, which will have an opportunity to thoroughly debate and agree to the provisions. That at least provides the opportunity for the engagement of the Scottish Parliament that I sought. However, it is not guaranteed to happen and I am not overplaying it.
Those additional facts, combined with the clear priority of the LCM—the legislative consent Motion, which was to be debated before we came to Third Reading—were, on balance, enough for it to be considered unwise to bring forward further amendments on this issue. With some reluctance I accepted that conclusion, despite being aware that I was disappointing the expectations of many noble Lords, and noble and learned Lords, in the House. I had encouraged those expectations, so to that extent I apologise. If it has in any way damaged my relationship with noble Lords or reduced their view of my worth to this House then I shall have to endeavour over the course of the coming months and years to remake that. However, that is where we are.
I turn now to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, as somebody has to. I do so with some reluctance because I know how it encourages him to come back.
I start off by saying that I have sympathy with his analysis of the paucity of understanding of the full implications of this Bill in Scotland. I agree with him that we ought to ensure that the Bill is better understood in Scotland. I almost immediately part company with him thereafter, for two reasons—first, because renaming the Bill will do little to address that deep-seated problem for which many of those in devolution parties have to take responsibility. It is inappropriate to expect those who do not support devolution but seek independence for Scotland to trumpet the opportunities and potential benefits of a piece of legislation that reinforces devolution. Although it will probably never settle the argument of Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, for some people in Scotland—and I expect this to continue throughout the rest of my life—if properly understood, it will strengthen the union.
The responsibility lies with us. It is potentially helpful, but not the answer, to simply change the Long Title of the Bill. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, seeks to do that, but you do not have to listen to him for very long to realise that it is a vehicle for him to articulate arguments that he has been articulating to the people of Scotland for some time in the confident knowledge that, if he lives long enough, some day he will be proved correct. The fact of the matter is, with all due respect to the noble Lord, that although we listen to him intently and I enjoy immensely his ability to make an argument, the people of Scotland stopped listening to him a long time ago. It is unfortunately true and I am sorry about it, because they would be better informed, perhaps, if on occasion they did listen to him—but they stopped listening to him a long time ago. That is part of the problem. The British tourist abroad, speaking slowly and loudly, does not work any longer with Scotland. Those of us who put ourselves forward for political office have an obligation to make our arguments in a much more sophisticated way and go with the grain of people’s expectations. Of course, we all have responsibility for generating those expectations, as indeed I did—and disappointed expectations at Report on this Bill. Those of us who believe in the union all have our DNA to some degree in the state of the Scottish scene at the moment, and we have a responsibility to deal with the issues and challenges generated from that.
This is a good Bill, and I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in that regard. It is a constitutionally significant Bill, and the new tax-raising and borrowing powers are worth in the order of £5 billion to £6 billion, marking an historical development in the financial accountability and autonomy of the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, measures such as the devolution of drink-driving and speed limits as well as the regulation of air weapons ensures that the devolution settlement continues to respond to the needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland.
In recent months, much reference has been made to a new, notional devolution settlement, or maximum devolution, which for the most part has taken the form of a fill-in-the-blanks exercise. But ultimately politicians are kidding themselves if they think that the people of Scotland are interested in some esoteric debate about devo-max versus devo-plus versus the status quo. This Bill is the consequence of a sensible process; its origins lie in the Calman commission, and I repeat my thanks to those Members of this House and others who served on that commission. The work that they did has not been given the credit that it deserves, and it is well worth revisiting the argumentation for the recommendations that gave rise to the Bill. The Bill presents the people of Scotland with a clear and concrete vision for the future of devolution, a vision that is evidence-based, thanks to the Calman commission; has the support of Scottish business, Scottish civic society, experts and academics; and will when properly understood and implemented support the future prosperity and aspirations of Scotland within the union.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for introducing these amendments. I will try to say something about them but, as my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said, they have also provided your Lordships’ House with an opportunity to have something more akin to a House of Commons Third Reading debate, which has been very useful. I am very grateful for the comments that have been made from all parts of your Lordships’ House and wish to express my appreciation for the kind personal words that have been said.
I hope that I can do justice to a number of the comments that were made, but perhaps I may start by referring to the amendments. I understand and know where my noble friend comes from, and I would wish to join others who have paid tribute to him for his diligence in our proceedings on the Bill. He has highlighted a number of issues, and while I know that he will not always necessarily have been satisfied with the replies, he has at least prompted consideration and detailed scrutiny of the Bill, which is one of the purposes of your Lordships’ House. His amendments give him a hook to hang a number of points on. I know that he is not happy with the Bill, and I suspect that we will disagree on this just as we disagreed 14 or 15 years ago on devolution. Nevertheless, I respect the view that he has maintained over a long period.
In tabling the amendment, my noble friend sought to improve the drafting of the Bill, which is a criterion for getting an amendment accepted at Third Reading. I am sorry to say that I do not think the amendment meets that test. One learns interesting things in dealing with these Bills. The purpose of the Short Title of the Bill is that it must give sufficient indication of the content in a way that is not misleading; it cannot be argumentative or a slogan; it becomes the Short Title of the Act when passed, so it needs to be helpful to users and not unwieldy; and, above all, it must be short. With due respect, my noble friend’s amendment does not meet that test.
I accept one part of his argument. It is important that people in Scotland, as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom, recognise what the content of the Bill is because these are important and profound changes. It is up to all the political parties to ensure that the knowledge is there and that debate in the Scottish Parliament now focuses on how these powers will be used. There are important powers relating to airguns and speed limits but also with regard to taxation, as well as the fact that stamp duty on land transactions will be disapplied in Scotland in 2015. When it comes to forward planning, the Scottish Parliament cannot sit around for very long before we start to get the colour and shape of how it will use these new powers and how it can do so imaginatively in a way that has not been done across the UK as a whole. I hope that, in taking forward these powers, there will be debate about their use.
On the issue mentioned by my noble friends Lord Selkirk of Douglas and Lord Steel of Aikwood, the purpose of the legislation following on from the Calman commission was indeed to increase the accountability and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. I think that it was in his Donald Dewar lecture that my noble friend Lord Steel reflected on just how unsustainable it would be for a Parliament to persist over a long period almost wholly dependent on a grant voted to it by another Parliament. That, and the need to increase the accountability of the Scottish Parliament, are things that those of us who sat on the Calman commission were very conscious of. We also sought to get to a balance, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, between accountability and risk. Within a social union, many of these risks are shared, and better shared across a union of 60 million people than 5 million.
Perhaps the most important change relates to income tax. As Calman commissioners, the evidence that we received suggested very much that income tax was the tax that most people could recognise as having the most direct personal impact on them and therefore the one most likely to deliver that accountability.
I do not accept that the changes are too small; I believe that they will lead to greater accountability. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, suggested that we should have gone much further and had a debate during the passage of the Bill on some of the wider powers that have been discussed in the media and political forums over recent weeks and months. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said in welcoming the Calman commission, it was the consequence of a considered process. If one looks back at the constitutional convention that sat in the 1990s, which led ultimately to what was in the Scotland Act 1998, and the provisions suggested by the Calman commission, which deliberated and then led to the legislation before us today, we see a process whereby political parties—sometimes not as many as we would like—have joined in and reached a consensus without reflecting their own concerns and viewpoints. We have then been able to take that consensus forward, present it to voters in an election and subsequently go forward to legislation. I do not think that that would have been at all possible with regard to some of the perhaps more far-reaching issues that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to in terms of dealing with this legislation.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that I recognise there are judgment calls about whether the timing is right. However, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, that the manifestos of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party at the last election each made a promise. We do not need to be terribly imaginative to write the script of those who wish to advance the cause of independence and say, “Look, they promised you that and Westminster has not been able to deliver it. How much more can you actually trust Westminster?” That is a script that we will not let them write. It is right and proper that we have proceeded with this Bill.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth was sceptical about whether, if at a future date the Scottish Government or Scottish Parliament espoused devolving a particular tax, Westminster would be able to stand up to them. Let us recall—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
It was not about devolving a particular tax but about inventing a completely new tax.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, similar arguments apply whether it is for a new tax or the devolution of corporation tax, which is not a tax that the Scottish Parliament currently has. The more general point is that the Scottish Government actually asked for devolution of excise duties and corporation tax and the United Kingdom Government did not believe that the case had been made. This Government made it clear that we would not devolve further taxes unless there was evidence presented and a case made. In these particular examples, we took the view that no case had been made. There was no evidence and therefore it was resisted.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
There is a distinction between creating a completely new tax and devolving an existing tax. Corporation tax is an established tax in the Finance Bill. If Alex Salmond thinks of a completely new tax, all that is required for it to be imposed is for an Order in Council to go through both Houses of Parliament. That is a completely new and novel procedure and quite different from an argument about who will administer or levy an existing tax.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I apologise if I misrepresented what my noble friend said. However, the response is similar. Having identified criteria, whether in the Bill or not—we have had debates on that—the point I wish to make is that there are criteria there and the United Kingdom Government have shown that they are not a pushover. We set out criteria regarding devolution of existing taxes; we stood by that and I have no reason to doubt that, having set out criteria regarding the devolution of any future tax, we would have to be satisfied before bringing forward to this and the other House an order to devolve further taxes.
Could I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell? She said that a different debate was going on. The two debates are not mutually exclusive. The difference is that while there has been a lot of talk by the Scottish Government about change, this Bill actually delivers change. However, many of us want to get on to the wider debate. Inevitably there will have to be a debate on process—the shorter the period devoted to it the better—but there are important issues. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, clearly set out at least one of them: fiscal autonomy and its relationship to monetary policy. The conclusion of the Calman commission was that there was not much difference between fiscal autonomy and full independence. Clearly these are questions that will be debated in a much wider forum in the lead-up to a referendum.
There is an important issue about Europe and an independent Scotland’s relationship with the European Union. I respectfully suggest that a person with the knowledge and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, free from any party-political baggage, could give a view on that which people would listen to and would be an important contribution to a debate. I hear what is said about an independent commission. It might be a triumph of hope over experience, but I hope that there will be opportunities for independent think tanks and people with expertise and renown in their specific fields to come forward and express their views on the issues that will inevitably emerge in any referendum debate.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My point was not about process—I do not want to get into questions of process—but the distinction is one without a difference. If Scotland had full independence on the prospectus in the Scottish Government’s consultation paper, it would still be using the United Kingdom currency. In my judgment, when the Scots applied for membership, the European Union would not insist that they adopt the euro forthwith, but it would probably ask for some sort of undefined commitment at a future date. Therefore, there would still be the problem of fiscal autonomy alongside continuing monetary integration. That problem would exist in a scenario of either devo-max or independence, so it needs to be addressed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I do not dispute that. It needs to be addressed. It is one of the key issues that those who advocate ultimate fiscal autonomy or independence must address. I do not think that the noble Lord is suggesting that it would be suitable for inclusion in the Bill, but it is an important issue that has to be properly and fully addressed in the debate that we will undoubtedly have on the independence referendum.
Lord Martin of Springburn
For the sake of getting things on the record, I am very heartened to hear the Minister say that he is keen on having one question alone on the ballot paper. For the record, is that the policy of the Government or will there be a situation in which the Prime Minister may say something different?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it is fair to say that in the consultation paper that we launched on 10 January it was made clear that a single question was the preferred position of the United Kingdom Government. I am happy to say that the responses that we have received to that consultation give great support to that position.
In conclusion, I again acknowledge the benefit to the Bill of consideration and thorough scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, and not just in those areas where amendments have been made as a result of our debates. Through our debates we have explored many of the issues that we will continue to face as we move to the next important phase of implementing legislation. I echo the thanks not only to those who have taken part in the debates but to those who have supported me and my noble friend Lord Sassoon in them. While there have clearly and importantly been divisions—it would be very boring and impossible to achieve total consensus—it is not usual for a Bill to be supported by all three United Kingdom parties. However, there has been a note of consensus, which has been welcome. I also welcome the scrutiny. Whether noble Lords were supporters of devolution back in 1998 or support every clause here, I hope we recognise that we are stronger within a United Kingdom in which we devolve powers to the appropriate level and work together to pool resources and risks across the country for the benefit of all. That is what the Bill seeks to advance. It is part of developing and continuing support to maintain the United Kingdom, of which all noble Lords and I are very proud. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am devastated by that response. I am very disappointed in my noble and learned friend. I actually understood the criteria for the Short Title of a Bill, but I remember having a great struggle with the Scottish Office, which wanted to call a Bill the “Criminal Justice (No. 3)(Scotland) Bill” and I wanted to call it the “Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill”. I think that in the end I won that particular argument, but the legislation was promptly repealed by the Scottish Parliament, only to be reintroduced later as a populist measure in the same terms.
I do not accept that the Short Title I propose is too long. That was the only argument against the amendment that my noble and learned friend advanced in his interesting and helpful speech. One of the criteria is that the Short Title should not indicate advocacy or a point of view. I resisted that, although I was tempted. My draft suggested a Bill “to ensure that Scotland becomes the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom”, but the Public Bill Office felt that that did not meet the criteria. However, it would at least have warned people about what was coming down the legislative track.
As my noble and learned friend guessed, I tabled the amendment because I suspected that under our rules we do not normally make speeches when we are considering a Motion that a Bill do now pass. I suspected that people would want to get a few things off their chest. I shall resist the temptation to respond to all the points that were made, but I am also devastated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who tells me that the people of Scotland stopped listening to me some time ago. I should be very grateful if he could tell me afterwards when it was that they were listening to me.
I have to say to my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, who said that I should note that the Scottish Parliament, including the Conservatives, had unanimously approved the Bill, he should note that the Scottish Parliament’s committee came forward with 45 different amendments to the Bill, which would have amounted pretty well to independence, and which the committee said it would insist upon. What my noble friend should note is that the Scottish Parliament seems to change its mind very radically very quickly. When people change their mind very radically very quickly on important constitutional issues, alarm bells should start ringing and people should start thinking about what is going on here. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who gave a romantic picture of the genesis of the—
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
Is my noble friend aware that in the Scottish Parliament there has been a great debate within the SNP as to whether the Bill is a block or a wedge? The SNP decided to agree to the legislative consent Motion. Is that not very much a step in the right direction?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Not at all, because the SNP has clearly decided that the Bill is not a wedge and will help it to get independence. In that respect, I entirely agree.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Only if you believe everything they say in the Scottish Parliament. It is perfectly clear what has happened here. One of the extraordinary things about this whole issue of devolution is that for a long time one of my allies in opposition to devolution was the First Minister, Alex Salmond. He refused to join the constitutional convention, and when he went back to Scotland to be a—I am sorry, I nearly said something that I would have regretted—to take a leading role in the SNP in the Scottish Parliament, having stood on a platform in 1998 with Donald Dewar to campaign for the Scottish Parliament, he denounced devolution as a complete disaster. Now he goes around presenting himself as the champion of those people who want devo-max. When you look around, there does not seem to be anybody who wants devo-max, or who can at least explain what it is.
I have to say to my noble friend that the nationalists have been completely opportunistic about devolution. In the beginning, they thought, like the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that it would kill nationalism stone dead. When they realised what my noble friend Lord Lang and others, including our previous Prime Minister, Sir John Major, were warning—that it would be a slippery slope that would lead to their objectives—they changed their position in order to get it. Then they flip-flopped. At each point where further concessions have been made, they have put them in their pocket, which is why they voted unanimously, and moved the agenda on. What the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, said, is absolutely right: the Bill is completely out of time. It is as relevant as the Daleks to youngsters nowadays—although I believe they are making a comeback. I have no doubt that devolution in another Bill will be coming back in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, says that this has all been part of some great process. I was devastated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Maxton. The fact is that this Bill’s genesis was a deal put together by the unionist parties after, very bravely, Wendy Alexander, who was then the leader of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament said, “We ought to have a referendum on independence and Alex Salmond needs to put his case to the Scottish people”. She was right then, but the rug was pulled out from under her by Gordon Brown as Prime Minister because he had an attack of the jitters that the referendum might go the wrong way. As a result, the Labour Party was left with no policy, so it said, “We’ll set up a commission”—does this sound familiar?—“because we are not sure what we’re going to do next”. It set up a commission and, very foolishly, the Conservative Party and other parties joined in a commission to rescue it.
That is the genesis of the Calman commission. It was to come up with something that would stop Alex Salmond winning the subsequent election, which everybody accepted—did they not?—was impossible because the rules of election to the Scottish Parliament had been devised by the very clever Donald Dewar and other clever people to ensure that no party would ever be able to get an overall majority. Just like the notion that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, that turned out to be another myth. The result is that we are now faced with a nationalist majority committed to an independence referendum. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, is absolutely right: that is the issue now. The Bill has been left stranded as an orphan that is not even discussed in the Scottish media.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and I disagree on the objectives here, he is absolutely right when he criticises the fact that the Prime Minister went up to Scotland and spelt out in a brilliant speech the case for the union but then went on to say, “Of course, after you have voted against independence, we will discuss more devolution”, without saying what that would be. That was a huge error because of course, once again, Alex Salmond picked that up, put it in his pocket and now, as far as he is concerned, the debate is about what extra devolution we are going to get. At some point, those of us who are unionists have to stop sliding down the slippery slope, define what the issues are and give the people of Scotland an opportunity to determine them. No doubt that will happen in due course.
I just wanted to say—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
For a man who made a whole speech on my amendment without even mentioning it, I think the noble Lord is skating on thin ice—not for the first time, I may add. My speech in support of my amendment was in perfect order, but I can see that I am beginning to irritate the noble Lord, which is the last thing I want to do.
I say one thing in tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who is the Kate Adie of the House of Lords, and my noble friend Lord Sassoon, who is, sadly, not here—I thought he enjoyed our debates on the Scotland Bill. I guess that I have probably not made their life particularly easy. I think that the whole point of this place is that it challenges legislation. That is increasingly important. The Bill illustrates that. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, this Bill sailed through the House of Commons without any proper discussion whatever because it was guillotined. In the manifesto of the Conservative bit of the Government—I know that we have put a lot of emphasis on our manifesto promises—we promised that would end the automatic guillotining of Bills in the other place. We have not done so, as exemplified by this Bill.
I should also like to say how much I appreciate the work of officials in the Treasury and the Scottish Office. I do not think that they have had a particularly easy time but, having produced a Bill such as this, I do not think that they deserved a particularly easy time. This House has shown its worth in respect of this Bill.
At the end of all those hours of work, nothing has changed other than the wretched speed limits. So what have we achieved? I hope that in considering the implementation of the Bill, not least on the very unusual tax-raising powers, my noble and learned friend will at least think about how to avoid some of the pitfalls, which I believe were seen on all sides of the House. I have very great pleasure in begging leave to withdraw my amendment.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:12 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 89 / Noes: 190 - Motion A1 disagreed.
18:57 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 160 / Noes: 207 - Motion B1 disagreed.
Lord Henley
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 16, 17 and 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.
18A Because the Commons consider that the imposition of general restrictions of this nature on the exercise of powers of entry could undermine actions to protect public safety.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the House will recall that Amendments 16 to 18 provide that powers of entry may be exercised only either with the agreement of the occupier of the premises in question or on the authority of a warrant unless the authority using the power,
“can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought”.
