House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I draw Members’ attention to the fact that the book for entering the private Member’s Bill ballot is now open for Members to sign in the No Lobby. It will be open until the House rises today and when the House is sitting tomorrow. The ballot will be drawn on Thursday. A note setting out those arrangements, and the dates when ten-minute rule motions can be made and presentation Bills introduced, is available from the Vote Office.
Business Before Questions
Sessional Returns
Ordered,
That there be laid before this House Returns for Session 2010-12 of information and statistics relating to:
(1) Business of the House;
(2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions);
(3) Sittings of the House;
(4) Private Bills and Private Business;
(5) Public Bills;
(6) Delegated Legislation and Legislative Reform Orders;
(7) European Legislation, etc;
(8) Grand Committees;
(9) Panel of Chairs; and
(10) Select Committees.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
1. Whether he has made an assessment of any correlation between the size of the prison population and the crime rate; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
May I first offer to the House the apologies of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice? My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is on a visit to Russia, where he will be speaking at the international legal forum to promote United Kingdom legal services overseas. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is attending the Police Federation conference. Those engagements were made before the changed dates for departmental oral questions became clear following Prorogation.
Turning to Question 1, the evidence report that we published alongside the “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper shows that there is no clear consensus among experts about the link between the size of the prison population and crime levels. A further Government assessment of the evidence for a correlation illustrates that the causes of crime are complex and that there is no simple link between prison population size and crime levels. We will publish that assessment in due course.
Philip Davies
I thank the Minister for that answer and congratulate him on pursuing a traditional Conservative agenda. In 2010-11, the crime rate dropped by 3%. At the same time, the prison population rose from 84,700 to 86,000. If the Minister is looking for a justification for following that strategy, I commend to him the House of Commons Library. I asked it to track the prison population and the crime rate since the war. Its conclusion was that the charts suggest that in England and Wales increases in prison population have tended to occur at a similar time to falls in levels of recorded crime.
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend has made himself an authority in this area. He will know, therefore, that international experience is different from what he has described. The relationship between the level of crime and the level of incarceration differs across the world. The experience of countries such as Germany, Spain, Finland, Netherlands and Canada, and the state of New York, tends to contradict his analysis, while the experience of Florida and Denmark tends to support it. There is no clear evidence of such a simple relationship as he suggests.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
How many prisoners who come under the category of “prisoners protesting innocence” have gone way over their tariff, with the Parole Board refusing to release them because they refuse to admit that they were guilty, even though some of them may have served 25 years?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I do not know the precise answer and suspect that it would be difficult to get the precise data to analyse the problem. There is such a problem, not least with sex offenders, who are often reluctant to engage with the system and often protest their innocence when they are not innocent. It is a problem to get such people to engage with offender behaviour programmes. The hon. Lady is right that there is a class of prisoner who does not engage in that way, rightly or wrongly, and who presents the system with particular problems. I will follow up that matter.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Presuming that, even under the prescription of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), most prisoners will eventually be released, is there not a danger that putting massive expenditure into an ever-increasing prison population would mean cutting expenditure to ensure that when people are released, they do not commit more crimes?
Mr Blunt
My right hon. Friend is, of course, correct. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is fond of the American experience, where 2 million people are in prison. The logical result of that is the experience in California, where the prison system has become so overcrowded and inhumane that the Supreme Court of the United States has ordered the Californians to release 30,000 prisoners within two years to sort out the prison system. We certainly do not want to find ourselves in that situation.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) to the Front Bench to answer Justice questions. It is surely only a matter of time before the Prime Minister makes the move permanent. As has been said, half the ministerial team are not here today. For our part, we are flattered that both the Justice Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice are running scared. Let us wait and see whether it makes a difference to the Front Benchers’ performance.
I will begin with an easy one. Do this Conservative-led Government still have a target of reducing the prison population by 3,000 from what it was in May 2010?
Mr Blunt
First, I am gratified by the confidence that the Justice Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice have in the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), and in my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), our departmental Whip, who is also responding as a Minister.
We have never had a target. We have an estimate of what is happening and an estimate of the consequences of our policies.
Sadiq Khan
Sir David Latham, the former chairman of the Parole Board and Court of Appeal judge, who retired last month, has warned that due to decisions made by this Government, the only way to prevent a backlog of those who have completed their sentence is to change how the Parole Board reaches decisions, which means it
“may not actually be as effective in protecting the public”.
Does the Minister accept that by abolishing indeterminate sentences for public protection the Government are removing from the Parole Board the responsibility to deal properly with the most violent and serious offenders and taking a risk with public safety?
Mr Blunt
Absolutely not. The right hon. Gentleman’s attempt to juxtapose Sir David Latham’s points with the conduct of the current Government is pretty rich, given that the problem that we inherited came from the shambles of the administration of IPPs. The Labour Government estimated that there would be 900 such sentences, but we now have about 6,500 people in the prison system on IPPs, more than half of them beyond tariff. That presents the Parole Board with a huge problem, which his party’s Administration did not address in delivering its resources until far too late. The current Administration are now gripping all of that.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
2. What progress he has made on reforming no win, no fee arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 received Royal Assent on 1 May. Part 2 of the Act contains provisions that will fundamentally reform no win, no fee agreements to make them fairer between claimants and defendants. The changes will come into effect in April 2013, and we will set out more details about their implementation in due course.
Bill Esterson
The Government agreed to review no win, no fee arrangements for victims of mesothelioma and their families, possibly just to get the Bill through the House of Lords. Mesothelioma is a terrible disease, and everybody who suffers from it dies a terrible death. What will the Minister do to ensure that victims and their families are properly protected, in light of the review?
Mr Djanogly
It is true to say that the issue was heavily debated during the passage of the Bill. I am pleased to note that all parties in the House reached an agreed way forward. The Government are therefore committed to action on mesothelioma, and various proposals about the claims process are being considered. I am sure the House will understand that it would be inappropriate to draw up the terms of reference now for a review that will not take place for some time, but we will share details of the review process in due course.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
One of the worst mistakes that our last Government made was bringing in no win, no fee. It has Americanised our legal aid system and brought in a risk-averse culture and a load of ambulance chasers, so I welcome what the Government are doing. Will the Minister confirm that he will not let it rest there, that no win, no fee is now under a real review and that we will not tolerate the behaviour that we have seen in recent years?
Mr Djanogly
We are retaining no win, no fee for conditional fee agreements, but we are getting rid of the reforms that the Labour Government put in place whereby success fees and after-the-event insurance were recoverable. We will effectively return to the position of the last Conservative Government, which I hope and expect will put balance back into the claims equation.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
To get his Bill through, the Minister promised a 10% uplift in general damages and protection from costs for losing personal injury claimants. Those are poor substitutes for the current rules that his friends in the insurance industry wanted rid of, but where are those concessions? Are they more broken promises?
Mr Djanogly
No. All those procedures are being put in place, not least because of our concern to retain access to justice. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are introducing several measures that will help personal injury claimants pay their solicitors’ success fees and, if necessary, insurance premiums. For example, there will be a 10% increase in general damages, and we are introducing a system of qualified one-way costs shifting, which will be in place before the Act commences next April.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on ensuring quality services for victims after the election of police and crime commissioners.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
12. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on ensuring quality services for victims after the election of police and crime commissioners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Our consultation, “Getting it right for victims and witnesses” closed on 22 April. We are considering the responses to it, which included views on quality, and aim to publish the Government’s response soon. The Home Secretary and her Department are engaged with all stages of the process.
Diana Johnson
Mervyn Bishop of Victim Support in Hull recently told me of his concerns about the White Paper proposals, to which the Under-Secretary just referred, to devolve victim support services to police and crime commissioners, with an additional cost of £21 million. With some victims of crime who are now defined as “not in the greatest need” being no longer eligible for support after a crime, what will the Under-Secretary do to ensure that PCCs will target effectively those who are in the greatest need?
Mr Blunt
That is why we are in the process of considering all the responses to the consultation. Victim Support has a particular set of organisational interests, because it is a national organisation and most victim services are commissioned nationally. However, I do not recognise the figure of £20 million. We should remember that we are raising another £50 million to add to the £66 million already paid for victim services. That money will come from offenders, which is where it ought to come from. The environment for delivering victim services will be considerably improved, whatever cast one puts on it.
Nick Smith
Does that mean that the Ministry of Justice will ring-fence funding for police and crime commissioners to provide support for victims and witnesses?
Mr Blunt
The hon. Gentleman, like everyone else, will have to wait for our response to the consultation. [Interruption.] As the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) knows perfectly well, we have gone through an entirely proper process and we will publish it for the House when we are ready and have fully considered all the responses to the consultation, which include answers to questions such as the hon. Gentleman’s.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Which crimes does the Under-Secretary consider to be so serious that they will require a minimum guaranteed level of support to victims from the police and crime commissioners?
Mr Blunt
We are looking at local commissioning of victim support services by police and crime commissioners. Then we must make a decision about which victim support services are commissioned locally and which remain to be commissioned nationally. The homicide service and rape support centres are currently commissioned nationally. After the consultation, we will consider the matter and reach our decision about whether those services should be retained nationally.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Does the Under-Secretary agree that one of the greatest needs for victims beyond seeking justice is timely information—what Louise Casey has called “relentless information”? Will my hon. Friend assure me that all steps are being taken with the Home Office to ensure that victims are treated not as an afterthought, but as a priority when information is released?
Mr Blunt
I can definitely say yes to my hon. Friend. There has been a steady improvement in services to victims and witnesses in the past two decades. The resources that we are making available from offenders and the move to restorative justice are part of a much wider process of engaging victims much more centrally in the criminal justice system. I am therefore very happy to give my hon. Friend a positive response.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Government’s plans to break up the national infrastructure that supports victims and witnesses has been described as “unworkable, damaging and dangerous.” We are just a few months away from elections, yet the Government’s approach to victims’ services is a shambles. Given how unpopular transferring victims’ services to PCCs is proving to be, when will the Justice Secretary—wherever he is—set out exactly what services will be maintained nationally, what will go out to local commissioning, and what safeguards will be in place to avoid the damaging and dangerous break-up of crucial support for victims? We need to know now, not in months to come.
Mr Blunt
We need to know, and the House will know, when we have come to a considered view, answered all these questions and gone through the normal processes and assessments of government. That is entirely normal. The hon. Gentleman will get the answers to all his questions when we publish our confirmed proposals.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of progress in reforming the operation of the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
8. What assessment he has made of progress in reforming the operation of the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
19. What assessment he has made of progress in reforming the operation of the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Good progress has been made in clearing the backlog of inadmissible cases, but more work is needed to address the growing backlog of admissible cases, hence the recent Brighton declaration under the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe, which represents a substantial and important step towards realising the Government’s ambitions.
David Rutley
Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Court should be a court of last resort and end the practice of revisiting domestic courts’ decisions when it does not need to do so?
Harriett Baldwin
In welcoming these reforms, my constituents fear that they might not be acted upon. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that the Strasbourg Court recognises the will of this national Parliament?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Under the Brighton declaration, we have agreed a framework for longer term reform, with built-in review points up until 2019, to give impetus to the measures proposed under the Brighton declaration and to consider whether further measures are needed. We will, of course, continue to monitor progress.
Mr Marcus Jones
One of the problems with the European Court is its huge backlog of cases. What does my hon. Friend think the Government can do to reform the Court so that frivolous cases are not brought and the only cases brought are those of the nature of serious human rights breaches?
Mr Vara
This is a major issue. The measures agreed under the Brighton declaration will make a big difference once implemented. More cases should be resolved at the national level, which should mean that fewer cases are considered by the Court. Where cases go to Strasbourg, the Court should be able to focus more on the important cases and do so more quickly.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Dispatch Box. I hope very much that his temporary promotion will be made permanent in the imminent reshuffle. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) mentioned the backlog, which is now 152,000 cases. Does the hon. Gentleman not think it important to have a fast-track system through the European Court for national security cases?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. With the Brighton declaration, we have ensured that fewer cases go to Strasbourg and that those cases that can be handled at the national level are held and dealt with at the national level. That means that fewer cases will go to Strasbourg and that the important ones—we hope that only the important ones will go there—will be dealt with a lot quicker.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
If the hon. Gentleman eventually finds time to bring forward a British Bill of Rights, what elements of the Human Rights Act does he think will be in it?
Mr Vara
We certainly are considering a British Bill of Rights. We would take into account the various issues concerning Britain and ensure that freedoms and liberties were enhanced, so we would hope that a Bill of Rights would build on the terms of the convention. On the specific measures, we are signed up to the convention, so the whole of it would apply.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, after giving that last reply, that there are no long-term plans to leave the European Court of Human Rights or to amend or leave the convention?
Mr Vara
I can happily tell the hon. Gentleman that we have no plans to leave the convention. We are signed up to it, along with the other 46 nations, but where we see the need for change, we will ensure that those changes take place, in the same way that changes took place in Brighton last month.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
5. What recent representations he has received on the operation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
We receive regular correspondence on the operation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Following consultation and consideration of the representations received, the Government have introduced a package of reforms to the Act, through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which recently received Royal Assent.
Ann Clwyd
Although I welcome the changes made in the 2012 Act, will the hon. Gentleman consider some loopholes that might be closed? A few months ago I brought up the case in the Chamber of a constituent, an ex-miner who had been fined 28 years ago for stealing a bag of coal in the middle of the miners’ strike. He subsequently tried for a job in a care home as a groundsman. He was offered the job, but it was then withdrawn. That seems ridiculous, because the job had nothing directly to do with the people in the care home, and he had not been accused of—
Mr Speaker
We are extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady, but is there a question mark coming?
Mr Vara
I am aware of the right hon. Lady’s interest in this matter. The vast majority of occupations for which people may make applications do not require a CRB search. Only a small number require a search, and even in those cases there are three categories of CRB searches. Searches are required for the occupations that are listed in the exceptions order to the 1974 Act, which involve sensitive issues or where people are dealing with children, vulnerable adults and so on. We have that list of people to ensure risk management in employment and the protection and detection of crime.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman; I, too, welcome him to the Dispatch Box. It is a pleasure to hear him. We need now—not on account of the hon. Gentleman’s answers, but more generally—to make somewhat brisker progress.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
6. What progress he has made on reform of probation services.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
18. What progress he has made on reform of probation services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
On 27 March the Government published a consultation entitled “Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services”, which is looking at a wide range of options for service improvements. Alongside it is a consultation on the overhaul of community sentences, aimed at delivering effective and credible punishments. We will publish our response to both consultations in the autumn.
Heidi Alexander
According to recent press reports, the London Probation Trust is due to run a research project later this year that would require offenders in Bexley and Bromley to report to electronic kiosks, as opposed to trained probation staff. What reassurance can the Minister give me that the trial will not endanger the public, and how can he be sure that the machines will be as capable as human beings are of detecting the early warning signs that offenders may be posing an increased risk to the public?
Mrs Glindon
Northumbria Probation Trust has received the best inspection result of any trust from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation. How will the Secretary of State ensure that probation trusts continue to be effective in protecting the public and reducing reoffending following the probation review, which proposes that offender management be fragmented across a wider range of providers?
Mr Blunt
Improvement of offender management for all our offenders is absolutely at the heart of the probation review. With the proposed reorganisation of probation we will be getting much greater offender management, with a focus by the probation service on reducing reoffending among those receiving community sentences. The outcome of our proposals will therefore be a very much improved offender management picture right across the country.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The Prison Service spends time and taxpayers’ money detoxing those who enter our prisons with alcohol and drug problems. However, I was shocked to find that taxpayers’ money is then spent on retoxing prisoners for their eventual release at the end of their sentences. Does the Minister agree that funding a drug habit—which is often the cause of an offender’s entering prison in the first place—makes the probation service’s job so much more difficult and is not a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She will be as pleased as I am to hear that there has been a change in the clinical policy within prisons in regard to how detoxification is undertaken, resulting in a much stronger emphasis on abstinence than on maintenance. We now need to get right the transition of drug-addicted offenders from custody to the community.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
7. Whether he plans to extend the use of private companies in the management of prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Our plans for competing custodial services are set out in the “Competition Strategy for Offender Services”, published in July 2011. That involves the competing of eight prisons, seven of which are currently in the public sector. We are considering bids from seven providers, including the public sector Prison Service, which has partnered with Mitie and with the Shaw Trust and Working Links in the third sector. That means that even if the public sector-led bid wins all the contracts, the use of private company management will have been extended as a result of this round of competition. We will announce the services selected for phase 3 of the prisons competition in November this year.
Mr Ruffley
I congratulate Ministers on introducing private sector disciplines into the Prison Service faster than any of their predecessors. Payment by results will mean that contractors will be rewarded if they cut reoffending rates when prisoners leave jail, and penalised if they do not do so. When does the Minister expect the first benefits of that policy to be seen?
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend has finely summed up the positive benefits of our policy. The first benefits are already being seen in the payment-by-results programmes in the Peterborough and Doncaster prisons. We should remember that the Doncaster prison proposal came forward from Serco, which is rebidding to manage a prison that it already runs. It is proposing to put part of its contract price at risk against its performance in driving down the reoffending rate.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Is there a maximum number or percentage of prisons that the Government are willing to have run by the private sector?
Mr Blunt
We have said that we do not intend to compete in the high-security estate. There is a limit on how fast the private sector could absorb new prisons and on the capacity of the Ministry of Justice to compete prisons. There is no stated policy, but there are practical restrictions on the speed with which we can increase private sector provision.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to reform the role of small claims courts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Government announced in their response to the “Solving Disputes” consultation paper on 9 February that the general limit for cases in the small claims track will be increased from £5,000 to £10,000 next year. In addition, we are proposing that all small claims are assessed for mediation, to support our policy that cases that can be kept out of court should be kept out of court.
Eric Ollerenshaw
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he believe that more could be done to ensure that, when those courts decide on a claim, they can enforce the decision and collect the money involved?
Mr Djanogly
Yes; courts offer several types of enforcement method which, collectively, are intended to make it as difficult as possible for debtors to avoid their responsibilities. We are currently reviewing how those enforcement methods might be improved and modernised, in particular through updating information orders and requests, which can be an important step in calculating the assets of the debtor.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
10. What steps he is taking to protect the right to anonymity of victims in rape cases.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is an offence to breach the anonymity of a complainant in a case of rape or any sexual offence. Allegations that a complainant has been named will be investigated.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that response, and I hope that he shares my concern at the online outing of the victim in the Ched Evans rape case who had her name emblazoned all over the social media. I am pleased that a number of arrests have been made, but does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that rape victims will be even less likely to come forward if they think that they might be outed in this way?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I want to make it absolutely clear that the anonymity of rape victims is there for life. When it is breached, the full force of the law must be brought to bear. My understanding of the case that she mentions is that, as at 10 May, 13 people had been arrested. It is right that the law should be enforced, but it is also noteworthy that we clearly need to monitor the internet and ensure that we supervise it a lot better than we perhaps have in times past.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend could help, as there is growing concern about the use of Twitter in the ways described, but for other criminal offences. What actions are the Government taking to make sure that people are not allowed to hide behind their own anonymity when they tweet or use the internet in this way, which is to commit a criminal offence?
Mr Speaker
It is most interesting to hear the hon. Lady’s thoughts, but they are relevant in this context only in relation to victims in rape cases, not more widely. That is what the question is about. We are immensely grateful for the hon. Lady’s musings, but I am not sure that they entirely pertinent to the matter under discussion.
Mr Speaker
If the Minister thinks that the question is relevant, he can answer briefly.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
11. What recent progress he has made in reforming the law on defamation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Defamation Bill has been introduced into this House as part of the Government's programme for this Session. The text of the Bill and accompanying explanatory notes were published on 11 May.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for that answer. After campaigning for many years for libel reform, it was excellent to see the Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech and published—and in better form than it was in the draft, which says something about pre-legislative scrutiny. I particularly welcome the protection for academic and scientific articles and for operators of websites. The Bill talks about regulations applying to website operators to deal with anonymity and other issues. There are many nuances to that, so will the Government publish a draft of that order together with the Bill?
Mr Djanogly
My hon. Friend sat on the Joint Committee and I know that he has long taken an interest in matters pertaining to scientific freedoms. I fully agree that we must ensure that the threat of libel proceedings is not used to frustrate scientific and academic debate and that the law must be reformed to provide an appropriate libel regime for publications on the internet. The Defamation Bill aims to address both those areas fairly and effectively. I look forward to further debate as it proceeds.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
What discussions has the Minister had with his Scottish counterparts about the Government’s proposed reforms, and what assessment has he made of their impact on Scotland?
Mr Djanogly
I am not the lead Minister on the Bill, as it has been led from the House of Lords. I am sure, however, that I will have discussions with my Scottish counterparts before long.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
In order to save the Northern Ireland courts and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland from becoming, in the words of Geoffrey Robertson, QC, who works for the United Nations, “an international laughing stock” in defamation cases, have the Government decided to abolish the arcane defamation crime of “scandalising” judges, thus protecting the rights of Members freely to express their views in this House without hindrance from the courts?
Mr Djanogly
That is not part of the Bill as it stands. No doubt, from what the hon. Gentleman says, this is a matter that will be discussed.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
13. What measures are in place to encourage the teaching of literacy in prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
The basic skills of English and mathematics underpin almost all other learning. Assessing prisoners’ learning needs, and then meeting them, is at the heart of the reforms set out in “Making Prisons Work: Skills for Rehabilitation”, the new offender learning strategy published jointly last year with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Neil Carmichael
Given that a large number of prisoners do not accept the formal education system within the prison, what measures can the Minister use to encourage the Shannon trust’s “toe-by-toe” mentoring scheme?
Mr Blunt
I recently met David Ahern, the chief executive of the Shannon Trust, and I assured him that we will continue to support his excellent scheme. I would be surprised if the new arrangements we have put in place for getting the commissioning of offender learning much closer to prisons and the institutions themselves did not see a much greater take-up of schemes such as toe-by-toe.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In view of the very poor performance in Ofsted inspections of provision by A4e, which provides much of the education in prisons, what conversations has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about how, when the contract is re-let, the quality of provision and the achievements of the prisoners will be at the fore of decision making about who should provide it?
Mr Blunt
I understand that a written ministerial statement has been made today by the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of A4e, which will be of interest to the hon. Lady and the House. In addition, a review of offender learning has been undertaken by the Skills Funding Agency. It was organised by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I am happy to say that its findings have been positive as far as A4e is concerned—I know that will be of interest to the House. As for the future provision of offender learning, we are going through a re-tendering process, whereby prison governors involved in clusters of prisons that represent the offender’s journey through the system are able to ensure that they are satisfied with what is being commissioned into their prisons. That will mean a much more satisfactory state of affairs than we have had before.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
14. What steps he plans to take to promote training in prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Following the joint Ministry of Justice and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills review of offender learning, we are enabling prison governors to determine jointly with the Skills Funding Agency the procurement of training in their prisons. The relative priority for that, set against a falling overall budget for the MOJ and BIS, is shown by the fact that funding is being maintained at £154 million per academic year for the programme.
Gordon Henderson
I recently visited Standford Hill prison in my constituency, where I saw inmates being trained to make optical lenses by Tanjit Singh Dosanjh, who undertakes the training on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately, Mr Dosanjh will not be able to offer that service free of charge indefinitely, so will my hon. Friend consider formalising Mr Dosanjh’s scheme to enable it to continue?
Mr Blunt
We are always keen to support work and training initiatives in prison and with offenders. A significant number of policy initiatives are now coming forward that might be able to incorporate the kind of service and training that Mr Dosanjh is offering, and I will ask my officials to contact him to see what might be possible.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
15. Whether he plans to bring forward proposals to enable magistrates to sit in community centres and police stations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
We are currently developing a programme of reforms that will deliver swift, sure and visible justice—we intend to publish details shortly. As part of that, we are considering new and innovative ways to involve magistrates in delivering justice, and we will work with magistrates to develop these plans.
Mr Cunningham
What credence does the Minister give to press reports that police stations could be used as magistrates courts? In relation to these innovations, how many more magistrates will he need, and what will the cost be?
Mr Djanogly
I had not heard that, but it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman could be confusing it with virtual courts, where the courtroom is extended into the police station. The defendant would be in the police station, with the defence counsel either in the police station or in the magistrates court, but the magistrates would still be in the magistrates court.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
An efficient and flexible justice system was demonstrated last summer in the response to the riots by all in the Courts Service and the Crown Prosecution Service, and it is to be commended. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it is right that an open mind is kept as to how justice can best be administered in local communities?
Mr Djanogly
It is very important to maintain justice at the core of summary justice and in the localities. I should say that neighbourhood justice panels are not about recreating magistrates courts, because, as panels, they reach restorative outcomes by consensus; magistrates would not be exercising any judicial powers in this capacity.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
16. When he expects the commission on a Bill of Rights to publish its report.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In accordance with its published terms of reference, the commission should aim to report no later than by the end of 2012.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he update us on the work being undertaken by the commission?
Mr Vara
Last year, the Government received advice from the commission on reform of the European Court of Human Rights, which was taken into account in negotiations to agree the Brighton declaration. The commission’s website contains minutes of its meetings and details of seminars, as well as information regarding the public consultation held last year. The topics considered so far include: reform of the Strasbourg Court; possible options for a UK Bill of Rights; parliamentary sovereignty; and issues relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government look forward to receiving the commission’s final report by the end of this year.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is there any chance that the commission’s recommendations might include a recognition of the common-sense view that when people trample on the human rights of others, they should abrogate some of their own human rights?
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
17. What recent representations he has received on arrangements for compensation claims by people with pleural plaques.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
We have received a number of recent representations on pleural plaques from Members of Parliament sent on behalf of their constituents.
Mr Hepburn
Now that the devolved assemblies of Scotland and Northern Ireland have seen sense and are going to compensate pleural plaques victims, will the Minister follow suit? If not, why not?
Mr Djanogly
The Government understand that it could be seen as unfair for compensation to be available in one part of the UK but not in another, but the civil legal systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland and that in England and Wales are separate and there will inevitably be differences in the law.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
My constituent, Janet Jeffrey, lost her father in 2003 to pneumoconiosis after working at Shaw’s foundry in Middlesbrough. Can the Minister assure me that any compensation arrangements will include all those whose families are affected and will not be restricted only to miners?
Mr Djanogly
I can say that in light of the medical evidence, the Government do not consider it appropriate to overturn the House of Lords’ judgment that the condition of pleural plaques is not compensable under the civil law. However, I would point out to my hon. Friend that the law does not prevent a person with pleural plaques who goes on to develop any recognised asbestos-related disease in the future from bringing a claim in relation to that disease.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The justice system plays a vital role in helping business to flourish. Economic growth can only be achieved if the framework exists within which businesses are free to trade and prosper and the justice system can help them to achieve that. Earlier this week, I published a paper, entitled “Justice for Business” and subtitled “Supporting Business and Encouraging Growth”, which sets out how our ambitious transforming justice programme is making the justice system more effective, less costly and better for business. By delivering lower legal costs, regulation that encourages investment and court processes that are faster, simpler and cheaper, we are overhauling the justice system so that business can get on with the job and contribute to growth rather than getting bogged down in protracted and expensive litigation.
Mr Wilson
At Reading prison this morning, I played football with fellow MPs from across the House against members of National Grid’s young offender scheme, which reports reoffending rates of just 6% compared with a national average of more than 70%. Given the widely recognised success of the programme, what is the Minister doing to encourage more companies to get involved and help slash reoffending rates?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
The National Grid scheme is a good example of good practice and Mary Harris, who is the lead force behind it, has very properly been honoured for her contribution. National Grid has been running the scheme for some time and getting a large number of other businesses engaged. The scheme is extremely important for the resettlement of offenders. Equally, it needs to sit alongside our proposals for work in prisons, all of which will assist in the rehabilitation of offenders with, we hope, the scale of success that the National Grid scheme has seen.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is no longer in his place and that is a shame, as he and I have rather a lot in common. For example, we both used to work for Asda, where we were told that the quality of a department can be judged on how it performs when the boss is away. Today, we have had at least five elegantly given “Don’t knows” from Ministers. Let us see whether Minister can answer this: does he know, and can he explain, why a written answer from his Department shows that almost 20% fewer inmates completed drug treatment courses in prisons last year than did so two years ago?
Mr Blunt
Of course, drug treatment programmes are the responsibility of the Department of Health. As one would expect from a mature Department, I will—[Interruption.] No, I do not know the precise answer to the question, so I will write to the hon. Lady with a precise answer.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
T3. What action are the Government taking to help rape victims?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We have invested £10.5 million in moving from 65 to 80 rape support centres across the country, examining the areas where there are gaps in provision to make sure we get the best possible national coverage so there is access to advice and support for victims of rape across the country.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
T2. Further to the question from my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), will the Minister comment on the relationship between health care and resettlement given that from April next year offenders in prison will receive health care that is commissioned centrally, whereas when they are released from prison back into the community those health services will be commissioned by the local clinical commissioning group?
Mr Blunt
The right hon. Gentleman is on to the very important issue of the continuity of care that is required, particularly for drug and alcohol addicted offenders, from custody into the community. I am delighted to say that the Department of Health’s drug treatment pilots look likely to be a vehicle by which we will be able to identify to areas when prisoners are being discharged to their area, so that they will know when a drug-addicted offender is being discharged to them. We will see how those pilots go, but I think we will have a much more effective system of ensuring that we deal with the gap in provision between when people are in custody and when they are in the community.
Neil Carmichael
I have just got a new BlackBerry and I was so impressed with it.
What is the Minister’s overall assessment of the recent Brighton declaration in terms of the European Court of Human Rights?
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is fair to say that the Brighton declaration was an excellent achievement for Britain. In his speech to Strasbourg on 25 January the Prime Minister outlined three achievements that he hoped for, the first of which was that there should be subsidiarity, with more decision making at the national level in the courts. That has been achieved. The second was that there should be more efficiency in the whole court structure, and that has been achieved. Thirdly, he hoped we would have a greater and better quality of judges in the Court, and that too has been achieved. We are going to have fewer cases going to Strasbourg and those that go will be dealt with efficiently. We dealt with 46 other countries, representing a total population of 800 million citizens, and I think it is a wonderful achievement on the part of Britain’s chairmanship to have got agreement between so many countries.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
T5. Legal aid is a safety net that protects the most vulnerable people in our society, but now that the Government have refused to listen to the concerns of Mumsnet and other organisations that protect vulnerable women, does the Minister accept that there are potentially thousands of women who will be too scared to leave their violent partners as a result of the reforms?
Mr Djanogly
It is very important to emphasise that the position for someone suffering from domestic violence remains absolutely unchanged—they will be able to get on-the-spot injunctive relief and that will be non-means-tested.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
T6. I warmly welcome the development of neighbourhood justice panels, and pilots are being developed in areas such as my constituency in Swindon. They should be dealing with low-level crimes in our community, but what interplay will there be between those panels and the role of the magistracy in our communities?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, which goes to the heart of our proposals in relation to the panels themselves, the development of restorative justice and the more effective delivery of community justice. Magistrates are the communities’ representatives in the delivery of justice and I would very much welcome their engagement in neighbourhood justice panels and their taking part in the training of restorative justice practitioners, for which we are putting in nearly £2 million. Those are proper roles for a modern magistracy representing the community in the delivery of justice.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
T8. Given that there is no replacement in sight for the victims commissioner, does not that send out entirely the wrong message to victims about the importance that the Government place on their needs?
Mr Blunt
I fear that the hon. Lady will share the frustration of the Opposition Front-Bench team. We will make clear the position on the victims commissioner along with all the other victims and witness issues when we properly respond to the consultation that we have just engaged with on our policies.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
T7. Will the Minister say when the review of the justice needs of Gloucestershire will be finished? Given that both the Crown and the magistrates courts in Gloucester are top of the list for replacement in the south-west of England, will he confirm that his Department will look closely at the proposal, which he knows I strongly advocate, for a new justice centre that brings together courts, tribunal and police station in the heart of Gloucester’s Barbican site?
Mr Djanogly
I have of course met my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, and discussions about the court and tribunal estate in the Gloucester area are ongoing. Our aim is to achieve an estate of appropriate capacity to meet the business need, and which is also efficient and less costly to run. We continually review our estate to ensure that it is well utilised and offers the best possible quality of service and facilities that we are able to provide for our users.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Is the Ministry of Justice aware that the Crown Prosecution Service has proposed withdrawing its staff from a purpose-built joint office that they share with the police at Athena house in York, where prosecutors and police officers work side by side, sharing files, to reduce court delays and court costs in York and Selby? Will a Justice Minister meet the Law Officers urgently to put a stop to this plan, on the basis that it would significantly increase costs for his Department?
Mr Djanogly
That is a matter properly addressed by the Attorney-General rather than the Ministry of Justice, but to the extent that there are issues that concern the Ministry of Justice, of course we will take an interest.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I welcome the intention set out in the Queen’s Speech to improve judicial diversity. How do the Government intend to achieve that, and can the Minister confirm that the principle of the best person for the job will remain paramount?
Mr Djanogly
We are starting at the top. We think diversity is very important so, through the Crime and Courts Bill, we are looking to reform the way in which judges’ appointments work, and we will be looking at that in the context of diversity.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
The families of missing people welcome the recommendations of the Justice Committee on presumption of death, which were published 12 weeks ago. Can the Minister tell the House when he will respond to that report?
Mr Djanogly
The Government realise the emotional and practical difficulties faced by the families and friends of missing people who are thought to be dead. We will respond shortly to the Justice Committee’s report.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the investment that the Government have made in rape centres. Can the Minister tell me when the sexual assault and rape centre is going to open in North Yorkshire and whether all the partners are signed up to it?
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2004 Robert Levy, aged 16, was killed in Hackney. His parents, Ian and Pat Levy, will be receiving support from the probation trust to help them give a victim statement at the parole hearing, which is due next year, but their rights are limited. There is no guarantee that they will appear in person and there will be no cross-examination of them about the impact on their lives. Will the Minister look again at this element of victim impact and tell us what he is doing?
Mr Blunt
We have done so in the course of our consideration of our policy for victims and witnesses, and I hope the hon. Lady will be able to look forward to the conclusions that we take from that, in particular on the future rule of the victim personal statement. I agree with her about its importance. It is another vehicle for getting victims properly engaged in the exercise of justice.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Eleven thousand, one hundred and twenty-seven—the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails is down slightly from the peak of 11,546 under the previous Government at the end of 2009. What further progress can we expect from the Government to send these people back to prison in their own countries?
Mr Blunt
I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter, which continues to spur the Government into action. As he knows because he understands the subject, it is a difficult and multifaceted exercise to get serving prisoners to return to their own country. Every avenue is being explored, from entry into the system, through examination of conditional cautions and the individual bilateral relationships that we have with countries, to the operation of the European Union prisoner transfer arrangements and the European Council’s protocol on the subject. No effort will be spared between us and the UK Border Agency to achieve success and improve performance in this area.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Constituents of mine who are interpreters have given me a dossier about Applied Language Solutions and its failings. Court hearings have been adjourned and costs have been incurred. Will the Minister update the House on what action he is taking against ALS—for breach of contract?
Mr Blunt
On 24 May, we will publish a full statistical analysis of the performance of ALS up to 30 April. Since the contract went national after a successful regional pilot in the north-west on 30 January, there were significant problems with the exercise of that contract, both related to the administration by ALS and to the attitude of interpreters engaging with ALS. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that the performance of ALS and its owner Capita has considerably improved in this area. The position has improved further since 30 April, and it is achieving very nearly now the performance required under the contract.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Minister rule out the use of closed material proceedings in inquest cases and cases that do not involve national security?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
What progress has been made in tackling the issue of the number of drivers who continue to drive legally with more than 12 points on their licence, now numbering more than 10,000 people?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
David Parfitt killed my constituent Ged Walker, who was a serving police officer. Parfitt was released from custody a few months ago after a long sentence. We understand that he appeared in Lincoln magistrates court charged with a new offence, but my constituent’s widow has not been given the details of that offence. Does the Minister agree that as a victim of crime, she is entitled to know if he has reoffended, and if he has, in what way?
Mr Blunt
I will want to examine the precise duties that the House and the Government have placed on the victim liaison services, both in the probation service and in the police, with respect to that case. The duties of the system to victims have improved, are improving and must continue to do so. They must feel very central to the exercise and administration of criminal justice.
Mr Speaker
I would not want the hon. Lady to feel marginalised or excluded. Diana R. Johnson.
Diana Johnson
I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. In light of the impact that sexual assault referral centres can have on rape convictions, should sexual assault referral centres have their funding ring-fenced, both from the NHS and from the police?
Mr Blunt
Of course, our Administration is generally against ring-fencing, and it can be accepted only in very exceptional cases. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office are looking carefully at the whole area, and the case for ring-fencing is being strongly made. When we have reached a conclusion, I will report it to the House.
Debate on the Address
Foreign Affairs and International Development
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Our Government’s foreign policy has two principal aims: to respond to urgent challenges and crises in ways that promote Britain’s national interest and our democratic values, including human rights, poverty reduction and conflict prevention, and to equip our country to be a safe, prosperous and influential nation for the long term. To do that, given the scale of the economic changes that we are seeing in the world’s economic landscape, we are expanding British diplomacy beyond Europe and north America, even at a time of tight resources. We are forging new connections with new and emerging powers while maintaining our traditional alliances and our role in international institutions. We are intensifying efforts to promote British exports and attract inward investments, with strong early results. In 2011, British goods exports to India increased by 37%, to Indonesia by 44%, and to Colombia by 35%, while British exports as a whole last year increased by nearly £50 billion.
Mr Hague
I will make a little progress before giving way, if my hon. Friend can wait just a moment.
We are using the National Security Council to pursue a much more systematic approach to Britain’s international objectives across all Government Departments, and the Foreign Office is back at the heart of Government in the making of Britain’s foreign policy, with three clear departmental objectives, instead of the 10 that were in place when we came to government. The objectives are to safeguard Britain’s national security, to build our country’s prosperity and to support British nationals overseas through our consular work.
Julian Smith
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way and apologise for my eagerness, but I want to pay tribute to the British ambassadors who came to this House two weeks ago sizzling with ideas about how British companies could export to their markets. I refer, in particular, to the ambassador to Namibia, who won the X-factor contest for the most competitive ambassador that day.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Never before have our ambassadors been described in this House as “sizzling”, so I am delighted by his description—an accurate one—of their commitment to promoting British businesses overseas. They are now backed by the biggest drive to build up the Foreign Office’s diplomatic skills and capabilities that the Department has seen in modern times, with a new language training centre training up to 500 diplomats a year, more economic and commercial training and a new economics unit. Following his intervention, I pay tribute to the men and women of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, who work tirelessly day after day in support of our country.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
I understand that many of the more junior posts overseas will now be filled by locally engaged staff. How will the Foreign Secretary ensure that staff going on their first posting overseas once they get higher up the scale will have the necessary experience if they have been unable to gain that in other postings?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady is right to say that that is one of the changes in the administration of the Foreign Office. We are saving £100 million in administration, and it is not possible to do that without making some important changes, such as the one she refers to for A and B-band staff. Most of the staff who work overseas, of course, come in at a different level and did not acquire their previous experience at the A or B-band level. Those staff affected by the change will, in many cases, have the opportunity to seek promotion to higher grades—I strongly support that—so we are trying to mitigate the effect on their careers.
I announced to the House on 11 May last year that we would substantially reinvigorate Britain’s diplomatic presence overseas. I believe that there will never be any substitute for a strong British diplomatic service that advances the interests of the United Kingdom, centred on a global diplomatic network.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
On that point, may I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the work he has done to expand the diplomatic network, because under the previous Government many of our diplomatic missions were neglected and some were closed? I congratulate him on what he is doing because it is good for business. Are there expansion plans for India, that crucial and vibrant democracy?
Mr Hague
Yes, there are, but I will speak about India in a moment because I have a specific announcement to make on our posts there. I can say to my hon. Friend that we will not set out to close any of the existing British embassies or high commissions in the lifetime of this Parliament, although clearly there are extreme circumstances, such as the attacks on our embassy in Tehran and the security situation in Damascus, that have required the temporary withdrawal of British diplomats. Instead, by 2015 we will have deployed 300 extra staff in more than 20 countries and will have opened up to 11 new British embassies and eight new consulates or trade offices.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr Hague
I will give way in a moment, because I just want to elaborate on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) raised.
Not only is that a reversal of the overall policy of the previous Government, who closed 17 high commissions and embassies, but in some instances we are reopening embassies and high commissions that they closed.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr Hague
No. I want to list them to the House.
In Africa we have reopened an embassy in Côte d’Ivoire and opened a new embassy in South Sudan; we are reopening our embassy in Madagascar, which should never have been closed; we are opening an embassy in Liberia; and we have set aside funds to open an embassy in Somalia as soon as circumstances permit. We have opened a new embassy in strategically important Kyrgyzstan, and we are establishing a new honorary consul network for economic and commercial diplomacy in Turkey.
In Latin America we have already opened a new consulate in the north of Brazil; we are reopening our embassy in El Salvador, which was closed in 2003; and on top of that we are strengthening many links with the people of Latin America, with an agreement for example to welcome 10,000 Brazilian students and researchers to British institutions by 2014. I stress that this focus on stronger ties in Latin America goes hand in hand with our absolute commitment to the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to self-determination and to develop their own economy.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mark Lazarowicz
The right hon. Gentleman, like many, will know that, in some cases, embassies and consulates require new buildings, and this British presence overseas can be an opportunity to highlight the best of British design and architecture. I have been contacted by a constituent with a leading architectural practice who believes that the Government’s new arrangements discriminate against high-quality design and architecture in favour of the cheapest option and, sometimes, in favour of multinational companies rather than British architecture and design. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that point, about which I have written to one of his ministerial colleagues?
Mr Hague
I will certainly have a look at the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Of course we want to support British architecture, and I think that we do, very well, in many parts of the world. It also has to be cost-effective in this public spending environment, but I will look at the point that he makes.
Alex Cunningham
The expansion of the diplomatic network is important and welcome, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that businesses in the illegal settlements on the west bank should not have European Union grants in any shape or form, and that diplomats should be working to stop them?
Mr Hague
I will come to the middle east peace process later in my speech, but at the EU Foreign Affairs Council yesterday, we issued an important new and detailed statement about our approach to the two settlements, in particular. I will come back to that, but perhaps I will take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on this point.
Alec Shelbrooke
My right hon. Friend has done a huge amount in his time as Foreign Secretary to go to countries throughout the world and to reinvigorate the Foreign Office, which was sidelined by the previous Government. Indeed, under the Blair Government the Foreign Office was seen more as a nuisance than as a help. Will my right hon. Friend outline to the House some of the countries that he has been to which have not been visited by a Foreign Secretary in a great many years?
Mr Hague
It would extend my speech probably too much if I were to go into all those countries, but when I arrived in Australia it was surprising to find that no Foreign Secretary of the Labour Government had visited the country during their entire 13 years in office. I give that as an example.
Mr Hague
No, I will proceed for a moment.
In Asia we are reopening our embassy in Laos, which will mean that we are one of only three EU member states with diplomatic representation in every single Association of Southeast Asian Nations country; and we intend to open a new British interest office in Burma, in Naypyidaw.
It is vital that we develop a strong, frank and open partnership with China, reflecting our growing shared interests and our support for China’s continued economic success and more active leadership in addressing global issues. Where we differ, such as on human rights, it is vital that we continue our dialogue, so by 2015 we will have an additional consulate, 60 more staff and 40% more Chinese language speakers in our posts in China.
Mr Hague
I am just coming to the India point, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Given the growing importance of our relations with India, I can announce today that we have secured the agreement of the Indian Government to open new deputy high commissions in the important cities of Hyderabad and Chandigarh. That will bring the number of our diplomatic posts in India to seven and mean that Britain has the most extensive diplomatic network in India of any diplomatic service in the world. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to explain why those things did not happen when he was at the Foreign Office.
Chris Bryant
I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary has been to Vientiane yet, but I have. [Interruption.] It is in Laos.
Chris Bryant
Oh, good. You seemed to be asking somebody.
I want to return the Foreign Secretary to the subject of Colombia. He will know that many people in all parts of the House have profound concerns about human rights issues in that country. The EU is in the process of agreeing a free trade agreement with Colombia. When does he expect that this House will have a right to vote on that ratification?
Mr Hague
I know where the country is that the hon. Gentleman was first talking about; I have just announced the reopening of an embassy there. He visited that country without increasing our diplomatic representation; I have done so without visiting it.
On Colombia, yes, there continues to be human rights work to do there. The commitment of the President of Colombia to make further progress on human rights is, I think, very genuine and should be warmly received in this House. I believe that there will be strong support in this House for free trade agreements being extended across the rest of the world, including with Colombia. It is not our normal practice in the House to vote on such things, but of course there is no reason why a vote cannot be created on such an issue, particularly given the rights of Back Benchers to bring about votes. I will look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has talked about opening embassies around the world. I congratulate him on that, because it is vital for the future growth, trade and investment of this country. Will he enlighten the House on how the Foreign Office is working with UK Trade & Investment to make sure that we bring more trade and investment back to Britain?
Mr Hague
Yes. Not only do the Foreign Office and UKTI work very closely together, but we provide UKTI with funding for specific projects, allowing it to expand its presence overseas in the same places where the FCO is expanding its work, with the additional personnel and posts that I am describing, to try to open markets and change policies in other countries so that British companies can gain access to their markets and UKTI can then help them to use that access. In the past year, the FCO and UKTI, working together, helped about 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises to gain access, for the first time, to emerging markets around the world. That is a very important part of the economic revival of this country, and that effort must be further redoubled over the coming years.
The approach that I have described on India will help to expand our trade and investment relationship by helping British companies, and it will help to deepen our political links with state leaders across India. We are funding this expansion in relation to the emerging powers through the reallocation of FCO resources, the withdrawal of some subordinate posts in Europe, and the reduction over time of our diplomatic footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan, where security costs are considerable. We are doing that while making the £100 million per year of administrative savings by the end of the Parliament required by our spending review settlement, showing that it is what we choose to do with our resources that counts the most. I can also tell the House that next month we will publish the Government’s new White Paper on relations with the UK’s overseas territories.
Our focus on stronger political and economic ties with the growing economies of Asia, Africa and Latin America in no way comes at the expense of our role in the European Union or our alliance with the United States. We will never have a stronger ally than the United States of America. We make a vital contribution to each other’s security, and our co-operation in foreign affairs will always be one of the absolute pillars of our foreign policy. Nowhere has this been more visible in recent years than in Afghanistan. I pay tribute to all the British personnel who have lost their lives, including, sadly, in recent days, or have been injured serving our country there. We are in Afghanistan to protect our own national security by helping Afghans to take control of theirs.
The process of transitioning security control to Afghan forces agreed at the Lisbon summit in 2010 is on track; it is realistic and it is achievable. Transition has begun in areas that cover about 50% of the Afghan population and in 20 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. With the latest announcement this weekend, that will rise to 75% of the population and involve areas of all 34 provinces. In mid-2013, when the final stage of transition begins, the Afghan national security forces will lead security responsibility across the whole country and the international security assistance force will begin to move to a supporting role, focusing primarily on training, advising and assisting the Afghan national security forces. ISAF will be in a combat role until the end of 2014, when the transition process will be completed.
The main focus of the Chicago summit this weekend will be to agree a plan for the size, shape and funding of the Afghan national security forces beyond 2014. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has announced that Britain will contribute £70 million a year from 2015 to fund the Afghan forces after ISAF’s combat operations end. That will be in addition to our leading the Afghan national army officer academy, which was announced by the Prime Minister last year. We will continue to support the Afghan Government’s efforts to achieve an inclusive, representative and sustainable political settlement through their reconciliation process, and to urge Afghanistan’s neighbours to support that objective.
The Prime Minister and I welcomed the Prime Minister of Pakistan to London last week for extensive discussions that illustrated the strength and breadth of our enduring partnership.
The European Union remains central to our prosperity, both internally through the single market and externally through its programme of free trade agreements. The European debate about growth and austerity has intensified in recent days. We should not artificially frame this as a choice. The Government have long pressed for a more growth-oriented EU policy to go alongside the necessary fiscal measures that are being taken at the national level, including in the UK. That work has been developed with our many allies in the EU, following the publication of the Prime Minister’s pamphlet “Let’s choose growth” more than a year ago. That policy has won the support of countries comprising a majority of the EU’s population.
The most recent European Council agreed a comprehensive growth agenda for the EU based on those arguments. The agenda is not about spending money that we do not have, which is the unsustainable folly that put this country in such difficulty; it is about expanding trade within the EU and beyond, lifting regulatory burdens and making structural reforms to European economies. Our future prosperity cannot be driven by Government spending or consumer spending, but will be created by earning our way in the world through trade and competitiveness.
Julian Smith
On a recent all-party parliamentary group trip to Brussels, it was clear that the Prime Minister’s letter of last February had struck a chord with many countries. I urge the Foreign Secretary to push ahead with the deregulation agenda at Commission level, because I was not convinced that it was accepted totally by all the countries involved.
Mr Hague
I agree that it is important to push ahead, for instance with the agreement in the European Union to exempt the smallest businesses in Europe from new regulations. It is important to ensure that that happens in practice. That is an example of what we are achieving with the growth agenda. Sustained effort is needed to bring it about.
The financial uncertainty caused by the eurozone crisis is the biggest single obstacle to our economic recovery. Although each eurozone member must make its own decision on how to handle the crisis, our view remains that it is only through the control of public finances, an increase in productivity and competitiveness, and structural reform that Europe’s economies will obtain the lasting economic growth that will take us out of these hard times.
In this Session, the Government will bring forward two items of European legislation. The first is a Bill to amend the EU treaties and confirm the legal basis of the eurozone-only European stability mechanism. During negotiations on that treaty change, we ensured that the UK will not be liable through the EU budget for any future eurozone bail-out once the ESM comes into force. The second is a Bill to ratify the accession of Croatia to the European Union.
Of course, today we welcome the new President of France to his office. We look forward to working with him as a close ally.
Just as Britain will make full use of its unique network of partnerships, including the Commonwealth, we want the EU to use its collective weight in the world to good effect. We must continue to place pressure on the authorities in Belarus to release and rehabilitate all political prisoners and commit themselves to real reform, and we must continue to urge the Ukrainian Government to demonstrate that they respect fundamental democratic values and principles. Our Government are dismayed by the alleged mistreatment of former Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko.
In the western Balkans, we look forward to the opening of accession negotiations with Montenegro and to Croatia’s expected accession in July next year, and we welcome Serbia’s EU candidate status, awarded in March after progress towards normalising relations with Kosovo.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary has raised the case of Yulia Tymoshenko. What measures are the Government taking, and what representations are they making, about that appalling mistreatment and breach of someone’s human rights?
Mr Hague
We have made very clear representations about it. I have discussed the case personally with the Foreign Minister of Ukraine, and our ambassadors right across the EU have made strong representations about that case and other trials that do not appear to have followed what we would regard as due process. While the difficulties remain, the stabilisation and association agreement that has been negotiated between Ukraine and the EU is not being brought into force, so there is a standstill in progressing relations between EU countries and Ukraine. We welcome the recent developments such as the provision of medical care to Mrs Tymoshenko with the assistance of Germany, and we will continue to pursue that case and others vigorously with Ukraine.
Returning to the subject of the Balkans, continued progress in relations with Kosovo will remain vital to Serbia’s path towards EU membership. We also want Bosnia-Herzegovina to be able to make its own leap forward to EU candidate status and full membership of NATO. We intend to develop our co-operation with Russia where it is in our interest to do so, particularly in our economic relationship and in addressing key issues affecting global security as members of the UN Security Council, and I will shortly visit Moscow again.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
My right hon. Friend failed to mention one country in the Balkans area, which was Macedonia. Given that the Greeks might not exactly be as strong as they used to be in negotiations in the EU, surely we can give a bit of oomph to Macedonia’s negotiations to enter the EU should it want to?
Mr Hague
The whole of Europe wants to see the name dispute resolved, of course. That requires an agreement with Greece, which of course requires a Greek Government to be able to take the initiative and come to such an agreement. My hon. Friend will be aware that as we came into the Chamber for the debate, the news was that a caretaker Government would be appointed in Greece pending fresh elections on 10 or 17 June. We certainly hope that whoever is elected in Greece, facing formidable challenges, will include the resolution of the name issue among their priorities.
The EU has an important role to play further afield, including in Burma. The House can be proud that we never wavered in our support for democracy there and insisted on real political and human rights reform as the condition for any move towards an open relationship between Burma and the EU. We are starting to see real reform, although the gains are not yet irreversible and serious human rights concerns remain. The bold leadership shown by President Thein Sein and by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has finally placed the country on a hopeful path, and every Member will have been moved by the sight of Aung San Suu Kyi taking her seat in Burma’s Parliament on 2 May. It will be a huge honour if she visits Britain this summer for the first time in 24 years.
I visited Burma in January, and our Prime Minister was the first western leader to visit after the recent by-elections. We led the way in calling for and securing the suspension, rather than the complete lifting, of EU sanctions, and we have announced that we have lifted our policy of discouraging trade with Burma, although we maintain an arms embargo. We believe that at this moment, the right kind of responsible trade and investment can help aid that country’s transition.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am glad that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister went to Burma to meet that great leader, and we all look forward to her being able to visit London, but she might be alone because although we are open to one or two personalities our nation is shutting down. Does the Foreign Secretary know that, according to today’s report by the European Tour Operators Association, France now attracts 50% more visitors from India than we do; that 26% of all Indians and 30% of all Chinese who apply for a visa to come to the UK give up because it is too expensive and the application is eight pages long; and that everyone goes to the Schengen area, which now includes Switzerland? We have the reputation of being desirous of business, but closed to foreigners. Is that wise?
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) might like to seek an Adjournment debate on that point.
Mr Hague
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will, as always, want to take your advice, Mr Speaker. Of course, I will look at the report that he mentions—I have not seen it—but I do not think that that picture of this country is accurate. Indeed, when we discussed relations with China and India in the Cabinet this morning, we considered the number of Chinese students in the UK. The figure is currently 95,000—the largest number of Chinese students in the world in any country outside China apart from the United States. We are only narrowly behind the United States, and we have more Chinese students than any other country in Europe. That is an example of our openness to people from the rest of the world, and the right hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
As the Foreign Secretary knows, the Inter-Parliamentary Union campaigned for many years for the political prisoners in Burmese jails. Although we welcome the release of some of them, hundreds are still in prison. Will he make a particular point of asking for the release of all political prisoners in Burma?
Mr Hague
Yes, we certainly do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development was in Burma before me last November, and he made that point strongly, as I did in January. Indeed, several hundred more prisoners were released the following week. I had asked that they be released in time to be nominated as candidates for the by-elections on 1 April. We therefore strongly welcome the releases. As I said, there are still human rights concerns, including continuing ethnic conflict in Kachin state, and prisoners whom the Burmese Opposition argue are political prisoners. We are now at the stage of definitions of what constitutes a political prisoner. We and the opposition in Burma may have a differing view from the Government there. However, there have been large-scale releases, and we will continue to ask for the release of all individuals who can be defined as political prisoners.
We also want the EU to play a determined role on Iran’s nuclear programme. Next week, on 23 May, the next round of negotiations between Iran and the E3 plus 3—France, China, Russia, the United States, Germany and the UK—will take place. We welcome the fact that, in the previous talks in Turkey last month, Iran did not try to lay down conditions for negotiations, as it has in the past. However, we have seen no indication yet from Iran that it is willing to take concrete action to address concerns about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear programme—we will look for that in Baghdad. We will take a step-by-step approach, looking for reciprocal actions by both sides. They should start with steps by Iran to build confidence in its nuclear activities. In particular, Iran should take early action to address the concern about its production of 20% enriched uranium.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary knows that Iran is still a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and that a conference is due in Helsinki in December. Will he confirm that that will go ahead, with the idea of promoting a nuclear weapons free middle east, and that Britain, Israel and Iran will all be present?
Mr Hague
I certainly hope that that will go ahead. The hon. Gentleman is right; there is a Finnish co-ordinator, which is why we are looking towards a conference in Helsinki. A meeting was held on 8 May about drawing the conference together, so it remains our objective that it will be held in 2012, albeit late in the year, and, of course, we want all relevant nations to participate, although it is up to each of them to decide. We strongly support the Finnish representative’s work on the conference, and we will participate in and support it.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
On 9 May, Reuters news agency produced a report suggesting that British officials were attempting to delay by six months a ban on insurance for ships carrying Iranian oil, which would have a knock-on effect on delaying sanctions. Is that true? If so, why?
Mr Hague
The UK is one of the strongest advocates of the sanctions being applied by the EU, including the ban on EU imports of Iranian oil from 1 July. The House should be clear about that, but discussion is continuing within the EU about protection and indemnity insurance and when a ban on it would be applied—on 1 July or at a later date. We are discussing that separately because of concerns expressed by countries outside the EU about the impact on their trade. We are assessing that, working with France in particular, to try to understand how serious the impact would be. We are clearly applying sharply increased pressure on Iran, but we also have to bear in mind the wider consequences for oil prices and the world economy, and balance those concerns.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that even if the Iranians make constructive proposals in Baghdad next week, which would be very welcome, it would be premature to consider any suspension of sanctions, except in the unlikely event that the Iranians propose to suspend, as of that date, their further enrichment of uranium?
Mr Hague
We will have to see what, if any, proposals Iran makes in Baghdad on 23 May, but if my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that we should be cautious about making large-scale concessions, of course I agree—we will be cautious. It would, in any case, require agreement across the E3 plus 3. We will see what the Iranians say. If they propose and start to implement concrete steps, of course there would be ways in which we would want to respond, but very serious and significant steps would have to be taken for us to change, in any way, our approach to, for example, the imposition of the oil sanctions that I just described.
Alec Shelbrooke
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking time to negotiate the position in Iran, which contrasts starkly with when former Prime Minister Blair stood at the inquiry and said that we should take immediate military action against Iran. The Foreign Secretary’s approach should be commended, and I very much hope that he carries on developing those relations, especially with Russia and China, which will have such an important role to play in helping Iran out of this situation.
Mr Hague
One hundred per cent. of our efforts are devoted to a peaceful, negotiated, diplomatic solution to this problem, although we have never taken anything off the table. The House endorsed that approach by an overwhelming majority when we debated it in February. We will maintain the pressure of intensifying sanctions until genuine progress is made, and that includes the sanctions I just described.
We will also continue to raise our concerns about the state of human rights in Iran, which are documented in the FCO’s annual report on human rights that I published two weeks ago. We are increasing the funding of FCO human rights work by 30% in the coming year, with an additional £1.5 million of funding devoted to projects to promote freedom of expression online and the implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I very much support the Government’s renewed and increased commitment to their human rights work. The Foreign Secretary mentioned that he would be travelling to Moscow. Will he raise these human rights issues with his Russian counterparts, with particular reference to the judicial system? A string of European Court judgments has gone against the Russian authorities. I think of the Magnitsky case and others in the north Caucasus. Indeed, it is not in Russia’s security interests for such impunity to rain down on the citizens of Russia.
Mr Hague
We have not set the agenda for the forthcoming visit to Moscow, top of which will be Syria, to which I am about to come, but we regularly discuss such issues with our Russian counterparts. Indeed, on my first visit to Moscow as Foreign Secretary, I specifically met human rights groups in Moscow to highlight some of these issues. That work will continue.
The whole House will abhor the violence and systematic violations of human rights in Syria today. More than 10,000 people—perhaps 15,000—have been killed, with many thousands more displaced or detained. The threat grows of civil war or extremists supported by al-Qaeda seeking to take advantage of the crisis. Progress is being made in the deployment of UN monitors to Syria, in accordance with Kofi Annan’s six-point plan, which continues to offer the best hope of ending the crisis. I discussed the latest position with Mr Annan last night. Some 189 observers are currently on the ground, and the full mission of 300 should be deployed by the end of the month. The presence of UN observers has had some impact on the scale of the violence; however, we should be clear that violence and brutal repression continue. Heavy weapons are still being used, and there has been an increase in the use of snipers, night raids, attacks by militia and systematic detentions.
The Syrian regime has not yet implemented the six-point plan, nor has it shown any sign of being prepared to begin a credible political dialogue or transition. This is unacceptable. The Syrian regime should be in no doubt: if it thinks it can murder, kill and torture its way back into favour with the Syrian people or that the world will turn a blind eye to its actions, it is mistaken. The Annan plan is the Syrian regime’s opportunity to accept the need for a better future for its country and to enter into political dialogue to bring that about. If the regime does not do that, we will be ready to return to the Security Council, and it will find itself facing mounting international pressure and, ultimately, the long reach of international justice.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Those are—I mean this genuinely—very fine words, but Reuters reports that 32 people were killed in Syria yesterday. The Annan plan is not working at the moment. I am not saying that it should not be given a chance to work, but what else are the Government doing to stop the killing in Syria?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to the number of people killed yesterday. As I have said, the violence continues. What the deployment of UN monitors has meant so far is that tens of people, rather than hundreds of people, are being killed every day. However, the situation is still completely unacceptable. What else are we doing? We are intensifying our support for bringing opposition groups together. I announced in Istanbul last month a doubling of our financial support to the opposition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has allocated humanitarian aid—as much as has been asked for—to international agencies dealing with people who have fled from Syria. At the next meeting, which I expect to be held in France, once the new French Government have established themselves, and which I hope will be the largest meeting yet, we will join the Friends of Syria group to co-ordinate international pressure. We stepped up our sanctions on Syria at the EU Foreign Affairs Council yesterday. Of course, we also continue to discuss, with Russia, the Russian position and the need for Russia—as it is in a position of crucial leverage on the Syrian regime—to recognise that only a political transition of the kind set out in the Annan plan is a viable way forward for Syria.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Ten per cent. of the Syrian population are Christian. The only redeeming feature of the Assad regime is that, like Saddam, he has protected them. There have been numerous violations against the Christian population in opposition areas. For the first time in centuries, the Easter liturgy was not celebrated in many areas this year. What are the Government doing to bring the plight of Christians in Syria to the attention of the world?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this matter. I can assure him that one of the top items on our agenda in all our meetings with Syrian opposition groups is this very issue and the need for them to make clear—as they did at our meetings in Tunisia and Istanbul over the last few months—their commitment to human rights, including freedom of religion and freedom of expression in Syria. That is crucial; indeed, it is a vital part of the future of a country that includes many different religious groups and many different cultures, which is one of Syria’s great strengths. I think opposition leaders are serious about that, and if and when they are ever in power we will look to them to hold to their commitments on that.
In addition, Members in all parts of the House will have concerns about Bahrain.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Does not the sad overflow of the civil war between the Sunni and the Alawis into Lebanon, which does not have a tyrannical Government, indicate that the real basis of what is going on in Syria is precisely that: a civil war between the Alawis and the Sunni? The Sunni countries of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are backing the Sunni, who are deeply anti-Israel, and the 350,000-strong Christian minority are supporting the Assad regime because they know that if that regime were replaced by a Sunni Government, they would be the chief victims. Is it not time that the United Nations began to understand the realities of the situation in Syria?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter on the Floor of the House before. His point is well made, and he is right to say that the situation is complex. I believe that that is understood in many of the countries of the United Nations and embraced by Kofi Annan’s plan. No one thinks that there is a simple, magic solution to this, which is why the deployment of monitors and the attempt to embark on a political process that will take account of all the relevant groups in Syria is the right way forward, rather than the violent overthrow of the regime or the violent suppression of the opposition. There is a great danger of the conflict spilling over into neighbouring countries, and the violence that we have seen in Tripoli in Lebanon in recent days is an example of that. The international community is reacting with an awareness of the complexity and dangers of the situation, and my right hon. Friend is quite right to point them out.
I was about to mention the situation in Bahrain. We welcome the fact that the Bahraini Government have committed themselves to a reform process. They have taken some positive steps, including the introduction of a police code of conduct, a special investigations unit and a media oversight body. They have also announced a review in a civilian court of the convictions of 20 activists, and we urge the court to take that forward urgently with due process and transparency. We continue to press the Bahraini Government about the welfare of the detainee Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, and the need to find an urgent compassionate solution. We also urge the Government of Bahrain to implement the independent commission’s recommendations in full, including bringing to justice those responsible for human rights abuses, rebuilding the Shi’a mosques that were destroyed last year and integrating representatives from all communities into the security forces. We are ready to offer British support in areas such as judicial training and implementing international human rights law.
Despite the situation in Syria and the difficulties being faced by countries in transition, our Government remain on the optimistic side of the Arab spring. It represents the most significant opportunity for the advance of human rights and freedoms since the cold war, and we must, in general, give it our support. Yes, there are great difficulties and uncertainties in all those countries, but we should not lose sight of the great opportunity that the Arab spring represents. Libya, for example, is on course to stage its first democratic elections in 40 years this summer, and Egypt’s citizens are about to choose their next President in elections later this month. Countries such as Algeria, Jordan and Morocco have embarked on peaceful reform. Last year, the joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office-Department for International Development Arab partnership fund funded more than 50 projects in 11 countries in the region. This included grants to social entrepreneurs in Tunisia and help for civil society groups in Morocco, and we will continue to increase that help.
The events of the Arab spring make the need for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict ever more pressing and urgent. A solution is urgently needed to give the Palestinian people the state that they need and deserve, and the Israeli people the security and peace that have eluded them for so long. We urge both sides to avoid any steps that could undermine the prospects for peace, whether rocket fire from Gaza or decisions by Israel to legalise settlement outposts.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I returned yesterday from a visit to Israel and the west bank. Can my right hon. Friend give me the details of any recent discussions he has had with the Israeli Government on the settlements, the security fence and, in particular, the condition of the prisoners who are on hunger strike?
Mr Hague
Yes, I discussed all those issues with the new Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Mr Mofaz, when I called him last Friday to congratulate him on the new coalition in Israel. My hon. Friend will be aware that the issue of the hunger strike appears to have been settled yesterday, with important changes to the way in which the prisoners will be treated by the Israelis. That is welcome. I reiterated the long-held position across this House on settlements, and we have condemned recent settlement announcements. We have continued to urge both the Israeli Government and the Palestinians to enter negotiations under the auspices of the Quartet to work towards a two-state solution. The creation of a Government in Israel with a huge majority in the Knesset provides an unusual opportunity to take forward such negotiations.
Mr Hague
I will not give way much more, as I am conscious of taking up a lot of the House’s time and I want to conclude my remarks.
Across the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, we are determined to improve our ability to take fast, appropriate and effective action to prevent conflict and to help build stability overseas—the last subject I want to address.
Mr Hague
I shall give way just once more, in a few minutes’ time, so hon. Members should stand by!
The joint FCO, DFID and MOD conflict pool provided funding last year to strengthen the electoral process in Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire and funded local conflict mitigation projects in Sudan and many other projects. We have established a new £20 million early action facility to enable a rapid response to crises, building on the example of the successful deployment of a stabilisation response team in Libya.
Mr Hague
Let me proceed; otherwise, I will feel that I have detained the House too long.
We also held a highly successful London conference on Somalia, injecting new momentum into Somalia’s political process and setting out plans to strengthen support for the African Union mission in Somalia to help the country develop its own security forces, to help build security at a local level and to take effective action to tackle piracy and terrorism. We look forward to the follow-up conference in Istanbul later this month, which I will attend.
Elsewhere in Africa, we are very concerned by the rise in military tensions between Sudan and South Sudan. It would be catastrophic for both countries if this were to lead to serious conflict. We support the full implementation of the African Union’s action plan to resolve the crisis and the outstanding issues between Sudan and South Sudan.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My right hon. Friend is generous. He refers to the conflict between the north and south in Sudan, but this is not an equal match at all. It is the populations of the Nuba mountains who are being targeted by the Sudanese Government. Many of them are innocent people living in villages and there is not the slightest evidence of their participating in military activity. What are the Government doing to make it absolutely certain that the Sudanese Government know that they are condemned by all civilised people for their victimisation of the Nuba people in particular?
Mr Hague
We are very clear about that, and we have been very clear with both Governments—in Khartoum and in Juba—about recent events. Frankly, both have been at fault in various ways. Our ambassador in Khartoum has been clear to the Sudanese, and I met a South Sudanese delegation here two weeks ago and was clear about the message. We agreed a common position of the whole United Nations Security Council, spelling out to both countries the consequences of conflict and the actions, including sanctions, that would be taken by the UN if they went further into conflict. That includes the issue that my hon. Friend talked about. I will give way one last time, but then I will conclude my speech.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, may I ask him why, in an eloquent speech that has lasted for 53 minutes, he has still said nothing about the risk to our security from climate change? It is not just me saying this. People from the UN downwards are saying that climate change poses a greater threat to our national security than terrorism or conflict. It is in the Government’s own security strategy, yet in 53 minutes we have still heard not a word about climate change. Is that because he does not think that it is a risk to our security?
Mr Hague
No, not at all, and I thought I mentioned climate change earlier—unless I missed out that part of my speech. I am sorry, but it is not possible even in 53 minutes to do justice to every issue that every hon. Member wants to ask about, but that is why we have a debate—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Foreign Secretary has been on his feet for only 50 minutes.
Mr Hague
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker, for that clarification. I will take a few minutes more. The hon. Lady can be absolutely assured—I am sure she knows—that we are strongly committed to international work on climate change. For example, when I visited Brazil a few months ago, I pursued our opportunity to work together on development and on climate change issues. Of all the Foreign Ministries in the world—
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Hague
I will not give way again—despite Mr Speaker’s generosity.
The Foreign Office is one of the best-equipped Foreign Ministries anywhere in the world to pursue climate change issues and to alter the views of other countries and Governments. I hope the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is now satisfied that we are very much committed to that.
We are also working with the Government of Nigeria on counter-terrorism policy, doctrine and legal frameworks, managing the consequences of attacks and addressing underlying grievances that leave communities vulnerable. We are increasingly concerned by the threat to the UK from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and associated groups in Africa, and a year on from the death of Osama bin Laden, and with al-Qaeda under pressure in Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are determined not to let it emerge in strength anywhere else. We continue to operate with Governments across the Sahel to try to reduce the threat from al-Qaeda.
This summer, we will celebrate Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee and welcome the world to London for the Olympic and Paralympic games. In the run-up to the games, we have already set an Olympic record: in an unprecedented show of support, all 193 UN member states co-sponsored the UN resolution for the Olympic truce. That was in itself an Olympian feat of diplomacy—it has never happened before—as well as a demonstration of our practical commitment to the peace-building ideals of the Olympic truce.
So, even in difficult times, it is right to be proud of our country and what it stands for in the world, and to be optimistic about our potential for the future. With our many great assets and advantages, our country’s approach to foreign policy must be one of confident advance and diplomatic expansion, not of a defensive crouch. We remain one of the very best places to visit, live, work, study, invest and do business, and the Olympic season will advertise that fact to an audience of 4 billion people around the world.