This restriction would be disapplied where the power of entry was exercised by a trading standards officer, a constable or a member of the Security Service, or in pursuance of the protection of a child or a vulnerable adult.
As I indicated on Report, we do not disagree with the sentiment behind these amendments. Indeed, we share their objective of seeking to roll back intrusive state powers and ensure that, where such powers are needed, they are subject to appropriate safeguards. However, although the amendments are well intentioned, we remain firmly of the view that they could hinder effective enforcement and, in so doing, undermine action to protect public safety. This view was shared by the House of Commons, which, following a reasonable debate, disagreed with your Lordships’ amendments without a Division. I note that during that debate in the Commons David Hanson said from the opposition Front Bench:
“My colleagues in another place supported the amendments, so that we could have this debate today … The Opposition will not support the amendments because we do not feel they are valuable”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/12; cols. 531-32.]
As I have previously indicated, it is not what the amendments seek to achieve but the blanket approach that they adopt that creates the problem. They start off with a catch-all requirement that in all cases powers of entry may be exercised only with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. They then go on to provide blanket exceptions to this rule.
The result is that the exemptions are either too narrow, in that they fail to capture important powers of entry that help to bring offenders to justice or save life and limb, or they are too broad. In particular, we are not persuaded that trading standards officers should in all circumstances, regardless of their motives for entry, be able to enter any premises, including people’s homes, without having either secured the consent of the occupier or obtained a warrant.
My noble friend has attempted, in part, to address the concerns that I set out on Report by seeking to add to the list of exemptions, which now includes an officer of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and by conferring on the Secretary of State a power to add further exemptions by order. In some respects we are offered an amendment in lieu that adds little to the existing provisions in Clause 40. The clause already contains an order-making power to enable additional safeguards, such as the requirement for a warrant or consent, to be added to the exercise of particular powers of entry. We do not need another delegated power to achieve a similar outcome.
In conceding that further exemptions are needed, my noble friend appears to accept that a case-by-case assessment of each power of entry is needed. That is what we are committed to doing. In conducting the review, the rebuttable presumption will be that for any powers of entry in respect of people’s homes, these should indeed be exercised only with consent or on the authority of a warrant. Where exceptions are fully justified, they will be applied on a case-by-case basis and not across the board for particular categories of state official. The review of all powers of entry will be completed, as we have made clear, within two years, and we will report to Parliament on progress at six-monthly intervals, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary made clear in another place.
The review of powers of entry will enable us to deal with the current stock of powers—the 1,300 or so powers that people complain about. Similarly, the gateway that has been established by the Home Office limits the creation of further new powers and is already making significant progress. For instance, greater safeguards have been added to all powers considered to date, including in respect of domestic dwellings, a requirement that entry is obtained either with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant, and a number of powers of entry have also already been repealed. I hope that that reassures the House that this Government are serious about dealing with the proliferation of powers of entry that we have seen over recent years and ensuring that they are subject to appropriate safeguards. When taken together, the measures that we have brought forward in this Bill and in the new gateway process will strengthen the rights and privacy of homeowners and businesses, provide greater legal certainty and ensure that legitimate law enforcement is not impeded in its duty to protect the public.
In outlining our approach, I have also set out why we cannot, in every case, demand that entry is effected only with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant and why providing a power to add exemptions simply underlines why a blanket approach will not work. I remind the House again that the Commons disagreed to these amendments after considerable debate without a vote and without seeking to offer any of its own amendments in lieu. Given that, it is time to bring this debate to a close and get on with implementing the provisions of the Bill. I commend Motion A to the House and invite my noble friend not to press his Motion A1.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Marlesford
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 16B as an amendment in lieu”
“(3) Further safeguards shall be that—
(a) unless explicitly provided for in the statute providing for the power of entry, all powers of entry shall be exercised by agreement with the premises occupier or by warrant; and
(b) that, notwithstanding the statute providing for the power of entry, a power of entry may only be used without warrant, or without agreement with the occupier of the premises to be entered—
(i) in cases where the authority using the power can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant was sought; or
(ii) by persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State when acting under any legislation which permits such a person to exercise such a power.
(4) The persons specified in regulations made under subsection (3)(b) may include, but need not be limited to, any one or more of the following—
(a) a constable;
(b) a member of the Security Service;
(c) an officer of the Serious Organised Crime Agency;
(d) a Trading Standards Officer; and
(e) any person acting in pursuance of the protection of a child or a vulnerable adult.
(5) Regulations made under subsection (3)(b)(ii) shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, when the Prime Minister exhorted his Ministers yesterday to raise their game, I suddenly realised that that is exactly what I am trying to do today. That is why I am bringing back this amendment, now redrafted, which noble Lords on all sides supported in February and which found favour with the House by a majority.
When I was very young I worked with Ernest Marples, who in his day was one of the political celebrities of the Conservative Party because he had such a talent for getting things done. It was he who, under Harold Macmillan as Housing Minister, fulfilled the Tory pledge to build 300,000 homes, a pledge which Aneurin Bevan, another political star with an outstanding talent for oratory and whom we would salute every day as the architect of the National Health Service, had denounced as a cruel deception and an election trick. What was Marples’ secret? He had his own saying that it is the method paragraph that counts. That was how he built the houses.
The election pledge that this Bill seeks to address is to cut back on the intrusive powers of entry into homes. The Government’s method paragraph is to set up a two-year study in the Home Office to review each of the 1,300 powers of entry and to decide what, if anything, should be done about each of them. One of the things that Karl Marx got right was that people will always do what they see to be in their interest. That is invariably right; that is how they are motivated. I do not want to cast aspersions, but bureaucrats seek power as their currency, and of course they want to use it for the public good. The wider the powers the more they can achieve. That is the philosophy. They are also unlikely to give up voluntarily their totally untrammelled 1,300 powers of entry, which are enshrined in statute, and until very recently that is why there has been a growing fear of such powers.
The Minister has told us how the Home Office leads in the creation and the removal of such powers. It has a gateway through which all such powers must pass. A week or so ago, my noble friend gave me a Written Answer to my request that he list the 19 applications in the year from March 2011 to create, amend or re-enact powers of entry that have passed through the Home Office gateway. All but one of those 19 came from Defra and now every one of these new powers is to be made subject to agreement or warrant. I congratulate the Government as that shows what can be done and it illustrates the change in the culture since the Bill was initiated. But—and it is a big but—there were 19 in a year, with 1,300 needing to be processed and a target time of two years. We can all do the arithmetic. The reputation of the Home Office is not at such a pinnacle that it can easily command all other departments, and of course it does not have that useful currency of power which the Treasury has: extra money.
There are rivalries and jealousies well outside the influence of the Home Office. When I first introduced my amendment, it was most enthusiastically welcomed and endorsed by the Trading Standards Institute. Its policy officer, Sylvia Rook, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, with a copy to me, on 3 February, saying:
“The Trading Standards Institute is delighted that Lord Marlesford has recognised the important work done by trading standards professionals around the country, and has amended his proposals accordingly … The new proposals, if accepted, will ensure that trading standards professionals can continue the essential work that they do using the powers afforded to them within existing legislation and subject to existing legal constraints”.
In other words, the trading standards people are very happy that this amendment in no way interferes with them. Subsequently, they appeared to change their tune. Not only do I understand why, but it illustrates why it is quite important that it is not left to those with the powers of entry to decide whether they should be modified.
The Local Government Association was unhappy not to be one of the exceptions. Indeed, the association wrote to me some weeks ago pointing out that it, too, sometimes found its untrammelled powers useful and although it did not use them, it always felt that it might have to use them in the future and that they might come in handy. Of course, trading standards is closely linked with local government and is part of the LGA. I know that the LGA was upset that trading standards had agreed a deal whereby it had an exemption and the LGA did not. I am told that the LGA never thought that the amendment would pass and so decided not to devote any resources to telling us that parts of it should be included. In the name of solidarity—we all respect that—trading standards was persuaded to withdraw its enthusiasm. However, today I spoke to trading standards, which confirmed that it was happy to have been given the exemption, which remains in my amendment.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I rise to support the proposed amendment. It relates to the circumstances in which a statutory instrument or legislation can give authority to regulators—not the police as their powers are enshrined in statute and are not in question—to enter private property without the consent of the owner or occupier of the property or the authority of a warrant granted by a judge.
This goes to the view that one takes of the importance of the rule of law in considering what powers the Executive ought to have to interfere with rights of private property. Clause 40 provides that the Government may place fetters on rights to enter private property. That is a discretionary power that the Government may or may not exercise, and in relation to a number of statutory instruments that I have seen, some quite recently, the safeguard provided by Clause 40 has not been adopted. The obligation on government to obtain the consent of the owner or occupier or to obtain a warrant ought, in my opinion, to be the rule.
Of course, there may be exceptions. The noble Lord’s amendment provides for them. I suggest that they are ample and adequate, but the rule ought to be that the consent of the occupier or a warrant is obtained and that the case has to fall within one of the recognised exceptions. At the moment, the legislation is the other way round so that the rule makes the addition of safeguards to protect the rights of property dependent on the discretion of the Government. That is not acceptable as a basis on which rights of property can be interfered with.
I do not wish to take up your Lordships’ time by repeating what I said during previous debates on this topic and, moreover, today is my wife’s birthday and I have agreed to take her out to dinner at 6 pm. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will forgive me if I do not stay to hear his reply to this amendment.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I, too, rise to support the amendment. I do it on the basis of practical experience. I do the Government the credit of saying that their heart is in the right place on this. Indeed, on all sides of the House, it would be agreed that powers of entry without permission or warrant should be kept to a minimum. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, the crux is where the initiative for reviewing these regulations should lie.
Here, I speak on the basis of long experience in the Cabinet Office and successive initiatives to reduce regulation in government. Those who have been Ministers will be familiar with this. In this matter, the Cabinet Office was on the side of the angels. It wanted to see —indeed, it was a duty imposed on it by Governments—that regulations were reduced. There were successive deregulation bodies. The Minister in another place, Mr Francis Maude, led one of them. The experience of asking departments to make the case for the existence of regulations showed that doing it that way round was not successful because they could always make a case that the regulation might at some time be necessary or useful. For that reason, I was always in favour of having a sunset clause on regulations, a provision that from time to time a department that wanted to maintain regulations should have to make the case for them again. That is what, in effect, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord does. If the Government want to make progress in this, the onus should be on departments to make the case for the power to be renewed. Otherwise, the power should lapse. I am quite sure that if the onus is left as it is and the regulations are reviewed by the departments, very little progress will be made.
I support the noble Lord’s amendment particularly because, as he has said previously, this is a historic opportunity for the Government to set a sunset clause on these powers and oblige departments to make the case anew. I am not sure whether the noble Lord’s amendment is technically correct, but it would be wise for the Government, whose heart, I believe, is in the right place, to think about this again. I hope that they will do so. I am afraid that if they do not, the objectives that they seek to achieve will not be effectively achieved.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that reported on this matter. In paragraph 116 of our report, we welcomed,
“the recognition in the Bill that powers of entry should be strictly limited to those circumstances in which such a power is justified, necessary and accompanied by appropriate safeguards”.
I would be grateful for acknowledgement by my noble friend the Minister that it is common ground that these powers should be in existence and exercised only where the power is,
“justified, necessary and accompanied by appropriate safeguards”.
When this matter was raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I spoke critically of his amendment and what he was seeking to do on the grounds that the matter was already covered by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. On reflection, not only having listened to the debate so far but having looked at the Commons Reason for disagreeing, I am now tending to be much more supportive of this amendment. With respect, I cannot understand how the other place can disagree, in considering that,
“the imposition of general restrictions of this nature on the exercise of powers of entry could undermine actions to protect public safety”.
That seems an extraordinary statement.
The purpose of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is to write into this important Bill a constitutional safeguard, which, for example, in the American Bill of Rights, is contained in the Fourth Amendment: the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure. Within the past three months, the American Supreme Court gave a judgment on that guarantee, referring to English doctrine against unreasonable search and seizure, which, of course, we in this country trace back in common law to the great case of Entick v Carrington. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is seeking to use not just the European Convention or the Human Rights Act but the statute itself to contain a general restriction against the abuse of powers of entry by the retention of unnecessary powers.
I perfectly appreciate that the Government have undertaken to carry out a two-year review of the detail, and that is highly desirable and has been welcomed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, I cannot see any objection to a general constitutional restriction against the retention or use of unnecessary powers of search or seizure. I shall listen carefully to how this is dealt with in reply, but at the moment, like others who have spoken so far, I have become much more sympathetic to this than I was on the previous occasion.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I rise to speak, as I did on a previous occasion, in support of the general principles of which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has spoken. In particular, he has done a service to this House, and indeed to the other place in enabling it to undergo an exercise of looking at and debating the whole matter of powers of entry. Nobody suggests that powers of entry are always justified; or that they are never justified. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has raised public safety and the House of Commons has raised it as a key factor to consider alongside whether powers of entry should exist.
As I see it, the difficulty is that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has wanted to clarify the law, of which one surely must be in favour. But he has also—I am afraid that it is still in his amendment before us today—picked on particular bodies, such as trading standards officers, and given them a blanket okay for their powers of entry. It so happens that I am an honorary vice-president of the Trading Standards Institute and I should declare an interest. The institute may wonder whose side I am on because I am saying that it is wrong for the law—it is a question of whether the law should be changed in the direction of the proposal in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—to pick on a particular public official or group of public officials and say, “They are in the clear. They can have powers of entry because they go into car dealers’ premises and people’s premises, including businesses, and so on to investigate whether there is something in there that suggests a criminal offence. That is okay but it is not okay necessarily for other people”.
Perhaps I may repeat myself here, but in, I think, the last debate, I asked, “What about environmental health officers who are concerned with public safety? Why are they not mentioned?”. I noticed that Members of the other place referred to inspectors on behalf of gas companies going into premises to ensure that there will not be an explosion or, if there has been an explosion, to look at how to deal with it. What about firefighters? They have been mentioned but are not specifically mentioned in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Some people may think that they should be.
I do not think that it is right to isolate or separate one group of officials from another and to take a preconceived view that one lot are always in the right and doing what is proper while others are not mentioned.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I am puzzled by the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is enunciating. Is he not aware that throughout a whole swathe of legislation lines have to be drawn? Parliament is responsible for drawing the line where it thinks that it is right and sensible. His argument that you cannot draw any line at all and that, therefore, you should allow the bureaucracy to do what it wants untrammelled by Parliament seems slightly unconvincing.
Lord Borrie
I am most grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, because I entirely agree with what he said. I am concerned that this notion of picking out one group of officials has been made by a private Member of the House of Lords proposing this amendment without any examination of why that group should be supported and not others. As I understand it, the Home Office, over a period of months, intends that there should be a thorough review of the across-the-board powers of entry of numerous officials connected with various departments and that it should not be a question of suddenly determining that a particular group of officials should be specially mentioned in legislation and not others. That is my concern and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, for bringing the matter out.
It is not suitable for us now without any review of across-the-board powers of entry to isolate one set of officials against another. The review emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, which was mentioned by Ministers in the debate in the other place, is vital before one starts getting into the detail of what powers of entry should be permitted and what should not.
Lord Neill of Bladen
My Lords, we should take this opportunity, which follows the vote on a previous occasion when the House by a majority voted in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. We now have a revised and better version of his amendment. But it has not been treated with enormous respect in the other place, which had a debate but no vote. We have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, dated 27 March. The letter says that the amendment is “well intentioned” —so the majority of the House had good intentions when it came forward with this little bright idea. The letter states that these proposals, if legislated for,
“could hinder rather than help … Our issue with the amendments is not with their underlying aim, but with the blanket approach they adopt”.
It is about time that something is done. There could be a two-year inquiry—that could be doubled or quadrupled —and no pending Bill in front of the House. We have a Bill. Let us take some action, follow the amendment, repeat what happened last time and send it back again to the other place.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Neill. With this very convenient amendment at this late stage, it seems to me that the time has come for the Government, if necessary, to come forward with a sensible amendment that could be produced extremely quickly. They absolutely do not need two or four years, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, said, to come up with a situation that is obviously not sensible.
I have come from a meeting of the Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments where we discussed an order on green bananas, which has a provision to deal with the rights of entry. As it happens, it does not deal with the criminal part of that but Regulation 6 says that there may be an application to a magistrate for a warrant. It does not refer to the circumstances but I assume that they are those in which force is required. At the moment, I cannot see why you have to have a right of entry for green bananas when you can perfectly well get a magistrate’s warrant if it is absolutely necessary. What I am telling your Lordships’ House is that it is going on now and that it is time to stop it.
Lord Elton
My noble friend is probably old enough —I certainly am—to remember the days when an Englishman’s home was always referred to as his castle. Castles are besieged by mice. What worries me about this is that the officers who will have powers to enter my castle and your Lordships’ castles—mine is a very small place—vastly outnumber the number of mice who are able to do so. The mice are undercontrolled and so, in present legislation, are very large numbers of these officials. I do not think that they should be and noble Lords probably do not think that they should be either.
My noble friend has suggested a simple and elegant way to control the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who shakes his head, happens to be a fellow honorary vice-president of the Trading Standards Institute. I was hearted by what he said, although he may not have intended that. He said that the removal of the powers suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, does not go far enough. I join others who think that the provision could be further improved with consideration by the other place. Some of us have been Ministers and have had legislation that we wanted passed. It is ludicrous to leave this legislation as it and to entrust the matter to a departmental inquiry, of all things, in the expectation that it will sort it out within a time limit or achieve something worth while.
Baroness Crawley
My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief and slightly croaky intervention—I go one up on my noble friend Lord Borrie—as president of the Trading Standards Institute. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for engaging so closely with trading standards over the past number of months since first introducing his amendment in February. Indeed, trading standards officers would rather have been included in his amendment than not and therefore I do not decry them for their enthusiasm. However, after much discussion with partners in the intervening months, I should inform the noble Lord that, on behalf of trading standards, I shall not be able to follow him into the Lobby on his amendment.
My reasons are twofold. First, following on from the point made by my noble friend Lord Borrie, the provision made to include trading standards in the list of exceptions does not give enough scope to ensure consumer protection from rogue traders, money launderers and scammers of all types across all sectors. In difficult economic times—and we certainly live in difficult economic times—consumers are more and more vulnerable to these crooks and opportunists. Therefore, the legislation we bring forward to protect consumers must be very carefully enacted and leave no gaps in that protection.
Secondly, Motion A1 allows for an exemption only if provided for by the Secretary of State through regulation. Trading standards officers are extremely concerned that if the Motion is carried they would lose their existing powers of entry—they have been protecting us, as consumers, for over 100 years—until such time as they may be reinstated by statutory instrument. That uncertainty is not in the best interests of today’s vulnerable consumers.
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate but one matter does strike me. In the eight years in which I was a Minister in the Administration of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, whenever a Minister said that something would take a particular period of time, she used to say, “Well, just think what was achieved in time of war during that kind of timescale”. We have been told that this review will take two years. I do not understand why the Minister does not simply say to the Home Office, “You have got to do it in a year”. Why will it take two years to carry out a review? If we were in a time of war, it would be dealt with much more quickly.
I put to the Minister exactly the retort of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. Set a timescale that is reasonable and achievable and, if the review is completed in the next year, there would be an opportunity for any necessary legislative change to take place within the present Parliament. As it is, I feel that we will get beyond 2015 and nothing will have been done.
Lord Vinson
My Lords, I share with many in the Chamber the deep concern about the erosion of our freedoms. If our forebears were listening today and hearing that more than 1,000 organisations and, through them, probably tens of thousands of officials have the right of entry into the Englishman’s castle, his home, they would be horrified.
I am comforted by the emollient words of the Minister, who says that what we are trying to do is helpful but he would rather leave it to his own officials to take two years to work out the position. I suggest that we put the clause the other way round and that he says to his officials, “I am going to accept the latest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and if you have not reviewed your position and come up with a satisfactory conclusion within two years, by default the noble Lord’s amendment will stand”. That would surely put a boot behind the consideration of these matters by the various departments and help achieve what we all want to achieve. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will say whether that idea has any grains of usefulness.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, picking up on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I think everyone’s heart is in the right place on this matter but that we are struggling to articulate what is in our hearts in the right way. I am with those who, as the debate goes on, increasingly see complexity in this matter and a need for us to be very careful in the way we do what we are all trying to do.
We have reached a point in the procedure where what we agree to in the wording has got to be very precise and correct. Some noble Lords have said, “Send this back to the Commons and it can sort it out”. However, we know that in practical terms that would be very difficult within what is now almost a matter of hours. To be rather boring, perhaps necessarily so, on the drafting, I said on the previous occasion that I find the term “demonstrate” very difficult. It is not one which I am accustomed to seeing in legislation and I do not know where it rests in the evidential hierarchy, if that is the right way of expressing it. I am worried about the possibility of judicial review around “demonstrate” within new subsection (3)(b)(i).
I am also quite puzzled. I think I am correct in saying that what the Government are proposing in Clause 40(1) is discretionary, and so could come within the review; that Clause 40(2) is not exclusive; and that we, as a House, would be asked to consider what is proposed in particular instances through the statutory instruments procedure. Sometimes, notwithstanding the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, of which I am a member—I was not there this afternoon but I read the green bananas order realising that it might have some application today—it is incumbent on all of us, as a House, to be very diligent with what is coming before us via statutory instruments. However, if there is discretion—I think the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, are not mandatory but discretionary—then, in a sense, what is proposed is something and nothing. However, we are talking about them as if they are mandatory.
As to noble Lord’s reference that, essentially, future Parliaments may say, “Notwithstanding that a statute says X, Y, Z, it shall be something else”, again that may be something or nothing. However, I wonder what implication it has because no Parliament can bind its successors, as we know.
This brings me back to thinking that we need the review which has not only been promised but is required. I am entirely with those noble Lords who say that two years is too long given the demands that we are all making. It is easy to ridicule departmental inquiries. As I had understood it—I have never been in government —it is the departments that do all the work, with Ministers being advised by them. So we should not be too dismissive of the departments. However, the work needs to be done more quickly than under the timetable the Government are currently setting, and I for one would urge my noble friend on. If the Government can see their way to a quicker exercise, that might take the sting out of this.
I ought to say, finally, that I am vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. However, I have not been briefed by it, or even discussed it with it, and it has not been in my mind as in any way influencing what I have said.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I find myself in a very difficult position, having begun this subject in 1975 and taken three Private Members’ Bills through the House. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford, who has a much more aggressive and attacking attitude than I do, being a man who has journalistic abilities. I am a simple person who simply says that there is a logic here.
First, you have to find out how many powers of entry there are. We began by asking questions of Ministers, none of whom knew what their powers of entry were. We worked out together that there were 584 and then made a joint arrangement with the Home Office to conduct a review, which took 18 months. We got up to 800 and then to 1,100. Finally, with the support of the Home Office, we found there were 1,200. However, this was not enough, because individual Ministers still did not know what their powers of entry were. All powers of entry relate to individual ministries, whether to Defra or any other ministry. I suggested this to my noble friend in Committee but did not want to speak again because one says the same things again and again. Even though some of your Lordships have passed on and some have never heard what one has said, repetitive Peers are not good creatures.
I therefore suggested to my noble friend that he put the latest list of powers of entry in the Library. He was rather reluctant to do this and said that we could see them on the Home Office website. However, that is quite difficult to access. Fifty per cent of your Lordships are not what I would call electronified and therefore do not know how to access websites. My noble friend wrote to me the other day and said that it would be placed in the Library. I am on the Information Committee and it is not yet there. Perhaps it could get there quite quickly.
My objective today is not to suggest anything. The help that I had was from the party opposite, which in the beginning was slightly cynical about all this. However, it went out of its way to say that this was a non-party issue and that we needed first to define what those powers of entry are and secondly to make sure that each ministry and Minister knows what their powers are and how they could be applied. There was then a separate exercise in respect of a code of conduct. That was going to take a further period to review, although we worked one out in a simple morning sitting around a table. You would say please and thank you and identify who you were. You might wear a uniform. It was not a very difficult exercise.
I am not saying that the Government are prevaricating in any way. I find this very difficult. Trying to be non-party on this, I should probably not vote for or against anything. However, the Minister should do what he can to reassure the House that this matter is under control. There is no need for another two-year review. I could get it done by the private sector pretty quickly.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for showing the attitude that he has. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, does not give up once he is on to something and does not lose the scent. I am very grateful to him for doing this today. I do not want to go against any party Whips, but I did say to my own party Whip that there might be an occasion when I could once more be a little bit independent for a short period. However, I urge him to take matters further.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has explained that his amendment seeks to address the objections that were raised by the Government to his original amendment, which was passed by your Lordships’ House but did not find favour in the other place. As the noble Lord has said, the amendment seeks to address what he has described as the “blanket approach” criticism and has sought to meet points raised in the other place by including officers of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and members of the Security Service in the exceptions.
The amendment provides that,
“a power of entry may only be used without warrant, or without agreement with the occupier of the premises to be entered … in cases where the authority using the power can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought; or … by persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State when acting under any legislation which permits such a person to exercise such a power”.
The amendment goes on to say which persons may be specified in such regulations, but also says that it,
“need not be limited to”
such persons.
I wish to refer, as an example, to trading standards officers, who are one of the five persons specified in the noble Lord’s amendment. Trading standards officers do not currently have, and have never had, a routine power of entry into premises used solely as a private dwelling place. If the trading standards officer is dependent on the first criterion—the power of entry without a warrant or the agreement of the occupier—the difficulty arises from the fact that the breadth of their work is considerable and there are many and varied reasons why such an officer may wish to visit a business.
The first criterion means that any time an officer entered a business without a warrant or without the agreement of the occupier of the premises because they believed that the use of that power of entry would be frustrated if a warrant was sought, they could then be open to a legal challenge and the need to prove a negative: namely, that they could not have achieved their objective if they had applied for and obtained a warrant. That could be difficult to prove and would certainly be time-consuming when trading standards officers are already under pressure. It would probably result in trading standards officers entering premises unannounced much less frequently, to the detriment of their vital public protection role. Without having a power of immediate entry into business premises, trading standards officers would find it more difficult to carry out their basic day-to-day functions of protecting the public and their local communities, since they could have the barrier of possible legal challenge every time they sought to act swiftly.
Unfortunately, the second criterion, which is new, would leave it up to the Secretary of State to decide whether to give trading standards officers and any other officials the right of power of entry without a warrant or the agreement of the occupier of the business premises, unlike the noble Lord’s previous amendment, which gave such power full stop without being dependent on or waiting for the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State does not, by regulation, give that power—and no one knows which way a particular Secretary of State would jump—it would make it much more difficult than now for trading standards officers to carry out their role of protecting the public and local communities. It would also make it harder to resist a legal challenge under the first criterion, on the grounds that trading standards officers were seeking to exercise a power that the Secretary of State had declined to give them by regulation. My understanding is different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on the position of the Trading Standards Institute on his amendment.
We understand the intentions and objectives behind the noble Lord’s amendment and the safeguards in relation to powers of entry that he is seeking to achieve. For that reason, we will not oppose his amendment if it is taken to a vote. However, we do believe, for the reasons I have mentioned, that in some instances the noble Lord’s new amendment may well make it more difficult for people such as trading standards officers to carry out their vital public protection role. For that reason, if his amendment is taken to a vote, we will abstain on it.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I start by saying to my noble friend Lord Marlesford and other noble Lords that I am grateful for the fact that he acknowledges that we are at least on the same side in that we seek to reduce the number of powers of entry and make sure that existing powers of entry have the appropriate safeguards where necessary.
I begin with a very brief history lesson. At the time when the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was Secretary to the Cabinet, I can remind him and the House that we had something of the order of 500 or 600 powers of entry. As my noble friend Lord Selsdon said, it was difficult to know exactly how many there were. Over the years, mainly after the noble Lord ceased to be Secretary to the Cabinet, we saw a rather dramatic growth in the number of powers of entry. Something of the order of about 700 new powers of entry crept in between 1997 and 2010. I am sure that there were very good reasons for many of them and that all of them went through both Houses of Parliament, because all of them would have needed primary legislation in one form or another to get them.
It might be that Parliament nodded in its duty and did not provide the appropriate safeguards and checks and balances when considering all those powers of entry. Because of the dramatic growth that we saw over those 13 years, the new coalition Government in 2010 made a commitment that we would review all existing powers of entry and do what we could to reduce those that were unnecessary, bringing in appropriate safeguards—a warrant or consent—where necessary. That is why we brought forward the provisions in this Bill in Clauses 39 to 46.
I make it clear to the House that those proposals were in respect of the existing stock of the 1,300 or so powers of entry that we had. On top of that, there is always the danger—because Governments do this—that new powers might creep in. That is why we brought in the new gateway approach in the Home Office, to be adopted by all other departments, to look at any new powers of entry that might come in and make sure that they were properly scrutinised and that Parliament looked at them appropriately as they came through in Acts of Parliament. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Marlesford at least commended that gateway approach to the new powers, but we are largely talking about the existing powers and how we want to look at the existing stock and do what we can to reduce it.
My noble friend brought forward his amendment before. It went to the Commons, where they looked at it—and I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that they did not look at it with a lack of respect. They gave it a very good hearing and debated it for some 45 minutes, and the fact that they did not divide on it was obviously a sign that they thought that there was sufficient agreement. It is not for the Government to decide whether matters are divided on. Certainly, considerable respect was shown to the amendment and it was debated in considerable detail in another place.
My noble friend in his amendment seeks to create a blanket approach to what should be dealt with and then accepts that that approach is wrong—and he admits it is wrong because he then brings in a blanket exemption, which surely contradicts the whole point of what he is trying to do. We are trying to conduct a review of the whole process, which will closely examine all the powers that we have and those that are necessary while adding further safeguards to others. That is the important thing. There might be some powers that we do not need—right, we will get rid of them. There might be some that we do need but which do not have the appropriate safeguards, and in that case we will look at them. We have made it clear that in conducting our review the default position will be that any powers that require entry to people’s homes must require their consent or be by warrant only. This amendment provides only a blanket rule across the board, which we do not think is the right approach.
I accept that there have been criticisms—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Can the Minister confirm that we are not in a vacuum while the review is taking place in that, if there were unnecessary and disproportionate searches or seizures, the Human Rights Act would require our legislation to be read properly to prevent them from being classified as unlawful searches or seizures?
Lord Henley
My noble friend is a great expert on the Human Rights Act and the House always defers to him when we discuss such matters. If there was a case of the sort that he implies, I am sure the courts would look at it in a manner that he thinks appropriate.
I am trying to make clear that we want to conduct a review over two years. I accept that there has been criticism from a number of colleagues, including my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who asked whether we could do it more quickly. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Lawson also implied that we should do it more quickly. We will try to do it as quickly as possible but, as my honourable friend said in another place, we will also update Parliament on a six-monthly basis about how we are getting on. We think that this approach is the better one—to go through all the powers one by one, from department to department. Obviously, some departments will have a bigger workload than others. I understand that my old department, Defra, has rather a lot of powers. No doubt we will encourage them to work harder, and I and my colleagues in the Home Office will encourage them to do that. I think that is the better approach, and my noble friend’s approach—to bring in a blanket approach, accept that it is wrong and then bring in blanket exemptions—is not the right way forward.
Lord Elton
Will there be an opportunity in both Houses to debate the combined report when it is laid before Parliament before decisions are taken on legislation?
Lord Henley
I would hope that, as and when each power of entry is looked at, we will remove it as appropriate. I can assure my noble friend that we have already moved about 30 or so as part of the review. Most of those will require only secondary legislation to do that. It will be an ongoing process. As I made clear earlier, we will give a six-monthly update to Parliament on how we are doing this. At the end of that process I cannot give a commitment as to exactly what we will do. Certainly I am sure that my noble friend and others will hold us to account if we do not keep to that two-year programme. As I said, we want to do it more quickly if we can.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the Minister has said, but would the Government’s objectives not be better achieved if they proceeded on the basis that powers would lapse unless a positive case could be made for them, rather than that they should remain unless a case is made to remove them?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am a great fan of sunset clauses, and I would be more than happy to do that. It is a matter for Parliament; with any new power that comes in, Parliament must decide whether a sunset clause should be brought in. It is not within the scope of what we are debating now to bring in a sunset clause for all 1,300 powers of entry that exist. That is not the aim of my noble friend’s amendment, and it is not an idea that has been put forward by anyone else. I am sympathetic to sunset clauses, and I know that the noble Lord is sympathetic, but let us consider that with new powers that come in. It is not something that we can debate at this stage.
With those assurances about what we are doing and with the assurance that we will continue to update Parliament on how we are getting on with this, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The House of Lords is always quite impressive, but the quality of the experience, knowledge and wisdom that have been shown by noble Lords speaking has been terrific. There has been a psychological thing that probably happens to all of us: there are those who want to do something and get on with it and those who say, “Well, let’s wait”. There is a place for both. However, on this question of how long it would take for a review, when my noble friend Lord Selsdon says that it took 18 months just to count the powers, I just wonder how far they will get in examining each of the 1,300 powers in 24 months.
I want to emphasise just one or two things. The first is that we are not aiming to remove any powers of entry. All we are saying is that we believe that the powers of entry, with certain exceptions, should be subject to agreement or to warrant as far as the occupier of the premises is concerned. The second—and this is where the amendment has changed—concerns what is found or felt about the provision before the powers have all been examined. My amendment does not interfere at all with the Bill’s current provision for a review. That provision will continue and it will be good to have it—I wish it godspeed, and we shall look forward to getting the reports. In the meanwhile, however, we will have achieved something. We will also have given the Government an opportunity so that if it transpires that a power has been trammelled by being subject to agreement or warrant and that has been counterproductive or undesirable in the public interest, the Government will be able to come back ad interim with an order to correct it. That is what I mean in describing the way that I have removed the blanket imposition.
In view of the comments of people such as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I think that the general tenor is really such that the Government could do better. I would like to see whether the opinion of the House supports that approach.
Lord Henley
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 51A to 51E.
(i) ”
(ii) causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities,”
“(2A) For the purposes of this section A ought to know that A’s course of conduct will cause B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause B such alarm or distress.”
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments 133A to 133C. The House will recall that at Third Reading in this House the Bill was amended to introduce two new specific offences of stalking and stalking involving fear of violence. These new offences are set out in new Sections 2A and 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. I acknowledged at the time that the new Section 4A offence needed better to reflect the psychological trauma experienced by victims. I indicated that the Government would bring forward further amendments to address this point when the Bill returned to the Commons to consider the Lords amendments.
These additional amendments were duly approved by the Commons on 15 March and it now falls to your Lordships’ House to agree to them. The amendments made in the Commons to Amendment 51, which I brought forward at Third Reading, widen the new Section 4A offence so that a course of conduct amounting to stalking that causes serious alarm or distress, which has a substantial adverse effect on a victim’s usual day-to-day activities, is also captured. These changes will mean that when a stalker’s course of conduct causes their victim to, for example, change where they socialise or to ask their friends or family to pick up their children from school because they are afraid of running into their stalker, the Section 4A offence could be made out and therefore, on conviction, result in a sentence of imprisonment of up to five years. I am confident that through these changes we have further strengthened the protection of victims of stalking. We are also sending a clear message to perpetrators that this behaviour will not be tolerated.
I am convinced that we now have workable and effective laws to bring the perpetrators of stalking to justice. Elfyn Llwyd, who chaired the recent independent inquiry on stalking, said in the debate in the Commons that the new provisions,
“show that the Government have carried out a listening exercise, and we will now have firm laws. They will prevent lives from being ruined and, crucially, from being lost”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/12; col. 553.]
Before bringing forward these amendments in the Commons, my officials discussed them with the National Association of Probation Officers and Protection Against Stalking. These organisations share the concerns raised here at Third Reading about the psychological impact that stalking has on victims. As many of your Lordships will know, both NAPO and PAS have said that they support the changes we have made.
I know that that view was widely shared on all sides of this House, but it is clear that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has some lingering doubts, if I may put it that way, that have prompted her to table two further amendments to the Commons amendments. I seek to reassure her that those amendments are unnecessary.
The noble Baroness’s amendment to Amendment 51C seeks to include a further limb to new Section 4A to cover cases where a stalker causes a victim to fear for their personal safety or that of another. I can assure the House that where such stalking behaviour causes the victim serious alarm or distress such that it substantially affects their day-to-day activity, then it could meet the threshold for the Section 4A offence. The threshold would also be met where the behaviour causes the victim to fear violence. A third party who is made to fear for their safety could also have recourse through the existing criminal and civil law, including by pursuing an injunction or a restraining order in appropriate cases.
The Government consider that the Section 4A offence should be reserved for cases where a stalker causes the victim to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against them or where a stalker causes their victim,
“serious alarm or distress which has a substantial … effect”
on their,
“usual day-to-day activities”.
It is right that this offence, carrying a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, is reserved for those stalking behaviours that are more serious and have greater impact on their victim. Of course, all cases of stalking are serious and can wreck lives, but it is important that we maintain a clear distinction and escalation between the two new offences. Prosecution under Section 4A should be reserved for the worst cases. Such cases should already be captured in the Section 4A offence and adding this limb could lower the threshold too far. If the stalking behaviour does not cause the victim to experience one of the effects as set out in Section 4A(1), a prosecution under Section 2A would be more appropriate.
Again, officials have discussed this amendment with NAPO, Protection Against Stalking and with the Association of Chief Police Officers’ stalking lead. We have expressed our view that such cases could be captured in the existing Section 4A offence as amended in the Commons, and that this should be highlighted in police training. To ensure that this issue is properly understood by police and prosecutors, officials will involve ACPO, NAPO, Protection Against Stalking and others in developing training and guidance. Officials will meet them soon to agree how to work together. I am convinced that this issue can be addressed without further changes to the legislation. We now need to get the Bill on the statute book and to work with partners to ensure that these new offences are fully effective in protecting the victims of stalking and bringing offenders to justice.