I believe we can forge new opportunities for our nation while standing up for human rights, development and freedom around the world, and this will be our approach over the coming year, dealing with urgent crises and challenges while working for the long-term future of our country and for a peaceful and stable world.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House that there will be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, but those contributions will be preceded by that of Mr Douglas Alexander.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Let me begin by paying tribute to the many Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, both at home and abroad. Their contribution is significant, their skills considerable and their efforts very much appreciated by Members on both sides of the House.
This debate takes place at a time when Britain’s influence in the world has rarely been more needed, but when threats to that influence are growing. We meet in the shadow of a Europe convulsed by a continuing currency, banking and economic crisis. We have seen changes in the Arab world that have brought down old orthodoxies, but which have thrown up new challenges that the global community still grapples with today. Also, as we have just heard, we witnessed the death of Osama bin Laden, which marked a decisive moment in the struggle against al-Qaeda, but also signalled the emergence of a new era, defined more by the events of 2011 in the middle east than 9/11.
Such dramatic events alone would be enough to shake the foundations of the global order in which we operate, but underlying these moments in history is a far deeper historical trend that we in this House would be irresponsible to ignore. In recent years, there has been an ever-accelerating movement of wealth and power from north to south, from west to east. It is unlikely that our generation will witness a more profound reordering of geo-economics, and, potentially, geo-politics, than the one currently under way. It means that today Britain risks becoming less relevant in the two key relationships that have for decades defined our place in the world: less relevant in a European Union that has focused on the crisis and consequences of a currency that the last Labour Government rightly decided not to join; and less relevant to a United States that is weary of 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq and that is now consciously rebalancing its priorities and focus from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Yet at this time when our influence risks being undermined, this Government do not appear to have a compass by which to navigate the changes we are witnessing.
I say this with respect, but self-congratulation, schadenfreude and a hint of imperial delusion are not a recipe for a serious strategy in these troubled times. Only this morning, The Times quoted from a newly published report that sets out the Government’s failures in stark and graphic terms. The Atlantic Council report, compiled by some of today’s foremost foreign policy practitioners, offered a damning judgment on the incoherence that has marked this Government’s foreign policy. It stated that the
“coalition government has yet to develop a coherent strategic vision for the United Kingdom’s role in a changing global landscape…Aside from pursuing a policy of ‘commercial diplomacy’ and robust development assistance, British foreign policy vision and strategy remain unclear.”
Julian Smith
Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to congratulate British business, whose exports were more than £50 billion extra last year, across 2011?
Mr Alexander
I am only too happy to congratulate and applaud British business, but if the hon. Gentleman is urging people to say the right thing to British business, he might direct his remarks to the Foreign Secretary, who chose to insult British business this weekend in The Sunday Telegraph. If the hon. Gentleman wants a job in government, he should, to quote the Foreign Secretary, work a little harder.
This Government’s inadequate foreign policy approach is being exposed by analysts concerned by the path that the Government have chosen, as well as by events that the Government are unable either to navigate or to predict. They have sought a foreign policy of conscious minimalism and strategic shrinkage. They emphasise trade and bilateralism—we heard it again today—because a clear strategy of our interest is not being articulated and because of a limited ambition for what we, as a nation, can today hope to achieve. Such an approach risks our being left unprepared and ill equipped to face the new challenges that we may face in the coming years. Regrettably, we saw that in the Government’s approach to the strategic defence review, which was not anchored in any clear view of Britain’s role in the world and so left us with significant and, indeed, dangerous gaps in defence capability, which were all too quickly exposed in the Arab spring. This Government are careless about the influence of the United Kingdom and complacent about the risks to the United Kingdom.
Before I discuss the areas where our concerns are greatest, let me first generously acknowledge those areas where we are in agreement with the Government and there is common ground across the House. First, on Afghanistan, an issue that I will address in more detail shortly, we continue to support the mission and we will continue to seek a bipartisan approach as combat operations move towards their conclusion. I also, of course, echo the Foreign Secretary’s condolences to the families of the fallen.
On the issue of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, there is clear support on both sides of the House for the islanders’ right to self-determination, a principle set out in the United Nations charter and recognised in the Falkland Islands constitution. More broadly, we share the Government’s concerns about the continued repression of human rights in countries around the globe. Where those injustices continue, as in the case, as was mentioned, of Belarus, Burma, Russia and Colombia, the Government can rely on our full support in seeking to tackle them.
On Ukraine, the case of Yulia Tymoshenko casts a continuing shadow that country. The circumstances of her trial and the treatment she has received in custody are, of course, matters of grave concern. In light of that, can the Minister say what the British Government’s policy will be towards UK Ministers visiting Ukraine during the European football championships? On the accession of Croatia, we support the Government’s Bill. On Turkish accession to the European Union and on the recently negotiated French defence treaty, we also have a clear and bipartisan approach.
On the continuing combat operations in Afghanistan, we will discuss a number of countries in today’s debate, but only in one country are the best part of 10,000 British troops still in harm’s way. It is right that we take this opportunity to praise the professionalism, courage and sacrifice of our armed forces and of their families back home. Let me also pay tribute to our diplomats and aid workers, who, in challenging circumstances in Afghanistan, are doing truly outstanding and important work. The Prime Minister came to office promising that Afghanistan would be his No. 1 foreign policy priority, so why is it now 10 months since he made a parliamentary statement about the situation in Afghanistan?
We welcome the fact that the Government have been clear in their commitment to withdraw British combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, but a strategy for withdrawal is just one element of what we need if we are to have an end state in Afghanistan to match an end date. To honour the sacrifices that have been made over the past decade, an exit strategy cannot afford to be all exit and no strategy. The coming days will see the NATO summit at Chicago, and as a bare minimum we suggest that it must have four key achievements. The first is a co-ordinated timetable for the withdrawal of NATO forces, a matter that the Foreign Secretary chose to glide over in his remarks about the summit. British troops are currently expected to stay in Afghanistan in a combat role until the end of 2014, the newly elected President of France has said that he wants all French troops to leave Afghanistan by the end of this year and the US Defence Secretary claims that American forces will end their combat role by mid 2013, so today there remains a very real risk of a disorderly rush for the exit as NATO countries announce unilateral and divergent withdrawal dates. I hope sincerely that that is addressed in Chicago.
Secondly, there needs to be a stable and sustainable funding arrangement for Afghan security forces, and I welcome what the Foreign Secretary had to say on that matter. Thirdly, more clarity is needed on the status of forces agreement required between Afghanistan and international forces in the country post-2014 draw-down. We welcome the signing of the strategic partnership agreement between the United States and Afghanistan earlier this month, but many issues remain unresolved, not least the position of British forces. Fourthly, the summit must surely agree a new diplomatic effort to match the scale of the military sacrifice. We need a standing meeting of Foreign Ministers to lead on the political process and a serious attempt at closed-door diplomacy, even at this late hour, on the scale of Camp David, Sunningdale or Wye River. An inclusive political settlement is needed with the tribes in, and, of course, al-Qaeda out, and regional partners need to be engaged and involved.
When I met Prime Minister Gilani on his visit to London last week, it was clear that Pakistan, just like China, Russia, India, the central Asian republics and Iran, would be ill-served by a chaotic Afghanistan that is a stage for the kind of problems that were encountered following the departure of Soviet troops in the early 1980s. It is now apparent, however, that Pakistan will not even be present at the coming Chicago meeting. Will the Minister tell us what actions the British Government are taking to get relations with Pakistan and key members of the international community on a better and more sustainable footing?
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the international community comes together at next week’s Chicago summit to discuss the future of Afghanistan, it should also discuss the issue of women in Afghanistan? A recent survey by ActionAid showed the concern that many women still have about their futures once NATO troops leave.
Mr Alexander
I am happy to give the assurance that my hon. Friend is looking for. Indeed, she anticipates what I was about to say. The gains that have been made by many Afghan civilians, particularly women, as regards their political rights, access to health and education and basic human rights are significant, of course, yet any of us familiar with that country knows how fragile those rights are, particularly for women and girls. I hope that the Minister will set out what steps are being taken at Chicago to ensure that the process is embedded, not eroded, in the coming years.
Mr MacShane
On a tiny technical point, since the debate started, I have received information that Pakistan is being invited by the United States to Chicago. That is a decision of the US State Department and has very little to do with our Government.
Mr Alexander
If that is the case, I welcome it. Of course, Pakistan is not a member of NATO, but anyone who is familiar with the challenge of trying to secure an end state as well as an end date in Afghanistan knows that Pakistan will have a key role to play. As well as attendance rates at the NATO summit in Chicago, land transportation for ISAF forces is an issue. In recent weeks, there has been a significant issue with the ability of land convoys to supply troops. If attendance has now been secured by the US Department of State that will anticipate further changes in Pakistan’s attitude to supply lines coming into Afghanistan.
All of us who have engaged with such issues will know that there is neither a military-only nor a development-only solution to the challenges faced by Afghanistan. Only politics can complete the bridge between where Afghanistan is and where we need it to be by the time of the NATO transition. We have heard too little on that matter from the Government today and over recent months.
Caroline Lucas
In light of those comments, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether he and his party support the position of the French socialist Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister in favour of a very swift return of troops from Afghanistan?
Mr Alexander
It is not the Labour party’s position that troops should be withdrawn by the end of this year. We want a co-ordinated approach. I understand that the discussions within NATO reflect the fact that some countries have already unilaterally announced that they are going to withdraw, with France saying that it will withdraw troops by the end of this year, the Americans talking about the end of the 2013 fighting season and the British Government holding to the position of having a NATO transition by the end of 2014. I hope that there will be greater clarity on taking a genuinely co-ordinated approach because if one has the opportunity to see, as I have, the work that British troops are doing in Helmand, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which American combat operations could cease in July, August or September of 2013 and Britain could maintain its current presence in central Helmand after that.
In the same way that we have been able to benefit from a strong bipartisan approach to the Government’s conduct in relation to Libya, I hope that we can continue to speak with one voice in the House on Iran, about which the Foreign Secretary said more this afternoon. The threat that Iran poses to Israel, to the wider stability of the region and to international security as a whole is real and deeply concerning, and it warrants urgent and concerted diplomatic efforts. We are clear that our objective in Iran is a change of policy, not a change of regime, and we support the steps taken by the Government to introduce and impose strict sanctions on the regime. However, I would welcome more clarification from the Minister in summing up than the Foreign Secretary was able to offer on the issue of providing insurance for ships carrying Iranian oil. There were many words, but not many answers. Given the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, I think that oil prices are a material consideration in determining the timing on when Britain chooses to impose sanctions on Iran. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm where the balance of authority on this lies within Government and whether this is a decision being led by the Treasury or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because many allies and many in the international community will have been troubled by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks. If some of the reports—they are only reports—are to be believed that Britain is one of the back markers and that this is being driven by a view from within the Treasury, that would be of great concern to Members on both sides of the House.
More broadly, we all welcome the fact that the next meeting of the international community—the P5 plus 1 process—will take place in Baghdad on 23 May. However, previous negotiation rounds have too often started in earnest and ended in frustration. The stakes are too high for that to be allowed to happen again. We must be clear about what we are seeking from the talks, and I would welcome a little more clarity from the Minister on what the British Government are looking for at Baghdad beyond the 20% enrichment issue that the Foreign Secretary shared with the House a few moments ago. This is delicate but vital work and we must not allow misjudged rhetoric to inflame or hinder vital diplomatic efforts. Let us be candid: if this debate had taken place three months ago, it would have been dominated by the threat of a potential strike on Iran. Since then, thankfully, the Iranians have signalled that they might be willing to make some compromises, and senior elements of the Israeli security establishment have signalled that they would be uncomfortable with a strike any time soon.
A negotiation path has now been opened up and the UK has a key role to play within it, but as surely as the temperature on this issue has dropped in recent weeks, so it could rise again in coming weeks. There may well be voices claiming that negotiations have stalled and that military action is therefore required immediately. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will be unyielding in its commitment to advancing the case for negotiations as a diplomatic settlement in the immediate months ahead? To assist the negotiations, all options must remain on the table, but we are firm in our view that this opportunity must be seized by all sides so that military action can be avoided.
Let me address the pressing issue of Europe and the eurozone crisis.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Before my right hon. Friend moves on, may I ask him about Zimbabwe? I wanted to ask the Foreign Secretary about this, but he did not give way. If we had been having this debate two years ago, the Foreign Secretary would have mentioned Zimbabwe. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who is responsible for Africa, has done a very good job, but should not the Secretary of State be saying how he is going to ensure that pressure is put on South Africa to continue the work needed to get a global political agreement brought to fruition and get Zimbabwe back to being a fully democratic country?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the salience of Zimbabwe. In that, of course, we are as one. I had the opportunity in recent weeks to meet Morgan Tsvangirai when he visited the United Kingdom and was able to emphasise on behalf of my party our continuing interest, concern and deep worries about some of the developments that endure within Zimbabwe. When I was in the Foreign Office and had the opportunity to meet Morgan Tsvangirai long before he took office in the Zimbabwean Government, there was a constant tension between Britain’s capacity to make public statements and its capacity to exercise private influence in relation to the South Africans. The Minister may be able to comment on that. We were constantly aware that if we made some of the statements that we were minded to make in relation to Zimbabwe, we were vulnerable to their being used to offer succour, encouragement and a propaganda advantage to Mugabe. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government are following a path of quiet diplomacy and making sure that the regional leaders who bear a heavy responsibility—principally South Africa, as my hon. Friend suggests—recognise their heavy responsibility as we anticipate the potential for further violence and intimidation ahead of further elections in the country.
On the pressing issue of Europe and the eurozone crisis, there are many in the House who would like any discussion of Europe to focus on the question of an in/out referendum. If we are to believe the blogs and the briefings, our part-time Chancellor of the Exchequer is spending more time considering the electoral implications of such an approach than he appears to be spending on helping to solve the eurozone crisis that is engulfing parts of the continent. Let me be very clear about this. Opposition Members believe that Britain should now be focused on jobs and growth and leading the recovery in Europe so that many millions of British jobs that depend on Europe are secured, even in these turbulent times.
Within the eurozone itself, forecasters are predicting that Spain, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and Belgium would all miss the EU deficit target next year, as well as Ireland, Greece and Portugal, which are not expected to be able to comply with the terms of the EU bail-out programmes. The International Monetary Fund is forecasting shrinking economies and rising debt. No wonder firms are reluctant to invest, with such bleak prospects. An austerity-only economics—the voodoo economics of our time—driven by 23 out of the 29 Governments of Europe being held by the centre right, has been shown to have failed both here at home and abroad in Europe, yet have this Government shown themselves to be worthy of this moment? I would argue, far from it.
When British exporters and firms desperately need influence, the Prime Minister last December chose isolation instead. Why did he make that choice? Perhaps he was following the advice that was attributed to the Foreign Secretary on the eve of that fateful summit:
“If it’s a choice between keeping the euro together or keeping the Conservative Party together, it’s in the national interest to keep the Conservative Party together.”
But at what cost has this political party bargain been struck? They claim that they used their veto to stop a treaty that would harm British interests, but even the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not present in the House today, begged to differ. He said:
“The language gets confusing. Veto suggests something was stopped. It was not stopped.”
What of the so-called protections that the Government secured for British jobs and for British business? The Foreign Secretary was totally silent today on the fact that not one of the measures included in the fiscal compact would have applied to Britain, and still the Government are unable to point to a single extra protection that their so-called veto managed to secure for Britain’s financial services. But he need not take our word for it. It was no less than Lord Heseltine who summed it up so well in the week of the summit when he stated, “You can’t protect the interests of the City by floating off into the middle of the Atlantic.” We now know that this is not a Tory party following in the tradition of Macmillan, who applied to join the EEC; of Heath, who took us into Europe; of Thatcher, who signed the Single European Act; or of Major, who signed the Maastricht treaty. This is a Conservative party being followed and not being led by those on the Government Front Bench.
Michael Ellis
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when he was Minister for Europe in the last Government he gave away £7 billion at the last European Union budget negotiations? Does he not accept that it is rather difficult to take him seriously when it comes to negotiations with Europe?
Mr Alexander
I am flattered and touched by the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in my record as Minister for Europe. If he had been in the House at the time, he would have known that there was broad bipartisan support for the accession of the eastern European countries to the EU. If he is respectfully suggesting, seven years on, that somehow there would not be consequences for the European budget from the accession of 10 former eastern European countries, I would respectfully differ. If he wants a job for reading out the Whips’ briefing, he has to work a little harder than that.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I was a Member of the European Parliament when the right hon. Gentleman was giving away most of our rebate, and I remember the discussions distinctly. What did he get in return for giving away that amount of the rebate?
Mr Alexander
What we managed, which most people would recognise, was the successful integration of 10 former eastern European countries into the world’s largest single market. There were also some changes in the common agricultural policy in 2008, which followed as a consequence of the budget deal that was struck in December 2005. But, as I say, it is simply an attempt to rewrite history for Government Members to suggest that there would never be consequences for Europe’s budget from the inclusion of 10 former eastern European countries.
Mr MacShane
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1984, Britain’s contribution to the EEC was £656 million? Under Margaret Thatcher, it rose to £2.54 billion by 1990. It went up 400% under Margaret Thatcher. God bless her.
Mr Alexander
I think I am with my right hon. Friend in all of his remarks. Perhaps I shall write to him on the final phrase of his intervention.
In all seriousness, isolation can sometimes be a price worth paying for getting one’s own way in international affairs, but isolation achieving only defeat is surely unforgiveable. Even at this late stage, the Government must set out what steps they will take to ensure that real and urgent progress is being made at this month’s EU Council meeting. Alongside the welcome measures—
Mr Alexander
I am happy to give way and I am sure that it will be a comradely and unifying question.
Kelvin Hopkins
Indeed. On a positive note, it is certain that at least one member of the eurozone, and almost certainly several others, are about to recreate their own national currencies. Given that we sensibly have our own national currency, is there not a good case for us building strong relationships with these countries with their new national currencies? We could work with them to mutual benefit and help them in their difficulties.
Mr Alexander
There is a rare moment of unity between myself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that I am not sure it is entirely wise to speculate today about which countries have a future within the eurozone. But I would certainly concur with my hon. Friend’s point that the Labour Government did make the right choice in saying that the economics did not make the case for Britain entering the euro. I know that it was the present Foreign Secretary who argued that we had 24 hours to save the pound. I checked, and I think we have had 90,192 hours since he made those remarks, and as far as I am aware, we all still have a pound in our pocket, thanks to the actions of 13 years of a Labour Government and a little time from the Conservatives thereafter.
Mr Alexander
I have been generous and I am keen to make a little progress.
Alongside the welcome measures set out in the Bill to allow for the establishment of a eurozone-only bail-out fund, further steps are needed if we are to have hope of a genuine recovery in Europe, including a real capital lift for the European Investment Bank, new infrastructure bonds and a comprehensive review of how EU structural funds operate.
Before I leave the subject of Europe, let me ask the Foreign Secretary another question that curiously he omitted from his lengthy remarks today. The Government defined themselves in opposition and in the early days of government by their commitment to publish a White Paper on the repatriation of powers from the EU back to Britain. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will update the House on when we can expect that White Paper to be published. With great flourish, he announced another White Paper was due to be published on the overseas territories, but he curiously omitted any mention of a White Paper in relation to repatriation. The last time he mentioned it in the House was November 2011, when, in a written answer to me in February, he said:
“The Government’s stated intention is to examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences. That review does not have a pre-determined outcome.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 366W.]
Can he at least confirm to the House whether it has a pre-determined time frame? I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will be able to share that information with the House.
If there is one example of where the European Union could serve to amplify Britain’s voice and maximise our influence, surely it is in the middle east and north Africa in the wake of the extraordinary events we have witnessed over the past 18 months. In the early part of last year we saw protests spread, from Morocco in the west to Iran in the east, with the success of one set of demonstrators giving energy and inspiration to others. But the Arab spring has not been uniform in its impact, and nor are its outcomes guaranteed. We see continuing and very different challenges in countries as diverse as Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain. In the case of Syria, I can assure the House that there is bipartisan support for the continued efforts the Foreign Secretary spoke of to stop the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on its own people.
At a time when the waves of change are sweeping through the region, it is surely a matter of deep regret to us all that progress on the negotiations in Israel and the Palestinian territories remains frozen. Our shared goal across the House is to secure a universally recognised Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state. The international community and the majority of Israelis and Palestinians share a common view of what the principles of a final agreement should be based upon: land swaps around the 1967 borders, Jerusalem as a shared capital, and a fair settlement for refugees.
Mr Slaughter
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that Prime Minister Netanyahu has once again refused to countenance a settlement freeze as a precondition for opening negotiations? Does he accept that while settlements are being built there are unlikely to be meaningful negotiations?
Mr Alexander
Of course I regret continued settlement building, because the position of the previous Government and, to be fair, that of the present Government are the same: settlement building in the occupied territories is illegal. That is why it was a matter of some pride that, when Secretary of State for International Development, I was able to commit funds to the Palestinian Authority to allow them to map the settlements themselves so that in the subsequent negotiations—alas, we are still waiting for them—there would be documentation allowing justice to be achieved and a proper settlement to be secured. It is a matter of regret, which I am sure is shared on both sides of the House, that so little tangible progress has been made in that regard. Progress seems to have stalled and efforts are needed to reinvigorate it.
Fabian Hamilton
I think that we all agree that a two-state solution is the answer, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that leading conflict resolution experts from Israel who are trying to come to the UK to promote a two-state solution, such as Dr Moti Cristal, are being denied a voice by certain organisations in the UK? Will he condemn that?
Mr Alexander
I am not familiar with the specific case of which my hon. Friend speaks, but I am clear that I do not regard boycotts on the basis of nationality as in any way constructive or helpful in achieving the two-state solution that we all want to see. That, in part, informed the position we took on the issue of universal jurisdiction when it came before the House, because surely we cannot be in a position in which those parties that are committed to a two-state solution are physically barred from countries and so are unable to enter them and facilitate that dialogue and those discussions. I will be very clear that those who continue to argue that the way forward is to seek to isolate and somehow delegitimise the state of Israel, whatever political party or organisation in the United Kingdom they are in, do a disservice to the pursuit of peace, and the absence of hope about those negotiations is one of the greatest threats to seeing and securing them.
Alex Cunningham
When I put this question to the Foreign Secretary he dodged it and said that he would address the issue later in his speech. What is your view on the use of EU grants by businesses in the illegal settlements in the west bank? Do you not agree that those grants should be stopped once and for all?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sure that you will not presume to speak for me, Mr Alexander. I think that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) was asking you for your view, not mine, and when you answer him will you make sure that you address the whole Chamber? Thank you.
Mr Alexander
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend’s question. I am not familiar with the grant of which he speaks, given that the principal EU grants I encountered when in government, as I recollect clearly, both related to the EU Co-ordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support and provided facilities, training and support for the Palestinian Authority to develop their own security capability, something that has been one of the glimmers of light in the enveloping darkness of recent years. Significant support has also been provided for economic development in the west bank. Alas, that has not proved possible in relation to Gaza, because of the continuing security blockade there, but there has been real economic development that has been secured in part thanks to EU funding.
John Woodcock
Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the new coalition within the Israeli Government can—and must—provide a new impetus for peace and a return to negotiations by both sides?
Mr Alexander
I find myself echoing the spirit of the Foreign Secretary’s words on that point. Of course, all of us must hope that as broad a degree of support as Prime Minister Netanyahu has now secured in the Knesset can be the foundation on which he takes steps that he has previously chosen not to take.
There needs to be engagement from both sides on the way forward, but I have listened carefully to, and read with interest, the remarks about the opportunity that the inclusion of Kadima members of the Knesset affords the Prime Minister, and I sincerely and genuinely hope that he takes that opportunity, because honestly, as someone who for many years has advocated a two-state solution, I am concerned that time is not on our side.
This situation represents perhaps the greatest diplomatic failure that we have seen in the middle east for many decades, and I am deeply concerned by the number of voices now being heard in the region itself, arguing that a two-state solution is no longer feasible. In that sense, all of us who remain resolute in our view that a two-state solution is the way forward have to ensure, through whatever channels are available to us, that a real sense of urgency is brought to the need to create an effective and credible re-engagement in negotiations.
When we speak in this House of a middle east peace process, we are in denial of the fact that meaningful negotiations are not happening, so I very much hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu, Abu Mazen and others will seize the opportunity afforded by the new Government to advance negotiations.
Jeremy Corbyn
To take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of European trade with Israel, does he agree that it would be completely inappropriate to upgrade the EU-Israel trade agreement while Israel continues its settlement policy and the imprisonment of Palestinians, and that there should be no stealth by which any other agreement opens up European markets to, for example, Israeli pharmaceutical companies and others, given that it would undermine the whole resolve behind trying to enforce human rights through the EU-Israel trade agreement?
Mr Alexander
I have just spoken of the important role that economic development can play on the west bank, and I genuinely believe that, if we are to offer young Palestinians hope and an opportunity to renounce violence and to build a better future for themselves, economic development and trade will have a key role to play. It would therefore be difficult to argue that part of the solution to the conflict is to encourage development on one side of it while on the other hand saying that the way to secure an advance in the peace process is to deliver greater isolation to the Israelis. Instead, we have to say, “How do we use what political pressure we can to encourage both sides to seize the moment and to recognise,” as I have said, “that time is not on our side?”
Let me turn briefly to an issue that my shadow ministerial colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) will address more extensively in his closing remarks this evening. As a previous Secretary of State for International Development, I know the vital role that aid plays in embodying the values of this country, as well as in securing and protecting our vital interests. That is why I regret the fact that the Government have broken yet another promise by failing to include in this year’s Queen’s Speech legislation on the 0.7% target, despite promising to do so in both the Tory election manifesto and, indeed, in the coalition agreement.
Mr Tom Clarke
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. Was he not a little surprised, as I was, that the Foreign Secretary, during his rather long speech, could not say a few kind words about his colleague the Secretary of State for International Development, and even more so that the Foreign Secretary failed to explain this very important omission of something that we know has been dear to the heart of the International Development Secretary, namely introducing legislation on the 0.7% target?
Mr Alexander
I am entirely in favour of people being very nice about past and present Secretaries of State for International Development, and in that sense it was a curious omission, given the close friendship that the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary enjoy and their close working relationship, which I hope is of genuine benefit to the United Kingdom.
Today’s foreign policy environment poses grave challenges to this country that are hard to resolve but even more difficult, at times, to predict. It is true, as the Foreign Secretary said, that the United Kingdom has significant strategic and economic interests that are dependent on engaging and influencing countries that vastly outstrip us in terms of population, natural resources or the scale of their militaries. However, I would argue—I think that this is a divergence of views between those on both Front Benches—that bilateral relationships can take our country only so far. We need a coherent approach to conducting multilateral foreign policy in an increasingly multi-polar world, and yet this is where the Government’s current approach is surely falling short, at least on the basis of the speech that we have heard today, in lacking any real defined strategy for demonstrating leadership at a multilateral level.
The threats that we in the United Kingdom face today transcend borders—threats to do with global security, climate change, terrorism, and food and water supplies—and they all require international co-operation to an extent that was not previously required. Later this week, as leaders of the G8 meet at Camp David, they will be contemplating the need for international consensus in the face of many of these global challenges. Co-operation requires leadership, and yet we heard little from the Foreign Secretary about what this Government hope to achieve and plan to deliver as a result of the G8 summit that is only a few days away, and even less about what their agenda will be when they take the leadership of that grouping in 2013.
Mr Alexander
I am keen to make a little progress, but I will give way once more.
Jeffrey Donaldson
Before the shadow Secretary of State leaves the question of strategy, will he at least acknowledge the excellent work of the stabilisation unit in many parts of the world today, and the role of the building stability overseas strategy, which is widely acknowledged as something that we can all support? It is setting very high standards and giving the UK some credit in many places where there has been conflict.
Mr Alexander
I am entirely in favour of the stabilisation unit, and I am always happy to pay tribute to the Government when they continue a successful policy that was begun under the previous Labour Government.
On all these multilateral fronts, the Government are failing to meet the demands of the moment. It was a genuine disappointment that no leadership role was set out as regards the G8 meeting later this week, and that we heard nothing about the 2013 meeting of that grouping. Nor has any clear strategy been set out for the forthcoming G20 meeting that takes place next month. There was no mention of how the Government intend to try to engage in the World Trade Organisation talks, despite the fact that if we were to see progress in the WTO, that would surely offer a shot in the arm for the global economy at a time when that is vital. There is a continued failure to set out the steps that the Government need to take to ensure that the NATO summit does not merely deal with the build-up of the Afghan forces but ensures the far more comprehensive political settlement that is required. In relation to Europe, where we have a responsibility to help to lead and shape the agenda because of its impact on British jobs, British manufacturers and British firms, the Government seem content with isolation at the expense of Britain’s influence and interests.
At a time of great risks and peril, Britain deserves better. Impotence, not splendour, is the consequence of isolation in today’s world. The price, I fear, will be paid in British jobs, British growth and British leadership. We need leadership worthy of these troubled and challenging times.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
The right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) sees an expansion of diplomatic posts and embassies abroad and draws the lesson that ambition is contracting. Only he, who was party to an illegal invasion of Iraq, could talk about this Government’s imperial delusions. He made a particularly chippy and mean-spirited speech; I have come to expect better from him.
I want to touch on four topics in the brief time available: Iran, the events of the Arab spring in the middle east and north Africa, the current events in the horn of Africa, and Syria. First, however, I should like to welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering 0.7% of gross national income to people much less fortunate than ourselves around the world. Indeed, this coalition Government are the first Government in history to set out in black and white in their spending review, as reconfirmed last month in the Budget, that we will be giving less than 1p in every pound to help some of the poorest people around the world.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the UK has still not delivered on that commitment, given that it signed up to it at the United Nations 40 years ago?
Stephen Gilbert
I was just explaining that the coalition Government are delivering on that commitment. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have had the good grace to welcome that.
What will that commitment mean? It will mean that 11 million children will start going to school and that 55 million children will be vaccinated against preventable diseases, and it will prevent 250,000 babies from dying of preventable diseases each year. It is a welcome step forward.
The situation with Iran poses a real and present danger to international order. It is right that the UK is committed to supporting, strengthening and extending the rules-based international system of counter-proliferation treaties, regimes and organisations that underpins global security and prosperity. We must continue to take practical steps towards those objectives, including by redoubling our efforts to find a peaceful solution with Iran.
I and my hon. Friends have serious concerns about Iran’s expansion of its near 20% enriched uranium production. In March, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had rapidly expanded its production of that material. We know that Iran has no civilian use for such significant quantities, so that step should alarm all parts of the House. That is why I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the UK will continue to approach the E3 plus 3 talks with Iran determined and committed to finding a peaceful negotiated solution to the nuclear issue. I hope, along with other Members, that progress will be made at the next round of talks in Baghdad next week. The House needs to see urgent, practical steps to build confidence that Iran will meet its international obligations and that it does not intend to build a nuclear weapon. The dual process of pressure in the form of robust sanctions and engagement through dialogue offers the best chance of success.
I say to the Foreign Secretary that we have to consider the worst-case scenario. I hope that the Government have a clear, agreed and consistent line in response to aggression from any side. When the phone rings at 4 am, we must know how we will respond to different circumstances and there must be an agreed response across Government. The language in that response could be pivotal in setting the tone for the development of any conflict in the region. We must ensure that all parts of the Government sing from the same hymn sheet. I seek his reassurance that that process is under way behind closed doors.
Much of the discussion on the Arab spring today has focused on the political dimension. I have said before that it is right for us to stand with the people in these countries who are seeking nothing more than self-determination. We cannot underestimate the extent of change in the region—it has been dramatic. Four long-ruling leaders have been ousted in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya. There is reform in Jordan and Morocco. Syria, however, seems to be in the midst of an horrific civil war. I will make further remarks on that later.
As well as extending the benefits of political pluralism to that region, it must be the Government’s aim to extend to it the benefits of economic pluralism. A failure to change the economic prospects of the people of that region would risk limiting the extent of the political change. A new concerted approach to the region would help to cement the changes that we have seen, while helping to drive Europe out of the economic doldrums. If our Government and others fail to help the new Administrations in that region to confront their structural economic problems, it will be all the harder to address the public’s core concerns about jobs and social advancement.
Far from helping in economic matters, the Arab spring has damaged the region’s economy. Growth in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia is flat or negative, while Morocco and Jordan are growing only slowly. Tourism in those countries is down by between a third and a half, and foreign direct investment is also down. Overall, the Arab spring is estimated to have cost those countries combined almost $100 billion. I urge the Government to redouble their efforts to help those nations reform the structural weaknesses in their economies by examining their tax systems, introducing banking reform and significant banking competition, tackling corruption in their states and introducing greater transparency.
In those respects, I welcome the Arab Partnership, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described. It is good news that its funding was expanded last May to £110 million, but the partnership is such an important step in cementing the changes in the region and delivering better prospects for its people that I ask the Government to consider whether more funds can be made available.
We also have to make our own markets more open to goods from the region. The EU’s Barcelona process once promised the creation of a free trade zone in the wider Mediterranean region, but it has sadly disappointed. Overall, the European approach remains fundamentally bilateral. Real economic dynamism demands a more extensive region-to-region approach. I welcome the European Commission plan, set out in September, to start free trade talks with Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia, and I urge our Government to remain committed to delivering that process. The prize for us here, and for all of Europe, is a peaceful, stable and economically prosperous region that boosts our trade, delivers growth domestically and helps to secure our borders. That is a prize worth fighting for.
I turn to today’s events in the horn of Africa. We would all agree that instability there has had a devastating effect on the region and its people. There has been famine, fighting and considerable public displacement, which clearly affect British commercial interests and those of other nations around the world. Today’s step of striking at the pirates’ land bases is a welcome step forward and a proportionate and considered response to an ongoing serious problem. More than 400 vessels have been attacked and more than 100 hijacked by pirates, so the current situation is unsustainable. It will require a twin process of sorting out the conditions in Somalia itself and dealing with the symptoms of piracy.
Finally, I turn to Syria. I share the frustration of every right hon. and hon. Member at the fact that we continue to see scenes of utter barbarism on our television screens each evening. I absolutely support the Foreign Secretary when he says that the British Government’s response must be to work with Kofi Annan and the Arab League on ensuring that there is a diplomatic solution and that the six-point plan is delivered. I think I speak for many hon. Members, and many people in the country, who see the scenes on their TV screens each night and demand that we do more to help innocent people who are fundamentally only standing up for their right of self-determination.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I apologise to the House for the fact that, because of a pre-arranged engagement, I will not be able to stay for the wind-ups.
I have just returned from Palestine, where I went with a number of colleagues as part of a delegation from the all-party Palestine group and the Council for Arab-British Understanding, for which I will of course make an entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We saw much that gave rise to great concern, but time does not permit me to speak about the expansion of settlements, the land grabs, the house demolitions and the wall. Today, I want to touch on how Israeli justice is administered in Palestine.
No one disputes Israel’s right to protect its citizens and to arrest, try and imprison criminals and terrorists, but the rule of law must prevail, and I have no doubt that it does within Israel itself. However, that cannot be said to be true of justice within Palestine. Since the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in 1967, Palestinians have been charged with offences under military law and tried in military Israeli courts. Around 4,800 Palestinians are in prison today. Until yesterday, more than a third were on hunger strike.
The mass protest began on 17 April. Two prisoners had been refusing food for 77 days and there were fears for their lives. A hunger strike is the most extreme form of non-violent protest. It is a clear sign of desperation and the all-pervasive sense that the occupation will never end and that Palestinians will never determine their own destiny.
Yesterday, as the Foreign Secretary said, the strike ended. Following Egyptian mediation, Israel delivered significant concessions. Solitary confinement is to end, and 400 prisoners from Gaza are to be allowed family visits. Significantly, those prisoners who are held without charge or trial will not have their terms automatically renewed, as was common practice. Instead, fresh evidence and information will have to be brought before a military court. In return, the prisoners have agreed that they will end any
“terrorist activity inside Israeli jails”.
I want to draw hope from that development, but it comes against a background of increasing despair. Despite the Palestinian Authority’s considerable achievements in demonstrating its preparedness for statehood, no peace talks have been reconvened.
Instead, the pressure of occupation increases, relentlessly pressing down on every aspect of Palestinian existence. Nowhere is that more poignant than in the treatment of children—those who throw stones at the wall, at passing military vehicles, at the symbols of their oppressors. For those offences, children as young as 12 are arrested, taken from their homes in night raids, interrogated with no parent or lawyer present, tried in military courts and imprisoned in Israeli jails, where their families cannot visit them.
Defence for Children International recently published research using the testimonies of more than 300 children. Harriet Sherwood has written extensively on the subject in The Guardian. However, no amount of reading can prepare anyone for the actual sight of children in the military court, or for meeting the families of those who have experienced the system.
Last week, I visited Ofer military court. The proceedings were chaotic. Several children were brought into the court at the same time. They were handcuffed together and their legs were shackled. They immediately looked around for their families and started to try to communicate with them across the courtroom. It was clear that no one took the court seriously, with deals being openly struck to plead guilty rather than mount a defence.
We saw the sentencing of one 16-year-old, a small nervous boy accused of stone throwing, car damage and making two petrol bombs. Asked by the judge whether the accusations were true, he looked utterly bewildered, and looked to his family for help. His lawyer was doing a deal and told him to say yes. He had already served four months; he got a further 20 months.
We got a further insight into the treatment of children by the military when we visited Beit Ummar, halfway between Bethlehem and Hebron. Every Saturday, the residents hold a peaceful protest near the settlement of Karmi Zur against being denied access to their agricultural land.
We met Hamda, whose husband is a member of the committee that organises the protest. She told us about the treatment of her son, Yusef, who was first arrested and imprisoned when he was 12, and has been jailed three times since. On the last occasion, the soldiers came for him at 1.30 am. They surrounded the house and banged on the door, their faces masked. They tied Yusef’s hands behind his back, made him lie face down, and then hit and kicked him. As he screamed in pain, his mother attempted to go to him, only to be hit in the chest with the butt of a gun, which fractured her rib. Yusef was blindfolded and led away. The family was forced back indoors, and the departing soldiers threw tear gas canisters into the house.
Hamda’s story is typical of those documented by DCI. Following terrifying night raids, children are taken to police stations, often on local settlements. The transfer process to the interrogation centre is often lengthy and may involve further ill treatment. At the centre, children are questioned alone and rarely informed of their rights. The interrogation techniques frequently include a mix of intimidation, threat and physical violence, with the clear purpose of obtaining a confession. Once the interrogation stage is concluded, the majority of children remain in pre-trial detention, awaiting their prosecution. The primary evidence against most children will either be their own confession or that of another child. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the children will plead guilty whether they are or not. They just want to get out of the system. The conviction rate is over 99%.
Clearly, I do not know whether Hamda’s 16-year-old son, who has been in prison for the past three weeks awaiting trial for stone throwing, did it or not, and I do not know whether Yusef, now 19, was guilty on four occasions, but I do know that the father of the family has repeatedly protested against the settlement that has taken their land and that the family feel they are being targeted. I also know that young Palestinian boys and men must feel a constant sense of humiliation and frustration.
But whether they are guilty or not, the issue is one of justice. Israel is in breach of several international conventions in the actions it is taking. DCI recommends minimum standards to ensure that no child is interrogated in the absence of a lawyer of their choice and a family member; that all interrogations are audio-visually recorded; that all evidence suspected of being obtained through ill treatment or torture be rejected by the military courts; and that all credible allegations of ill treatment and torture be thoroughly and impartially investigated and those found responsible for such abuse brought to justice.
I urge Ministers to raise these issues with their Israeli counterparts and to monitor the effect of the promise of no more automatic renewal of administrative orders when they expire.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I will give way, although I am nearly at the end of my remarks.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I did not want to interrupt her, because she was making such a powerful case. What more does she think the Government can do? As someone who has campaigned for the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement, I wanted to ask her about that, because it is one of the very few tools we have. The agreement has a human rights clause. It seems incredibly ironic that we are not using the one tool we have. Does she agree that the UK Government could do more to persuade our EU counterparts to do that?
Dame Joan Ruddock
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution, and I agree with her. I want to end on this note about what more can be done. We cannot stand aside and fail to use whatever tools are at our disposal. We have a responsibility. We are all signed up to the human rights convention, and what is going on is an absolute denial of human rights.
I urge the Government to take up these issues, but also to monitor the effect of the promise of no more automatic renewal of administrative orders when they expire. Most of the 27 Palestinian MPs in Israeli prisons are being held without charge. They should be released immediately. Yesterday, the EU Foreign Affairs Council issued a strong statement in support of Palestinians and renewed talks. I am quite sure that the Foreign Secretary contributed positively to that statement, but statements cannot address the crisis in Palestine. The international community must find the will to get peace talks started again on the two-state solution.
When we asked Hamda, the mother to whom I referred, what she thought of the future, she said, “There is no future for my sons.” We must not allow that to be the case.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
In the time available, I would like to focus on two areas: the situation in Iran and the international development aid budget.
I want to highlight the huge importance of the E3 plus 3 talks that are taking place in Baghdad on 23 May. My starting position, as I think many will know, is that I want everything we do in this place to avoid, as far as possible, the death of innocent people. Politicians have the highest moral responsibility to ensure that innocent people do not die, and war is indeed the failure of politicians. We must therefore work in the organisations that exist. I hope to outline in my speech that I am not just talking about whether we take military action against Iran, but—to return to the premise of trying to protect innocent lives wherever we can—what some of the consequences of not taking military action might be.
Many have said that we should leave things be—that this is another area that we should not get involved in. As a parliamentarian, I have a commitment, along with everybody else in this Chamber, to ensure the best interests of the UK; as a constituency MP, I have a duty to protect my constituents’ standards of living from the knock-on effects that international events can have. Hand in hand, those two points show the importance of negotiations, however protracted and however frustrating. We must work within the organisations that are out there. As Churchill said,
“To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.”
We saw with the Iraq conflict, almost a decade ago now, the serious consequences that impatience with the diplomatic process can lead to. As I outlined in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary earlier, we must use Russia and China in the best possible way to help get the negotiations that we hope to achieve with Iran.
But what if Iran moved towards having the bomb? Some people say, “Let’s not intervene—let them have the bomb.” Would the Iranians use it? I doubt it. However, returning to the fundamental point about protecting innocent lives, I do not believe that Iran would have to drop the bomb to make a fundamental difference to the balance in the middle east or, indeed, to cause uprisings and conflict elsewhere in the middle east, with the idea of a nuclear-armed Iranian Government behind them. We have seen proxy wars take place in the middle east as recently as last year. The Arab spring uprising in Bahrain quickly became a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. What were the consequences of that? We saw many innocent people lose their lives. They were trying to protest for greater freedoms in their own country, but they got drawn into a bigger conflict between a Shi’a Government and a Sunni Government, who fought their proxy war through those people. That is the point I want to highlight to the House. We are simply not in a position to take no action at all; however, we must make every effort possible to ensure that we remove the threat, but through peaceful negotiations.
I also made the point that one of our jobs in this place is to protect the standard of living in this country, for our constituents as much as for anything else. The fact is that a major conflict in the middle east would lead to a devastating rise in the price of oil. If a war or even a stand-off took place between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and if traffic were limited in the strait of Hormuz to ensure that shipping did not go to either country, we might then look on petrol at £1.50 a litre as the good old days. The price could literally double in price overnight, which would have a terrible effect on our constituents.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the conflict in Bahrain. Does he share my concern that Iran was partly responsible for intervening and trying to destabilise the existing regime there?
Alec Shelbrooke
Yes, I absolutely agree. Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make about what would happen if Iran went down the road and became a nuclear-armed country, because where else does its influence lie in the middle east? It lies with Hezbollah, certainly, and there is even evidence coming forward about some of the military equipment finding its way to Hamas. My point is simply this. We cannot just make the argument in foreign affairs that says, “Let’s not take any military action against Iran because we don’t want to cause the deaths of innocent people.” I absolutely support that point; but we also need to ensure that negotiations work, and that is why we should be involved, because we could cause the death of innocent people by doing nothing. Those proxy wars are important.
I am worried about the rhetoric on military action against Iran that was coming out three months ago. If we were to take such action, what would happen? Another western-led invasion of middle eastern land would certainly serve as a recruitment tool. Such action would also lead to the deaths of innocent people, not only those who were under the bombs when they landed, but those whose infrastructure we would probably take out along the way as part of any military campaign, leading to a degradation of the standard of living of those people. Indeed, tens of thousands of people have died in Iraq as a result of the loss of such infrastructure. Negotiations are absolutely vital, and we must ensure that we use the support of Russia and China to make a deep impact on Iran.
Moving on to international aid, there is a lot of criticism in the country at large about retaining our aim to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international aid. People say that we cannot afford it, but one of the great advantages of having a statement of how our taxes are spent would be that they would be able to see that the proportion being spent on international aid is actually tiny. I do not care if I get criticism from some of my constituents for saying that this is a moral, Christian obligation that we have to carry out and achieve. We simply cannot stand by and let innocent people die through a lack of the most basic infrastructure.
The problem with the international aid budget related to where the money was going before, but the actions taken by the Secretary of State in the first two years of this Parliament have gone a long way to restoring people’s faith in the process. Some £100 million-worth of projects in 16 countries have been closed because they were not delivering and the funds were not getting to where they were needed. Money is no longer going to countries such as Russia and China that have developed and moved forward. I can look my constituents in the eye when they say, “You’re just giving money to Robert Mugabe”, and tell them that that is exactly what we are not doing. The money that we spend on international development is going to ensure that the lives of people in the developing countries get better.
I ask hon. Members this question: if we had spent millions of pounds in 1990, when the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan, to ensure stability in that country, would we now be spending billions of pounds and suffering the loss of more than 400 of our servicemen trying to defend the area? I do not believe that we would; the investment that we make in international aid and development saves us money in the long run and helps to protect innocent lives.
I was going to outline some of the areas covered by our international aid programmes, but my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) has already done so. I believe that the House can get behind a lot of the projects that we take part in. They are relatively cheap and they bring stability to the countries concerned. That reduces pressures on our borders, and it is vital to carry on moving forward in that way. It is my core belief that this is a fundamental moral responsibility. We are a developed nation; we are, in the grand scheme of things, a wealthy nation. We cannot ignore the plight of our neighbours, because if we do, they will come to our doorstep. This investment is not only a moral obligation but the sensible thing to do if we are to ensure the long-term prosperity of our country as well as theirs.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
I want to focus on two issues: the Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of our gross national income on international development, and the continuing threat to world security that is emanating from the middle east. I serve on the International Development Select Committee, along with five Conservative colleagues and four other Labour Members. The Committee is chaired by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). Each of us has seen at first hand the despair resulting from poverty in the developing world. We have also seen the acclaimed work of the Department for International Development, and we are all committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid, as is each of our political parties.
However, it says a lot about the Government’s priorities that the issue of House of Lords reform has been placed ahead of the commitment to legislating for that 0.7% expenditure. What puzzles me most about the decision is that the commitment was in all of the main three parties’ manifesto commitments to the electorate at the last general election. One would have thought that, after undertaking an independent analysis of those manifestos, the Government would pick one policy that would unite this Chamber rather than any of the myriad issues on which we choose to disagree. Alas, they did not.
There is one reason not to give aid: the philosophy of looking after our own interests first. That is a reasonable position to take if someone has amnesia and is willing to forget the wealth Britain has extracted from across the globe. Everyone, however, can point to a reason to give aid: it is the right thing to do and will make the world a more secure place for our country, as the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said. International development aid will also save lives and put more children into school, while creating new markets for the future.
We can point to the fact that in the 1950s, Korea was a war-torn aid recipient. It is now the 13th largest economy in the world, the second-fastest growing economy in the OECD and an aid donor. That single statement confirms that, despite the complexities of aid, despite multiple cultures and despite the challenges ranging from clean water to conflict and corruption, aid does work. Any remaining doubting Thomases out there should consider that Korean investment and exports are worth £8 billion a year to the UK and are set to increase by £500 million year on year as a result of the South Korea-European Union free trade agreement.
Mr McCann
I am happy to answer that. The International Development Select Committee was in India last year, so it knows that, as the Secretary of State for International Development would confirm, 800 million people who live there are surviving on less than $2 a day, which is an important point. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position why it has nuclear capability. Well, any country faced with threats on both sides of its borders is likely to think that nuclear weapons are a necessary safeguard. I saw some of the poorest people on the planet when we visited India, and I do not believe that we should resile from giving money to that nation.
I was saying that we generate £8 billion a year from South Korea and that this will grow by £500 million every year, and I was making the point that the UK aid budget currently sits at £7.8 billion a year. Some might legitimately argue that legislation is irrelevant because the money will be spent anyway. Some might say that the manifesto commitment was ducked by coalition parties because of the fear of a backlash from some of those sitting on the blue side of the Government Benches. That commitment should not have been ducked. Not only did all three main parties make that commitment in their manifestos but, even more importantly, our commitment sent a message around the world—that the UK was prepared to be bold, which could encourage others to be equally bold and to walk in our footsteps to reach the 0.7% figure. As the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, we have been trying to reach that commitment for the last 40 years.
“A single event can shape our lives or change the course of history.”
Those are the words of the award-winning author, Deepak Chopra. We should heed those words rather than those of my e-mail friend, Mr Ronald Hunter, who Members will know sends us regular e-mail correspondence.
Just as we face the challenge of tackling poverty across the globe, so we still face unresolved tensions in the middle east. There is no other subject that can lead to such a swift loss of perspective in debate. It has the ability to unite those who do not normally see eye to eye, while simultaneously disuniting those who normally do so. I should register the fact that I am the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel. Holding that title, however, does not make me oblivious or ignorant of, or unsympathetic to, the Palestinian cause. On the contrary, I support it. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Glenamara who, sadly, passed away recently. As the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I and all those we work with owe a great debt of gratitude to Edward Short. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his steadfast support for both Israel and LFI over many years. I never had the pleasure of meeting Edward Short, but from talking to colleagues it was clear he made a big and impressive impact and will leave a long legacy. As Chief Whip under Harold Wilson, he fought hard to marshal a majority of just five, commanding respect; and now that we are, regrettably, in opposition, we rely heavily on Short money, which Lord Glenamara first proposed—a vital innovation for allowing Oppositions to hold Governments to account.
Daniel Kawczynski
Slightly earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to the figure of 0.7% of GDP going on international aid. Does he agree that it is important that we as parliamentarians keep reiterating that figure to our constituents? When people complain to me about our spending on international aid and I tell them it is only 0.7% of our overall GDP, they realise it is a very modest amount.
Mr McCann
I entirely agree: that is a modest amount for a developed country to pay to ensure starving people across the world can expect to receive food and drugs. Only a few weeks ago, I and some other Members visited Zambia and Malawi, and saw the difference malaria and AIDS drugs were making to families.
Returning to the question of the middle east, the Israelis and Palestinians have in both recent and distant history been subjected to vicious attacks and calumnies, but while attending a Westminster Hall debate on Israel and the middle east peace process just a few weeks ago, I was struck by the awesome futility of it all. LFI promotes and supports a two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Let me turn to the next part of the LFI mission statement. I support the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, and I also support Israel being recognised and secure within its own borders. We all know that there are issues that have to be tackled, such as the definition of the borders and the questions of illegal settlements, returnees, Jerusalem and Temple Mount, and it is more imperative than ever that we tackle them.
Welcome though the Arab spring was, and is, for democracy in the region, it has thrown up more questions than answers. The barbaric treatment of Syrians at the hands of their own Government continues and, of course, there is Iran. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its support for Hamas and terror in general, its refusal to accept the will of the UN, its holocaust denial and its anti-Semitism, means it is a spark that could ignite the powder keg of the middle east. Therefore, has there ever been a more important time to solve the conundrum of Israel and Palestine? Yes, we should remain resolutely focused on challenging Iran and its illegal nuclear programme, using sanctions and taking no options off the table, but we must also be clear that, given the ongoing turmoil in the middle east, Israelis and Palestinians need more than ever the security that only they can give to each other. Has there ever been a more important time for the UK, the colonial architect of many of the problems that exist, to take bold steps to help the parties reach a solution?
Many have tried and failed: Carter, Clinton, Begin, Sadat, Arafat. There has been partial success at best, close calls, nascent steps, but never a final settlement. Yet perhaps we now have an opportunity to make progress, with Netanyahu’s coalition holding 94 of the 120 Knesset seats. Reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians must be first and foremost on the Israeli national agenda. If he succeeds, Netanyahu will be hailed as a leader who delivered his people true liberty. If he squanders the opportunity, he could be remembered as a Prime Minister who took his people to the brink of disaster. However, just as we played our part in the middle east in our colonial years—drawing lines on maps that have created so many problems—so we must play our part in the pursuit of peace.
If we analyse the positions of parliamentarians, we can see that we are as guilty as the main protagonists of reverting to type, trying to trump each other with accusations of which side committed the worst atrocity. All I know is that by continuing to participate in such futile arguments, we only guarantee that there will be more such arguments in the future. We can choose to pore over the history of this part of the world, from the early Israelites to the Ottoman-Turkish rule, but where will that get us? Perhaps yesterday’s deal to end Palestinian hunger strikes in Israeli jails offers us hope that the new Israeli coalition knows what it takes to get deals done.
Mr McCann
I will not, as I want to make progress in order to enable others to speak.
The Israeli press are reporting that this deal came on the back of a letter from Netanyahu to Abbas saying that the formation of the unity Government in Israel presented a new opportunity to rejuvenate the peace process in the context of a two-state solution. That is a promising development, following Abbas’s letter seeking to engage Netanyahu last month. If we are going to help the parties to reach a deal, amid all the major and fundamental changes occurring in the region, we must be clear that we are here to build confidence between them, not to be proxies for the old argument. Netanyahu, Mofaz, Perez, Fayyad and Abbas must look to the UK as being on their side to encourage necessary compromises and to understand their concerns. There are major challenges to be overcome. They are real, they are painful and they are a source of much anger, but we should ensure that we do not amplify that anger. Instead, we must amplify the voices of those who want to get around the table and reach a peace deal.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the eminently wise speech by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) on both the subjects he chose.
I listened to the Gracious Speech last week, and I noticed a seemingly small passage—[Interruption.] I thought it was a good idea to listen to the Queen’s Speech; it was one of the things I was keen to do, having been elected to this place. This seemingly small bit related to measures in the field of foreign affairs. One measure—the European Union Bill required for our ratification of the treaty changes to allow the European stability mechanism to have some legality—particularly took my eye. It highlights a problem that the European Union has with the eurozone, the consequences of which, if we do not act in certain ways, will be huge for us.
Like many other countries in Europe, this country has lived way beyond its means for way too long. We borrowed too much, as did many other eurozone countries. As every family and business in the country knows, when you borrow too much, you have to repay it; otherwise, you suffer consequences that you really do not want to suffer. You encounter this horrible thing, whereby other people tell you how you should spend your money and what you should spend it on. We have suffered this in the past from the International Monetary Fund and, unfortunately, this is what is happening to other eurozone countries now.
What is going on in our economy, and what is increasingly now happening elsewhere, is that people are realising that they have spent too much. But, as with the gambler who has won big in the past but has since blown it all, the realisation that the game is up is a particularly hard one to come to. It is almost natural to blame other people or to try to carry on as normal, but if you do not take action to change your spending habits, you might well end up losing your shirt.
In the past couple weeks, interesting and important elections have been held in the eurozone. France elected a new socialist President, who won 52% of the vote. I believe the BBC called that a “clear” and “decisive” victory, which contrasts with its description of a “narrow” victory when Boris Johnson won in London with 51%. Monsieur Hollande was hardly swept to power on a tide of euphoria in France. He narrowly defeated an unpopular, not particularly conservative and frankly unappealing President who had wasted the opportunity to reform his country. The French people ejected a social democrat and elected a socialist in his place. Much has been made of the fact that President Hollande will now attack the City of London, try to impose a financial transaction tax, attempt to scrap the UK’s EU rebate and demand an agenda of further job-destroying social legislation from the EU, but has that not been France’s position for years? Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
President Hollande seems to believe that there is a stark choice between austerity and growth, but he is simply wrong. Most people are savvy enough to understand that you need to live within your means and do what you can to ensure your means grow to enable you to live that bit better. We, in this country and across Europe, need to get back to the simple understanding that you need to create wealth before you can redistribute it. What many Labour Members believe is that the money tree will continually sprout cash; the current student language of constantly attacking and wanting to penalise those who make money does only one thing: it ensures that less money is made, as people earn elsewhere, less tax is paid and so less can be redistributed.
Greece has also held elections, the results of which did not bring about a Government—we have just heard the news that there will be further elections in Greece. It was noticeable in Greece that people did not want to have the choice presented to them. They wanted a Government to reflect their true views; they do not want to be dictated to by foreign countries, and they hate the troika of the EU, IMF and the European Central Bank telling them what their Government should do. But Greece is bankrupt and it has been for months, if not years. It cannot pay its bills without help from the IMF and the EU. So it is no surprise that it is going to have fresh elections, but the most important decision about Greece’s future will be made not in Athens, but in Berlin.
Many in this Chamber, on both sides, have said that Greece should be allowed to fall out of the euro. I tend to agree, but, as ever, nothing is as simple as all that. Just for a moment, put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary German. You have heard all the horror stories from your own family history about what happened to your relatives and your country when hyper-inflation struck after the second world war finished, and your gut tells you that you should avoid inflation at almost any cost. You are therefore amazingly protective of your currency. Indeed, any threat to it is a threat to you, your family and your community’s livelihood, so you will do all you can to protect both it and its value. However, a political decision that you were not really a part of, taken ages ago, puts you now in the same currency as a batch of other people miles away who are threatening your economic stability. You have two choices and you are happy with neither: you can just throw money at your costly currency partners—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am allowing the hon. Gentleman to make his speech, but he knows the form of address and that when using “you” constantly, he is actually referring to the Chair. I may look old, but I am not that old that I go back to the second world war.
Chris Heaton-Harris
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the voices in the Tea Room believe you are very young—a peach among all the Deputy Speakers that this place has ever seen—and I apologise for my use of the word “you”. [Interruption.] It is worth a try.
A political decision taken ages ago puts your family—not your family, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this particular person’s family—into the same currency as a bunch of people who are threatening your economic stability. The two choices you have are to throw money at your very costly currency partners—money that you have had to earn and pay in tax—or, as a German citizen, to say, “Enough is enough”, get rid of your costly neighbours and concentrate on ensuring that this can never happen again.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am struggling with my “yous”.
Mr MacShane
Might not another answer be for the people to whom you are exporting to say, “Right, stop buying BMWs, stop buying Mercedes, stop buying Siemens goods”? That could be a response, which is why I think that the Germans have understood that keeping money in circulation is not necessarily bad for Germany now, nor has it been in the past 50 or 60 years.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s case—
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am sorry, but I refuse to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman all the time.
Just because this country is not in the European stability mechanism does not mean that UK taxpayers are not contributing massively to the European Union. We do contribute massively to the EU budget. The 2013 budget is up for negotiation now, and the next multi-annual financial framework—the EU budget between 2014 and 2020—is just about to go through the negotiating process. Let me make a pitch for how much money might be involved. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) alluded to how much it was under a different Prime Minister, and, following the giving away of our rebate, the net contribution by the UK to the EU budget in 2011-12 was £8.7 billion. The net contribution over the entire period between 2011 and 2016-17 is forecast to be £59.6 billion. We have a very big vested interest in the EU budget and a number of issues in it need to be addressed.
Owing to its inflexible design and poorly targeted spending schemes, the EU budget is particularly ill suited to deliver the jobs and growth that Europe needs, but the window for opportunity for radically reforming it is swiftly closing. Before the end of the year, we could reach a conclusion on what the EU budget will look like until 2020. Despite the austerity facing Europe, the European Commission has asked for a 6.8% increase in EU spending in 2013 while cutting only six of almost 41,000 European Community jobs. The European Commission has proposed to increase the next long-term EU budget post-2014 by yet another 5% while offering only very minor reforms in substance. At the same time, the European Commission’s accounts are not being signed off. That was another omission from the shadow Secretary of State’s speech: the negotiations in which our rebate was given away also ensured that the extra money we gave was not spent properly.
We must properly consider many of the issues with the EU budget in the future. I hope that we can rely on our Lib Dem coalition partners to want value for money at a European level for the huge amounts we put in and can therefore have a very constructive and bullish attempt at trying to reform the EU budget in the coming months.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I want to take the opportunity offered by the debate on the foreign affairs and international development aspects of the Queen’s Speech to raise again, as hon. Members will have guessed, climate security. I want the House to recognise that climate change is an issue of security and that it should not just be tucked away under the heading of environment and then forgotten about. On that subject, it is interesting that we do not have a day to discuss the environment and energy aspects of the Queen’s Speech, perhaps because there are not very many of them. I was struck by the fact that this time around we do not have a day when those aspects of the speech might usefully have been covered.
I want to place climate strongly in the framework of security issues and to say how sorry I am that ambitious measures to address the climate crisis were conspicuous in their absence from the announcements about the forthcoming legislative programme. That is an extraordinary omission when successive Governments have acknowledged that climate change poses one of the greatest threats to our collective security. Indeed, the coalition Government acknowledged as much in the foreword to last year’s national security strategy, which states:
“The security of our energy supplies increasingly depends on fossil fuels located in some of the most unstable parts of the planet. Nuclear proliferation is a growing danger. Our security is vulnerable to the effects of climate change and its impact on food and water supply.”
Meg Munn
I support what the hon. Lady is saying about this being an important international issue. When I was a Minister at the Foreign Office, climate change was seen as one of the key priorities and I found that our missions around the world also took it very seriously. A great deal was being done at that time.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am pleased to hear that, because at the moment it feels like there is real tension in the Government about where climate change sits, as the Chancellor clearly sees it as an obstacle to his economic development plans and there is not much of a fight back.
The absence of such matters in the Queen’s Speech is a tragedy, because there are so many opportunities to pursue a green agenda at the same time as pursuing jobs and a stable economy. Indeed, by investing in a green economy, which is far more labour-intensive than the fossil fuel economy it replaces, we can get those jobs and get the economy stable again.
Hon. Members will know that climate change is already affecting many of the poorest communities around the world, undermining their livelihoods through changes in temperature and rainfall patterns and through the increased frequency and intensity of floods and droughts. It has been estimated that climate change is already responsible for about 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300 million people, according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming from Kofi Annan’s Global Humanitarian Forum.
Although the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on the global south, this argument is not just about poorer people in far flung places. Increasingly, extreme weather events are happening much closer to home as well, such as the 2007 floods in Britain, which saw the largest ever civil emergency response since the second world war. From our riverside location at Westminster, we should perhaps take comfort from the fact that the Thames barrier is being prepared to cope with the sea level rise of 1.9 metres that is being projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the full range of its climate scenarios. Frankly, I am alarmed that we are having to consider such a sea level rise and that such measures are not being planned elsewhere.
The truth is that growing recognition of climate change as a serious threat to our national security, our economy and international development is not resulting in commensurate action domestically or internationally. What in the Queen’s Speech could help us? The new energy Bill, if it were significantly more ambitious than proposed, could play a role. Investment in major power infrastructure today will be with us for decades to come, but there is a real risk that rather than the “secure, clean and affordable” electricity system that we have been promised by the Government, we are more likely to end up with an insecure, dirty and expensive one. To avoid that, we need four crucial elements to be introduced into the electricity market reform proposals.
First, and most importantly, the energy Bill must contain a clear and absolute commitment to decarbonising electricity generation by 2030. That is not a radical green proposal, but is based on the advice from the Committee on Climate Change. I hope that the Prime Minister will ensure that that happens, given his own explanation of the crucial role of the committee. He said that it exists to
“take the politics out of climate change and show our intention to get to grips with the problem.”
Here is a perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate exactly that.
The second thing missing from the EMR proposals to date is the vast untapped potential of energy saving. We could argue all night about the various costs of low-carbon technologies, but I think that those on both sides of the House would agree that it is often a lot cheaper to save energy in the first place. The energy Bill must therefore introduce mechanisms to equalise support for demand reduction and energy saving, such as a feed-in tariff for energy efficiency. That should be the priority, not planning to subsidise EDF’s nuclear-generated electricity to the tune of £115 per megawatt hour. That is the level of subsidy that would be necessary based on EDF’s recent announcement of a new £7 billion price tag per nuclear power station. Let us remember too that subsidising nuclear power would fly in the face of the coalition’s promise not to provide taxpayer subsidy for nuclear. As the City analyst Peter Atherton has succinctly concluded, the only way that new nuclear could be built is
“if the construction risk was transferred to the taxpayer”.
I am extremely concerned that that is exactly what the Government will try to do.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Lady makes a very important point about the costs of new nuclear power stations that are subsidised by the public, but does she not also acknowledge that decommissioning costs often fall heavily on the public purse and are an enormous hidden subsidy to the nuclear industry?
Caroline Lucas
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is yet another hidden cost of nuclear. It is not expressed up front and therefore when comparisons are made between different energy sources the price of nuclear, which would be a lot more expensive if the truth were told, is artificially deflated.
Like nuclear, an obsession with gas is another expensive distraction from a decisive and rapid shift to an efficient sustainable power system. The Chancellor has said that gas is cheap, but he is wrong. It might have been cheap 10 years ago but it certainly is not today. His Government’s own figures show that gas has been the main cause of higher energy bills over recent years and organisations such as Ofgem are all saying that gas prices are likely to continue to rise. Yes, gas can be a bridging technology and play a role in meeting peak demand, but the energy Bill must categorically rule out a new dash for gas both to keep energy costs for householders and businesses down and to meet carbon targets.
A strong emissions performance standard is essential, yet what we have so far from the Government is utterly inadequate. The Committee on Climate Change has also warned that allowing unabated gas-fired generation, as this Government plan, from new plant right through to 2045, carries a huge risk that there will be far too much gas-fired generation at the expense of low-carbon investment.
With fracking, huge questions remain over the impacts on groundwater pollution, health and air pollution, as well as earthquakes. Moreover, evidence from the Tyndall Centre indicates that the exploitation of even just a fraction of the UK’s shale gas reserves would simply be incompatible with tackling climate change.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
The hon. Lady might be aware that the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change has said that if there is a choice between a dash for gas and the lights switching off, the committee would support a dash for gas.
Caroline Lucas
If that were the real choice, I dare say that many people would support a dash for gas, but that is not the choice before us. If I had more time, I would explain why.
The fourth essential pillar of an energy Bill fit for the 21st century should be at the heart of our future energy system. This issue relates to another of the coalition’s pledges—to support
“community ownership of renewable energy schemes”.
Medium-scale renewables are the squeezed middle of energy policy and are largely ignored by the main parties, but their enormous potential is illustrated by the situation in Germany where renewable sources are now responsible for more than 20% of Germany’s electricity, with communities generating around a quarter of that. We should compare that situation with that in the UK, where communities generate less than 1% of all renewable electricity. Of major concern are the mind-bogglingly complicated and complex contracts for difference—CFDs—which are likely to destroy prospects for decentralised energy for medium-scale projects between 50 kW and 10 MW that follow a community ownership or co-operative model. Such schemes tend to involve co-operatives, housing associations and local authorities rather than just large multinational corporations. One might have hoped that a coalition committed to localism and the big society would want to promote exactly that form of community ownership of renewables rather than more of the big six.
In conclusion, even if we get the most effective electricity market reform we can hope for, the scale and urgency of the climate threat demands greater national and international leadership. Almost two years ago, the Prime Minister told us that he wanted this Government to be the greenest ever. He said that the green economy was a real opportunity to drive green jobs and
“make sure we have our share of the industries of the future.”
I could not agree more, and that is why we need more action from the Government to deliver that.
We have to ask ourselves whether we are willing to take responsibility for ensuring that the planet we leave to our children and future generations is habitable. As James Hansen, the award-winning leading National Aeronautics and Space Administration climate scientist, has put it:
“The situation we’re creating for young people and future generations is that we’re handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control…We’re in an emergency: you can see what’s on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction.”
He has also said:
“Our parents did not know that their actions could harm future generations. We will only be able to pretend”
—I emphasise “pretend”—
“that we did not know.”
That is why Professor Hansen and many other experts are calling for a 6% annual cut in carbon dioxide emissions year on year. Others suggest that the figure should be closer to 9%.
The UK’s carbon budgets enshrine a pathway to an 80% emissions reduction by 2050, and the Climate Change Act 2008, to its credit, does at least put in place architecture that we can use to achieve our targets, but that 80% target is simply out of date. When scientific developments indicate that we must go further and faster, Government policy must change to reflect that. The science tells us that global emissions of carbon dioxide need to peak in the current decade and decline steeply thereafter. That means that this Parliament—us here now—has a historic responsibility to rise to the challenge of ensuring that can happen. It is the last Parliament that can take action to avoid runaway climate change.
Failure to stabilise emissions within that framework and that time scale will dramatically reduce our chances of keeping warming below the crucial threshold of 2° C. That is why the coalition Government must use the remainder of this Parliament radically to raise the UK’s ambitions and actions domestically and internationally to lead the fight for a safe climate. If ever there was an issue that required unity, shared purpose and leadership it is surely this one—in the interests of our children and the next generation.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is a master of her brief and is completely passionate about her subject, as she has shown again today.
I want to apologise to the House for leaving the Chamber earlier and missing the last two minutes of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech. Thirty-nine of my constituents were having tea on the terrace and were leaving at 5.30 pm. I apologise for the discourtesy and also for missing some of the earlier speeches, but those constituents were from the village I live in so I felt that I had to see them.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development on the fact that we are increasing our funding on international development aid from 0.56% to 0.7% from next year. I am delighted that we are doing that. Lots of people have lobbied me to ask why that is not enshrined in legislation and commenting that we cannot guarantee it will happen, but I believe the Secretary of State and the Government that we will deliver the scale of funding that we have committed to achieving next year.
That funding will do much for the people who need it most—the poorest people in the world—but there are one or two worries about the amount and speed at which the Department for International Development is going to have to scale up spending. I hope that DFID is recruiting people from a business background—I am sure it is—because much of the money will fund new start-up businesses and entrepreneurs and go towards skilling people so that they can do that. The only way that people in poor countries can get out of poverty is by having jobs and earning money for themselves. It is no good just giving them a handout every time—we have to give them a hand up by helping them to invest in their own skills and businesses so that they can provide for themselves and their family as well as employing others. That is also the way that this country will get out of this recession. It is important that people in those countries are able to gain skills and come out of poverty, and establishing such a system would be the quickest way of doing that.
I would also like more funding to help women in developing countries. Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to meet some women from Afghanistan and Pakistan through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Those women are very worried that funding is not getting through to women in Afghanistan and they want some ring-fenced money to help women secure their own future. They feel that at the moment it is going to men and is disappearing. A recent report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact found that money is leaching and that no mechanism in DFID is able to track that money. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will have seriously considered that report because we have to stop money disappearing. It has to go to the right places.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In my experience, the only way to guarantee that aid gets through to women in Afghanistan is for our agents to give it to the women and watch them use it. Does my hon. Friend agree that as soon as intermediaries are used, money starts leaching away—sometimes mightily?