I end by saying that I am indebted to all Members of the House who have worked with us to shape this legislation. Together, we have across all parties developed workable legislation that will support the police and the courts in eradicating this awful crime. This will make a real difference to victims. I again pay tribute to noble Lords on all sides of the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who is not in her place, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, for their tireless efforts in raising these issues and ensuring that stalking victims will be properly protected by these new laws. I commend Motions B and C to the House and invite the noble Baroness not to press her Motions B1 and B2. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 51F as an amendment to Amendment 51C”
(iii) causes B to fear for B’s personal safety or the safety of another”
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, today we are almost there: a new law on stalking, for which Parliament rather than Government has been in the driving seat. Over the past six months, a staggering amount of progress has been made, much of it due to the advocacy of noble Lords on all Benches. Like the Minister, I pay special tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, along with my noble friends on these Benches. The progress is also testament to the campaigners, the excellent parliamentary inquiry, and most of all to the survivors and their families that we will soon achieve proper protection in law for the victims of stalking. I also pay tribute to those women who have shown extraordinary courage in the face of this harrowing crime: women like Claire Waxman, Tracey Morgan, Sam Taylor, Tricia Bernal and Claudia Miles, whose lives were stolen by their stalkers, but all of whom are utterly determined to make sure that future victims get the justice and protection that they deserve.
The Commons amendments that we are considering today are concessions that the Government made following serious concerns raised at Third Reading about their initial proposals. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for the work they have done. We support the amendments brought forward and warmly welcome them as far as they go. However, it is disappointing that the Government did not heed calls from experts to strengthen the proposals on police powers and to allow for cases prosecuted under the new Section 2A offence to be referred up to the Crown Court should new evidence emerge.
As the Minister said, government Amendments 51A to 51E add a new set of criteria to the more serious Section 4A stalking offence in order to ensure that those cases where a stalker never makes an explicit threat of violence towards their victim are still liable for the maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment where their course of conduct has caused the victim to suffer sustained and serious distress or alarm which forces them significantly to change their day-to-day activities. However, the stalking charities Protection Against Stalking and the Network for Surviving Stalking, as well as criminal justice professionals such as the National Association of Probation Officers and senior criminal barristers, are all concerned about a small number of serious cases where victims refuse significantly to alter their daily routine in the face of the stalker’s actions but fear for their personal safety or that of another person close to them. The more serious Section 4A offence as currently drafted would not be sufficient to enable a successful prosecution.
Mary Porter, for example, started to receive offensive e-mails and texts from a colleague about five years ago. The behaviour soon escalated to criminal damage to her property and silent phone calls. Although she feared for her safety, no specific threat of violence was ever made. Mary took a conscious decision not to react to his behaviour by changing her routine or work patterns. However, the stalking took its toll. She developed muscular strain through stress, which affected her mobility. She also reported having great difficulty sleeping, having nightmares and being unable to get his behaviour out of her mind. Eventually she discovered the identity of the stalker. She kept records and a log of his behaviour, which she was able to present to the police, but after several months of sustained harassment, he was given a short custodial sentence which was suspended for 12 months. Why should someone like Mary, who refused to let her stalker affect her daily routine, not have the same right to protection?
My amendments would ensure that women like Mary, who have serious concerns about their personal safety as a result of their stalker’s actions—even if explicit threats of violence are not made—would be covered by the same protection under the Section 4A offence. The amendment also makes reference to the safety of another, as it is well known that stalkers can often target loved ones, particularly children, to get to their victims. Sally Evans separated two years ago from her abusive partner. He then commenced a campaign of threats and intimidation, including vandalism to her car on three occasions, as well as invading her website, sending offensive messages, texts and photographs to her employer and following her in the car. He used the family courts to obtain contact with the children and, fearing the consequences of his escalating activity, Sally decided to co-operate. She was frightened and worried about her personal safety and that of her children, but at this time there was still no overt threat of violence. The police told her that they were powerless to intervene unless he made a physical attack. It was only recently, when he threatened to kill her in front of one of the children, that the police finally acted.
In reference to my amendments, the charities Protection Against Stalking and the National Association of Probation Officers stated that:
“Following discussions with police, lawyers and others, PAS and NAPO support an amendment which would expand the definition beyond fear of violence to include causing a person to fear for their personal safety or the safety of another, for example a child or relative”.
Similar support has been pledged by the charity Network for Surviving Stalking, and Dr David James, consultant forensic psychiatrist at the National Stalking Clinic, has stated that:
“The proposed amendment to the Bill regarding the specification of fear for personal safety or that of another as a parameter is very important, given the psychological damage that stalkers inflict and seek to inflict. The amendment would substantially strengthen the legislation and we would encourage peers to adopt it”.
My amendments do not make significant textual changes, but they are changes that would make a significant difference to the lives of victims in a small number of serious cases like those of Sally Evans and Mary Porter. We are tantalisingly close to achieving our new law on stalking. However, we must make sure that when it reaches the statute book, we end up with the best possible version. No doubt the Government will argue that at this stage it is too late to bring forward further changes and the Minister said that he thought that all cases would be reasonably covered by the amendments being proposed by the Government today. However, I believe that while we have the opportunity to ensure that victims like Sally Evans and Mary Porter could be properly covered by legislation, we have a duty to ensure that they are served by the most comprehensive law possible. I would therefore urge noble Lords to think of those two women in our debate and to support my amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, last Wednesday was the second annual National Stalking Awareness Day and two events were held simultaneously here and in the Scottish Parliament. They differed radically from the event held one year before because all those present in London were able to celebrate the introduction of this Bill, promoted on a cross-party basis in both Houses of this Parliament. One year ago, the people’s inquiry into stalking was just being created. It was ably chaired by Elfyn Llwyd MP and supported in every possible way by the National Association of Probation Officers and Protection Against Stalking, which had come together in their absolute determination to persuade Parliament that we needed legislation that recognised the scourge of stalking. It needs naming, appropriate sentencing, support for victims and, importantly, treatment for perpetrators. Some members of that inquiry were sceptical about the need for change but the evidence bravely given by the victims, survivors, families of murdered victims, police and others in the criminal justice system made it undeniably evident that change was needed.
Last month the Home Secretary, speaking in the Commons debate, confirmed the need for change. Turning to the amendments before us now, she made it much clearer and plainer that the behaviour of those in the criminal justice system had to change, too, to recognise the seriousness of the case, even if it could not be specifically identified in every exemplar. She specifically said:
“Those amendments will widen the section 4A offence to incorporate behaviour that causes the victim serious alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on his or her day-to-day life. This change will mean that when a stalker causes their victim, for example, to take alternative routes to and from work, when the victim is afraid to leave the house or when they have to ask their friends or family to pick up their children from school because they are afraid of running into their stalker, this could count as behaviour that attracts the more serious section 4A offence and therefore, on conviction on indictment, a maximum five-year sentence. The message could not be clearer—anyone who ruins someone’s life with their stalking should expect to be severely punished”.
The Secretary of State went on to say that legislation will be kept,
“under review. The last thing we want to do is to find that the legislation is being misinterpreted”.
She had set out examples,
“to send a message to people that that is all they are”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/12; col. 546-47.]
Some of the examples to do with changing the culture are absolutely vital within the system. Frankly, that change should start with the renaming of the department in the Home Office that deals with stalking. It is currently called—I am not making this up—“Death and Violence”. One small but significant change such as this will signal a key change in how the Government, the Civil Service and the criminal justice system are starting to treat stalking. This is about human beings and how they are treated.
I give one illustration from the courts today. The result of Elliot Fogel’s case was due to be heard this morning—the latest chapter in his stalking of Claire Waxman over the past 20 years. He was imprisoned for two years in January for breaching a lifetime restraining order; this was after a 16-week sentence for the original stalking offence two years ago. He wanted his sentence reduced. Shockingly, the case was adjourned from this morning to this afternoon because the CPS had again forgotten its evidence and files on his repeated breaching of previous restraining orders. A further problem was that the CPS had consistently not prosecuted breaches of restraining orders, so the court was able to look only at three out of the many that had been taken to court. This presents a very different picture for the judges but it is one that they were forced to use. I am pleased to say that the court finally made its decision this afternoon and Fogel’s sentence remains.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, what we have heard today emphasises the need for training for the police and maybe other agencies, and the need to be alert to behaviour that may escalate, having started as apparently comparatively innocent. I was relieved to hear my noble friend say that these amendments are unnecessary and grateful for his explanations. Reading them earlier today, it seemed to me that they were covered in both senses. The two sets of behaviour described, of which individual B was the subject, would fit within the new sections. As regards a third party, it is likely, depending on the degree of seriousness, for other criminal offences to be involved.
As I say, I am glad to know that the amendments are unnecessary and that such behaviour will be covered. If legislation is adequate, it is important that it is not expanded to cover explicitly this sort of example because matters that are not explicitly included might then be thought to be excluded. Therefore, if the legislation covers, perhaps in a fairly technical way, the behaviours that are of concern, it could be damaging in a wider sense to spell out those behaviours in the legislation.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I can respond relatively briefly and will deal, I hope, with most of the points. First, to protect the honour of the Home Office, I correct just one point made by my noble friend Lady Brinton. She talked about there being a department in the Home Office known as “Death and Violence”. I can assure her that that is not the case. The Home Office team that leads on this is called Interpersonal Violence, which I hope my noble friend will accept is a better name than the suggestion that she put forward.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for accepting that this matter has been driven by Parliament. It has been cross-party and I pay tribute to all those in this House and another place—the right honourable Elfyn Llwyd and others—who have led the work on this. Perhaps I may also say how important it is that we work with others; and that is why we will continue to talk to NAPO, Protection Against Stalking and ACPO about how we bring in the right training. As the noble Baroness will be aware, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear on International Women’s Day that training will be provided, and we will work with those bodies to develop that training. It is because we are providing it that we do not believe that the noble Baroness’s amendments are necessary or appropriate. It is because we believe that we have come to a considerable degree of consensus on this that now is the moment to move on and get this Bill on the statute book.
All that I want to do at this point is respond to one matter in the example that the noble Baroness gave regarding Mary and the problems she faced. The noble Baroness said that Mary did not change her daily routine and therefore would not be captured by new Section 4A. As the noble Baroness made clear, Mary on that occasion kept records of her stalker, she did not sleep and had to speak to the police. All those are examples of day-to-day activities being affected. Therefore, new Section 4A certainly could apply in that case, and that is why it is important that we provide the police with exactly the right training, and is why I am trying to give the commitment that we will work with the bodies that we have been talking about to make sure that the right training is evolved.
I should also take on the point made by my noble friend Lady Brinton about the need within the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to make sure we change the culture appropriately—that obviously also applies to the police—in terms of understanding the importance of these matters and ensuring that prosecutions are, when appropriate, pursued with vigour, if necessary at the higher level provided by new Section 4A, or by new Section 2A in much more minor cases. I dealt with the example given by the noble Baroness because I wanted to make it clear that new Section 4A could apply even in that case.
I therefore feel that the noble Baroness’s amendments are not necessary. I hope that she will not press them and that the Bill can move on to the statute book with due speed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Is the noble Lord prepared to say that the Government’s view is that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is in fact included in the interpretation of their Amendment 51C?
Lord Henley
My Lords, my understanding and what I was trying to get over is that, with the introduction of appropriate training in how the police prosecute in these matters, her amendment is not necessary. I therefore think I am right in saying that what I have said would be covered by my noble and learned friend’s point.
Baroness Brinton
I apologise for casting aspersions on the Home Office. I got my departments muddled. Unfortunately, it was the Ministry of Justice that has a department with such a name.
Lord Henley
I, as always, speak for Her Majesty’s Government when I am at this Dispatch Box, but on this occasion I cannot honestly answer for the Ministry of Justice. All that I was trying to do was clear the name of my department, but I am sure that other Justice Ministers will in due course be able to respond to my noble friend’s point.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baronesses who participated in this debate. The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, quite rightly spoke of the critical value of training for the police and other members of the criminal justice system. It is clear that in the case cited by the noble Baroness, that of Claire Waxman, training that will bring about a change of culture is an absolutely necessary and vital part of ensuring that in future the perpetrators of stalking are truly brought to book and the new offence that we are introducing is properly used against them.
I realise that the Minister says that the case of Mary would be covered by the amendments being brought forward by the Government, and he says that my amendments are not therefore necessary. The intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is of course extremely valuable because the Minister has clearly said that it is his interpretation of the government amendments and the Bill as it stands that those cases would be covered. However, a lot of what the Minister has rightly said—and I, too, am glad about the consensus that we have achieved on the Bill—depends on the quality of the training that will be provided to the people involved in the criminal justice system. I am glad that ACPO, NAPO and Protection Against Stalking will be involved in the discussions on training but, frankly, the words of my amendments are almost belt and braces. We are often told by Bill teams and parliamentary counsel that one should not include in a Bill matters that are otiose, but I do not regard the words that I propose as otiose. It is belt and braces to ensure that while training is important, should it fall down for whatever reason, those words will be in the Bill to ensure that people such as Mary, Sally Evans and others mentioned to me by NAPO, ACPO and other charities are properly covered. Before us is a great opportunity. I pay tribute to all Members of this House and indeed the Government for moving as far as they have gone in this Bill. The consensus that we have achieved is terrific. However, I should like to ensure that the belt and braces are there, and I therefore seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Henley
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 133A, 133B and 133C.
Stephen Lawrence
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I beg leave to repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime and Security to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“It is a matter of deep regret that it took 19 years to achieve convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. In the years since he was murdered, the Lawrence family fought tirelessly for justice and, without their efforts, it is unlikely that either Gary Dobson or David Norris would have been convicted. I hope that the verdicts in January are able to finally deliver some comfort to the Lawrence family.
Allegations of corruption in the murder investigation have been looked at on two previous occasions. They were examined by the Macpherson Inquiry, which concluded that,
‘no collusion or corruption is proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder’.
They were also looked at by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2006, which again was unable to find any corruption in the original murder investigation.
Following the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris, further allegations of corruption have come to light. As a result, the solicitor acting on behalf of Mrs Lawrence has written to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary asking her to set up a public inquiry.
Allegations of police corruption must always be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. It is essential that we ensure that the actions and behaviours of any corrupt police officers do not undermine public confidence in the police’s ability to respond to, investigate and fight crime. The Metropolitan Police is currently carrying out an internal review into these corruption allegations and we await its findings. I would like to reassure Members that my right honourable friend is treating these issues with the utmost seriousness. She is currently considering her decision and has offered to meet Doreen Lawrence to discuss these issues further. She will keep the House updated”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for repeating the Urgent Question in another place as a Statement in your Lordships’ House. I echo his remarks and regret that it has taken so long to achieve convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Like the noble Lord, I also pay tribute to the Lawrence family for their tireless efforts to seek justice.
The House will know that during the investigation by the Metropolitan Police five suspects were arrested but not convicted. During the investigation many suggested that the murder was racially motivated and that the handling of the case by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service was affected by issues of race. After widespread concern, a public inquiry was held, led by Sir William Macpherson. This examined the original Metropolitan Police investigation and concluded that the force was institutionally racist.
As the Minister said, allegations of corruption in the murder investigation have been looked at on at least two previous occasions. They were looked at first by the Macpherson inquiry itself, which concluded that no collusion or corruption was proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder. Then in July 2006 the IPCC announced that it had asked the Metropolitan Police to look into alleged claims of police corruption that may have helped to hide the killers of Stephen Lawrence. In 2007, the IPCC said that it had found no evidence to substantiate these allegations. However, within weeks of the convictions earlier this year, the issue of corruption in the Lawrence case surfaced again when the Independent made allegations about a detective in the Lawrence case which had previously been made in the Guardian in 2002 and by the BBC in 2006.
Doreen Lawrence has called on the Home Secretary to order a second public inquiry into the police investigation of the murder of her son. The call for a Macpherson 2 comes as the Metropolitan Police has said that it has been unable, after a month of investigation, to establish whether it passed potentially crucial files detailing investigations by its anti-corruption command to the police inquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s death held in 1998.
Those are some of the contexts in which we consider the Government’s response today, and I should like to ask the noble Lord a number of questions. He said that the Metropolitan Police is currently carrying out an internal review into these corruption allegations. Can he give me any indication of when that review is likely to be concluded? In view of the need for public confidence in any internal inquiry before consideration is given to a wider public inquiry, given that it is currently an internal review and given the current state of concern about these issues in relation to the Metropolitan Police, does the Minister consider that some assistance from HMIC might be appropriate? Does he accept that only an independent inquiry is ultimately likely to give the public confidence?
We understand that the Home Secretary is, as the Minister said, considering this matter at the moment but there has been an indication that one of her concerns is cost. Can the noble Lord assure me that cost will not be a factor when the Home Secretary comes to order an inquiry? Does he also accept that there are very powerful reasons for holding such an inquiry, including the seriousness of the allegations, the fact that they have recurred on a number of occasions and that the Inquiries Act 2005 states that inquiries should be held if particular events have caused or are capable of causing public concern? I suggest that that threshold may well have been reached.
If there is to be an inquiry—either a continuation of Macpherson or a new public inquiry—I should also like to ask the Government whether they will consider adding to its terms of reference consideration of progress made by the Metropolitan Police following the Macpherson finding of institutional racism and whether further changes need to be made in the light of more recent racism allegations, which I think will be the subject of an Oral Question in your Lordships’ House very soon.
Perhaps I may also refer the Minister to a number of comments made by my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper in relation to the wider allegations of alleged racism involving Metropolitan Police officers reported in recent weeks. It is very important that the IPCC carries out a swift investigation of this. She has also suggested an urgent referral to the IPCC of new information regarding alleged corruption at the time of the original police inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I should also say that we on these Benches give full support for the efforts of the commissioner and commend his response to the recent allegations, including operational changes. There would, I think, be some real benefit if one saw Macpherson reconvened with the specific remit of investigating the corruption but also looking at the progress that the Met has made in tackling racism in the light of recent allegations and in the context of the stance that the commissioner has taken in recent weeks.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the commissioner in these matters, and I am also grateful that he stressed that we have already had two reports—from Macpherson and the IPCC—both of which were unable to find any corruption in the original inquiry. However, obviously that does not mean that we should not look again at these matters and that is why in this Statement, made in response to a Question, we made it clear that initially the Met will hold an internal review. The noble Lord asked when it will conclude. Obviously I cannot give him an answer to that. If it is to be an internal review, it would not be appropriate for me, the Home Secretary or any other Home Office Minister to say how it should be done and when it should report or whether at this stage any assistance from HMIC might be appropriate, as the noble Lord suggested. As the Statement makes clear, my right honourable friend is treating these issues with the utmost seriousness and is currently considering her decision on these matters. It would be wrong for me to try to pre-empt that decision. That is why the Statement makes it clear that she offered to meet Doreen Lawrence to discuss these matters and that she will keep the House updated as and when appropriate.
The noble Lord then asked whether an independent inquiry was the only solution or whether we should have a continuation of Macpherson, and whether cost would influence us in these matters. I can give him an assurance that, within limits obviously—we do not want another Saville inquiry, which the noble Lord will remember cost something of the order of £100 million or £200 million—we will not let cash constrain or limit us too much.