Pauline Latham
Yes, I agree completely. It has been shown that women are much better at spending money. They are much more likely to spend it on their families, their relatives, their homes and their children’s health and education, so it is important to give them the money. As soon as men are in the situation that we see them in in northern Pakistan and Afghanistan, we find that the money does not get to the women. I hope that DFID is looking at ways of helping to support those women because that approach will, in turn, support a secure and stable Afghanistan and northern Pakistan.
The women I met are very brave Members of Parliament. If we lose an election, that is the worst that can happen to us, but the worst that can happen to people in some developing countries is that they lose their life. I hope therefore that we are giving support that enables women to continue to put themselves forward for election and assists projects that help women to help their families. They fear that large sums are not getting through to important projects because money is being siphoned off not just at one level but at every level it passes through. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will have decided to look at that carefully.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to that. Does she agree that when talks take place between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, it is essential that the constitution, which protects the rights of women in Afghanistan, is not interfered with in any way?
Pauline Latham
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. She is right. Women must not go backwards. Yesterday I heard the worrying news that in northern Pakistan, which borders Afghanistan, 700 schools have been bombed and girls cannot go to school any more. We must work with Governments to try to ensure that girls get a good education, not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but all over the developing world.
I have been to many African countries and have found that the schools there are so badly equipped that the teachers have no resources apart from a blackboard on which to write what they can remember. I am not saying that the children are not learning, because there are some very bright children in those circumstances, but they are not getting a rounded education. Last November or December a friend of mine, the hon. Michael Bayigga-Lulume, who is a Member of Parliament in Uganda, came over to this country and saw some schools in my constituency. He was astonished at the priority that this Government and every Government in Britain have given to schools. He has been to Britain before to attend conferences in Manchester, Birmingham and London, but he has never visited real places. By going into schools, he has recognised that we set huge store by education for all our children, not just girls or boys.
Other countries do not seem to do that. They do not put the necessary investment into schools. Schools require textbooks, and in this day and age they cannot manage without computers, so developing countries need to get their infrastructure sorted out. I suggest to the Under-Secretary, who is present, and to the Secretary of State that perhaps we should set up some exemplars in situ. We should go and equip schools properly, as we would a British school, and for a specific period we should pay for the teachers who have the right skills and the right education in order to promote education in African countries or in countries such as India and Pakistan. We should help them to see what it is like to have a properly resourced school, because without education none of the students will progress to top jobs. They will be able to do ordinary jobs, but they will not be high fliers because they will not have had the opportunities that we have in this country. I suggest that we do something like that to promote education in all the countries where we have a presence.
Not only should we invest in drugs to treat HIV/AIDS and malaria, but we should consider carefully resourcing treatments for diarrhoea. Everybody knows about the HIV/AIDS and malaria drugs, but very often the health problems of young children are caused by diarrhoea. There are many other causes, but it is very cheap to treat diarrhoea in young people with rehydration salts and zinc. We should be promoting that, along with the rapid diagnostic tests that can be done out in the bush, so that the people there can get an accurate diagnosis. If we can help with the health as well as the education of the young people, they will have a much better chance of a decent future in life, with proper resources.
I am always concerned when we provide budget support. It needs careful management by DFID. If we are not careful, we provide budget support for, say, a health budget, and the country says, “Yes, we’ve agreed to spend 15% of our budget on health. Thank you, that’s 6% of it, so we have to provide only 9%.” I always thought that our 6% should be on top of the country’s 15%, not 6% less for it to spend. I would like to see Governments pushed a little more to spend up to the 15% that many countries in Africa have signed up to so that they get a better health service.
Some of the health services that we see are very poor—hospitals for young children with no sheets and no nappies. They have no decent toilets and nowhere for the staff to wash their hands. If members of staff in a hospital cannot wash their hands, they cannot provide proper hygiene. I would like to see us helping with that, but in addition to the country’s own 15%, not instead of it.
We should be pushing and helping with the skills needed for agriculture, particularly in African countries and in India, while we are still there. We should try to help keep people in the countryside, rather than all of them gravitating to the cities, which are not healthy places to live for people with no job and no home, who are running around on the streets. It is better to keep people in the countryside so that they can provide a living for themselves and make the country more self-sufficient in vegetables and fruit. Instead of only one crop, maize, there should be diversity so that the people can become self-sufficient and have better diets. All the people in African countries can have better diets, which will make them healthier, and they will have a better living by getting added value on their crops. I should like to see DFID working hard on that.
I want to mention Congo quickly. In Rwanda we saw a genocide. The same thing is happening in the Congo. Unfortunately, nobody is talking about it. Millions of people are being murdered—slaughtered—and millions of women have been raped, sometimes by members of their own family, because their own families will be killed if they do not do it.
Pauline Latham
I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
We should be doing more to help those poor women who are struggling in their own country to have a proper living. We should be pushing the UN to do far more to help them, and we should recognise that a genocide is taking place there. It is not just a little local uprising.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
There have been many passionate contributions to the debate, and the contribution from the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) was one of them. I draw attention in particular to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock). Hansard will report all the words of her contribution, but it will not reflect the rapt silence in which it was heard by Members across the House as she raised the horrific situation of young Palestinian boys and girls in military custody.
I listened closely also to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), who stressed the target of 0.7%, to which the United Kingdom Government have signed up for more than 40 years and have not delivered on so far in one single financial year; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who pointed out, almost amazingly, that in a Queen’s Speech debate over a series of days, we have no specific focus on the importance of the environment. I should have thought that by now we would have learned that it was one of the most important challenges that we face.
I listened closely to the opening speech from the Foreign Secretary, who touched on many of the key issues of the day. Nobody can doubt the challenge of the crisis of the eurozone or the situation in Syria. Both remain extremely serious, and there is a need for an urgent political solution, as far as that is possible, and the return of international military forces from Afghanistan as a top priority.
I take the opportunity to concentrate on a particular challenge facing northern Europe, a subject not touched on from either Front Bench or by anybody else today. The seas north of Scotland are warming at an alarming rate. Recent studies show that warming in the Arctic is occurring faster than anywhere else on the planet, and the average temperature in the region has surpassed all previous measurements in the first decade of the 21st century. Sea ice has been shrinking, and the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet and other Arctic ice caps will contribute more and more to the rise in global sea levels. The facts are sobering. Sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than at any time in the past four decades, and during last summer the Northwest passage was free of ice, and this trend is set to continue and become the norm.
These changes in Scotland’s backyard are significant and they are accelerating. All our neighbours are at action stations, because they understand that the massive changes impacting on the high north and Arctic will become a significant feature of the years and decades ahead. The environmental concerns are alarming, but significant economic opportunities and geostrategic challenges must be tackled in parallel. Those include oil, gas and mineral extraction and new international shipping routes. Up to 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas reserves and 10% of oil resources are believed to be located in the Arctic. With the opening of northern shipping lanes, vessels sailing between east Asia and western Europe could save more than 40% in time and fuel costs by navigating the sea lanes north of Siberia rather than the southern route through the Suez canal. Rising sea temperatures also mean that there are new fishing grounds.
Given all of those developments, one would imagine that the UK Government would be taking this very seriously. After all, all neighbouring Governments in the north of Europe are doing so. Sadly, they are not. At last November’s International Maritime Organisation assembly, the UK did not even raise the massive challenges of the northern dimension. Among our neighbours, the changing circumstances are, however, being thoroughly considered.
Mark Lazarowicz
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to criticise the Government, but perhaps I can give him some reassurance as the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, is looking at this very issue, because we recognise that it does need to be given much higher priority by our Government.
Angus Robertson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention and I look forward to the conclusions of the report with great interest, because, as I said, our neighbouring countries have been considering this problem for a number of years. Given the national priorities at play, they are keen to ensure stability in the region, which necessitates ecological, economic, diplomatic and defence co-operation and understanding. All this explains why the countries adjoining the Arctic are taking the issue very seriously. Norway, Denmark, Russia, Canada and the United States have all developed specific policy priorities for the high north and Arctic. Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands consider this a top priority, as do nations such as Sweden and Finland.
Our neighbours’ multilateral engagement is extremely serious and they are working closely together. This has happened for decades through the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Nordic Council, and has recently been widened to include enhanced bilateral and multilateral relations with the independent Baltic republics. Nordic co-operation is broad and embraces areas such as environment, health, energy supply, research, culture, education, information technology, research and business advancement. A specific Arctic co-operation programme works together with countries in the Arctic Council, which was formed in 1998 with the signing of the Ottawa declaration. An additional important consideration relates to regional security, where finely tuned defence priorities provide the capabilities that secure stability and aid the civil power across the massive area that constitutes the high north and Arctic. Our neighbours are scaling up their infrastructural capabilities in the region.
Despite different relations to treaty organisations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Nordic and Baltic nations are pushing ahead as never before. This includes shared basing, training and procurement arrangements. For nations such as Norway and Denmark in particular, deployability and reach within the high north and Arctic is a key consideration. This is not the case for the UK.
Recently the UK Government mapped out their future priorities in a strategic defence review, a weighty 75-page report that does not mention the northern dimension once, underlining that it is not an important focus for Whitehall. In addition, UK defence cuts to infrastructure and capabilities in Scotland mean that we will have a diminished ability directly to co-operate with our neighbours. Damaging decisions, including the scrapping of fixed-wing Nimrod search and rescue aircraft, are at the top of that list. Air force operations are ending from two out of three of the northern air bases in the UK. No appropriate conventional sea-going vessels are based in Scotland at all. The recent arrival of a Russian carrier group around the Admiral Kuznetsov in the Moray Firth off my constituency necessitated royal naval interdiction craft being sent from the south of England to the north of Scotland, underlining that gap in capability.
Angus Robertson
I am running out of time and I have already given way.
Current UK defence plans include the withdrawal of specialised amphibious personnel from the east coast of Scotland, while there are no helicopters or transport aircraft whatever. Even a cursory glance at the inventory of our neighbours shows their broader capability across all three services.
Scotland cannot afford to take that approach. With preparations under way for the independence referendum, it is reassuring that these regional developments are influencing the thinking of the SNP Government in Scotland. At least that consideration has been given there, in contrast to that in Whitehall, which is sadly lacking. First Minister Salmond has visited Norway on numerous occasions—indeed, he has been there this week—to discuss common issues, including the planned electricity interconnector and growth in the renewables sector. In contrast, no UK Prime Minister has made an official visit to our closest North sea neighbour in 25 years, which tells its own story about UK priorities.
Constitutional developments in Scotland and significant environmental changes offer a real opportunity and imperative properly to engage with our wider geographic region. Our neighbours to the north and east have already made a good start and work constructively together. We need to join them and play our part. The UK has opted out of a serious approach: we should not. If the UK does not properly engage, a sovereign Scottish Government will do so following a yes vote in the 2014 independence referendum.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
We are living through what might be termed a grand transition in international affairs, with the axis of global power shifting from the west to the east. Britain faces some difficult strategic choices in an external environment that is complex, uncertain and often chaotic. What are the strategic choices that Britain faces today? As other hon. Members have pointed out, we face a crisis in Europe that presents a profound strategic challenge for Britain. What is happening in the eurozone calls into question a policy consensus that has characterised British policy since at least the 1960s, and western Europe faces an economic, demographic and political crisis.
As the Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks, the choice that Britain has in this environment of complexity is to be outward facing; to face out to the emerging world and build on our historic strengths as a nation. As world power moves east and towards those emerging economies, the Government have been right to recognise the strategic importance of building these new relationships in the emerging world with countries such as Brazil and other emerging economies. The reality of the world that we live in today is that Britain will gain influence by exerting influence on those networks—the networks of influence that are building around the world—rather than in the hierarchies of power that characterised international relations during the cold war. The Government are absolutely right to pursue that building of an extensive network throughout the world.
We need to draw the right lessons from our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Government are correct to pursue a stabilisation policy in Afghanistan and to move towards an orderly exit of British troops, but it is vital that we learn the correct lessons from our engagement in Afghanistan. For me, the lesson from Afghanistan does not argue for Britain to shrink from its global role in the future. The Libyan engagement proved that effective intervention is possible through new forms of co-operation through NATO. There are lessons that we need to learn from Afghanistan, but they should not be that Britain withdraws from its historic role as a custodian of global security. The choice for Britain, as we sit here today, is whether to shrink from that historic global role or accept it as Britain’s historic destiny and prepare for the future by building the necessary relationships and capability to fulfil that global role.
Mr MacShane
I do not dissent from much of the hon. Gentleman’s line of argument, so does he agree that the fact that there are now 250 fewer diplomats serving Britain abroad than there were in 2010 is a contribution to that extension of our network?
James Morris
As the Foreign Secretary pointed out, there are now more places around the world where Britain has embassies and consuls. I believe that it is still our national duty to pursue the latter course of maintaining Britain’s global influence as a major player.
Our biggest challenge at present is in the middle east. There is much turmoil in the region, and the greatest threat to stability, as other hon. Members have pointed out, is Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is right that the British Government have played an influential role in pursuing EU oil sanctions on Iran but, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there is concerning evidence of potential backtracking on the ban on providing insurance for tankers carrying Iranian oil. I think that it would be a retrograde step for Britain to send the Iranian regime any signal that we are backtracking on sanctions. It is important that there is no let-up on sanctions. The pressure of the potential for EU oil sanctions has brought Iran to the table, and it should not be rewarded for making that right decision.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, the other key nexus in the middle east is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Britain should continue to play an active role in the international community to take steps towards peace in the middle east. There are encouraging signs internally in Israel, with a new coalition Government being formed and positive overtures from Prime Minister Netanyahu. I believe that the Palestinian Authority have the opportunity to become a partner for peace. At the same time, they need to abandon the divisive approach of seeking statehood at the United Nations and continuing to support a policy of delegitimising Israel, which is not in the best interests of achieving what all of us in this House want: a viable two-state solution. We must all work together to seek two-party talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians without preconditions.
On a broader point, Britain’s broader strategic choices and our concept of the national interest are related to two important assets that we hold. We have considerable and extensive reach due to our soft-power assets, and our cultural and linguistic reach will continue to mean that we can gain global influence because of those assets. We must be prepared to deploy them in the pursuit of democracy, human rights and—the corollary of those—global security. But we also have some important decisions to take on hard power and the extent to which Britain wants to continue to be able to project hard-power force in our role in global security. That comes down to such issues as the importance of replacing Trident, the maintenance of our independent nuclear deterrent and, building on the Defence Secretary’s announcement yesterday, the absolute clarity that we want a balanced defence budget and a sensible process for procuring defence equipment that will allow us to continue to be able to project hard power in a complex global security environment.
A couple of domestic issues impact on Britain’s future, one of which is the future of the United Kingdom itself. Some people, including some Members of this House, argue that it is inevitable that the United Kingdom will break up over the next few years. In my view, such a break-up would have profound and negative consequences for Britain and would threaten our ability to project a global role. The break-up of the Union is simply not in Britain’s national interests.
The other domestic aspect that I think is important is public opinion. Public opinion is not often cited in debates on Britain’s foreign policy or international development, but on issues from Europe to Britain’s global military interventions there is a sense of a crisis of legitimacy when decisions are taken that people have not been consulted about or that do not align with their values. As we think about Britain’s strategic choices and national interests over the next 10 to 15 years, we must ensure that the strategic choices that the Government make and that we make are better aligned with the aspirations and values of the British people so that we close the gap between the decisions that Governments have made and what the people of Britain aspire to achieve.
Over the past two years the Government have been right to recognise the extent of the challenge facing Britain, with the publication of a national security strategy and the establishment of a National Security Council that is driving strategy, and they recognise that we now live in a world that is a complex place where decisions need to be made in very ambiguous situations. When I talk with my constituents about the issues facing Britain, increasingly they demand a clear idea of where we are going and what we want to achieve, and I believe that over the past two years the Government have laid good foundations for achieving that clarity.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Britain’s foreign policy can be summed up in two words: unsplendid isolation. The Foreign Secretary is an observer of world events, rather than a shaper of them. He talked about new embassies being opened, but they will not be staffed by trained British diplomats who come back here after a short term abroad as a young diplomat to help inform our community of foreign policy. Instead, we now have portakabin foreign policy, with small sheds being opened all over the world, but without augmenting our foreign presence. The number of diplomatic posts staffed by British citizens is being cut by up to 250 as a result of the Foreign Secretary’s personnel policies.
The Foreign Secretary set out his world vision in an interview with The Economist last week. It is based on promoting trade, promoting the broad national interest and protecting British citizens overseas, as he confirmed in his speech earlier. I expect that every holder of his great office from Charles James Fox onward would subscribe to those aims. Every one of Her Majesty’s ambassadors promotes trade, but to do so we need an economy that is growing, open and supported by Ministers. Instead, the Foreign Secretary insulted every exporter over the weekend by telling them to work hard. My business friends in his home town of Rotherham, which I have the honour of representing, have worked harder than any generation of business leaders in our history. They do not need to be patronised and told to work hard. What they need is support so that the cuts to the UK trade promotion work, which Lord Digby Jones discussed with the BBC yesterday, are reversed, because every day that the Foreign Secretary has been in office has seen Britain’s trade balance worsen.
The Foreign Secretary makes much of the idea that Britain can turn away from our traditional trading partners and engage with emerging powers, yet we export more to Ireland than we do to China, Russia, India and Brazil combined. He is the leader of the Eurosceptic faction in the Cabinet and never misses an opportunity to make a crack about the EU or the problems of the eurozone, as if the double-dip recession pound zone were an example to follow.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that exports of goods to non-EU countries have increased by almost 30% over the past two years?
Mr MacShane
I will be moving on to that.
Our exports to Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain—the so-called PIGS countries—amount to more than 10% of our exports, compared with just 0.7% to Brazil or 1.4% to India, to which even Belgium exports more than we do. In short, the concept of replacing our friends and allies in the Euro-Atlantic trading region with the new so-called emerging powers is not paying off, as the Indian decision to buy French war planes rather than British ones and the view of Indian politicians that they no longer want or need aid from London demonstrate.
Mr MacShane
This will have to be the last time, I think; I do not get any extra, injury time.
Bob Stewart
I do not think that that is what the Foreign Secretary said. I think he said that we should export wherever we can in the world, including to people to whom we have traditionally exported.
Mr MacShane
To export, one has to make friends throughout the world, everywhere, but when we look at Europe we find that that is not really the Foreign Secretary’s speciality. He was recently in Vietnam, and since he has been in office the UK’s trade deficit with that country has almost doubled. Whatever else he is achieving, he is a champion of increasing imports to the UK and the Blackburn Rovers in respect of decreasing exports from our nation.
Let me quote just one analysis, which is out today. The author states:
“It is noteworthy that other developed countries have re-orientated their export profiles more effectively than Britain has done, raising doubts about whether we are keeping pace with our EU partners in promoting British commercial interests in the emerging economies.”
That extremely prescient analysis comes from the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in a new pamphlet published today by Business for New Europe. It is a Conservative condemnation—much like that of his brother, who always condemns whatever the Prime Minister proposes—of the failed key plank in the Foreign Secretary’s policy of promoting trade.
Our genius lies in being Europe’s most open economy. We were creating a niche as the world’s centre of excellence for overseas students. We still have many who came here two or three years ago, as the Foreign Secretary told us in respect of Chinese students, yet the Chinese and Indians are going to other European countries, because they can fill in a simple, short visa application and then travel anywhere in the Schengen zone—while our form is being replaced with the most difficult visa application known to man. We all expect Chinese citizens to complete our visa in English; the Chinese one day might expect us to complete their visa forms in Chinese, and then we will realise just how deeply patronising we have been.
Let us turn to protecting the national interest. Britain has permanent interests not permanent friends—it is an old saying. But our permanent interests are best promoted by making as many friends as possible, and the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister seem to lose friends and dis-influence people whenever they can. The Prime Minister, as we know, snubbed François Hollande when the now President of France came to London in February.
The Government have quietly buried an 80-year-old relationship with Poland through their handling of the current Polish Government and through the Prime Minister’s crude interference in Polish internal affairs, with support orchestrated from No. 10 for the clericalist national right-winger, Jaroslaw Kaczynski. As with the Prime Minister’s ostentatious endorsement of Mr Sarkozy, the curse of Cameron worked its magic and Mr Kaczynski’s opponent was elected.
We should not forget the Deputy Prime Minister’s description of the Prime Minister’s allies in the European Parliament as nationalists, “anti-Semites and homophobes” —a description highlighted by the appalling Waffen-SS commemoration march in Latvia in March, when Jewish people were jostled at an event supported by a party allied to the Conservatives. As with the Prime Minister’s insulting and gratuitous pandering to anti-Israeli Turkish politicians when he called Gaza “a prison camp”, even though it would be more accurate to describe Gaza as a centre of missile attacks aimed at Jews in Israel, the standing of Britain is damaged by such loose-lipped remarks and by the dubious company that the ruling party keeps.
That isolationist approach has been roundly condemned this very week by the Atlantic Council, one of the most prestigious American foreign policy institutes. In a report written by Nick Burns, one of the US’s most experienced diplomats, Mr Burns, who served the George W. Bush Administration with distinction, says:
“Prime Minister Cameron’s coalition government has yet to develop a coherent strategic vision for the United Kingdom’s role in a challenging global landscape.”
The report cites the blunder of the Prime Minister’s veto—the veto that never was—last December, which made Britain a laughing stock among Euro-Atlantic policy makers and opinion formers. It also underlines American dismay at the massive, Treasury-imposed defence cuts, which have left Britain without aircraft carriers at a time when the high seas—from the Strait of Hormuz to the contested Pacific islands where China is ratcheting up the pressure against Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines—are a new zone of tension.
We heard yesterday in the House the Defence Secretary prostrating himself before the smirking Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as the Secretary of State hauled up the white flag of surrender to the Treasury, for which a balanced budget is far more important than a balance of power or Britain’s presence in world affairs.
The Foreign Secretary has also downgraded human rights and democracy promotion. Yes, Britain tailed behind Mr Sarkozy in his Libyan expedition. Gaddafi has gone, but chaos, murder, mass violation of human rights and open warfare in southern Libya now exist. We hear constantly about the end of Gaddafi but nothing about the end of human rights in Libya today.
The FCO human rights report, which was once a printed volume of rigour and authority, has now gone virtual with just a handful of the worst violating nations examined in detail.
The Government are selective in their approach. Syria is condemned, but the torturers of Bahrain are invited to Britain with every honour we can bestow. The Burmese regime was excoriated, but when I repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to raise in public the case of Liu Xiabo, the Chinese Nobel peace prize laureate who now rots in the Chinese gulag, there was only silence. Pakistan is criticised, but the dreadful human rights abuses in Kashmir perpetrated by Indian security forces are downplayed and no pressure is put on India by this Government to change its line on Kashmir.
We have also heard relative silence in the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, although I am glad to say that, thanks to Opposition Members, it was mentioned earlier in the debate. On 12 October last year, when I asked the Prime Minister about Mrs Tymoshenko, he said:
“We completely agree that the treatment of Mrs Tymoshenko, whom I have met on previous occasions, is absolutely disgraceful. The Ukrainians need to know that if they leave the situation as it is, it will severely affect their relationship not only with the UK but with the European Union”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 329.]
In fact, the Ukrainians have made the situation worse by denying her medical treatment, although we are glad that she seems to be out of prison at the moment.
Other European leaders have taken a stand on the matter. The Prime Minister’s friends in the Czech Republic, the Czech President, Mrs Merkel, Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Secretary and Carl Bildt, the Prime Minister’s friend in the Swedish Government, have spoken out publicly on it; we had barely a squeak from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. Britain must stand up for Mrs Tymoshenko—as the Prime Minister pledged to do in this House in October.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr MacShane
I do not think that I have time. Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? [Interruption.] I am sorry—[Interruption.] Well, very quickly then.
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Ukraine, but he is most unfair to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the matter specifically in his opening remarks.
Mr MacShane
The Foreign Secretary mentioned it en passant. There has been no public statement, and none of the positions, taken by European leaders committed to human rights, about boycotts and having no contact. That is what I—we—want from this Government.
The Foreign Secretary also says that he has to support British nationals overseas. Certainly, the extradition of British nationals to the United States is working in favour of America’s idea of justice. We also have the problem of Mr Neil Heywood, killed in a horrible way at the same time as a Minister of State was visiting China, but it took several months for the truth to emerge.
Members across the House also agreed a resolution that Britain should take action on the case of Sergei Magnitsky by banning named individuals from coming into the UK, but the Foreign Office refuses to implement the will of the House. The names might be mentioned in private bilateral meetings with Russia, but we are not standing up for human rights, as I believe this country wants to do and expects the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister to do.
That is why this foreign policy is not working and will not work until we have a change of Government.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), whose knowledge of these matters is renowned. I take issue with his remarks about unsplendid isolation, however, because I struggle to reconcile that with his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary’s assertion that the Government’s foreign policy has a hint of imperial delusion. One can either be an isolationist or an imperialist; it is very difficult to be both at the same time.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took some time to describe the problems relating to north Africa and the middle east and, in particular, to identify the challenges in the Sahel region. There is a real risk that, with our interest in things going on elsewhere in the world, we could take our eye off the ball in this troubled region, which could easily become a crucible for insurgency, people trafficking, narcotics and terrorism. The countries of north Africa are well apprised of the dangers of the situation and are most keen that the European Union take early action to ensure that the situation in the Sahel does not deteriorate any further.
The Maghreb is a bulwark against the instability that may well issue forth from the ungoverned spaces of that part of Africa. We have watched with some dismay the deteriorating situation in Mali and in Niger, especially the trouble in the north of Mali as Tuareg insurgents return from military duties in Libya to occupy large swathes of that country, and particularly the area around Timbuktu. That could well act as a catalyst for disruption and dismay in the wider region that might easily have knock-on effects, especially for Algeria and Morocco. Many of us hope sincerely that there will be a rapprochement between Algeria and Morocco and that, in particular, the situation in the Tindouf camps will be resolved without too much further delay. Indeed, the stability of the whole region appears to hinge on the nexus between Rabat and Algiers.
Jeremy Corbyn
With the renewal of the MINURSO mandate, which has greatly assisted the Western Saharan people, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good idea if it included a human rights monitoring role to assist the human rights of everyone in the Western Sahara and in the refugee camps?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening; I expected him to do so. I have spoken on this subject before in the House, and it would be reasonable to do as he suggests. However, Morocco’s concern would be that there was an implicit assumption that its human rights record is not particularly good. In a region that is troubled with its record in that respect, Morocco is something of a beacon, and I would encourage it in the direction of travel that its new Government, and their predecessors, have taken in improving human rights. I would be very reluctant to see that country held out as failing in some way on its human rights record, although I agree that there is every imperative to ensure that it improves in that respect.
I hold out Morocco as having done a great deal in recent years, particularly last year, to take itself further forward on the path towards constitutional democracy. In the middle of the year, there was the referendum on the new constitution, with elections in November. At a time when we have seen chaos sweep through north Africa and the middle east, Morocco has stood as a beacon of stability and relative calm. That is because it has a multi-party tradition. While its democracy is evolving—some of us have had the opportunity to witness that at first hand—it has had a tradition of nascent democracy for some time, and that is what has kept it free of some of the insurgency and mayhem that has enveloped the wider region. The Moroccan autonomy plan for the Western Sahara is undoubtedly imperfect—most plans are—but it does offer a credible and pragmatic way forward. It is supported by France and the US and, in truth, it is the only show in town. Next year marks the 800th anniversary of the first diplomatic contact between England and Morocco. One of our oldest friends deserves our unequivocal support as it tries to stabilise the region and control the ingress of enemies that we hold in common and must do all we can to defeat.
We have heard a great deal today about international development. Charity begins at home, but it most certainly does not end there. I am very proud that the Government have maintained their commitment to international aid. I am perfectly happy to face down populist demands to have it cut, and more than happy to explain to dissenters how it has helped to eradicate smallpox, reduce polio, tackle malaria, and even assist tax collectors, necessary as they are in state-building. If I had a criticism of this Government, and indeed of their predecessors, it would be that they have been insufficiently willing to present aid as being in the UK’s national self-interest. If it is explained in that way, we are more likely to get buy-in from the voting public. At the end of the day, our views are interesting, of course, but we need to represent the views of the public, and it is certainly the case that they are not entirely signed up to granting aid at a time when they are being expected to tighten their belts.
Bob Stewart
The public would be greatly more interested in international aid if they realised that we have stopped, as much as we possibly can, money being siphoned off and sent to offshore accounts rather than going to the people to whom it was directed. If we could explain to the public that we have stopped malaria and are doing things to help the little people, that would make international aid much more acceptable.
Dr Murrison
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s attempt to cut aid to relatively wealthy countries with nuclear weapons, such as Russia and China, together with the UK aid transparency guarantee, should help to reassure a doubting public. However, it is the duty of all those of us who believe in international development to take the message out to our constituents and persuade them that it is in the recipients’ interest and in our own national self-interest that we should maintain our aid programme in very difficult times.
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what part of the 0.7% of GNI in aid that we intend to spend will be channelled through the European Union. I commend him for his desire to have transparency in aid, which is absolutely right, for reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) touched on. It would be perverse if, having gone to the trouble of making aid transparent in the UK, the large portion of our aid that goes through the EU and the European Commission was obscure. A lot of EU aid is used to prosecute foreign policy in relation to its near abroad, seemingly as an extension of the External Action Service. As chairman of the all-party group on Morocco, which is the largest recipient under the European neighbourhood policy, I can say that in general terms the money seems to be reasonably well spent.
Mr MacShane
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for Maghreb Morocco. We provided £1 million for Tunisia when the Foreign Secretary went there last year. I am obviously not against that, but £1 million is almost irrelevant. We need to help our near abroad so that it becomes more like us.
Dr Murrison
I entirely agree, but it seems to me that some European aid is an extension of the External Action Service rather than necessarily aid in the sense that we give it to Bangladesh, for example. The right hon. Gentleman might see that as a nice distinction, but it is important nevertheless.
I am pleased to see in the Queen’s Speech the Croatia accession Bill, which represents the UK’s ratification of the accession treaty signed in December. Those of us of a Eurosceptic disposition see the EU as a trading compact, and that means a looser, not an ever-closer, union that is wider still and wider. Croatia has made considerable inroads in progressing the chapters of the acquis communautaire assessed in 2005 as being in need of further work, notably in relation to chapters 23 and 24, which deal with the judiciary, fundamental rights, justice, freedom and security. The process has been painful for Croatia, particularly in relation to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, but it has ultimately been successful. We wish it well in 2013.
More problematic is Serbia, which I fear must remain a candidate for some time. Belgrade’s attitude to, inter alia, human rights and its criminal justice system are in no way congruous with EU member states. The detention without trial of my constituent, Nick Djivanovic, by the Serb authorities under highly questionable laws and procedures from the days of Marshal Tito, which have no equivalent in the EU, illustrates the point perfectly in relation to chapters 23 and 24 of the acquis communautaire. Following the eventual arrest and surrender of Ratko Mladic, I hope that the Government will work with Serbia so that its aspiration is eventually satisfied, but it will need a great deal more work.
Immigration remains a matter of great concern to many of our constituents. Will the Minister describe the transitional immigration controls that will apply to Croatia and to future accession states, noting the migratory pressures that are sadly likely as the citizens of economically benighted southern European states seek refuge further north?
The ubiquity of the English language has been touched on. It is a blessing and a curse. The orthodoxy is that we should teach more modern foreign languages. I hope, however, that we will pick up on the blessing that the language brings in extending our linguistic reach. In particular, we must support the work of the British Council, which I have seen at first hand in Morocco—a country that is at the heart of what France has traditionally seen as its backyard.
We need to exploit more our further and higher education sectors, so that tomorrow’s movers and shakers come to this country and not to others. They may then be sympathetic to us in the years ahead. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the European Commission’s Tempus programme and the Erasmus Mundus external co-operation window, which the UK has not exploited in Europe to the fullest extent.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). I associate myself with his comments about Morocco. I did not realise that he was the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Morocco. I feel very inclined to join it after his remarks. I have been to Morocco on several occasions and have friends in that country. Indeed, a late great uncle of mine was once the mayor of Tangier. That helped my Jewish family in the second world war, who took refuge in Morocco. I think that Morocco is the only Arab country that recognises an Israeli passport and allows joint citizenship with Israel.
Dr Murrison
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks. It is not said loudly enough that the story of Morocco is one of tolerance. In particular, the record of the former sultan in supporting the Jewish community, particularly around Casablanca, against the Vichy French is a powerful example. Morocco ought to be very proud of that.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that I can join his group and work with him for the benefit of Anglo-Moroccan relations, which are important to this country and to the Arab world.
I will concentrate on one major issue that concerns me, which I hope the Government will take up. Indeed, the Government have made their views on it fairly clear, but they need to do more. It is the issue of Tibet.
Yesterday, I was privileged to be invited to St Paul’s cathedral to hear the address by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, Tenzin Gyatso. He was awarded the prestigious Templeton prize, which is awarded for a person’s spiritual contribution to humanity. It is now 100 years since the birth of the prize’s founder, Sir John Templeton.
St Paul’s, as Members will know, is a wonderful venue for any ceremonial. To be there in the presence of so many people, but especially the Dalai Lama, and to hear his magnificent speech about compassion, peace and love for all humanity was very uplifting. It made me realise that the attempts by the Chinese Government to bring the Dalai Lama into disrepute, calling him a “splittist” and even, on some occasions, a terrorist, are complete and utter nonsense. We know that this is a man who stands up for peace and love for all humanity. How can the Chinese Government, who have such a poor record of human rights violations, accuse somebody such as the Dalai Lama of what they accuse him of? I hope that our Government will put further pressure on the Chinese Government to ensure that the human rights violations all over that country, but especially in Tibet, are brought to an end, or at least brought to public notice.
I want to draw attention to the case of one individual. His name is Dhondup Wangchen. He was a renowned filmmaker in Tibet until 2008, when he was arrested for making a film about the effect of the Olympics in Beijing on the people of Tibet. It was a modest film, as anybody who has seen it will know, in which the Tibetan people who were interviewed said, “It would be nice if we had a chance to share in the interest and pleasure of watching live sport, especially something as prestigious as the Olympics, but the Government won’t let us because we are Tibetan.” For that film, Dhondup Wangchen was arrested, supposedly tried and imprisoned for eight years. He is still in prison. He is currently suffering from a hepatitis C infection that is damaging his health, and he is being denied the appropriate health care.
I hope that the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary will bring the case of Dhondup Wangchen to the attention of the Chinese Government, as well as the cases of the many other Tibetans who have been arrested simply for supporting the Dalai Lama. It is now a criminal offence in Tibet to put up a portrait of His Holiness. One does not have to do anything but put up a portrait that is then seen. That is why many Tibetans now hide his portrait in a cupboard or somewhere else where it cannot be seen by spies and people who are there on behalf of the Chinese Administration.
We know what the Dalai Lama has written. All that he has ever asked for is true autonomy for Tibet. No longer is the argument put forward that Tibet wants to be a proud, autonomous, independent nation once again. I think that many Tibetans wish that that was the case, but they so revere the Dalai Lama that they would not deny or contradict his “middle way” approach. That is something that the British Government should support.
In 2006, just six years ago this month, I was privileged to be part of the Foreign Affairs Committee delegation that went to Lhasa. It was a fascinating experience. The visit was brought about by the determination of my colleague on the Committee at the time, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). He persisted in arguing that we should be allowed to go, in the face of Foreign Office resistance and, of course, resistance from the Chinese Government. But go we did. There were five of us, the others being my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and two former Members, Andrew Mackinlay and Richard Younger-Ross.
We were accompanied by 10 people from Beijing, if I recall correctly, to ensure that we did not stray off the path that the Chinese Administration had set down for us. None the less, Andrew Mackinlay and I managed to escape our minders one afternoon, after three days in Lhasa, to explore the Barkhor markets and talk to people, although they were scared to talk to foreigners. That gave us a true insight into the way in which the Chinese Government are trying to make the people of Tibet Chinese; the way in which Han Chinese people are being encouraged to move into the new housing that is being built in Lhasa; the way in which the Tibetan language is demoted, even for Tibetan children in the schools in that country; and the way in which nomads are being forced to live in fixed accommodation, no longer able to pursue the lifestyle and culture that they have had for centuries. The culture of Tibet—its costume, its cultural festivities, its celebrations and the very faith of Buddhism—is being eroded in the name of standardisation and Chinese-ification.
Our Government need to stand up and speak louder for the future and self-determination of the Tibetan people before it is too late. My fear, and that of right hon. and hon. Members who support the Tibetan cause, many of whom were at St Paul’s cathedral yesterday, is that in 20 or 50 years’ time, there will be a Tibetan diaspora but no Tibetan people still living in Tibet. That would be a tragedy.
Yesterday, His Holiness the Dalai Lama acknowledged his debt to the people and Government of India, who welcomed him when he was forced into exile in 1959, where he has been ever since in Dharamsala. Each year, with the support of the Tibet Society, the all-party Tibet group, which I chair, tries to organise a trip to Dharamsala and McLeod Ganj for parliamentarians to meet the brilliantly organised Tibetan Government-in-exile and see their Parliament, their artistic and cultural organisations and their political prisoners’ organisation, from which we hear the most harrowing tales. Best of all, we see the Tibetan children’s village, where children who have walked across the Himalayas to escape the oppression of the Chinese Government and Communist party, often unaccompanied by their parents, come into India and are welcomed with open arms. They are supported by many western and eastern people, many of whom come from Japan. It is so uplifting to see how those children are looked after.
I do not want to go into the debate that we will continue to have about the rights and wrongs of what is happening between Israel and the Palestinian people, but the director of the Tibetan children’s village went to Israel to see how the kibbutzim were managed and organised. When I was last there, I could not help but think that the village was run along the lines of a kibbutz. It seemed very much like it. I said to the director, “This seems strange. Have you been to Israel?” He said, “Yes we have. We went there to see what a kibbutz was like, and we put their principles into practice here so that our children could benefit from collective living and a co-operative upbringing together.” Their parents are often stuck in Lhasa or other towns and villages in Tibet.
Tibet will die if we do not continue to support it. We should not be afraid of the Chinese bullies. I was very pleased that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister were there yesterday to meet His Holiness at St Paul’s cathedral, and I congratulate them. However, I am also aware, as many Members will be if they read this morning’s papers, that the Chinese Government expressed in the strongest possible terms their anger at the fact that our Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister had had the temerity to meet the Dalai Lama. We must stand up against this bullying.
When the Foreign Affairs Committee was in Beijing, the Chinese people’s foreign affairs committee threatened us with all sorts of retribution if we visited Taiwan. We were told it would have far-reaching damaging effects on the relationship between the UK and China. We went to Taiwan, and no damaging effect was felt at all. We must stand up to these bully-boy tactics, stand up for Tibet and stand up for the message of peace, love and compassion that His Holiness the Dalai Lama continues to put forth without fear or favour.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Women have always played a part in war and peace, sometimes as arbitrators, sometimes as appeasers and at other times as agitants. As far back as the 7th century BC, Homer writes about my namesake, Helen of Troy, causing the launch of a thousand ships. Be it in fact or fiction, we know that throughout history women have not only driven men to defend the homes, their honour and their livelihoods but have also been drivers of peace. They are often the first to call for an end to fighting.
It surely follows that the inclusion of women at the official peace table is both logical and rational and reflects the needs of society as a whole. I am pleased to say that our Foreign Secretary has promoted that stance. He said at the launch of the “No Women No Peace” campaign in 2010:
“No lasting peace can be achieved after conflict unless the needs of women are met.”
Yet in the 16 peace processes undertaken since 2000, female involvement has been minimal. In five cases, no women at all were involved. Excuses include lack of knowledge, lack of experience and lack of negotiating skills, but those same criteria are rarely applied to military and political men, who continue to make the domain their own.
Notwithstanding those attitudes, there are many examples of women around the world who have been central to positive change—Mo Mowlam, Rosa Parks, Mary Robinson and Aung San Suu Kyi to name but a few. Their courage has created international awareness of women as peacemakers, a role that was recognised and adopted 10 years ago in UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. Although the resolution is yet to be rewarded with widespread change, I welcome the Government’s recognition of its importance in their national action plan, which was first published in 2010 and revised earlier this year.
Mrs Grant
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, but the Government are putting resources behind their words, and if she waits a little longer she will hear me give some examples of those resources and the Government’s action.
Correcting gender imbalance in conflict resolution is a very effective use of overseas aid and a rightful aspect of our foreign policy, but in some countries a seismic movement in male culture is needed before the empowerment of women can take place and the benefits be fully realised. South Sudan, the world’s newest country, is one such place, as I witnessed for myself on a parliamentary visit during the Easter recess.
Blessed with immense mineral wealth and fed by the waters of the White Nile, South Sudan has the potential to become one of the great breadbaskets of Africa. I saw a truly mammoth UN operation, supported by a raft of foreign aid. It should be a place with a future, but it soon became clear that some of the leaders were more intent on conflict over oil revenues. Tension was everywhere and the smell of catastrophe was in the air, yet throughout many discussions with influential politicians, not once did I have political dialogue with a South Sudanese woman. All such meetings were exclusively populated by men.
If we drill into the culture, the reasons behind that become plain. Under the “bride price” dowry system, women are regarded as the property of their husbands and fathers, turning them into economic objects. They are married off at a very young age and have to leave school, which is why 84% of women are illiterate. They are expected to bear many children, and one in seven women die in pregnancy or childbirth, the highest maternal mortality rate in the world.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the issue of literacy among females, which she has just touched on, is crucial, particularly in the mid and southern Sahara region of Africa? The more we can get females educated in the nations there, the more likely it is that we will see the development and emancipation to which she refers.
Mrs Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I agree with everything that he has said.
Added to all that, in certain areas of South Sudan domestic violence is not just tolerated but expected, driving self-esteem, confidence and aspiration further into the dust. Amid the paucity of respect and consideration, however, there is some official acceptance of the need for change. A quota policy was adopted to ensure that women made up 25% of those on the country’s decision-making bodies. Although I personally dislike quotas, it was noticeable that during the election, 70% of voters were women. They came out to support other women as candidates and achieved an incredible 34% of women in Parliament and 30% in the Executive branch.
On paper, those numbers are encouraging, but I am sceptical about whether many of those elected women yet command real power and influence. One who certainly does is a remarkable lady called Anne Itto, deputy secretary-general of the governing party and Minister for Agriculture. She has bravely taken centre stage, speaking out for peace, economic progress and the inclusion of women in peacemaking. She said:
“The role women play as combatants, supporters of fighting forces, and peacemakers qualifies them to sit at the negotiating table and to assume an active role in implementation.”
Individuals like Anne Itto are capable of galvanising a female political movement—a movement derived from the many women who have taken on the roles and responsibilities of absent men throughout the conflicts of the past.
Those women have outgrown the pre-war social and political order, which was the cause of the fighting. They just need a spark of empowerment to overcome their suppression, seize an education and participate in building their nation. Those are the drivers of DFID’s gender strategy for South Sudan. It targets reproductive health, women’s economic empowerment, girls’ education and the prevention of domestic violence. The Department’s vision recognises the importance of the state’s approach to gender in the wider success of the peacebuilding and state-building effort. It is also a fine example of how our foreign aid is utilised both strategically and surgically.
In addition to all that, bold and visionary male leadership will be needed in South Sudan to enable the change. As I have said before in this place, when courageous women meet enlightened men, there is little that cannot be achieved.
In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to praise the coalition Government, as the first Government in history to set out clear plans to honour a life-saving and life-changing aid pledge, which they will do by 2013. A commitment to legislate was set out in the coalition programme for government. I understand that the Bill is ready, and that there will be legislation when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, we should acknowledge the work that has been done and continues to be done. For example, over the lifetime of this Parliament, the UK will help get 11 million children into school, save the lives of 50,000 mothers in childbirth, and vaccinate a child every two seconds. In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
“Well done is better than well said.”
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
When we debate foreign affairs, it is difficult to restrict oneself to a limited number of subjects because there are so many things that one wants to talk about. I will cover two matters: general peace issues and the rights of migrant peoples across the world.
We heard a long discussion by the Foreign Secretary, who will go to the NATO summit next week in Chicago, on the future of Afghanistan. We should pause for a moment and hold the narrative. This country has spent £17 billion on the war in Afghanistan, which remains extremely poor, extremely corrupt and, to some extent, dominated by drug users, and the streets of our country have not been made any safer. Like many other countries, we have passed a series of anti-terror laws that are draconian to say the least. We have to learn a lesson about what intervention means and what the war on terror, inspired by George Bush in 2002, means for Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole policy narrative that we are following.
I opposed the war in Afghanistan and strongly opposed the war in Iraq because I could see no good end to them. It was not that I and others who opposed the wars supported the Taliban or Saddam Hussein’s regime. We simply did not believe that western intervention would bring about peace and justice or human rights; it seldom does. Indeed, although the intervention in Libya killed and removed Gaddafi, it has left behind it a series of warring factions, abominable human rights abuses, and lynchings of African people who happened to be living in Libya at the time of the NATO bombardment.
In the discussion about Iran, I recognise a similar process to the one that we went through in the build-up to the war in Iraq. I hope that the conference that took place in Istanbul and the Baghdad meeting that is due to happen in the near future will bring about some resolution and some contact between the west and Iran. We should read the International Atomic Energy Agency inspection reports carefully because they do not confirm that Iran has nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons grade uranium or plutonium. They confirm that, with the exception of the inspections required under the voluntary supplementary protocol to the non-proliferation treaty, the IAEA has been able to inspect nuclear weapons sites. We should be careful about our approach to the issue.
As I said in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian Government remain committed to, and a signatory of, the NPT. Indeed, the last NPT review conference envisaged the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free middle east—I think that we would all support that. However, that cannot be done within the terms of the NPT; it needs a wider convention. That requires the participation of Israel, which has nuclear weapons, 200 warheads and a delivery system. It is quite capable of using that and threatening somebody else. I hope that the Helsinki meeting is successful and that we move some way towards a nuclear weapons-free middle east as a result of it. However, an attack on Iran by Israel, or the continuing assassination of individual scientists in Iran by special forces, are great dangers, just as the deployment of large naval vessels in the strait of Hormuz may spark some sort of conflict.
I am not here to defend the Iranian Government. I deplore their human rights record and the treatment of ethnic and linguistic minorities, trade unions and religious groups. However, a western attack and a war on Iran will not liberate those people. It will kill many people, as has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope that we will not be so stupid as to start yet another war in the middle east, with all the ramifications that that would have.
Instead, I hope that we will put our efforts into peace and justice in the region, particularly for the Palestinian people. We should recognise that the Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike, which has just ended, is a cri de coeur from those, including children and elected members of parliament, who have been in administrative detention—held without trial—by the Israeli Government. Although it is easy for the friends of Israel to proclaim it to be the only democracy in the whole region, a democracy cannot call itself by that name if it denies the same rights to others through occupation, settlement, the construction of walls or the imprisonment of its elected representatives. I therefore hope that the Government will continue to criticise the settlement policy, and that, above all, the rest of the world recognises what is happening.
We need to consider our approach to world affairs because we are keen to say that Iran should not have nuclear weapons—I do not think that Iran should have nuclear weapons any more than any other country should—but we have them, and we propose to spend £100 billion on replacing Trident. We also spend 2.6% of our GDP—the highest level in Europe—on defence. Perhaps we should think about reordering some of our priorities and looking at things in a slightly different way.
In the three and a half minutes left, I want to consider an issue that has not been raised in the debate and is seldom ever raised: the shocking abuse of the human rights of people who try to escape poverty in the poorest parts of the world. There is a flow of migrants from the poorest countries in central and sub-Saharan Africa across the desert to the Canary islands, Libya, Italy, Greece and other countries, and what happens to them is appalling. The numbers who die en route in the Mediterranean and trying to get across the little bit of ocean towards the Canary Islands are truly shocking, as too are the numbers killed in Libya or deported and left in dangerous and harsh conditions.
It is easy to blame the people traffickers—I have no truck with people traffickers; what they do is absolutely disgusting—and, as a wealthy country in the western world, it is easy for us to condemn migration and see it as a threat, but we are part of the problem. We have allowed the trade policies to develop that have impoverished so much of central and sub-Saharan Africa, and we use xenophobic arguments against people who are merely pleading to survive, to get to a place where they can work and to send resources and money home to their families.
Across the Atlantic, exactly the same thing is happening in parallel. The very poorest people from central America—from El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala—are fleeing through Mexico to the USA. They get across the border into Mexico, they ride freight trains, they are pulled off the freight trains, they are killed or kidnapped, and their families back home are forced to pay a ransom to the gang that did the kidnapping. I shall quote from a report I was given last week from the Campaign for the Right to Migrate Free from Violence, when Bishop Vera of Saltillo in Mexico was visiting this country. I had a long discussion with him. I quote from Daniel, a 20-year-old, who said:
“Eight men came and took us off the train, beat us… right nearby were six agents of the Federal Police, in their patrol cars, who didn’t do anything… we screamed and asked them to help us, but they didn’t do anything… Inside the house”,
in which they were held
“there was blood everywhere and lots of flies; there were about thirty kidnapped people there, six were women and they suffered so much, because from the time we arrived all of the kidnappers raped them, they raped them whenever they wanted, always right in front of us”.
It goes on to describe how people were killed in front of this young man.
These people are also fleeing poverty, and trying to escape violence and to seek justice in the world. We need to give a thought to the plight of migrant people all over the world. When they get to Europe or the USA, they clean our floors and offices, they pick the fruit, they work in the farms and factories, and they sustain the economic wealth of western Europe and north America. They are contributing to our wealth. It is up to us to recognise that they, too, deserve justice and human rights.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
It is a form of pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—I say “a form” because I well remember in 1992 I and others tried to unseat him, but, having listened to his eloquence and passion, it is probably right that we failed.
I thought that this debate would focus on Europe and the EU, but I suppose that, like many other hon. Members, I should be relieved that it has not. Instead, it has been a very wide-ranging debate. But, of course, Europe and the EU are important to us. It is our nearest neighbour and biggest marketplace. We all know that 50% of our trade links directly into the EU, the City of London is the financial centre for the trading of financial instruments and we benefit significantly from the single market, largely because we were its principal architects. These facts are undeniable.
We also cannot be blind to the fact, however, that the storm clouds now gathering over Europe, particularly in the eurozone, significantly hamper our attempts to get ourselves out of the mess into which we have got over the past several years and to dig ourselves out of the debt into which we have dug ourselves. We cannot deny these facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) said that some countries, such as Greece, are in crisis. More disturbingly, more countries, such as Spain, Portugal and Italy, are in sclerosis. There is an economic and financial degeneration in Europe that could take years to arrest, which is why we need to raise our sights above and beyond Europe, as we always have done, to the new and emerging marketplaces in the far east, south America and the old Soviet bloc.
The Queen’s Speech made the point that we
“will build strategic partnerships with the emerging powers.”
I am pleased to read that, and I rather hope that two of the areas in which we will seek to build partnerships will be a big country and a small country. The big country is China, which, curiously, was not mentioned overmuch by either Front-Bench spokesperson, although the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) made a passionate and eloquent speech.
My eyes were opened to China when I visited with a Select Committee early this year. The growth in GDP each year in China has been stupendous. We all know the figures—14% growth in Chongqing, 12% growth in Beijing—but that hides the reality of a city such as Shenzhen, which, 30 years ago, was a village in a paddy field, but which is now a vibrant trading city of granite and glass, with 10.5 million Chinese souls living in it. The bicycles have gone and the fuel-injected engines and 4x4s have come instead. The young Chinese, who have dreams of tomorrow, have high-carbon dreams: they want the nice home, the nice car, the nice holiday—and they are going to get them.
Looking around those cities, one will see the countries providing them with those dreams. The cars are Volkswagens, Audis and BMWs. It is Germany, I fear, which is providing the icons of quality in China that those young Chinese want to see and buy. I hope, then, that the Foreign Office will redouble its efforts to expand our commercial consular service in China, particularly in the western provinces, which are growing even quicker than the east, to ensure that British businesses, including construction businesses, can put their stamp on China, earn money for our economy and make the point that we, too, can be icons of quality in that massive marketplace.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and thoughtful contribution. Does he agree that we must look at the tariff arrangements that act to the detriment of, for example, our export of quality automotive vehicles, such as Bentleys and Rolls-Royces, to areas such as China?
Christopher Pincher
The fact is that there is a massive expansion of those goods in China, which is the key market for cars such as Bentleys. I would like to see more cars sold from Britain to China, but we do not make them and have not done so for a rather long time.
I would also like to mention a smaller country. Azerbaijan is a young country, but it has a thriving economy that has grown by about 21% over the past four years. It operates a 27% surplus and is an economy in which we already invest heavily. The energy infrastructure in Azerbaijan is largely provided by companies such as BP. The Manganese Bronze cab company has exported 500 black cabs to Baku and will export, we hope, about 3,000 more. So there is lots of opportunity in Azerbaijan, and I rather hope we will take it.
We need to recognise the civil liberties issues in Azerbaijan, which international agencies have seen and talked about, but they should not prevent us from recognising the advances it has made in 20 years. It had no experience of a market economy or of elected democracy, so we should recognise the advances it is making and support it. We should support Azerbaijan because it is a secular Islamic society with a tolerant approach to religion.
We should also support Azerbaijan because it is going to be—in fact, it already is—a significant energy player in its region. The oil and gas coming out of the country can have—indeed, is having—an even bigger impact on the region. The proposed pipeline from Azerbaijan through Anatolia is one example of how the gas and the oil from that country can increase the size of the marketplace in Europe. The refining capacity that the Azerbaijanis are building in Kyrgyzstan is also an example of how they are expanding their oil and gas facilities. I hope that we will continue to support that country in expanding its facilities, because that is a key way in which we will expand our interests there and encourage the elites in Azerbaijan to liberalise further.
I hold up my hand and make a declaration: I am a member of the all-party group on Azerbaijan and I have been to Baku on a number of occasions. I am impressed by the strides forward that the country is making, and I am certainly impressed by what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has done to try to improve links with it. However, I also hope that, building on those links, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will, at some point soon, make a point of visiting Azerbaijan to build our links further and further encourage the younger generation of leaders there towards greater democracy and liberalisation.
In the short time left to me, I want to mention another former Soviet satellite, but a very different one: Latvia. Latvia has historically had strong trade links with our country. It has had some difficulties in the last few years because, with the crash, it hit economic rock bottom. However, Latvia is now building itself up again, and I was pleased that the Prime Minister hosted the first Baltic conference in London two years ago. The Latvians were pleased with that, too. They are hosting a third conference in Riga later this summer. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—ably assisted, of course, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe—will go to Riga to make clear our support for Latvia.
I remember reading a book at school by Lord Briggs—Asa Briggs—who, talking about British tradesmen in the 18th century, made the point that we always looked beyond Europe, setting our sights on the world beyond. He said that British tradesmen were “buccaneers” on the high seas of trade. That is what I think we should be. I rather hope that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development will put aside the “cult of the gentleman” and do their utmost to assist British business and British commercial interests in China, Azerbaijan and Latvia, and everywhere else where our traders are working in our interest. It is good for our prosperity, good for our security and good for our trading partners.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to spend a few minutes addressing the Government’s failure to include legislation in the Queen’s Speech to make it mandatory for 0.7% of gross national income to be spent on overseas development, despite the fact that both coalition parties pledged themselves to such a commitment in their agreement. The Government can, of course, point to the fact that, notwithstanding the omission of such legislation, the Queen’s Speech confirmed their commitment to reaching the 0.7% target from next year. I congratulate the Government on sticking to that commitment—a commitment first entered into, of course, by the Labour party. I congratulate the Government because at a time of economic stringency, it would have been all too easy to succumb to the cries of those who call for overseas aid to be cut in favour of spending at home.
The continuation of the commitment to overseas development is a recognition of the fact that it is in our national interest to assist the poorest in our world community, because poor countries are less likely to buy our exports and poor countries that become failed states threaten our national security in all sorts of ways, of which hon. Members will be well aware. Supporting the poor in the poorest countries is also a recognition of a moral imperative, whether motivated by faith or by other ethical perspectives. Indeed, it does not particularly matter: it is a moral imperative, and I am glad that colleagues across the House have made that point in their speeches today.
That is why I find it surprising that the Queen’s Speech did not include legislation to make spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas development assistance mandatory. I do not accept the argument that the time cannot be found. The legislation would be short and would have all-party agreement. Given the experience of the previous Session, when legislation was sometimes in all too short supply, I do not think it would be difficult to find time. All I can assume is that the Government, although prepared to do good by stealth and quietly stick to the 0.7% spending target, were nevertheless not prepared to proclaim their commitment from the rooftops, for fear of attracting too much attention and political flak from their more right-wing members and supporters. I understand why that might have seemed an attractive course of action, but I believe it to be a great mistake, and one that will be counter-productive to the Government’s stated commitment.
Those who do not support the 0.7% commitment in law will have scented weakness in the omission of the promised legislation, and will draw the conclusion that they should press more, in the hope that they can undermine the spending commitment as well. However, if the Government had gone ahead with legislation, there would have been a battle, but once it was through, the very fact that disengaging from such a commitment would be more difficult—requiring, as it would, a new Act of Parliament to repeal it, and one that would certainly face strong opposition—would make the commitment much more likely to remain, no longer being subject to real attack.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend raises the important point of the 0.7% target. Would not setting such a target also be an opportunity for the Government to leave a lasting legacy, so to speak, for future Governments, demonstrating the immense commitment of the UK people to international development?
Mark Lazarowicz
Indeed it would, which leads to me to the point that other countries look at what we in the UK do on development assistance. The UK under this Government—as, indeed, under the last—is seen as a world leader. In the current world economic situation, many richer countries are beginning to cut their overseas development assistance. The world community is beginning to draw back from the pledges it has made to the poor in poorer countries. Promises are being broken. An unequivocal commitment from the UK that we are standing by our promises—not just for one spending programme, but for the long term—would encourage those elsewhere in the world who want the promises made to the poor to be kept and who want to ensure that the weakest in the world community do not become the greatest victims of the world economic crisis.
I therefore hope that the Government will recognise that it would be to the advantage of their stated cause to introduce a Bill to make the 0.7% commitment mandatory. If they do not do so, I suspect that one of the hon. Members who signed the private Members’ Bill book today who comes up in the ballot will almost certainly choose to introduce such a Bill anyway, thereby putting the Government in the invidious position of either supporting it or asking Members to vote down legislation that they support. I therefore hope that the Government will think again on the 0.7% commitment.
However, legislation is one thing. Targets are important; what is also important is how spending on international development meets long-term development objectives and short-term crises. In that context, I want to say a few words about something that has not been covered in the debate so far: the spreading food and hunger crises in many parts of Africa. Western Africa is now facing a new hunger crisis, which has the potential to be as serious as the one in the horn of Africa. Hundreds of thousands are still facing hunger and, at best, life in refugee camps in Somalia, and we are seeing similar crises developing, for all sorts of reasons, in South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. When we look at what is happening in west Africa, we see an awful similarity to what happened in the horn of Africa. There were warnings about what was happening in the horn of Africa months and even years ahead; yet the world did not respond until it was too late. Since the crisis in Somalia, we have had the welcome Ashdown report, which was commissioned by this Government, on humanitarian and emergency relief. The food crisis in west Africa is a test of the new policy. I would like Ministers to tell us, if they can, what the UK is doing to put the new policy to the test in west Africa and to face up to the worrying possibility of a new famine, and to say what the Government are doing to that end internationally.
Conflict is obviously contributing to the crisis in west Africa, as it did in Somalia when the knock-on effects of events in north Africa moved further south. The growing humanitarian crises in South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are also linked to conflicts in those areas. Conflict is often the underlying cause of hunger and famine in many parts of the world. Tackling the underlying causes is never easy; there are no simple solutions. Ideally, the problems need to be addressed by African solutions and initiatives, supported by the world community. I would like to know what the Government are doing to support campaigns by African institutions to tackle such regional security issues.
Long-term solutions also require an awareness that support for food production and agricultural development for and by local communities is vital. I agree with what the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) said about that earlier. It is vital that we give more support for food production and agriculture, to increase resilience to short-term crises and to provide long-term opportunities for development.
It is not only Britain that has a role to play in this regard; there must be agreement and action in the international community. I endorse the comments made today by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander). We have heard some interesting comments from the Back Benches, and from the Secretary of State, but what was missing was an idea of an overall strategy and cohesion of themes linking together the policy on international development. International meetings including the G8, the G20 and the Rio+20 summit are coming up, and we must also consider the future of the Doha round. They will all require a strategy, but we have not heard one today from the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps we will hear more in the closing comments from the Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell).
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
At a time of great difficulty, it is always tempting to look inwards. However, it is now more important than ever to look outwards, because it is by engaging constructively with the world that we will see growth in our economy and security for our people, and help others to tackle grinding poverty and the effects of climate change. I therefore welcome the Government’s focus on exports, on inward and outward investment, on expanding the UK’s diplomatic network—I should like to echo the praise for the work of our diplomatic missions around the world—and on well-targeted development aid.
Figures released today show that UK exports—that is, exports of goods and services combined—have increased by 17% since March 2010 to £41.8 billion. Significantly, exports of goods to non-EU countries have risen from £10.8 billion in September 2010 to £13.1 billion in March this year. Almost all the recent increase involves exports of goods to non-EU countries. It is worth pointing out that six of the 10 fastest growing countries in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa—many of them are members of the Commonwealth—and it is to those countries that we should look for our growth in the next two to three decades.
British companies have been working very hard against fierce competition, but we cannot rest there. Britain has a lower percentage of small and medium-sized enterprises involved in exports than our rivals, and we need to help those companies to compete across the globe. Export Credits Guarantee Department cover has improved since last year, but I would urge the Government to ensure that our companies have access to the same cover as that enjoyed by their competitors in Germany and the Netherlands. At the moment, we fall considerably short of that goal.
One factor that is not quantifiable but is nevertheless significant for the UK’s export performance is the UK’s diplomatic network. A recent article in The Economist stated:
“Diplomats have been told to focus on three objectives: defending national security, looking after British citizens abroad and—above all—boosting prosperity by promoting British business. If Britain moves quickly, it can be the first European country to spot the vital need for long-haul, bilateral diplomacy, Mr Hague suggests.”
The Foreign Secretary is right. Too often, we have been complacent or slow off the mark, and lost traditional markets or failed to take the new opportunities, yet Britain is opening eight new embassies in Asia by 2015, at a time when others are cutting back, and despite a smaller budget.
Meg Munn
Is not the hon. Gentleman illustrating the fact that there is quite a narrow focus on international issues? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, there is no overriding theme running through the Foreign Office. Surely our diplomatic efforts should be about more than just trade. Did not the Government come unstuck in that way before, when the Prime Minister went abroad to promote trade at a time when there were real problems in the middle east that needed to be addressed through a much wider diplomatic effort?
Jeremy Lefroy
I would take a slightly different view, having worked with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development and served on the International Development Committee. I have seen a joined-up approach between DFID and the Foreign Office; more so than ever before. I also see Foreign Office Ministers taking such issues as human rights and the environment extremely seriously. Perhaps that has not come out in some of the debates so far, but my experience on the ground is slightly different from that of the hon. Lady.
Tackling the trade deficit is not just about increasing exports, however. It is also about doing more at home in areas where we have traditionally been large importers. Let us take food and drink as an example. The trade deficit in 2011 was £17.8 billion on food and drink alone. Ensuring that UK farmers have a fair deal from their customers would give a significant boost to agriculture and horticulture, creating many jobs in the process, which is why producers in my Stafford constituency welcome the legislation to establish an independent adjudicator between supermarkets and their suppliers.
In recent years, we have been told that the UK can no longer compete in standard manufacturing, and that we must concentrate on high value-added products. I disagree. It is not either/or; it is both/and. As wages rise in developing countries and as the cost of transport increases, there is an advantage in being close to our markets and not bringing everything in from the other side of the world.
That brings me to a subject that, as a Conservative, I perhaps should not raise—but I will. As a nation, we need to be prepared to identify strategic areas of business and to back them—not to the exclusion of common sense, but with more than warm words. Germany and France do that, and we can hardly say that their economies are less competitive than ours. As a result, state-backed—perhaps I should say “encouraged”—French and German companies have taken over swaths of British manufacturing and service industries. Many are good businesses that invest heavily in the UK—Alstom and Total are examples in my constituency—and they reap the rewards, but we do not see the reverse happening to nearly the same extent. Is it that our companies are less adventurous, or is it that they have lacked support and encouragement from successive UK Governments and face obstacles at the other end that the single market is supposed to prevent? Sometimes I think that there is a single market in the EU, and that that single market is the UK. I will believe otherwise when I see Severn Trent running the Paris water supply and Virgin Trains operating on Deutsche Bahn.
The UK’s role in helping with security in troubled areas is underplayed. Understandably, we concentrate on Afghanistan, where our forces—including the Tactical Supply Wing, the 22nd Signal Regiment and 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment from my area—have done so much in working for stability for the people of that country and to make our nation safer. However, trainers from the UK armed forces work in many other parts of the world. Recently, several colleagues and I were privileged to see the work of the British Peace Support Team in Kenya. The UK is also involved in training peacekeepers from the Ugandan and Burundian armies who are undertaking the vital and dangerous UN mission in Mogadishu. The question is often asked: what will our armed forces do once operations in Afghanistan are over? One of the answers is that they would do more of the training of peacekeepers, at which they excel. They are the best in the world.
The Gracious Speech states that the Government
“has set out firm plans to spend nought point seven per cent of gross national income as official development assistance from 2013. This will be the first time the United Kingdom has met this agreed international commitment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 3.]
As hon. Members have pointed out, that commitment has been around for 40 years, since the Pearson commission in the late 1960s. The UK’s aid programme makes a huge difference to the lives of millions. As the Prime Minister said:
“The last Session of Parliament also made an impact not just at home but around the world. We fed more than 2.5 million people facing famine and starvation, we supported over 5.5 million children to go to school in the poorest countries of our world and we immunised a child against diseases every 2.5 seconds of the last parliamentary Session.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 17.]
It is a privilege to serve on the International Development Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who I see in his place, and to see the effects of the good use of UK taxpayers’ money on the lives of the poorest: children able to study in classrooms for the first time, and deaths from malaria plummeting when UK Government money supplies bed nets, rapid diagnostic tests and artemesinin in combination drugs. This is a programme that looks to the future, helping growth in the private sector so that jobs are created and income generated, supporting tax authorities so that Government revenues grow and reduce the need for aid.
If I were to highlight one area that has been neglected over the years and is now more important than ever—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) referred to it—it would be agriculture, in particular smallholder agriculture. We are seeing substantial investment in agriculture by large corporations across the developing world. Where this is done alongside and in co-operation with existing landowners, particularly the small ones, it can work very well, as I saw on recent visits to Zambia and Malawi, by increasing production, productivity and employment. Sadly, however, this is sometimes not the case, as we see examples of large land grabs that leave people destitute.
Some have expressed disappointment that the Queen’s Speech does not mention legislating for 0.7%. I have to say that I do not share their disappointment, as I am keen first of all to reach that amount by showing through action that we can achieve it. Perhaps we could legislate afterwards, having shown the way. What has become increasingly clear to me over the past two years on the International Development Committee is that what matters is that we keep our commitment to the amount, that it is well spent on the poorest and, most important of all, that the countries we are helping make every effort to reduce their dependence on aid. Countries such as Zambia and Rwanda have set out their clear intention to eliminate their need for aid. I welcome this and suggest that the Government ask this of every country we work with.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned land grabs, as a serious issue is at stake. Many of the poorest countries in Africa are seeing their land bought up in large amounts by Japan, China and a number of other countries, which grow food that is then exported straight away. This means we have the phenomenon of very poor people starving alongside bounteous crops. Can we do anything about that through our aid programme?
Jeremy Lefroy
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which concerns me greatly. I much prefer to see large companies working with smallholder farmers, allowing them to keep their land, perhaps leasing it off them for periods of time but with ownership being kept by the nationals. We need to look very seriously at this issue. I know that DFID does not engage in such activity and would not support it, but it is extremely important that we find out what can be done about it. I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s view on that.
Returning to the need to reduce dependence on aid, if a country sets out clearly how it intends to achieve this, it not only shows that the countries themselves are committed to growing their economies and their tax revenues, but gives the British people the confidence that development aid is a partnership with a clear goal.
With exports up, more embassies and other missions open, and a strong development aid programme, the UK is most certainly looking outwards. The key is to maintain this, not just through this Parliament, but for many years thereafter. In that way, Britain will continue to be a reliable partner in trade, in security and in the most vital work of helping the poorest in the world to a better future.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to contribute on a number of issues, starting with international development. I support the aid target of 0.7% of GNI. It is a useful target. As others have said, it has been in place for many years, and it can help to identify an amount over time and enable us to compare what different countries are achieving. It is a real credit to the campaigners outside Parliament who pushed for our Governments to get to this stage, and it is a real credit to the last Labour Government that they set in motion the work to achieve that figure. It is also a real credit to this Government that they have retained the target. I have greatly enjoyed hearing support for it right across the Chamber, from Members of all parties. Let us remember that when the Labour Government came to power in 1997, international development aid had fallen to a quite low amount. From then onwards, we saw a steady increase towards the point when this Government have set out this firm commitment.
There are two issues to discuss about the figure of 0.7%. Much of the discussion about international aid both within and without Parliament tends to focus on achieving that figure, but in my view we do not focus enough on what is being done with the money and why. Members have had the opportunity to see some of the projects in action—I saw them when I travelled overseas—but many people outside Parliament have not. We need not only to give more publicity to what is being done with that money in their name, but to be assured that it is being spent in the best possible way. Aid needs to be effective. While we focus on this figure, I think we need to talk more, plan more and do more in seeking clear outcomes. That is why clear goals such as the millennium development goals are important. We must develop the capacity of beneficiaries to become sustainable and productive economies.
I would like to provide some examples from a United Nations Development Programme report that has just been released—the “Africa Human Development Report 2012: Towards a Food Secure Future”. It tells us that 40% of African children aged under five are malnourished because while there have been impressive gross domestic product growth rates, these have not led to the elimination of hunger and malnutrition. The report also identifies that simply focusing on agriculture will not be enough. An approach that works with the whole community is important, including building rural infrastructure and health services.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the problems of malnourished children. It is important to realise that when children are malnourished, it amounts to a life sentence, as they are disadvantaged for the rest of their lives by being malnourished when they are born or in their earliest years.
Meg Munn
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is so important that we learn from successes such as Ghana, the first sub-Saharan African country to achieve the millennium development goal of halving hunger, and Malawi, which, through a subsidy programme for seed and fertiliser, has moved within two years from a food deficit to a food surplus.