The noble Lord went on to ask whether we would consider the terms of reference for any new inquiry. Again, until we decide whether we will have an inquiry, which is a decision for my right honourable friend, I cannot speculate on that on this occasion.
I have tried to answer every question that the noble Lord has put to me, but I have given him no answers whatever because this is not the moment or stage at which to do so. However, my right honourable friend is considering these matters and they are being taken very seriously indeed. She will consider them in due course.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, while one obviously regrets the need for such a Statement, I thank the Minister for giving it. Among one’s reactions, one can only imagine the frustrations of the many good officers who have been involved in this whole case, and, of course, the feelings of the Lawrence family. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to meet Mrs Lawrence. Does the Minister agree that the whole case confirms the wider importance of the involvement of, and information being given to, the family of victims as well as, when it is not a murder case, to the victims themselves? We have moved a long way, though there is further to go, from the days when the victim was little more than a witness. The role of the family is important in this day and age.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend about understanding the importance of victims and their needs, which is something that I hope we always manage to do. I also endorse what she said about the frustration of what she described as the vast majority of officers. I should like to make it clear to the House at this stage that there is no evidence from the two inquiries we have had. So I should like to refer to the frustration of all officers, on the basis of the basic presumption in English law that all are innocent until shown to be otherwise. However, I accept what she means about the frustration of those who feel that they have been tarnished by the actions of what we hope is not even a tiny minority—we hope that it does not exist at all.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I also thank the Minister for his Statement. I have both a personal and a previous interest in this as I was Home Secretary when the IPCC established its inquiry into this question of corruption. As a former Home Secretary—other former Home Secretaries will no doubt verify this—I understand the difficult and dangerous job that the police do and the general debt of gratitude that we owe them for our security and safety. That is all the more reason why when there are allegations or prima facie indications of corruption within the police force it is not only a source of frustration, it tarnishes the reputation of British policing.
As the Minister will know, on this occasion not only is there recurrently a swirl of allegations around this case, but it is happening in the context, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, of other allegations of racism. There is also at present an inquiry into at least allegations that the police did not judiciously and as assiduously as possible follow up investigations into wider issues connected with the press. That is all the more reason, in addition to the concerns of the family itself, that the Minister should be able to answer two questions. First, can he assure us that when the internal police inquiry is finished—and it is proper that the Home Secretary waits until that operation is finished, as it is an operational matter for the police—the Home Secretary or another government representative will report back to the House within a reasonable time on their considerations? Secondly, will the Government not rule out the possibility of conducting a public inquiry into this matter in order to allay the concerns and fears of the wider public should those remain following the internal police inquiry?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I think that I made it pretty clear when repeating the Statement that my right honourable friend has made it quite clear that she is not ruling out an inquiry, and I repeat that assurance to the noble Lord. I also make it clear that she has promised to keep the House updated as a matter of course. I cannot promise precisely how and when she will do that or whether she will do something before the internal inquiry ends, but there might be other occasions. The precise timing and method by which she keeps the House updated obviously will be a matter for her.
I thank the noble Lord—who I think is the only former Home Secretary in the Chamber at the moment—for his intervention, and particularly for what he said about the police and the debt that we owe them. Let us hope that all these allegations prove to be unfounded as far as possible.
Lord Blair of Boughton
I lived with the Lawrence inquiry for something like 16 years, and I had the honour this year to be invited to give the first Stephen Lawrence inaugural lecture. Like many others, I pay tribute to the Lawrence family, and Doreen Lawrence in particular.
I suggest that the Home Secretary is taking a very sensible line on this matter. When I read the Independent a month or so ago regarding these allegations I was surprised at how many of those allegations I had heard before—how many had been in the investigation by the Guardian in 2002 and by the IPCC, and how many were known to those of us who had worked on the case. My concern now is to distinguish, as statisticians do, between coincidence and causation. The original Macpherson inquiry clearly did not say that there was no corruption, but it could not find any connection between corruption and the failures of the first investigation. I think that that is probably the situation that we still sit with.
I commend the idea that if an inquiry is necessary we should pursue it with absolute vigour. I also commend the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that perhaps the Metropolitan Police’s internal inquiry should be given the support of an independent position from HMIC. This case has so many layers that we should take it very slowly, as the Home Secretary suggests, and very carefully, before we rush to judgment.
Lord Henley
I am very grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, who knows more than anyone about these issues. I am also very grateful for the support that he offers to the Home Secretary as regards taking this very carefully. I think that my right honourable friend will also note in particular his comments on the possible assistance that HMIC may wish to give to the Met in this instance.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, a recent After the Riots report from the Riots Communities and Victims Panel drew on statistics that one in three people think that the police are corrupt and an IPCC survey stated that 43 per cent of black people felt that a complaint against the police would not be dealt with impartially compared with 31 per cent generally. As much as one is encouraged by the comments of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the new leadership at the IPCC, this is the level of public confidence in those bodies. Will the Minister consider what, in essence, I believe Doreen Lawrence is asking for, which is some level of independence and impartiality in this inquiry because, in effect, you have a police investigation into the police? I ask the Minister to comment on the converse side of that: in the current context, is there not a danger that there might be a temptation for the Metropolitan Police to be too hard on past conduct to allay present connected concerns about racism, which also would not be a just resolution to this matter? Would introducing independence and impartiality achieve the best way of establishing the truth of what has happened and would improving public confidence in the police be best for the police themselves and especially for the Lawrence family?
Lord Henley
My Lords, on occasions, I have heard allegations that one in three people think that the police are corrupt, but other surveys seem to show relatively high levels of satisfaction with the police, both in the white community and in the BME community. It is much the same for both groups, although it varies once one gets into sub-groups. I note what my noble friend said about the need for a new independent inquiry. That has not been ruled out and it is a matter that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will consider in due course. As the noble Lord, Lord Blair, put it, at the moment it is right for the Met to conduct and complete its internal review and for this to move on in the appropriate way. I think he was also right to stress the need not to rush on too fast in these matters.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, public confidence in the police is extremely important. If there is an underlying feeling that the police, either in these circumstances or in others when allegations have been made, have acted in a way that is not with full integrity and is corrupt, is the Home Office satisfied with the current arrangements within the police service for monitoring and reassuring the public about the integrity of officers? What steps does the Home Office envisage putting in place to ensure that priority is given to this work when the new regime of police and crime commissioners comes into force later this year?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to talk about the importance of public confidence in the police. If we do not have public confidence in the police, we move to a rather different form of policing and one which neither he nor I would ever wish to see. I shall not go wider into the debate on police and crime commissioners at this stage as I appreciate that there are differences of view between the noble Lord and myself about them. We believe that they will bring greater accountability and that, in future, we shall have better policing as a result. As I made clear in the Statement, my right honourable friend takes all allegations of this sort extremely seriously. If any allegation, and particularly this one, is proved to be true, that can undermine public confidence in the police force which he and I and everyone else in the House considers so important.
Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Bill [HL]
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Sunday Trading in connection with the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Games begin in just over three months and, on all sides of the House, we are determined to make a success of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Both occasions will draw a significant number of visitors from home and abroad to the events themselves, to our tourist attractions, to our pubs and restaurants, and also to our shops.
This is an opportunity for our runners, swimmers and cyclists to showcase their talents. They will be seeking to emulate the achievements of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and of the other distinguished Olympians and Paralympians in this House. It is also an occasion to show the rest of the world that the UK is open for business. We will be showcasing everything that the UK has to offer at a time when the world’s attention is on us, and that includes our retail sector. The Games offer a unique chance for everyone to sample the UK’s superb retail outlets. We have to do everything we can to fully exploit this unique opportunity in a way that fits with the schedule of the Games.
At present, however, the Sunday Trading Act 1994 limits the opening times on Sundays of certain shops with a relevant floor area of more than 3,000 square feet. In particular, the Act restricts them to opening on a Sunday for a maximum six-hour period between 10 am and 6 pm. Just imagine the situation: it is the evening of Sunday 5 August, at 10 pm, and Usain Bolt has just won the 100 metre final; or a week earlier, on Sunday 29 July, and Becky Adlington has just set a new record in the 400 metres freestyle. Thousands of spectators, pumped up with pride and with the Olympic spirit, stream out of the stadium to purchase their souvenirs or their celebratory Olympic mascot, only to find that a host of shops are in fact closed. Under the current rules, only shops of up to 3,000 square feet are open. One square foot over that and they are closed, unless of course they are in a specially exempt sector. Try explaining that to visitors from Germany, Russia, China, India or Japan, let alone the millions of British spectators at the Games, or think about the thousands of spectators at big screens up and down the country who will not be able to do their regular Sunday shopping before or after these events. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that we will remove this restriction during the Olympic and Paralympic Games, starting on Sunday 22 July and concluding on 9 September.
The Bill that we are discussing today will give shops the opportunity, should they wish to take it, to open for longer to make the most of the economic benefits of the Games. It presents retailers with a chance to increase sales, shop workers with a chance to earn some extra money, consumers the flexibility to shop when they want to and it could help to increase temporary employment. It will be good for the Games and good for the economy in these challenging times.
I recognise that the use of the fast-track procedure for this Bill is not ideal. However, I believe that exceptional use of this procedure is justified given the imminence of the Games. We do not want hundreds of thousands of visitors to be welcomed to the UK with closed signs across our shopping centres, and not just here in London.
Lord Cormack
I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Have we not known about these Games for a little while—seven years?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, many arrangements needed to be put in place for the Games. This is an important one, as are many others. We are putting this in place now and it also follows the introduction of a Bill dealing with Sunday trading in another place, which helped to prompt some of the thinking that this is an additional measure to round out what will be spectacularly successful Games with everything laid on. Yes, I have said that it is not ideal that we are dealing with this now. The Government believe that it is important and there is appropriate time for your Lordships to debate what is a relatively simple measure over two days this week.
The Government believe that the Bill should apply to all of England and Wales. The Games are for the whole of the UK, not just for London. Indeed, many of the Olympic and Paralympic events are based outside London. There will be football in Manchester, Newcastle and Coventry; sailing in Weymouth; mountain biking in Essex; rowing at Eton; and canoe slalom in Hertfordshire. In all those sports there will be events on Sundays, including Paralympic sailing and rowing.
Big screens will be put up in towns and cities around the country to enable people to get together to watch the Olympic and Paralympic Games. We want tourists and visitors to those events also to take advantage of longer shop opening hours in the vicinity of those locations. Of course, tourists may travel to other parts of the UK during the Games. We want families, whether they are in east London, the East Midlands or the north-east, to have the flexibility to plan their weekends around local and national events.
However, we recognise that the Bill causes concern for important groups. We have worked with the Opposition, unions and retailers to make sure that the concerns are addressed. In particular, there was concern that shop workers would not have sufficient time after Royal Assent to opt out of Sunday working in time for the start of the suspension period, should they wish to do so. This is because the usual notice period for opting out is three months, and there will be less than three months between Royal Assent in early May—subject of course to the agreement of your Lordships and of another place—and the start of the suspension of the restrictions on 22 July. It is of course important that shop workers in large shops that are affected by the temporary suspension in the Bill who wish to exercise their right to opt out of Sunday working during this period should be able to do so. Although they can give their opting-out notice before Royal Assent—and those who object to Sunday working will generally have opted out already—we recognise the concern that they should be able to do so after Royal Assent.
This right to opt out of Sunday working is already a unique employment protection that is not shared by almost any other sector of the working population, including, for example, the catering sector. The Bill will not diminish the rights that are set out in law. However, in recognition of this concern, we have brought forward an amendment to the Bill that temporarily reduces the three-month opting-out notice period to as little as two months for shop workers in large stores that are affected by the Bill. I will move that amendment in Committee on Thursday. On top of that, and very importantly, shortly after Royal Assent the Government will publish guidance on the implications of the Bill for employers and employees.
I am pleased to see that many large shops are taking a sensible attitude to working with their staff to take advantage of this opportunity. Morrisons, for example—one of the many stores that we spoke to—told us that it will speak to its employees so that they understand the proposals and any impact that they might have on their working hours. It also said that,
“whilst it represents an opportunity for them to earn extra money, it is also important that any of them who do not wish to work on Sundays will still have the right to opt-out”.
That is characteristic of the sensitive approach that large retail groups are taking.
Furthermore, the Government are very mindful that for many people Sunday has a particular religious significance as a day set aside for worship, and a day that is different from the rest of the week. The Government consulted with the church in advance of the Bill to ensure that it was recognised that this is emphatically a temporary measure for the period of the London Olympics and Paralympics only. I make it clear that this is not a test case or Trojan horse for a future permanent relaxation of the rules. The Bill is time-limited in its effect and contains a clear sunset clause. The suspension will be in effect from 22 July 2012, the Sunday before the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, to 9 September 2012, the date of the closing ceremony of the Paralympic Games. If the Government ever wanted to look at a permanent relaxation of the rules, new legislation would be required and consultation would be undertaken. Parliament would also have the opportunity fully to debate the issue. This Bill does not indicate any new government policy on the wider issue of Sunday trading restrictions.
I will also address the potential impact of the Bill on small shops, which has been highlighted. It is not clear whether, how, and to what extent small shops will be affected. However, both the Opposition and the Federation of Small Businesses have asked the Government to carry out an assessment of the impact of the temporary suspension. I assure the House that were the Government ever to decide to look at a permanent relaxation of Sunday trading restrictions, a full impact assessment would be carried out. As part of that, they would of course consider any evidence of the impact that the temporary suspension had had on relevant businesses, large and small.
We listened to the concerns raised about the Bill. We made every effort to consult and to work with a range of interested parties. We spoke to large businesses, including supermarkets and other retailers; to representative organisations such as the CBI, the British Retail Consortium and the British Council of Shopping Centres. We spoke to representatives of small businesses such as the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and the Federation of Small Businesses, which I mentioned. We also spoke to trade unions including USDAW and Unite. As I mentioned, we spoke to the Church of England, the Church in Wales and the Roman Catholic Church.
We also offered briefing sessions on the Bill to all Peers and Members of another place. We had numerous discussions and exchanges with the Opposition. They agreed several weeks ago to the use of the fast-track procedure for the Bill, subject to us considering employees’ notice periods for opting out of Sunday working. As I explained, I brought forward amendments that I believe will deal with precisely that point. Despite that, and despite further letters from me and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business at the end of last week, we have not yet had confirmation from the Opposition that they will fully support the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is about to give us that confirmation. After all, it was the party opposite that secured the Olympics for the UK, and it was a great achievement for all concerned with the bid. It would be a huge shame if it was now not to support a temporary measure aimed at ensuring that the UK can make the most of the opportunity that the Games will give us. I hope that we can demonstrate to the world in a small way through this debate that we are pulling constructively together to put in place a further measure that will ensure the success of the Games.
As I said, the Games are an opportunity to showcase the UK’s skills, talents and businesses to the rest of the world. They will be an occasion for unparalleled entertainment, and we want to make sure that everyone can enjoy them to the full. Allowing extended Sunday trading for UK retailers will be a small change that could have a significant impact on the enjoyment of the Games, on our national economy and on our international image. It is one that has been done elsewhere on similar occasions. It may surprise noble Lords to learn that even Germany, with its notoriously tight restrictions on Sunday opening—far tighter than ours—eased its opening hours restrictions during the football World Cup in 2006 and then reimposed them. If Germany could do it, I am sure that we in the UK can and should. The Bill will give employees, consumers and businesses the opportunity fully to seize the vast opportunities that will come from this once-in-a-lifetime event. I commend the Bill to the House and beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, when I first saw this Bill, I found it quite perplexing. It raised a number of questions in my mind. The first was the question that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has already raised: why has it taken seven years since we were allocated the Olympics for someone, with fewer than 100 days to go to the Games, to realise that there is a bit of a problem? When talking to people, it has been suggested to me that it was only because the retailers on and adjacent to the Olympic park realised that they were not going to be able to be open to sell souvenirs on a Sunday. If that is indeed why this is coming forward at this time, someone in the Olympic organisation has been pretty incompetent. Even if one accepts, as seems perfectly reasonable, as the Minister said, that the shops on and adjacent to the park itself and other major Olympic venues should be open for the full duration of sessions of the Games, it seems a very big leap to get to the provisions of the Bill. Why should a B&Q in Carlisle or a Comet in Margate be able to stay open all hours on eight Sundays just because we want attendees at Olympic events to be able to buy a T-shirt on their way home?
It could be argued that actually it does not really matter and that this is a storm in a teacup. No one could argue that this is the most significant problem facing the nation, but it seems to me that it matters for two reasons. The first relates to the public debate about Sunday trading. The current Sunday trading laws are the product of years of debate, and I believe that they reflect a broadly settled view of an acceptable balance between the right to shop at virtually any time of the day or night and the recognition that Sunday, whether you are religious or not, Christian or not, is a separate and special day, and we should retain at least a vestige of that specialness because it benefits individuals and families. It is also the case that the restrictions on larger stores on Sundays go some way to halt the ever-onward march of the bigger boys against small shopkeepers. Therefore, I very much welcome the Minister’s assurance that this is not a Trojan horse, the thin end of the wedge, or whatever analogy one would like to use, to change the settled view of the country on Sunday trading.
The second reason why this is of greater significance is that shops are not machines. They need people to run them and, to put it mildly, the people who run them are less keen than the Government on this legislation. No doubt a number of noble Lords will have seen the representations from USDAW about the views of its members. Admittedly, they are USDAW members, not an absolute representation of everyone who works in a shop, but when you ask 20,000 shop workers what they think, and 78 per cent are opposed to longer working hours for the Olympics and 73 per cent believe that the Bill will lead to more pressure on them to work on Sundays against their will, it is a matter of concern.
I heard what the Minister said about Morrisons. In the nicest possible way, it would say that, wouldn’t it? I believe that many people who do not want to work additional hours on Sundays, whatever the rules about them being able to request an exemption, will be pressurised to work on Sundays and, in the current climate, will feel that they have to work on Sundays for longer hours against their will.
I very much welcome the Government’s planned amendments to make it easier for people to opt out if they do not want to continue working longer hours or to have longer hours on Sunday. I just question how effective in reality, on a shop-by-shop basis, that will be.
If I am pretty grumpy about the timing of the Bill and its geographic extent and implications for shop workers, what are the reasons why I might adopt a more balanced view and even support it? The first is that it is obvious that the Olympics are a unique event. They are a global festival. The eyes of the world are going to be on the UK and, as we have done with so many other things to do with the Olympics, whether it is the cost of the stadiums and ancillary facilities or accepting that we have special lanes for the cars of Olympics officials, we have accepted that you do not do the Olympics in a half-hearted way. That is the right approach to take. To a large extent, one is bound by the rules of the organisers, and in assessing how to run the Olympics one must have in one’s mind how other countries have done it and how we can be seen to do at least as well as many other countries that have had the Olympics. In many ways, the preparations for the Olympics in the UK have been extremely well organised, and while I am being grumpy about this issue, in many other respects the organisation, the planning and the construction work have been exemplary.