I do not think that the target needs to be put in law, as each Government put a Budget forward, and each Government have to make a case. Support has to come from parliamentarians, who need to explain why we need that figure. I do not think we should have lots of civil servants running around trying to find the money that qualifies for the target. I have heard people use a terrible term when they have asked whether this or that spending is “ODA-able”—does it count, and can we put it within the 0.7%? Do we need to be that prescriptive about the exact amount? Let us focus on the outcomes. I would also like to see greater focus on investing in improved governance. In the context of effective use of aid, good governance delivers better outcomes for populations.
Let me speak briefly about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which I have the honour of being vice-chair. I am delighted that the Department for International Development, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is putting funds into the Westminster Foundation for Democracy for more work of this kind to be done. It is the 20th anniversary of this organisation. It works with Parliaments and political parties, which are essential to building democracies that are responsive to their populations. It is not only a legitimate focus for aid, but an essential one if we are to see long-lasting changes.
The Prime Minister reiterated that our troops will no longer be in Afghanistan in a combat role beyond the end of 2014. I want to restate my concerns about women in Afghanistan, and the importance of the Government speaking up for women. Anyone who has met women MPs from Afghanistan will know how brave they have to be, often even standing up against their families just to run for election to Parliament. I therefore welcome Ministers’ previous expressions of support in this House, but more can, and should, be done. Women’s safety and security, and guaranteeing their rights, needs more than a passing mention in speeches. Just two months ago, Afghanistan’s leading clerics declared the worth of women to be secondary to that of men, and President Karzai publicly endorsed that decree, despite the new constitution enshrining in law equal rights for women. We know that, despite significant improvements having been made for women and girls in Afghanistan, many women face danger or are the victims of violence, and often they are punished for reporting crimes against them, rather than supported as victims. I therefore ask the Government to say today that they will insist on women’s involvement in all levels of the Afghan peace process, and will consult Afghan women, who know what is happening in their communities, and will explicitly include women’s safety in all discussions on security.
I welcome the changes in Burma. We need to encourage and support them, but I want to offer a word of caution: we must not rush forward too quickly. The Foreign Secretary said there was a plan to open a business office in Naypyidaw, but we should not be too quick to say that that is our No. 1 priority. We want to see democratic processes put in place, and we want all the ethnic groupings in Burma to have the opportunity to take part in them fully. There is still a great deal to be done, therefore. There have been human rights abuses, as well as forced labour, arbitrary taxation, extortion, forced relocation and extrajudicial killings—a litany of problems that have long beset Burma, and have been the effect of the regime. That is not going to change overnight. Many minorities have been persecuted, and forced into camps on the Thai border. For example, for many years people from the Karen community have come to the UK—many to Sheffield. That was supported by the UN, because they were living in terrible conditions, and could not continue to do so. We must not rush to develop our trade with Burma, therefore. Instead, we must continue to offer support, and look at how we can encourage the embedding of democracy in that country, where the people so greatly deserve such changes.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the UK’s overseas territories. I welcome the fact that we are to have a new White Paper on the overseas territories, and I look forward to reading it. I hope we will continue to support our overseas territories through our international aid budget and that they will continue to have first call on that budget. Although there are many countries and situations around the world that are deserving of our support and aid, these are our overseas territories, and we therefore have an extra responsibility towards them. I have welcomed the agreement to develop an airport in St Helena. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said, we should support and help countries and territories that need aid now. Without an airport, I am certain that St Helena would continue to need our ongoing aid well into the future.
For as long as we continue to have a responsibility towards our territories, we should continue to ensure that human rights are respected in them. We must continue to enforce the tight child protection procedures in the Pitcairn islands, for example. There may well come a point when some of our territories decide that they wish to become independent, however. In such circumstances, I would like our Government to give help and support so that territories can make that decision for themselves.
It is enormously important to reiterate that point in relation to the Falkland Islands. The Falkland islanders have long expressed the view that they wish to be British. The current behaviour of the Argentine Government, in trying to undermine their self-determination and their wish to remain British, is appalling.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
We live in a complex and multi-dimensional world, and the rate of change is astonishingly quick. In order to deal with that change, it is important that we think carefully about Britain’s role in the world. I believe that the country needs a strategy. I believe the Government—indeed, any Government—need to work out what they want to achieve in the world, and what resources they have available to them to underpin that achievement. When they have done that, they need to work out how they are going to achieve what they want to achieve with the resources available to them. Of course, unforeseen crises will always arise, but the key question is: what is our vision and our strategy?
That is not rocket science—or, at least, it should not be—but that was not apparent in respect of the strategic defence and security review of October 2010. I agree that the politics should be taken out of that process by conducting a review every five years. Governments should conduct a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the world in which we live. From that analysis, they should draw conclusions, having consulted widely. We should never tire of asking this question: what is Britain’s role in the world? We should never tire of ensuring that how we allocate the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money spent on achieving our foreign policy objectives is underpinned by rigorous analysis.
I have spoken before in this House about hard power—the controlled application of military force. Today however, I want to talk about international development and soft power—how the UK can have leverage in the world through employing the influence and diplomatic power we have as a nation, rather than the influence we could exert as a military power.
Inevitably, the balance between hard and soft power will fluctuate. That is not to say that the utility of military force has declined, but instead that the way in which it is likely to be employed in the future will not be the same as the way it is employed now or has been in the recent past. We are currently witnessing the rising influence of emerging economies such as those of the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China—which is reshaping the strategic environment in which our country operates. In this changing geopolitical environment, the way in which the UK and other countries exercise their influence in conflict, in the global markets, in negotiations and in agreements is also changing, and will continue to do so. In part, that reflects the way, and rate at which, countries are developing. Because of rapid developments in technology, the world is a much smaller place than it used to be.
Technological advances and globalisation bring many challenges, but they have also brought many opportunities to those best placed to take advantage of them. We now live in a world where, for some, luxuries such as a flatscreen TV and a DVD player have almost become necessities to ease the burden of our ever-stressful lives. However, for many millions of people in poorer countries a luxury takes the form of a decent meal or the security of knowing that their child has the same chance of survival as a child here in the UK. Although much good work has been done in recent years, much more can and should be done. So I believe this is more than a responsibility for wealthy nations; it is a moral obligation. This is about civilised societies reaching out and protecting the most vulnerable.
The UK has an excellent track record on international development. The previous Labour Government’s commitment to the provision of aid was well known, and we achieved great things, helping countries that were being crippled by debt and enabling them to focus better on domestic issues, rather than pay money to wealthy nations. That work was not perfect, it was not without risks and it was often controversial, but it was the right thing to do.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid, but they could and should have gone further by protecting that in law, as the Conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement promised. Legislation would have provided some certainty and a guarantee of funds, and it would have allowed long-term plans to be made, based on the knowledge that the resources would be in place to enable them to be fulfilled. By not including legislative protection for international aid, the Government are pandering to those who are not in favour of it. A global financial crisis is occurring, with recession having an impact on countries around the world. In this economic climate, we will all have heard people being sceptical and cynical about the value and utility of international aid, and suggesting that charity should begin at home. I understand why that is said, but in the context of trying to save a child’s life—any child’s life; ultimately, that is what aid can do—I do not agree with it. This is not just about one child; it is about many millions of children. What could anybody prioritise above them?
Just as a result of the work that has been done over the previous 20 years, 12,000 fewer children died every day in 2010 compared with the figure for 1990. Over the past two decades, the level of stunting, whereby children’s bodies and brains fail to develop properly because of malnutrition, has declined from 45% to 28%. Recent research by Save the Children shows that those countries in sub-Saharan Africa that received the most aid over the past decade also made the most progress on child well-being, so it is vital that aid is guaranteed, because famine rarely creeps up and surprises us. Investing early to prevent developing countries from slipping into famine is far more beneficial and efficient, and it is far cheaper, than responding to emergencies. Right now there is an impending famine in Niger, one than can be prevented if funds are made available in good time. The disastrous famine in east Africa was widely predicted, yet Governments around the world did not release the money in time to prevent it and millions died. The same thing is happening right now in west Africa, and few will notice until the media arrive.
Mr Andrew Mitchell
I make this point simply because the hon. Gentleman is the second hon. Member to make a comment such as that last one. The famine in Somalia was predicted, but the British Government were the first to go to the aid of the hundreds of thousands of people caught in that famine—the rest of the world was slow to do so. Will he at least acknowledge that his own Government and his own country, not least through the Disasters Emergency Committee, rapidly addressed that dreadful situation?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention. The point I am trying to make is that we should not be in the business of waiting until the media arrive before we intervene and provide funding to deliver aid. The more that we can prepare for these situations, as much as we ever can, the more efficient we will be; the best way of investing money is in preventing these things from happening in the first place.
It costs comparatively little to immunise children with the vaccines that our children in the UK rightly have for free. Each year, 7.6 million children in developing countries still die as a result of easily preventable diseases and conditions such as diarrhoea. The removal of the next generation through infant mortality—the rate is still as high as one in 10 in some regions—takes away those who will be educated, who will work and who will bring money into their communities in future years. Small sums can save many lives, and international aid not only helps those who directly receive it, but, in the longer term, has a knock-on effect to those nations that give it. A healthy society is a more prosperous and stable society, and this will bring benefits to global security and to international trade. By helping countries through aid and by ensuring that resources are distributed in a way that minimises corruption, these countries will also build their own capacity to raise money and will be able to improve the lives of their citizens.
So, it is in our longer term national interests to behave in a responsible fashion, but we should not act alone. The G8 has a vital role to play and it is essential that the Prime Minister demonstrates strong leadership on preventive action against famine and disease and on the timely release of funds to prevent predicted disasters and crises, and that he urges immediate action by the other G8 countries in committing to that. The Prime Minister must take the opportunity provided at the G8 this weekend to lead a global push on tackling hunger and malnutrition, the silent killer that is responsible for the deaths of 2.6 million children each year, not just for the benefit of those countries in dire need but for the long-term future benefit of the UK, too.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who in his short time in this place has brought the experience of his previous work into Parliament. I congratulate him on his speech.
As I wanted to speak in this debate, I had to cancel a meeting with the chief executive of a company just across the river. He sent me an e-mail saying that he hoped I would be called—he does not understand how long we wait to speak—and said, “Could you please encourage the Government to concentrate on growth and not constitutional waffle?” I thought that that was a rather nice way of summing up Lords reform and I hope that we will see sense on that matter and not go forward with any discussion on it at all. It is not something for which any of our constituents are clamouring.
The Gracious Speech included two Bills on the European Union that the Government intend to introduce in this Session and I want to say a quick word about them. Neither Bill is the Bill that the public want to see. We know that the public, like many Members of this House, want a Bill that allows a referendum on our future relationship with the European Union. The public will note that, despite the passage of the European Union Act 2011, the Government propose to pass legislation to approve the creation of the European stability mechanism and to prepare for Croatia to join the EU without a referendum. Many members of the public were told that we did not need an in/out referendum because the Government would put it into law that any changes to our relationship with the EU would have to be approved by them. We can now see that that promise is inadequate because we will not have any say.
It is surprising that the Government are introducing the Croatia accession Bill. Personally—this is a very personal view—I cannot understand why Croatia would want to join the EU, but if it does that is obviously a matter for it. The ongoing expansion of the EU across the continent, well away from the small set of countries it comprised when we joined, shows that the European project is still very much alive in the hearts of the Brussels elite, who are pushing still for deeper and wider union despite the ongoing economic disaster. I believe—and believe that the public would want to see this—that if we are to be asked to pool our national sovereignty with yet another country with the result that in time our voice and our vote count for less in the European Parliament, that changes our relationship and should lead to a referendum.
Preparations for the European stability mechanism might also be premature. Only today we have the meeting between the new President of France and the German Chancellor with the intention of amending the austerity pact which the euro countries signed up to last year. I welcome the fact that eurozone countries should pay to support other countries that are struggling under that currency, but as we wisely did not join, we should not have to contribute a penny. We have already given too much money to propping up the euro through the International Monetary Fund. I remind the Government that the public will not stand for that, as we have seen from the increasing votes for the UK Independence party.
I was disappointed that neither of the Front-Bench spokesmen—I might be mistaken, but I listened very carefully—mentioned the word Commonwealth. Yet that is an association of 54 independent states that work together in the common interests of their citizens for development, democracy and peace. We just need to contrast that with the European Union. The Commonwealth works to uphold democratic rights and nurture constitutional government and parliamentary accountability, whereas the European Union increasingly seeks to thwart and ride roughshod over the democratic will of citizens to such an extent that it wants to install unelected bureaucrats as Prime Ministers of countries.
It is terribly sad that we are not making much more use of the Commonwealth. Despite the size and economic entity of the Commonwealth, the UK Government never talk about it as a huge economic union. We talk about individual countries within it but what about the fact that it accounts for 15% of the world’s gross national income and contains more than 2 billion of the world’s 7 billion population? We have a special link in this year of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. As the head of the Commonwealth, she is passionately concerned about it and has done so much as a monarch to ensure its importance and to ensure that we remember what it has done. So although the Commonwealth contains 2 billion of the world’s 7 billion people, there was not a single mention of it in the Queen’s Speech or, more importantly, tonight.
Jeremy Lefroy
Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that many countries that do not have traditional links with Britain are seeking to join the Commonwealth? Rwanda is already a member, as is Mozambique, and countries such as Burundi want to forge links with the Commonwealth.
Kate Hoey
Absolutely, and that shows the strength and power of the relationship, which does not bind countries into a centralised you-will-all-do-the-same-thing approach but welcomes and supports them as individual countries. Let us not forget that the Commonwealth’s membership includes two of the world’s largest 10 economies—the UK and India—and two members of the G7: Canada and the UK. It also includes five members of the G20: the UK, India, Canada, Australia and South Africa. It has huge global significance and huge potential and also has the advantage of being a group of countries that are friendly, in most cases, including many with deep reserves of key natural resources. It is absolutely disgraceful that we in the United Kingdom are not seeing the Commonwealth as somewhere to which we should be reaching out. Ultimately, we should be establishing a Commonwealth free trade area. That would, of course, mean examining our relationship with the European Union, but our relationship with some of the large Commonwealth countries will be much more important in the long term. I therefore ask the Minister to mention the word Commonwealth in his response and say something about it just to show the Commonwealth countries that we care and that in this year of the diamond jubilee Her Majesty and this Parliament consider the Commonwealth to be worthy of discussion.
Having been quite critical, let me now say something nice about the International Development Secretary. The Department for International Development has been doing a very good job indeed and I want to mention in particular the work it has been doing in Zimbabwe, which has been terrifically important and useful. This covers so many of the issues that other Members have been discussing such as getting books into schools and has been a terrific opportunity for us to be sure that we are doing our bit for the education of children in what was once a fantastically well-educated country, despite all the issues there. I hope that until there are free and fair elections there we will continue to do our bit to ensure that primary schoolchildren have the opportunity to read and have an education.
I was very moved by the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who I know had another engagement to attend. I, too, was at St Paul’s yesterday to hear the Dalai Lama. I am a member of the all-party group on Tibet and I was very disappointed that although the thousands of Chinese students in this country were mentioned in the Government’s introduction to the debate, not a word was said about the Chinese Government’s human rights record and the appalling way they have treated not only the Tibetans but people in many other parts of China. The difference between what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said about Palestine and the terrible things she saw and what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East said about Tibet is that at least the media can still get access to the refugee camps and Palestine. Yes, that is difficult but they and parliamentary delegations can get in, whereas it is incredibly difficult to get into Tibet these days. It has become a closed country to anyone who is not seen as absolutely supporting the Chinese regime.
Our Government should be speaking out more about this issue. We should be forming alliances with other countries and not allowing China to get away with what it is doing just because it is such a huge and economically powerful country.
When China was selected to host the Olympics, everyone said, “It’s going to make such a difference. China is going to change. It will change its human rights record and start freeing prisoners.” Have we seen any changes in China since the Beijing Olympics? I have seen nothing that has made a difference, and the fact that the Olympics were held there has certainly not made any difference to the brave Tibetans who are trying so desperately not just to have a free Tibet, but to be allowed to practise their culture and their religion. What has been happening there is shocking, and I hope that the Minister will make some reference to that.
Our Government have done some very good things through their foreign policy. I am delighted that they are opening up some of our embassies in parts of the world that were closed. I am pleased that they have made a decision that the UK flag must take precedence over the European Union flag. That is just a tiny little change, but it is very important and I welcome it. I pay tribute to our many ambassadors all over the world who do such a good job, trying to ensure that the United Kingdom’s voice is heard in those countries and that we stand up for the values that this country represents.
Finally, please, please would Ministers and shadow Ministers stop referring to Britain, Britain, Britain? We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If I hear the Prime Minister say once more, “Britain is this” and “Britain is that”, I am going to get very cross indeed. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain excludes Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
There has been a consensus across the House tonight, so it is odd that I should follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) in commenting on the European Union. It is at this point, perhaps, that the House may diverge from the consensus.
I want to concentrate on economic policy in the context of the economic crisis affecting the eurozone. This Queen’s Speech—this legislative programme—says more about the state of a crumbling coalition than anything else. We are facing a growth and jobs crisis, yet there is not one proposal in the speech that will tackle the problems that we face. Of course we know why the legislative programme is so thin. It is because, as we know, on many fundamental points the two parties in the coalition do not agree. For example, they have major disagreements on Europe, civil liberties and constitutional reform. Let us be clear. This is a Government who, after only two years, have pinned their colours—both of them—to the mast of austerity and have run out of ideas.
There is no doubt that we are in difficult times, probably the most difficult that the country has faced for many decades, but there is no doubt in my mind who are to blame: this Government. When they came to power in 2010, growth was evident in the economy, unemployment was stable, and the economy, although fragile, was recovering from the massive shock of the world economic crisis of 2008. Since then we have seen growth all but vanish, choked off by a Government who cut too far and too fast.
To make matters worse, the eurozone seems determined to follow the same path, the path of austerity, the path that refuses to recognise that there is a huge problem with demand in the economies of Europe. The attitude of taking the medicine, taking the pain, no matter what, is the prevalent attitude, and Europe seems intent on executing a dance of death, with austerity piled on austerity. Europe’s leaders have told us that the only way out of the current crisis is through massive spending cuts and tax rises, and when that does not work, more cuts and more tax rises—more cuts in pensions, with punishing measures being imposed on countries in desperate straits, such as Greece and Portugal.
Mr MacShane
Will my hon. Friend accept a very minor correction? There is one exception to this general rule. In our country, we have decided to cut taxes, but only for the super rich and the millionaires. This Government of millionaires, two of whom have spoken to us tonight—or one has and one will—are helping their own and leaving the rest of the country to rot in misery.
Angela Smith
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. We are clearly not all in it together. Rather than cutting VAT, which would help the economy, we have tax cuts for the very rich.
Yes, I have to acknowledge that the latest growth figures indicate that the eurozone has avoided a technical recession, but let us not get carried away with one set of figures. Let us note that it is higher than expected growth in the German economy that has kept the eurozone out of recession, with many other members of the eurozone still in recession. In fact, most of the other members of the eurozone are still in recession. Let us remember that this is a Germany that, as one of the most productive countries in the world, has been able to take advantage of the eurozone to boost exports, but which has pursued a policy of not expanding its domestic economy, and even now, it is not moving on that front, even when it is now clear to everybody that demand in Europe is a key problem. If anything, these latest figures amplify the unbalanced nature of the eurozone, with a strong country such as Germany forcing unbearable austerity and massive debt on the weaker southern countries, in an attempt to make them as competitive as the north—a difficult task even in good times and, I fear, an impossible one in a weak global economy with rising unemployment across the eurozone and the Greek economy 20% smaller than it was at the start of the crisis.
This Queen’s Speech is woefully inadequate in the context of what is happening to our country and across Europe. The medicine is not working, yet all we get from our Chancellor is the accusation that it is all the fault of the eurozone and that Chancellor Merkel should stop speculating on what will happen to the euro. No, the problem is not the musings of Chancellor Merkel; the problem is the damage her policies are inflicting on the eurozone, and, equally, the damage our Chancellor’s policies are inflicting here at home. So much for an export-led recovery. The Chancellor must rue the fact that his own prescriptions for economic health are backfiring at home and abroad.
Clearly, we need to identify an alternative approach, and the Queen’s Speech should have built on the experience of Obama’s stimulus legislation in the United States. That package of tax cuts, infrastructure investment and job creation has worked. The US is growing economically and unemployment is falling, from 10% in 2009 to 8.2% in 2011, with independent forecasts in the US showing that the ongoing impact of the stimulus package will be positive. I was in the US recently and it was clear, talking to independent forecasters, think tank personnel, pollsters and commentators across the board, that the stimulus package has worked. The figures prove it; they are undeniable. It is astounding that Europe is making the same mistakes that it made in the 1930s. If America can learn from that, why cannot we?
We needed to see in the Queen’s Speech an acknowledgement that austerity is not working and a commitment therefore to measures designed to stimulate the economy. Labour’s fair deal on tax and its fair deal on jobs would have been a good start. We needed to see a focus on demand rather than supply, and we needed to see that commitment accompanied by an acknowledgement that it is no good standing on the sidelines, sniping at our key economic partners in the eurozone, blaming them for all Britain’s woes. In the end, the problems that we all face are being worsened by the same paltry remedies, which destroy growth and jobs. We needed to see the Prime Minister commit himself to a change of course, and to working within the EU, with figures such as new French President Hollande, to encourage that change of course with the eurozone itself. Only then will there be any hope of growth, any hope of the kind of recovery that will allow trade to flourish, and, yes, any hope for Britain’s exports to flourish as part of that growth. There is no point having a Prime Minister who stands on the sidelines having walked away from the table. We are part of Europe and need to play our part within Europe.
Finally, we needed the Queen’s Speech to acknowledge that the economic crisis is beginning to polarise Europe politically and socially. Across Europe, we see the rise of political parties outside what is usually understood as the mainstream and away from the pragmatic centre, particularly in relation to the debate on EU policy and the eurozone. In Greece, one of those parties holds the balance of power. In Holland, opinion polls show a huge rise in support for the anti-European Socialist party. In France, one in five voters in the presidential election voted for the Front National. In Britain, the vote for the UK Independence party in the local elections grew: in Sheffield it got 12,000 votes, only 10,000 behind the Liberal Democrats.
That is worrying on one level, because it demonstrates that we are not immune from this worrying polarisation away from mainstream politics in Europe, a trend that reflects social unrest and the deep concerns felt by voters everywhere about their future. We must listen to voters—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall on this—and to what people are saying in Europe. They are beginning to tire of austerity, which they no longer believe is working. They are saying the same in Germany, and they are saying it in Greece, France and here, too.
The future does not look bright. Who knows what will happen politically and socially in Europe, including the UK, if Governments do not recognise the need to change course? The Queen’s Speech should have charted a new economic course and recognised that job creation, decent housing and decent public services for all are essential if we are to avoid a worsening of our economic and political situation. The fact that it did not bodes ill for us all, and I for one fear for the future.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches tonight, particular several in a row from my hon. Friends. I would like to address two main issues this evening: the Government’s failure to give the ultimate commitment to help the poorest in our world and the total absence of anything in the Queen’s Speech on policy affecting Israel and the Palestinians. I declare my membership of Friends of Palestine. However, I welcome the mention of Congo in the speech by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and ask the Minister whether there are plans for a flight early next month to force Congolese nationals to return to that dangerous country. I hope that that is not the case.
To return to the aid budget, it says a lot about what the Government stand for when they are happy to give a tax break to millionaires yet cannot bring themselves to commit, through a statement enshrined in the law of the land, to helping some of the poorest people in the world in the longer term––people who live in the kind of abject poverty that we cannot even begin to understand. Indeed, the Prime Minister previously said that spending money on foreign aid in a time of austerity was a sign of “moral strength” and that Britain should be proud that
“we never turn our backs on the world’s poorest”.
But in the light of the Queen’s Speech last week, when the Government failed to enshrine in law the commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance, the Prime Minister’s words were just further proof that they are a Government of broken promises, following such gems as
“there will be no top-down reorganization of the NHS”,
“we are all in this together”,
and
“my promise to pensioners is that we are on your side.”
I am proud that Labour made a commitment to meet the UN’s target of spending 0.7% of GNI on aid and to legislate on it by 2013, and I was pleased when that was taken on by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and included in the coalition agreement. I thought that surely the Government would not revoke that policy, which would prove to the country that the Tories were no longer the nasty party and that they genuinely believed in the moral duty of rich countries to help the poorest parts of the world. As the International Development Secretary said this year,
“On the whole, politicians should do what they say they are going to do”.
However, the Government now claim that a Bill to enshrine such a commitment in law cannot be introduced due to lack of parliamentary time, given their focus on the economy and, of course, the all important matter affecting the other place. That is a ridiculous notion. The Queen’s Speech did nothing to stimulate growth in the economy, nothing for young people looking for work, nothing for families whose living standards are being squeezed and nothing for small businesses that cannot get money from the bank.
Rather than telling developing nations, “Sorry, but we are simply too busy tackling the pressure issue of House of Lords reform and the accession of Croatia to the EU to provide you with proper assistance to help your citizens climb out of poverty,” a Bill committing to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid would not and should not detract from other parliamentary business. It is supported by all three parties, would do much to show the international community that there is a genuine commitment to standing up for global social justice, and would undoubtedly increase the pressure on other countries to do more.
Legislation would also ensure that aid is maintained at an affordable level. Just as the absolute aid level may fall when Britain’s income goes down, so too should it rise when the national income goes up. As the charity ActionAid stated, legislation matters because aid needs to be around long enough to do the job. Many countries such as Ghana are now moving towards an end to dependency on aid, but that can happen only if we support them until that point. Legislation would provide the certainty that is needed for aid to be most effective.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend surprised that there is not enough time, bearing it in mind that we have spent weeks—no, months—without many votes at all? Surely there is time for such important legislation.
Alex Cunningham
There is certainly time for such important legislation. We could get it through the House in one of those one-day things, It would not take any time at all for us to get this single commitment through the House, so I hope that the Government listen to the idea.
I want to say more about why aid is so important. No one can argue that aid is a panacea for all the developing world’s ills, but there is very strong evidence that international aid, including UK aid, is making a huge difference by helping to deliver and to scale up local efforts to save lives, educate children, develop livelihoods, stimulate growth, build democratic and fair societies and promote peace and security.
In 2009-10, UK aid ensured that 15 million people had enough food to eat and provided more than 1.5 million people with clean water, and over the next few years the UK’s contribution to the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisations will ensure that 80 million children can be immunised worldwide, saving an estimated 1.4 million lives.
Indeed, as the Secretary of State for International Development himself said, British aid pays for 5 million children in developing countries to go to primary school every day, which is roughly the same number as go to primary school in Britain, yet it costs only 2.5% of what we spend here.
There is still much to be done to ensure that every child in the world can get an education, and that every family can live with dignity and access health care and services as basic as clean water and sanitation. It is still estimated that 67 million children throughout the world are not yet in primary school, and that about 1,000 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and child birth every day in developing countries. This is not the time to turn our backs on those who are most in need, so I appeal to the Government to do the right thing. I believe that we will spend the money, but I want it enshrined in law.
I welcome the continuing work to secure long-term peace and security in Afghanistan, but I was disappointed by the absence of a similar commitment to building peace in other parts of the middle east, although the Foreign Secretary spoke at length on such matters today. I recently led a debate in the Commons on the dire humanitarian situation in Jerusalem, and, although there was some will from the Foreign Office Minister, the issue was conspicuous by its absence from the Queen’s Speech.
Last night, I heard the Palestinian ambassador tell a packed room here at Westminster that the daily expansion of settlements and the effective removal of Palestinians from their homes in Jerusalem and the west bank are threatening any chance of a two-state solution. Time is running out, he said, yet the British Government have no clear plan for action in our own right or through our European partners.
So why take action? In 2011, more than 500 Palestinian homes, wells, rain water harvesting cisterns and other essential structures were destroyed in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, displacing more than 1,000 Palestinians. More than half of those displaced were children, for whom the loss of their home is particularly devastating, but the situation is not hopeless, and the Government can do much to help improve the Palestinian people’s quality of life and to start to build the foundations for a peaceful future. Simple but effective measures that the Government could take to develop things in that part of the world include introducing compulsory labelling for all goods so that consumers can tell at a glance whether a product is made in an illegal settlement or in Israel, ensuring that legislation allows for public bodies to exclude companies from benefiting from public contracts where those companies operate in breach of international law, and ensuring that charitable donations that benefit from tax relief do not in any way benefit illegal settlements on the west bank or in East Jerusalem.
The Government should press the EU to exclude companies from benefiting from research funding where those companies are operating in breach of international law and to end co-operation with countries on research that could have military as well as civil applications where we are not satisfied with those countries in respect of human rights, UN resolutions and international law. I urge the Government also to press the EU not to adopt with Israel the agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products, as that would open up EU markets to Israeli goods and, in effect, represent an upgrade in EU-Israeli relations. Surely any such upgrade must be conditionally tied to respect of human rights and international law. The agreement would also allow Israel to export fresh and processed agricultural products to the EU free of customs or quota limitations. That is problematic, since it would be impossible to identify agricultural products, especially processed agricultural products, that originate from illegal settlements, and members of the public to whom I speak are keen to use their consumer power to bring about change in the region.
The omission of a commitment to aid and of comprehensive action to take some steps towards ensuring a two-state settlement for Israel and Palestinians shows a severe lack of ambition on the part of the Government. Britain does have the power to bring about change in the world and to improve the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable on the planet, and shirking our responsibility is no way to conduct a foreign policy.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Today is the 64th anniversary of Nakba, the catastrophe that saw the ethnic cleansing of 50% of Palestinians from historical Palestine with the formation of the state of Israel. I am pleased to follow my very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), and to endorse his comments about the situation in the occupied territories. Nakba is not just an historical event. As the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish said, Nakba is
“an extended present that promises to continue in the future.”
That is not only true of major events such as the occupation following the 1967 war, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila in 1982, and Operation Cast Lead in 2009; it is to do with the day-to-day suffering and oppression of the Palestinian people.
Earlier this afternoon, I had the privilege of listening to the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) about Palestinian child prisoners. She rightly noted two positive moves in the past 24 hours: the communiqué from EU Foreign Ministers that condemned settlement expansion and home demolition, and the end of the hunger strike by 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and the concessions that led to that. However, those two events also demonstrate the lengths that Palestinians must go to in order to secure redress for basic infringements of their human rights and of international law. They also demonstrate that words, even from the EU—a powerful organisation—will be ignored by Israel unless they are backed by action.
Since the occupation, 40% of the adult male population of Palestine and the occupied territories have been detained in Israeli jails. There are currently 6,000 Palestinians detained in Israeli jails, including 200 children, 330 people in administrative detention—that is, without charge—and 28 MPs. I entirely support the impassioned comments that Members have made about the detention of the former Ukrainian Prime Minister, but 28 Palestinian MPs are being detained in Israeli jails, in most cases since 2006, and in many cases without charge.
Many people are detained in appalling conditions in solitary confinement in 2 metre by 2 metre cells, with just a bed and a bucket, for 23 hours a day for up to 10 years. That includes leaders of the Palestinian people—people such as Marwan Barghouti, who was put into solitary confinement last month. He is tipped to be a future President of Palestine. I think of the way that the British treated people like Kenyatta and Gandhi. My conclusion is that unless there is a level playing field and unless one is prepared to negotiate with those who will form the future Palestinian leadership, there is no chance for the peace process. One has to ask, therefore: what is the future of the peace process? Does Israel want a peace process?
There is a new Israeli Government. We are told that they will have the confidence not to be enslaved to the ultra-religious minorities. Their first act was to have the confidence once again to refuse a freeze on settlement building, because they have such a large majority. Why is settlement building such an important precondition to negotiations? Of course, at the level of principle, the 500,000 Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem and the west bank need to be negotiated away. To increase on a logarithmic scale, as is happening at the moment, the number of settlers and the extent of the settlements while negotiations are going on is surely wrong. Surely that is wrong practically, because there is no incentive for Israel, while it is getting what it wants—the Judaisation of East Jerusalem and the west bank—to conclude the negotiations.
The settlements are not just the nice red-roofed settlements that are sometimes advertised for sale in this country; even the outposts that are now illegal under Israeli law are now being legitimised. Settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank has gone up by 144% in two years. Home demolitions are on the increase, with some 176 Palestinian homes being demolished in the first three months of this year. Bedouin villages are being wiped out, not only in the west bank, but in Israel itself.
I do not have time to talk about Gaza, but I suspect that the Minister knows the statistics on Gaza and knows that it is the world’s largest prison. Imports may get in, in limited amounts, through tunnels and checkpoints, but no exports come out. The unemployment and poverty in Gaza will not be alleviated until the entrepreneurial people of Gaza, whom I have visited many times, are allowed to grow and export their own goods.
The Government operate a double standard on this issue and refuse to recognise the Palestinian state. They have another chance to do so in the General Assembly, which I hope they will take. Israel should be supported and should be a friendly country, but it should not be given a special or privileged status. I read in the Jewish Chronicle two weeks ago about the support that the Israeli Government gave Argentina during the Falklands war, supplying weapons for use against British troops. I never quite understand, therefore, the special relationship that Governments of both parties think that they have with the Israelis, to the exclusion of the Palestinians.
In the short time I have left, I will talk briefly about two other issues. The first is Bahrain. At the end of the week, the King of Bahrain will arrive in the United Kingdom and be entertained, inter alia, by the royal family. Like the grand prix and the Bahraini Prime Minister being invited to Downing street, this lends respectability to a tyrannical regime. The majority of the population in Bahrain is in lockdown. Murder, torture and detention without charge continue, following the popular uprising last spring. And yet, the Foreign Secretary talks about the improving situation. I wish that he would talk more about the detention without charge of people such as Nabeel Rajab, the president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights. I wish that the Government would revoke the invitation to the King of Bahrain.
Finally, I wish to say a word about Egypt, which I do not think the Foreign Secretary mentioned, although it is the leading country in the Arab world. The situation there is grave. The presidential elections might be postponed because of the trouble that is occurring. I looked at the Amnesty International briefing for this debate, which states:
“Human rights violations continue to take place in Egypt, in some cases to a worse extent than under Mubarak. Military trials continue, reports of torture being used are frequent, freedom of expression is curtailed and peaceful demonstrations have been met with violence and repression.”
We need to take a strong economic and political interest in what is happening in Egypt. There are strong progressive forces there, and one easy thing that the Government could do to support them would be to co-operate in the extradition of criminals from the Mubarak regime who are walking about freely in London and in the freezing of hundreds of millions of pounds of their assets in London or Britain. Switzerland froze the assets of the Mubarak family within hours of his standing down, but it took us about six weeks. Despite repeated attempts, I have been unable to get either the Foreign Office or the Home Office to confirm what action they are taking.
I very much appreciated what the Foreign Secretary said about the Government’s continuing support for, and confidence in, the Arab spring, but they need to go further than words. They need to support popular and democratic forces in the middle east both economically and politically. They may be in Palestine, Egypt or Bahrain. Let us not just take the easy option and condemn Gaddafi and Assad; let us be even-handed across the piece.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
This has been a wide-ranging debate touching on all parts of the globe. There have been many brilliant insights into what is going on in the world and the UK’s role in the changing world. My contribution, in contrast, will focus on my constituents’ response to the issues in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech and will therefore be wide-ranging in a different way.
I have listened carefully to what people in the Scunthorpe area have said in the weeks leading up to the Queen’s Speech and beyond. It is a real shame that the Government have failed to capitalise on the cross-party agreement to legislate to meet the UN’s target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on international aid. That will disappoint Marilyn Woodrow, who e-mailed me recently asking that I urge the Prime Minister to take action to address the terrible problem of world hunger. She pointed out that 300 children die from hunger each and every hour. UNICEF’s figures show that 10.9 million children under five die in developing countries every year, and that malnutrition and hunger-related diseases cause 60% of those deaths. The Prime Minister should show leadership on that issue at the forthcoming G8 summit.
I was extremely pleased to join the children of Scunthorpe Church of England primary school for their “Go for Gold” assembly, in which they drew attention to the 67 million children worldwide who never get the opportunity to go to school and are denied education and opportunity. The Scunthorpe children recognise their privileged position, which is why they are involved in the “Send My Friend to School” campaign. They asked me to call on the Prime Minister to back the campaign.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend raised with his local schoolchildren, as I have with mine, the fact that although we are told primary education is free in many developing countries, hidden charges often stop children going to school? They cannot afford to pay for their lunches, extra lessons or uniform, and that precludes their getting a basic education.
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend is right and makes her point extremely well.
Eliminating world hunger and helping get 67 million children to school can be driven through global leadership, which we could have shown by taking advantage of the cross-party consensus and legislating for 0.7% of gross national income to be spent on international aid from 2013. That would have resonated around the world, to the benefit of us all in the developed and developing worlds.
Let me deal with other matters. I welcome the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. I and other hon. Members have urged action on the matter for some time. As Alex Godfrey of the North Lincolnshire branch of the National Farmers Union writes,
“thank you for your help on the groceries code adjudicator. Finally it was in the Queen’s Speech! I was really pleased to hear that complaints from third parties will be allowed.”
Alex puts his finger on a key issue, and I will keep my eye on it as the Bill progresses to the statute book. The Government need to provide the adjudicator with the powers to ensure a fair deal across the supply chain. That means an adjudicator with the power to investigate the claims of trade associations or whistleblowers, and to penalise companies that breach the code.
Sadly, the welcome for the grocery adjudicator is more than outweighed by the disappointment felt by the woman in her 80s who rushed to see me last week because she was so downhearted and dispirited by rumours that the reform of adult care and support was to be delayed. Thirty years ago, her son had an accident that left him severely paralysed. He is strong willed, intelligent and resilient and so, despite his disabilities, he managed to continue to make a contribution to society. However, he needs full-time, round-the-clock care, which his mother provides. She has done that with no support forthcoming from the state. Uncomplaining and determined, she was nevertheless distressed to learn that the Government were putting the reform of adult care and support on the backburner—on the “too difficult” pile.
Another local woman writes movingly of her experience of supporting her mother, who suffers from dementia:
“What I want to know is which agencies are out there for us to call on to support us to care for our Mum. It doesn’t seem right that an adult as vulnerable as my Mum is not under the care of a social care or mental health team or a Memory Clinic. I don’t care whether she has dementia or Alzheimer’s or not. What I do care about is that her needs are not being met.
I have no desire to take any of the individual services to task. I just want to move forward in a positive way with caring for my Mum and know where to turn to receive the necessary support when problems arise. Surely there should be a clear sign-posting to people who like me find themselves in this stressful and difficult position. Where we have Sure Start we should also have Sure End…There is a desperate need for a service like this and this need will become greater.”
Adult care and support is one of biggest challenges for us. We should not play politics with it, but we should all put our shoulder to the wheel and use our united, combined and determined efforts to find real solutions. A draft Bill is disappointing, but it is also an opportunity. The hopes and fears of many people throughout the land, with stories like those of the ageing mother with the paraplegic son, and the caring daughter with the severely ailing mother, are focused on us all. We owe it to them to step up to the plate.
The issues in the Gracious Speech about which people have contacted me are therefore international aid, the grocery adjudicator and adult care and support. However, what most people wanted and talked to me about was absent from it. Where is the plan for jobs and growth? Where is the industrial policy that manufacturing areas such as Scunthorpe badly need? Where are the plans to help energy-intensive industries such as the steel industry? Sadly, the Business Secretary was right that the Government have “no compelling vision” to address those issues.
Like my constituents, I am underwhelmed by the Government’s programme for the forthcoming Session. It is a missed opportunity, a damp squib and a disappointment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Seema Malhotra, who must resume her seat no later than 9.30.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I am honoured to speak in my first Queen’s Speech debate as a Member of Parliament, and to make some comments on Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech.
I endorse Opposition Members’ sentiments that Britain had hoped for so much more. We are in a double-dip recession for the first time in 37 years and we face the worst unemployment for 16 years. The talents of a million young people are being wasted.
Before I refer to wider issues of concern to my constituents, let me welcome the Government’s support for Labour’s overseas aid commitment of 0.7% of gross national income. I am disappointed, however, by the Government’s sleight of hand—as if nothing had happened—in rowing back from enshrining the pledge in law. The proposal has cross-party support and was included in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos and promised in the coalition agreement, but was missing from the Queen’s Speech.
I am proud that my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), has urged the Secretary of State for International Development to include overseas aid legislation in the Government’s plans. This is not about a level of spend for one year and saying, “Job done”, but a statement about Britain’s role in the world and our commitment, as a compassionate nation, to the development of the poorest countries of the world.
I am also proud that the Labour Government were recognised as a world leader in tackling global poverty and supporting the millennium development goals and progress for women and girls around the world. They tripled Britain’s aid budget, helping 40 million more children into school. We know, however, that much more needs to be done not just on spend but on reform of overseas aid to make the necessary difference. That includes structural change, governance and infrastructure to ensure the right trajectory of progress and to help nations better to help themselves in the long run.
The Queen’s Speech not only contained a weakened commitment on international development but fell short on the domestic front. The speech started well, finally acknowledging what the Opposition have called for—a focus on economic growth. However, for a young person in my constituency looking for work, it offered no hope, and for families, such as the 1,900 local households that have recently had their tax credits cut, it offered no hope. With nearly 3,000 people unemployed in Feltham and Heston and an increase of more than 200% in long-term youth unemployment last year, the Government appear to think that the answer is to make it easer to fire rather than hire people.
The economy is in recession not because of the UK’s employment law regime but because the Government are cutting spending too far, too fast, hitting business confidence and choking off growth. Removing the rights of workers will most likely increase job insecurity and damage work force morale, productivity and therefore the economy. The needs of small businesses, of which there are more than 6,000 in my constituency, have also been sidelined in the Queen’s Speech. It should have been about making a difference now, not just about measures that will, we hope, make a difference in the medium term.
No hope was offered to those small and medium-sized enterprises that cannot get money from the bank. A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that 22% of businesses cited access to finance as a barrier to growth in the last quarter. We need urgent action to boost lending now, which is why Labour is looking at plans for a British bank for small business for the long term.
By all means, let us have an important debate about the development of skills in this country to ensure that our work force has the skills our businesses and economy need and to minimise the national skills gap. That is a forward-looking investment strategy that gets Britain excited, not a simplistic headline grab that demoralises our workers. We need a plan to grow and earn our way out of this double-dip recession, not a sentence at the start of a speech. People need to know that the Government are on their side, not a Government of the rich, for the rich. Sadly, the speech last week, following the Budget in March, suggests that that is exactly what they are.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
This has been a high-quality debate at a time when a strong, intelligent British voice has never been more important, as the world faces a number of complex, high-stakes challenges: the eurozone crisis; the negotiations between E3 plus 3 with Iran aimed at securing Iranian compliance with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty; enduring poverty and growth inequality in a world where more than 70% of the poorest now live in middle-income, not developing countries; the appalling repression and violence in Syria; the impact of the Arab spring; the lack of political progress towards a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians; continued instability in the horn of Africa; and disappointing global progress on trade and climate change. All these require British foreign, defence and development policies that are joined up and have clear strategic objectives.
It is of serious concern, therefore, that only today the Atlantic Council has criticised the incoherence of the Government’s foreign policy, as well as the complacent approach to key alliances in Europe and the United States. The Government should take seriously criticism that comes from such an independent and widely respected body.
In any foreign affairs debate we should reflect on the tremendous debt of gratitude we owe to the brave men and women who serve on the front line in Afghanistan. Their courage and professionalism represent Britain at its best. We must always remember those who have fallen and their loved ones left to grieve—husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters: every life precious, no life given in vain; we are humbled by their sacrifice.
I want to focus primarily on aid and development—we get few opportunities in this Chamber to do so—but let me first briefly acknowledge the many important contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made. First, as we heard from the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), it is important at this difficult time, in an age of austerity, that Members of this House are willing to make the case for aid at every opportunity. I will talk a little more about that later.
The hon. Members for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) made a really important point about the centrality of the role played by women in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Where there are no women’s rights, we find no progress on development. There is a direct correlation between the two. Gender should be at the heart of development policy, not a “siloed” issue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) brought his usual knowledge and passion to this debate. He reminded us once again that our relationship with the European Union is central to our economic future. If we are to make any economic progress whatever, we need a policy of being at the heart of Europe, rather than being isolated in Europe. He was also right to make the point that the failure of the strategic defence review was not just a failure to respond to the defence challenges of the future; rather, it amounted to waving the white flag to the Treasury, in terms of the resources available to fulfil our various responsibilities.
The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) talked about the Sahel. I recently visited Chad, and he was absolutely right to raise that part of the world, for two reasons. The first is that we have a food emergency there right now. As we meet in this House this evening, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who are worried about whether their families will be able to have one meal a day. However, the Sahel is also a part of the world that has the potential to be the next breeding ground for terrorism and insecurity. The Secretary of State for International Development has often said that the area is primarily a responsibility for the French, and I do not totally disagree with him. However, we must also understand that, even if we are not going to provide a lot of aid, we should provide political leadership by saying that that part of the world is incredibly important for stability and security, as well as from a humanitarian point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) raised the question of Tibet. I was privileged to be the first British Minister to be allowed to visit Tibet in 50 years, when I was a Foreign Office Minister. We should use every opportunity to say to the Chinese that we keep a close eye on human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of faith in Tibet, and that we have serious concerns about the human rights abuses that continue to occur.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) rightly talked about the importance of trying to prevent fragile states from falling into worse disrepair. It is important to stress, in a debate such as this, the need strategically to bring together defence, diplomacy and development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) does a tremendous job in fulfilling her role as vice-chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. She rightly pointed out that although we should welcome the tremendous progress made in Burma in recent times—progress that none of us could have expected—we cannot afford to be complacent. There is still a long way to go, and we need to send that message at every opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) brings to these debates a particular, specialist knowledge. He recognises, from a military background, the importance of bringing development, diplomacy and security together in many of the most challenging parts of the world. He also rightly made the point that we need to get much better and smarter at preventing humanitarian crises in the first place, rather than responding to them when the situation has deteriorated.
We must acknowledge the tremendous work that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has done over the years to draw attention to the disgraceful human rights abuses taking place in Zimbabwe. She has often been a lone voice when raising those concerns in the House. I was delighted to hear her praise the work of DFID in Zimbabwe; it has made a real difference there, in incredibly difficult circumstances. I should also like to pay tribute to Dave Fish, the head of the DFID office in Zimbabwe, who is due to resign in the next few weeks—
Mr Lewis
I meant to say retire—although, knowing Dave Fish, now that we have a Tory Government, he might be about to resign. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, that was not a serious suggestion. He has served both Governments with great distinction, as I think the Secretary of State would acknowledge. He has been one of the wisest voices and has a great understanding of the many political dilemmas in Africa. So, seriously, I think that Members on both sides of the House would like to pay tribute to him.
Mr McCann
I should like to ask the whole House to pay tribute to Dave Fish. He was my first boss in the Overseas Development Administration, now DFID, in East Kilbride. He has done marvellous work in every single job he has been given by the Government, irrespective of which political party has been in power, and it is important that we recognise his contribution to international development across the globe.
Mr Lewis
I agree entirely. Dave Fish embodies the best of the British civil service, and it is important to place that on the record here this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) was absolutely right to point out the dangers of the austerity programme being pursued by this Government and others. It is clear that, economically, it has been a failure, and what we desperately need in this country and across Europe is a set of serious policies for jobs and growth.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) raised the question of Israel/Palestine. There is absolutely no doubt that in that part of the middle east we urgently need security and normalisation for the state of Israel, and dignity and statehood for the Palestinians. A lack of progress on the two-state solution is creating instability in the middle east as a whole, and we need rapid political progress.
I shall turn now specifically to development. Rooted in my party’s DNA is a commitment to social justice, not only in our country but across the world. For Labour, ensuring that the United Kingdom plays a leading role in aid and development is not political positioning or the detoxification of our brand; it is the application of our core values. I am immensely proud of our legacy. Through the political leadership of Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), we led and changed the world. Labour’s international leadership achieved great results by cancelling debt, increasing aid, improving trading opportunities, leading on climate change, creating DFID as a Cabinet-level Department and championing the millennium development goals.
In these difficult, austere times, we—and enlightened right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—recognise our duty to make the case to the British people that we should continue to honour our commitments to the world’s poorest. We should do so because levels of poverty and inequality remain an affront to humanity, but also because it is in our national interest. Poverty is frequently the breeding ground for the terrorists who threaten our national security, and yesterday’s poor nations are our trading partners of today and tomorrow.
The idea that spending 0.7% of our gross national income on aid is excessive simply does not stand up to scrutiny, even in the context of difficult times and difficult choices. There are those who argue that aid does not reach the people who really need it and that it is invariably misused by corrupt agencies or Governments. That is a sweeping generalisation and it is not supported by the facts. There is of course a need to focus on global aid effectiveness and transparency. That formed a central part of the agreement at the 2008 Accra conference, which was brokered by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. He asked me to include that point in my speech.
Aid has made, and does make, a tremendous difference. The UK’s support to developing counties under the Labour Government was life changing. Over 10 years, we enabled the distribution of 70 million bed nets, provided more than 1.4 million people with antiretroviral therapy in Africa through bilateral aid, assisted more than 12 million people through food security programmes, trained 165,000 teachers and provided loans for 450,000 entrepreneurs in Helmand and ensured that 19,000 women could get a proper education in Pakistan.
I have made it clear that we will support the Government when they do the right thing. If they honour Labour’s commitment to achieve 0.7% by 2013, we will support them. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s personal commitment to development. However, when the Government are wrong or break their promises, we will not hesitate to hold them to account.
The Government’s failure to include the 0.7% aid commitment in legislation in the first Queen’s Speech breached a clear Tory manifesto commitment and a key element of the coalition agreement. Their failure to include it in this second Queen’s Speech is not only a broken promise, but represents something far more significant—a Prime Minister weakened by the omnishambles of recent months with no authority to change his party and a Chancellor pandering to the right, always with an eye to the succession. Development policy should not be used as a dividing line for internal ideological battles in the Tory party; it is too important for that. Will the Secretary of State now confirm when the Government will bring forward the legislation and whether there will be full Government support and co-operation for any private Member’s Bill that seeks to enshrine the 0.7% commitment in law?
Alec Shelbrooke
I would like to emphasise that the hon. Gentleman seems to be under some illusion, probably based on stuff he has read in the media or on certain internet sites, that the Conservative party is not committed to 0.7%. He listened to my speech earlier and I hope he is not going down the road of saying that we are not committed to it, which is deeply offensive to many Conservative Back Benchers.
Mr Lewis
I read in the hon. Gentleman’s manifesto and I read in the coalition agreement that 0.7% would be enshrined in legislation in the first Session of Parliament. We are now at the beginning of the second, yet there is no intention to do so. That is why people have doubts.
I am concerned about other aspects of the Government’s policy direction. The Secretary of State recently provoked controversy by linking aid to India with a defence contract—a breach of his commitment to maintain our policy of de-linking aid from specific trade deals. Will he confirm in his response that de-linking remains Government policy? He is demanding an ideologically driven rapid expansion of DFID’s private sector spend, to which I have no objection in principle, but this raises serious concerns about a lack of focus on ethics and responsibility, and fundamental questions about the Department’s capacity to ensure the spend is effective.
In government, we were very clear that both our taxpayers and poor people in developing countries have a right to see tangible results from UK aid spending, so I support the Secretary of State when he places an emphasis on results. Meaningful results, however, are often about long-term sustainable change, not simple quick fixes or easy-to-measure outcomes. It would be an abdication of responsibility if support for state building, the empowerment of women and civil society were sacrificed for easier headlines.
I am concerned that many Government objectives require DFID to work in partnership with other Government Departments. On Rio+20 and private sector/tax transparency issues, I am not convinced that this is happening or that DFID is playing a leading role across Whitehall.
Turning to the future, I welcome the Prime Minister’s appointment by the UN Secretary-General to co-chair the high-level group considering the future millennium development goals framework post 2015. It is good that, after a golden decade of UK global leadership on development, the UK has a further opportunity to help shape the direction of future policy. My test for the Prime Minister is whether he understands that development is about social justice and human rights, not charity, and that an ideological approach that espouses “private good”, “public and NGO bad”, would be a missed opportunity.
A new global covenant for development must recognise that in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Arab spring and the new concentration of poverty in middle-income countries, the world has changed. A new covenant must be developed on an equal basis by developing, developed and middle-income countries—not by a settlement imposed by developed on developing countries. It must seek to address the big global challenges of fair trade, sustainable growth, climate change, inequality, social protection, universal human rights and responsible capitalism. Instead of global targets, it may be more appropriate to have a matrix of indicators that enables every country to set its own targets.
As we face these big questions, I hope DFID will continue to be a thought leader and policy innovator, not simply an aid agency. It is one of the main reasons why, when we left office, DFID was regarded as the world’s leading state development agency—a source of great national pride. The complex challenges of today’s world require defence, diplomacy and development to be deployed in a strategic and integrated way. Britain has a distinct and crucial role to play, working with allies old and new, to help build a stable, fairer world. The Government must step up to the plate and ensure that their antagonism to the EU does not lead to isolation in Europe and marginalisation in the world. That would be a betrayal of Britain’s national interest.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is 20 years since I seconded the Loyal Address, standing where my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) is currently sitting. It was the most frightening thing I have ever done. I shall begin today by echoing the Prime Minister’s words at the start of our debate: he began his speech in response to the Loyal Address by making it clear that over the past year Britain has fed more than 2.5 million people facing famine and starvation, vaccinated 1.3 million children against measles in the horn of Africa, and kept livestock alive for 150,000 of the poorest people in that area through vaccination and fodder. Those points were well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I shall also start by echoing the words of the Foreign Secretary in thanking the men and women of our brilliant armed forces and the diplomatic service, as well as the DFID and humanitarian workers, my own officials and, of course, Dave Fish, who has been much celebrated during the course of this debate.
The Government are clear about Britain’s promise to allocate 0.7% of our national income to development, as confirmed in the Gracious Speech. That is a promise not to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world. At a time when people here in the United Kingdom are feeling the pinch and we are grappling with the economic difficulties imposed on us as the servants of the hard-pressed taxpayer, we also give a commitment to wrest full value from every penny we spend—a point eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). We are doing this because we believe it is the right thing to do, but also because it is hugely in our own national interest, contributing to our security and stability and to our future prosperity, and helping to ensure that in future there are more South Koreas and fewer North Koreas. This is truly aid for Britain, as well as aid from Britain.
Over the course of this Parliament, we are on track to deliver extraordinary transformational change, putting some 11 million children into school at 2.5% of the cost of educating a British child, vaccinating a child every two seconds, and saving the life of a child every two minutes from diseases none of our own children die from. For every citizen of the United Kingdom, we will provide clean water or sanitation for someone in the poor world who does not currently have that, and we will be able to save the lives of 50,000 mothers in childbirth—my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) made that point, about what is a very important topic.
We are also championing the enablers of development, supporting free and fair elections in at least 13 countries, working to promote openness and improvements in financial management, building up taxation systems in 22 countries, ensuring that 18 million women have access to financial services, ensuring that 6 million people who do not currently have property rights gain them, and helping 10 million women access justice through the courts, the police and legal assistance. These are just a few examples of what we are doing on behalf of Britain, and what our taxpayers in the UK will achieve.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
On promoting transparency and democracy, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the deteriorating political situation in Bangladesh, which is one of the largest recipients of aid, and specifically of the disappearance of Mr Elias Ali, the former Member of Parliament for Bishwanath in Sylhet area. What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with the Foreign Office to ensure that DFID and the FCO work together to promote democracy and the safe return of Mr Elias Ali?
Mr Mitchell
I had an opportunity to make those points during a recent visit to Bangladesh, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been directly pursuing the case.
On the results that we will achieve with taxpayer funding, it is interesting to reflect on what the polling shows in Britain. When people are asked how much public expenditure goes on international development, they believe it to be 17.9%. When they are asked what they think the right level of public expenditure on international development should be, they give a figure of 7.9%. What is the actual figure? It is 1.1%, which means that we are achieving these transformational results with one seventeenth of the funding that the public think we are spending and with one seventh of the funding they believe we should be spending. All of us have constituents who would be interested in understanding and hearing those figures.
Mr Mitchell
I will deal directly with that in a moment. The point I seek to make is that we have made changes through the bilateral aid review, which determined that bilateral aid to 16 of the countries supported by Labour under the programme should be wound up, and through the multilateral aid reviews, where we found that 10% of the multilateral agencies that Britain was funding were not delivering value for money. We have made these tough decisions and we have, therefore, been able to refocus the programme and make it far more effective.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, we have made sure that girls and women are at the heart of British development policy; we have set up the independent evaluation of British aid, so that the public can judge for themselves what we are achieving; we have emphasised the building blocks of wealth creation—trade, a vibrant private sector, property rights and a low-carbon climate-resilient economy; we have completely overhauled CDC; and we sold our remaining 40% share in Actis to rectify the shameful deal done by the previous Government, from which the British taxpayer has not seen a single penny.
DFID now plays a full part in the National Security Council and has brought much greater focus to fragile and conflict-affected areas; we have ensured that the British public have a say in how part of the aid budget is spent; and our new UK aid match funding scheme has already made commitments that will directly benefit more than 2.7 million people in some of the world’s poorest countries—we have provided match funding for Sightsavers, Sport Relief, WaterAid and Save the Children.
We have also introduced a wholly new system of support for Britain’s brilliant international charities, which means that we will be able to help smaller non-governmental organisations to reach more people by launching fresh rounds of the global poverty action fund, which in its first year supported 56 charities and organisations that will help nearly 6 million people.
Over the course of this Session, we will host a major global summit this summer, with Melinda Gates, which will bring a renewed international emphasis and much-needed action on family planning. The aim will be to halve the number of women in the poorest parts of the world who want access to contraception but cannot get it.
The Prime Minister has been asked by the United Nations Secretary-General to co-chair, along with the Presidents of Liberia and Indonesia, the high-level panel that will consider what framework might succeed the millennium development goals in 2015. This will be a major issue for the international community over the coming years, and the UK will ensure that it helps to steer an open and consultative process, on which I look forward to engaging with colleagues.
We will continue to work with the rest of Whitehall and the international community to tackle the urgent and long-term issues in Somalia. We are championing the case for more effective resilience and humanitarian reform, especially in the light of the recent crisis in the horn of Africa, about which many colleagues have spoken.
Alec Shelbrooke
My right hon. Friend has outlined the list of achievements by the Government under his stewardship of the Department. Does he take the same umbrage as I do at the suggestion that this is all just a detoxification? This actually is something we believe in, it is a moral obligation and we find it deeply offensive to be told that it is just a detoxification.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend, in his eloquent contribution, brings me directly to the issue of the legislation. Many hon. Members have raised the question of the legislation—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) would stop mumbling from a sedentary position and trying to put me off, he will hear the answer to the question that his colleagues have been asking in respect of the legislation. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I wish that it were just mumbling. It is very much more vocal than mumbling: it is too noisy, it is excessive and it should desist. Let us hear the Secretary of State.
Mr Mitchell
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Many Members have raised the question of the legislation, so let me confirm again today that the Bill is ready and will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. As the Queen set out in her speech, next year the Government will meet our historic aid promise for the first time ever. Our plans are set out in black and white, and the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that the Bill is ready and will proceed. In the Gracious Speech, Her Majesty set out clearly the commitment to 0.7% and the Chancellor has confirmed in his Budget that that will take place. Next year, historically, this Conservative-led coalition Government will reach the commitment that we have all made.
I wish to respond to some of the specific points that were made. Let me start with the contribution by the shadow Foreign Secretary who, as one of my predecessors, deserves special treatment. He said that he agreed with much of what the Government were doing, specifically on the subject of Syria. In addition, he tried to make the case that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was not a strong supporter and user of the multilateral system to pursue Britain’s foreign policy objectives, but that simply will not fly. I mention just four things: the UN work on Syria that has largely been led by my right hon. Friend; the Somalia conference in London; the work as co-chair of the Friends of Yemen; and the work in the World Trade Organisation that Britain has tried to assist with, which gets widespread support from hon. Members in all parts of the House. Those are all areas where Britain is clearly a leader in the multilateral system.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Government policy on Ministers visiting Ukraine during Euro 2012 and the case of Yulia Tymoshenko. This is a sensitive issue and we need to balance the need to keep politics away from sport with our concerns about the treatment of Yulia Tymoshenko and other opposition politicians. We are keeping potential attendance by the UK under review while we assess how the Ukrainian authorities are responding to our concerns.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about improving relations with Pakistan. He will know that the Prime Minister has just hosted a very successful visit by Prime Minister Gilani to London. We are increasing co-operation on security and defence and we will continue to drive forward our development relationship over the course of this Parliament. Pakistan will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, recipients of British aid in the world, which will include getting 4 million children into school. I can think of no better way to blunt the fanatic recruiters’ appeal than educating so many children. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the outcomes of the Chicago summit. It is positive that NATO has extended an invitation to President Zardari to attend the summit. We want Pakistan to play a full role in helping to achieve lasting peace and security in Afghanistan and we hope that it will attend the summit and engage fully in the process.
There have been a number of very important and useful speeches. I am thinking in particular of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), who dwelt on the fact that we have been much more targeted in how we have used British aid. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) spoke about the importance of tackling the situation in the middle east, as did the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who had, I think, been on a visit with the Council for Arab-British Understanding and spoke with much passion and conviction on the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) spoke with characteristic robustness about Europe and, having returned from a full day in Brussels this morning, I listened with great attention and more sympathy than I might otherwise have had.
The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) is sadly not in his place. He said that he thought that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had been closing embassies. I have secured the record and the Foreign Office plans to open up to 19 new posts, whereas under the previous Labour Government some 45 posts were closed.
I apologise to those to whom I am not able to respond. I say to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that under this Government funding for the Commonwealth has increased from the 33% figure we inherited from the Labour party to 55% of the budget. The Commonwealth is a big and important priority for the coalition Government. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) for her comments about the Government’s funding for St Helena airport. I know she was a strong supporter of that project in—
Lowestoft Train Station
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about what is an important issue for the Waveney constituency: the opportunity and challenge of redeveloping Lowestoft railway station. Lowestoft Central, the most easterly railway station in Britain, was built in its existing form in 1855. At that time and over much of the proceeding century it was an impressive building, very much at the heart of the town, close to the main shopping area and with sidings running down into the port, the fish market, the timber works and the coach works. Nearby was a thriving holiday resort comprising beaches, two piers, a promenade and assorted hotels and guest houses. Today, the building is unfortunately a very pale shadow of its former self. Its impressive roof was allowed to fall into disrepair and was removed in 1992. The walls remain with the iconic British Rail Lowestoft Central sign on the eastern facade but the surrounds are now untidy, in places strewn with litter, and give a very poor first impression of the town to those arriving by train.
There is now a compelling case for redeveloping Lowestoft Central station, to return it to a good state of repair and to make it a focal point for the regeneration of Lowestoft. Seaside towns such as Lowestoft, which are invariably isolated physically and at the end of the line, are at a particular disadvantage when it comes to attracting new business. This drawback must be addressed if we are truly to rebalance the UK’s economy and realise the full potential of the country’s maritime industries in the energy, tourism and trade sectors. To achieve this we need good infrastructure, the provision of which we have not done particularly well on in Britain in recent years. In many respects that has bypassed East Anglia altogether until recently. Tonight I am concentrating on the railways, but road links and broadband are also important and if I am successful in subsequent ballots, I shall return to them in future debates.
Let me take a few minutes to outline the compelling case for upgrading Lowestoft Central. First, the station occupies a unique location at the heart of Lowestoft. It is strategically placed close to many of the businesses that have such a vital role to play in the town’s future. In the past, there have been plans to move the station inland to the west to open up further retail development opportunities, but that is not a course I wish to pursue. Such a project is not economically viable and in any case the station is in the right location; the challenge we face is to redevelop it on its existing site.
The Mary Portas review highlighted the challenges that town centres have faced in recent years and Lowestoft has had its fair share of those. The main such challenges relate to accessibility and congestion. The seemingly never-ending repairs to the nearby bascule bridge and the sewer repairs in Station square in January and February this year brought traffic to a halt. At present the station is in many respects a blot on the landscape, and it is important that steps are taken to improve its appearance to make a visit to the town centre an experience that is both appealing and enticing. First impressions of a town are important so that people make those vital return visits.
The station stands immediately opposite the former Tuttles department store, originally opened in 1888 and for many decades the town’s main shopping anchor tenant, the magnet that attracted people into Lowestoft. The Tuttles building has also fallen into disrepair in recent years, but a planning application has just been submitted for its redevelopment by Wetherspoons. This is welcome news and I believe it is now appropriate to focus attention on Lowestoft’s other landmark building, the railway station just across the road. As work gets under way, we hope, on the Tuttles building in the coming months, people are entitled to ask what plans there are for the station. It is important that we have the answers and can show that we are on the case.
Some years ago Wetherspoons obtained planning permission for redevelopment of part of the station. I do not know precisely why the scheme did not go ahead, but it is important that such opportunities are not missed again. As well as helping the town centre, a redeveloped railway station can play an important role in supporting two other industries that are important to Lowestoft’s and Waveney’s economic future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I spoke to him earlier about the matter and congratulate him on bringing it to the Chamber. At the beginning of his contribution, he mentioned the tourism potential. Is it time for the Government, the regional assemblies and the railway companies to have a co-ordinated plan to lift railway stations such as Lowestoft and others elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to ensure that the tourism potential can be achieved? The economic boost that that would bring could benefit Lowestoft and many other places in the United Kingdom.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. In an effort to rebalance the economy, the seaside and the seaside towns—the marine economy—is in many respects the hidden jewel of the British economy and we do not make enough of it. Therefore any initiatives that help us to realise the marine economy’s full potential are to be welcomed.
As well as helping the town centre, a redeveloped railway station can play an important part in supporting other industries that are important to Lowestoft’s future— tourism and energy. Lowestoft Central station is within walking distance of the town’s two beaches, which have just had their Blue Flag status reconfirmed. Inland are the Norfolk and Suffolk broads. The two railway lines serving Lowestoft, the East Suffolk line from Ipswich and the Wherry line from Norwich, are themselves tourist attractions passing through attractive countryside, along the Suffolk coast, through the water meadows and alongside the waterways of the broads. It is so important that the journey’s end should be in keeping with the rest of these special journeys.
The station is also close to two of the areas that form part of the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone, which came into operation on 1 April. The enterprise zone is focused on the energy sector, both oil and gas and offshore renewables. In the case of the latter, Lowestoft occupies an important strategic location as the port that is closest to some of the largest proposed offshore wind farms—SSE’s Galloper and Gabbard development and Scottish Power’s and Vattenfall’s East Anglian Array. Already wind farm developers and supply chain companies are looking either to increase their presence in the area or to move into the town. A smart station as part of a good rail service will play an important role in attracting them and jobs to the area. The station in its current form and appearance provides no help in attracting such inward investment.
Significant improvements to the local rail network are now taking place, and if they are to realise their full potential, it is important that we have stations that are attractive in appearance and provide customers with the facilities they need. Work is currently taking place on the Beccles loop on the East Suffolk line which will lead later this year to a resumption of an hourly service from Lowestoft to Ipswich; indeed, I understand that the construction of the loop was completed this past weekend. That work is welcome and the service should prove popular, but Lowestoft Central in its current state will be a let-down to many passengers, and I fear that at present it does not pass the test in terms of appearance, facilities and services on offer.
Other improvements have taken place as well, including the new passenger lift at Ipswich station, which will make it easier for travellers to connect with ongoing services to and from London Liverpool Street and further afield on Crossrail, which will improve access in and around London and to Heathrow, thereby helping to address the challenge of physical isolation that has held back the Lowestoft economy in recent years. In due course it is important that the through service from Lowestoft to Liverpool Street is resumed, but that is another debate for another day.
A further consideration to have in mind is that bus services in and around Lowestoft are being improved. Suffolk county council, with sustainable transport fund finance, is putting on a new circular bus route, serving the main employment areas and tourist destinations. The bus will stop at the station, as does the 601 service that runs down the coast to Kessingland and Southwold. To ensure that the investment in these services is successful the area around the station needs to be looked at closely to ensure that it is laid out in a way that enables the station to play a full role as a transport interchange and hub, not only for buses but also for taxis, and with the necessary facilities for the disabled, the elderly and the infirm.
The case for redeveloping Lowestoft station is a strong one that satisfies the most rigorous of cost-benefit analysis. I anticipate that the feedback I may get from the Minister, although I do not wish to prejudge his response, is that this is a good idea but there is no money available and I will need to take my place in that good old British institution of the queue. I shall now set out a suggested way forward and the support that I would like the Government to provide.
First, we need to consider future franchising arrangements. Abellio, which is now operating as Greater Anglia, took on a 29-month franchise in February of this year. That runs until July 2014. The new franchise needs to be in a form and of a nature that encourages both good management of the property and investment in it. A longer-term franchise would help secure this investment from the operator, who should also be given full control and responsibility for the management of the whole station and all its surrounds.
As I mentioned earlier, much of the surrounds of Lowestoft station are at present untidy and strewn with litter. Part of the problem is that no one party, neither Network Rail nor Greater Anglia, is ultimately responsible for its upkeep; it is a shared liability. The result is that no one takes full responsibility. There is nowhere for the buck to stop. In essence, a full repairing lease needs to be granted to the rail operator so that it is fully responsible for keeping the station and its surrounds in both good repair and tidy in appearance. This is a role for the train company and not Network Rail, which should concentrate its efforts on its core activity of being responsible for the track and larger category A stations, such as King’s Cross and Birmingham New Street. Smaller stations, such as Lowestoft, should be the responsibility of train operators, which are better attuned to local needs and demands and will have more of an incentive to provide a smart station that will help attract customers.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on raising this matter. As he knows, I have a twin brother who lives in Lowestoft and has lived there for 25 years. He constantly makes the case for having a station that has connectivity to the rest of Britain, and it is a case that could be made throughout the United Kingdom, especially in our rural parts. We must have this connectivity to enliven our rural parts of Britain.
Peter Aldous
I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. He is quite correct. As I said, railways have a key role to play in reinvigorating the parts that perhaps other means of transport do not get to.
Secondly, I would look to all interested parties to get together as a local delivery group to produce a blueprint of how the station should be redeveloped. I have in mind not only Greater Anglia and Network Rail, but Suffolk county council and Waveney district council. The latter has just appointed two project managers to help promote regeneration of this area of Lowestoft and they can take the lead in this work. The chamber of commerce, the new Anglia local enterprise partnership and the town centre partnership, which recently submitted the Portas pilot bid, should also be involved, and there should be an opportunity for the public to have their say. I would welcome the Minister’s support for such an initiative and confirmation that he will encourage Network Rail to participate fully and proactively.
Once it has been agreed how the station should be redeveloped, we need to think creatively about funding. The national stations improvement programme has had great success in completing projects, leveraging in private funding and delivering schemes that provide a real dividend for local communities. It has been such a success that all the funds for the period to 2014 have been spent. Given that success, I ask the Minister to lobby the Treasury for additional funds in the autumn statement and next year’s Budget for the continuation of the scheme.
We also need to consider other sources of funding, such as the coastal communities fund and the regional growth fund, and how best to leverage in private investment. A possible way forward with the latter might be the granting of sub-leases to restaurants, newsagents and other shops, for example, which as part of their financial commitment would pay rent at a lower level and agree to carry out capital improvements to a particular part of the property.
As a chartered surveyor, I was taught at a very early stage in my career that there are three factors that determine the success or failure of a redevelopment scheme: location, location and location. Lowestoft Central station occupies a unique location; it is the most easterly station in Britain, at the heart of the town’s main trading and retailing area and situated close to two of its most important industries—energy and tourism. I believe that the scheme could produce an attractive return, by bringing more people into Lowestoft, creating a feel-good factor and helping to provide and underpin jobs. I hope that the Minister and the Government will work with the people of Lowestoft to achieve that goal at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate and providing the House with an opportunity to discuss the necessary redevelopment of Lowestoft train station. The coalition Government understand that the quality of stations is an important issue for passengers and are committed to facilitating investment in station improvements through reforms to the way the railways are run.
To pick up directly on the first point my hon. Friend made, we are granting longer rail franchises in order to give train operators the incentive to invest in the improvements that passengers want, including better stations. I recognise that the present Greater Anglia franchise is only two years long, a point to which I will return later in my remarks. Further funding for major station improvements over the 2014-19 period—this relates to his third point—will be considered as part of the high-level output specification process, with an announcement expected in the summer. To give him some reassurance, I am always happy to lobby the Treasury for funds for transport schemes, although with more success on some occasions than on others. The Department is considering the need for future investment over the next five-year period, so his debate is well timed in that respect.
My hon. Friend also referred to the need for good management and investment in stations and suggested that full control of stations should be handed to train operators, coupled with a full repairing lease for the operator. I am happy to tell him that we are committed to giving train operators full responsibility for the management and operation of many stations. The Greater Anglia franchise, which started on 5 February 2012, is the first to implement that policy and does so for more than 160 stations. Until that franchise was let, stations were typically leased by a franchisee from Network Rail for the duration of the franchise, with responsibilities for maintenance, repair and renewals divided between Network Rail and the franchisee. He is correct that too often that resulted in inefficient working, because there were, in effect, two estate managers.
Although a franchisee could develop stations, they often have not done so in practice, because they have seen the period in which to realise benefits as too short and the compensation mechanism for securing value beyond the end of the franchise as not sufficiently attractive. Additionally, property interest is divided and the consent mechanisms are complex.
The new arrangements that have been agreed between the Department, Network Rail, the Office of Rail Regulation and the Association of Train Operating Companies—their umbrella body—are designed to give franchisees full responsibility for station operation and management.
I recognise the hard work that my hon. Friend puts in on behalf of Lowestoft residents and, particularly, those who use rail services, and I know that he has campaigned strongly to help secure the funding necessary for the implementation of the Beccles loop, to which he referred, the implementation of which—later this year, I am advised—should greatly benefit Lowestoft by allowing additional services to operate. Indeed, I understand that he made an appearance on local television only today in support of the matter.
My hon. Friend has also been a strong supporter of Suffolk county council’s bid for funding under the local sustainable transport fund, and I am pleased to confirm that I was able to approve £5 million of funding that should bring significant benefits for Lowestoft residents, including the improved bus-rail interchange at the railway station to which he refers.
As my hon. Friend will know, I visited Lowestoft on 12 October last year, when I was able to see with my own eyes the facilities available to passengers at the station and, therefore, to understand fully the case for improvement. It does help in one’s ministerial capacity to visit the places about which one talks, because then one understands more fully the remarks that are made. I did appreciate the iconic British Rail sign, which is one of the unique ones around the country—I suppose it is unique, if we are going to use that adjective; but I can also confirm that the station was looking a little sorry, and indeed I might even go so far as to say that in its present state it leaves a lot to be desired. So I well understand why my hon. Friend has brought this subject to the House tonight.
The good news is that, in addition to the improvements that I have mentioned, under the current Greater Anglia franchise there is a commitment to provide 110 additional car parking spaces at the station. I understand that Suffolk county council is developing detailed plans for consultation with interested parties, such as Network Rail and Greater Anglia, and I encourage all parties to work together to secure the benefits anticipated by the funding bid.
Lowestoft is also a fully accessible station, which is not something that can be said for all our Victorian infrastructure throughout the country, and that is beneficial to all passengers but, having said that, I certainly recognise my hon. Friend’s aspirations for an improvement in the general condition of the station.
This Government, as I have said, believe that train operators are best placed to understand the needs and aspirations of local rail users and stakeholders, and they have a clear line of accountability. Our policy of giving full maintenance responsibility at stations to a single entity—in this case, Greater Anglia—will remove the previous inefficiencies and duplications and allow the franchisee to focus on the efficient operation of the station and the development of maintenance and improvements plans that meet local needs. I certainly encourage the current Greater Anglia franchise holder to work closely with all stakeholders, including my hon. Friend, to secure in the short term the progress towards the improvements that local residents quite rightly wish to see delivered at Lowestoft station.
As my hon. Friend knows, the current Greater Anglia franchise has been let for a short period, and it is likely that if more significant investment is sought at the station, it might be delivered through the next franchise, which will be let for a long period. He and other key stakeholders will have an opportunity to respond to the Department’s consultation on the next franchise and to engage with potential bidders when they are announced in order to put the case for further investment at Lowestoft station. I know that he will continue to represent the interests of Lowestoft and the surrounding area in order to develop economic and environmental benefits for residents, visitors and tourists.
My hon. Friend referred also to the concept of a local delivery group, and I am very happy to say that we certainly support such initiatives, which are very much the coalition Government’s direction of travel in terms of devolving responsibility for the rail network to local areas. So we must not forget the good work that community rail partnerships have already done to bring new life to tired and sometimes derelict rail stations and, indeed, to branch lines up and down the country.
Through work with local people and volunteers, many of those stations have been transformed. Such schemes have included school artwork projects, rubbish clearance, which may be of particular interest to my hon. Friend, station gardens and a range of innovative, small-scale and cost-effective refurbishments that encourage passengers. Having seen what the community has done to transform Plumpton station, a small country station in my constituency, I very well understand the benefits that such community engagement brings to smaller stations and to branch lines.
About 4,000 volunteers work in community rail, contributing over 1.2 million hours of work and bringing around £27 million of extra value to the rail industry, with an estimated benefit-cost ratio of £4.60 benefit for every £1 spent. Recognising the value of community rail, the Department has formally designated over 30 community rail routes. Designation encourages good standards across the community rail industry. There are many examples of excellent community rail projects across the country. For example, as my hon. Friend will know, the Wherry line between Lowestoft and Norwich is a successful partnership promoting the railway and the surrounding area to develop economic and environmental benefits for residents, visitors and tourists. His idea of a local delivery group therefore builds on something that has already taken shape in the area. I certainly think that the idea of the local council, and indeed the wider community, working with the rail industry, be it Network Rail or the train company, is likely to be helpful and successful.
In summary, I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the coalition Government are committed to improving and modernising stations across the network through a combination of substantial investment and reform of the way in which the railways are run. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to engage with the local train operator to secure the further improvements that he understandably seeks for Lowestoft station.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prisoners: Ex-Servicemen
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Llwyd
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will conduct a study involving (a) all prisons or (b) more than one prison to ascertain how many former military personnel are in the prison system.
[Official Report, 15 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 1339W.]
Letter of correction from Crispin Blunt:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on 15 September 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Blunt
In September 2010, MOJ and Defence Analytical Services Advice (DASA) published the results of joint work to determine the number of regular ex-service personnel in prison in England and Wales. The report provided a figure of 2,280 ex-service personnel that were serving a sentence in prison in England and Wales.
This remains the most comprehensive and reliable piece of research on this matter to date and we have no current plans to repeat the exercise as there is no evidence to suggest that the proportion of veterans within the prison population has changed significantly.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Blunt
In September 2010, MOJ and Defence Analytical Services Advice (DASA) published the results of joint work to determine the number of regular ex-service personnel in prison in England and Wales. The report provided a figure of 2,820 ex-service personnel that were serving a sentence in prison in England and Wales.
This remains the most comprehensive and reliable piece of research on this matter to date and we have no current plans to repeat the exercise as there is no evidence to suggest that the proportion of veterans within the prison population has changed significantly.
Prisoners: Ex-servicemen
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) whether and with what frequency meetings are held for former armed services personnel who are in prison;
Mr Blunt
Meetings for prisoners who are former armed service personnel take place in prisons where an identified need exists, usually as part of the Veterans in Custody Scheme which operates in approximately 120 prison establishments. The delivery or frequency of these meetings is not centrally mandated by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).
The Veterans in Custody Scheme offers support to prisoners who are former armed service personnel and liaises with relevant service-based charities to ensure that this group of prisoners has access to the full range of services that are available. Certain Probation Trusts are implementing similar schemes, so that support and links to service-based charities are also available to offenders in the community.
NOMS has not provided additional funding to deliver this area of work as it is part of offender management which is already centrally funded.
Data on the number of former armed services personnel who are resident in Approved Premises in England and Wales is not centrally collated and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by analysing information held on offender files or on local data systems, validating it, and then collating it in a common format in order to provide a response.
The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice announced in a written ministerial statement on 6 January 2010, Official Report, column 7WS, the findings of an initial study by the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) which estimated that, by analysing a database of prisoners aged 18 years and over on 6 November 2009, 3% of the prison population in England and Wales (2,207 prisoners) are ex-Regular service personnel.
In September 2010, DASA revised the estimate of ex-Regular service personnel to 3.5% of the prison population in England and Wales (2,280 prisoners) to take into account the incompleteness of their service leavers database, which did not previously include reliable data for those who had left the services prior to 1979 (Navy), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF).
The initial report and the updated estimate are available via the following links:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub=VETERANS-IN_PRISON_INIT1AL_REPORT
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub-VETERANS_IN_PRISON
In a third report, published in March 2011, DASA estimated, by analysing a database of offenders aged 18 years and over who were supervised by probation trusts on 30 September 2009, that there were 5,860 former members of the armed forces on probation in England and Wales. This equates to 3.4% of the probation caseload and is roughly in line with the percentage in prison—3.5%.
This report is available via the following link:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub=VETERANS_ON_PROBATION
The estimate of 5,860 includes an upward adjustment of 499 former service personnel to take into account the incompleteness of DASA's service leavers database which did not capture reliable data for all those who left the services prior to 1979 (Naval Service), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF). Therefore, only a total of 5,361 (or 3.1%) were actually matched to a supervision record.
Of the 5,361 veterans matched to a supervision records, 1,038 (19%) had a post-release licence and 4,331 (81%) had either a community order or a suspended sentence.
Note:
Please note that it is possible for an individual to have matched to more than one type of supervision record.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Blunt
Meetings for prisoners who are former armed service personnel take place in prisons where an identified need exists, usually as part of the Veterans in Custody Scheme which operates in approximately 120 prison establishments. The delivery or frequency of these meetings is not centrally mandated by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).
The Veterans in Custody Scheme offers support to prisoners who are former armed service personnel and liaises with relevant service-based charities to ensure that this group of prisoners has access to the full range of services that are available. Certain Probation Trusts are implementing similar schemes, so that support and links to service-based charities are also available to offenders in the community.
NOMS has not provided additional funding to deliver this area of work as it is part of offender management which is already centrally funded.
Data on the number of former armed services personnel who are resident in Approved Premises in England and Wales is not centrally collated and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by analysing information held on offender files or on local data systems, validating it, and then collating it in a common format in order to provide a response.
The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice announced in a written ministerial statement on 6 January 2010, Official Report, column 7WS, the findings of an initial study by the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) which estimated that, by analysing a database of prisoners aged 18 years and over on 6 November 2009, 3% of the prison population in England and Wales (2,207 prisoners) are ex-Regular service personnel.
In September 2010, DASA revised the estimate of ex-Regular service personnel to 3.5% of the prison population in England and Wales (2,820 prisoners) to take into account the incompleteness of their service leavers database, which did not previously include reliable data for those who had left the services prior to 1979 (Navy), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF).
The initial report and the updated estimate are available via the following links:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub=VETERANS-IN_PRISON_INIT1AL_REPORT
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub-VETERANS_IN_PRISON
In a third report, published in March 2011, DASA estimated, by analysing a database of offenders aged 18 years and over who were supervised by probation trusts on 30 September 2009, that there were 5,860 former members of the armed forces on probation in England and Wales. This equates to 3.4% of the probation caseload and is roughly in line with the percentage in prison—3.5%.
This report is available via the following link:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub=VETERANS_ON_PROBATION
The estimate of 5,860 includes an upward adjustment of 499 former service personnel to take into account the incompleteness of DASA's service leavers database which did not capture reliable data for all those who left the services prior to 1979 (Naval Service), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF). Therefore, only a total of 5,361 (or 3.1%) were actually matched to a supervision record.
Of the 5,361 veterans matched to a supervision records, 1,038 (19%) had a post-release licence and 4,331 (81%) had either a community order or a suspended sentence.
Note:
Please note that it is possible for an individual to have matched to more than one type of supervision record.
Empty Property Rates (SMEs)
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
We have already taken some major actions, particularly on business rates, to demonstrate our commitment to providing targeted support for the business community. Yesterday, the Local Government Finance Bill, which reforms business rates, received its Second Reading. When the measure comes into force, it will give every local authority the capacity to rebate business rates at their discretion in their local area. I hope that Members here today will support that legislation with great enthusiasm, and that they look forward to the day, in April next year when the measure comes into force, when they can go to their local authorities and make as eloquently as they have today the case for empty property business rate relief, which can then be targeted and shaped to local circumstances.
[Official Report, 11 January 2012, Vol. 538, c. 108WH.]
Letter of correction from Andrew Stunell:
An error has been identified in the closing speech in the Westminster Hall debate on Empty Property Rates on 11 January 2012. The error relates to introduction of flexibilities for local authorities on business rates.
The corrected version is as follows:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
We have already taken some major actions, particularly on business rates, to demonstrate our commitment to providing targeted support for the business community. The Localism Act 2011 includes powers, which will be available for local authorities from 1 April 2012, that will give every local authority the capacity to rebate business rates at their discretion in their local area. I hope that Members here today will support this with great enthusiasm, and that they look forward to the day, in April when the measure comes into force, when they can go to their local authorities and make as eloquently as they have today the case for empty property business rate relief, which can then be targeted and shaped to local circumstances.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Regional Growth Fund Update
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The regional growth fund (RGF) has allocated conditional offers to the value of £1.4 billion to projects and programmes during the first two rounds of bidding during 2010 and 2011. Below is an update on progress with these projects.
In November 2011, due to the RGF programme’s success, an additional £1 billion was allocated to the fund by the Chancellor, and round 3 opened for bidding in February 2012. The RGF objectives for round 3 remain the same, and the application process has been simplified.
The RGF secretariat has been travelling across England to encourage and support potential bidders and will continue to do so until round 3 closes at noon on 13 June.
Rounds 1 and 2—update
From the previous rounds, 176 successful bids have been conditionally allocated £1.4 billion.
This translates into 237 final offer agreements because some bids comprise of multiple counter-parties.
Of the 237 agreements:
82 have a final agreement in place, to a value of almost £610 million. These projects are able to draw down their funding. These projects leverage over £3 billion of private sector investment.
60 have agreed terms and conditions including leverage, funding and jobs—these will now proceed through due diligence and represent a further £4 billion of private sector investment.
10 have withdrawn from the RGF process (see list at Annex A), which has released up to £15 million to be recycled into the RGF, or used at Ministers’ discretion to support companies and local areas identified as experiencing economic difficulties.
85 companies have received draft offers, but are still considering terms and conditions.
The next update on RGF progress will be in July 2012.
Annex A - List of withdrawn projects
Thales Properties Ltd (Leicester)
Cumbrian Holdings (County Durham)
Zegen (Wilton) Limited (Leeds)
Ames Goldsmith UK Ltd (Liverpool)
Messier-Dowty Ltd (Gloucester)
Rapiscan Systems (Redhill)
T&N Plastics Limited (Grimsby)
Conitech (Northumberland)
Irwin and sons (Dungannon)
Diodes Zetex (Oldham)
Special Educational Needs and Disability (Green Paper)
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
I am pleased to announce the publication today of “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability—progress and next steps”, the Government’s response to the consultation on the special educational needs and disability Green Paper. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
As well as setting out the Government’s response to the consultation it sets out the progress made and the next steps in taking forward the proposals in the Green Paper. A separate summary report of the consultation responses is being published on the Department for Education’s website at the same time.
The Government set out in the Green Paper their vision for improving the education and life outcomes of children and young people who are disabled or have special educational needs and our proposals for improving the support that they and their families receive. There has been keen interest in the Green Paper and strong support for our proposed reforms. Almost 2,400 responses were received to the consultation from a wide range of individuals and organisations. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to reply for their thoughtful and informed responses.
The Government are committed to achieving the ambitious programme in the Green Paper. Progress has been made in taking forward the commitments made. But there is more to do. We owe it to the children, young people and families who get a poor deal from the current system, and to those who work with and support them, to make sure we get those changes right. That is why we have established 20 local pathfinders involving local authorities and their local health partners who are testing out the reforms and building the knowledge and skills that will be needed for their successful implementation.
The practice developed by the pathfinders will be shared widely with other local areas. An interim evaluation of the pathfinders will be published by October 2012, with a final evaluation report following in 2013.
The Queen’s Speech announced the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation in the current session of Parliament to take forward the Green Paper reforms. These changes are vital for children, young people and families and we need to begin the legislative process in the current session in order to meet the commitments given in the Green Paper.
Our aim is to publish a draft Bill in the summer which would be informed by early lessons learned from the pathfinders. There would then be further opportunities for lessons learned from the pathfinders to inform the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and the Bill itself. Our intention remains, subject to Parliament’s approval, to implement the
reforms from 2014. Lessons learned from the pathfinders and evaluation of their activity will inform how the reforms are implemented.
The Bill would include provision for:
Every local authority to develop and publish a local offer of support for children, young people and families—including from early years settings, schools and colleges and the voluntary sector and from health and social care services;
A new, single assessment process and education, health and care plan from birth to 25 with arrangements comparable to statements for young people over 16—whether they are in school or at college—this is a significant change and will help us to get better transitions to adult life, independence and the world of work;
All families with an education, health and care plan to be offered a personal budget for their support;
Ensuring that services for disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs are planned and commissioned jointly by local authorities and clinical commissioning groups and that there are clear duties on all of the agencies involved, building on the reforms to the health services introduced by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and drawing on the recommendations of the Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum;
Parents to have the right to express a preference for any state funded school, including academies and free schools, and have their preference considered under the same criteria as for maintained schools;
Families to try mediation before they appeal to the tribunal;
And it will seek a power to trial giving children the right to appeal to the tribunal.
We are working across Government and with our local and national partners to put the reforms in place, drawing on the findings from the pathfinder programme.
Fuel Poverty Advisory Group
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The coalition Government, as part of their reform of the public bodies sector, have committed to undertake triennial reviews of all Executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies.
As part of this process I am announcing today the triennial review of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (FPAG).
FPAG is a non-departmental advisory body of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which consists of a chairman and senior representatives from the energy industry, charities and consumer bodies. The role of the group is to:
Consider and report on the effectiveness of current policies aiming to reduce fuel poverty;
Consider and report on the case for greater co-ordination;
Identify barriers to reducing fuel poverty and to developing effective partnerships and to propose solutions;
Consider and report on any additional policies needed to achieve the Government’s targets;
Encourage key organisations to tackle fuel poverty, and to consider and report on the results of work to monitor fuel poverty.
The aims of the review are:
to provide a robust challenge of the continuing need for an NDPB to carry out these roles—both their functions and their form; and
if it is agreed it should remain as an advisory NDPB, to review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the public body is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.
There will be a short consultation process and we welcome views from interested stakeholders regarding the role of FPAG. We will publish the findings of the review on the DECC website in the summer.
Agricultural and Fisheries Council
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), represented the UK on 26 April covering the agriculture items. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), represented the UK on 27 April covering fisheries business. Richard Lochhead MSP and Alun Davies AM also attended.
The main focus of Agriculture Council was two table rounds on CAP reform, covering several elements of the proposed direct payment scheme.
On young and small farmers, member states repeated their broad support for the measures but the majority view was that they should be voluntary at national level. The UK argued the scheme should be for genuine new entrants and not hereditary. The main disagreement on small farmers was their exemption from cross-compliance and greening. The UK and others opposed a total exemption. The Commission insisted the proposal would deliver benefits to farmers and administrations.
Member states were split over proposals to allow subsidy to be coupled to production. The UK and others warned against any expansion of coupled support. Others wanted to broaden the scope of the proposals and take in new sectors, including pigmeat and tobacco. The presidency and Commission suggested that the balance of the proposals was about right.
Most member states were comfortable with the Commission’s proposed pillar 1 scheme for areas of natural constraint, on the basis that it would be voluntary.
The Commission expressed openness to an alternative approach on the definition of an active farmer. This was broadly welcomed, as was the presidency’s recent text removing the income test element.
The UK and other member states underlined their strong opposition to the principle of capping of direct payments at farm level. Others were in principle in favour of the proposal, but would prefer a simpler system.
On convergence of payment rates within member states and regions, many, including the UK, reiterated the need for national flexibility on the speed of the transition.
There were six items under any other business.
(i) A Commission presentation of its communication on the promotion of EU agricultural products which would lead to a legislative proposal by the end of 2012.
(ii) Hungary supported by seven new member states raised the recent decision to limit the funding available to producer groups in the fruit and vegetables sector, urging reconsideration. The Commission responded that the budget ceiling was necessary.
(iii) Poland with some support from other member states urged the Commission to reintroduce milk export refunds and to raise intervention prices for butter and skimmed milk powder in the medium-term. The Commissioner replied that prices had risen throughout 2011 and recent price falls were in line with seasonal norms: there was no justification for market intervention.
(iv) The Commission updated member states on the implementation of the sow stall ban. Member states must be fully compliant on 1 January 2013 and there would be no extension. Current data suggested that only 16 would be. The UK gave the Commission full support adding that there were significant welfare benefits and experience suggested that those in compliance would see prices rise.
(v) The Czech Republic explained that recent incidences of industrial salt and adulterated egg powder in food, in Poland, demonstrated the requirement for full transparency between member states. Poland responded by saying their food was safe, that the Polish inspection services had launched inquiries into both incidents, and a risk assessment had concluded that the industrial salt incident had posed no risk to human health.
(vi) France drew attention to a recent scientific study which drew a link between bee health and the use of the pesticide thiamethoxame. The European Food Safety Agency was verifying the study and the Commission confirmed they would take any necessary action once the EFSA evaluations had been completed. The UK and the Netherlands both welcomed urgent EFSA consideration of the study.
On Friday 27 the Council debated two aspects of common fisheries policy (CFP) reform: regionalisation and transferable fishing concessions (TFCs).
Under regionalisation the Commission highlighted two key aspects as desirable: increased involvement of the industry and stakeholders, and a simplified decision making procedure. The Commission stressed that regionalisation would only ever be an option for member states and would never be imposed.
The UK, along with other member states supported significant regionalisation allowing member states in any given area to agree the detailed technical measures needed in their shared fisheries, in consultation with the advisory councils. Also where agreements were reached these should be put into effect through EU implementing measures, and the absence of an agreement should not give the Commission a reason to impose measures, but proceed through co-decision. The majority of member states supported this approach. The Commission responded that there was a need to balance the ambition of member states to develop decentralised models and the efficiency of the CFP.
On the proposed TFCs the Commission stressed the need to reduce capacity and the TFC was the best method to so, and were prepared to be flexible on the detail. They were prepared to build in flexibility and safeguards, for example to avoid over-concentration in too few hands, and stressed that member states were obliged to certify by 1 January 2013 that they were compliant with existing capacity ceilings.
Although member state views on the detail differed to a degree, most spoke against the imposition of TFCs, with a few supporting the principle of TFC’s only on a voluntary basis.
The UK stressed that detailed decisions on allocations should be left to the member state. Only a few supported mandatory TFCs for larger vessels and long distance vessels. The majority of member states agreed that any trading should be between existing fishing operators. Some asked for funding from the EMFF for vessel scrapping aid to allow capacity reduction. The Commission undertook to consider member states’ comments.
Over lunch fishery ministers discussed the socio economic aspect of CFP reform, some underlining the importance of supporting fisheries communities, others looking for special funding to support hard pressed communities.
Winterbourne View (Hospital)
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I promised to update the House about ongoing activity in relation to Winterbourne View private hospital and other services for people with learning disabilities.
The House will wish to note that nine people employed at Winterbourne View hospital have pleaded guilty and have been referred for sentencing reports. A further two people have pleaded not guilty and are due back in Bristol Crown court on 6 August. Once the criminal proceedings are completed, we expect the serious case review, chaired by Dr Margaret Flynn, to be published.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has now completed its programme of focused inspections of 150 hospitals and care homes for people with learning disabilities. The reports from these inspections are being published in batches, and the final 10 reports were published on 9 May 2012. They can be found at: www. cqc.org.uk/LDReports?1atest. These reports have found poor practice in some of the units, and common areas of concern include limited person-centred care, limited appropriate activities and a lack of monitoring and learning from incidents of restraint. CQC will publish a summary national report of these inspections in the summer.
The final departmental review of Winterbourne View will draw its conclusions on the basis of the findings from the serious case review and evidence from the other investigations and reports that have been undertaken, and so will be published soon after the serious case review.
In recognition of the seriousness of this issue, the Department intends to publish an interim report before summer recess, based on the findings of the CQC summary report and other evidence from the engagement with key partners, which will set out proposed actions and solutions.
I will continue to update the House.
Equalities/Equality and Human Rights Commission
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am today announcing the outcome of the red tape challenge spotlight on equalities, alongside the Government response to the consultation on the reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The equalities red tape challenge package balances the need to provide important legal protection from discrimination with identifying which measures in the Equality Act 2010 are placing unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on business.
The package aims to reduce these burdens through delaying or repealing the law. We have today published consultation documents on the removal of provisions relating
to:
employer liability for the harassment of an employee by a third party e.g. a customer;
the power of tribunals to make wider recommendations in a successful discrimination case; and the statutory mechanism by which individuals can obtain information where they think an employer, or service provider, has acted unlawfully towards them.
We will:
proceed with the repeal of the socio-economic duty;
delay commencement of the dual discrimination provisions in the Equality Act 2010;
delay commencement of reasonable adjustments to common parts provisions.
We have also looked again at the public sector equality duty (PSED). This Government have a strong commitment to equality of opportunity. But we also have a strong desire to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy where it exists and consider alternatives to legislation. We committed last year to assess the effectiveness of the PSED specific duties. We have decided to bring forward that review and extend it to include both the general and specific duties to establish whether the duty is operating as intended.
A proportionate approach to legislation goes hand in hand with our plans for the EHRC. We want the EHRC to become a valued and respected national institution. To do so, we believe it must focus on the areas where it can add value—as an independent equality body and ‘A-rated’ national human rights institution. And, it must be able to show that it is using taxpayers’ money wisely.
Taking account of the views expressed in our consultation: “Building a fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission”, we have decided to scrap vague, unnecessary and obsolete provisions from the Equality Act 2006 to focus the EHRC on its core functions.
In parallel, we are implementing a strong package of non-legislative measures, including:
recruiting a new chairman, to succeed Trevor Phillips who is retiring, and a new smaller board;
conducting a comprehensive review of the EHRC’s budget;
implementing tighter performance and financial controls set out in a new framework document.
We consider that this package has the potential to deliver the change in the EHRC’s performance that we all want to see, but we will review the EHRC’s progress at its next triennial review in autumn 2013.
Copies of the consultation documents on removal of specific provisions in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government response to the EHRC consultation will be placed in the House Library and can also be found on the Home Office website at the following link: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities
Olympics (Airspace Restrictions)
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
On 7 March 2011 the Government announced our initial plans to introduce temporary airspace restrictions during the London Olympic and Paralympic games to help protect key games locations from potential airborne risks. We also committed to undertake further work to evaluate the potential impact of these measures before final decisions were made. This work, undertaken in conjunction with the aviation sector and the Government’s security experts, led to a revised set of planned airspace restrictions which were announced on 19 July 2011.
Since July 2011, the Government, with the assistance of the Civil Aviation Authority, have been preparing the necessary statutory instruments to give effect to the planned airspace restrictions. These detailed regulations have now been signed on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport and will enter into force on 1 June 2012. NATS, the UK’s en-route air traffic service provider and publisher of the UK’s aeronautical information, will be publishing the details of these regulations on 17 May 2012 in its next aeronautical information circular. In addition, full details of the planned airspace restrictions, including maps, can be found on the airspace safety initiative website at www.airspacesafety.com/Olympics.
In total there are 15 sets of regulations, three covering the London area (a restricted zone for the main Olympics and prohibited zones for the Olympics and for the Paralympics), five covering the Olympic football tournament stadia at Old Trafford, Coventry, Newcastle, Glasgow, and Cardiff, and the remainder protecting the sailing venue at Weymouth, rowing at Egham and Eton Dorney, the road cycling events at Leatherhead and Brands Hatch, the canoeing events at the Lee Valley white water centre and the mountain bike racing at Hadleigh Farm in Essex.
Following extensive engagement with the aviation community, the regulations have been designed to minimise, where possible, their impact on aviation business, while ensuring the safety and security of the games. They also provide specific exemptions for aircraft such as those operated by the police or emergency medical services to enter the protected airspace, and for the Olympic Broadcasting Service to operate over the venues. We do not expect that any airports will need to close as a result of the planned measures, and there should be little or no impact on scheduled air services.
The Government’s paramount objective is the delivery of a safe and secure 2012 games for all, and the airspace restrictions will help to provide this whilst minimising the impact on the aviation community, so far as possible. However, the Government reserve the right to implement additional airspace security measures should the need arise.
Heathrow Airport (Operational Freedoms)
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
My statement of 14 July 2011, Official Report, column 55WS, announced a phased trial of operational freedoms at Heathrow airport to gather evidence in relation to the greater use of tactical measures, in defined and limited circumstances, to prevent or mitigate disruption and to facilitate recovery. The trial is run by BAA, the airport operator, with oversight provided by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the independent aviation regulator.
These measures are consistent with the Government’s commitment to runway alternation at Heathrow. I would also emphasise that the trial will not increase the number of flights at Heathrow which remains capped at current levels.
Phase one of the trial ran from 1 November 2011 until 29 February 2012. An interim report on the first two months of phase one was published by the CAA on 21 February 2012 . The CAA has today published its final report on phase one, alongside a report by BAA, assessing the impact on operations at the airport and on communities around Heathrow: www.caa.co.uk/apfg
The CAA’s report is encouraging about the benefits of the measures trialled so far, but suggests that more detailed data and analysis is required from phase two to draw definite conclusions on these and the impacts on local communities.
The CAA report concluded BAA ran phase one of the trial within the parameters agreed with Government and generally collected and published data for analysing the trial in an appropriate and transparent manner. The CAA noted that the broad spectrum of interested parties, and the technical nature of the measures trialled, made successful engagement with local communities challenging; and they made suggestions for improvement.
The report also accepted BAA’s analysis that phase one of the trial recorded:
dual arrivals were deployed for 3.2% of westerly arrivals at the airport (1,802 out of 56,260 arrivals); an average increase of 13 de-alternated flights each day on westerly arrivals, from 21 to 34 per day;
dual departures were deployed for 0.07% of westerly departures at the airport (38 out of 55,860 departures);
operational improvements in relation to arrival punctuality and delay, stacking (under specific circumstances) and taxi times following arrival;
A large increase in complaints, although it was not clear whether these were generated by the use of operational freedoms, as a proportion appear to correlate to a prolonged period of easterly operations which was due to weather conditions rather than the trial;
generally low awareness of the trial but some support for it from residents surveyed when its objectives were explained; and
no detriment to safety.
In my previous statement, I also set out the timetable for phase two of the trial. Following advice from the CAA, I am announcing today that I have agreed to a six month extension of phase two which will now run from July 2012 to March 2013.
The CAA concluded that the relatively short duration of phase one meant that the evidence it provided on the impact of operational freedoms was more limited than anticipated, partially as a result of an unusually high level of easterly operations. The extension until March 2013 will increase the amount of data generated enabling a more robust analysis of the benefits and impacts, allowing a direct comparison between phases one and two. A longer trial will also reduce the risk that external factors (such as easterly winds) significantly limit the amount of usable information. This will ensure that the eventual consultation with local communities on whether a more permanent operational freedoms regime is adopted at the airport is based on a sufficient level of evidence.
Phase two will also mean that Heathrow will benefit from greater resilience during the Olympic and Paralympic games period when the airport will be under more pressure than usual.
Improving punctuality, tackling delay and strengthening resilience at Heathrow would improve the quality of the UK’s international connections and enhance the reputation of our largest international gateway. Phase one has shown that, without prejudging our views on the associated impacts, there is potential to deliver operational benefits without increasing capacity. We therefore have grounds to believe that there is still more that can be done to deliver a better Heathrow, while continuing to protect communities affected by aircraft noise.
I have therefore agreed to the continuation of the trial of tactical use of dual arrivals and departures measures agreed for the first phase. I have also agreed that the following freedoms should be added to phase two:
Aircraft scheduled to arrive after 0600 will be permitted to land between 0530 and 0600 provided that the same number of flights scheduled to arrive between 0430 and 0500 are rescheduled to after 0500. This is expected to delay the onset of noise disturbance to local communities in the early morning period and enhance the resilience of the schedule;
During “segregated” operations departing aircraft may be re-directed (radar vectored) by air traffic control from their normal routes of departure (mostly within predetermined noise preferential routes). This is expected to improve the reliability of the schedule by increasing the departure rate from a single runway and improve the scope for reducing the number of unscheduled night flights;
Subject to approval of the safety case by CAA, it is intended to apply the same principles to enable dual departures later in phase two, but only within the predetermined noise preferential routes;
The cap on the more flexible use of dual arrivals allowed as part of the trial will be raised from 6 to 12 per hour;
The proactive tests used briefly in phase one will be continued. The periods during which these tests will be undertaken will be announced on BAA’s website during the first month of phase two.
BAA will shortly begin a further period of engagement with local authorities, communities and other stakeholders around the operation of phase two, particularly on the monitoring of noise impacts. Once the trial is complete, the evidence collected will provide the basis for a consultation with local communities. This will consider whether an operational freedoms regime of some form should be adopted on a more permanent basis at Heathrow and if so what safeguards should apply in relation to its use. This consultation will inform the subsequent decision by Ministers.
Employment Support
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The DWP’s Work programme providers are required to ensure that stringent controls are in place to guard against fraud and to adhere to high standards of compliance in the operation of our contracts. By its innovative payment by results design, the Work programme also provides significantly greater protection against fraud than previous employment programmes.
In March 2012, against a background of public commentary on A4e, the Department was made aware of an allegation in respect of their separate mandatory work activity contract. This is very different from the Work programme. It is much smaller, shorter and focused on providing brief spells of work-related activity to individuals who will benefit from such activity. In contrast the Work programme aims to deliver sustained job outcomes for the long-term unemployed.
In the light of the allegation received, the Department announced it would audit its commercial relationships with A4e. The Department’s internal audit and investigations team undertook this audit, supported by Ernst and Young, and examined the controls operated by A4e on all its current contracts with DWP.
The audits for the Work programme, the new enterprise allowance programme and mandatory work activity are now complete. They have found no evidence of fraud in any of these contracts.
The original allegation suggested that A4e employees may have claimed payments for mandatory work activity participants who had not in fact been placed in work. The team investigated every MWA claim from the A4e office related to the specific allegation (Epsom) and a significant sample (20%) of all the other A4e claims under this contract. The sample evidence established that 97% of payments made related to a real participant who had been placed in a work-related activity. In the remaining 3% of cases, DWP investigators were nevertheless satisfied that the anomalies were attributable to inadequate procedures rather than fraud.
However, while the team found no evidence of fraud, it identified significant weaknesses in A4e’s internal controls on the mandatory work activity contract in the south-east. The documentation supporting payments was seriously inadequate, and in a small number the claim was erroneous. There was also a high incidence of non-compliance with other relevant guidance (including A4e’s own processes).
The process established prior to March fell significantly short of our expectations. As a result, the Department has concluded that continuing with this contract presents too great a risk and we have terminated the mandatory work activity contract with A4e for the south-east.
Contingency plans are in place to ensure there is continuity of support for participants in the mandatory work activity programme.
We have made clear to A4e that we continue to require the highest standards of governance in relation to all their other contracts. We are reminding all our other providers of their obligations and our requirements in this regard and, should any further allegations arise, we will examine the evidence thoroughly.
The Department will reflect on how it can further improve its processes in the light of these audits to address any remaining control risks across all contracts and providers.
Recent coverage has also prompted complaints about service levels on past employment programmes where, unlike the Work programme, the emphasis was on activities undertaken rather than on job outcomes. While this has not been part of our investigation, the Department is considering what further steps can best ensure that providers meet their minimum standards, and participants are clear about procedures for complaints.
House of Lords
NHS: Risk Register
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they consider the time will be right to publish the NHS risk register.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, I declare an interest as chair of an NHS foundation trust and as a consultant and trainer on the NHS and health issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the transition risk register will be published when the balance of public interest favours disclosure. We will continue to be open about risk. Last week we published a document containing information on all risk areas in the register, along with a scheme of publication for future review and release of information on risk.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for that because he said that it would be published when the balance is in favour of the public interest. Can I take him back to the judgment of the First-tier Tribunal, which concluded that risk registers,
“would have provided the public with a far better understanding of the risks to a national institution”,
on which millions depend? Surely the public interest and parliamentary scrutiny actually depended on that risk register being published, and it should have been published when the Bill was in this House.
Earl Howe
My Lords, we do not agree with that. We have, as I have mentioned, published a document setting out a summary of all the risks in the register and the mitigating actions associated with each category, but we resist publishing the risk register itself at present. It is essential that officials are able to formulate sensitive advice to Ministers, making frank assessments and using direct language, without the fear of causing unnecessary embarrassment for the Government or damage to their area of policy. That is the essence of the reason.
Lord Naseby
Is my noble friend aware that there is nobody more passionate about the NHS than I am, but that a great many people outside want civil servants and other advisers to Ministers to point out the whole extremity of risks in any policy, whether it is policy A, B or C? At the end of the day, they expect Ministers to look at those risks and take appropriate decisions. Against that background, therefore, the strategy that my noble friend is following is understood outside by the ordinary public. It may not be understood by the lobby groups; nevertheless, it is the public whom we serve.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, and he is right. The risk assessment process, carried out by civil servants and detailed in these registers, is an integral part of the formulation and development of government policy. It is in the public interest that this process be as effective as possible. We are clear that where policy is sensitive, that necessitates confidentiality.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I take it that the decision that was made was a government decision, which was collective. I recall that the Deputy Prime Minister, before he became Deputy Prime Minister, was very keen on transparency. Was he therefore comfortable about the withholding of this information? If the noble Earl does not know, perhaps he could come back and let the House know.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the decision to exercise the veto, which is a decision provided for under the Freedom of information Act, was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, he would not have been able to exercise the veto without the collective approval of the Cabinet, and that approval was secured.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, last Thursday I asked the Minister a question that he answered in part. The part that he did not answer was whether the transitional risk register drew to the Government’s attention the risk that patients would have to wait longer to see their GP. Speaking as someone who uses the NHS and as part of the British public, I fear that the delays are getting longer and will continue to do so. Could he please now answer the question about whether or not this was in the risk register?
Earl Howe
I acknowledge that I did not answer that question and apologise to the noble Lord for not having done so last week. The whole issue of stakeholder support is one that the risk register addresses, as he will see from the document that we published. I do not recall the specific issue of waiting times to see one’s GP arising in the risk register for the simple reason that, although I acknowledge that it is currently a problem in some parts of the country, particularly London, that is not a direct result of anything that the Government are doing in our reform programme.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, would my noble friend decline to take lessons in these matters from those who supported former Prime Minister Blair in not publishing a full and frank assessment of the intelligence reports on which he committed this country to a war?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, there is time, and we have not yet heard from the Liberal Democrat Back Benches.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for resuming his seat. Naturally, only one person should be on their feet at one time. There is time, although we have now wasted a little more of it, so perhaps we might hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches and then from the noble Lord. We have had two questions from the Labour Benches.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, risk registers are a tool to inform policy-making, so is the department currently working on a risk register for the implementation of the social care Bill, including the risks around the failure to reform the funding of social care?
Earl Howe
In answer to that characteristically helpful question from my noble friend, the department will put in place thorough programme-management arrangements as it takes forward the draft care and support Bill and plans for its implementation. That will include monitoring and assessing risks as they arise, to ensure smooth passage through to implementation.
Lord Peston
My Lords, I repeat what I said last time: it really is about time that the Liberal Democrats recognised that they are part of the government side. Everyone is getting quite fed up with this demand to be treated separately.
Is it not trivially obvious that all decision-making involves risks and therefore the Government’s refusal to publish this register would cause a reasonable person outside to come to the conclusion, much as the Minister might dislike this, that the Government really are trying to hide something that was damaging to them?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I cannot answer for those who see something suspicious in what the Government are doing. All I can say is that we are absolutely clear that the circumstances in this case were exceptional. The FOI request from Mr Healey was made at a particularly sensitive time when the need for a safe space for civil servants and Ministers was especially high. The Freedom of Information Act was drafted specifically to allow for the ministerial veto. It is not just about the specific content of the risk register; it is also about preserving risk registers in general as frank internal working tools in the interests of good government.
Police: Misconduct and Corruption
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when it is appropriate for the Home Office to intervene directly in matters of police discipline and incidents of police corruption, and whether current delegated arrangements are proving adequate.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the police are expected to maintain the highest standards of professional behaviour at all times. Where there are allegations of misconduct or corruption, the most serious cases are investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. As the name suggests, the IPCC is independent of the Government and the police to ensure that investigations are impartial. The Government do not intervene in any individual cases. The Government consider that these arrangements are adequate.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
My Lords, does it not all boil down to the fact that the coalition Government have no real concept of hands-on responsibility or of timely decision-making and believe that by delegation they can wash their hands of responsibility? Are the Gary McKinnon and widow Hofschroer cases, respectively awaiting justice for 10 years and three years, not examples of a Government who could not care less?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of points. First, I make it clear that this is not just a matter for the coalition Government; it is a matter that goes back to the 2002 Act which brought in the IPCC. I think all sides of this House agree that there should be an Independent Police Complaints Commission and that it should be independent. It can be independent of government only if government cannot intervene. It would be quite wrong for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to intervene in individual cases. It would surely undermine the IPCC’s independence if she tried to second-guess its decisions. The noble Lord went on to mention two cases. Gary McKinnon has nothing to do with any allegations of police corruption because his case is purely about extradition. The case of the Hofschroer family is, as the noble Lord knows, a matter that has gone to the IPCC. It is a matter for it to produce its decision and if those involved in that case do not like that decision, they can then take the appropriate action in the courts.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, the revelations that senior Metropolitan Police officers accepted inappropriate hospitality have led to the Met setting up a monthly register that now lists all gifts and hospitality that police officers have accepted. Do the Government agree that all police forces should be required to set up such a register and to publish it monthly?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I welcome what the Met has done. I think it is something that other police forces should consider doing, but that is a matter for them to consider. As I said in response to the original Question and the first supplementary, I believe that complaints should be dealt with in the manner that they are; that is initially by the police and then, in more serious cases, by the IPCC. I do not see a case for the Home Secretary intervening.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, in the light of the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, and knowing that police commissioners will be elected, when will it be appropriate for an elected police commissioner to intervene directly in matters of police discipline and incidents of police corruption?
Lord Henley
Despite the fact that the noble Lord was involved in the passage of the Bill, he has not quite understood the role of police and crime commissioners. I think he might go back to the passage of that Bill and have a look at it. As I have made clear, the right to complain about what the police are doing and to make inquiries will remain as it was under the 2002 Act, as passed by the previous Government.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I was a junior Minister in the Home Office more than 40 years ago. In many cases that did not call for draconian statutory intervention on his part, the Home Secretary used the Inspectorate of Constabulary as a subtle conduit to convey the disapproval of the Home Office and sometimes something harsher than that. Does any such institution operate currently?
Lord Henley
My Lords, my right honourable friend can make use of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary; that is still there. However, the important point, which the noble Lord ought to remember from his time, although things have become more independent since, is that people can make complaints to the police but, if they want to ratchet them up thereafter, such complaints should be made to an independent authority. That is why, in 2002, legislation was changed under the previous Government to bring in the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It must remain independent. If my right honourable friend can second-guess what the IPCC does, it will very quickly cease to be independent.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, police corruption is loathsome and must be rooted out. In many years of going around the world, I have come across many police forces and seen some pretty appalling things. To get the balance right, does the Minister not agree that in this country we are generally very fortunate in the standard of our police forces?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we take any allegations of unlawful or inappropriate behaviour or corruption very seriously, as we ought to. However, the noble Lord is quite right to emphasise the very good story that we have to tell about our police in this country. That is why I was very pleased that, as the noble Lord made his intervention, he seemed to receive support from all sides of the House.
Democratic Republic of Congo
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Chidgey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been their response to reports that state-owned mining assets in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been sold over the last two years to offshore companies for less than one-twentieth of their commercial value.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we share the concerns about the DRC mining sector and the mis-selling of state-owned assets. We continue to press the DRC Government to improve governance in this area. The Secretary of State for International Development raised this with President Kabila when they met in March. The UK is funding the PROMINES programme, which aims to strengthen transparency in the mining sector. We also support the international efforts to set standards for all extractive industries.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he share the widespread concern over the legitimacy of transactions that involve companies quoted on the London Stock Exchange and UK Overseas Territories such as the BVI? The Chancellor has turned his attention to these with regard to stemming personal tax avoidance but does not appear to have looked yet at corporate tax avoidance. Will the Government support the call by the DRC opposition parties for a full inquiry into the extent of what appears to be very widespread corruption in this field?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We share the concern about corruption and the need for major companies to observe the highest possible standards in their performance. The instruments through which this should be done are the EU transparency directive and the work of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which is excellently chaired by Clare Short and is currently planning to set up a strategic working group to look at extending EITI standards to require a much closer look at issues of the kind that my noble friend has raised.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the extraordinarily rich deposits of minerals that are held in the DRC should be a blessing but have become a curse as marauding bands and the DRC’s neighbours have plundered those resources, leading to conflicts that have taken the lives of between 5 million and 6 million people, many of them children? Does he know that at present it is estimated that 40% of those working in the DRC’s mining industry are children? When the DRC review of mining practices takes place this year, will he use the extensive leverage that the Government have through their aid programme to ensure that at least children are removed from the mines and protected in the future?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is on to an excellent cause and a very good concern. Our view is that the PROMINES programme, which now will be launched in October and for which we have high hopes, will raise the standards and control better all activities of mining, including artisanal mining of the sort which employs children. That programme includes explicit activities to address the issues of child labour, including supporting initiatives to enable the artisanal mining subsector to comply with supply chain diligence standards which are increasingly being applied—for instance, in connection with the OECD due diligence guidance. We see the PROMINES programme as the avenue through which to increase the pressures and to overcome the appalling deprivations and dangers which are evident particularly for children in this sector.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I accept of course that there are a number of transparency conventions in Europe and on a world basis, some of which have been useful in dealing with topics such as the illicit mining of diamonds in the past. Given the difficulties that have just been described, particularly in relation to children and the lack of transparency in supply chains, would there not be a good case for company reports in the United Kingdom to be candid and be required to say how transparency issues have been dealt with so that the legitimacy of their operations would be clear to everyone?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, that is exactly the kind of proposal that Clare Short, as chair of the EITI, is examining in her strategic working group. Of course, not every company and certainly not every country has signed up to the EITI. Those that have are required to make certain reports, although those reports do not cover all the issues we are discussing now. Her idea, and that of the EITI, is to see whether the requirements for standards for signatories to the EITI can be increased and, obviously, for other countries—and the DRC being a candidate country—to sign up to the whole initiative.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, as I understood the Minister’s reply to my noble friend’s supplementary question, the rules of the EITI do not at present require candidate countries or full members to disclose accounts of the sales of mining assets. Will my noble friend press not only for sales to be disclosed but for countries that are candidates or full members to publish due diligence reports identifying the purchasers and verifying that they are fit and proper persons to comply with the EITI rules, and ensure that the rules are amended for that purpose?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I repeat that this is exactly what the EITI initiative proposes. Incidentally, this body was set up in 2002 by the previous Government. It has been a considerable influence and success, although it has a long way to go in certain areas. These are just the sort of proposals for an extended authority of the EITI that will be considered by the strategic working group. That aim should certainly be supported by the Government and all Governments who are full members of the EITI now. We recognise the need also for candidates to be required to move to higher standards in order to become full members.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, related to the questions we have just heard, how are DfID’s funds allocated to government programmes in the Democratic Republic of Congo being used to ensure that the DRC Government tackle corruption and non-transparency in the mining sector? Is the Minister’s previous answer related to that or are there other questions to be asked about transparency and corruption?
Lord Howell of Guildford
There is a lot more to be said because this is a major subject. DfID programmes are in operation. They are under review and therefore I cannot give a precise up-to-date answer on the size and specific focus of programmes. Generally, the aims behind the DfID programmes are to decrease corruption and to improve the social and educational conditions, and, thereby, conditions in the mining sector generally.
Lord Davies of Coity
Can the Minister tell the House the extent to which the Government believe that British companies are involved in the offshore companies that are involved in this expertise?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We know that British companies are involved in the DRC and we know that certain deals have been made—some of them reportedly far below market prices. We support the EU transparency directive, and I urge all companies listed on the FTSE 100 to observe the highest possible standards and disclose their activities in the way we would expect of responsible companies. That continues to be the position.
Israel: Palestinian Hunger Strikers
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Israel concerning the hunger strike taking place among Palestinian prisoners in Israel.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the Government have followed closely the mass hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners. In the past week we have raised our long-standing concerns over Israel's extensive use of administrative detention and the treatment of Palestinian prisoners with the Israeli Vice-Prime Minister, the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Israeli national security adviser. We welcome the Egyptian-brokered agreement, which has brought an end to the hunger strike.
Baroness Tonge
I thank the Minister for that reply and the Government for their efforts on the prisoners’ behalf, but this is Nakba Day—the “day of catastrophe” for the Palestinians, when the state of Israel was created—and I think that we should congratulate most of all those Palestinians who have reminded us of the power of peaceful resistance. The Minister will remember, however, that Israel reneged on its promise to ease the inhumane regime in its prisons after the release of Gilad Shalit. In fact, conditions got worse. Will the Minister therefore ensure that the seriously ill hunger strikers are given proper medical treatment immediately outside prison, and will he try to press for the new prison regime, which is still keeping administrative detention, to be monitored by an independent body such as Physicians for Human Rights-Israel?
Lord Howell of Guildford
As my noble friend knows very well from her expertise, these are very early days. We have only just heard about the deal being reached. Although it is true that it does not cover the ending of administrative detention for all but only for a limited number, it seems—together with the new arrangements for family visits from Gaza and the ending in most cases of solitary confinement—a very constructive move. We will be watching closely, as no doubt will the entire international community—and certainly the Palestinian authorities—to see that the deal goes forward. I shall look into the particular points that my noble friend raised. It is early days, and we do not quite know exactly how the arrangements that have been announced will affect the kind of categories that she described.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, will the Government congratulate the Government of Israel on their apparent intention to improve prison conditions? At the same time, will they urge the Israelis to end administrative detention, especially as far as it concerns democratically elected representatives?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Congratulations are certainly due to all parties concerned, and indeed to the Egyptian authorities that brokered the deal. As long as it can hold—and those who have all the details will know exactly what is implied—it sounds good news, and congratulation is in place. As to extending the proposal to the ending of all detention, that may be a phase that we could see in future. It is the sort of thing that we will certainly continue to raise, but first let us see the details of this new deal and hope that this is a foundation and open path for better things, including possibly even the reopening of negotiations.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, will the Government encourage the Palestinians to come back to the negotiating table in view of the recent offer by Mr Netanyahu?
Lord Howell of Guildford
That would be very good. The noble Lord is right—Mr Netanyahu wrote to Mr Mahmoud Abbas, and there is an exchange. Let us hope that the deal that we are talking about and other developments—as well as developments in the internal pattern of Israeli politics, which are not for me to comment on but are very interesting—together begin to provide the basis for a return to the negotiating table for both sides.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, is my noble friend advised whether it is the Government’s view that the new coalition in Israel, which includes the Kadima Party, makes less likely the risk of a lunatic attack on Iran?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The Government’s view is that we are watching closely to see whether there are going to be any changes. It is the comment of an analyst rather than an outside Government that the change in the party structure inside Israel obviously appears to reduce the powers of some wings of its political spectrum and to increase the influence of others, but so far, although we are watching carefully, there is not much sign of change. However, we will continue looking at the matter very closely indeed.
Lord McAvoy
The Government are to be commended for the moves that they have made this week in helping to bring about a resolution of the current dispute. Does the Minister agree with me that it is comparatively easy to imprison a few thousand people but that it is not easy to imprison a whole nation or a whole people? Does he agree that if the Israeli Government decided to stop building more illegal settlements, the Palestinians would come to the table?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not know enough about precise cause and effect but I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the settlements issue is a really sore point—a really poisonous one, if you like. We regard the extension of the settlements as illegal and settlement activities that press into Palestine as unhelpful and illegal. I agree with the noble Lord that if that were to stop, it would certainly open some of the doors to a negotiation.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, we have gone beyond 30 minutes.
Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill [HL]
Marine Navigation Bill [HL]
Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill [HL]
Extension of Franchise (House of Lords) Bill [HL]
Standing Orders (Public Business)
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2012
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2012
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greater London Authority Act 1999 (Amendment) Order 2012
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it may be of help to the House if I give an indication of an advisory speaking time today. If all Back-Bench contributions were kept to seven minutes, the House should be able to rise at about 11.30 pm tonight.
Queen’s Speech
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cope of Berkeley
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, it is my honour to open this, the fourth day of the debate on the gracious Speech. At the outset, I express my sadness that I shall not be faced across the Dispatch Box in future debates on Ministry of Justice business by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I was very much helped by his advice when I took over from him at the ministry two years ago and we have had a very constructive relationship in the two years since. However, that sadness is tinged with pleasure that my new oppo will be the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I think that we had already fully bonded during the passage of the LASPO Bill, but I very much look forward to working with him in the time ahead.
I am fully aware, and the House will understand, that noble Lords will not try to cover the waterfront in their contributions today but will prefer to concentrate on their areas of particular interest and expertise. That is fully understood and will greatly benefit the quality of the debate as a whole.
The gracious Speech makes it very clear that the Government’s number one priority is to repair the nation’s finances and to set the economy on the road to sustainable recovery. Financial stability and economic recovery are not ends in themselves. That is why our debate today offers noble Lords the opportunity to voice their views on the kind of society that we want. The gracious Speech announces a number of measures on care and support, on children and families, and on pensions which will shape how we make use of economic recovery in a fair way. In parallel with those issues, we will also cover matters which come more directly within the ministerial responsibilities of my noble friend Lord Henley at the Home Office and of myself at the Ministry of Justice.
I am particularly proud that the Defamation Bill, which started life in this House as a Private Member’s Bill initiated by my noble friend Lord Lester, is part of the gracious Speech. When it receives Royal Assent, it will join a cluster of significant reform measures on the statute book that bear his imprint. The Government, of course, committed in the coalition agreement to review our libel laws in order to protect free speech. I do not think that we are alone in thinking that the law in this area is not currently in the right place. When NGOs and reputable scientists can live in fear of being sued or when wealthy foreign citizens use British courts to silence campaigning newspapers, something is not quite right. A rebalancing is needed so that, on the one hand, freedom of speech and legitimate debate cannot be held to ransom while, on the other hand, people are able to protect their reputation against unfounded slurs.
I hope that the Bill’s measures go a long way towards striking this balance, building on the fine work of my noble friend Lord Lester. They include the creation of new statutory defences of truth, honest opinion and responsible publication on matters of public interest, and the extension of the circumstances in which the defence of privilege is available, including to peer-reviewed material in scientific and academic journals. The potential for trivial claims will be reduced by the introduction of a requirement that a statement must cause serious harm to be defamatory. The Bill will introduce a single publication rule, which will provide protection against repeated claims against the same publisher in relation to substantially the same material. It will also seek to ensure that we have an appropriate libel regime for the internet, by enabling complaints about allegedly defamatory material to be resolved directly with the author, and giving greater protection to website operators and other secondary publishers who act appropriately.
The Bill has had the benefit of extremely detailed and helpful scrutiny in draft by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Mawhinney for the valuable report that his committee produced and to all those who responded to our public consultation. That has helped us to bring forward proposals which, I believe, provide reform where it is needed most and where legislation can make a real difference.
Also within my personal area of responsibility is the Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill. The Bill is being reintroduced into this House under the procedure for uncontroversial Law Commission Bills. It will simplify and modernise the law of trusts in England and Wales by abolishing antiquated rules and removing administrative burdens for charity trustees in particular. In short, it will help to keep trust law up to date for the benefit of the numerous people who are affected by trusts. I hope that this will be seen as a sign that the Government appreciate the work of the Law Commission in updating our laws and are willing to use the fast-track procedures introduced by the previous Government to progress more useful Law Commission work through Parliament.
Beyond those two specific Ministry of Justice measures, our debate today covers three main areas: helping vulnerable children by removing the barriers to them getting support; continuing with structural reform of our state pension system to ensure that people can rely on it while taxpayers can afford it; and protecting the public through reforms to security and justice, without sacrificing our freedoms.
First, we are bringing forward a children and families Bill that will help all parents and remove some of the barriers that prevent those who are more vulnerable fulfilling their potential. Under our plans, parents will be able to take more flexible leave. Mothers will be able to return to work earlier and transfer their maternity leave to help both parents share the burden of childcare. The Bill will also deliver a step change in help for our most vulnerable children. We want to reform the assessment of and provision for children and young people with special educational needs and those who are disabled. Any family whose child has special educational needs knows what a struggle it is to get adequate support. We want to give more choice and control to parents of children and young people with learning difficulties.
We also want to introduce significant reform of the adoption system to reduce endemic delay. It is right that more children are placed in stable, loving homes with less disruption to their lives and we are going to tear down the bureaucracy and red tape that gets in the way.
As well as providing more support for children and more support for parents, we also want to do more to ensure that ordinary people can look forward to security in old age. We have already taken significant steps towards that by increasing the basic state pension by £5.30, the biggest cash increase ever, and restoring the link with earnings. However, we need to do more to give those currently in work greater certainty about what level of income the state will provide in retirement, remove some of the complexity and disincentives that discourage saving and ensure that the system remains affordable.
We intend to bring forward measures during this Session that will entail a fundamental reform of state pensions. The single-tier pension will simplify the current complex and outdated pension system and will provide much clearer incentives for people to make provision for their own retirement. Reforms to the state pension age will ensure that state provision keeps pace with fast-increasing life expectancy. These changes will mean that the state pension system remains sustainable for current and future generations.
Just as we will be doing more to help vulnerable children, we will be bringing forward a draft care and support Bill to provide better support to vulnerable adults. It will modernise care and support law to ensure services are focused on people’s needs; put people in control of their care; and consolidate existing law by replacing provisions in more than a dozen Acts with one single statute. The draft Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I am well aware that the House is not short of experts in the area of social reform, and I look forward to their contributions during the debate.
The measures outlined in the gracious Speech are flagship reforms that will enhance the quality of life of our people. However, quality of life is best assured within a framework of public safety, security and freedom. It is these matters in the gracious Speech to which I turn. The Crime and Courts Bill will protect the public and modernise the justice system. It will do this partly by improving the way in which it is organised, and partly by opening up a closed world.
I turn first to protection. England and Wales have 43 police forces, which usually do a superb job. However, a great deal of serious and organised crime occurs on a scale, and using methods, that puts it beyond the reach of individual forces. It could be cyber-enabled fraud or child exploitation, gangs organising the drugs trade, human trafficking or economic crimes. The Government propose to establish the National Crime Agency to tackle these threats better. This is a step change in our response that will target serious organised and complex criminality, and strengthen policing at the borders. A modern, state-of-the-art agency, operating independently but accountable to the Home Secretary and through her to Parliament, is the next step in structural reform, and the national corollary of the enhanced local focus that police and crime commissioners will provide.
The Bill also adds to reforms to the criminal justice system that the Government began in our first two years. Community sentences are an important part of our penal system, but the current framework does not command public confidence. In the Bill we will legislate to ensure that community sentences punish more effectively and rehabilitate more fully. Consultation is now under way on a new top-end community sentence. Just as we have tried to make prisons more effective at reforming people, these measures seek to make community sentences more effective and more respected by offenders, victims and the public.
The Bill also looks at modernising our courts system. Proposals include establishing a single county court to speed up civil claims, and a single Family Court to end the unacceptable delays in family justice that were identified in David Norgrove’s review. It also opens up the system in a different sense. I believe that the UK has the finest judiciary in the world—one of unrivalled quality, integrity and wisdom. However, no one can rest easy when the demographic make-up of our leading judges, despite progress in recent years, remains far removed from that of modern Britain. The Bill brings forward proposals to increase the number of our judges, especially senior ones, who are women or of ethnic-minority origin, without sacrificing the key principle of selection on grounds of merit. For example, we will introduce measures to facilitate part-time working in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and to allow positive action to promote diversity where two candidates are of equal merit.
Finally the Bill extends the principle of transparency by removing the legal barrier to the broadcasting of court proceedings. Initially we will allow the broadcast of advocates’ arguments and judgments in the Court of Appeal. It is small step, but one that I hope will help demystify our courts somewhat and make the principle of open justice more meaningful.
As with our social reforms, I believe that the Crime and Courts Bill has the potential to be a great reforming measure. I look forward to guiding it through the House in harness with my noble friend Lord Henley. We start the journey on 28 May with Second Reading.
Finally, I turn to two measures in the gracious Speech that have already been the subject of controversy: I refer to the proposals for closed material proceedings in the justice and security Bill and the proposals for updating the law on communications data under the draft communications data Bill. I expect these proposals to undergo scrutiny in both Houses, and not least in this House, where so much direct experience in these matters resides.
I am well aware that if economic recovery is the Government’s number one priority, defence of the realm remains, as it always is, the first responsibility of Government. In times past that has most often meant making sure our Armed Forces were equipped to undertake military tasks against a defined enemy. In the 21st century, threats come in many different forms and from many different sources. It is essential that the various arms of the state have the powers and ability to meet such threats. It is equally necessary for our justice system to be able to administer justice in a way which is fair for all.
To achieve that, we need informed and balanced debate. That is my hope and the Government’s intention. However, if the approach to these proposals is in similar vein to the editorial in Saturday’s Guardian, which talked of,
“secret justice and a licence for electronic snooping”,
which could “slowly strangle private life” and change,
“the very nature of the courtroom”,
then the kind of forensic examination of these proposals which I hope and expect Parliament to conduct will be lost in a tsunami of overhyped hysteria.
Given their responsibilities, the Government are entitled to have their case heard; for it is a recurring challenge for Government and Parliament to provide the protection that the citizen needs and expects without putting at risk the very liberties which make us a liberal democracy. It is an ongoing dilemma and it is right that whenever the Executive have proposals in these areas, they should be exposed to the most thorough parliamentary scrutiny.
The Government’s case is that, far from preventing the courts and judiciary seeing the evidence, the justice and security Bill seeks to enhance scrutiny of actions undertaken on behalf of the Government. At the moment, where an individual brings a civil claim, sometimes making serious allegations about the activities of the British state and its agencies, the intelligence services have no way of presenting their evidence in court without putting their methods and agents in danger. The consequence is that the Government fold their case, cases go unheard, rulings are not made and justice is not done. It is hardly an ideal situation for those who want to see respect for the rule of law.
What we propose means that many safeguards will apply. In particular, a judge will always take the final decision over whether closed material proceedings are needed and whether individual pieces of evidence may be heard in closed court. The interests of the individual will be represented by a special advocate, and the press will be able to report freely on the open part of the proceedings and any allegations made by claimants. At the same time, we will strengthen the independent and parliamentary bodies responsible for overseeing the security and intelligence agencies, to make them more effective and more credible.
We will extend the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as broaden the remit of the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner. The Government hope that when Parliament comes to consider this Bill, it will weigh the evidence and find that these proposals are carefully crafted to address a challenging problem for any democratic Government with proportionality and good sense.
Let me turn to the communications data Bill. This measure too has been subject to much misleading comment. It is not about looking at what people’s e-mails say or listening in to phone calls or creating some kind of Big Brother database. At the moment, records are kept by phone companies about the calls that their customers make. This information has been used by the police and intelligence agencies for years, as a vital resource to identify where a suspect has been and when. To be clear: this is not about the content of the call, just the fact that it has been made.
What the Bill proposes is that the same data are available in the future as in the past. It is not about enhancing the power of the state or changing the balance of freedom. It is an adjustment to stay roughly where we are. However, we have heard the concerns that have been raised and want to get this right. That is why we are publishing this Bill in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. As well as a Joint Committee to consider the draft Bill, the Home Secretary has invited the Intelligence and Security Committee to scrutinise the provisions that relate to the work of the intelligence and security agencies. This is precisely because we want a wide and full debate, and we look forward to receiving the committees’ reports.
Today’s debate covers many serious matters, and I do not envy the task of my noble friend Lord Henley in crafting his reply. I have never hidden my opinion about the need for this House to reform itself, but neither have I hidden my respect for its collective wisdom and experience. Both today and in the months ahead we will be discussing matters on which the collective wisdom and experience of this House will be called on to the full, and I look forward with genuine interest to the contributions of all who are to take part in the debate.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and to open this debate on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches. We face a significant challenge in this debate on the gracious Speech, which will cover in a single day all the issues that really matter to ordinary people in this country: education, children and families, crime and policing, law and order, health and social care, welfare and so on. Indeed, I think the public could be forgiven for questioning why so many of the issues of domestic importance have been crammed together into just one of the five days of debate on the Queen’s Speech, with so many noble Lords understandably wishing to speak, when we have had four days on constitutional reform.
The challenge to cover so much ground would be daunting were it not for the fact that the legislation proposed in the Queen’s Speech, as we have just heard, has so little to say about the big issues facing the country and the desperate circumstances of many families. At a time when the Government’s economic policy is pushing the country back into recession and when two years on, growth has yet to appear, the Government have offered in the gracious Speech little hope to small businesses, families and elderly people, or to our future generations of children and young people. Where is the British business bank or high speed rail? Why is there only a draft Bill on social care when reform is so urgently needed? Where are the measures for growth to ease the pressures on families and businesses?
The Government would have us believe that they have put children and families centre stage in this legislative programme, but we now understand that the children and families Bill will not be completed before the end of this Parliament. Is that the case, and if so, can the Minister tell us why the Bill has to be carried over and what that says about the Government’s real priorities? Welcome as the limited measures in this Bill are—I shall comment on them specifically in a moment—they fall woefully short of addressing the serious consequences for many families of the current global economic climate and the deliberate policies of this Conservative-led, Liberal Democrat-supported Government. We will scrutinise closely the measures in the children and families Bill when it comes before your Lordships’ House. In principle, we welcome the individual measures to improve adoption and services for disabled children and those with special educational needs. We support an enhanced role for the Children’s Commissioner for England and increased flexibility for parents sharing parental leave. These proposals all build on progress made by the Labour Government.
The devil, as ever, will be in the detail. The Prime Minister seems to be fixated on adoption when he should really be concerned about permanence for children in care. Adoption is not the only or even the best solution for many children. Above all, adoption must be about finding suitable parents for children, not about finding children for would-be adopters. That is one reason that while the number of adoptions has fallen over recent years, the number of residence and special guardianship orders has increased, especially through kinship care by family or close friends. Yet faced with huge budget cuts, local authorities are not able to offer the financial support that grandparents and other family members need in order to be able to offer a permanent home to children in their families. We want to see the Government focus also on kinship care and ensure that family members who take in a child are properly supported.
We also support measures to improve the assessment and provision for disabled children and children with special educational needs, but we will want to see the Government’s plans and resources for training the teachers and other specialist professionals that will be needed. We on this side will await with interest the proposals to strengthen further the role of the Children’s Commissioner, but she must continue to be able to safeguard children’s rights and be an independent champion for children and young people.
It was the Labour Government who introduced big improvements to maternity leave, as well as paternity leave and the right to request flexible working—against strong opposition at the time, I seem to remember, from the Conservatives. We completely get the social and economic arguments in favour of parental leave and flexibility so of course we will support the next steps in extending such policies, but we want these to be real opportunities for fathers as well as mothers. It is no use fathers having the right to request flexibility if the culture in an organisation deters men from even asking or is likely to refuse if they do.
However, are not the Government’s proposals on shared parental leave, welcome though they are, completely at odds with their sustained attack on women’s employment, help with low pay and childcare and the early years provision that many families need to keep their heads above water? How do the Government’s limited measures square up against the scale of the crisis facing so many families? It is not surprising that the public have concluded that the Government are completely out of touch with the lives of ordinary people. At a time when families are facing dwindling incomes and rising prices, growing unemployment and cuts to vital public services, this Bill does nothing to address those real and urgent issues.
Of course, the mantra from the Government is that there is no alternative—that they are dealing with the economic mess left by the Labour Government. That contention is as untrue as it is politically bankrupt. They know that the economic crisis was caused by the banks and, as we see today, it is all too obviously global. They know they have choices about how quickly they cut the deficit and the priorities—and the people—that they protect along the way.
It is no great surprise to see the repeat of some Thatcher policies by this Conservative leadership, but the public expected the Liberal Democrats to stand up for ordinary families, the disadvantaged and public services. I remember well how many times they pressed us when we were in government not to spend less but to spend more, to go further and faster in repairing the damage to families and communities after 18 years of Conservative government. It is very sad indeed now to witness the Liberal Democrats not only reneging on their own promises but colluding with the worst instincts of their Conservative partners: cutting the 50p tax rate for the wealthy at the same time as imposing benefit caps that will mean poor families being shipped out of their communities, miles away to places where they know no one and have no support, with children and young people prised out of their schools and away from friends and family.
The cumulative effect on families of the Government’s actions has been devastating. Rising employment among women has been one of the keys to rising living standards for many families over the past five decades—not any more. In two years, this Government have reversed that trend and women’s unemployment is now the highest for 25 years. Cuts in childcare benefit, child support, tax credits, services in Sure Start children’s centres and other key public services are taking a terrible toll on family life.