The other thing that flows from that is the Minister’s point about how other countries have approached Sunday trading. It is quite extraordinary that in Germany the rules on Sunday trading were relaxed to the extent they were because Germany has a much stronger view about Sundays and their role than we do. It is very interesting that the academic research done about the positive and negative impacts of the World Cup in Germany showed that, in aggregate, the economic impact was as near zero as made no difference, but the great impact was that people in Germany felt better about Germany to a quite considerable extent. That is clearly a very positive benefit. Despite meeting other grumpy people, who in some cases are grumpy because they do not want to be involved in the Games at all, I have no doubt that I, like most people in the country, will be absolutely captivated by them, and I suspect that on the middle Sunday of the Games, I will be glad that there are no people grumbling that the shops are shut.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, my only reservation about this Bill is the sunset clause. The relaxation, or normalisation, of Sunday shopping hours lasts only from 22 July to 9 September. Of course it is welcome, but now that we are debating it, one cannot help but notice what is inconsistent, protectionist and, indeed, sexist about our Sunday shopping laws. Is it not odd that the restrictions affect only large shops over 3,000 square feet in size? This immediately sweeps away any rational objection to Sunday trading. It cannot be argued that there should be time for families to be together and go to church when non-large shops are open.
Not only are small shops open, but we all expect to be served on Sunday by those who work and support, at varying hours and seamlessly, in TV, radio and cinemas. The clergy and, no doubt, their wives are busy on Sunday. The pubs are open. Concerts are held. Sport and health clubs go on. Hospitals and medical services are fully staffed. Would we not be shocked if we were told that all married people in hospital service were going home to feed their families? Care homes are, of course, open. Museums, the police and the fire service are working. Restaurants are open, no doubt selling pasties. Garages are open. Traffic wardens are at work. The AA and the RAC are out there working to rescue us. Transport is more or less fully functional. Flights are flying. Swimming pools are open, and so are gyms and hotels. The telephone, electricity and gas are working with people behind the scenes to support them. The stately homes are open, as are the markets and the funfairs. The newspapers are being printed and sold. Garden centres and farm shops are open. No doubt that list could be added to. There are no such restrictions in Scotland, hardly a less religious or family-oriented nation than England.
More and more people, especially women, are in employment and find it impossible to fit in all the chores in normal shopping hours during the week. Indeed, it is my view that banks, post offices, hairdressers and dry cleaners need to be open on Sundays. Since there is—and remains—no compulsion on a worker to work on Sunday and since we are a multicultural society, there is no threat to religious freedom here.
Family togetherness is threatened now by the opening of pubs and the availability of sports on Sunday. In any case, a favoured family togetherness activity is, precisely, shopping. If convenience stores are accepted, why is there no concern for the family togetherness of their owners? Is it perhaps protectionism at work? Noise concern is misplaced because there is noise already from the various activities that I have mentioned.
There is something—dare I say—a bit snobbish about controlling supermarkets and big stores when none of the other activities and outlets that I have mentioned is controlled. A YouGov poll in March this year revealed that 35 per cent of adults wanted a permanent relaxation of Sunday hours; 31 per cent supported the temporary relaxation that we are discussing this evening; only 27 per cent were opposed. Forty-six per cent of Scots supported permanent relaxation—and they should know because they already have it. The hours apply, as has been said, only to England and Wales. A OnePoll survey in February this year showed that 33 per cent want a permanent relaxation and 22 per cent want Sunday closure. A Sunday Telegraph poll in March of 1,000 adults showed that 37 per cent wanted permanent relaxation, and that 63 per cent of women did.
The existing six-hour allowance is a bit of a nuisance. A large shop is typically open only from, say, 10 am to 4 pm. There is not really enough time before lunch if you are preparing it, or indeed after lunch if it has been a good lunch, to get to the supermarket for the necessary hour and a half or two hours. The Government have shown great enthusiasm for the Mary Portas-led study of how to revive the high street. The high street is dead on a Sunday. If more shops were open there, they would rival the out-of-town shops.
I mentioned sexism. The sexism here is that objections to longer Sunday opening hours appear to come mostly—but not always—from men. They are quite happy to have the pub, sport and the garage on Sunday as usual, but I suppose they do not want their wives out when they might be required at home to make lunch. Cooking, visiting relatives, laundry and childcare are all taken for granted for very long hours on Sundays. Would it not be wonderful if all women downed tools at home on Sunday on the grounds that it was a day of rest? What working women want, quite apart from the Olympics period, is a day when they can catch up with the tasks impossible to perform during the working week—number one: shopping, preferably with another family member.
So here’s to the success of the longer Sunday opening hours—not only good for the Olympics but good for family activities and very good for women.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
My Lords, it will not surprise the House that the Church of England, like most Christian churches, is no great enthusiast for Sunday training, notwithstanding the most excellent speech that we have heard from across the Chamber. Just as the Olympic ideals promote the principle that the Olympic Games are about much more than the games themselves, so the way the working week is ordered says some powerful things about the priorities of a flourishing society.
There is a danger of contradictory messages here, of the desire to create a better and more wholesome society and having the time to do so, and finding a natural space within a week in which that can be encouraged somewhat further. I stress to your Lordships that the church’s reluctance to enthuse about Sunday trading is not about its own institutional self-interest. Our churches offer ministry seven days a week, every week of the year, but Sunday remains the one day of the week when most people, by and large, are able to share common time for their own pursuits. The work/life balance is not merely an individual concern, where the life part of the equation cannot be shared with a wider spectrum of other people. Our whole society, I believe, begins to break down if we do not have something that reflects that value.
The number of people who can share a common day of leisure forms a critical mass below which many of our voluntary institutions cannot survive. Too often in debates on Sunday trading we have heard about the virtues of shopping as a shared leisure activity. But for people to shop, others must work. Very significant numbers of people, including high proportions of women and men with family responsibilities, are employed in retailing and distribution, and a great many other people in other walks of life are obliged to work when the shops are open. We are all consumers, but if Sunday trading was to become an unfettered norm, we would pretty soon all be workers too, and the rich associational life of our nation—its charities, amateur sports, extended family life and, yes, its churches—which is already desperately fragile, would crumble.
I cannot warmly commend this Bill, although I suspect it will pass. None the less, I thank the Ministers concerned for their careful consultation with my colleagues at Church House, and for their assurances that this Bill is prompted solely by the unique circumstances surrounding the Olympic Games, which will have an impact on many of our communities for the duration of the events—although I beg leave to doubt that the traders of Shepton Mallet will see much change in their normal footfall.
I am grateful that the Bill contains an unequivocal sunset clause, but no Government can have complete control over the way in which events may be used to support other arguments in the future. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances that this is no stalking-horse for future deregulation of shopping hours, and I trust that this Bill will do precisely what it says on the tin.
However, I give notice that the church will be on guard against arguments from any quarter that try to insinuate that this Olympic experiment has been so successful that it must be extended in the future. An exceptional measure for an exceptional period in time is not replicable and it will give us no worthwhile economic indicators about deregulation in general. In the past, the calls for greater deregulation have not come from across the whole retail industry but from the chains, which saw an opportunity to steal a march on their competitors. I gather that the present proposal is not universally welcomed across the industry and that many stores will not be availing themselves of its provisions. However, competitive pressure has already forced Sunday opening on some firms that did not want to open on Sundays and we must be wary lest this permissive Bill becomes a covert lever for wider deregulation later.
I remind your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has also done, of the rights of shop workers to opt out of Sunday working if they so wish. These rights were part of the reason the Sunday Trading Act 1994 finally made it on to the statute book after earlier attempts at deregulation by Mrs Thatcher’s Government had been roundly defeated. They were a crucial concession and yet they have not proved to be all that robust in practice. I am glad that we shall see an amendment to this Bill that regularises the opt-out for staff, but it must be a robust amendment, which does what it says on the tin. If the Olympic period is such an exceptional opportunity for British business, it is only right that those whose labour makes that possible—on all days of the week—are properly protected.
It would be extremely churlish of me not to conclude by saying that I believe and hope that the Olympic Games will be a resounding success for our country, and that if this Bill is to be passed, it will be limited to simply that period of time.
Baroness Trumpington
Fuss, fuss, fuss, my Lords. I cannot for the life of me understand why a small Bill covering a very short period of time should be used by USDAW in this unnecessary and provocative way. Incidentally, I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that this Bill should never be used to increase Sunday trading hours. I have been associated with the opening and closing hours of shops since the Shops Bill in 1986, continuing with the Sunday Trading Bill in 1993. Not many of us are left, although it is worth mentioning that my main opponent, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who at that time I regarded as the enemy but whom I now think of as a good old boy, is still around. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is not speaking today. As far as I know, she is the only other remaining noble Lord from that time.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells may be interested, in case he missed this information in 1994, that the then right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in debate in this House stated that,
“in the two years since Sunday trading has, quite illegally, become common, church attendance has risen”.—[Official Report, 29/3/94; col. 1011.]
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, against Sunday trading was somewhat dented by the fact that I was able to tell him that the Co-op in Scotland was already trading on Sundays. Indeed, as has been mentioned, Sunday trading in Scotland has never been enormously prolific but always legal. In 1994, I said that I was grateful to Lord Harris of High Cross for saying that I was the grandmother of Sunday trading. As such and so many years later, I wish this Bill God-speed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after the grandmother of Sunday trading, having survived so long since 1994. It is not without reason that there was a long debate about this subject prior to 1994 in which the grandmother played a very important part. However, when it came to debating the Bill in Parliament, Divisions arose. They were on a free vote because matters of conscience were thought to be involved in the subject matter of the Bill. In due course, these reasons were elaborated. The principal religious reason was the basis for a weekly day of rest, which was clearly set out in an article in the Times not long ago by our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi. Of course, religious days of rest are not exclusively Christian by any means. Other religions that embrace such days of rest also have them as a precious part of their heritage. In the Christian tradition, Sunday of course is referred to in connection with the commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord.
Since 1994, Governments have raised the question of whether the restrictions in the 1994 Act should be altered. The Labour Government consulted on this matter and I remember Alistair Darling saying that it had found no appetite for change. This Government have also consulted on at least two occasions—first, in the retail review and, secondly, in the red tape review. On both occasions it appears that no appetite for change was revealed. On the great deliberation with which the Sunday trading provisions had been reached in Parliament, I must say that I found it slightly insensitive that they should have been regarded as red tape.
As the right reverend Prelate has mentioned, other aspects include family life. There are few occasions in the nature of our routines when families have the freedom to get together. On the whole, Sunday is certainly the day on which that is more possible than on most other days. Again, as the right reverend Prelate has said, that is a very important part of the structure of our society. I for one would not wish to have anything to do with arrangements that make that more difficult to carry on.
As has been said, the opening of large shops is what, after great deliberation, was prohibited or restricted by the 1994 Act. It was on the basis that small shops should be allowed to carry on. That has been the balance of our Sundays ever since.
Many people will come from countries that have their own restrictions on Sunday trading. Indeed, as the Minister said, Germany has quite strict restrictions on Sunday trading. It did, of course, relax them—it was not said exactly to what extent—in connection with the World Cup. That is a factor to be taken into account. Many people will be coming from other countries to our country for the Olympics. We hope that they will come in great numbers and that the whole event will be a complete success. Those people—some with restrictions of their own, some without—will see the normal balance of life still flourishing all the way through the Olympics.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others in saying that the general arrangements for the Olympics have been extremely good. Some of the arrangements will still be tested—the traffic arrangements, in particular, will be tested very severely, I have no doubt—but the organisation that has been responsible for planning the Olympics has done so extremely well and I hope that the event will reward it through the extent of its success.
The idea that this should happen for eight Sundays has only recently been raised. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said during the Minister’s opening address, it is not as though the date of the Olympics has been unknown until the Budget. It reminds me of the story of the man who saw a boy running for the train. He said, “You are running fast enough now, but did you start early enough?”. We seem to have left that part out of the equation. This matter requires sensitive treatment in the ways of time as well as in the other ways to which the Minister referred. The Bill as introduced has now shown itself as requiring amendment and the Government propose to amend it.
As to the issue of workers in large shops, my noble friend Lord Newby has given the figures. One of the disturbing figures from the survey of 20,000 workers is that many of those who do not wish to work on Sunday feel pressured to do so and will feel increased pressure on the Sundays of the Olympics. After all, the family is an important unit in relation to the Olympics as well as to every other successful event in a similar situation.
The question of what good, if any, this will be for the economy is a matter of speculation. Your Lordships will have no doubt carefully studied the Explanatory Notes that have been printed on the Bill. They tell us that an impact assessment is not necessary. Notwithstanding that, my noble friend Lady Wilcox’s department has in fact carried one out and the report is at appendix C. Your Lordships might be surprised that it is hard to find appendix A and appendix B, but it is even harder to find appendix C because it is not there at all. So the impact assessment from the department is, so far, private.
The idea that the opening of big shops will be a signal that Britain is open for business strikes me as bizarre because it is a temporary measure. After the eight Sundays have passed, will that be a signal that Britain is shut for business? I certainly hope not. We need all the business that we can get, but that does not mean that we need to destroy or damage our own way of life in order to achieve it.
The procedure used in connection with the Bill distresses me considerably. It is a pity that we should have to look at this matter in a rushed way on this occasion. The workers in the industry, as well as everyone else, have to be taken into account, and I strongly feel that the letter that we have received from the union that represents the principal number of workers in the industry has to be taken into account. As I say, I am distressed by the way this has happened. Deep considerations underlie the arrangements that we have had in this country for some time—when I say “this country”, I mean England and Wales—and I am distressed that these arrangements should not be on display for people who come to visit us for the Olympics.
Notwithstanding that, I hope the Olympics will be very successful. However, I am not sure that this Bill will contribute to that particularly.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, it might help if I just explain that I think in Recesses some things do not get checked as carefully as they would normally, and there were no annexes A and B. Indeed, the advice was that the economic impact is very difficult to assess because of the nature of this Bill and the nature of the assessment that could reasonably be made. However, I am happy to make sure that we publish the impact assessment and make it available tomorrow ahead of the Committee stage. I stress to noble Lords that it does not strictly need to have been published, but in the name of full disclosure of information ahead of further consideration of the Bill, I am happy to make sure that it is available to noble Lords ahead of Committee.
Lord Judd
My Lords, it is always a privilege, and indeed a joy, to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, who on issues of this kind sets a very high example in terms of the wisdom that he brings to bear on the issues before us.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in which he drew attention to the letter from USDAW and the statistics it contains. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was right to do that, because whatever we say and whatever our position, the burden of what we are proposing falls on the shop workers. It seems absolutely extraordinary to move into it for a temporary period—which accepts that it is something we would not normally want to do—without taking the views of the people who it is most going to affect fully into account.
I will not repeat them, but one of the statistics that impressed me greatly was that only 11 per cent—just over one in 10—of shop workers believes that they want to work in this situation. It seems rather difficult to accept that we go ahead with this when almost 90 per cent of shop workers say they do not want to do it and when it has all been apparently agreed that this is something we do not want permanently. We need to take this issue far more seriously than we apparently are. There have been consultations, but this was an effort to talk to the workers themselves and ask them what their views were.
I hope the Minister will forgive my drawing attention to the way he presented the case, but I am always intrigued in situations like these by the fact that people will have the right to opt out. But why on earth should the emphasis be that way? If you are going to have it, surely it should be about who wants to opt in, because we are intervening in what should be the normal arrangement of our affairs and expecting the shop workers to go along with us. I find it rather high-handed to say, “Well of course the person has the right to opt out”. Then there is the whole issue of the reality as distinct from the theory. I suggest there is not one of us who, in our heart of hearts, does not realise that in an awful lot of situations there will be all sorts of pressures one way or another for workers to comply when this provision has been introduced.
All this bears far more careful consideration. The Minister also referred to the irrefutable fact, which we should remember, that the provisions we have to protect workers’ rights in this context do not apply to everybody. They do not apply to an awful lot of people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said. However, because something we believe to be right in one context does not apply to a lot of other people, that does not make the thing we believe to be right for the particular people we are concerned with wrong. It suggests quite the reverse—that perhaps the same provisions should be more widely available.
I am not a Sabbatarian but I do happen to believe that one of the crises in our society and its whole culture is a creeping and suffocating blandness in which everything becomes the same. Whatever the accident in history, in which of course religious conviction has played a big part, the concept that there are some days that are different from other days in all sorts of intangible ways helps to lighten the load of inevitability and monotony that seems so much to diminish quality of life for people. That is why we have been at great pains in our society—but I do not think that it all came from benevolence; a lot of it came through hard, determined and courageous struggle by workers and their leaders—so that, when there is no Sunday provision, there is a recognition that people are entitled to a day off every week. Of course, what is being proposed here is that people may well be, as I understand it, although not necessarily automatically, expected to work in addition to the normal working week on a Sunday. I find that really rather a strange paradox.
As the right reverend Prelate put it so well, the whole Olympic ideal is about taking us out of ourselves and seeing bigger things than just the mundane, monotonous practicalities of life. It is about seeing spirit and adventure and people being able to join in and that imagination that goes with the whole culture of the Olympic ideal. To say that for all sorts of immediate pressing commercial reasons a particular section of people are to have less freedom than they would otherwise normally have is a very strange paradox.
To conclude, this Bill illustrates the need for some profound thinking for where we are going as a society. Can the Minister reflect on the words that he used himself? He was talking about an unrivalled commercial opportunity, or words to that effect. There is a lot of anxiety among a lot of people about the commercialisation of sport and what it is doing to undermine the integrity, the character and the spirit of what sport should be about. To say crudely that here is an unrivalled opportunity to maximise our commercial opportunities on the backs of the athletes is quite a significant thing to be saying about the vision, imagination and self-confidence in idealistic terms of our society. It disturbs me—and it also disturbs me that we are saying that we must not miss an opportunity like this to demonstrate that Britain is alive and well for business. Of course, I want the world to know that we are alive and well for business, but I also want people to get a feel of what our society is like and the values that we take as important. If we send a signal to the world that we are prepared, on an issue such as this, to override something that is normally important, what is that signal to the world about our values and self-confidence as a nation? It is a pretty pathetic message to send out to the world. For all those reasons, what worries me is that it is a short-sighted, mean and oppressive piece of legislation that is unnecessary—because we do not pretend to argue, and I hope that we mean it, that it is something that we want permanently to happen in our society. It is quite unnecessary and I really cannot see why the House is being troubled with it among all the more important things that there are for us to be doing at this time.
Lord Bates
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who does us a great service by touching the soul of the nation as well as by giving the social and economic arguments that we are about to look at. I will focus more on the economic arguments, although this is a bit like going down memory lane. I recall beginning my political campaigning with the campaign “Keep Sunday Special” against the Shops Bill in 1986, so this debate is like “Adversaries Reunited”. There I was on one side of the gangway handing out leaflets to political conference-goers that said, “Families that pray together stay together”, while the retail consortium was, on the other side, handing out leaflets that said, “The family that shops together stops together”. I do not think that the debate rose a great deal above that, but I hope in my time today to focus on some core themes and zero in on them.