The Liberal Democrats claim that quietly, behind the scenes, they smooth the jagged edges of Conservative policies. But so many times the public have been marched up to the top of the hill by the Liberal Democrats—on education, welfare reform and, most famously, health—only to be marched right back down again with no real change. Only recently, on the topic of careers advice for young people—which is of great importance to me and is surely of critical importance with so many young people chasing jobs—so assured were the Liberal Democrats by the Minister that the department’s guidance to schools would deal with their concerns that they would not join other noble Lords in supporting their own, very sensible amendment when it was pressed. That guidance has just been published, with no requirement placed on schools to employ qualified advisers or to provide any face-to-face advice to young people.
It is the impact on young people of this Government’s policies that concerns me most of all. By common consent, youth unemployment is at crisis levels, with more than a million young people now out of work, with long-term youth unemployment two and a half times greater than only a year ago, with only 7% of 16 to 18 year-olds getting one of the much heralded apprenticeships last year, and with the educational maintenance allowance scrapped and tuition fees trebled.
Young people are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are fewer jobs than at any time in the past 20 years, while the cost of staying in education has soared and financial support for those most in need has been abolished. At the same time, support services and youth services have been disproportionately hit by local authority cuts to clubs, activities, youth programmes, libraries and leisure centres.
I truly believe that we are risking a lost generation of young people, repeating the legacy of the 1980s and 1990s, with all the same long-term consequences for young people, their families and communities, and indeed for the whole of society. That would be a tragedy, and it is a tragedy that we on these Benches will do all we can to avert. I know that there are those on the Liberal Democrat Back Benches who care as deeply as anyone about what is happening. I hope that some of them will be able during this Parliament to make common cause with others across your Lordships’ House to act in the interests of young people. On the evidence of this Queen’s Speech, however, this Government, far from taking the bold action necessary to protect children, young people and families, are doing nothing that is relevant to the needs of the nation and the demands of the time.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, as the Minister forecast, with the time available, I shall concentrate on only one issue. It will not surprise your Lordships to learn that that issue is imprisonment.
I entirely accept that the Government’s No.1 priority in this whole legislative package is costs. In that regard, I am very concerned about the costs of imprisonment. If you have, as was the position last week, 87,212 people in prison, at a cost of £37,573 per prison place, the total cost is well in excess of £3 billion. I suggest that a great deal of that is wholly unnecessary because those people need not be there.
I note that the gracious Speech mentioned that the Government’s legislative programme would focus on economic growth, justice and constitutional reform, which is entirely understandable. It also stated that,
“my Government is committed to reducing and preventing crime”.
I was very glad that, although for the first time in many years a separate criminal justice Bill is not forecast, there is a criminal justice system element in the Bill that the Minister mentioned. I look forward to taking part in that.
In considering the costs of imprisonment and its impact on the prevention of crime, or the prevention of re-crime which is the role of the Prison Service, I shall draw attention to five limiting factors which should be considered carefully if they are not to inhibit the Government’s ability to deliver what they want.
First, I refer to an interview given by Sir David Latham, the recently retired and excellent chairman of the Parole Board, which was reported in the Times on Monday. He said that the Secretary of State for Justice believes strongly that the country cannot afford to keep on jailing more and more people, that he has a desire to stop people being put in prison as much he possibly can, and that he has been frustrated in not being able to persuade the Cabinet to do the things that he wanted to enable the prison population to stabilise and decrease. I could not agree with that sentiment more.
One aspect of that, which we debated during our debates on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill and which brought it into stark relief, is the issue of indeterminate prisoners: people not knowing when they are likely to get out. There are 6,017 of them at the moment—a considerable number—and a lot are already over tariff. If, at £37,000 per year, you have people who need not be there, you now have the added burden that some are suing for compensation because of the delay in their release. The country is having to find £300 for over six months and £1,200 for over two years, and there is likely to be an increase of 30% in such claims during the coming year. That can hardly be a sensible cost. It must inhibit the ability of the Prison Service to do what the Government say they are committed to doing—preventing re-crime.
The second issue was introduced in the recent Act: the victim levy of 40% imposed under the Prisoners’ Earnings Act. Interestingly, today the Chief Inspector of Prisons has published his report on the inspection of HMP Standford Hill, a resettlement prison in Kent where sending people out to work is an absolutely key part of the resettlement process. He said:
“The levies deducted under the Prisoners’ Earnings Act”—
40% of the prison wage, deducted as pay back to victims of crime—
“had begun to mean … that prisoners could no longer afford to meet the travel costs of getting to work, which meant they lost the work and the resettlement opportunities”.
That ought to be thought through carefully. The imposition is affecting the ability of the prisons to do what the Government want.
I also refer to the recent reports on two prisons in the prison newspaper, Inside Time, this month: HMYOI Brinsford, where young offenders are held, and HMP Durham. In each, the reports said that one area of concern is the lack of time out of cell. In Brinsford, one-third of the young men are locked in their cells during the core day and in Durham prisoners spend 16 to 20 hours a day locked up two to a cell designed for one. I mention that because if they are locked in the cell doing nothing, nothing is being done to resettle them.
However, with regard to what is possible in resettlement, a report just published by the Prisoners’ Education Trust, which surveyed 500 prisoners from 81% of the prisons in the system, said that, when applying for a course in the education department, you are put on a waiting list but not told that you are on one, how long the list is or where you are on it. One man said that he had been on the list for two and a half years to do a health and safety course. I am sure that that is not true everywhere but it is a cautionary tale. If education is a vital part of resettlement and preventing re-crime, surely it is important that this aspect is looked at.
Finally, I mention the issue of women, which has been raised many times in this report. Women in Prison has recently reported that of the 43 recommendations in the admirable report of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, seven have been implemented, there has been some progress on 18 and no progress on another 18.
I do not want to be a Jonah about this because I believe passionately in the rehabilitation revolution and that it is perfectly possible for prisons to do more to help the Government achieve their aim of reducing and preventing crime. However, they must be enabled to do so and that means that, before legislation is introduced, the impact assessment of what is proposed is carefully looked through. In this case and in this Session, that should include careful post-legislative scrutiny of what has been introduced to see that it is fit for purpose to do the job for which it was designed.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, there are two aspects of the gracious Speech that I would like to comment on with regard to education. One is the proposal to improve provision for children with special educational needs. I am very pleased to have heard the announcement today on that subject. There is great need for reform in that area. As the Green Paper so eloquently demonstrated, it is a cumbersome system and does not deliver the individualised support that young people need and that schools and colleges want to give.
Wonderful work goes on, of course. I was in a church school in my diocese the other week where they teach and look after a child with, I am told, the most extreme special needs of any child in the county. He has two full-time carers. What impressed me was not only the quality of that care but the way that the teachers spoke about receiving a lot more than they give in looking after that special eight year-old. As we know, a society is judged by the way it values its most vulnerable members.
Today’s announcement will have widespread support. There is a real opportunity to make a difference to the lives and opportunities of many children and young people with additional needs. Many noble Lords will have experience of children with special needs in schools. I ask the Government also to remember the 300,000 learners in FE, sixth forms and apprenticeships who have learning difficulties. More than half of them have support costs of no more than £2,500, so a modest investment can make a real difference.
I also support the intention to simplify the assessment process. It is at present too bureaucratic and too disjointed. We need integrated budgets between health, education and skills, social care and the Department for Work and Pensions. The new children and families Bill is eagerly awaited.
My other point is about higher education, which is of course vital to our national life, educating about 45% of our 17 to 30 year-olds. Massive changes are going on. We have had the trebling of tuition fees, a new and untested core and margin method of recruitment, a changed funding system with money following the student and no central funding for the arts and humanities—and lots more happening. Those are far-reaching changes, but there is no mention of higher education in the gracious Speech. The once anticipated higher education Bill is nowhere in sight.
Last June, the White Paper, Students at the Heart of the System, was published. I was very pleased to see the commitment to widening participation, constant improvement in the quality of teaching and the importance of the student experience—all very good things. I remain uneasy about one fundamental point which I detect in the changes. That is a view of higher education in many ways alien to the tradition of, for example, Humboldt, Newman, Robbins or Dearing. Put simply, it is an instrumentalist view. Universities are there to serve the economy. Students are to go to university to help them get jobs. Those are important matters, but that is a disappointingly narrow approach to what education is about at its most transformational. There is nothing about the excitement of learning, nothing about feeding the human spirit, nothing about a community of learning at the heart of society, nothing about the university as a place where society can reflect on its values and goals.
The Diocese of Oxford has seven universities within it, somewhat surprisingly. I can name six of them but I always forget the seventh. I look to them not only to serve the economy—they must do that—but to help the country to think, to reflect and to be self-critical in the right sense. In the Times Higher on 1 March, David Willetts said that the higher education White Paper initially had a chapter on the value of the university and its wider purpose, but it got cut out. A sight of this lost gospel would be most helpful.
There are massive changes going on in higher education, yet no mention of it in the gracious Speech and no suggestion that Parliament might review the impact of the current changes in, say, a year’s time. Nor has the Government’s response to the consultation on last year’s White Paper been made public. Is the House to be denied the opportunity to debate what is happening in our universities?
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, the topic which I propose to discuss certainly was not touched on in the gracious Speech, but it could and should have been raised at any time. It is a very simple proposition, which may surprise the House: British weights and measures are in a mess. We have litres for petrol and fizzy drinks but pints for beer and milk. We have metres and kilometres for athletics and the Ordnance Survey but miles per gallon for cars. We have the metric system for school but still have pounds and ounces in the market. Certainly, this muddle matters. It increases costs, confuses shoppers, leads to serious misunderstandings, causes accidents, confuses our children’s education and, quite bluntly, puts us all to shame.
This is even a constitutional topic because about 800 years ago, Britain’s first charter of human rights that dealt with constitutional matters—I refer, of course, to Magna Carta—proclaimed that there should be only,
“one measure of wine throughout our whole realm … and one measure of corn … and one width of cloth” ,
and so on. Long before then and ever since, every civilised society has recognised the need for one set—and only one set—of standard measures. By contrast, we have managed to come near to recreating Disraeli’s two nations—divided between, on the one hand, a metrically literate elite and, on the other, a rudderless and bewildered majority.
How did we get into this uniquely confusing shambles? It is because we have been dithering about it for some 150 years. As long ago as 1862, a Select Committee of the House of Commons unanimously recommended the adoption of the metric system which had swept across Europe and elsewhere. In 1904, the House of Lords voted in favour of a Bill to the same effect and, remarkably in a way, in 1965 the decision was finally taken—in response to requests from the CBI and others, and after long and widespread consultation—to go metric over the following 10 years. It is important to understand that that decision had nothing to do with our relationship with our European partners. It was our own decision on our own case, taken eight years before we joined the European Community.
How did we manage to end up in this very British mess? It is because successive British Governments have lacked consistency, candour and courage in implementing and presenting a policy which was, at the outset, rightly supported by a broad majority of all those who had given the topic serious consideration. It was the first Wilson Government who launched the process in 1965, and the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments who carried it on. The whole operation was handled, without significant controversy, by a broadly representative commission: the Metrication Board, which, in its final report in 1979, was able to suggest that the change was by then almost complete. In the Heath Government I had been, as Britain’s first Minister for Consumer Affairs, responsible for the metrication programme. By 1979, however, I had myself become a penny-saving Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as such I readily accepted the decision to abolish the Metrication Board, which claimed to have completed the process.
So where should we go now? We simply cannot afford to go on crippling ourselves with acceptance of the present mess, and it certainly would be madness to go backwards. No one is now so foolish as to argue that we should actually move away from the rest of the world. The only solution is to complete the changeover to metric as swiftly and cleanly as possible. To sustain our present imbroglio would continue consumer confusion, perpetuate safety hazards and obstruct business efficiency.
I could have presented the case in this way: the most glaring omission from the gracious Speech is the lack of any reference to the need to complete the modernisation—and metrication, of course—of our system of measurement. Measurement is fundamental to industrial production, consumer protection, health and safety and science and education. The policy of all Governments since 1965 has formerly been to change gradually from imperial to metric units, while continuing the option for consumers to continue using imperial measurements if they wish. However, there has been no further progress of any kind since the year 2000. Metrication has got stuck. As a result, we remain in a muddle of metric and imperial measurements, with some people using one system and others using the other, with all the resulting incomprehension, conversion errors and additional costs, giving the impression to visitors, especially in this Olympic year, that we are a nation living in the imperial past.
A particular recent concern, for example, was the failure of the Department for Transport to seize the opportunity to improve road safety by requiring all imperial-only height and width restriction signs on bridges over highways to be replaced by signs in dual metric and imperial units. That would be a simple thing to do and would cost about £500,000. If it were done, it would probably have huge financial benefits of over £2 million as a result of savings and reduced bridge strikes by metric drivers of foreign lorries on imperial roads with bewildering signs.
I urge the Government as a whole and the country across the board to resume the long drawn-out process of conversion to the metric system, begun in 1965. We should seize on opportunities for progress as they arise and make proper preparations for bringing us comprehensively up to modern international metric standards—a simple proposition that we have neglected for far too long but which we should courageously, carefully and swiftly undertake as soon as we can.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I thank the Clerks and the Whips Office for arranging for me to speak now in the debate and for my noble friend Lady Thornton to speak later.
I want to address the vital issue of social care because, as we all recognise, the situation has long been at crisis point, and it needs real action in this parliamentary Session and by this Government. From these Benches we echo the consternation and deep frustration expressed by virtually all stakeholders—the voluntary sector and older people’s organisations, staff professional associations, trade unions and care providers —at the fact that, instead of the comprehensive Bill that we had been hoping for in this Session, what will be before us some time in the as yet unspecified timetable will be a draft Bill addressing only one, albeit important, aspect of the action that is required and, most worryingly, failing to address the key area of social care funding for the future. This is indeed a missed opportunity, a huge let-down. It is especially frustrating for those of us in the House who pointed out on many occasions during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill that it was not much of a social care Bill, with its predominant focus on NHS structures, competition and institutions, and that there were no measures or solutions to address the growing social care crisis.
The mantra in response from the Government that it would be dealt with in the spring social care White Paper has certainly not been translated into the promised draft Bill. It is also worth reminding the House that my noble friend Lord Warner, in his usual constructive and helpful way, even put forward an amendment that would have enabled the Government to show good faith and take powers in the Bill to facilitate the implementation of the Dilnot report in whatever direction the hoped-for cross-party consensus would take it. Of course, the amendment was defeated, as were others that would have helped redress the complete NHS/social care imbalance in the Bill. They included having a tighter and binding definition of how NHS and local authorities were to promote the integration of health and social care services and providing health and well- being boards with real teeth and powers and the authority for final sign-off of the vital CCG commissioning plans. These measures would have reinforced in legislation the requirement for real collaboration and funding of local services to make the best use of resources across the NHS and in social care.
David Cameron committed to introducing legalisation,
“to establish a sustainable legal and financial framework for adult social care”,
which is another broken promise. The Health Minister, in his response to the debate in this House on the Dilnot report, stressed that,
“this is not an issue that we will shy away from”.—[Official Report, 24/11/11; col. 1194.]
That is precisely what the Government have done by not committing themselves to a comprehensive Bill and a timetable for the implementation of reform.
Of course, the implementation of the key recommendations of the excellent Law Commission report of 2011 in the draft Bill will be supported by these Benches, even though it will mean dealing with only part of the picture. The commission report was a landmark report and its translation into legislation will help simplify what it called an “often incoherent patchwork” of 60 years of social care law,
“incomprehensible to all but a small legal fraternity”,
as the Guardian put it last week.
We on these Benches support the modernisation of the legal framework for care and support. Setting out what support people can expect from government and what action it will take to help them will allow them to plan, prepare and make informed choices about their care, but it will not lead to the major improvements in availability, consistency and quality of care that we know is so desperately needed. Throwing into the Bill the laudable extension of personal budgets without dealing with how social care is to be funded to address the current £1 billion shortfall and the demand in the future will, I fear, raise expectations that cannot possibly be met.
Reform of social care must deal with the interrelated issues of long-term funding which allows for people to plan for the costs of retirement, improved quality of care through integrated health and social care commissioning, and the desperate current funding shortfall which has intensified the underlying mismatch between funding and demand still further. The failure to address these issues as a whole results in the twin evils of a growing number of people on low incomes who are no longer eligible for state support and too many people using too large a proportion of, or all of, their own assets to meet the costs of personal domiciliary care in the home or residential care.
We must not forget that there is no long-term solution to the social care time bomb that does not address the workforce issues: the low pay of care workers; training; quality of care; staff numbers; and commissioning which provides for home visits long enough to enable staff to provide the personal care and support that frail older people or people with long-term health conditions need to maintain their independence. We know that recent reports on personal home care, such as those from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Age UK have exposed horrendous problems that deprive older people of dignity and respect. The vast majority of care staff and social workers do a good job and want to do a good job. The reality is that, all too often, it is just impossible.
I have stressed before that as a carer of a disabled adult stroke recoverer, the local agency care we receive is of high quality and the care workers show real empathy, respect and understanding of their client’s needs and of my role as the carer. Our local experience of care is the standard and best practice for which we must aim across the country, but it will not be achieved without tackling current and future funding issues.
As we know, Labour initiated cross-party talks on the Dilnot recommendations on social care funding and these are in progress. Labour is genuine and serious in its commitment to meaningful discussions and negotiations that unlock the Government’s malaise and lead to real change. We know that tough decisions are needed and that doing nothing is not an option for older and disabled people and their carers, the economy and the future of the NHS. The current system is at breaking point. It is unfair and inefficient. It results in fewer and fewer people getting the help that they need and ever mounting additional costs to the NHS and the taxpayer when people end up in hospital or residential care when they do not need to.
I hope that the Government will think again about their decision not to address the Dilnot issues in the White Paper and forthcoming Bill. David Cameron must fulfil his promise and engage personally to give the cross-party talks the backing and momentum that are needed to enable legislation in this parliamentary Session. Burying their heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away if Ministers deny that it exists often enough, or blaming cash-starved local authorities for the huge cuts that they have had to make as a result of current funding reductions and increasing demand will not do. Nobody is fooled. It is the Government’s responsibility and they must act now.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, the first two years of the coalition Government have seen some valuable steps towards a fairer criminal justice system. The new Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act abolishes the discredited and unjust IPP sentences, legislates to reduce unnecessary remands in custody and contains much needed reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Over the past two to three years, we have seen a welcome reduction in the number of juvenile offenders in custody. Indeed, the number is currently the lowest since the Youth Justice Board started collecting figures. The Government are developing a determined strategy to divert mentally disordered offenders from the criminal justice system into medical and social care. They are consulting on proposals to make restorative justice a more central part of the criminal justice process.
However, many serious challenges remain. The prison system still faces serious overcrowding. Today, 82 out of 132 prisons hold more prisoners than they were built for, and 19,000 prisoners are held two to a cell designed for one person. This country has 156 prisoners for every 100,000 people in the general population, compared to 109 in France and 87 in Germany. Prison overcrowding produces inhumane conditions and increases the risk of self-harm and suicide. It also increases crime because it makes it harder for prisons to provide rehabilitation programmes for all their inmates, thereby increasing reoffending on release.
I do not wish to sound alarming but we should take note of the comments made by the chairman of the Parole Board only yesterday. Far too many offenders are still sent into custody for short sentences and are released after no more than a few months in custody. These sentences serve very little purpose. They are too short for sustained rehabilitation programmes but long enough for offenders to lose their jobs and homes, which makes them more likely to reoffend. On release, most of these prisoners do not receive supervision by the probation service and their reconviction rates are much higher than those for other prisoners. Most of these offenders would be better dealt with by supervision programmes in the community. All in all, our system still does far too little to prevent crime and rehabilitate offenders. We need to rethink an approach that wastes such a high proportion of resources on punitive custodial measures that produce high reoffending rates.
A great deal remains to be done to eliminate racial discrimination from the criminal justice process. Indeed, in some respects the position of minority ethnic people in the criminal justice system is now worse than it was when the Stephen Lawrence inquiry reported. The disproportionate use of stop and search is even more extreme and the proportion of the prison population that is made up of racial minorities is now higher than it was in the late 1990s. Further research is required to see how the criminal justice system has produced this anomaly.
What should we do to improve the position? The Government could legislate to make sentencing guidelines take into account the capacity of the prison system. These guidelines should scale down the number and length of prison sentences except for the most serious crimes. Prison should be removed as an option for low-level, non-violent crimes. Courts should be prohibited from using prisons, except for dangerous offenders, unless they have first tried an intensive community supervision programme, which my noble friend Lady Linklater has repeatedly advocated in this House.
We should also legislate to keep restorative justice at the forefront of the minds of sentencers to help ensure that it becomes a central part of the criminal justice system. We should do that by making restorative justice one of the statutory purposes of sentencing and enabling courts to include specific restorative justice requirements in community orders. We also need to prevent the community sentences supervised by the probation service from being used for low-level offenders with little likelihood of reoffending.
When probation service resources are scarce, it is important to concentrate them on work with the more serious or persistent offenders, particularly those who would otherwise receive ineffective short prison sentences. One way to achieve that would be to increase the use of fines for lesser offences. The Government should introduce a “day fine” system, which would relate fines more precisely to the offenders’ means. That could help to make fines a more credible punishment for offenders of all income levels.
We should take steps to reduce the imprisonment of people who have breached community supervision—for example, by missing appointments or being late back to probation hostels. We should do that by introducing a graduated scale of punishment for breach of supervision, with prison being used only when less severe penalties have first been tried. We should introduce tighter statutory restrictions on sending young offenders into custody. For example, we could copy the example of Canada which, in 2002, introduced legislation restricting the use of custody for juveniles and produced a reduction of more than 30% in the number of young people sent to custody. We should place a clear statutory duty on all criminal justice agencies to adopt numerical targets for reducing racial disproportionality in their operations.
Most women we send to prison are neither violent nor dangerous and they have few previous convictions. But they have a high rate of mental disorder, a history of abuse, addiction problems and personal distress arising from separation from their children. As we have repeatedly advocated—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for this—we should establish a women’s justice board to set standards for resettlement and rehabilitation, mental health services, family contact and culturally appropriate support for foreign national women in our prisons.
A women’s justice board should also set targets to reduce the use of custody for women. There is overwhelming evidence of the importance of providing practical help for offenders in order to reduce reoffending. Getting offenders into jobs reduces their likelihood of further offending by between one-third and one-half. Providing accommodation for offenders reduces reconviction by at least one-fifth. Drug rehabilitation programmes cut the volume of reoffending by up to 70%.
We should commission voluntary organisations to provide a national resettlement service for short-term prisoners who currently receive no supervision or support on release. A strategy on these lines would help to concentrate resources on the measures most likely to protect the public by rehabilitating offenders and reducing reoffending. They would build on the encouraging start made by the coalition towards the achievement of a fairer and more effective criminal justice system.
Recently, I chaired the inquiry by the Magistrates’ Association into summary justice, which should be bedtime reading for all those involved in the role and functions that magistrates should perform in a modern society. I have put in for a short debate and look forward to putting the inquiry’s proposals to the Minister before long.
The Earl of Listowel
It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, particularly after his comments about the reduction in the number of young people in the youth justice system and his call for a similar system for women—a women’s justice board—to focus on their needs. Not only have they had the experiences that he describes, but many of them have been in the care of the state, which has often not provided them with the care that they needed. I support the call of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham for further work on the Corston recommendations. It is so disruptive to children’s lives when they are taken into the secure estate.
I rise to speak to a matter omitted from the Queen’s Speech. I want to share my concerns with Her Majesty's Government about the lack of professional capacity in our children’s homes. I take this opportunity to encourage the Secretary of State, the right honourable Michael Gove MP, to give thought to developing a strategy for the professionalisation of staff in children’s homes. Professionals who come into contact with children’s home staff are unanimous that the quality of staff is highly variable and that staff often show little understanding of children’s needs. That is the view of the social workers and child mental health professionals to whom I speak.
The front page of the Times on Wednesday last week read as follows:
“A nation’s shame: Nine men are found guilty of sex grooming crimes against vulnerable young girls after a trial that has exposed the shocking scandal in Britain’s children’s homes”.
Andrew Norfolk, the journalist, goes on to write:
“Hundreds of girls in children’s homes are being sexually abused by organised networks of men, The Times reveals today. England’s children’s homes, which care for 1,800 girls, have recorded 631 incidents of girls being sold for sex during the past five years, including 187 in the past ten months”.
I am most grateful to Mr Norfolk and the Times for the extensive and careful coverage that they have given to the horrific exploitation of these vulnerable children. On page six of that day’s Times, Jenny Pearce, Professor of Young People and Public Policy at the University of Bedfordshire, said:
“You’re talking about poorly trained, poorly supported staff working with some of our most vulnerable children and young people. That combination is an ideal setting for an abuser to exploit”.
It seems clear that the Times successfully identified a systemic problem with our children’s homes, which needs to be remedied as soon as possible. We need to move to a professional cadre for our children’s homes as soon as possible if we are to minimise future risk of harm, sexual and other, to these our most vulnerable children.
In his report of the 1990s on children living away from home, Sir William Utting wrote that the best safeguard for children is an environment of overall excellence. I am concerned that we may be failing in our duty to these children by forgetting his words.
Why do these children need such care? These are often children who have experienced multiple failures of foster placements. They have therefore generally experienced abuse in the family and then been further harmed by being passed from pillar to post. They are normally the older children with longer histories of neglect, who are physically more difficult to manage. The Office for National Statistics in its 2004 survey found that 69% of children in residential care had a mental disorder and that the majority of these disorders were conduct disorders, which are particularly hard to manage for carers. That compared with about 40% of disorders in foster care and 10% in the general children’s population. A head of a child mental health service department put it to me that the profile of these children in these children’s homes is very little different from that of children in psychiatric units. In the latter, children are cared for by nurses who are managed by doctors; in the former, they are cared for by staff qualified to national vocational qualification level 3, who are managed by those qualified to be level 4 managers. There is a world of difference in the capacity of those staff.
On the continent, residential care is a far more popular option, with about half the children in care in residential settings. Staff are also generally more highly qualified. In Denmark, 90% of staff have a degree-level qualification. The continentals choose to have the most highly skilled qualified staff caring for their vulnerable children. In this country we have made the opposite decision. Because our children’s homes cater for only about 8 per cent of the children in local authority care, the needs of our children in residential care are significantly higher than those of such children in France, Germany or Denmark, yet our care staff are much less well qualified. We choose to place our most vulnerable children with our least qualified workers.
Lord Northbourne
I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Does he agree that a considerable number of children’s homes do not fit the description he has given, and that their qualified staff look after the children extremely well?
The Earl of Listowel
I agree with my noble friend on that point. For instance, there are some exceptionally good therapeutic communities in this country and some very good examples of practice. The difficulty is that the quality is so variable. These vulnerable children deserve a consistently excellent quality of care from their carers.
Gangs of men meet former residents of children’s homes and use those girls or young women to “hook into” the young women in those homes. It is very hard for staff to resist that. We need to have the very best staff in children’s homes to prevent these cunning, wily gangs of men gaining access to these children; and not only gangs are involved.
There has been progress in skilling-up staff. Ofsted inspections report improved performance. There are some very good homes and therapeutic communities and many residential care staff work the hardest they can in the interests of these children. I agree with my noble friend in that regard. Regulations have been tightened and there is the prospect of further strengthening of regulations over the next year, yet I fear that a fundamental problem will not be addressed unless a clear strategy for professionalising staff in our children’s homes is introduced as soon as possible. Therefore, I beg the Government to give consideration to developing such a strategy to bring this about. There is great expertise in this area in this Chamber. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, I rise to speak on a subject that I, for one, am glad is not included in the gracious Speech. For 650 years, magistrates have been part of the fabric of this great country and summary justice has been administered by a service of well trained volunteers giving up many hours on a weekly or fortnightly basis. It is a valued contribution to the smooth running of the country and a service which has evolved and improved over the passing years. It is therefore to be treasured and must never, at the whim of any Government, be tinkered with but modified only after much reflection.
Magistrates have been with us since 1361—a long time by any standards. Throughout this time, the system has maintained the same level of service and commitment to society while, even in the 30 years I was privileged enough to be involved with it, making changes as needed around the edges, such as occurred in one of my own personal, very trivial examples. When I was first appointed, women magistrates always wore hats in court. I found this difficult as the only hats I had were the ones worn for dressy occasions. When we plucked up the courage to ask the chairman why we wore hats, he replied that he had no idea as it added nothing to our work in the court, so from that moment on in our court hats remained at home.
The advent of the 21st century and the need for financial constraint has concentrated minds on the future of the administration of justice. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Dholakia was a leading member of the Magistrates’ Association, which has produced an in-depth study inquiring into the role of magistrates and the future delivery of summary justice. This report is well researched and to be welcomed, and will now be genuinely considered.
Of course, the magistracy must be valued for the contribution that it makes, and it is paramount that society has confidence in its administration. I think that those tests are currently passed with flying colours. However, I have one aching concern. It has always seemed to me that summary justice is served best by local people who know the area—people who live there and are respected citizens. Nowhere was this better evidenced than in the manner in which the magistracy responded to the riots last summer, some magistrates even sitting through the night when required. This was local people dispensing local justice at a time of real need, resulting in speedy action on cases. I worry that if many more courts are closed, this local element will be lost.
The magistracy must of course continue to be responsive. For instance, I was very interested in an article in the Times of 8 May this year hinting of proposals to allow magistrates to sit in community centres. It was suggested that magistrates could sit alone but I would have to be convinced of this, as I believe that a Bench of two or three magistrates carries greater strength and acceptability, and in addition is certainly less stressful for a magistrate.
So I am pleased that this key subject was not included in the Queen’s Speech. I hope, however, that after careful consideration and much consultation with those within the magisterial service we will be presented with a set of proposals that ensure that our justice system continues to be the envy of the world and allows magistrates to serve our country with distinction for another 650 years.
Baroness Billingham
My Lords, this is Olympic year, so I scanned the Queen’s Speech with eager anticipation. Just for once, I hoped that sport would take centre stage, for it plays a crucial role in all the topics in today’s debate. Of course, I was disappointed.
I wish to speak on a major sport that I believe is under threat. That sport is tennis, and I genuinely fear for the future of the game. I do so with a heavy heart, for this has been my chosen sport and that of my family.
I was absolutely delighted when Roger Draper was appointed as chief executive of the Lawn Tennis Association in 2006. We met Roger Draper and heard of his wide-ranging plans to promote British tennis to the full, building a national tennis centre to facilitate that development. I hosted a reception in the House of Lords and he pledged that Britain would have five players in the top 100 by the end of 2008 and, at the same time, that every school child, by the age of eight, would have held a tennis racquet. We were delighted. However, none of that happened.
There was another juggling of the figures in 2008 when it was announced that Britain would have five players in the top 100 by 2010. There were two. By now, alarm bells were ringing. Everyone knew that the LTA was one of the richest governing bodies in the world with some £60 million being poured into its coffers every single year, none of it with any strings attached. The press and the tennis public were losing patience. News trickled through that huge sums of money were being spent on coaches. More worrying was the allegation, never denied or confirmed, that Roger Draper was paid £400,000 per annum on a six-year contract with bonuses on top—no transparency and no accountability.
It was around this time that Gerry Sutcliffe, the then Minister for Sport, asked me to review the LTA. I with nine colleagues, many of them from this Chamber and the Lords and Commons Tennis Club, formed a panel. The members were absolutely outstanding and excellent. We had only a very short time, with just three weeks to go before the general election. We held hearings and wrote a report that was highly critical. We were shocked at the performance of the LTA, given its resources and freedom of action. We could not believe its strategy, which was to put all effort into elite performance and so little into school, club and grass-roots tennis. What really incensed us was that the Government had made a direct contribution to tennis of some £26.8 million over a four-year period through Sport England. There was absolutely no indication or account of how that money was spent, and we could find no benefit.
All our misgivings became reality. The profligate LTA continued to infuriate the British press, the public and anyone who had an interest in tennis. Failure followed failure. At last, Sport England, which distributes funds from government and lottery sources, found its voice. In April of this year, it announced that it would cut £530,000 from tennis because of a fall in participation figures. The drop of almost 30% in two years was dire and the funding cut fully deserved. So this is where we are today. The LTA is a total shambles, tottering from one broken pledge to another, and the British and the world's press are aghast at the huge cost and pathetic results of six years of mismanagement. It is pitiful.
If you think I am but a single disgruntled observer, perhaps I may share with you the views of others who are far more knowledgeable and who confirm my misgivings. The nation's tennis writers have long run out of patience. They watch every twist and turn of the LTA and its CEO. I can find no support in the newspapers for them. Here are just a few headlines from dozens over the years. The Guardian said:
“LTA suffers major embarrassment: the LTA receives almost £60 million per year, when will British tennis see some results?”.
The Daily Mail said:
“Lame Duck Draper must go. He was supposed to save British tennis but now it’s worse!”.
The Daily Telegraph said that after five years and £250 million there is “still no progress”. But perhaps the strongest criticism over the past six years has come from Neil Harman of the Times. He has followed and written about every twist and turn, every inexcusable failure of an organisation that is wealthy almost beyond belief. Tim Henman, the former British No. 1, and not a person given to confrontation, said that,
“the lack of contenders is just not good enough”,
and that,
“I lament the failure of the present system”.
Meg Munn MP made a timely intervention in a Commons debate some time ago with the horrifying statistic that the number of tennis courts has declined in the past 10 years from 33,000 to only 10,000.
So, what can be done? I call on Hugh Robertson, the Minister for Sport, to set up an urgent review and inquiry into British tennis. He must insist on transparency of all expenditure and salaries, especially given the fact that the LTA receives public money—taxpayers' money. This money must be ring-fenced in order to ensure that grass-roots tennis projects are properly funded. He must insist on freedom of information from the sport's governing body and call on the board of the LTA to face up to its responsibilities. All this must be done urgently. In less than eight weeks’ time, millions of tennis lovers in the UK will sit down in front of their televisions, some for a whole fortnight, and watch every ball struck at Wimbledon. They have a right to expect more success from the game they love. Unless he intervenes, the Minister could be accused of allowing one of the oldest and most distinguished sports to decline into obscurity. The entire tennis world is looking on in disbelief. The Minister can and must help to put this right.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am very sorry to hear of the woes of the LTA and Sport England. I confess that I was a little disappointed not to hear from Her Majesty congratulations to the Welsh national rugby team on winning the triple crown and the grand slam and good wishes on going to Australia shortly, where no doubt the reputation of British sport will be restored.
In the field of law reform, I very much welcome the Defamation Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred. The Bill is based on the tireless and persistent work of my noble friend Lord Lester, and I hope that it will dispel the chilling effect on freedom of speech of an overworked and out of date branch of the law. I hope that it will also end libel tourism, whereby our courts are used to determine disputes about the reputations of people of whom nobody has ever heard. People come here from abroad to litigate on these matters.
There is one Bill that I look forward to with some interest. The gracious Speech stated that legislation would be introduced to strengthen oversight “of” the security services. I wondered whether it was a typo and the Bill would set out to strengthen oversight “by” the security services; the wording seemed curious.
I will look with considerable care at any provisions that are designed to extend closed proceedings to civil cases by the use of special advocates. The vast majority of the special advocates who currently appear in criminal immigration cases are wholly against such an extension, and no satisfactory solution has yet been devised or put forward in this sensitive area. In civil cases it is not acceptable that a judge who decides a case between parties—very often a claimant is suing a government department—should be shown secret information that is never disclosed to the claimant and which he cannot answer in any way. It is quite wrong that a judge should have such information on which to base his judgment. It is not like a criminal case, where the jury makes the decision; in a civil case it is the judge. That is a very important distinction and I shall pursue that Bill with considerable interest.
It would be too much to expect that the Home Office would be without another of those heavy Bills that we are accustomed to wading through. I suppose that it must employ the Bill teams that it has accumulated over many years. The Crime and Courts Bill is a standard model. The National Crime Agency is proposed as an overarching agency to encompass the various agencies that already exist. We might hear something in the Bill about architecture; perhaps that phrase will come to us in due course. The Serious Organised Crime Agency has just reached its sixth birthday; it is only an infant. It merged the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National High Tech Crime Unit, the investigative and intelligence sections of HM Revenue and Customs on serious drug trafficking, and the Immigration Service’s responsibility for organised immigration crime. The Assets Recovery Agency, too, was made part of SOCA in 2008. The Serious Fraud Office escaped the overarching conglomeration, and it seems that it will escape again. We shall want to know: did SOCA fail? If so, why? What does the new overarching agency, which takes in all these bodies and has cross-government contacts, promise—except more employment?
No doubt somebody—if not the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, then another noble Lord—will put forward an amendment with an overarching mission statement that crime is bad and should be prevented, and I look forward to discussing the independence of the director-general and wading through the mire of functions and priorities, arguing about relationships with independent police forces, establishing frameworks and the hierarchies that we so love and that will tell us who is boss. We have the entirety of Schedule 3 to play with on this issue. I remember a World War II poster that some other noble Lords may recall: “Was Your Journey Really Necessary?”. It went along with “Careless Talk Costs Lives”, with a spook lurking behind every hedge. Is it necessary to introduce a National Crime Agency only six years after SOCA was brought into being?
The changes to bring county courts into a single county court and establish a single family court are, on the face of it, acceptable, but there is really only one test: does it improve or hinder access to justice? The whole point about county courts is that they were established in every county so that people could go to them and use them; similarly with family courts. A quick remedy can be obtained from a magistrates’ court in a family matter, which may take much longer in the Courts Service.
As for diversity in the judiciary, there is always concern. The test must still be simply one of merit in appointing judges. The diversity which arrived at the Bar in the 1970s is working its way through to the Bench in all areas and that concern, I hope, will become something of the past.
As for televising court proceedings, it so happens that last week I was lying on my back in the dentist’s as he was poised with his drill and I had all sorts of things in my mouth. He told me that he had to go to court as a witness in a case. He had never been to court and he was extremely apprehensive. I thought: “Apprehensive? My God, at least they are not going to drill into the nerve in your teeth to extract evidence from you!”. However, that just shows how little even the educated public understand about the way the courts system works. I welcome a limited introduction of television into courts. Like your Lordships’ proceedings, I think they will be viewed in the early hours of the morning by anoraks or people who cannot sleep, because the arguments in the Court of Appeal are not really much of an entertainment.
The gracious Speech was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, as being the thinnest of Queen’s Speeches and wholly irrelevant to people’s lives. There was nothing on growth or jobs, he said. Well, just look at the number of Bills that are there. The Government should be focused now on competent administration and on bedding down the changes that have already been made in the fields of education, welfare, health, legal services and the rest. These decisions have been made; now is the time to make the decisions work, by proper administrative action.
Lord Adebowale
My Lords, I rise to add my two-pennorth to this veritable cornucopia of subjects this afternoon. We have moved from tennis to defamation, to children in care, the criminal justice Bill and weights and measures. It is a fascinating encyclopaedia of issues, which shows the expertise available in this House. I shall refer to the draft social care Bill. I thought hard about whether I should contribute to this ritual of debates on the Queen’s Speech, mainly because it does seem such a ritual. However, a friend of mine who has had her welfare services cut asked me, “You are a Member of the House of Lords. What are you going to do about it?”. I struggled to give a response. This individual is quite wise. She actually watches House of Lords debates, which says something; but then she can because she has the time. I said, “I do not know really. It is a bit of a struggle”. So she said, “You spent all day talking about House of Lords reform, and less people are interested in that than whether they will be able to afford any health and social care. Get up there”. So here I am. I am getting up here because there is a problem. I am all for House of Lords reform, but more people care about whether they are going to get any care.
The Government made a promising start in tackling the huge amount of work needed to reform the social care system. Before I go on, I should declare an interest as the chief executive of Turning Point, which is a social enterprise in the health and social care sector. The Dilnot commission marked a good start in that it understood the,
“urgency of reforming the system of social care”,
a phrase that was in the coalition agreement published in May 2010. Setting up the Commission on Funding of Care and Support showed that the Government accepted that tackling the funding crisis was to be an imperative part of their work. Andrew Dilnot’s work was praised by many, and his report and recommendations were published almost a year ago. However, the Government are yet to publicly outline their response. They have remained quiet on funding. A White Paper on social care and a progress report on funding are therefore still eagerly awaited and anticipated by those who work in social care.
But the wait is most acute for those who are suffering in the current system. The draft care and support Bill, no doubt a fascinating read for many before a roaring fire, is a positive move towards reform, but it has been met with a lot of disappointment because it fails to mention or use the F-word—funding. Proposals on funding will be brought forward separately from the White Paper, and it is now even possible that a new funding system will not be fully in place until as late as 2025. The Treasury may be unhappy about the £1.7 billion per year that the Dilnot proposals would cost, but these changes are critical to the lives of those in need of care, as they are to their relatives, who still face uncertainty over timeframes and funding issues. The system is creaking as demand increases, so the question of funding needs to be addressed urgently for the short, medium and long term.
I was one of 78 signatories to an open letter sent to the Prime Minister earlier this month organised by the Care and Support Alliance. It warns that the system is chronically underfunded and that, without reform, too many old and disabled people will be left in desperate circumstances, struggling on alone and living in misery and fear. The need for a clear consensus on a new funding settlement is also the number one priority set out in another letter to the Prime Minister that I signed in March—I have been signing a lot of letters to the Prime Minister of late—as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on People with Complex Needs and Dual Diagnosis. Other signatories were the chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Ageing and Older People and those groups with an interest in carers, dementia, disability, Down’s syndrome, housing and care for older people, learning disability, ME, MS, Parkinson’s and social care.
Everyone knows that reform will be expensive, but I agree with the Local Government Association and insist that it is worth paying for. There will be those who argue that we cannot afford it, but the reality is that we cannot afford not to. Local authorities are starting to feel the weight of extra responsibilities from social care to public health, while simultaneously their budgets are growing smaller. Now is not the time to stall progress. The LGA has also recently warned that the need to plug the current gap in care funding would be at the cost of other public services for vulnerable people. It is clear that this extra money is needed as the social care system is already in crisis.
While a large proportion of spending goes to support older people, it is important to remember that many others are in need of a comprehensive and well funded social care system. Indeed, at Turning Point we support many people with complex needs that range from alcohol dependency to mental health, learning disabilities and so on. Strongly linked to the need for social care funding is the need for integration and personalisation. My work in looking at the benefits realisation of integrating services shows that when they are integrated, for every £1 spent, a saving of £2.65 is made on delivery. The Department of Health-funded Partnerships for Older People Projects focused on health, well-being and independence promotion and prevention. They saw a 47% reduction in overnight hospital stays and a 29% reduction in A&E visits. There were also reductions in physiotherapy, occupational therapy and out-patient appointments, resulting in a cost reduction of £2,166 per person. The clues to the model for the funding of social care are in place. According to London Councils, better integrated services that support people with long-term conditions could also result in savings of £2.7 billion annually.
The current system is out of date and can fail on quality, varying widely across the country—not just in the case of children’s services, as has been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. We need an integrated and personalised system allowing older and disabled people and their families to participate and live with dignity and independence. The eligibility and assessment system needs improving as part of this process.
I know there is sympathy and desire on the part of the Government, but it has become increasingly difficult to believe that they understand the necessity of reform as a matter of urgency, two years on from the Dilnot commission. The same level of determination and the same amount of time as have been devoted to House of Lords reform need to be focused on the lives of thousands and millions of people who will need health and social care, and the same level of urgency is required in the area of health and social care finance that was put into the efforts to push through the Health and Social Care Act.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken: it is a little curious that we should have had to use two days of precious parliamentary time to point out to the Government the folly of introducing such an ill thought-out piece of legislation to replace your Lordships’ House. I am going to use my brief moments on another commitment in the gracious Speech—that to,
“establish the National Crime Agency to tackle the most serious and organised crime and strengthen border security”.
That at least is something about which the entire electorate mind a great deal.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in questioning whether we really need to reorganise the Serious Organised Crime Agency, SOCA, which only started work in 2006. I had the opportunity on 28 March of visiting SOCA with EU Sub-Committee F, which does home affairs, and I was pretty impressed with what I found there. I noticed that the committee’s report on the ELMER money-laundering database had had quite a considerable influence on the practices and what SOCA was actually doing about that, but I do not have time to cover that now.
What I really want is to focus on “strengthen border security”, and to talk about the UK Border Agency. Border security is a crucial element in the defence of the realm and therefore of the highest importance. Every year some 80 million people come in and out by air, 11 million by sea and about 16 million by the Channel Tunnel. However, border security is actually one of Whitehall’s biggest failures, not just under the present Government but going way back—at least to June 2006 when the now noble Lord, Lord Reid, with all the authority of the Home Secretary, publicly denounced the immigration department of the Home Office as “not fit for purpose”. Since then, things have got worse, much worse. The civil servant in charge at the time was of course promoted to be Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence.
Over a period of years, I have documented, through Written PQs, the failures of the UK Border Agency. Let me make it clear that the UKBA is not underresourced. It employs over 20,000 people. The problem is in the management of those resources. I have met Mr Rob Whiteman, the new chief executive, and I think that given a free hand and political support he could be quite effective.
I have four criticisms of the UK Border Agency. First, it has proved grossly incompetent. We have all seen the recent shambles of the queues at our airports. The much vaunted e-Borders system has cost £357 million in the four and a half years to October 2011 and is still only partly operational now: only just over half the people who go in and out of the country are covered by it, and it is not expected to be fully operational until 2015. The Home Office could learn a thing or two from Mr Ken Livingstone. Whatever else you think about him, he introduced his e-congestion charge system and it worked extremely well from the word go, and that must have been every bit as big.
The previous Government also scrapped exit checks, which it is said cannot be reintroduced until 2015. Well, if you do not have exit checks, you do not know who is meant to have gone out of the country, so it is a shambles. There are huge gaps in the monitoring of passports.
Secondly, the border force is undisciplined. Others may have seen a report in the press of an incident during the shambles. Angry crowds had gathered and eventually a posse of immigration officers walked in to fill empty desks. Not surprisingly, people who had been waiting for more than an hour gave them a slow handclap. What happened? They walked out again. What arrogance. What insensitivity.
Thirdly, the border force is luddite. The much vaunted iris recognition system has been seen as a threat to immigration officer jobs and is now largely abandoned. Hong Kong has had a superb e-border agency system for more than 15 years. The United States, which I visit quite often, also has a system which works very well.
Fourthly, and most serious, the UK Border Agency is deeply and systemically corrupt. The British government machine has always had a well deserved reputation for integrity, yet in the past six years more than 25 members of the UK Border Agency have been sent to prison for the serious offence of misconduct in public office. They were not minor offences. I will give just half a dozen examples: in March 2008, a Mr Uzoma John-Ayo was sentenced to nine years; in September 2009, a Mr Ali was sentenced to five years; in March 2010, a Mr Quarco was sentenced to nine years; in April 2010, a Ms Eworth was sentenced to six years; in November 2011, a Mr Shoyeju was sentenced to seven years; and in December 2011, a Mr Rammakrishnan was sentenced to eight years. Those are big sentences; they were not sent to prison for little things. If that has happened in one agency, it is appalling.
What should be done? I would be delighted to give the Minister my detailed ideas, but here are one or two for starters. The UK Border Force, which was in March separated from the UKBA, should be put under the operational command of a senior, three-star, retired military commander. I saw Mr Brian Moore, currently in charge of the border force, being interviewed on television recently and I am afraid that I was not impressed. That is probably unfair, but it is necessary to have in command somebody who is really good.
Secondly, the profile and screening of those recruited to the UKBA and the border force should be reviewed urgently. I suggest an emergency review of the integrity of existing staff. Next, the staff should be subject to the same disciplinary system as the police and should not be allowed to take the sort of industrial action which they have taken and which they quite often threaten. Finally, a fresh management team should take a grip on the e-Borders system, integrating it fully with the passport system to secure our borders. I am glad that the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons is looking at the borders system. I hope that we will co-operate closely with it and that the Government will do something serious about it pretty soon.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, in 1997, pensioners were among the poorest in society, while future pensioners were not saving enough. Our response to the former, pension credit, took existing pensioners out of poverty but, perversely, made it not worth saving for pensioners still to come.
If, 10 years ago, I could have foreseen the proposed new state pension, the raising of retirement incomes, the removal of means-testing and the making it safe to save, as well as the rollout of auto-enrolment, with NEST bringing even the low-paid into pensions, I would have been thrilled. Pensions would have been sorted, finally.
Details remain to be finessed. They include legacy issues for the state pension; transfers; caps; and, above all, thresholds for NEST, because, perversely, the more you raise tax thresholds, be it to £10,000 or even £12,000, the more people, 1.4 million of them and mostly women, you take out of auto-enrolment. They are the very people for whom NEST was designed. More widely in the pensions field, we could strip out normal essentials from DB schemes such as indexing and spouse’s benefits, cutting their costs in half and thus ensuring their survival. Or we could develop hybrid schemes, sharing the risk. Given that there are 54,000 DC schemes, we could respond to the NAPF’s call for super trusts.
However, despite the splendid work of Steve Webb, I no longer think that we have pensions sorted. They are fine for higher-rate taxpayers with parallel savings in ISAs and property who can absorb risk and wish to smooth consumption between work and retirement. Though I am delighted by the proposed pensions Bill, no one today would invent pensions for the low paid, especially women. As the IoD said in its recent Roadmap for Retirement Reform, pensions are,
“part of the problem, rather than part of the solution”.
That was the IoD. Just think—for a decent pension you need: a full-time job for 40 years; that job in a world of steady interest rates, inflation, employment and longevity; to contribute young, enough and throughout; to manage the investment and disinvestment risk; and, for those 40 years, not to touch it because you have other savings. Not one of those propositions fits the low paid.
We could not design a poorer fit for poorer women if we tried. Women are in and out of the waged labour market, interspersed with caring for the young and increasingly for the old who, because they are living longer, take a woman out of the labour market for longer at just the point when she should be building her own pension. Her work is part time and low paid. Half of all women face divorce, losing their home, health, money and partner. She is at high risk. It is key that her working years are more perilous than retirement. She has no accessible savings to smooth those risks but cannot touch her only savings—her pension. She can use her pension to build a conservatory at 62 but not to save her home from repossession at 42. That is mad and cruel.
Why is more money going into ISAs than pensions, despite there being no tax relief or employers’ contribution? The answer is access. We should stop shoehorning low-paid women into structures devised by well-paid men for other well-paid men 50 years ago. We need combined savings and pensions schemes: the lifetime savings accounts—LiSAs—of David Willetts; the combined ISA/pensions of Michael Johnson of CPS; or the early access to the 25% tax-free lump sum called for by Steve Webb and me.
Finally, we spend £30 billion a year on tax relief, half of which goes to the wealthiest 10% who least need help to save. That same £30 billion would buy a state pension of £20,000 a year for every couple in the land. Some £7 billion goes in higher rate tax relief alone—shamefully left untouched in an austerity Budget which halved the benefits for disabled children. That £7 billion would fund Dilnot twice over and, if ring-fenced, could redistribute from pensioners in their 60s to pensioners in their 80s, from wealthier pensioners who were higher-rate taxpayers to poorer pensioners who never had that advantage. It would do that in wise, decent and publically acceptable ways. We all talk the language of personal responsibility, reducing the role of the state, and about the need of the poor who are in debt to simultaneously save for their retirement. Pensions work only for the well-off who do not need them. For the lower paid, their working lives are too fragile and insecure for such a lofty perspective.
We have to rethink tax relief; rethink savings products, so that we can smooth risk across an entire life; revalue women’s work as increased longevity increases their caring work and their risks; and rethink the contributory state. Pensions would be a good place to start with all that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I shall use my time to welcome the commitment to introduce legislation to protect freedom of speech and to reform the law of defamation. I was a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill under the excellent chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Mawhinney, who guided us and the many witnesses who gave evidence to us courteously and patiently but always incisively through some difficult areas.
Not only will the Bill implement the commitment in the coalition agreement mentioned by the Minister to revise our libel laws to protect freedom of speech, it will build on the firm cross-party consensus on the Joint Committee, which produced a unanimous report in favour of reform. The driver of reform is a general and justified view that the present operation of the law on defamation inhibits free speech.
There are a number of areas of particular concern. The first is that libel litigation—or, more insidiously, because it cannot be statistically measured, the threat of such litigation—can be and is frequently used to stifle discussion and legitimate criticism: the so-called chilling effect. The second is that the present threshold of seriousness for cases is far too low, which adds to the chilling effect, threatening scientific and academic debate in particular. The third is that the cost and complexity of defamation proceedings present insuperable obstacles to people of modest means who are therefore unprepared to risk or resist libel proceedings even when they are in the right. Fourthly, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford mentioned, recourse to the English courts, or the threat of such recourse, has encouraged potential claimants to bring or threaten proceedings in this country which are not in fact suitably at home in this jurisdiction. On the other side of the balance between free speech and reputation, there is concern that the same obstacles that inhibit freedom of speech are faced by individuals of modest means who are themselves defamed and have no chance of invoking the law to assist them to protect or recover their reputations.
The chilling effect is addressed in several of the provisions of the Bill published in the House of Commons last week. The raising of the threshold for bringing claims by the serious harm test; the honest opinion defence; the single publication rule; the privilege for peer-reviewed academic or scientific statements; and the new statutory defence of responsible publication in a matter of public interest will do much to reduce the chilling effect, helping to prevent frivolous or trivial claims being brought or threatened which inhibit free discussion.
I add one point here. It can be and has been argued, particularly in relation to the serious harm test and the responsible publication defence, that the common law was improving already and that the courts have been rejecting more trivial cases and have developed the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism. The argument continues that therefore codification in statute is unnecessary and—which is worse—that codification stifles the development of common law. However, that argument misses the essential point, which is that making the law accessible does not mean making it accessible to lawyers. Members of the public should be able to look at the law simply on the internet and get a clear idea of where the law stands from statute, not have to go to their lawyers to get a detailed analysis of the way the law is moving in the light of recent cases.
The cost and complexity of defamation proceedings needs to be addressed. The Joint Committee report went into some detail on this, and the Government’s response has been sympathetic. The restriction of jury trials to exceptional cases will go a long way towards making early resolution more achievable. The promise to introduce a more effective early resolution procedure involving the determination of meaning and the narrowing of the issues together with more effective case management, strengthening of the pre-action protocol and greater encouragement of mediation and other dispute resolution procedures should all help to reduce costs. However, one has to accept that going to law in defamation cases is never going to be inexpensive and that a great deal of work will be required to make the law more accessible in this area, over and above these statutory reforms.
One reform that I believe should be universally welcomed is the introduction of a general power in the court to order an unsuccessful defendant who loses defamation proceedings to publish a summary of the judgment against them. That answers the criticism that you cannot order a defendant to make an apology that is plainly forced and insincere, but recognises that the defamer who is successfully sued can and should be obliged to play some part in the vindication of the person who was defamed.
The Bill attempts to tackle internet defamation in a novel way. This is an area where legislation is very difficult. The Government have not accepted precisely the scheme suggested by the Joint Committee but I firmly believe that we are right not simply to admit defeat and say that it is all too difficult to strike a reasonable balance on the internet between permitting freedom of expression, on the one hand, and allowing those who are defamed an opportunity to have offensive and defamatory material taken down, on the other. The provisions for notices of complaint in the Bill and for website operators to have an opportunity to respond to them seem to be a sensible attempt to strike that balance. I look forward to debating those provisions, and others, in the Bill in due course.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
My Lords, I want to speak briefly about a couple of aspects of the gracious Speech. In relation to the first, I should declare an interest as chair of Ofsted. The Government’s intention to improve the rates of adoption will be widely welcomed. It is both common sense and humane to want to place as many children as possible in warm and stable families, so that they can grow up with security and love. The new proposals will build on the recent introduction of scorecards, reflecting a range of measures relating to the speed of placements.
We know that placing children with families before the age of two increases the chances of a successful outcome. In particular, changes in family law should really help to speed up the overall timeframe. Ofsted carried out a recent survey report, looking in detail at 90 cases. This strongly highlighted the delays that can take place in court proceedings. One case that was examined showed what can happen. In this case, a judge ordered an independent social work assessment of a grandmother who had already been assessed as an unsuitable long-term option by the local authority, with the support of the guardian. The independent social worker’s recommendation in favour of the grandmother was rejected by the court and the care order was eventually granted, after a further unsuccessful appeal. By this time, the child was over three years-old and the additional assessment had lengthened the process by more than 10 months.
Having emphasised the need for a speedier process, it is of course important to recognise the trauma of a failed adoption. The key outcome is the life-changing opportunity of a permanent family. Children do not need the perfect family, according to a list of prescribed requirements, but they need the right family. These are tricky issues but there are no excuses for not trying to improve the life chances of some of the most vulnerable children, and there are examples around the country of excellent practice. The differential performance around the country is indeed very marked. I know that Ofsted will be keen to play its part by focusing more in inspections on the importance of minimising delay, and that the wealth of experience and knowledge around this House will be immensely important in scrutinising the proposed legislation when it is published.
I also welcome the review of the provision of special educational needs, but the devil will be in the detail. In 2010, Ofsted produced an in-depth report, A Statement is not Enough, which showed that inspectors found that many pupils would not be identified as having special educational needs if schools focused on improving teaching and learning for all. The review also found that the current system is focusing too much on statements of need and checking that pupils are getting additional services, and too little on how much this support is actually helping children progress. The review recommended that schools should stop identifying pupils as having special educational needs when some of them simply need better teaching and pastoral support, and there should be more focus on evaluating the quality and effectiveness of services for children with special educational needs. The then Chief Inspector said:
“Although we saw some excellent support for children with special educational needs, and a huge investment of resources, overall there needs to be a shift in direction. With over one in five children of school age in England identified as having special educational needs, it is vitally important that both the way they are identified, and the support they receive, work in the best interest of the children involved. Higher expectations of all children, and better teaching and learning, would lead to fewer children being identified as having special educational needs.
For those children with complex and severe special educational needs, schools often need the help of health and social care services. All these services should be focused on the quality of what they are doing, and how well young people are doing as a result. At the moment too much effort is going into simply checking that extra services are being provided”.
This all stands true now. A proper overhaul of SEN identification and provision is clearly needed. Like others, I look forward to seeing the full proposals and discussing them further.
I wish I could be quite as positive about the Government’s intentions affecting those in the later stages of life. Like many others today, I am deeply disappointed by the Government running away from facing up to the challenges posed by the funding of social care. The establishment of the Dilnot commission was a brave and proper act by the coalition Government, but they are now failing to follow through on it. Yes, it will be tough and there will be some bad headlines, but we all know that fundamental change is needed. This weakness is particularly odd when the need for change is recognised by health providers, local authorities, charities and the public. Indeed, I think the public are ahead of us on this; they know that you cannot get something for nothing, but they want certainty and security. They want to be able to plan for old age and the support that they may need in future. They quite simply do not understand why the Government will not get a grip and lead from the top, forcing everyone around the table to get a cross-party solution. Yet, bizarrely, the coalition Government put a priority on Lords reform instead—a weird way indeed to expend political capital in challenging times.
Under an ancien regime I shared a room in No. 10 with my good friend, now the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, then PPS to Tony Blair. I was political secretary. Bruce used to put questions of policy through his “How will this go down in the Dog and Duck?” test; me through chatting in the playground. I doubt that Lords reform would crop up in either venue, but I think that social care would.
Lord Jordan
My Lords, in the present circumstances, for a Government to be business-friendly is a necessary objective. However, such a goal is not just about regulatory simplification and limiting inspections. It must also be about ensuring that companies can get access to the right sort of help and advice that they need to survive and prosper.
I want to reflect for a moment on the help that small businesses need so that they can avoid costly accidents and losses due to work-related ill health. A start has been made with the registration of health and safety consultants but much more is needed, particularly in helping to co-ordinate the contributions of all the bodies, including the private and voluntary sectors, that can help firms to understand their risks and implement appropriate preventive measures. The Health and Safety Executive, which has had to cut back its telephone information line as part of its budget reduction, would be ideally placed to draw together safety groups, trade associations and unions into this kind of national safety effort.
The whole question of health and safety is vital. It is not a burden on business, as some Ministers are wont to regard it, but a vital protection for both people and businesses alike. Its importance links directly to other key themes in the Queen’s Speech: support for hard-working families and bearing down on crime. We owe a duty to support all members of the workforce to ensure that they return home to their families safe and sound at the end of each working day. We must also bear down on the relatively few unscrupulous employers whose failure to obey the law that protects their employees’ lives and limbs is indeed a crime.
We welcome the reassurances from the DWP Minister, Chris Grayling, that nothing will be done to reduce protection for workers in risky industries, but he undermined that commitment by continuing to suggest that health and safety laws and regulations have been interfering with investment and jobs. This is contradicted by Professor Ragnar Lofstedt, who in his very competent review of health and safety law for the Government said clearly that there is no evidence of that. He said that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and its subsidiary regulations, whose requirements are qualified by reasonable practicability, were broadly fit for purpose. In the end, he managed to identify only fourteen outdated or redundant pieces of health and safety law that could be got rid of, mainly because the matters they covered were dealt with by existing statutes. It is therefore quite misleading to suggest, as the Minister did recently at a business forum, that by getting rid of such gems as the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922, the Gasholders (Record of Examinations) Order 1938 or the Gasholders and Steam Boilers (Metrication) Regulations 1981 the Government are somehow relieving industry of a colossal amount of red tape. In all these cases, because of Section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, the same, if not more stringent, requirements remain in place.
Indeed, what evidence is there that any of the measures being repealed ever interfered with investment and job creation? There is none at all. Of course we must speak out against those petty bureaucrats who overinterpret every requirement, but it is time to stop demonising all health and safety. Good health and safety is very good for business. Yes, we must continue to improve our statutes, but it is quite wrong to suggest that complying with the present legislation is damaging employers’ profits.
If we want to talk about the real cost of health and safety to business, let us talk about the cost to business and the nation of not having it. In 2010-11, in addition to fatalities due to work-related accidents, of which there were 171 in Britain, and not including an estimated 600 deaths due to work-related road accidents, many thousands of people died before their time due to past exposure to hazardous agents such as asbestos and other cancer-causing substances. Twenty-two million days were lost due to work-related ill health and 4.5 million days were lost because of workplace injury. The annual cost to society of workplace injuries and ill health, excluding cancer, was estimated by the Health and Safety Executive at £14 billion in 2009-10. The cost of workplace accidents is enormous, with each fatal accident costing our society about £1.5 million and each reportable injury costing £17,400. Over the years, many thousands of individuals and their families have had their lives shattered by workplace accidents and ill health. That is why the case for maintaining sensible measures to control risks to health and safety is so important, and why quite frankly it belittles Ministers who stoop to talk of health and safety having gone mad.
We have one of the best workplace safety records in the world but there is still more to be done, especially in tackling the largely hidden scourge of work-related health damage. Making progress on these issues is part of the solution to our economic difficulties, not part of the problem. The most efficient and profitable companies embrace the health and safety agenda with enthusiasm, as evidenced by nearly 2,000 major organisations that will receive awards this week from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, of which I am proud to be president. If the Government want to be business-friendly, they must help by targeting training and advice to companies to enable them to acquire a cost-saving safety culture.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, not everything that matters needs to be done by legislation. At this stage, the Government should be working just as hard on implementation as on new legislation. It is perverse to say in one breath that there is too much legislation and in the next to complain that there are not enough Bills in the Queen’s Speech. In taking that view, I agree totally with the closing words of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.
I give noble Lords an example. One of the most important Liberal Democrat policies that was inserted into the coalition agreement was a properly funded pupil premium. The case was made and accepted. Research and practice in other countries had proved the worth of such a policy, so we put it in the previous Queen’s Speech. We legislated for it and did it. The funding was made available—small at first, but growing every year to £2.5 billion per year by 2015. The purpose of the premium is to narrow the gap between rich and poor, and help to achieve the Government’s other primary objective of improving social mobility. How can it be that in a modern, open society such as ours, and after 13 years of a Labour Government, a child’s destiny is still determined by their background?
Now we have to monitor what schools are doing with the premium because we are not telling them exactly how to spend the money. Teachers are professionals, after all. We need to research what works, look at how the best teachers are spending the money and getting results, and make sure that best practice becomes general practice. That is what we are doing and you do not need legislation for it. In his speech yesterday to the National Education Trust, Nick Clegg outlined a package of measures to make sure that this money achieves what children and the country need it to do. Bear in mind that this is linked directly to the Government’s first objective of getting this country back on its financial feet. Every child who does not fulfil his educational potential incurs cost and is a potential loss to our future productivity and GDP. None of this needs legislation but it follows up previous legislation and makes sure that it works properly.
Another initiative, most of which does not require legislation, is the new adoption plan that was published recently by the Minister of State, Mr Tim Loughton. We are told that an important measure in the children and families Bill will be to ensure that adoptions are not held up by officers looking for a perfect racial match. It horrifies me that children can wait an average of 22 months from going into care to moving in with an adoptive family. The measures that are being taken to speed things up are very welcome. However, I feel that more people would come forward as potential adoptive parents if there was more post-adoption support. There would also be fewer failed placements. It is bad enough when a foster placement fails, but when an adoption fails it is a catastrophe for the child and the adoptive family. Therefore, I ask the Minister: what measures are being taken to improve post-adoption support?
I should also like to ask about kinship adoption. I am familiar with this because it has happened in my own family when the child’s mother died, and I believe it has a very high rate of success. The reason for that is probably because it provides a baseline of family love and history on which to base the new relationship. Of course, love is a key ingredient in all these caring situations. Could the Minister say whether kinship adopters will be given the same level of support as other adopters, since the child will still have undergone considerable trauma in many cases and may need a lot of help to settle?
I also very much welcome the announcements in the gracious Speech about the new system of providing joined-up support for children with disabilities or special educational needs. My honourable friend Sarah Teather, the Minister for Children, can be congratulated on her very hard work in pulling together legislation and a pilot scheme—which is, I believe, the reason why the Bill will not be introduced just yet—that gives a child and his family an education, health and care plan that goes right up to the age of 25, and does not fall off the cliff at 16 as before. It should be a Lycra plan—seamless both horizontally and vertically. However, while I applaud the idea of giving parents a budget and a choice of how to spend it, I should like to know whether there is a mechanism in place to help them make good decisions. Bad decisions and bad placements will be bad for the child and a waste of that precious budget.
Finally, I welcome the strengthening of the remit of the Children’s Commissioner for England. It is very important that the commissioner has a new overall function to promote and protect children’s rights, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a fulfilment of something for which I campaigned—against strong resistance from the Labour Government—when the legislation to appoint the commissioner went though Parliament eight or so years ago and ever since. I also welcome the new powers to carry out assessments of the impact of new policies and legislation on children’s rights. However, I should like to know whether this is supposed to be the mechanism that will give effect to the promise made by the Children’s Minister in December 2011 that legislation would be scrutinised to ensure that it complied with the UNCRC. If so, the commissioner will need much more funding than she has now.
May I point out that the Committee on the Rights of the Child expects the commissioner to comply with the Paris principles? Therefore, she should be independent, properly funded and have the role of protecting children’s rights. She should also be accountable to children, the public and Parliament. In this regard, are the Government inclined to accept the idea that the Select Committee to which she should be accountable should, in future, be the Joint Committee on Human Rights? I believe that this was raised at a recent hearing and makes a lot of sense, since the commissioner’s powers cover so many different departments, not just the Department for Education, where the responsible Minister sits. Having said that, this is one of the most welcome and important measures announced in the gracious Speech.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I was heartened to see in the gracious Speech that the Government’s plans include striving to improve the lives of children and families, and particularly to support those with special needs. Noble Lords involved in the Welfare Reform Act and the LASPO Act will remember how worried we were about the counterintuitive effects that those Acts—especially the legal aid cuts—were certain to have on this vulnerable group. Therefore, I await details of what government action is proposed here with particular interest, not least in light of today’s announcement about cutting the number of those to be classified as having SEN.
Today I especially want to encourage the Government to take decisive and adequately funded action in another area of the gracious Speech—that of reducing and preventing crime, and to do so via the route of early intervention with dysfunctional families. Their children are among the most likely to end up spending their lives in prison at huge financial cost to the nation. We have known about the need for early intervention for many years but, alas, far too little has been done to tackle its root causes. Many of your Lordships will perhaps remember that it was more than 30 years ago when Keith Joseph made his famous “cycle of deprivation” speech. Now, at last, with the two recent seminal reports from Frank Field and Graham Allen, it seems that all political parties, and none, have begun to be convinced of the need for a different approach.
The coalition’s plans could be tied in with another new approach beginning to gain ground in your Lordships’ thinking; namely, a requirement for all Governments, before legislating, to establish and publish the cost and expected financial benefit of what is proposed. If that happened, and at an appropriate later stage a compulsory independent evaluation is made as to whether the benefit had met those expectations, we might see considerable financial as well as social and economic gain from working in such a way with dysfunctional and disadvantaged families. An even wider benefit of such a move might mean that parliamentarians could begin to have less hasty and ill prepared legislation to deal with.
The financial situation is, of course, dire but it is never a good time for initiatives such as these. However, I am convinced that with a determined and properly funded early intervention strategy, the long-term financial savings would be considerable. The kind of early intervention action needed also is ideal for testing the Government’s big society approach.
The Government have plans to build on what Sure Start centres are doing. More than that, the Minister for Children and Families, Sarah Teather, announced in March that the Government will be setting up an early intervention foundation and have put aside £3.5 million for this purpose. All that is excellent news but there is one big concern. The funding of the foundation by the Government will be available for only two years. After that the government funding will cease. It is here, alas, that one’s heart begins to sink. With children and young people’s charities facing public funding cuts of £405 million over the next five years, one must have grave doubts about how practical this is, particularly when combined with considerable cuts to local authority resources. At the very least, the Government must bear responsibility for ensuring that the necessary backers for the commission’s continuation will be found, together with time and money needed to deliver the anticipated early intervention financial savings. I hope that the Minister can give the House reassurance on these points.
Other aims in the gracious Speech to strive to improve the lives of children and families are welcome. The sharing of parental responsibilities, which was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, would be much easier if greater flexibility in working hours were equally available for both sexes—I stress the need for men at least as much as for women—and not just for when children are very young. There is plenty of scope for that flexibility much later in the lives of children.
Many citizens will have been heartened by the Prime Minister’s promise—I believe that it was two days ago—to look at reducing the crippling costs of childcare. I hope too that the Government will pay particular attention to the unnecessary costs highlighted in the excellent briefing from Carers UK, which I expect noble Lords have received. It points out that 1 million carers have given up work, one in three because there is an insufficient level of appropriately qualified state care available. A study by the LSE states that around £1.3 billion is lost annually to carers who are unable to work for those reasons and who have to rely on state benefits. I hope that the Government will give their attention to what should be the proper balance in this area.