I very much enjoyed the opening speech on the Bill by my noble friend the Minister, who has an acute understanding of these things. I want to make an argument about the nature of this Bill and what it says about the direction of the economy. Effectively, it is saying that there is a great commercial opportunity. We are totally agreed about the opportunity. The Olympics and the Paralympics—even more the Paralympics, because they are very much coming home to London, where they were invented in 1946—are a tremendous opportunity and they have been fantastically well organised. They are going to showcase Britain to the rest of the world. All of that is a given.
My contribution will focus for a little while on whether we ought to be looking purely at deregulation and opening our businesses for longer, or whether we ought to be looking a little more deeply at where economic value actually comes from. Here I take my inspiration from my father, who ran a successful small business in the north-east of England for 30 years. He was absolutely rigid about not wanting to work for any more than 40 hours per week and he always wanted to have his lunch hour. He used to say to me, “Michael, you know the truth of the matter is that it’s not the hours you put in but what you put into the hours that counts”. I thought that that was a very profound economic message. It is not about saying simply that we need to fling open the doors of Britain and work every hour available. We need to think about what we are yielding in terms of product and profitability in the process of doing so.
To give an example, at the moment we are being told of the great need to liberalise opening hours, but what would happen if you asked anybody in the street, “Do you know for how long shops are allowed to open at present”? The answer should be 150 hours per week, while we are talking here about whether they ought to be able to open for what I suppose is the maximum of 168. There is only 18 hours’ difference. The reality is that businesses would be crazy to open for 150 hours per week, as they are allowed to at present, because of the diminishing returns that come from having long hours when there are no customers. What you need is to somehow tailor your opening hours to make sure that you are available to serve at the time when the majority of your customers wish to be served. That is a basic principle and we need to remember it, but businesses are making that judgment all the time.
In chasing longer hours, we need to be conscious of what that is doing not only to the social fabric—a very important point, which I would not diminish—but to the economic fabric of the nation, because as the cake remains the same, you simply divide it up over a greater number of hours. The greater number of hours that you are open, the more your costs increase and therefore your marginal utility and productivity reduce. That is what I want to put a marker down on, in the time that I have available. Our focus and passion should not be so much on or about being open all hours; it should be about productivity.
What do I mean by that? According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2011 a full-time employee in the UK worked an average of 42.7 hours a week. That was greater than his or her counterparts: in Germany the figure was 42, in France it was 41.1 and in Ireland it was 39.5 hours. However, the measure of productivity per hour is really what matters. Whether you are UK plc or JM Bates and Co in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, the answer is pretty much the same: it is productivity that counts.
When you look at the hours worked you get one answer, but here is the one that really matters: where does Britain rank compared with its competitors in terms of productivity? There you get a different answer. We may be open longer, but our productivity per hour worked is 107.2, given a base of 100 as an EU average. The productivity in France, whose economic model we often sneer at from this side of the Channel, is 136—almost 30 per cent more. In Germany it is 123.7—20 per cent more. In Ireland it is 125.6—nearly 25 per cent more. Essentially, I am saying that in these times we have to ensure that we are focusing on the right thing. If we just focus on saying, “We need to ensure that our pubs, offices and so on are open for business for longer and longer”, but do not focus on the quality and the productivity of what goes on in them, we will miss the point about what is so desperately needed in the economy.
If I were looking to generate a bit of interest in support of this, I might look at how we conduct our affairs in this House. We were told, just before the Easter Recess in March, that there was not enough business for us to look at last week and therefore the House was not going to sit. The reason given by my noble friend the Chief Whip—who, of course, in all matters is absolutely correct—was that it costs £496,000 for your Lordships’ House to sit. As we did not have sufficient business, we were not going to be open. That is a fair point. The quality of our scrutiny of legislation is what counts, not the number of hours that we are open. Heaven knows what the response would be if we said that we would all be coming in to scrutinise the Sunday trading liberalisation Bill on a Sunday—there would be a hue and cry. We need to remember that we are legislators legislating for people who have to do just that. As much as we might say that it is a wonderful thing, having watched Usain Bolt achieve a world record time on a Sunday evening, to be able to rush out and buy a T-shirt or a beer or something, someone would probably have to miss the final in order for that to be made possible and for us to be served. We need to remember that.
The heart of the issue has to be the economic case, because it may have relevance further down the track. We have been given different figures. Research by the Centre for Retail Research tells us that this act of liberalisation will yield £189.9 million. We then have another piece of research, produced by the Association of Convenience Stores, that says that the Bill will actually cost the economy £480 million. That is a pretty wide discrepancy. That is why the impact assessment that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern alluded to, and which I followed him into the Table Office in search of, is very important. We need to have sight of it, not necessarily to spoil the party around the Olympics and the Paralympics—not at all; it is going to be a great event—but to learn something about what the driver of our economy is, and how therefore we ought to legislate and make ourselves competitive in future.
We need to have the self-confidence and belief to say that the measure of the competitiveness of our economy is not in the fact that some tourist visiting the Olympics and Paralympics can go out at 10 pm on a Sunday after the 100-metres final and buy a tube of toothpaste, but in the quality of the work, the skills of our employees and the level of investment and of innovation present in our businesses. That is what we are showcasing in these Olympic and Paralympic Games and we should remember that.
Lord Glasman
My Lords, this is the fourth time I have spoken in the House and the third time I have spoken about Sunday, and closing shops on a Sunday, in relation to the Olympics. I want to say to my noble friend Lord Judd what an inspirational speech that was. I was involved with London Citizens in the bid for the Olympics and the part of the agreement about the living wage that would be agreed with all stakeholders. We were not told then that there would be these measures about supermarkets. It remains the case that there is not a single supermarket chain in England that pays a living wage.
We succeeded with the living wage. There is over 90 per cent compliance with it—it is £7.85 an hour, plus holiday pay, sick pay and pension—but the quality of the workforce remains key, and we have neglected that. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, made an excellent point. I am very interested in the statements by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in favour of Germany, and I look forward to emergency legislation being used to get workers represented on boards, vocational training and regional banks. I am sure that this is coming soon, but this is also the final echo of one of the most dismal Budgets that any of us can remember. It is another failed piece of political thought.
I am sure I am not alone in the House in being deeply grateful that, between Athens and the classical conception and London, Christianity emerged. This diminished the power of money and challenged the absolute sovereign authority of rulers. That was the problem with the classical inheritance: there was no mediation between the domination of the rich and powerful. Christianity has taught us the importance of work and rest. This is a crucial part of the Conservative tradition and an important part of the Christian inheritance, and it is absolutely central to the Labour tradition. This defies the liberal logic, which says that the only generator of wealth is technology and investment, and it also looks to the importance of the workforce and of rest.
In my campaign for London Citizens, the overwhelming majority of people working were women and there was exploitation in retail outlets. The living wage campaign was part of strengthening family life, creating a pause and some rest. What we have here is the worst kind of capitulation to the Olympic classical logic, which says that emergency measures are necessary to increase the exploitation of people. I ask noble Lords to appreciate that, when you are at the bottom end of the scale and work for a very low wage but wish to improve your life, it is often very difficult to resist the demands of the boss. That is a fact. We all wish to do better. We found all the time that the pressures to work longer and in bad conditions remained, because workers lacked the confidence to associate and to demand that day of rest.
It is very important to say that panic is a very bad basis on which to build legislation and politics. We have had a long time to think about the Olympics, and using this emergency method to bring in this legislation is also consistent with the worst aspect of the political inheritance before the emergence of Christianity because it sides with the strong against the weak, with big businesses and with big supermarket chains. Winston Churchill said that the most important British tradition was Sunday. It was the most perfect expression because it was not an obsessively religious day. It was a day for family time, a day of rest and of pause. I am really concerned about this.
Baroness Deech
Will the noble Lord explain why these sentiments about family togetherness, Sunday being a special day and well paid workers do not apply to nurses in the NHS—the biggest employer in western Europe—taxi drivers, garage attendants, train and bus conductors, barmaids, sports attendants et cetera? Why do they apply only to those working in shops bigger than 3,000 square feet?
Lord Glasman
I begin my answer by saying that, certainly within the framework of the NHS and other large employers, there is a much better organised union system. I can speak only from my experience in the retail trade to say that the conditions of its workers were characterised by a lack of organisation and extremely strong pressure to work longer hours. I will look at the other cases in due course.
The point that I was making was about supporting the strong and larger retailers against the smaller ones. It is a distinctive feature of a tradition of our country, which goes across all forms of people, that having some pause in the demands of the working week is extremely important. In relation to the type of procedure that has been used to push this through, there has been a lack of proper negotiation. One of the characteristic features of Athens and Rome was the stipulation of decrees without any form of negotiation. One of the founding points of Labour was that there should always be some form of negotiation there. Negotiation is very different from consultation, which both sides of the House should bear in mind.
The nature of the procedure and the assumption of who should benefit—that it should be businesses and consumers, without adequate recognition of the cost involved for the workforce—is an extremely important consideration, too. Therefore, while I welcome the opportunity to debate this, we should say that there are traditions involved that oppose it and do not undermine the importance of the Games. In China and Russia we heard the strong echo of a very nasty tradition in the use of the Games. I remember the Red Army being used to shield the athlete who lit the flame in China, where there were certainly no restrictions on the exploitation of workers or oppression by the state. It would be wonderful if, in England, we did not just capitulate to the corporate demands of the Games but used them as a showcase for our gentler and more humane traditions.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I start by declaring my relevant interests in this debate. I sit on the Diversity Committee and the Athletes’ Committee of the London 2012 organising committee, also known as LOCOG. I also undertake other work for LOCOG that is listed in the register. However, none of it is linked to the topic of this debate. I also know that the noble Lord, Lord Coe, is disappointed not to be here this evening to take part in the debate.
With 94 days to go to the opening ceremony of the Olympics, I have to admit that I am in somewhat of a quandary. I have always said that we should maximise the opportunities of the Olympics and Paralympics—not just the sporting ones—because the Games will happen on home soil only once in our lifetime. However, I also feel passionately about protecting the hours of Sunday trading. The briefings that I have received on this topic put forward a very persuasive argument for opposing the Bill and extending Sunday trading hours. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has said that 73 per cent of its members believe that longer Sunday opening hours will lead to more pressure on them to work on a Sunday against their will. It is very important that we protect shop workers. The Federation of Small Businesses has also cited Sir Stuart Rose as saying that longer trading hours will not increase consumer spending, although in very different circumstances from what will happen during the Games.
On a personal note, I have to say that I like a day that is different from the rest of the week, and I think that the hours that are currently available for shopping are adequate. However, while I fundamentally oppose long-term change to Sunday trading laws, my quandary is that I recognise that during the Olympics and Paralympics it would make a great deal of sense for there to be increased flexibility to allow those visiting the Games or the general public the opportunity to spend their money at what will be an unusual and different time in the UK.
I have been to six different Games—to five as an athlete and I was working at one—and while each city and country hosts them in a different way, we should not underestimate the excitement, fervour or feel-good factor that occurs at Games times, and we should be ready for that. During Games time, there will be a significant number of different people, as compared to the usual tourists, who will visit not just London but cities around the UK. They will be visiting the live sites and there will be many different ways that families will gather together to support our athletes and the Games, and watch the events. They will not just be people who have bought tickets for the Games.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised a valid point about whether the provisions of the Bill should be available to all shops. I considered this carefully, because my original reasoning was that it would make sense for the Bill to affect only shops around the Games sites or live sites. However, considering the way that families will experience the Games, there might be people in all the different parts of England and Wales who will want to buy paint or clothes at different times. Where I live in the north-east of England, the shops in the nearest towns—we do not have many shops in Eaglescliffe —do not open on a Sunday; they are all shut, apart from two weeks before Christmas. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said regarding shops being open if they have customers. That is incredibly important, and I really hope that the decisions taken by the shops will be based on their specific circumstances and that they do not feel forced to open.
I also considered whether, rather than having just a block of opening, it might be useful for the provisions to extend just for the Olympics and Paralympics. However, between the Games there will be a massive turnover in the city. The people who may have escaped London because they do not want to be around during the Olympics might be coming back. Athletes are in and out, people choose to stay on at the end of the Games, and people come in early for the Paralympics. Although I am reluctant to say it, having the whole block of opening is probably the most sensible way forward.
What I feel strongly about is that the Government have said:
“Should the Government ever decide that it is appropriate to look again at the possibility of a more permanent relaxation of Sunday trading restrictions a full consultation would be undertaken”.
That is important to reiterate. We cannot use Games time in any way as an accurate trial of the circumstances. These Games are completely and utterly exceptional. In the cities that I have been to during the Olympics and Paralympics—Barcelona, Atlanta, Sydney, Athens and Beijing; and I have spent an extensive time in each of those cities, leading up to the Games and afterwards—there is such a different atmosphere that I do not think we can use this in any way as a trial.
However, we have to be aware of the effect on small businesses during these specific circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, referred to whether people choose to do work on a Sunday. Possibly because I do not have a life, I work on a Sunday, but that is my choice. An awful lot of people who work in shops will not feel that they have that choice. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about people having the opportunity to opt in, rather than out, is important because a lot of those workers will feel a certain amount of pressure to work.
Having said all that, London and the UK have consistently said they are open for business. The Olympics and Paralympics are a massive opportunity to benefit the whole UK. In this case, and in these very particular circumstances—and for a time-limited period, according to the sunset clause—the Sunday trading laws should be a little more flexible.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I am also most surprised that in just over a year in your Lordships’ House this is the second time I find myself speaking on this issue—the first being on the Remembrance Sunday (Closure of Shops) Bill. However, it is also perhaps apt as in 1992 it was this issue, as was the case for my noble friend Lord Bates, that prompted my first political activity. I distinctly remember sitting at my desk one Sunday while at university, looking out of the window at business premises that were silent and dark, so I wrote to my parents’ MP, Alan Duncan, to request that Sundays be kept special.
Things are of course different now, so much so that I, as an occasional Sunday shopper, found on a recent holiday to the Isles of Lewis and Harris that Sundays were quite a culture shock. However, it is interesting to note that certain businesses, including the Entertainer chain of toyshops and the Reg Vardy car dealership in the north-east, do not open on Sundays: decisions motivated by the desire of the employers to give a day off to their employees, as well as the owners’ Christian faith. I do hope this to be a new trend.
Although I am completely unsporting—my gym membership is perhaps best characterised as a charitable donation to the gym rather than a purchasing of its services—I think that London hosting the Olympics and Paralympics is fantastic. Surprisingly, I have even found myself a trustee of an Olympic-related charity, More Than Gold. Britain won the bid to hold the Games on 6 July 2005—a never to be forgotten date as it was the day before the 7/7 bombings, so I, too, am surprised how late in the day this issue is being debated.
Hindsight is a perfect science, and I usually think that there is little point in picking over the bones of how we got here, but I am told that the unusual use of the fast-track procedure, which hampers full consultation and scrutiny, when we have known for so long that the Games are coming to town, necessitates some questions and clarification that I hope that my noble friend can provide. First, and most importantly in my view, there are the views of shopworkers as expressed in the USDAW survey. I share some of the scepticism of my noble friend Lady Trumpington about such surveys, but I have to agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I worked for a living for five years in the catering industry and I know at first hand the pressure that one is put under to take on shifts and work when one would ideally choose not to do so. Can my noble friend say whether the figures from USDAW have been contradicted by other statistics from shopworkers? If not, precisely what concerns have outweighed the views of shopworkers?
Why does the suspension period begin with the Sunday before the Olympics start? The opening ceremony is not until 27 July, but shops will be open all over the country on 22 July. I cannot see why the deregulation could not be limited to the official merchandising outlets of the requisite size directly connected to the Olympics: in the Olympic Park, in the athletes’ village and in Hyde Park. Those areas are geographically discrete and the workers affected would, I assume, be temporary workers hired just for the period of the Olympics. In the context of my role as a trustee of an Olympic-related charity, I have dealt with the lawyers at LOCOG, and I rest assured that the intellectual property rights and association rights will leave no one in any doubt as to what is an official merchandising outlet, whether it be in London or at any of the other venues around the country.
I am also curious to know where the initiative came from for such legislation. Was it from the official merchandising outlets, which I accept are an anomaly, or was it Westfield in Stratford or the big supermarkets? Why was that issue not covered in what I understand to be two periods of legislative consideration of the Olympics and Paralympics?
I would also be grateful for any further information on why there is not a case to leave these longer hours on Sundays to the smaller businesses in the country for which such a boost in revenue, when they do not have to compete with the larger stores, is surely much more significant to their cash flow and profits than the additional hours on a Sunday for the highly profitable large supermarkets. What is the Government’s case or evidence that additional money would be spent during these extra hours in places such as Westfield in Stratford that would not otherwise have been spent at all, rather than having been spent in smaller shops? I am not 100 per cent clear about the financial or economic case being made for the liberalisation. I was grateful to hear the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, regarding the experience in Germany. If it was possible for the Germans to estimate the economic benefits, why has it seemingly not been possible to come to a concrete estimate of what would be the economic case in our country, particularly for smaller businesses?
However, I am very grateful to hear the assurance from the Minister that this is not only temporary legislation with a sunset clause but that it is not being used as an experiment to see whether there will be a sufficient boost to the economy to use as a platform for further deregulation. I am so proud to be part of a Government who have kept to their commitment to give 0.7 per cent of our GDP in international aid, as the Prime Minister has stated that we refuse to build our recovery on the back of the world’s poorest. In my view, any further deregulation of Sunday trading would be seeking to build our recovery on the back of some of our poorest paid workers.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, for the fourth time in a row I find myself as the last speaker in a debate, and I wonder what I have done to upset the Whips. However, this has been a fascinating debate and it has been interesting to hear the various contributions, through which there has been the almost continuous common theme that Members regret the introduction of this Bill. There were two exceptions—two quite enthusiastic supporters for it—but the rest of the speakers regretted the Bill, even though a number of them accepted it as being necessary. However, I regret it and I do not accept it as being necessary.
My memory of Sunday trading and campaigning on this goes back to before 1986 and the Shops Bill to, I am afraid, one of the very few occasions when I was on a different side from my noble and revered friend Lady Trumpington. No two people can agree on everything and this happens to be a subject on which we did not agree. I felt that it was right to oppose that Bill, and indeed I opposed Sir John Major’s Bill, which was adopted and formed the basis for Sunday trading in this country. Why did I do that? I did so because I felt that there was something special about Sunday. Of course I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, says—that some people work on Sundays, some by choice and some by necessity. In those areas where they work by necessity—the National Health Service, hotels and so on—there are generally very good provisions to compensate for that. There is generally also a degree of choice as to whether they opt for Sunday working.
Baroness Trumpington
Is the noble Lord speaking for himself or for the general public?
Lord Cormack
No Member of either House of Parliament can ever speak for anyone other than him or herself, but one can try very hard to reflect feelings and to acknowledge desires, ambitions and aspirations in the country. I believe that there was something very precious about a day of the week when the pace was slower. I opposed the relaxation of restrictions on Sunday trading because I felt that we would then finish up with a replica Saturday—a high-street Sunday. One has only to drive into London, as I did from King’s Cross on Sunday of this very week, to see what has happened. The streets are full of people out shopping, and the peace, the quiet and the opportunity to reflect has gone. I believe that we have lost something in that.