Lord Warner
My Lords, let me start by saying that I welcome the Government’s decision to include in their legislative programme a Bill to reform and speed up adoption processes. That is the end of the good news. Most of my contribution will relate to adult social care—on which, given the urgency of the situation, the Government have seriously let people down. It is of course true that they have promised a draft Bill on care and support at some time during this Session. However, they have still not delivered their long-promised White Paper on reform of adult social care, and the draft Bill will not deal with the most crucial issue: funding social care. Perhaps the Minister will tell us a bit more in his reply about when we may expect the White Paper, what he anticipates will be in the draft Bill and when it is likely to appear to an anxious audience.
I turn now to why the Government have really let everyone down by not coming forward with a comprehensive Bill on social care that reforms both the system and its funding. Like my noble friend Lady Morgan, I find it extraordinary that the Government can find the time and space for a Bill to reform the House of Lords—a subject of marginal interest to most of the public—but cannot comprehensively reform social care. It is a system that is acknowledged across the parties and throughout the public to be broken, and it affects large numbers of elderly people and their families throughout the country. It is an extraordinary choice of priority.
Perhaps I may say gently to the Minister that it is also striking that he did not even mention in his remarks that there is a draft Bill on social care and support in the gracious Speech. Therein lies the nub of the problem—namely, that the crumbling social care system is something about which the Government do not wish to talk, particularly in terms of its underfunding. They did not create the problem and they deserve a great deal of credit for including the issue in the coalition agreement and setting up an independent commission. Here I declare my interest as a member of the three-person independent Dilnot Commission on Funding of Care and Support. When the commission was set up, we were asked to report by July 2011 so that the Government could produce, with all the silkiness of the Department of Health’s slick official machine, a White Paper in time for legislation in this Session. We did our bit and we delivered on time. Not only did we deliver our report on time, we delivered it in a form in which the proposals attracted the support of a wide range of stakeholders—from carers’ interests and voluntary organisations working in this field to the financial services sector.
Where are we now? No White Paper has yet appeared. A draft Bill is promised, but it will not deal with funding. The cross-party talks, with a lot of pressure from Labour, have been proceeding in a desultory fashion and with little progress made. The two key people who have opted out of this process are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Perhaps the Minister can disabuse us all in his reply, but my understanding is that the Chancellor has swept this issue into the next comprehensive spending review. We have a situation where the cross-party talks are going on at Health Secretary and shadow Health Secretary level while the guys who hold the key to progress in this area are doing something else.
In the mean time, things can only get worse for the state-funded sector, which is where things are really bad. No new financial products are coming along from the financial services sector to help people save for long-term care. People in that sector will not produce new products without some clear cross-party support and views on the future funding system. Investment in the private sector, particularly in new homes and services, is being deferred until there is certainty about what the funding system will look like.
Day by day, local authorities are tightening their criteria so that only the most critical people in need get services. Service quality deteriorates. We have seen a lot of recent scandals about long-term care of the elderly, but I do not think that we have seen anything yet. We are dealing with a sector that is very labour intensive and largely staffed by people at or even below the minimum wage. There is a deficit in the state-funded sector and we are at least £1 billion a year short of what is needed to provide a decent service—and that figure is rising. Anxiety and fear among the elderly population and their families is now widespread. Funding social care has become a ticking time bomb, not least because a financially challenged NHS picks up the tab for the social care casualties who end up occupying inappropriate and expensive hospital beds.
I do not propose to do a commercial for the Dilnot report, but the start-up costs of its proposals was 0.14% of GDP and less than 1% of the NHS annual budget. We are living through a time in which the current figure of 1.5 million people over 85 will double by 2030. That is why we need to tackle this issue, and it is a grave disappointment that the Government are failing to act. It is now for the Prime Minister and Chancellor to start getting engaged.
Lord Laird
My Lords, I have noted the gracious Speech and hope that in this parliamentary year things can be changed that should be. For example, I have become increasingly worried about a build-up of resentment over actual or perceived corruption among police forces the length of this country. I am aware that my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, is also particularly concerned about this topic. I want to underline that corruption where it exists is only among a very small part of the overall police service.
In this parliamentary year, the Home Office must take a firm grip of the methods it has to supervise existing forces and, if necessary, seek new regulations. The geographical area that I am concerned about today is south Wales, its police force and the independence and governance of its police authority until taken over by police commissioners. Because I am known for having an inquiring mind, I have for years received amounts of information from many in the southern parts of the beautiful country of Wales. It seems that systemic corruption by a section of the police has been going on in that area for many decades, at all levels and involving officers in all types of crime and the operation of professional standards. It has done much to damage the image of the police. The force has failed to comply with Police and Criminal Evidence Act and there is an apparent non-adherence to the terms of the 2003 Clingham case standards of proof in evidence, judgment for which was heard in this House.
I go as far back as 1987, with the murder of a Cardiff newsagent, a dreadful and tragic event, made all the worse when the men convicted served over 11 years in jail only to have their names cleared in court and be released. The 11 years in jail followed the first trial, in which the accused had their human rights violated by inappropriate methods of questioning and by not allowing them at appropriate times legal representation. Following the release of the unfortunate accused, no action was taken against the police known to have been involved in the frame-up, and no apology given. There was just the bitterness of having the accused back in the community, with their lives, and those of their families, ruined.
This case from the 1980s may be dreadful, but is only one of many. There are the cases of Hewins, Clarke and Sullivan, the Darvell brothers, Jonathan Jones and many more, in which people were jailed who subsequently had their convictions quashed and were released back into the community. In all cases, the names of most of the police officers who set up the evidence that caused the convictions are well known. Some 20 officers are involved, but the believed ringleader, an inspector, has never been arrested yet. Much has been written about their actions, which gave them the opportunity for the named officers to sue the writers for libel—but, interestingly, they did not. Many journalists, including TV and radio programmes, have explored these cases, but no substantial official action appears to have been taken against them. Why?
As if all the pain and suffering were not enough, the cost to the taxpayers of investigations and trials was massive—funds that could have been spent in other areas of policing. I have examined myself the tops and bottoms of types of cases handled by South Wales Police. Now let us consider the police authority. As from 10 May, the current chairman, a magistrate and independent member, Mr John Littlechild, will have served continually since 1989. When complaints are made against the police, the authority, rather than acting independently to ensure that the force is monitored to keep it working efficiently and effectively and meeting all appropriate standards, seems to align with its friends against all comers. This includes Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary when it makes critical comments. For an example, see police authority minutes of 13 February. The authority in its standards and recording its business apparently fails to adhere to its own standing orders. For an example, see again the minutes of 13 February.
As recently as last night, at an Old St Mellons Partners and Communities Together group meeting, the sector inspector Nicky Flower withdrew her officers from taking part in the group meeting. She ignored written requests made to her and copied to senior officials last May to meet with all the village PACT panel members. This group has to date had nine freedom of information requests to provide documentation regarding information requested by residents on crime and anti-social behaviour incidents in the area, and the action taken. The residents are concerned at the number of burglaries, arsons and other crimes in the area. At two public meetings, there have been unanimous shows of hands for the information, which is still not provided, but which is freely given out at other PACT meetings in the same area. The number of crimes in the area reported to the Home Office is only a small fraction of the actual number, as claimed by the residents. They attend because in many cases they have been directly affected and suffered loss and cost. The chairman wrote last July for a meeting of the full panel, with the chief constable or the assistant chief constable responsible for PACT in person, due to dissatisfaction. The deputy chief constable stated to the panel members at force headquarters on 13 February that she had no knowledge of the requests but would have a meeting. This meeting has still not taken place.
Following the collapse of the £10 million Lynette White murder trial before Christmas, the chief constable, Peter Vaughan, claimed the loss of the IPCC evidence documents, saying that they had been shredded. He then went on to admit, on 17 January, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, that they had been found. Drastic action must be taken; the only way forward is for the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place to be requested to carry out an investigation into south Wales constabulary and its police authority.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I was pleased to hear in the Queen’s Speech the Government’s announcement that the children and families Bill will include a number of proposals designed to improve the adoption and family court systems. The largest voluntary sector providers of adoption and fostering in the country, Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as a vice-president of the charity—welcomes these proposals, which it has highlighted for many years.
The Government’s aim to speed up the time it takes to approve people looking to adopt and the proposal that potential adopters, who may have been put off in the past by the selection processes, are now to be trained, assessed and approved within six months, is a huge step forward. So, too, is the proposal for a national matching system, helping to avoid the situation where there is unmet need in one local authority but suitable adoptive parents in another. However, there are a number of other measures not included in the proposals, so I urge the Government to focus not just on adoption but to use this great opportunity to take an overview of the whole care system from start to finish, beginning with speeding up the process of endangered children being taken into care by taking steps to encourage better integration between local authority departments, in particular those concerned with child protection and looked-after children, because in Barnardo’s experience they often do not communicate well.
The majority of children in care are in foster placements and fostering is often the most appropriate and effective option, but there are often delays in matching children with foster carers, especially siblings, disabled children, older children and those from black and culture diverse backgrounds. So again I urge the Government to give the same level of priority to improving foster placement as they do to adoption to make sure that foster carers are trained, assessed and approved for this important role.
Being brought up by adoptive parents with a shared race, culture or language is clearly the best option. However, I believe that the most important consideration should be for the child to be matched with loving parents, and that matching children for ethnicity should not be the key factor when determining placements. However, we do need to make sure that a better understanding of the complex issues surrounding race and culture is encouraged throughout the whole of society, and that includes the media. Potential adoptive parents should also be given support and education on the psychology and philosophy of bringing up a child of Afro-Caribbean or other culture within a family of a different ethnicity. I hope that the Government will break down all the existing barriers and carry out work to ensure that this will be the case.
The proposed reforms offer an opportunity for the Government to launch a publicity drive to recruit both new adoptive parents and new foster carers, and not just leave it to chance or to charities. Then, it is hoped, a more diverse range of people will be encouraged to come forward to adopt and to foster. Adoption can occasionally go wrong, so it is great to know that the Government have committed to providing support for parents for up to three years. However, I believe that there should be long-term support to minimise adoption breakdown, especially for children in their teenage years, as this can be a particularly challenging time for any family.
There have been several instances of children in the care system being sexually exploited and recent cases have highlighted the extent of this evil and wicked abusive practice. However, if children could be placed in stable, loving homes as early as possible, that would be the best preventive action against them being exploited. However, I would also like to draw attention to another serious issue which affects sexually exploited children when their cases are taken to court. I urge the Government to act now to focus on cases where barristers acting for multiple defendants repeatedly and inappropriately cross-examine young victims in sexual exploitation cases. Sometimes up to nine different barristers question the same witness. I strongly believe that these vulnerable witnesses should be better protected from unfair, improper and inappropriate questioning, so there need to be stronger rules and guidelines to safeguard these already damaged young children against suffering even more trauma, pain and distress.
I, too, welcome the strengthened role of the Children’s Commissioner announced in the Queen’s Speech, which is a great indication of the importance placed on children in our society. There is a strong signal in the Queen’s Speech that children’s well-being matters. I welcome this opportunity to bring in better policies to champion the rights of every child. With the right commitment and determination we can make sure that even the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children can turn their lives around and go on to form happy, sustainable relationships with their own children. The feeling of belonging, being loved and wanted is so important to a child. It gives them confidence, resilience, self-worth and self-esteem. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime, so let us make sure we do everything possible to give each and every child happy beginnings. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pitkeathley
Like so many of your Lordships who, during the many long hours that we spent in your Lordships’ House on the Health and Social Care Bill, argued that we needed to make that Bill—now an Act —worthy of its title and to properly integrate social care with healthcare, I was immensely disappointed to be presented with the offer of only a draft Bill on social care in the gracious Speech. It is indeed sad that we are missing what many observers believe is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to integrate care delivery systems in a way that matches the experience of the user, whose care is not needed in neat packages labelled “health” or “social care”. Users need care which crosses lives and boundaries, both geographical and organisational, and which is funded in a variety of ways: by the state, charities, the individual and families.
My own Government missed an opportunity in this regard in the late 1990s when they established their royal commission on social care. Given the consensus around the Dilnot proposals, it is a bitter disappointment that the coalition is set to do the same. Indeed, the disappointment is even greater in the case of the coalition because of the huge consensus around the Dilnot proposals and the promises that have been made. My noble friend Lord Warner was a distinguished member of the Dilnot commission. As I and others have said endlessly in this Chamber, you will never be able to deliver an efficient National Health Service if you do not integrate it properly with social care and national assessment criteria and provide absolute clarity about what individuals and their families can expect. As the Care and Support Alliance put it in a letter to the Prime Minister, reminding him about his legacy for the future:
“Social care is in crisis. The system is chronically underfunded and in urgent need of reform. Without this too many older and disabled people will be left in desperate circumstances, struggling on alone, living in misery and fear, in danger of losing our savings, our dignity, our independence”.
The letter has already been cited by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale.
However, we are where we are and, if we cannot have proper integration, we must at least ensure that the draft Bill that we are to see—no doubt following the long-expected White Paper—corrects some of the anomalies of the current situation. We must be thankful at least that the Government seem set to amend the confused law around this topic, following the excellent proposals in the Law Commission report.
I wish to focus particularly on what the main providers of care—those 6 million carers—urgently need from this draft Bill. I remind your Lordships that there is a very strong economic as well as moral case for supporting carers. Not only do they save the nation nearly £120 billion every year, but annually 1 million people give up work to care for others. A recent report by Carers UK, Growing the Care Market, cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, suggests that a lack of stimulation of the care market means that we are missing out on about 100,000 potential jobs every year. Heaven knows, we need potential jobs, given the current situation. According to new figures from the LSE, around £1.3 billion annually is lost in revenue from carers who are unable to work and have to rely on state benefits.
Most people will become carers at some point in their lives. They provide substantial care. Those who do so for long hours are twice as likely to suffer ill health as those who do not. The majority of carers of working age say that they wish to work but the services are not there to support them. Speaking to such a carer yesterday, I was very hard-pressed to explain why we in this House had spent almost four days contemplating our navels and discussing House of Lords reform when we had not given the same attention to this urgent issue.
Social care legislation is a complex web spanning 60 years of legislation, with more than 43 different statutes and countless pieces of guidance with the force of law. Many statutes overlap, some have slightly different interpretations and some slightly contradict each other. A new law could streamline and simplify matters, making it easier for public organisations to deliver services more efficiently and helping service delivery organisations to explain and deliver against new legislation. We might then finally get to the stage where people understand what their entitlements are. So far as concerns carers, such a law needs to incorporate at least all the rights in the three major cornerstones of carers legislation, which were all Private Members’ Bills, promoted and supported by MPs and Peers from all parties in Parliament. They are the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act, the Carers and Disabled Children Act and the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act.
Two other vital elements must be addressed: portability and national assessment criteria. In order to create truly personalised services, we must have a system that allows people to move from one area to another without interruption of their care. In order to make proper care a reality, it is vital that we have national eligibility criteria, as suggested by the Dilnot commission.
I welcome the opportunity offered by the Minister to scrutinise draft legislation before it is introduced in Parliament. We need to do that, and we also need to ensure that the user and carer organisations have an opportunity to contribute to that draft scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is the Government’s intention. I also urge the Government to bring forward new legislation at the earliest opportunity, setting out a clear timescale for doing so. Legislation must start its journey in Parliament in this Session. Further delay will raise alarm and concern.
Talking of alarm and concern, I return to the issue of funding. Reform of the legal basis and structure of social care cannot solve the current crisis in care unless it comes hand in hand with reform of social care funding. We urgently need to bring forward measures to correct the funding crisis and to meet existing unmet need so that a sustainable, long-term settlement is created between the state, the community and the family to meet rising demand.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
My Lords, I, too, was pleased that the gracious Speech included a commitment that the Government will strive to improve the lives of children and families. My motivation for wanting to contribute to this debate is the work that I see first-hand at Tomorrow’s People. I therefore declare an interest in that I am the chief executive of that organisation.
I, too, was interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, and I sense that she was in concert with the issues that our young people face in society. With regard to the young people whom we are talking about and trying to help, we can spend many hours deciding whose fault it is and how their situation has been arrived at, but those young people are interested in what we are going to do about it. It is on that that I wish to speak today.
A great deal of effort has been invested in understanding and proving the need for earlier intervention in children’s lives. Much evidence exists to confirm the value of this. My heart was in concert with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, when she referred to the need for early years intervention. For too long, effort and finance have been invested in services that try to put right the consequences of not dealing with issues at an earlier stage.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords some examples. Some 16% of 16 to 24 year-olds in England are NEETs —not in education, employment or training. They are three times more likely to suffer from depression, four times more likely to be out of work and five times more likely to have a criminal record. The fiscal cost of those things alone does not bear thinking about. In 2008, the total NEET cohort cost an estimated £13 billion in public finance and £22 billion in lost opportunity costs over their lifetimes. A more compelling case for working with children and families at an earlier stage I cannot imagine. Preparing our children for life at the earliest opportunity is a must if we are to avoid the human cost of doing nothing, let alone avoid the accompanying fiscal burden.
I read with interest a newspaper article this weekend by Anthony Seldon, the well known headmaster of Wellington College. His article talks about the wide-ranging role of educating our young people, both academically and socially. While the education system quite rightly must focus on academic attainment, we must not lose sight of the need for a more rounded system which focuses on the social development of our young people. It is the development and support of the whole person that we must strive for. Perhaps I may share with noble Lords some more information that demonstrates the case.
If you are not in education, training or employment, you face significant challenges. Half of the parents of such people have no educational qualifications. Many deal with alcoholism, crime and domestic abuse at home. Four out of 10 come from homes where no one works. At least one in 12 has a medium to high level of caring responsibility at home.
I commend to the House the work of the Private Equity Foundation in trying to turn the tide on this issue. Working in partnership with the Government, a new service called ThinkForward has been launched. In essence, it is an opportunity for young people to receive the individual help that they need to become rounded citizens and to make an effective transition to the workplace. It is delivered at the age of 14, it involves prevention rather than cure and it invests in getting things right rather than trying to clear up a problem at a later stage. I hope that this will be rolled out in other areas of the country.
I would not blame noble Lords if they had started having palpitations at this point. I can hear the call, “How much is it going to cost?”. The working capital to deliver this does not come from government; it comes from individuals, companies and businesses that are prepared to finance the delivery. Only when success is achieved do the Government need to pay, and then it comes out of the savings achieved. The cost cannot stand in the way of doing something.
Recently, I met a young man of 17 who was desperate to work. He was bright, keen and responsible. What was stopping him? Was it the labour market? No. His mother was a drug addict. He had three brothers ranging in age from eight to two. He got them dressed in the morning, gave them breakfast, got them ready for school and delivered them there. He wanted to be near his brothers during the day. Because their mother was an addict, they were ridiculed at school, and the fact that they were not dressed in quite the same way as other young people was a real problem for them. He collected them from school, made sure that they got home safely, fed them and got them to bed in order that they could function at school as well as they could because he did not want them to end up as their mother had.
If any of us have palpitations because of this injustice then I shall be pleased, but let our hearts beat quicker and with more determination so that we work with children and their families to ensure that they are prepared for a productive life and to ensure that that life works for them. At the beginning of the debate, my noble friend Lord McNally asked what type of society we wanted to be in. The answer is one that responds to those young people and prevents them having problems, rather than having to cure them at a later stage.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, isn’t it nice not to be talking about ourselves? I remind the House that my interests include involvement with a number of performing arts organisations, including the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Roundhouse Trust. I mention that because despite the portmanteau title of today's section of the debate, the gracious Speech in fact has nothing explicitly to say about culture, and certainly not about the arts. When the noble Lord, Lord McNally, introduced the debate, he omitted to mention that culture was even part of today’s debate. Go figure. This is no surprise because I cannot recall when a gracious Speech ever did say anything explicitly about culture.
It is not surprising but it is revealing. In this country we have tended to have an ambivalent attitude to our cultural life and heritage, sometimes congratulating ourselves heartily on the success of our artists, our tourist attractions, our theatre, our historic buildings and our vibrant museums and galleries and, at other times, we appear to view art, artists and cultural endeavour as variously marginal, frequently ridiculous, an unjustified drain on the public purse and not a proper job. Having worked my whole life in the performing arts, I know well how dispiriting indifference can feel to those for whom making a career in what we now call the cultural industries means years of demanding training followed by mostly under-remunerated employment in a fiercely competitive market, in order, not only to provide pleasure and entertainment for other people but often also to contribute valuable work in education, health, prisons, as mentioned earlier, and elsewhere. Glamorous it mostly ain't.
I want to salute our artists, everyone from Oscar and Turner prize winners through to those about to graduate from our colleges and conservatoires. We need them and they do us proud. Just because the gracious Speech says nothing about culture, it certainly does not mean that there is nothing to say; in fact, just now there is rather a lot to say, but the speakers’ list is long, and we are all aiming to be brief, so, hedgehog-like, I have just one big point.
From the moment when the coalition Government took office in 2010, it was clear that the public sector was in for a rough ride. To be fair, things would probably have been pretty tough if my party had been re-elected, but not because the UK economy had been uniquely mismanaged, as we are repeatedly told from the Benches opposite, but because the world economy had suffered a traumatic shock from which, as we can see all too clearly today, it is still struggling to recover. In these circumstances, no sector in receipt of public funds could expect to escape unscathed. The cultural sector certainly had no such expectations, and in the wake of a challenging spending round in 2010, Arts Council England undertook, very scrupulously, the painful task of reorganising its portfolio of support, along the way reducing or withdrawing funds to many successful organisations. Local authorities followed suit, faced with their own budget restrictions, and the net result, now that the impact of these decisions is kicking in, is serious damage to the provision of arts and culture right across the country. I could list all the losses suffered but I will not. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, may do some of that for me. However, I will say this: it is easy to take things apart but much more difficult to build them up again. To quote the song:
“Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you've got
‘Til it's gone”.
At the time of the election, this Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Mr Jeremy Hunt, told the arts sector that, despite the inevitability of reduced government funding, help was at hand. He had a plan and it was called philanthropy. The then bright-eyed and bushy tailed Mr Hunt—tail a bit straggly now and eye a bit dull—was convinced that, given a little encouragement, huge new resources could be released from the private sector to fill the gap. Does that sound familiar? Some of us, veterans of many years spent developing the delicately balanced mixed economy which keeps our cultural sector lively, were a little sceptical, but nobody wanted to rain on his parade, except, as it turns out, his right honourable colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this year's rather accident-prone Budget, Mr Osborne chose to introduce a cap on charitable donations so that there is now an active disincentive on major donors to give. Many cultural institutions already rely heavily on such donors, including perhaps some of those who do the good work mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. Worse, the Chancellor, supported, to my great surprise and dismay, by Polly Toynbee but by few others, carelessly implied, in his attempts to justify this curious bit of double-think, that giving generously to charity is just a form of tax avoidance. That was at best inept. I could put it more pungently as, in fact, the director of the National Theatre, Nicholas Hytner, put it when he referred to major donors in a recent article in the Guardian. He wrote:
“It is frankly slanderous to suggest that any of them are involved in tax avoidance. It is also ridiculous. To qualify for tax relief of £2,500, a higher-rate (40%) taxpayer … would be down £7,500. Call me a financial illiterate, but I can't see what's been avoided here—and many wealthy philanthropists give millions away each year”.
He went on to say:
“Unsurprisingly, a number of donors are having to reconsider what they hoped to be able to give”.
I am reliably informed that this damaging effect of the Chancellor's extraordinary decision is spreading.
Those who give generously to charities, including the arts, doubtless do so for a variety of reasons, but of all the many motives that may be in play I am quite sure that securing a tax benefit is rarely, if ever, the main one because, as Nick Hytner points out, there is little such benefit to these individuals who have, over the years, helped to make possible the creation of some of our finest buildings and our most innovative creative programmes. It is preposterous, and demeaning, to brand as tax avoiders people such as Dame Vivien Duffield or the Sainsbury family, or the one I know best, Sir Torquil Norman, who not only persuaded many generous people to contribute to his brilliant reinvention of the Roundhouse in North London as a creative centre for young people but also put millions of his own money into the project. He and others like him have done nothing at all to deserve the slur that has been cast upon them. Who could blame them if they chose to take their bats and balls home, although I suspect that they will try to find another way forward being, in the main, resilient and thoughtful people.
The Government are entitled to look at every option for maximising tax revenue, and should do so, but on this occasion they appear to have scored a notable own goal, discouraging the very people whose support they can least afford to lose. Like Hamlet, they have shot an arrow over the house and hurt their brothers. When the Minister replies perhaps he can say what the Government intend to do to right this wrong.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, the gracious Speech contained a welcome commitment to improve the lives of children and families, and who could disagree with that? There is much that I would like to say about adoption, and indeed other forms of permanency, including life chances for children in care, speeding up processes in the family courts and improving the assessment and support available for disabled children and those with special educational needs. However, I shall save those comments for another day because today I want to highlight the complexity of families by talking about a group who are all too often put in too difficult and unglamorous a box: older people who are unable to look after themselves any longer.
In my experience, family policy often overlooks older people, both as regards the invaluable contribution that they can make to their own families and the wider community and as regards their own care needs if they are to lead a dignified life in old age with the quality of life that we would all wish for ourselves. It is a stark fact that over the next two decades, the number of people aged over 80 is set to double in Britain. That presents major challenges for the way in which public services are delivered, the way our houses, towns and cities are designed and the way in which families organise their lives.
The major shortcomings with the adult social care system are well documented and cause people to be fearful. In brief, the current system is fragmented: there is a postcode lottery; it is extremely variable in quality, confusing and hard to understand; it focuses on crisis cases and high-end needs rather than on preventive action; and, of course, as we have already heard, the funding is unsustainable. Many carers and those needing care find themselves let down by a faltering service and others find themselves having to sell their homes in order to pay for the care that they need. Of the 2 million older people in England with care-related needs, nearly 800,000 receive no support of any kind from public or private sector agencies. As the Health Select Committee stated in its recent report on social care, it comes as a great shock to many people to find that while the care provided by the NHS is free, care services such as help with washing and preparing food at home are means tested, and many will have to pay for them.
Every family in the land is affected by the issue. It is no respecter of class, income, geography or ethnic group. That is why I consider it to be the biggest social policy challenge facing the country. Caring for older people affects everyone in the family—particularly women. Increasingly, families find themselves caring for the needs of three, four and even five generations. This can place a huge strain on those caught in the middle. They may find themselves simultaneously supporting teenage children, looking after young grandchildren and caring for elderly and frail parents or even grandparents—all of this at the same time as being at their most stretched in their working lives. No wonder they are increasingly called the squeezed or sandwiched generation. Of course, it makes the new legislative measures proposed on flexible parental leave and flexible working particularly important.
I welcome the draft Bill announced in the gracious Speech that is intended to modernise the legal framework for social care; it is much needed. I also welcome the commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny. There is huge expertise and passion in your Lordships’ House on the subject and I very much hope that both Houses will be involved in the process. However, the Bill is only one element of the radical overhaul that is needed for the system as a whole. Our goal should be to create a coherent, consistent and comprehensive system of care, with effective strategic planning and commissioning, improved quality of care, substantial workforce development, more choice and personalisation of care, proper information advice—and above all, fair and transparent funding as well as a greater focus on early preventive services.
The forthcoming White Paper, the funding progress report and the draft Bill should be seen and judged as an overall package that needs to add up to considerably more than the sum of its parts. We heard a lot today about the Dilnot report. It is well known to many in this House and widely regarded as an excellent report. It is not the whole answer to the problems I described because its remit was to recommend a new funding system. However, the potential funding framework that it offers is by far the best yet produced. In short, Dilnot provides a framework for a long-term settlement for funding social care—a partnership between the individual and the state. The funding model aims to eliminate the catastrophic care costs faced by some people by capping the maximum amount that individuals contribute over their lifetime, beyond which the state will meet all future costs. By limiting people’s liability in this way it is expected that a market will develop with new financial products so that people can insure themselves against the costs of their contributions.
There are many other very good recommendations in the report, such as national eligibility criteria for services and portable assessments between local authorities. However, I will focus on why it is so difficult to make progress. Some have argued that the Dilnot proposals are too much about protecting the wealth and property of the majority and not enough about targeting help on the most needy. I do not see it that way. I see the Dilnot proposals as being about sharing costs and risks rather than about protecting the wealthy. At the moment, individuals assume all the risks of becoming unwell or disabled or having care needs, especially in old age. People who work hard all their lives to provide for themselves and their families risk losing everything and being reduced to a threadbare existence through simple misfortune.
Of course there is a key concern about affordability. In the current economic climate that is understandable, but it does not preclude the Government committing to key principles governing the future funding framework, including a cost cap, and considering the phased introduction of the cap with its level perhaps recalibrated as economic conditions improve. While those details are being sorted, immediate steps could be taken at modest cost to help people start planning for the future. These include creating a deferred payment scheme and developing comprehensive information and advice services.
In conclusion, I agree with Andrew Dilnot that this is primarily a moral crusade. Future generations will not forgive us if we duck the issue simply because it is difficult—as indeed it is, particularly with the economic climate being so tough. I urge the Government to be courageous and to start embarking on the path now, particularly if a cross-party consensus can be found, and to start a national conversation about the political priority that should be given to this area, and the trade-offs that may be needed in other areas. We owe it to future generations and we must not let them down.
Lord Smith of Leigh
My Lords, this is the first occasion for more than a year that I have spoken in your Lordships’ House, because in March last year I was taken seriously ill. Thanks to excellent medical care from Wigan Infirmary and particularly the Christie Hospital in Manchester I am back and in reasonably good health. I have always taken an interest in health in your Lordships’ House because of my role as a local authority leader. I declare that interest as well as my vice-presidency of the LGA. Of course, my own experiences have reinforced my belief in the need for good healthcare. This was my first time in hospital since I had my tonsils out at the age of four, and the passion I feel now for the NHS was reinforced by the experience.
I was pleased that the Queen’s Speech had something in it about social care; I thought that at last we were tackling the issue. Of course, when the details came out we saw what was involved in the proposal—a draft Bill on eligibility. We know that it is necessary, but given the scale of the problems and the financial crisis in social care, it is woefully inadequate. I hope that the coalition will not hide behind this approach and try to dodge the issue of long-term funding in healthcare.
The current system of social care is not fit for purpose. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, its operation is incoherent and a mystery to many people. Clients and families do not understand the system, what they are entitled to and why there are so many unacceptable variations between different areas. For one in 10 people who need social care, it has a catastrophic financial impact. We need to make sure that we do something about that. The fears that people have about growing old are something that we ought to tackle in a proper manner.
Clearly, the financial squeeze on local authorities is the main problem. The increase in the budget for social care that we have seen over the past decade has lagged well behind the increase in the whole NHS budget. This increase meant that more went to people with physical and learning disabilities—and quite right, too. However, there has been a 6% increase in the number of old people over the period. Therefore, the amount of money available for the care of the elderly has reduced in real terms. As other speakers said, the number of those aged 85 and over has increased by 25%, with associated costs because people have much more complex needs at that age.
Given demand pressures, it has been extrapolated that by 2024, all of local authority budgets will go on care. Clearly, 12 years ahead is a long time for Ministers to think; their timescale is much shorter. However, I hope that your Lordships’ House will still be in operation at that time. We cannot avoid facing up to this financial pressure. Local authorities faced grant reductions of some 25% to 30%. The LGA reckoned that in the past year about £1 billion was taken out of social care budgets. The symptoms of this financial pressure are all around us. We remember the collapse not long ago of the Southern Cross care homes. The fact that local authorities have again not increased the fees they pay to care homes has created huge financial pressures there. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned the home care system. When I got into local government, it was there as a backstop to give support for people to stay in their homes. Now the criteria and the allocated time levels have been reduced and it is inadequate to support many local clients in their own homes.
The greatest danger of the squeeze on social care is its impact on the NHS. If you look at the NHS, you can see an increase in the number of emergency admissions for older people. It is 12% and rising since 2005, but for people over 85, the increase has been 48%. Because people are unable to get proper care support, the length of stay in hospital is increasing. On the acute ward where I was, I observed a patient who was kept there simply because he was unable to feed himself properly. Therefore he was kept on an acute ward—with all its costs—because he could not manage at home.
Over the past decade we made considerable progress with the problem of bed blocking. We are now tipping the other way. My observation was that people are beginning to block beds because the NHS is facing its own financial crisis. Although the settlement in the comprehensive spending review has flat-lined, because of this inexorable rise in the elderly population, the NHS must find productivity savings of some £5 billion a year. Unless we get social care right, the NHS will not be able to achieve those savings. The inadequacy of the treatment of old people already in hospital was revealed by the recent Care Quality Commission report about the poor quality of care that many old people get in the NHS. It will get worse as an increased burden is put on it by the inability of local authorities and others in the social care field to do it.
We cannot continue to patch up this failing system. We have to make radical change. Many noble Lords have mentioned Dilnot and so I will not go into that. More resources are necessary but that is not sufficient to deal with the problem. We have to look at the problem in a different light and in different ways. I have been a councillor for a fair number of years and we have all talked about the need to integrate health and social care. We talk about it, but it has never happened properly. Only 5% of budgets are properly pooled across the NHS and local authorities. We need to do much more about that. We also need much more innovative approaches if we are to deal with the crisis before us.
Integration with health budgets needs to be done. We could have a single pot of health and social care budgets sent to a locality based upon assessment of need, which would not simply be age-related—although that would clearly be an important factor—but also related to the needs of the population. We need a much more joined-up approach in the way we deliver services. I suggest that the NHS needs to engage with local authorities much more in the community budget pilots, which look at innovative ways of delivering. If we want to avoid that meltdown in social care, we all as politicians, whether at national or local level, need to work together to find a solution. It is urgent and cannot go into the long grass.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, this afternoon, as she laid out some key concerns of the arts and cultural sector which I share. In particular, I share her disappointment at an apparent lack of interest or understanding of arts and culture. I am particularly disappointed by the sense of a lack of a strategic approach; of any sense of what is expected of the sector, where it is meant to be going and what lies in store for us. However, in my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech, I want to draw attention to the role of culture in relation to the concept of well-being, with specific reference to older people.
I would like to thank Mark O’Neill, the director of policy and research at Culture and Sport Glasgow, and Janis Grant, project manager for the Mental Health Foundation’s Age Well project, for their help in providing information for my comments. The Mental Health Foundation established a panel of inquiry in 2010, which I have had the pleasure and privilege of chairing, to investigate the challenges to mental well-being that people born between 1945 and 1955 are likely to face as they age; and to explore what can be done to protect and enhance mental well-being for that cohort.
State funding of culture began on the basis of a Victorian intuition that new institutions were needed to replace earlier forms of community life which had been undermined by industrialisation, migration to cities and rapid population growth. There is now significant medical evidence that the institutions they created have had the intended effect. Cultural participation makes a positive and measurable contribution to human well-being. These studies conclude that public investment in cultural services is an essential element in a preventive public health strategy.
Culture has been particularly important in defining the so-called baby boomers: the first generation to be raised on television, influenced by advertisements and have their own record players, transistor radios and so on. They were key to creating popular culture in all its manifestations: fashion, music, dance, youth culture, talent shows, theatre, film and so on. As the cohort grows older it will continue to look to existing, emerging and as yet unthought-of cultural forms for stimulating leisure activities through a range of different media, including the internet and social media. The recent government public health White Paper Healthy Lives, Healthy People defines well-being as,
“a positive physical, social and mental state … Good well-being does not just mean the absence of mental illness—it brings a wide range of benefits, including reduced health risk behaviour … reduced mortality, improved educational outcomes and increased productivity at work”.
Mental well-being means that people can enjoy their later years and cope with some of the challenges that growing older brings. Cultural activities are an essential element in a society that promotes well-being, because well-being is concerned with fostering positive activity that enables people to flourish. An objective of the Age Well project is to examine the ways that the various media impact on the mental well-being of baby boomers, through reflecting their interests and needs and looking at how they might provide a better balance between the positive and the more challenging aspects of growing older.
Culture and the arts can affect mental well-being in many ways. Participation in cultural events can contribute to social cohesion, reduce isolation and loneliness, and support initiatives that develop understanding between generations—an increasingly important issue in the context of an ageing society and diminishing resources. Cultural activity can contribute to skills development and lifelong learning, help to sustain vibrant communities and grow the economy. Culturally enriching experiences increase appreciation of aesthetics, cultural artefacts, historic and global performance traditions, and historic buildings. I should declare an interest as an English Heritage commissioner.
Fostering this appreciation can develop a sense of meaning, continuity and connection for individuals, families and communities, and a confident curiosity about the world. These qualities are especially important during times of rapid and difficult change. That is why it is essential that local and national government promote them and contribute to the funding of arts and culture. Since 1996 more than 15 large-scale epidemiological studies, published in, for example, the British Medical Journal, have found evidence that cultural attendance improves health so much that people actually live longer. This is not about art therapy or even taking part in creative activities, but simply about going to concerts, museums, art galleries or the cinema. The findings of the original study have been confirmed, and key issues such as causality and effect have been tested and addressed.
As the population age balance changes and more people live for longer, if they do so with high levels of mental well-being, they are more likely to experience less mental illness, better physical health and reduced use of health and care services. They will live not just longer but better-quality lives. In an ageing society and with greater focus on increasing the quality of life post-retirement, there is a need to provide enriching, meaningful and stimulating activity which can be enjoyed in later life. Cultural and leisure services provided by local authorities have in the past done this on a large scale. We will see what impact the cuts have on that activity in future. However, there is no doubt that these services will become increasingly important. Sustained public funding for arts and culture at all levels is essential to ensure that all citizens have access to cultural opportunities.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
My Lords, the debate today is taking place against the background of what has been described as the “greatest political media scandal” of our times. I have borrowed that judgment from the recent report by the House of Lords Communications Committee, on which I served during the previous Session, entitled The Future of Investigative Journalism. Our report was published in February, and since then the continuing revelations from the Leveson inquiry have maintained the pressure for media reform. Lord Justice Leveson is not expected to publish his recommendations until the end of the year, and it will then be for the Government and Parliament to decide what legislation or reform of media regulation might be necessary. Given the timetable, Leveson’s findings should help to inform the parliamentary debate on legislation promised in the gracious Speech to reform the law on defamation.
However, as your Lordships will be aware, a great deal of work has already been done to shape the new Defamation Bill. Back in January 2010, concern about the workings of our libel laws prompted the then Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, to set up an expert working party. In initiating that review, the Labour Government looked to tackling injustices such as powerful claimants using our courts to pursue legal actions at great expense where publication had caused no substantial harm, and to curb so-called libel tourism by foreign parties pursuing matters of little relevance in this country through our courts. Labour also wanted to simplify and strengthen the legal defences available against actions for libel. Another primary concern was the expense of lengthy court proceedings and the fact that at times these seemed to be used to stifle debate on matters of public interest.
The working party set up by Labour helped to lay the foundations for the coalition Government’s draft Defamation Bill, which was published for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny last year. I am sure that noble Lords will join the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in congratulating the Joint Committee of both Houses on the thoroughness with which it scrutinised the draft Bill. The recent government response to the Joint Committee report accepted its advice on some issues and promised further consideration of other recommendations. I trust that when the Defamation Bill is published, it will continue to command broad support and that freedom of speech will be better protected.
Lord Justice Leveson’s terms of reference ask him to,
“make recommendations … for a new … regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press … while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards”.
That is not easy and I will not attempt to anticipate the inquiry’s findings. However, having spent most of my working life in television subject to regulation which required reporting to be accurate and impartial, I say that it might reassure print journalists to know that our regulatory regimes did help to maintain standards and often protected serious programme-making, albeit with occasional private and public spats.
It is also encouraging that, despite cutbacks in most budgets, the public service broadcasters—the BBC, ITV and Channel 4—say that they will strive to maintain their commitment to investigative current affairs. Regrettably, editorial budgets are under increasing pressure in newspapers where falling revenues are undermining the ability of journalists to deliver in-depth specialist coverage in important areas of public life. That is particularly true in local newspapers where business models based on classified advertising are being destroyed by competition from the internet and many titles are closing. An early debate in this House on these issues based on the recent Lords Communications Committee report on journalism would be very timely. Unfortunately, the formal response of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to our committee’s concerns has been delayed because the department wants to wait for the Leveson recommendations at the end of the year. That may be understandable, and the Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, is no doubt preoccupied with the Leveson inquiry and his present difficulties, but there are important matters on the media agenda which must be advanced in the coming year.
Last week, the media regulator Ofcom invited applications to run 21 new local television stations across the UK. That is a bold personal initiative by Mr Hunt, but his confidence in their commercial viability is not yet widely shared. Another controversial task for Ofcom is its consideration of whether, in the light of allegations of hacking and corruption, the broadcasting licence of BSkyB is in “fit and proper” hands. Related questions about media plurality will also no doubt surface in the coming Session. The Government have promised that the UK will have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015, which is another very challenging target. There are also public service television licences for channels 3 and 5 to be renewed, or not, by 2014. A Green Paper on media policy was scheduled for publication last year, to be followed by a White Paper this year and then by a draft communications Bill in the spring of 2013. Unfortunately, even the Green Paper is not now expected until the end of this year. Again it seems that we may be waiting for Leveson. In the mean time, evidence of more purposive activity on media policy options by the DCMS would be reassuring.
To be fair, another departmental distraction must of course be the preparations for the London Olympics this summer. So, to conclude on a more positive note: all credit to the DCMS for its Olympian performance under both the Labour and coalition Governments over the past seven years. Major projects have actually been delivered on time, which is not a common occurrence in the history of Olympic Games. The department has also invested in performance, so we now look forward to the achievements of our British sports men and women and wish them every success.
Lord Sawyer
My Lords, I would like to speak briefly about social exclusion. I do not think it is necessary to persuade the House of the need to tackle this issue. My right honourable friend Alan Milburn in the previous Labour Government, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Education Secretary in this Government, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, in an interesting and helpful speech today, have all made the case, which does not need to be repeated. Instead, I welcome and commend to Members of the House the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility which has been published in the past week. What I like about it is that it adopts what I would call an holistic approach to the problem. It recognises seven key truths about social mobility.
The report states that the point of greatest leverage is what happens between birth and three years old primarily in the home, through to education, emphasising the importance of good-quality teaching. It then looks at the after-school culture, the role of higher education and what are described as post-education pathways. Finally—this is the point I want to say something about today—the report looks at personal resilience and emotional well-being among those who are socially excluded in our community. The report reckons that this is an area which has not been fully explored and it asks questions about what might be done. I would like to offer some feedback in this respect.
The report suggests that the way forward is to try to replicate confidence in young people along the lines of fostering what it describes as “public school confidence”. I think that that is the wrong approach. What you have to do with young people who are struggling to climb the education or employment ladder is to work with individuals and with the community in which they find themselves. In other words, an individual’s confidence must be built up within the community they come from. To pull in something from outside, like “public school confidence”, in my opinion would be to send the wrong message.
I will never lose sight of the fact, particularly considering the area of the north-east where I come from, that these communities were once proud and confident. Now they have problems because of economic change and unemployment, but they are still communities and they do not want to be told what to do by anybody from outside. In their own way they are still proud, with their own culture, humour and way of life. What is important in helping to overcome social exclusion is to work with the grain of these communities on the things that the people value and understand.
In order to help gain confidence, self-esteem and ambition—all the things that we have all probably tried to help our own children to achieve—we need to emphasise the importance of people working together. There are organisations that could help a lot more than they do at present. I was thinking about the TUC—what a terrific track record it has of helping people to overcome social exclusion. Can your Lordships think of any other voluntary organisation where a man who began life as a postman could end up as a Cabinet Minister, or that a woman from my union, Jane Kennedy, who started out as a care assistant, could become a government Minister? That is a real pathway to achievement and success. If harnessed properly, the trade unions could be a great asset in helping to overcome some of the difficulties of social exclusion. I hope that colleagues and friends who are involved in this work will give that some thought.
I was also thinking about football clubs. The greatest cultural icon in a very deprived area of Middlesbrough—where, incidentally, I am the chancellor of the university—is the football club. If we can get footballers to go out to talk to young people and try to give them confidence and self-belief, even if it is only in being a good footballer, that will be massively important. Parliamentarians could engage in a dialogue with the owners and managers of football clubs throughout the country, certainly in the Premier League, to try to do something about social exclusion.
I thought about my time with Britannia Building Society after I ceased to be a trade union official, and what a great business it was and how hard it tried to give its employees confidence and personal growth and development. It was always trying to help people from Leek, a small town in Staffordshire, to become the best in the world. What a great thing to say to somebody who comes to work in Leek: “We want you to be the best in the world”. That is the sort of thing that we need to do. We do not need to look to the public schools; we need to look to our own organisations and communities, the things that are already around us, and we need to look at ourselves. There is a lot that people in this House already do, and a lot more we could do.
When I speak to the students at the university, I always tell them that they can be the best in the world. The fact that they did not go to Oxbridge or to a Russell group university, the fact that they come from poorer homes, the fact that they have really had to struggle to get to university is something that they should be proud of. They should be as confident and as proud of themselves as anybody from any other walk of life. That is really the message from that part of the social exclusion report.
Of course, social exclusion is about the whole seven-point agenda, but if you are going to focus on confidence, self-esteem and ambition, and building those things into young people who may not have the right mix at any time in their lives, it is important to do it with authentic organisations and people in the communities who they can relate to, so they can get some feeling that it is possible for them to achieve what they need to in order to do better in life.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, many Members will have heard of the Watoto children’s village in Kampala. It is a village of about 1,600 orphans whose parents have died of AIDS. They have come from the most dismal circumstances. They have choirs that go around the world promoting and advocating the work done by the Watoto community. They were singing here in Parliament about two years ago and I hope that they will be singing here again in July.
After they sang last time, I asked them what they wanted to be when they grew up. “I want to be a nurse.” “I want to be a vet.” “I want to be an airline pilot.” I came to the last little lad, a sturdy 10 year-old, and asked him what he wanted to be. “I want to be President of Uganda.” I thought that was a wonderful ambition. He had a dream—children have dreams, they have aspirations, they have talents. One of the great needs of this time is for people to share their dreams and to be helped to find the necessary ladders to achieve their ambitions.
Of course, this is true overseas, and I am so grateful that in the Queen’s Speech we had a commitment of 0.7% of GDP for overseas development. I am also glad that we have made another significant contribution for Christian Aid Week. We are helping those overseas to achieve their dreams. It is not just overseas; there is a need in our own country to share the dreams of children everywhere and give them the resources necessary so the world might benefit from their contribution, to remove the barriers that so often prevent children from aiming high and achieving their potential.
We all know that the background children come from is often very difficult and can stifle their ambitions right from the early years. Somehow we have to overcome this and find some way of transforming the problem areas to make them areas of opportunity. This can be done. There are exciting projects already and in other places we must encourage co-operation and discussion between churches, voluntary organisations, youth organisations, local councils and even the police to find a better way forward for these children.
The best thing of all is if these projects are led by people of the children’s own communities. We are often looked upon by people outside with great suspicion as comfortable people living in comfortable circumstances earning a comfortable income—and that is true. Somehow it is so difficult, especially once you come here, to be able really to empathise, to share the concerns and the struggles of people outside here. We need to encourage people from the children’s own communities. If I go into a community and I am a stranger, they will say, “Look at him. He knows nothing about our struggles”. People should be encouraged in different ways to go into their own communities to work with the young people—and the older people. In my part of the world, new arrivals are often looked upon with some suspicion: “This family have only been here for 34 years. They have not settled down. They have not become part of us”. People should be encouraged to take the lead in their own communities, helping people over the cultural hurdles that they face.
The Queen’s Speech also contained promises to improve parenting and support family life. It is often said that education is the key to so much of this—the key to tackling youth unemployment and boosting the hopes of young people. I speak to teachers frequently, and they are wonderful people, but the morale is so low. The mountain of bureaucracy that they have to tackle is preventing them being the inspirational teachers that they could be. I dream that every child will be treated as an individual, with different strengths and different needs. “Same size fits all” does not work here. We should look at every child and see how the teachers, as champions of the rights of each individual pupil, are able to exert their inspiration, talent and skills in the best way possible.
I am very sad at the standard of some career guidance. Perhaps Miss Jones—or Roberts—has a free lesson on Thursday at 2 pm and is told, “You do careers”. Especially in a time of high youth unemployment when there are not as many opportunities as there used to be, we need the most skilled teachers in personal relationships with the children to direct them to the most suitable opportunities. We must put career guidance at the very top of our agenda.
Finally, as a Chamber, as a Parliament, we must be prepared to be far more united in the way we tackle these problems, willing to work as one, to overcome the blight of unemployment and hopelessness. That would show real maturity, that we are not just politicians with eyes on the next election, and that this is a Chamber of statespeople, aware of our responsibilities not just to the next election but to the next generation.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, it was encouraging to hear Her Majesty address important aspects of care relevant to those with learning disabilities. I should mention my own interest in learning disability, particularly as a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I also worked clinically with people with learning disabilities for 30 years until I retired from the NHS in 2008. I have also had policy secondments to the Department of Health to advise on learning disability. Perhaps most importantly, my son is an adult with a learning disability, and many of the issues that I shall refer to today are, or have been, relevant in his life and therefore in mine.
The care and support Bill and the children and families Bill both have the potential to improve the lives of those with learning disabilities, and those who care for and about them. We hear that the care and support Bill will try to simplify the current care system, a system described by the Dilnot commission in 2010 as “complex and opaque”, and more recently by last year’s Law Commission report as an “incoherent patchwork of legislation”. I understand that the care and support Bill intends to replace provisions in at least a dozen Acts with a single statute.
Such simplification could be in the interests of those with learning disabilities and their support networks. This Bill supports another recommendation of the Law Commission report, which was addressed also in A Vision for Adult Social Care White Paper: that of making the system genuinely more person-centred. This also has synergy with ideas in Think Local, Act Personal, the 2010 partnership agreement between local government and the provider sector.
Charities such as Mencap and the Challenging Behaviour Foundation believe that the provision of person-centred, comprehensive local services is central to preventing appalling abuse such as that exposed last year by “Panorama” at Winterbourne View in Bristol. Several different investigations are following up what happened at Winterbourne View and, until the criminal prosecutions have been completed, final conclusions will not be reached. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in hoping that strong recommendations will emerge from this intense scrutiny and that they will be taken note of in the new legislation envisaged during this Session.
In July last year, I asked a Private Notice Question about Winterbourne View. One part of my Question related to the Mansell report, which gives guidance on how to manage and support people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour in the community, rather than export them a long way from home to private hospitals such as Winterbourne View. Challenging behaviour is complex and requires management by those with specialist knowledge and skills. One of the issues raised by investigations into Winterbourne View was that Castlebeck was using unqualified staff to work with some of the most complex patients in the system.
While being unethical, this is also a false economy. We know that early intervention with expert care at a stage when behaviour first appears is vital if the reason for the behaviour is to be understood, extinguished and prevented from becoming a life-long battle for patients, their families and services trying to help them. Experienced and well qualified professionals are sometimes seen as too expensive, and employers may seek to replace them with cheaper alternatives. However, cheaper often means less qualified, and as Winterbourne View has shown us, this can be severely detrimental to the care of some of the most vulnerable people in society.
When the aim of a care system is to be person-centred, how can this truly be so without that care being portable? I am pleased that other noble Lords have referred to the importance of portability. This issue has been raised by numerous reports and in the Private Member’s Bill of my noble friend Lady Campbell, the Social Care Portability Bill, which had its First Reading in the previous Session. As it stands, a disabled person must negotiate a new care and support package every time they move from one local authority to another. Thus, those with disabilities are denied the freedoms that others can enjoy, partly because of the fear of not receiving equivalent levels of care and support in a new locality.
I recognise the limited value of personal experience, but I shall tell a story about my son. Ten years ago when he moved to his current home, the new local authority appealed to the Secretary of State to try to get a ruling that it had no responsibility for the cost of his care and support. It was unsuccessful, as were many other local authorities facing similar requests to support people who had moved into their area. Ordinary residence rules are now much better established, but there is still no requirement or expectation that, for somebody moving today, the new local authority will honour an assessment conducted by another local authority.
Ten years on, my son again wishes to move house. I have recently spent several hours in meetings and completing assessment questionnaires, knowing that I will probably have to repeat the exercise in a few weeks with his new local authority, with no certainty that his support plan will be honoured. This is happening all over the country. It is a waste of officials’ time, a waste of disabled people’s and family carers' time, stressful and, frankly, discriminatory.
My hope is that the care and support Bill will address the question of portability and adopt the suggestions of my noble friend in her Private Member’s Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on this point.
The children and families Bill proposes to assist young disabled adults by offering them the opportunity of further education until the age of 25 and to give them the right to a personal budget. The transition to adulthood for young people with special educational needs is notoriously difficult. Those with learning disabilities often benefit from extended time in an adult college, which has the resources to prepare them to the best of their abilities for life in wider society.
The White Paper, A Vision for Adult Social Care, recognised that self-directed support can help to prevent or reduce the risk of harm and abuse. There is also the critical recommendation in the Dilnot report that:
“Those who enter adulthood already having a care and support need should immediately be eligible for free state support to meet their care needs, rather than being subjected to a means test”.
It seems that the children and families Bill intends to secure this entitlement and I welcome it.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I want to focus on what was not in the gracious Speech and should have been. That is probably what is known technically as a target-rich environment, but I have had to narrow down my remarks for the purpose of the seven-minute time guideline. I want to focus today on children and families.
I spent seven months recently sitting on the Riots Communities and Victims Panel, something which anyone who has spoken to me for more than five seconds in the past six months will know all too much about. We produced our final report at the end of March and I commend it to the House. There will, I hope, be a Question for Short Debate on it soon, so I shall not dwell on the generalities. However, I shall focus on something which may be particularly relevant today.
I was struck by one set of statistics produced by the panel, showing that about a quarter of the convicted rioters were under 18 and that about three-quarters were under 25. Forty-six per cent of the under-18s were living in poverty; 66% had special educational needs; and 30% were persistently absent from school. These were young people who had already had challenges, so what happened in the riots was not simply happening to a random selection of our young people.
Many people and agencies were responsible for that, which the report goes into in detail. We found that too many families were not getting the support that they needed to raise children. In the wake of the riots, people were very quick to blame parents. Everywhere we went, we asked communities who was responsible. They identified a range of people, with parents always coming high up in the list. However, when we talked to parents, they would often say that they could not get the help that they needed. One worker described very movingly working with a woman who had had terrible problems with her children. She had said, “You know, people keep telling me I need to sort things out, but nobody tells me how. Please will somebody help me to do that?”. A lot of money is already going into working with vulnerable families with children, but there is a real question as to whether it is going to the right place and doing the right things.
The Government have their 120,000 problem families, and I commend that work, but that is essentially crisis intervention. It is going to help a very small number of people who have a significant need which has already manifested itself. That still leaves a significant problem. We estimated that at least half a million forgotten families are bumping along the bottom. They never quite hit the now very high threshold required to get them the help they need to get off it. That is a problem. We asked the Government to look afresh at how they direct support to vulnerable families. I ask the Minister to think about that today.
We set out a few principles. I will highlight a couple of them. First and most obvious, that kind of intervention needs to be evidence based. Where there is evidence that it works, such as the Family Nurse Partnership Programme in which the Government have invested, it should be rolled out quickly and not simply focus on small numbers of people. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, pointed out so well, interventions need to be timely. Ideally, the issues should be pre-empted or identified and dealt with as soon as possible to stop them becoming acute. The costs of not doing that are enormous and yet we consistently fail to do it. I know that money is tight, but that is true in the health service and we do not simply say, “Sorry, we will not do vaccination programmes this year because they are quite expensive”. We recognise that the costs of not doing that are significant, even if some of the people vaccinated may not have got mumps anyway. None the less, we invest the money in it. Yet, we systematically fail to learn that in other forms of intervention.
Thirdly, there needs to be a whole-family view. Too often, we came across cases where no individual member of the family quite hit the threshold for getting help yet taken as a whole the family was, frankly, dysfunctional. That is a real problem in the way that the different bits of the state which engage with families are either not joining up or are not meeting at the point where the family has a problem. They experience the problems as a family, not in separate units. Trying to get the state’s support to address that would be helpful.
I offer the Government a couple of thoughts for their children and families Bill. First, could they use the Bill to give a clear pledge to identify children with problems early? The noble Lord, Lord Hill, is in his place. Would he consider giving schools a clear responsibility for identifying children who are vulnerable for a range of reasons? The child may be a young carer, have special needs or face parental neglect or abuse. There should be a specific responsibility to identify that and resources to help bring together the people needed to address those problems before they get any worse. Secondly, could the Government show the way forward in early intervention by leading by example and extending the Family Nurse Partnership Programme to all teenage mothers at once? That would not be a huge sum of money and would show that, where a programme is effective and evaluated as such, the Government are willing to put the money behind it.
Intervention for vulnerable families is one of those happy issues on which the heart and the head come together. We all know the evidence of the head. The evidence of Graham Allen MP is the most recent example of the money saved by early intervention. The human case is also overpowering. Over the last few months, I have met too many young people whose futures look very bleak at a frankly depressingly early age. I have gone into prisons, young offender institutions and communities where I have met young people. If they were your own children, you would cry that things had come to this point for them so early. Yet so often, things could have been spotted sooner. As a country, if we come across those people it is incredibly sad to think of the lives wasted and the contribution that they could have made. What is really heart-breaking is to think that we had a chance to stop it and did not. I hope that the Government will look at this.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, in this debate I want to take up the theme raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, in her speech on the future of pensions policy. I congratulate the Government on their decision to move ahead with a new pensions Bill, to complete the reforms of the Turner commission and the work of the last Labour Government. This will create a single-rate pension set above the pension credit standard minimum guarantee and formalise the strategy and process to determine the future raising of the pension age. The one overriding objective in the pension field must be to simplify in order to improve understanding. A single-tier higher pension will reduce the complexity of means-testing and the disincentive to save, but only for new pensioners. It is essential to do this to complement the introduction of auto-enrolment in pensions starting later this year.
We obviously need a new, simpler structure, but is that enough? As yet, we have no idea how many will opt out of auto-enrolment or what they will make of it when they change jobs. We are hoping that an extra 5 million to 8 million people will start making extra pension provision. We cannot expect people to save more unless they understand what they are investing in. The recent IoD report, Roadmap for Retirement Reform, says this well:
“Little wonder that the average employer or employee simply finds pensions utterly baffling … people are unlikely to engage with, stay engaged with and contribute hard earned money to something they simply can’t understand the workings of”.
Warren Buffett, the great investment manager from the Midwest, often says that he only invests in businesses that are simple to understand. How can we expect personal savers to do otherwise?
Defined benefit pensions, from which many of us here probably benefit now, were quite easy to understand. Until recently, people had confidence in them. You invested for life and they provided a pension of between half and two-thirds of your salary. Contributory pensions are a completely different story. You have no idea what you will eventually get. You will find out too late in life if it is not enough. Every financial scandal will raise your fears that you will not get anything. Just trying to understand may only depress you. It is not surprising that many people put their heads in the sand and adopt a Micawber strategy that something will turn up. The consequence is that many will simply underprovide for their much longer retirement.
Many are also adopting alternative strategies. Unfortunately, they tend to be those who are already better off. There has been a huge growth in ISAs and investment in property and parental property. Many are investing in businesses that they hope will provide their pensions. The next stage in the Government’s policy on pensions needs to be not only to declare war on government regulations but to say how to simplify savings for pensions and to improve understanding. We also need to broaden understanding that a more flexible approach to encourage saving may achieve a better response. People need to be encouraged to make greater provision for themselves. We need a simple pensions structure but we also need to encourage greater diversity.
Finally, the Government need to reduce the odds on the biggest lottery of all: how much individuals need to provide for the greater likelihood of greater social care expenditure. There are three tasks for the coalition Government over the next three years: simplify pensions savings and improve understanding; encourage more flexible savings mechanisms and schemes; and achieve a settlement for social care provision.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, it will not surprise your Lordships that in my short contribution to the debate this evening I intend to concentrate on matters concerning law and justice. Having spent 35 years as an operational police officer, I feel reasonably qualified to comment on this important area of policy.
I start on a positive note: I welcome the important intention to clamp down on driving under the influence of drugs. I campaigned for many years for the development of a roadside device that detects drugs in the body, similar to the breathalyser for alcohol. It seems that we are now in a position to move forward on that and I am delighted. I was amazed that those who advocated the relaxation and even legalisation of drug use always ignored the fact that more people would be driving under the hypnotic influence of drugs without our having the quick means of detecting them, with all the misery and tragedy that would follow due to deaths and injury on our roads. The prevalence of that has always been unmeasured but now we are developing the means to deal with this grossest of anti-social behaviour. All decent people in the country will welcome this proposal.
By popular acclaim, we have one of the best police forces in the world. It is not perfect—nothing is. Yet, simply based on the evidence of the training and advice that we give to other countries all over the world, people globally value the British policing model. Young men and women do not join the police to become millionaires—politics, business and the legal profession produce far more of those—but they expect to be treated fairly and decently for the public service that they provide.
In my view, one of the gravest disservices that we did to the police in this country was when we labelled the Metropolitan Police “institutionally racist”. I know that it has a technical meaning, but the message that it sent out to the man and woman on the beat was that they were seen as racists. It was seen as unfair and unjust. Even worse, it created a climate of risk aversion in the police. That was identified by HMIC. On the other side, even worse, the advantage was seized by people who were emboldened to play the race card.
I gave an example to your Lordships a couple of weeks ago when I described how I was accused of racism by the National Black Police Association and the Society of Black Lawyers for reporting the criminal activities of Commander Ali Dizaei, who subsequently went to prison. It was even worse than that, because false evidence was submitted to the clerk. It is wrong in principle that people who report wrongdoing are accused by means of being fitted up. I certainly took exception to that, even though the allegations were proved to be grossly false.
It is for that reason that I am so concerned that the coalition Government are on a collision course with the police, a body of people who cannot take industrial action and who, to be honest, have the lowest morale that I have ever known in my lifetime. They are even balloting later this year on the right to strike. What a pretty pass we have arrived at. What do the Government intend to do if the ballot proves positive and they vote for industrial rights? It is ironic that most police officers are inclined to be very conservative. Of course, they adored Margaret Thatcher, who supported and strengthened them—for political reasons; she is no fool. They were less sanguine about the right honourable and learned Kenneth Clarke, the current Lord Chancellor, who as Home Secretary in the early 1990s wheeled out Sir Patrick Sheehy, from British American Tobacco, to make the British police operate more like a business, with performance-related pay, short-term contracts and the like. That led to one of the largest police rallies ever, at Wembley. Ken Clarke’s successor, Michael Howard, now a distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House, listened carefully to the arguments and quickly abandoned the collision course previously set—incidentally, presiding at the same time over dramatic reductions in crime.
This Government have decided to politicise the police by bringing in elected police and crime commissars—sorry, commissioners. I have grave worries about that change. I have only known a non-political police force, but I have seen other models abroad. When I was a serving officer of senior rank working with Governments of both parties, nobody ever knew what my political leanings were—nor should they have. I swore allegiance to the Crown and served impartially under the law, to which I was accountable. The chief constable was accountable to the police authority, to the Home Secretary and, of course, to the law. The chief officer was very difficult to remove without agreement locally and nationally. There have been several cases where disputes took place on those issues. We are now placing the chief officer under the direct control of one political master, who could hire or fire him or her. I know that there is a commitment that commissioners will not get involved in operational matters, but experience of other jurisdictions, such as the United States, shows that appointments will be made of like-minded individuals and that those who do not play ball will not last very long in post.
However you wish to explain it, that is playing politics with our impartial policing system. In the main, elected commissioners will represent political parties, so party politics will have sway. It is sometimes difficult to separate policy from operational issues. I recall the centipede with severe arthritis going for advice to the wise old owl about his disability. “What you should do”, said the owl, “is transform yourself into a dormouse and hibernate throughout the winter. When you emerge in the spring, your arthritis will be gone and you will be fit and athletic for the summer”. “Thank you, wise old owl”, said the grateful centipede. As he walked—or limped—away, he said, “But tell me, how do I turn myself into a dormouse?”. “Don’t ask me”, said the owl, “I only make policy”. There we have the dilemma. There is a difficult dividing line between policy and operational matters.
Seriously, I hope that the concerns that I have outlined turn out to be groundless. No doubt we shall see. At the same time, of course, we have proposals by some chief officers to privatise certain parts of the policing role itself—not just backroom activities but, remarkably, the patrolling function and the investigation of crime. I believe that the public expect certain activities involving civil liberties and powers of detention and arrest to be performed by fully accountable sworn officers of the Crown. To bring in private bodies to investigate crime and to patrol the streets on the cheap would be a perversion of Sir Robert Peel’s vision in 1829. I can only hope for the election of a large number of police and crime commissioners who will not allow chief constables to implement such plans. Is that strategic or is it operations? I do not know. No doubt we will find out in due course.
In conclusion, I believe that the police service of this country is a national treasure, rather like your Lordships’ House. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I rise to address two issues: first, the Government’s plans to introduce drug-driving offences in the Crime and Courts Bill. I should perhaps say that I speak as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform.
I welcome the Government’s plans in principle. However, I stress that the policies to deal with drug-driving should be evidence-based and in line with the treatment of driving while under the influence of alcohol. It is of course wrong to drive while unfit to do so, putting other people’s lives at risk. However, it is also wrong for a Government to penalise people unfairly and disproportionately.
Ministers and the rest of us are well aware that the possession and use of many drugs, some of which are far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, carry heavy criminal penalties including prison sentences. Those of us who—very occasionally, of course—enjoy a glass of wine do not suffer any of those risks. Penalties for drug use are unfair and disproportionate. Indeed, they are so disproportionate that they bring the law into disrepute. Even the Association of Chief Police Officers recently made clear that it will not prioritise the arrest of persons using or possessing drugs. If we have a law that even the police are not interested in upholding, we really have a problem.
I am aware of Sir Peter North’s report, commissioned by the Department for Transport, which reviews the drink and drug-driving laws. I welcome the decision of the then Government to consider both drink and drug-driving in the same report, looking at them as a single set of issues. I do not know whether they were the first Government to bring those two issues together, but that has to be the right approach.
We know that drivers under the influence of alcohol remain a blight on our roads. There are still 430 deaths and 1,600 serious injuries every year attributable to drink-driving. We also know that the risks of having an accident increase exponentially as more alcohol is consumed. Despite those high risks, the penalties for drink-driving are relatively modest. When we think of the prison sentences for someone just possessing the drug, we must consider that the drink-driving penalties are in the order of a 12-month mandatory disqualification from driving and a mandatory six penalty points.
Having said that, I do not want to discourage those relatively moderate penalties, but argue that similar penalties should apply to drunk-driving if the risk to the public is in fact the same. That is my principal point. It seems such an obvious one that I hope that the Minister will agree with the principle.
We know far less, of course, about drug-driving than about drink-driving. In part, this is because of the illegality of these drugs and the ethical and practical problems of getting accurate information on their use among drivers. That is not the only issue but it is certainly a major one—surely just one of many reasons why we should be reviewing the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We will come back to that in later debates. It seems right in principle, as Sir Peter North recommends, that every police force should invest in training for officers to conduct field impairment tests—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie—and that there should be really good devices to test for drug inhalation in police stations. That is on condition that these tests are undertaken if there is a prima facie case for the person being under the influence of some substance; in other words, if their behaviour is being affected. We should not be talking about something in someone’s body but about the risk to drivers on the roads. As long as we stick with that, we are on some firm ground.
Another concern is that such tests will pick up cannabinoids in people’s bodies, when these might have been taken seven days before and, even within 24 hours of ingesting that drug, would not have any effect on the person’s behaviour. There are very real risks unless the Government are committed to a policy that focuses on behaviour. Sir Peter North refers to an offence relating only to controlled drugs and talks about zero tolerance if testing is too difficult. Again, it is very important that we look at drugs and alcohol—at all these substances—across the piece in the same way.
I turn briefly to the Government’s plans for social care reform. Their plan is for a draft Bill rather than legislation itself; I am sure that other noble Lords have already referred to this. However, we have already had the Law Commission recommending a single social care statute and the Dilnot commission recommending funding arrangements which should, and could, be introduced without any further delay. When the legislation comes it needs to ensure: that high-quality care is available for all who need it; that people are enabled to live not only safely but in a dignified way and with self-respect; and, above all, that care is funded fairly and transparently. These key principles are as important for carers as for elderly people themselves. At the moment, carers sacrifice their jobs, their social life and their future economic security. This makes absolutely no sense to their family; neither does it to taxpayers. At the end of the day, if these carers have no savings or pensions, who will pay for them in their old age? It is the state—that is, the taxpayer—so at the moment we do not have a sensible programme even for taxpayers.
I share the BMA’s support for the aim to create a more personalised social care system but I also share its concern about the expense, complexity and adverse effects of basing a system of social care commissioning upon the choices and decisions of individuals, rather than those of the population or the community. I strongly urge the Government to pilot this work rather than just roll it out. If the Government pilot these personal accounts, they will probably want to think again when they see that people are literally buried in paper—invoices, reminders and all the rest of it. It is a nightmare of bureaucracy, and my understanding is that this Government want to reduce bureaucracy and paperwork. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response later on and in future debates.
Lord Colwyn
My Lords, there is no reference to the National Health Service in the gracious Speech but I should like to use the opportunity provided by this debate to update the House on the state of NHS dentistry. In May 2010, I stressed the importance of continuing the process of reform that started with the 2009 Steele review. In the coalition agreement, the Government committed themselves to introducing a new dentistry contact, which would focus on achieving good dental health, and to fully piloting any changes before introducing them.
Good progress has already been made. Since last September, 70 dental practices around the country have been piloting a new contract based on a capitation model, with an additional focus on the quality of clinical outcomes. The early feedback from these pilots has been positive: practitioners and the public are happy that more time is being spent with each patient and that there is greater emphasis on preventing oral health problems. These pilots were originally commissioned to run for a year but the Department of Health recently extended the programme until March 2013. This is a commendable approach. Extending the pilot period will allow more time to produce meaningful results, which will be of great use when developing the final proposals for the new contract.
I also spoke of the mounting challenges that dental practitioners face in the management of their practices, drawing particular attention to the additional regulatory burden that registration with the Care Quality Commission was about to impose on them. As we now know, the CQC was not ready to take on the registration of dentistry by the statutory deadline of April 2011 and experienced severe administrative and policy difficulties as it attempted to do so. Last September, the House of Commons Health Committee’s review of the CQC concluded that the pressures imposed by the registration of dentists led directly to a 70% drop in the number of inspections that the CQC carried out, compared to the same period in the previous year.
That report also recognised how frustrating the experience of registration had been for dentists. The CQC seemed to have little knowledge or experience of how dental practices actually operated, applying a one-size-fits-all model of registration that was more appropriate for social care than any other health service provider. When dentists contacted the CQC with queries about the process there seemed to be no one with the necessary expertise in dentistry to assist them, which frequently led to contradictory advice being given out. It was as a result of these difficulties that the CQC and the Government took the decision to delay the registration of GP practices. Dental service providers were already heavily regulated. Many dentists felt that CQC regulation of dentistry was not appropriate or proportionate and their registration experience has not persuaded them otherwise. Recognising that this is an issue, the Law Commission recently launched a consultation into how the regulation of health and social care professionals could be made simpler and more consistent.