I am not so stupid as to suggest that all those who flock to the shops would be flocking to the churches if the shops were not there. Of course not, but I believe that a slackening of the tempo of life is good. When people come to this country to enjoy the countryside or to go round our great cities and small villages, I like them to be able to understand the tempo of English and British life. That is no longer possible in the way that it was and I regret that. I think it would be a good thing if those who came to watch the Olympic Games this year—and they will come in their thousands or perhaps millions—could have an opportunity to experience the tempo of life in this country as it was. I remember very well—
Lord Cormack
In a moment. I remember very well indeed the 1948 Olympics when this was a very different country. It was a country recovering from war; a country with a real pride in itself because of what it had gone through. It really shared in the triumph of the athletes who were competing for one reason above all others—in many cases, for one reason only—their love of sport and competition, not for a love of commerce. Of course, I will give way.
Lord Deben
I am finding it difficult as my noble friend is a member of a party that would not force anything on people. I do not understand why they should be forced to have a slow Sunday. I must say that I enjoy Sundays but I want to be able to buy things if I want to. I do not see why he should tell me what to do on Sundays. It is a peculiar kind of conservatism.
Lord Cormack
My noble friend has not heard very much of this debate; he came in only about a quarter of an hour ago. I am not trying to force him to do anything, or not to do anything. I am saying that we had in this country a certain pattern of life, just as France and other countries have a pattern of life. It is part of the very fabric of the civilisation of the country and we have discarded it to our cost—and a considerable cost at that.
I am worried by the legislation this evening, which of course will go through. There is not much point in tabling amendments, much as I would like to restrict the openings to the Olympic areas. What worries me is that it will be the thin end of the wedge. I do not for a moment doubt the honesty of my noble friends and my right honourable and honourable friends in government who say that it is for eight weeks only, but there will be increased pressure after the eight weeks to make it permanent. I really regret that.
I know that we cannot go back to the Olympics that were immortalised in “Chariots of Fire” where even some of the athletes would not train on Sundays. Of course, we cannot go back to that, but we can at least recognise that we may have lost something. I do not want to lose too much more, so I ask my noble friend, who will wind up, to please recognise that what he is doing is not necessarily for the common good. I believe that my noble friend made a mistake when he talked of the enormous retail opportunities as if that were something really tremendous. We have become so commercially focused and dominated in our daily lives that we have lost a great deal of what made this country great. This is an opportunity to make these points. The noble Lord, Lord Glasman, made similar ones. He and I spoke in the debate some months ago when we were trying to persuade the Government to make Remembrance Sunday a day when the cash tills did not ring. It is for reasons not dissimilar to those that make us have misgivings about the legislation that is currently before the House.
I ask my noble friend, when he is talking to colleagues in government who have given assurances, to tell them that there are many in all parts of this House who feel that it would be a retrograde step if this led to a general further relaxation of restrictions, not least because of the shop workers and not least—the point made by my noble friend Lady Berridge—because of the smaller shops. Somebody talked about Mary Portas. One of the things that she has frequently commented on has been the gradual extinction of the smaller shops in the high street at the expense of the big chain stores. That has meant that the individual identity of towns has been eroded in many cases, and totally destroyed in others. My home town where I was born many years ago used to have a wonderful Victorian centre but now all it has is a precinct with chain stores. We want to be able to protect our small and individual stores and this is not necessarily the right way of going about it.
I shall not oppose the Bill by seeking to cause a Division. That would be ridiculous. Nor shall I move any amendments on Thursday because the Bill will go through. I just want to share with the House, and in particular with my noble friend and those in Government, the fact that some of us have real worries and proper misgivings, which are honestly founded, sincerely held and are in no sense inimical to the conservatism which I believe in and which values traditions perhaps above all.
Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I have not put my name down to speak in this debate but having taken the Sunday Trading Bill through the House of Lords in 1994, I have much sympathy with the points made by my noble friend. However, I hope that he will accept that one of the arguments that I tried to put forward when I took that Bill through, in its general sense—it was not specific to the Olympics—was that those who wish to keep Sunday special, in its broadest sense, can do so in accordance with their particular views and that the Bill should not inhibit those who wish to conduct their business in a way that allows economic vitality to exist. That is one of the major points that surrounds what is being proposed in the Bill.
I spent many hours and probably several months on it. My noble friend Lady Trumpington took it on for me and I dealt with the Bill afterwards. It was a massive piece of work which we all struggled with. We struggled with all sorts of different aspects of it: the religious side of it, the USDAW aspects of it and a whole set of different issues. However, in the end the Bill went through; it followed the Auld report, which my noble friend will remember, years before.
I do not think that this is the thin end of the wedge at all. It is a small element that would allow advantage to be taken of a particular opportunity and it need not detract at all from those who regard Sunday as a special day which should be observed. It should not be thought of as damaging for the future.
Lord Cormack
I believe that that was an intervention and therefore I must respond to it. Of course, I hear all that my noble friend says. One has to have regard to the desires of all people. To suppress the desires of those who would have a quiet and peaceful Sunday in the interests of those who would have a commercial one is also dangerous. Getting the balance right is the most difficult thing in life. I do not question my noble friend’s hard work or integrity in what he sought to do, but there is another side to the matter and I think it is one that we should bear in mind. I do not suggest that we should repeal the Act which he and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, were responsible for getting onto the statute book, but I suggest that we should not take it further.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Minister has several problems to address but I shall help him with one of them. Discordant voices on his side can be reconciled quite easily here and in the other place. The major parties have always left Sunday trading to a free vote and, therefore, discordant opinions are part of the rich warp and weft of debate in this House. I would not get too upset about the discordant voices this evening, although the Minister needs to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, at the beginning of the debate, rather than in his contribution at the end. He asked the obvious question: why is this Bill before us now? Not only do we have to deal with it at this very late stage, under the extreme privations of a rushed parliamentary timetable, but there were opportunities when the issue could have been addressed in an appropriate manner for this revising Chamber. I am grateful to the Minister for the element of generosity that he showed when he indicated that an impact assessment, which we pressed for in the rushed days of consultation, will be provided—tomorrow, after Second Reading on the principles of the Bill. This is evidence of the fact that we are faced with an extremely difficult situation, dealing with fast-track legislation in this form. It can only be down to government incompetence.
The fast-track legislation process that we face in dealing with the Bill in three days, with an impact assessment interspersed between the days, is designed for urgent responses, for example to terrorist attacks or natural global disasters—not for retail opportunities during the Olympic Games, particularly when, as every Member of the House knows, we have known since 6 July 2005 that we would have the Games in London. One would have thought that that had given the Government plenty of time to get their act together. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked pointedly about the nature of the emergency. The answer is clear: the Government had their chance a few months ago. They brought before the House six months ago the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill, which is now an Act. This was a suitable vehicle for consideration of exactly the issues that we are dealing with extraordinarily rapidly in the course of this week.
The Government failed to do it then, and as a consequence the Minister emphasised that he had been involved in consultation. What levels of consultation? Certainly the Opposition had the opportunity for a certain exchange of views; but as I will point out in a few moments, we are not reconciled to every aspect of the Bill and we will put down amendments on Thursday because the Government have not met our anxieties to the necessary extent.
If the issue of trading opportunities was so important, why on earth was it left to this year’s Budget, a few weeks ago, to air it? One can only speculate that pressures were brought to bear on the Government. If that is denied and it is the Government seeing an opportunity, without any pressures at all, how strange it is that they should largely have ignored in the first instance the very considerations that a large number of contributors to the debate this evening, on their own Benches as much as on ours, emphasised: namely, that the proposed legislation may work adversely against the interest of workers who must contribute to Sunday working—a contribution that at present is carefully regulated by legislation that was passed, as noble Lords emphasised, more than a decade ago in such a way that we reached agreement across the nation.
There is no pressure for enormous changes. Of course, I heard the representation of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I also know that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, takes a different view from some of us in the House on the extent of Sunday trading. However, on the whole, the legislation that was passed in the 1990s has stood the test of time. Every Government and Minister since—and I include my Minister, Alan Johnson, for example, as well as Conservative Ministers—who have consulted on whether Sunday trading laws should be relaxed have found that it has not looked worth while.
This Bill ought to have been considered within the framework of provisions for the Olympics, and it was not. I think that the Bill is necessary. Let me give one obvious instance. Somebody has tumbled to the fact that the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games begins at 7 pm and under the present legislation, unless it is changed, the outlets and the shops must close at 6 pm, so if you are at the ceremony and get that great emotional feeling of a successful Games, which we all look forward to, and that surge of determination to get a memento of the experience by buying something to take away from London as a result of that great experience, the shops and outlets will have closed before the closing ceremony has begun. You would have thought that the Government could have got their head around this issue somewhat earlier rather than producing this emergency, fast-track legislation.
Noble Lords have emphasised that the greatest concern in this House, which will certainly be of great concern in the other House, and I have no doubt that my party will be united on it, is that this has got to be a unique event related to the Olympic Games. It must be no Trojan horse. In his opening speech, the Minister indicated that he is not constructing a Trojan horse, but I guess that that is what the Greeks suggested at the time of the construction of the original Trojan horse. We want to emphasise that we are accepting the good faith of the Government how this is not a tryout for some further onslaught on the abolition of red tape and the transformation of Sunday trading laws in circumstances where there is little public clamour for it, although there may be discreet interests of influence in the Conservative Party that seek to benefit from it.
Since we do not have a great deal of supporting evidence, we do not know what will be the impact of this potential opening on small shop keepers. We may get some enlightenment tomorrow, but at this point, where we are considering the principle of the Bill, we are devoid of information on that score. Of course, it is obvious that those shops that are not controlled by Sunday trading laws at present will lose their competitive advantage over the eight Sundays on which this legislation is to operate. That is why they made representations to the effect that they are against this legislation; they are concerned about it and they are particularly concerned if it should presage further changes subsequently.
Another dimension was brought up by noble Lords in all parts of the House this evening. It is whether the legislation significantly affects the rights of workers under existing legislation. As a result of the tight timetable between the passing of this legislation and the opening of the Games, the period of notice to workers has to be changed. It is the case, therefore, that in their ability to respond to the pressures that an employer may apply—and noble Lords have been right to emphasise that these pressures can be severe in some circumstances—workers will be disadvantaged by the tight timetable.
Of course, we want the Olympic Games to be successful. Other noble Lords have testified to the work that they have done on Sunday trading. I might add that I answered dozens of questions about the Olympic Games and participated in a number of debates on the Games when in government. Of course, I want to see them a success, the same as every other Member of this House. Whether that is dependent upon changes in trading laws, I have greater leave to doubt.
Of course, as a party, we will not vote against this legislation. We will not do it here or in the other place. However, on Thursday we will go into detail on this Bill and I signal to the Minister that I do not regard his present amendment as being sufficient to safeguard the interests of those workers whose conditions will be changed by the legislation, and we shall be tabling amendments accordingly.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, first, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their valuable and insightful contribution to today’s debate. With just over three months until the Olympic and Paralympic Games, it is certainly clear that whatever the views of individual noble Lords on this Bill, there is a shared enthusiasm for the success of this once in a lifetime event. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for confirming that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill.
There is a great commitment across the country to making the Games a great success for the athletes, and indeed for the visitors, and it is in that context that we are making a modest but, I think, important contribution to the overall success of those Games through the measure that we are bringing forward today. It is important to bear in mind what my noble friend Lady Trumpington had to say. I am sure that she would never say—and I would never directly say, in terms—“Calm down, dears” to anybody, but she did say, in almost those terms, that we really should put this measure in perspective. It is important that we consider all the proper safeguards but it is a modest measure, which will contribute to the success of this great event.
I recognise and have already acknowledged that it is not ideal that this Bill has come forward this late in the day, and through the fast-track procedure, which we have only brought forward after discussions with the Opposition in the normal way. Sunday trading was subject to scrutiny through the Red Tape Challenge process that is going on for all regulation. We looked at it in that context and it did not support a permanent relaxation. Following that, a Private Member’s Bill was brought forward in another place by Mark Menzies MP in October last year, which proposed a similar suspension to that being introduced by this Bill, and that contributed to the narrowing down of our thinking on this issue. Following some reflection, we came to the conclusion that this Bill was appropriate and necessary. So there has been an evolving process. I can assure those noble Lords on both sides of the House who were insinuating that there was some pressure—some dark plots, even some panic—that there has been no panic as to whether this measure is necessary and no pressure from particular impacts groups. It was a realisation which evolved through reflection on the general question of attitudes to Sunday trading, and by thought about the opportunity which visitors and spectators at the Games and across the country should have through this period, that has led to the Bill coming forward.
There have also been questions around the economic impact. I am conscious that the more one talks about the economic impact, the more it could be portrayed, or perhaps misportrayed, as a Treasury Minister being drawn into talking about Trojan horses. I say again what I said clearly two or three times in my opening speech—this is a one-off measure. We took the belt-and-braces approach of putting the sunset clause in, which was not strictly necessary. The Bill is absolutely as it says it is on the tin.
I am nervous about getting drawn into questions of economic impact because they could be misconstrued, but a number of noble Lords referred to it. The impact is extremely difficult to assess. When noble Lords see the impact assessment tomorrow it will not give—because it would be wrong—spuriously accurate figures about the impact of this measure. There is a lot of qualitative discussion but I would not raise the expectations of noble Lords for the reasons that have been given already. On the one hand, we have heard quoted some relatively extreme figures for the particular impact to which the Association of Convenience Stores has drawn attention. On the other hand, the Centre for Retail Research has given numbers that go the other way showing the positive impact. We could look at the previous Government’s benefit study for full relaxation and the positive impact that that impact study gave as regards the relaxation of rules around Sunday trading.
The best we can say is that the studies show a mixed picture and are extremely difficult to interpret. If one looks at convenience stores, for example, it is quite possible, and very likely in some areas, that the generation of excitement and more appetite for people to go out and shop around the events associated with the Games could benefit convenience stores just as it may benefit larger stores.
Noble Lords will have received the interesting submission from the Federation of Small Businesses, which has asked for an impact assessment after the event. As I have already assured the House, if the Government were ever to come forward with a wider proposal for relaxation, the impact of this proposal for the Olympics would be one of the things that would quite properly be taken into account. That is what the Federation of Small Businesses has asked for.
As for the special nature of Sundays, I am very grateful for the measured positions that have been taken by some long-standing opponents to the relaxation of Sunday trading. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells gave a very balanced view. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Wilcox for the work that she has done to help me with this Bill, particularly the leading role that she has taken in conversation with the churches. I also thank my noble friend Lord Cormack, whose views on this subject are well known and were very clearly put in this evening’s debate. The conclusion that he came to about the Bill is much appreciated. I know that he does not like it but he has made clear that he will not stand in the way of it. I hear that very clearly and I hope that he has heard my assurances on the general topic on behalf of the Government.
The Bill is focused on the Olympics and the Paralympics, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in another balanced and measured contribution to the debate, addressed the question of the number of weeks covered. My noble friend Lady Berridge specifically asked why it is being done the week before. There is also the week in the middle. If the Government are going to put in place this measure, as they believe is appropriate, then certainly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, explained, there will be athletes and visitors arriving here before and staying between the two events. We certainly did not want to prolong this unreasonably but we believe that if we are going to bring it in it should cover the whole period during which visitors and athletes may have more opportunities to shop and get out and about before and after the Olympic Games. However, it is only for one week before the Games until the day that the Paralympic Games close.
I know that the hour is getting on. Of all the considerations that have arisen, clearly the other main issue was the impact of the Bill on employees. There were some rather overdramatic references to exploitation, historical lessons going back to the Greek period and comparison of the Games with what happened under other regimes going back to the Games in Moscow decades ago, which were perhaps taking what is being proposed somewhat out of context.
It is worth bearing in mind the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that employees in the retail sector already have special protections which employees in just about every other sector of the economy do not have. That is not to say that we want to, or will, undermine those special protections in this Bill, but it is worth reminding the House that we are not doing anything in the Bill which has a terrible impact on a particular sector; it preserves the special rights which employees in this sector already possess. On the subjects of exploitation and pressure on workers, I understand that these are real issues but, nevertheless, the picture that we were given by one or two noble Lords on this subject was not balanced. The Games will provide an opportunity for some employees to earn more money, at a time when families are under pressure because of the general economic environment. In a balanced way, that opportunity should and will be available to people through this measure if it is approved by your Lordships’ House and in another place.
The Government cannot directly legislate to deal with the pressure that people feel under in these circumstances. They can only ensure that they have appropriate legal rights, and that certainly is what the Bill takes into account. We have been talking extensively to employers and are encouraging them to talk sensibly with their employees. We know that employers are already starting to do just that. It is not in the interests of large retail groups, who will normally be the owners and operators of the big stores that we are talking about, to expose themselves to reputational damage if they pressurise their employees. That is surely the last thing they want to see associated with the Olympic Games. It is also very important to realise that all the protection in the law, which is important, is very much a backstop protection, and that in reality the protections that are built into the employment contracts of the big retail groups will actually go well beyond the law.
I referred in my opening speech to the approach of one major supermarket group. Another of the major retail groups already has in its contracts of employment the right for staff to opt out of Sunday working on a one-month basis—a greater protection than anything in current legislation gives. Another major retail group has a longer opting-out period, consistent with the period in the legislation, but it recognises that and is already adopting an approach of having conversations at local level with its employees. Another supermarket group is in the position where Sunday working currently ranks as non-contracted hours, so they are usually a source of overtime for staff. That particular group is projecting a relatively high take-up, both from existing employees and from student workers wanting to work additional hours on Sunday. We should not think that legal protections, important as they are as a backstop, are what major retail groups apply in reality; they have contracts of employment that in many cases go much further. Even beyond that, they are already talking to their employees to sort out something sensible if they are given this modest but important opportunity around the Games.
A number of other issues have come up and we will have further opportunity to debate them on Thursday. I come back to the fact that the economic impact assessment is difficult to make in micro terms, but we can look at the enormous benefit of the Games, whether it was the £2.5 billion boost to the economy in Australia, the $5 billion in Atlanta or some of the other numbers that have been generated. I do not begin to say that we can link this measure in any scientific way to the generation ahead of time of economic benefit, but it is a small measure that primarily helps with the overall experience of visitors to the Games and of the whole UK population around the Games. However, it will contribute to what I hope, after the event, will be an important boost, associated with the Games, to the economy—including of course the huge amount of work that is going in to making sure that the legacy of the Games in the UK is second to none. These are things that we will only be able to assess after the event, but this measure will contribute to that.
As to the evidence around the popularity of this measure, we have heard certain numbers from USDAW, but on the other hand we have also heard about the YouGov poll—so this does not come from any particular interest group—which shows that the majority of the country believes that a combination of permanent and temporary relaxations are appropriate.
I come back to welcoming the broad statement from the party opposite, although I recognise that we have some detail to go through on Thursday. I am grateful for the contribution from all those around the House. I have not mentioned all noble Lords who have spoken, but I thought that in particular the very measured conclusions from the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and, at the end, in the unanticipated intervention from my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, were among those that summed up the appropriate spirit. I look forward to a further discussion on Thursday but ask that this evening the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.