By coincidence, I talked this morning at the launch of the British Dental Health Foundation’s National Smile Month to the Chief Dental Officer, Barry Cockcroft. He assured me that all was well with the general dental practitioner CQC registrations and that any remaining problems were with general medical practitioners. Perhaps the Minister could write to me—or ask his noble friend Lord Howe to write to me—to clarify the current situation concerning the CQC and medical and dental registrations.
Dentistry also faces great changes as a result of the Government’s health reforms, with the commissioning of dental services transferring to the national NHS Commissioning Board. Local expertise will still have a vital role to play in the commissioning of services, and the Government need to ensure that this expertise is appropriately utilised. The role of consultants in dental public health is particularly important as they will need to be accessible not only to the national Commissioning Board but to local health and well-being boards. The Department of Health is also developing proposals for local professional networks in dentistry to work alongside the local primary care commissioning teams in developing and delivering local service plans. These networks will enable the dental profession to influence local and national strategy and policy, ensuring that best practice and clinical expertise are embedded throughout the system.
The coalition has made a strong start in tackling the issues facing dentistry. There is still more work to do on contract reform, regulation and commissioning. I urge the Government to maintain their focus and continue working with the profession to deliver the best possible outcomes for patients.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. At the beginning of the day, the Minister said that the debate would be about the kind of society that we want. With that in mind, we should focus on things like character, competence, cuts and confidence, the first two relating to the personalities and actions of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the latter two relating to the well-being of society as a result of the Government’s policies. We have seen, even today, that austerity alone has been discredited in Europe and the UK. As a result, we need a new vision and a narrative that have been missing to date. I suggest that it is on that acid test that the Government’s character and competence will be measured.
The truth that is catching up with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is that the problems in the UK were not exclusively home-made. The proposition that we were like Greece is absurd. The reality is that while the Chancellor has tried to peddle the UK as having been more like Greece, he has made us more like Spain in the process. In 2009-10, growth as a result of Alastair Darling’s stimulus was 3.2% while Spain’s was zero. Now, after six quarters of UK negative growth, we have 0.2% negative growth compared with Spain’s growth of plus 2.4%. What is missing from the lexicon is the “g word”—growth. There were hints before the Queen’s Speech that this would be addressed, but on the day after it the front page of the Telegraph said, in bold:
“Why was there no plan for growth?”,
while the Sun editorial said:
“Plans to boost the economy amounted to tinkering rather than a full-blooded assault on unemployment”.
Those are two comments with which I fully agree.
The Chancellor has to show his character here. Let us forget about him admitting that his strategy is wrong; but he has to address the concept of growth. Without that, confidence in the country is seeping away day by day. Justin King, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s and a member of the Prime Minister’s business advisory group, has said that he has not seen a consistent pursuit of a clear policy. The consequences will be greater inequality, a greater north/south divide, increasing welfare dependence, increasing unemployment and ambition and social mobility checked at source.
On the issue of cuts, the IFS has said that the real-terms spending cuts of £100 billion targeted between April 2011 and March 2017 will see £33 billion of them falling in the final two years of that period. So in 2015, an election year, sizeable cuts will still have to be delivered. If you want to see how austerity measures are killing confidence, look at the company sector, which took £72 billion out of the economy in 2010 and £80 billion last year. Non-financial companies increased their holdings of currency in bank deposits by £48 billion in 2010 and £62 billion in 2011. That takes the total to £754 billion sitting in companies’ balance sheets doing nothing—a staggering 50% of UK GDP—while we have youth unemployment of 1 million. My experience as a teacher in Glasgow in the 1980s was that these young people with no chance end up in a lifetime of penury, social inability and the likelihood of mental health, alcohol and drug problems, and the result is that they have an increasing reliance on the state rather than less reliance on the state.
That is why I welcomed the coalition’s commitment that it would adopt the Labour Government’s 2020 target to eliminate child poverty. However, the IFS is saying at the moment that the Government’s spending plans are putting into reverse the progress that had been made on that in the previous few years. I suggest to this House that an increase in child poverty is not an example of the broader shoulders taking the greatest burden. The Government promised that the poorest 10% would lose the least, but the reality is that the poorest 10% are losing more than anyone except the richest 10%.
I have two suggestions for the Government. The first is to postpone the change to the hours rule for couples claiming working tax credit. That was predicated on OBR predictions in 2010 that the economy would swing back to strong growth. That is not happening, and as a result 200,000 low-income families will be affected by this. It will dramatically worsen child poverty in its extent and severity and will create a situation where people will be better off leaving their jobs, to the detriment of the economy. I suggest that the Government’s slogan of “Making work pay” has a hollow ring.
The second issue is rebalancing the ratio of spending cuts to tax rises. The Government have said that that ratio is 4:1. That will dramatically change the situation against people on low incomes. The Conservatives’ approach during the recession of the 1990s was to adopt a ratio of 1:1. It is for this Government to realise that 4:1 guarantees that the distribution of the burden will be skewed towards those at the lower end of the income distribution scale.
The electorate are looking for authenticity and empathy, and those have been missing from the debate just now. If we are looking at what type of society we want, there are a number of fundamental questions that should guide us. Are the increasingly high levels of economic inequality in society a problem? Should the Government be concerned at the high social and economic cost? The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that child poverty is costing the UK £25 billion per annum. What action should we take to reverse the scandalous situation where the poorest children are likely to live for 10 years less than the more wealthy? Do we have an obligation to tackle this? We do, but it can be done only if the Government demonstrate their character and competence in these bleak times.
The death slogan “Austerity alone” needs discarding. Confidence needs to be restored in order to give individuals and communities hope for the future. Only by doing that will the Government demonstrate the authenticity and empathy suggested by the slogan, “We’re all in this together”. Otherwise it will be seen merely as an empty gesture.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
My Lords, in so far as I intend to pursue in more detail the issue that I raised earlier at Oral Questions, I want to make it clear that I am not anti-police. Concurrently with my first employment as a schoolmaster, I became a special constable and served for seven years. Later, as an Army officer, I had responsibility for joint planning and liaison with the police, and that during our troubled times in Northern Ireland. While I was an MP, I was parliamentary adviser to the RUC. I feel no need, however, to make similar ameliorating comments about my attitude to our virtually invisible and ineffective Home Office.
At the beginning of a new parliamentary year—I have seen 29 come and go here—one still waits with bated breath for some sort of signal that next year is going to be better. Such an expectation is difficult to sustain when one reads through the coalition’s programme for business in 2012, particularly in relation to creating a fairer society. Everything I read there confirms my impression of those exceedingly well educated folk who occupy the Front Benches in another place but who seldom appear to have rubbed shoulders with reality. Ideas hatched in some intellectually gifted corner of the Palace of Westminster float through a maze of implementation levels that are ill defined, largely disconnected and often wholly inefficient.
It is some years since the noble Lord, Lord Reid, described the Home Office as not fit for purpose, yet we continue without respite to find it delegating responsibilities in a way that it seems to consider absolves it from any real decision-making role. Just try, as I have, to discover why a police constabulary appears to be inefficient or corrupt and you will get the answer that I got last November when I was told by the Home Office that it had not held “aggregate data” on police since 2004. Why not?
One may be advised to speak to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I have, only to be told that the fairly obvious injustice that concerns me was not within its bailiwick because my complaint overlapped with social services. I belatedly referred the issue to the Justice Department, but it could not intervene. I am referring to a case where a lady in her 80s was cheated out of her home. The Minister knows it well and over the past three years the Home Office has received hundreds—yes, hundreds—of communications through me about the matter. Successive Secretaries of State have been so concerned that none would meet me, despite the fact that Interpol was activated to pursue this elderly lady all the way to her son’s home in Austria. Does anyone in authority care that social services and police in North Yorkshire have conspired in the persecution of Mrs Hofschroer and her son? Are details of dismissals, forced retirements and other shady and costly measures pertaining to North Yorkshire Police available to legislators in Parliament? No. Basic justice is distorted by the system, but I can see nothing to address this major issue in the Government’s plans.
Not dissimilar, in terms of Home Office incompetence, is the well known case of Gary McKinnon, a once young man with autism who hacked the Pentagon’s computers and whom the United States wants to extradite, potentially to imprison for the rest of his life in its prison system, where there are, conservatively, 60,000 rapes per year. His defence has cost his family their home. For over 10 years Gary, now 45 years old, has been left in limbo, and yet the Home Office happily, if somewhat inefficiently, spends millions accommodating the legal rights of Abu Qatada. Is that how we expect the Home Office and Justice to deal with disability—with cruel indecision, without compassion and with detached unaccountability? I think not, so surely it is about time we sought to replace our failing nanny state with a fair and just one.
Truly, the right hand at the Dispatch Box appears not to know and not to care what the left hand is doing. Is it not time that the Government recognised that principled strategic command is a prerequisite for effective delegation? One of the follies pertaining to and emanating from latter-day political correctness is that government and justice should not impinge on each other. That is why we foolishly established the introverted and expensive Supreme Court, effectively a third unaccountable legislature with which society barely identifies. Law can be effective only when it relates to what society as a whole is prepared to accept and support. Society’s temper is reflected through those elected to another place and through this related scrutinising Chamber. The day we sought to wash government’s hands of responsibility, and in so far as we continue to divorce the law from government, we deny society the access and safeguards that democracy is intended to guarantee.
Lord Clinton-Davis
The criticisms that I make of the Home Office are but mild by comparison with what we have just heard.
I believe that this Queen’s Speech is dreary and largely irrelevant to the needs of this nation. It fails to focus on real public concerns. Public works, increased economic growth and youth unemployment are but three of the issues that are highly relevant at this time. I have attended many Queen’s Speeches, but I cannot recall one that had so many deficiencies.
Tonight, I propose to concentrate on home affairs and law and justice. As far as home affairs are concerned, I will make several criticisms of the Home Office, but I say at once that we are delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is a friend of many of us, in his place. The Home Office is often regarded as the ministry of the non-living. Whether that description is well merited is by the way. Mistakes can all too readily prove irrecoverable. That is not necessarily the fault of the Secretary of State, but it is the Secretary of State who carries the can. Of course the Home Office is too large and delegation often occurs, often with fatal, or near fatal, results, and it is the Secretary of State who is held responsible.
Prison policy is a good example of this deficiency. For the most part, prisoners can be obdurately unyielding. My experience as a defence solicitor is that frequently prison guards and prisoners do not begin to comprehend the other’s problems. Admittedly, I go back a long way, but I doubt whether there has been much change. I realise that work is often undertaken in uncongenial circumstances, leading inevitably to an inbuilt resistance to change, but there have been some shining examples to the contrary. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is one of them. He made every effort to detect and tackle mistakes during his tenure of office.
Terrorism, frequently having an international dimension, clearly falls within the Secretary of State’s responsibility. Terrorism can often be accompanied by a messianic ideology. The Secretary of State has to reconcile effective defensive measures with democratic standards, and that is by no means easy, as the Secretary of State has clearly demonstrated, but surely some humility is called for rather than something we hear too often: an irritatingly abrasive mood of “I know best”. I am only too well aware that the Secretary of State has numerous other responsibilities. Is it not time therefore for this vast ministry to be split up, for a ministerial inquiry to be established and for this to be effected immediately?
As far as law and justice are concerned, this House—
Lord Henley
It might be helpful if I get to my feet and interrupt the noble Lord to remind him that his party split up the Home Office. Prisons and criminal justice have gone to the Ministry of Justice. We are a much smaller department than we ever were.
Lord Clinton-Davis
That may be but it is still too large. I do not know whether the noble Lord had any responsibility for that—
Lord Henley
My Lords, I could not have had any responsibility for it because it was done by the previous Government. I think the noble Lord will remember that I was not a Minister in the previous Government; they were a Labour Government.
Lord Clinton-Davis
That may be but I still regard the Home Office as much too large.
Although the House devoted a great deal of its time in the previous Session of this Parliament to examining a Bill that got scant attention in the House of Commons, I fear that the system will prove to be far more expensive than our present one in the long term; and that the changes envisaged by the Government will prove to be divisive and largely ineffective. They will also have a deleterious effect on people seeking to undertake civil cases.
In my day—I speak of a very long time ago—criminal cases seldom lasted beyond around three months. Nowadays it is common practice for serious criminal cases to last for a year or more. How, then, can we revert to a more acceptable time limit without adversely affecting justice and the civil components of legal aid? Even though this is a desirable goal, I wonder how much time the Government have devoted to resolving this vast problem. I will readily give way to the noble Lord, who is intent on intervening in my speech at all times.
We have spent much time in the Lords trying to resolve some of the more serious dilemmas on the civil side. Defeats were inflicted on the Government but they remained resolute to be irresolute. Justice will undoubtedly have suffered as a result. I fear that I will be disappointed in my quest for the Government to conduct a further inquiry into this matter. However, an inquiry is called for and ought to begin immediately.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, in the debate on the gracious Speech at the beginning of a Session of Parliament, one might take a number of approaches to the legislation that is proposed and the other matters that the Government have drawn to our attention through the gracious Speech. I will refer to something specific towards the end of my remarks. However, the start of a Session is also an opportunity to think about some of the broader issues that face us and are important. Remarks have been made about the economic crisis and austerity but there is another, wider issue that I wish to address—that of culture. It is not easy to think about, or perhaps even to speak about, but it is important. In the midst of all the other political and economic crises, we might ignore it at our peril because it becomes more dangerous in times of austerity and political crisis.
A little earlier today I was at the annual general meeting of the All-Party Group on the British Council. Our colleagues from the British Council reported on a number of the things that they were doing. There is the tremendous festival of Shakespearean plays, as one would expect at such a time, and art and culture generally—music, dance, theatre and so on. They went on to speak about how the British Council was doing excellent work on human rights in policing and issues of justice. One of our colleagues from the other place intervened to ask what on earth the British Council was doing involving itself in those things; surely it was about promoting British culture.
I beg to differ wholly from my friend in the other place. It seems to me that when we bring forward, for example, the British policing model, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, mentioned earlier, we talk about something that is essentially part of our culture in this country. We bring not only to our own country but to many other places something of real depth and value, which has come not from someone’s head but from the growth of our society—sometimes painfully and with difficulty, but certainly over a long period. There are positive characteristics to the way that we run things in this country. There are others where we make mistakes. However, in general, in policing, health and social care and education—something to which I will return a little later—we have developed a culture, or a way of doing things. When questions are asked about it for whatever reason, good or ill, it shakes us. Why? Because culture is to a community, group or nation very much what the personality is to us as individuals. Our personalities grow from our genetics and physical selves, but also from all the experiences that we have had—from what we have learnt from others, our families, our backgrounds and our communities. That is what makes us up.
Culture is the equivalent for us as a group and a community. This is an important and difficult question because it leads us to the dilemmas that are being experienced over multiculturalism. Maybe part of the difficulty arises because we have not thought clearly about what we mean. It is one thing to say that we want a society that is multiracial and recognises people of all backgrounds, countries, colours and so on, but that is not about culture. Do we mean a multifaith society, in which we value people of faith and those of none? Sometimes I think we value those of none rather more than we value those of faith, which is a mistake and a foolishness. I hope we begin to learn our way out of that. However, that is not culture of itself, although it contributes to it. Do we mean an inclusive society, in which men and women, young and old, sick, disabled and healthy are all valued members of the community? That is very important; it is an inclusive society but it is not multiculturalism.
One of the dilemmas that I have observed as this society has tried to deal with all these things and called it multiculturalism is that it has pulled away from valuing important elements of culture. I saw this at home in our peace process when it came to how we would engage in parliament-building. In Stormont, we certainly had examples of a unionist culture. The approach of the Northern Ireland Office was to strip all aspects of culture out and to make it like a clinic. That was a mistake. It was unnecessary and was not wholesome. It was much more important to ensure that we brought in elements of different backgrounds, language, experience and history, and that everyone could feel a degree of diversity and warmth about it.
We need to think a lot more about this question, because I detect that an absence of clarity has meant an absence of a feeling from all sorts of groups in our community that they share a sufficiently common culture to feel part of a nation and a people who can work together—whatever our faith or racial backgrounds, gender or health or physical appearance. We need to work at this.
I am worried about some of the political developments I see with some of those who are winning elections, and with some of those who are not even bothering to vote in elections because there is not a sense of shared culture. Our culture is not like the culture of other countries. I do not despise the culture of other countries, but let us be clear that there are those cultures where it is completely appropriate for women to be set to the side; where female genital mutilation is a part of the culture; where the educational culture is not one of thoughtfully reflecting and disputing to find the truth but rather of the rote learning of something that has been handed down regardless of whether it is relevant or appropriate; or where physical violence is regarded as an appropriate way to deal with political difference.
I do not accept that all cultures are equal, valid and good. I do not believe that ours is perfect, but I do not believe that we should devalue it. I therefore finish with a final plea. One of the reasons why people want to come to this country for education in our great universities is not just that they value what it will do for their jobs and their future but that they value the culture. Many of us spend our time trying to attract people to this country. We would benefit from their coming—culturally, economically and otherwise—but we find that it is increasingly impossible for them to get visas into the country as bona fide students so that they can study and enrich both our country and their own, in order to benefit us all. I plead with my noble friend the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that proper students have separate visas and a separate system to ensure that we can benefit our culture, their societies and all our people.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, in the brief time I have this evening I shall address some issues related to the proposed children and families Bill. Before I do so, however, I want to pay tribute to the late Lady Ritchie, who undoubtedly would have spoken about children today had she not sadly passed away in April. Shireen Ritchie was a campaigner for women in public life, including in Parliament, but I knew her as a campaigner for children in Kensington and Chelsea. She was involved in issues of adoption, children’s services, child poverty and family courts, and will be greatly missed by all those concerned for children.
I should declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. One of the pleasures of being involved in children’s issues in your Lordships’ House is that while there may be minor differences, this House across all parties has always been concerned for their welfare, and tonight’s debate is no exception. We are of course advised by a dedicated and vigorous children’s sector.
Can the Minister give us any sense of when the children and families Bill might be considered by this House? What is the timetable and the structure for discussions on, for example, the Children’s Commissioner? The Bill raises many important issues, including adoption measures, special educational needs, budgets, parental leave, family law, court cases and the role of the Children’s Commissioner, all of which have been discussed by others this evening. I shall return to the Children’s Commissioner later.
These issues are important and I look forward to discussion on them. Some are more complex than they might appear to be—for example, special educational needs and adoption issues. I agree with the comments made earlier by my noble friend Lady Hughes on cuts to local authorities and the need to consider the whole care system, including kinship care, which has been mentioned at least three times this evening and is an issue to which we might need to return very seriously.
My noble friend Lady Hughes was an outstanding Minister for Children and was dedicated to improving their lives and welfare. Although I know that coalition Ministers with responsibility for children and families in both Houses also have genuine dedication to child well-being, I fear that children may be hit by problems associated with cuts to services. It is all very well to talk about vulnerable children and all very well to vow support, but these good intentions may well be counteracted by underlying basic problems relating to issues such as families in poverty, health, education, welfare provision and cuts to children’s centres.
This should not be a party-political issue. It is about children’s lives and achievements as set out many years ago in Every Child Matters. Before and since that document, we have had time and again reports on the fundamental importance of early intervention in tackling family problems and social mobility. Indeed, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility has just produced a report following the incisive reports by Frank Field and Graham Allen. The importance of life chances being established early is again a theme. Although the pupil premium is welcome, I suggest that it is a bit late. The National Children's Bureau and many other children’s charities are concerned about how disadvantaged children continue to experience poor outcomes in health and education. The UK does poorly in child well-being measures and we should attend to early intervention for children, particularly those who are vulnerable, as discussed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Stedman-Scott. That is why I believe that we should have an important and effective role for the Children's Commissioner for England, who can be advocate, whistleblower, support for children, adviser and critical friend to government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, earlier set out the case very effectively for a rights-based legislation, including the Children's Commissioner, and I shall not repeat all that but I thank her for it. I was delighted by the recommendation in the Dunsford report that the Children's Commissioner for England should have a focus on children’s rights. I declare an interest as a trustee of UNICEF UK, which has long campaigned for a rights-based commissioner and for the rights of the child, as has the Children's Rights Alliance for England—and with good reason. It seems that we may now have the opportunity to embed children’s rights in legislation, but will the Government have the courage to do it? Will they support it with resources? A focus on children’s rights would mean that England could develop a shared vision for children based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have already incorporated the UN convention into law and recognise it as a force for change. The Office of the Children's Commissioner has been significant in examining the plight of marginalised and vulnerable children such as those in the youth justice system and those excluded from school, and the effect of poor child mental health.
We have become much better at consulting children on aspects of their lives, but what is needed is a person and an office that can make the most of such consultation. For example, examining every Bill in Parliament for a child impact assessment is crucial. It has been attempted before and proved informative, but it demands a consistent approach with resources. I recognise that groups other than children could claim the right to be central to legislation, but children are special. They are the foundations of society, and if we get things right for children later difficulties may be avoided.
Most Bills that we see in your Lordships' House have some relationship to children. They do not have to have the word children in their title—for example, transport, health, justice, the environment, and so on, all have elements that affect children and families. I hope that the Children's Commissioner will be a genuinely independent voice in support of children. We all know that independence can be interpreted in many ways and bound by all kinds of bureaucratic measures, and I would hope that the Children's Commissioner has a truly independent remit. I hope that we now see the efforts of those concerned for the welfare of children culminating in support for a children’s champion who will enable us all to improve outcomes for the child’s well-being and develop that vision for children that is so vital to the well-being of society.
Lord Dear
My Lords, given the recent barrage of criticism of the Home Office, I may make a welcome change. I want to throw a bouquet in the direction of the Home Office on one point and words of encouragement tinged with some disappointment on the other.
I start with the words of encouragement, which flow from a certain disappointment—that there has not been a move within the Crime and Courts Bill to remove the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I shall not go into detail on this, because I spoke at some length about it on Second Reading of the Protection of Freedoms Bill on 8 November last year. Those who are so minded could check what I said in Hansard at col. 192. Put very simply, the use of the word “insulting” within the current legislation is proving to be a grave impediment to the exercise of free speech. Some noble Lords will know that I have spoken on several occasions in the past to try to preserve the existing situation where we champion freedom of speech above almost everything else.
The first Public Order Act in 1936 used the term, “criminalising, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”. The words, “threatening, abusive or insulting” have been carried through successive legislation. They now find themselves, 50 years later, in the 1986 Act—the current Act. I will not weary your Lordships with the detail but certain sections of that Act—Sections 4, 4A and 5—give a descending ladder of seriousness. Right at the very bottom of that—the least serious, if you like—is “insulting”, in Section 5.
To put it simply, what is happening today is that those who stand up in public and express views that are unpopular to some members of society find that they are in grave danger that those who disagree with those views will invoke the police and insist on action being taken—“I have been insulted; therefore, officer, become involved”. The police may or may not become involved. If they do, they may or may not charge. If they charge, the Crown Prosecution Service may or may not prefer charges. But whatever happens and however the situation winds up, it has a very serious chilling effect on the exercise of free speech.
The Home Office instituted a consultation on 13 October last year, which concluded three months later on 13 January this year, but in the ensuing four months we have heard nothing about the consultation. I am somewhat disappointed at that. I urge the Home Office to look very closely at what has been said, to report the results of that consultation as quickly as it can and, I hope, to look for early inclusion of the removal of those words from the relevant legislation.
Those are my words of encouragement. The bouquet that I throw to the Home Office is the inclusion within the Crime and Courts Bill of the creation of the National Crime Agency, the NCA. We have travelled a long road on this, starting with the creation—I vaguely remember this—of the regional crime squads in the 1960s, through the national crime squads, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and SOCA, the Serious Organised Crime Agency. We now stand on the brink of the NCA. The media have labelled it the British FBI. To some extent that is understandable. However, although there are some similarities, organisationally and constitutionally the FBI is very different. Nevertheless we should make no mistake about it: the creation of the NCA is absolutely essential, given the current range of problems that we as a society face.
I want to focus on Clauses 5(5) and (7) of the Bill, which concerns the creation of the NCA and gives the director-general of the NCA—if such an organisation is created—the power to direct local compliance from local police organisations. I believe that some may well fly in the face of that and say that it runs completely against the grain of what we did in the previous Session in creating police and crime commissioners, localising policing and placing a local focus on local problems. However, we do not need to remind ourselves of the internationalism of problems—the fact that drugs on the streets of Evesham may well have been imported through Rotterdam; that illegal workers in fields in Cambridgeshire may well have been trafficked from eastern Europe through Southampton; and that teenage prostitutes in London may well have been trafficked from the Ukraine through Heathrow. In other words, local problems are created nationally and internationally. However, if the power to direct local compliance does not lie in the hands of the director-general of the NCA, I fear that the move towards localism, which I support in so many ways, will cause the NCA to founder. It would become something akin to a crime tsar and would certainly espouse a pious hope that something will happen, but without it having the wherewithal to pursue it and to get total national co-operation.
I conclude by referring to one word. The word “direct” is undoubtedly tough and it undoubtedly smacks of, and is, central intervention, but I do not believe that it is contradictory to the move in other ways towards the localisation of policing. It is absolutely essential to deal with international and cross-border national crime. It is the very bedrock of what is envisaged within the National Crime Agency. It is, in fact, the keystone to the whole creation of the agency and without it the agency would founder. I commend the Bill to your Lordships in those terms and I very much hope that we shall see the word “direct” in Clause 5 when the Bill is passed and becomes law.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth
My Lords, I open with some words of support for the impassioned plea from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for some clarity from the Government on their attitude to the benefactors who support the arts in this country. I have worked for many, many years trying to raise money—mostly for the National Theatre—with some success, and I think that we need to know whether there is some abuse or loophole in the tax legislation which drove the Treasury to condemn a bunch of wonderfully generous people, without whom the arts would be seriously in jeopardy in this country. I hope that we can get some clarity on that.
As a keen student and sometime practitioner of the media, I have come to be able to predict the journalistic reaction to any disaster or crisis, and that usually turns out to be, “What are the Government doing about this?”. “This” is anything that the news editor of the day thinks is worthy of giving the Government of the day a good kicking about. Therefore, it was hardly a surprise to me that criticism of the gracious Speech amounted to a consensus around the idea that there was nothing in it for growth. The opposition parties readily joined in this somewhat glib narrative. No legislation for growth? Speaking from this side of your Lordships’ House, I am bound to say, “Thank goodness for that. Pass the bunting!”. The idea that Governments can somehow legislate for growth seems to me an utterly discredited doctrine that should have died with the bankruptcy and collapse of the command economy of the Soviet empire. Some of us are old enough to remember the Stalinist five-year plan that would emerge from the Politburo every five years. In fact, it was not every five years; they would have a new five-year plan every two years because it was clear that the first five-year plan was failing.
Those who still believe, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary, that any Government can simply wave their magic legislative wand and thus decree that “there shall be growth” and, lo, there was growth are ignoring the lessons of history. No, my Lords. If legislation is needed to encourage growth, it is needed to unpick the knotweed of employment and health and safety box-ticking and other regulation which stifles growth, particularly in the SME sector, which, as I understand it, accounts for more than 90% of our economy.
A quick survey of any dozen SMEs—which I did the other morning at a breakfast meeting of businesspeople —would produce at least a dozen pieces of daft legislation that they want removed in order for them to create more wealth, more jobs and, ultimately, more taxes. If you asked them what legislation they would need to be passed in order to grow, I think they would send for the men in white coats—there’s a job opportunity. The cry from business everywhere is for Governments to step back and let the wealth creators through to do what they do best.
The role of government is to ensure that, when businesses are created or expanding, there is a talented, educated skill base qualified to fill those jobs. I believe that this Government are committed to a red-tape bonfire—most Governments always are—but it would be helpful to hear from the Government and from the Minister how the progress that they are making in this area is being achieved. Reports from time to time on the achievement of deregulation would be very welcome and would give credence to the policy.
One important legislative proposal in which many of us will have a keen personal interest is the reform of the Defamation Act. My noble friend Lord Lester has paved the way for this much needed reform, as has the parliamentary scrutiny committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Mawhinney. It is a committee on which I served as a member. I hope that the excellent report and recommendations will be carried through into the Bill. At the end of this much needed reform, we should expect that, among other things, there will be affordable and accessible defamation justice for all, regardless of economic means. The Bill should deliver clarity for journalists and freedom for responsible publishers to publish without fear of the chilling effect of existing libel laws. This latter applies as much to academic papers and publications as to newspapers. There is also the huge challenge posed by the internet, which in this context will require some considerable attention. I look forward to our debates in this House. In the end, I am confident that the public’s right to know and freedom of expression will be balanced in the usual way.
I have two points for the Minister. Can we please have regular reporting of successful deregulation for business? Can we please have fiscal clarity for the generous benefactors who, in partnership with the Government, keep our arts afloat and an appreciation and recognition of their generosity? As a coda, I ask the Minister to offer some specific reassurance on the Bill to reform this House. As we are teetering in and out of drought from week to week, can he also assure the House that adequate safeguards have been put in place for watering the long grass?
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, this year marks the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign. Over these 60 years, we have witnessed incredible progress in science, medicine, technology, working conditions, healthcare, education and equal opportunities. However, it is a sad reflection on our society that progress on living longer becomes something to fear. My noble friend Lord Warner was absolutely right when he wrote in yesterday's Times:
“Living longer should be a matter for celebration, not concern. We are a civilised society with enough wealth and assets collectively to fund a decent social care system. Let’s get on with it”.
The coalition agreement committed the Government to an independent commission on social care to report by July 2011, enabling legislation in this new parliamentary Session. Dilnot delivered but the coalition has not. We have a commitment to publish draft legislation on reform of social care law, with no commitment to introduce a Bill on reform of care funding in this Session. As we have heard today, our care system has reached breaking point, yet we appear to be even further away from addressing the fair and sustainable solutions offered by Dilnot. This will cause terrible hardship and distress for older and disabled people.
It will also affect the economy. More than £1 billion has been cut from local council budgets for older people’s social care since the Government came to power and the system has now reached breaking point. At a time when government Ministers are asking people to go out and grow the economy, 1 million unpaid carers have had to give up work, or reduce their hours, because the support that they need to look after family members is not available or is too expensive. That is what Governments can deal with to produce growth. The cost to the economy of carers being forced to give up work or reduce their hours is £1.3 billion every year through lost tax and pension contributions, and the increased costs of unemployment, income or care-related benefits. There is nothing to stop the Government, if they are serious about social care reform, committing to legislation in this Session that will include funding reform as well as wider policy and legal reform.
Another area where we have witnessed incredible progress over the past 60 years is in the field of equal opportunities. I was therefore disappointed that the modest proposal for equality in marriage between straight and gay couples was not included in the gracious Speech. As I said before in the House, I am proud that across all political parties there is a consensus that respects the right of lesbian and gay people to celebrate their relationships. It reflects an understanding of the inherent worth of a loving relationship between two people of the same sex.
My husband and I have taken every opportunity given to us to celebrate our 16-year relationship on an equal footing in our civic society. The first came in 2004, with a civil partnership ceremony conducted under the auspices of the GLA when Ken Livingstone was mayor. We had to do that because, unfortunately, this House had delayed civil partnership legislation. On 21 December 2005, the first day possible, we legally tied the knot in Islington Town Hall—and I will say, for the benefit of some noble Lords, that council staff not only understood their statutory duty to carry out the law of the land but made our day really special.
Rafael and I therefore welcomed the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to equality in marriage—but he must not backtrack now. The attempt by some Conservatives to blame the equal right to marry for their election results is wrong, and for the Prime Minister to give in to them would be a betrayal of all those who oppose discrimination.
The Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Phillip Hammond, said at the weekend:
“But I think the government has got to show over the next couple of years that it is focused on the things that matter to the people in this country—not just the short-term things but the long-term things as well”.
Well, Mr Hammond, my marriage is not a short-term thing. My commitment to my partner is not a short-term thing. Legislation on equal marriage does not prevent the Government prioritising jobs, growth or family finances. It is the coalition’s economic policy that is preventing that.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, this is the 13th Queen’s Speech that I have been present for in your Lordships’ House. In the first Queen’s Speech debate that I took part in, the key issues that were exercising the House were the royal commission on the funding of long-term care, and reform of this House. It is always difficult to find a theme in such a disparate debate, but I have detected a similarity between Lords reform and social care. Both problems have been analysed for decades, and whenever a Government put forward a proposal for reform, there is an instant queue of people seeking to pick holes in and criticise the proposals—and the people in the queue are the ones who support the reforms.
The proposals on social care in the gracious Speech are an important step forward for families as they work out how best to support their older relatives. I point out to noble Lords that increasing numbers of older people in our society will have dementia. They are also a test for Parliament as a whole. Reform of social care is an issue that previous Governments did not resolve in times when there was far less pressure on public finances.
In the debate on 24 November last year, there was a great degree of consensus in this House, reflecting the consensus among the relevant charities, that the Dilnot report and the Law Commission provided the way forward to reforming social care. However, we should pause for thought. I read in Community Care on 11 May an article by Mithran Samuel. He said:
“Public understanding of the social care funding system remains problematically low with the effect that too many people believe services are free when they are anything but”.
Mr Samuel went on to say:
“I’ve spotted a couple of pieces in the national press recently that have inaccurately described the system of means-testing care in England … Both pieces claimed that people with assets of £23,250 or less do not have to pay for care at all, and that the Dilnot commission report last year proposed increasing this threshold for, in effect, free care to £100,000. However, this is wrong—£23,250 is the threshold above which people must pay the full cost of their residential care; it doesn’t apply to community-based services, and the threshold below which people do not pay for their care is £14,250”.
Andrew Dilnot’s proposal was to extend the system of charging up to £100,000. So a great deal of work needs to be done to convey the complexity of the system as it is now, and there is a far greater need to expand understanding of exactly what the Dilnot proposals are among the media, never mind the general public. I hope that parliamentarians from all parties and none, and voluntary organisations, will take the opportunity which the draft legislation gives us to increase their understanding over the next year as we focus on these issues.
Last Session, we went through the Health and Social Care Act. In January this year, the King’s Fund, closely followed by the NHS Future Forum, published reports on integration of health and social care. Both called for developing integrated care to have the same priority over the next decade as reducing waiting times did for the previous Government and they urged that government policy should set a defined date for delivering integration. I agree with that. In their response to our debate, will the Government say what progress has been achieved? The issue of continuing health care and NHS criteria is important to people who are knowledgeable about social care and it is a critical point at which health and social care systems come to bear on the lives of individuals. I hope the Government will take the opportunity of the draft legislation to address that point.
A number of key issues are identified by the Social Care Institute for Excellence, in a report in March 2012, called Crossing the Threshold. It points up the issues which need to be decided before the Dilnot proposals—or anything like them—can be implemented. These are issues such as clarity and consistency on assessment of care needs, and eligibility, in particular how publicly-funded social care can be better integrated with universal services. A key question which has to be answered is how needs would be assessed fairly alongside the operation of a practical cap. I put those forward as somebody who knows about social care, not in an effort to delay the implementation of what I think are two very important reports. I put them forward as issues which this House has to discuss and agree over the course of the next year if we are to get to the settlement which we all wish to see.
I welcome in particular the Law Commission’s proposals on safeguarding vulnerable adults. For too long, older people have been vulnerable to abuse and local authorities have been powerless to intervene on their behalf. In particular, I welcome the removal of the existing power under Section 47 of the National Assistance Act to remove a person from their home. It is a power which has long been in existence and contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. It was described by one of my colleagues in Age Concern as the power of a local authority to remove a vulnerable person from insanitary conditions which might harm them to sanitary conditions which would almost certainly kill them.
The proposed draft Bill will, I hope, be subject to scrutiny by both Houses. There is considerable experience both here and in another place which is relevant to that. My colleague Paul Burstow in another place has worked hard to bring us closer than we have ever been before to settling what for decades has seemed to be an intractable issue. Families need certainty about what the costs of social care will be and they also need to be certain that they will have access to high quality and suitable services. We on these Benches support the proposals which have been put forward. We do not wish to wait longer than is necessary to see the implementation of the Dilnot report. That is why we will wholeheartedly support this. For myself, I do not want, in another 13 years’ time, to be considering yet more reports saying that social care is not working and that there is a need to reform this House. The issues are before us. We should take them forward and make sure that the proposals are implemented with due care and in detail.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I welcome the statement in the gracious Speech that the,
“Government will strive to improve the lives of children and families”.
To this end, like my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen, I look forward to the strengthening of the powers of the Children’s Commissioner so as to,
“champion children’s rights and hold government to account for legislation and policy”,
to quote the Department for Education. I hope that this means that in the future, when the commissioner publishes a critical report drawing attention to the way in which a Bill such as the Welfare Reform Bill undermines children’s rights, the Government might pay more attention.
Also welcome is the promise of measures to,
“make parental leave more flexible so both parents may share parenting responsibilities and balance work and family commitments”.
Things have gone quiet on exactly what these measures will be since they were first proposed a year ago in the Consultation on Modern Workplaces, so perhaps the Minister could, when he winds up, tell the House when firm proposals will be published. What was most encouraging to me about this document was its acceptance of the case for a period of parental leave reserved for fathers on a “use it or lose it” basis, which the Nordic experience shows can increase fathers’ involvement in the care of their children. I hope that rumours that this proposal could be dropped are unfounded.
International experience has also shown that, unless the payment provides adequate wage replacement, it is unlikely to be economically viable for most fathers to take leave. At present, under a quarter of fathers in the UK take up their paternity leave entitlement. Moreover, if the commitment to shared parenting is to extend to low-income families, there needs to be a rethink on universal credit, which promotes the opposite by increasing the disincentive for second earners to work, along with a rethink on financial support for childcare, a point made by my noble friend Lady Hughes of Stretford.
However helpful the measures set out in the gracious Speech might be, there is no acknowledgment that the best way in which government can improve the lives of children and families generally is by ensuring adequate financial support, especially in the face of growing evidence of hardship. For instance, there has been a huge rise in the numbers turning to food banks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has projected a big increase in child poverty, which will only partially be offset by the impact of the introduction of universal credit, and there is evidence that it is families with children, especially lone-parent families, who are the biggest losers from the cuts announced so far.
If the Government genuinely want to improve the lives of children and families, perhaps I may suggest that they should reverse the three-year freeze on child benefit. Inflation-proofing child benefit would do more to help the lowest-income working families than the proposed increase in tax allowances. The money goes direct to the person caring for the child and therefore is more likely to be spent on the child. Also, the Government should drop the widely criticised plan for means-testing child benefit, described only today by the Institute of Chartered Accountants as “seriously flawed”.
I suggest that the Government reverse the change in working tax credit rules that has meant a significant loss for over 200,000 of the “strivers” and “hard-working people” whom the Prime Minister prayed in aid six times in his speech in the debate on the Address, and for whom the advice to seek additional hours is a cruel joke in the current labour market. I also suggest that the Government call a halt to further cuts in social security, signalled in the Budget, which even the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is now resisting, as did a number of his predecessors in the 1980s, some of whom now sit in your Lordships’ House. I hope that they might add their voices to those arguing against further cuts in social security, which will make life that much harder for families and children.
On a slightly different tack, and echoing my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, I hope that the silence on equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians does not mean that this has been filed away as too controversial. This is a matter of justice—a value highlighted in the gracious Speech—and it was to the Government’s credit that they appeared to be willing to build on the progress made by the previous Government in this area. Perhaps the Minister can tell your Lordships’ House what is going to happen when the consultation on this has ended. I hope that he can provide reassurance that this is not being filed away as too controversial and difficult.
In an earlier debate on the Address, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, reminded your Lordships’ House that the recent Hansard Society audit of political engagement drew attention to a public increasingly disengaged from and disenchanted with formal politics and government, and in the recent elections people were saying that politics has no connection with their lives. It is difficult to see what there is in this Queen’s Speech to reconnect them to the political process, which surely we must all regret.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I want to talk about the arts and the cultural sector, but to get to that point I feel that I have to talk about something else first, something that is in the way and which I have to get past: the economic policy of this Government, which in the last two years has cast a shadow over almost every topic that gets debated in Parliament.
Like a growing number of people, I do not believe in the austerity measures. Why do I say this? I am not an economist. I studied economics for one year at undergraduate level and I probably learnt three things: first, that there are many different economic policies; secondly, that there is much argument about which policies actually succeed—if any; and, thirdly and most importantly, that no economic policy can be separated from political intent. Austerity is no exception. It is not a politically neutral measure, although this Government have done a pretty good job so far of convincing the public that austerity is the only way and has nothing to do with ideology.
I do not agree with the political intent behind austerity measures. Many economists also do not believe that austerity works, and indeed see this measure as perverse, eccentric and historically discredited. The views of these economists, including Nobel prize winners such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, have not until now been championed enough—although I think that the tide is turning—because the parties in power in Europe have not been sympathetic; nor have they yet been championed enough by the Opposition in our Parliament, who have yet to state that they would reverse the cuts.
The arts, the cultural sector and the creative industries are precisely the areas in which this country should be investing for growth, and we should be reversing the cuts to do so—cuts, I should say, to an investment that has always been small by Treasury standards. To their credit, the previous Administration appreciated that such investment effects cultural growth, social regeneration, improvement of the environment and economic growth, and gave the arts a prominent place in their 2010 manifesto.
The Arts Council has this month released a guidance document for arts organisations to carry out their own economic impact assessments, which, through the case studies featured, prove the point of such organisations’ worth—yet again. I do not believe that organisations should be doing this, as too many are struggling enough with their finances anyway. But the two-year-old case studies of Anvil Arts in Basingstoke and of the AV Festival in the north-east gave results that stunned even local people. For example, in 2010 it was assessed that Anvil Arts contributed £6.2 million per year to Basingstoke’s economy, more than a fivefold return on the borough council’s investment.
The arts community has always known of the strong multiplier effect of the cultural sector, which politicians with any nous would pick up on. Yet, strangely for a Government who profess a desire for economic recovery, the arts have suffered an enormous demotion politically in the past two years. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, pointed out, there is no mention of the arts or the creative industries—or innovation for that matter—in the Queen’s Speech. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, that there is no sense of strategy for the arts and culture. It is almost as though, in the past two years, the arts have become invisible as far as the Government are concerned. The cultural sector almost failed to appear in the national planning policy framework. Only a strong campaign prevented that. It was for the sector a big fall from grace from being, under the previous Administration, one of the four pillars of sustainable development.
Worst of all, one only needs to go on to the Lost Arts website to see the roll call of those arts organisations that have been drastically cut, are on the brink of folding or have now gone under, all as a result of cuts to state funding. Those organisations include Durham City Arts, now closed; the Theatre Writing Partnership, based in Nottingham and formed more than 10 years ago, which will close next month; Croydon’s Warehouse Theatre, which may well close; and Museums Sheffield, which has had to make a scandalously large number of redundancies—45 altogether. The list goes on and on.
This is a Government who neither properly appreciate the significance of long-term support for the arts nor understand the state’s crucial role at the grass-roots level or the preservation of our cultural history. If this Government were taking a long-term view, they would not have introduced the levy of VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings, nor would they have effectively capped charitable giving, which will have a hugely detrimental effect on the larger, more established organisations. I hope that both these measures will be reversed and that the Minister will respond on them.
The Government have, quite correctly, launched a very smart advertising campaign abroad leading up to the Olympics and Paralympics—the GREAT campaign —but it is an irony that, at the same time, they have so drastically reduced funding to the culture that the campaign is promoting.
This is a Government who react most when the short-term commercial possibilities of the creative industries are right in front of their nose. Tax breaks to investors in the form of the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme are clearly welcome, although Steve Karmeinsky of City Meets Tech points out that there need to be tax breaks also for the start-up companies in which investors have an interest.
Robert Redford was quite right to slap David Cameron down for calling for the funding only of “commercial” cinema. Sundance, which, as we know, has been launched as a festival in the UK, was set up on the opposite premise: from the point of view of the film-makers. To make a general point, artists do the work that they do and then an attempt should be made to find audiences. This is a necessary risk at the level of the individual artist and the individual company. Yet paradoxically perhaps, at the larger scale—to take the sector as a whole—it is, as I have described, no risk at all to invest; it is absolutely the opposite. If we continue to cut the grass roots, to threaten arts education and to continue with local authority cuts to the arts, music and libraries, the mainstream also will be become fundamentally damaged—the commercial cinema and the commercial theatre, which are fed by the grass roots. This Government should give long-term support to the arts and cultural sector to promote cultural growth and help to kick-start this country’s economy. That is a plan for growth.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly this evening about relationships, but, no, I am not about to delve into the excellent proposals to speed up adoption or improve contact with absent parents. I want to talk about public confidence in two essential institutional relationships, between the security services and Parliament and between Parliament and the judiciary.
The justice and security Bill aims to improve parliamentary oversight of the security services. I think it has found its time. There is concern and confusion about the accountability of the security services in our democratic society. I was intrigued to read the following comments only last weekend:
“By their very nature the world’s top intelligence agencies are a law unto themselves”.
MI6 is among those named.
“Yet it would be wrong to assume that within the intelligence world there are no laws”.
I was relieved to read that.
“It is governed by its own strict set of rules”.
This view of the security services having only their own internal regulation is not from the blogosphere or Twitter but Richard Beeston, foreign correspondent of the Times. The position was correctly outlined in the Reith lectures by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who said that,
“ultimately the Service is answerable to the law and the courts”,
and that it was the security services who pushed the Government for their existence to be put on a statutory basis.
Also recently, in response to questions from journalists concerning the basis for the police investigation into MI6, the commissioner felt that he needed to respond, “It is the law”. I find the need to re-assert this basic fact quite troubling. Her Majesty’s Government are clearly alert to the reputational issue, as it forms part of the argument underpinning the proposals in the justice and security Green Paper that secret courts are needed, where one party to the proceedings is excluded for part of the time. The argument is that without secret courts the Government cannot defend claims such as those from people who alleged that the British Government were involved in their rendition to Guantanamo Bay as the Government cannot produce such evidence in open court.
It is important to remember that the reputational issue arises in a context of declining trust in our institutions generally and matters which cannot be blamed on court process. I am referring of course to the tragic case of MI6 employee Gareth Williams—so utterly terrible for his family. It was also concerning for the public to hear of MI6’s failure to hand over evidence to the police investigation and to report his absence from work for over a week. It is a necessary part of oversight for the public to know such issues and I hope that the inquest into this death, as well as the recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, have lead Her Majesty’s Government to drop the proposal for inquests to be held partly in secret. Most of all, I hope that the discussion of oversight of the security services will be a platform for informed debate and awareness of the accountability of our security services.
Secondly, the Leveson inquiry is dealing with the issue of how you fit the power of the modern media into a traditional separation of powers model. What are the appropriate boundaries between media and politicians? A not wholly dissimilar issue concerning the relationship of the judiciary and the legislature arose when the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the Green Paper. I am extremely privileged to serve on that Joint Committee. Our 24th report outlines the response to the justice and security Green Paper, and page 16 says that the Green Paper,
“redefines the meaning of a ‘court’ for certain purposes, and in our view it would be beneficial to parliamentary scrutiny of such a measure if it could be informed by judicial views on a matter which goes to the very nature of the judicial function”.
Although this might sound rather novel, it is not completely without transferable precedent. The judiciary as a group responded to the Green Paper on legal aid. Also, as I was looking at previous humble Addresses to see if there was any kind of standard to be adopted—there is not—I found the speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, outlining what happened before proposed changes to custody periods for life sentences were introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003:
“Before the law was introduced, and under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, a meeting was held at the Middle Temple, where nearly all those who were playing a leading role were present to discuss the proposals”.—[Official Report, 27/5/10; col. 147.]
In that case, the Lord Chancellor knew the judiciary’s view but I do not know whether the meeting was in private or whether there was an appropriate channel for the legislature as a whole to know these views.
The present Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Joint Committee that he has spoken to the Lord Chief Justice and two High Court judges, thereby performing the role of conduit of some judicial views to the Government. What about Parliament? I agree with my noble friend about the utter integrity of our judiciary. As the Green Paper’s proposals are for a change in the courts, not so much a change in the law, I felt that without representative views from the judiciary, I lacked a piece of the jigsaw properly to perform the role of parliamentary scrutiny.
Finally, like my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I found some of the words in the Ministry of Justice’s outline for the Queen’s Speech on this Bill interesting: allowing courts to consider all material relating to the case, even when national security prevents that information being made public. How can you as a claimant put all your material before the court if you are not a part of the proceedings? To be a little technical, how can you bring your rebuttal evidence if you have not heard the evidence you are to challenge?
I fear that a more accurate statement is: allowing courts to consider all one party’s material relating to the case. It is worrying that the one party to which I refer will normally be the Government. There is a healthy tension and balance between a defence and security service perspective and the legal and civil liberties perspective. The issues in the Green Paper involve human rights, national security requirements and common law principles of what is and, importantly, what is not a fair trial.
That is a difficult balance with no perfect solution, but the issues are immensely important. In the months ahead, I look forward to seeing your Lordships’ House at its very best as guardian of the constitution and the civil liberties of our citizens.
Lord Winston
My Lords, the right honourable Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, the other day made a very important point when he argued about the disparity between children going to private schools and those going to state schools and the difference in our society afterwards. I have a solution which the Government might be interested in listening to. It does not need legislation, but it would be important to consider something of the kind.
Over the past 12 years, the Science and Technology Select Committee has held two inquiries into science in schools. I had the privilege of chairing one 12 years ago. Throughout our inquiry, we found very clearly that the things that really inspire children into science are, first, inspirational teaching and, secondly, good practical work. As it happens, over many years, the level of laboratory experience in schools has got poorer and poorer. That is not due to any particular Government; it has happened because of a lack of funding. At present, more than 30% of state schools have laboratories which are inadequate for the purpose.
We have immense possibility in British universities, where there are extensive plant, experts and laboratories to be used. Two or so years ago, we set up at Imperial College in London a reach-out laboratory to which schools from underprivileged parts of London could come in daily to get practical experience. The place is not run by academics but by a schoolmaster whom we employ. All five sciences will be available to children who come in: mathematics, engineering, chemistry, physics and, of course, biology. During term time, underprivileged schools come in; during the holiday time, the gifted and talented children come in. Currently, the occupancy is between 80% and 85%.
We are doing that as a research experiment. I have two PhD students considering the outcomes. We are measuring four different aspects of what is happening. First, we are looking at the children who come in over a long period—the next 10 years—to see what happens to them, not just what exam results they get but what their aspirations are. Secondly, we are anxious to follow the teachers to see whether their experience in our laboratory changes the way that they teach, and the opportunity that they have to go back to university to be, if you like, researchers in residence once again. That seems powerful. Thirdly, we are looking at what works best: what messages work best, how you follow that up with electronic learning, and so on. Everything in the laboratory can be recorded and televised.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly, we are measuring the impact on the undergraduate and postgraduate students who come in during this exercise and act as role models for these children. So far, although we do not have solid metrics, the indications are really overwhelming. The wealth of enthusiasm that these children show in wanting to come back on leaving the laboratory is outstanding. Teachers seem to be changing how they teach in schools and, as a Russell group university, more and more of our undergraduates want to consider teaching rather than going into the City. We are even starting to initiate a four-year course in physics which, for its last year, will be a teacher training course in physics from Imperial College, in conjunction with another university.
This kind of initiative cannot work unless it is funded but it is not so difficult to fund. With a bit of charitable money, widening participation money and a lower payment from schools than it would cost them to do practical work in their own laboratories, we can fund this activity. We are now branching out to attract the private sector to do work in satellite laboratories around London, in private schools, and more and more we are getting interest from industry. Rolls-Royce has been particularly helpful. Just recently, the BG Group, a massive group with interests in energy, has agreed to fund primary schoolchildren in this laboratory. We are currently going from about six years old up to 18, and we are extremely encouraged not only by the support from the university but by the immense support from schools. The difficulty is actually to get enough schools going in because we are so crowded most of the time.
As I say, this cannot work unless it is rolled out properly but we are already starting to go into partnership with Southampton University. Cambridge is showing an interest and we are doing one on astronomy with Bradford, down the line. We have an indication that Bristol will be interested; King’s College is helping us with the evaluation; Sheffield Hallam University is involved as well. As we increase our impact, more and more universities want to adopt many of the methods that we are undertaking.
I must tell your Lordships that it is really the most wonderful experience. If you think about it, it is blindingly obvious. Most of all, it prevents that major gap between school and university so that universities stop becoming a place to which you cannot aspire. It changes the nature of how children think about universities. That is also really important in career guidance because we can help there, too, with our specialist teachers who obviously help our major schoolmaster. We have specialist teachers in each subject: if it is robotics, we have a robotics expert and if it is biology, I might be dissecting a rat, for example. We can get all these children to have hands-on experience. I finish by telling your Lordships a remarkable thing that a child aged seven said to me the other month, having travelled an hour and a half from Redbridge to South Kensington. As he left the lab at 4.30 in the afternoon—still not wanting to go—he said, “You know, I have learnt more today than I have in my whole life”.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I am tempted today to talk about a wide range of policy areas arising: particularly, given my interest in autism, the forthcoming special educational needs, children and family Bill, which is so welcome and was heralded in the Queen’s Speech and in the update given today; or indeed the media and Lord Leveson’s inquiry; or the question of tax relief for charitable donations, on which I agree so strongly with my noble friend Lord Grade and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
However, we are in an exceptional year for heritage with the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, for sport with the London Olympics and for culture with the London 2012 festival. Last week, I visited the Olympic park. All around it there are signs of new investment such as Westfield Stratford City shopping centre and Inter IKEA’s investment at Sugar House Lane. After the Olympics, we can expect Lend Lease and London & Continental’s international quarter, Qatari Diar’s East Village and many other exciting projects stimulated by the superb new transport links and the initial Olympic park investment benefiting a huge number of residents of east London. This will have been a huge achievement for all those involved.
That area of London of course forms part of the wider “Tech City” and focuses on the creative industries, digital technology and the cultural industries. It has attracted both large and small business and may well be living up to its description as Europe’s Silicon Valley. I particularly welcome the announcement of a new tax credit for animation, video games and TV drama in the recent Budget.
There are, however, certain misconceptions in considering the future of our creative industries that need to be addressed. First, there is the belief that copyright in this country is inhibiting innovation and that reform will somehow deliver a massive increase in our creative industries’ output, a view held by Professor Hargreaves and, it seems, the IPO. By contrast, the approach of Richard Hooper in laying the ground for the new proposed digital copyright exchange, by engaging with creators and the creative industries, seems to have been wholly constructive. In particular, his early thoughts about improving the licensing of copyright in establishing the ownership of rights and in some cases improving the availability of repertoire have been welcomed by all concerned. However, the Government should think very carefully before attempting to implement the bulk of the other Hargreaves recommendations, such as those on orphan works and extended collective licensing, without addressing issues surrounding moral rights of attribution and the embedding of metadata.
Beyond that, consumers need to have good access to digital creative content, but the Government seem to have changed their mind about a fair share-out of the under-1 gigahertz spectrum under the long delayed 4G auction. They also seem to be ignoring issues relating to interference with digital TV signals. With regard to fibre, we in the Communications Select Committee are discovering that serious thought needs to be given to how to ensure access to trunk networks and dark fibre for small local operators.
We have a massively delayed Green Paper that is due to set out the framework for a new communications Bill. With the advent of internet-enabled television and YouView, policy decisions need to be made as a matter of urgency. The key question is what regulation of internet video material streamed through television is appropriate to protect young people from harmful content as we watch a mixture of linear and on-demand viewing from many sources.
It is clear that, as a co-regulator, ATVOD has learnt from its first years of operation and is anticipating the future regulation of broadcast internet material that may be necessary. Ed Richards, the CEO of Ofcom, flagged this up as a major issue in his speech at the Oxford Media Conference earlier this year. Even though we may have different regulators for different media, we still need a new set of common principles that will apply to the regulation of internet, broadcast and theatrically exhibited material. This is exactly the kind of framework that a new communications Bill needs to address.
Then there is the implementation of the Digital Economy Act. Of course I welcomed the outcomes of the Newzbin2 and Pirate Bay cases but, now that the Act has been judged to be valid under European law, why can we expect implementation of the initial obligations code under the Act in only 2014? In addition, as PhonepayPlus, the regulator, says, there will be a growing convergence in payment mechanisms over the next decade for digital content, and we need to make sure that the regulatory framework is right and the consumer is protected.
A major concern of many in the creative industries and cultural area has been the lack of assertion of our phenomenal talent and skills in that sector abroad. I welcome the activities carried out by UKTI and in particular the appointment of the new intellectual property attachés in China, India and Brazil. Like the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I welcome the great campaign promoting the UK abroad in the creative area, but normally the British Council exists on a shoestring.
The House was very supportive of my Live Music Bill earlier this year and it passed into law in the previous Session. It is not often that, as happened on 20 January, a Bill emerges unscathed from the Commons when 63 other Private Members’ Bills failed. It will make a significant difference to our young musicians, in particular, and I look forward to the revised guidance that is due and to the Act coming into effect in October.
Lord Truscott
My Lords, the National Health Service in its current form is unsustainable, unsatisfactory and urgently in need of reform. We are paying more for our health services, yet becoming unhealthier as a nation. Britain’s political parties are aware of the health challenges, but none is prepared to tackle the NHS’s long-term lack of sustainability head-on for fear of being crucified by the electorate, yet the result of this failure of political nerve will inevitably lead either to further cuts, rationing and declining public health under Conservative Governments or to effective bankruptcy under the Opposition.
The challenges are well known. Britain is among the worst in Europe for heart disease, and Glasgow is the heart attack capital of the world. As many as a quarter of a million Britons will die from alcohol abuse over the next two decades, while smoking causes over 100,000 deaths annually. Meanwhile, the UK has the highest levels of obesity in Europe, with one in four British adults being labelled obese. The cost to the NHS of obesity-related illnesses is expected to increase to £2 billion by 2030. By 2035, spending on diabetes, the majority of which is wholly avoidable and linked to diet, will cost the NHS £16.8 billion. Add to that an ageing population, with both sexes living to an average age of 87 by 2030, and this country is facing a health crisis of monumental proportions. The current younger generation will be the first generation in modern history to live shorter lives than their parents, although they will have the burden of paying for them, if they are lucky enough to have a job.
The NHS employs more than 1.7 million people, just under half of them clinically qualified. The NHS is the biggest employer in Europe. In fact, only the Chinese People’s Liberation Army and Indian Railways employ more people. The NHS already costs the general taxpayer over £106 billion a year, and that bill may triple by 2025. As much as I like and respect my current NHS GP, Dr Victoria Muir, our National Health Service is not delivering for the British people and the existing model, paid for from general taxation, is unsustainable.
There needs to be a fat tax levied on the purveyors of cheap, so-called fast foods, which are costing the rest of us so dear. It will not be penalising the poor; by saving their lives, we will be doing them a favour. In an ideal world, people would voluntarily change their lifestyles, but we all know simple invocation does not work. We need compulsory healthy cooking lessons in schools and the imposition of a minimum 50p per unit on alcohol, as recently proposed in Scotland. While avoiding the pitfalls of US Medicare and of Americanising our health services, we should move to a comprehensive social insurance system of health funding, retaining the principle of universal care at the point of need, but where people are also encouraged to take responsibility for their own lifestyle choices. The present health system guarantees that, however feckless the individual, the general taxpayer will pick up the tab.
Our current health service is an unfair lottery, where patients get not what they need, but what the NHS tells them it can afford, and where preventive care is either poor or non-existent because it is not seen as a budgetary priority. The best drugs available should be prescribed, rather than those deemed affordable by the NHS. This can be achieved by adopting a continental-style health insurance scheme, which would not only improve the quality of choice and care but empower patients, rather than commissioning GPs, to choose where and when they are treated, and by whom.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I will focus my brief remarks on those elements of the Government’s programme that relate to higher education. What is most striking is that there is so much missing. Last year’s Students at the Heart of the System White Paper promised us a higher education Bill in this Session. That has not materialised, although the Government have said that we may see a draft Bill in the new year.
My first anxiety centres on funding. In the 2010 spending review, the average cut in departmental expenditure was 11.7%. BIS did considerably worse than the average, suffering a 29% cut. In 2012-13, that translated into an 18% cut in recurrent funding to HEIs. For most institutions, this will be more than offset by the increase in income from tuition fees, but this year’s Budget made it clear that there are further cuts to come. Departmental budgets will be cut by an average of 3.8% a year between 2015 and 2017. Therefore, it seems inevitable that the cuts will need to be bigger than they were last time. However, the political climate is much more difficult now. Those cuts that might be regarded as having been more straightforward have already been made. The question for universities is whether BIS will again face a larger-than-average cut and, if so, how that will translate into university finances.
The proportion of university funds that comes from the state will fall to around 40% following the shift to higher fees this September. Nevertheless, universities are still highly dependent on public funding for research, as well as for supporting high-cost subjects and activities such as widening participation. If university budgets were to be targeted for hasher cuts in the next spending round, what else could be cut? The research budget and the all-important science ring-fence that protects it could start to look vulnerable. Universities can make an excellent case that cutting back on research that drives innovation and inward investment in the UK is economically suicidal. Universities are essential to the Government’s core purpose of—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in opening this debate—“sustainable recovery”. Therefore, I look to the Minister’s reply for reassurance on the Government’s commitment to research funding.
My second anxiety is about the impact of student numbers in the private sector. This matters because at the moment a growing number of private higher education providers have access to public funds via student loans but remain largely unregulated. These private providers will not be subject to the £9,000 fee cap, financial scrutiny by the Higher Education Funding Council or, for example, oversight by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. From September, students at such institutions will be able to access loans of up to £6,000 if their course is one of those that has been designated—to use the jargon—for student support. I have no objection to this. However, I note that because of the delayed introduction of the higher education Bill, the Government will not be able to control the student numbers on such courses.
Those numbers are, at present, relatively small; there were around 6,000 full-time students in 2009. However, applications are growing rapidly, partly because of constraints on student numbers in the publicly funded part of the sector. We do not know a great deal about enrolment in private providers because they do not provide data to HESA, but it is known that the Government spent around £33 million on loans to students in these institutions in 2010-11. With the maximum loan to students at these institutions almost doubling to £6,000 in September, we know that expenditure will increase to somewhere in the region of £100 million without factoring in any significant expansion.
I fear that, in the absence of the higher education Bill, there will be no means of either controlling costs or protecting student interests. For that reason alone, the Government should act swiftly, either to impose a moratorium on the designation of courses for student support or to enable those measures that are necessary to bring private providers into line with other institutions. In his reply, will the Minister tell me how the Government propose to control expenditure on loans to students at private institutions, given that they cannot control numbers?
Finally, I should briefly like to mention the communications Bill, which we are told to expect in draft next year. This Bill would, among other things, implement the recommendations of the Hargreaves review and introduce new copyright exceptions for research activity, such as text and data mining. That is important because our copyright regime currently prevents academics from making use of technology to search and compare published research. Many of our competitors in other countries do not face the same restrictions, which places the UK at a distinct disadvantage. Freeing researchers to use the potential of this technology will, I believe, deliver real benefits to UK research. Hargreaves’s proposals were entirely sensible. I welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to adopt them and I look forward to the relevant legislation being introduced.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, the Dilnot commission report on the funding of social care states:
“We should be celebrating the fact we are living longer and that younger people with disabilities are leading more independent lives than ever before. But instead we talk about the ‘burden of ageing’ and individuals are living in fear, worrying about meeting their care costs”.
I hope that the draft Bill will allow the Government to take an imaginative and forward-looking approach to the way in which we support those providing care so that we do it in a way that is fit for the modern world in which people now live.
Carers UK, in its report Growing the Care Market, sets out the costs of failures in social care and the economic opportunities of stimulating the care market. It has been estimated that 1 million people have given up work or have reduced working hours in order to care—in other words, about one in six of all carers. Figures published recently from the London School of Economics show that the public spending cost of carers giving up work to care for ill or disabled people is £1.3 billion each year in lost tax revenues and additional welfare payments. That is an enormous cost for not having got the system right.
A Carers UK survey of more than 4,000 carers found that 31% of working-age carers gave up work in order to care or reduced their working hours because local care services were unsuitable—they were too expensive, inflexible, unreliable or of poor quality. The peak age for carers is between 45 and 65, a time when people tend to be at the peak of their careers, their knowledge and their experience. Carers often have multiple responsibilities. If they give up their work to care, their experience is often lost in the long term from the workforce because when they try to return they may have difficulty in regaining a job.
The lack of adequate social care has a knock-on effect on healthcare. Very often, healthcare delivery is suffering because social care cannot be put in place. Patients do not come out of hospital as rapidly as they could because care packages are not in place or have broken down, or the additional supplement in care that they need cannot be provided within the resources of social care delivery. The scheme Employers for Carers, set up through Carers UK, recognises that a good system of care and support should be part of being a good employer. There are some interesting and innovative examples of supporting and providing leave arrangements for the workforce. Centrica British Gas found that special leave arrangements for carers delivers a bottom-line return of about £1 million a year.
There is also interesting experience from abroad. The Work and Care Act in the Netherlands provides a right to various forms of leave for working carers, with paid emergency leave of typically one day, short-term carer’s leave, which is reimbursed at approximately 70% of pay for a maximum of 10 days, and provision for long-term care leave. Poland has provision for short-term leave of up to two weeks a year with financial compensation at 80% of the average monthly wage over the previous 12 months.
In France, family care leave was introduced in 2006. There is an entitlement to unpaid leave if the carer is looking after a disabled relative or dependant. There is another leave option called family solidarity leave, which is available to employees to care for a relative with a life-threatening or terminal illness. There is also the opportunity for leave entitlements based on the working hours reduction, whereby leave can be accumulated over time up to 24 days, which can then be taken later on if people need it to provide care for a family member. In Canada, too, legislation allows carers leave from employment when they are caring for a relative who is terminally ill—this is called compassionate care benefits.
These measures are all operating in different healthcare systems and areas, but it is interesting to see that in different parts of the world the problem of carers and the need for families to be able to provide care has been looked at—and the solutions may in some ways be adaptable to the UK experience. Whatever we do and whatever emerges, it must be portable, so that if a person moves nearer their family their care is not jeopardised, and it must involve the person and their family in the assessment of care and provide information on how the family can access support and help.
Much care is provided through the voluntary sector. I welcome the Government’s statement that they will bring forward legislation that will decrease the burden on charities, enabling them to claim additional payments on small donations, because charities at the moment are finding it difficult to continue to meet their care obligations. That will be an important and positive part. But we also have a large number of unpaid volunteers who provide important care.
On a completely separate note and topic, I commend the Government for facing up to the problem of alcohol abuse and its related economic and social damage to the fabric of society. The proposals on minimum pricing are welcome, but a price that is a permanently fixed tariff will be diminished in effectiveness by inflation over time. I therefore urge the Government to consider a minimum price linked to another independent mark of cost of living expenses, which can then keep pace with alcohol prices over time and is consistent across the four nations of the UK.
At today’s cost of living indices, a 40p minimum unit price is projected to result in 1,180 fewer deaths and 38,000 fewer hospital admissions annually, whereas if it were set at the proposed Scottish level of 50p the projections of benefit rise and are more than doubled to almost 3,000 fewer deaths each year and 92,000 fewer hospital admissions.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I would like to address the impact on Britain’s media businesses of the legislation in the gracious Speech. I declare my interest as director of the Telegraph Media Group and draw attention to my other media interests in the register.
As noble Lords will be aware, these are not easy days for Britain’s newspaper and magazine industry, which is part of a publishing sector that employs 250,000 people. The inexorable, quickening pace of profound structural change in the industry, arising from the growth of digital media and the fracturing of audiences and advertising, combined with a very deep recession, has placed media businesses under serious commercial pressure. Then there is the long shadow cast by the Leveson inquiry and the menacing calls from some of the witnesses who have appeared before it for ever tighter restrictions on the media at a time when, commercially, they need much less regulation, not much more, if they are to survive. For some businesses, we should be in no doubt that survival really is a challenge.
Against that background, a number of measures outlined in the gracious Speech, with one exception I shall come on to, provide a rare glint of sunlight to pierce the May gloom. If not quite three cheers for the Government, there will certainly be two from the hard-pressed business of journalism. The loudest cheer will be for the excellent news that we are finally going to have a Defamation Bill to reform our oppressive and antiquated libel laws, which for far too long have had a serious chilling impact on reporting and investigation across the media. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I hope that it will succeed in ending the scandal of libel tourism. We need to ensure that this Bill really will create the new, robust and workable defences needed to protect investigative journalism in the digital age of the 21st century. I am sure that the chances of that will have been greatly increased as a result of the careful scrutiny given to it by the Joint Committee so expertly chaired by my noble friend Lord Mawhinney, to which the Minister has already referred.
Key to the legislation will be a trio of tasks: first, to ensure that court action is restricted only to cases where the most serious and substantial harm to an individual’s reputation truly is at issue; secondly, to reduce the complexity and hence the cost of proceedings; and, thirdly, to give the Reynolds defence real bite by ensuring that there are strong practical defences to provide protection for legitimate investigative reporting. In order to deliver real change, it will be vital that the Government maintain a constructive dialogue with all the different parts of the media during the Bill’s passage. My noble friend Lord McNally has already shown himself to be a willing and constructive listener. There will be improvements to explore as well as potential pitfalls to avoid, in particular any extension of courts’ powers to dictate what goes on a newspaper’s front page. I know that newspaper publishers and editors at national and regional level stand ready to assist.
Another cheer is for the Crime and Courts Bill, which will introduce cameras into some courts. It is now nearly a quarter of a century ago that regional and national newspaper publishers took part in the very first working group to look at court broadcasting. This shows that perseverance pays. All those with a commitment to open justice and the public’s right to know will now hope for a swift rollout from Court of Appeal cases to the sentencing remarks of judges in the local Crown Court. This would help enrich online court coverage, particularly for Britain’s regional press for which this issue is very important, and rapidly increase public understanding of the work of the courts. I am sure that this legislation will be a great success and I hope that Britain’s media companies, along with the Society of Editors which has also worked very hard to bring this about, can on the back of it persuade the Government and the judiciary that responsible coverage of whole trials, with suitable safeguards, should not now be indefinitely delayed.
So hearty cheers for those two Bills, but there is not one, I am afraid, for parts of the justice and security Bill which point in the opposite direction to the openness of the Crime and Courts Bill. Proposals for the extension of closed material proceedings barring press and public from access to hearings and evidence in some civil cases brought against the Government open up the prospect of secret justice rather than open justice. I will not go too much further just in case my noble friend accuses me of being swept away in the tsunami of overhyped hysteria, but there are some serious issues here, as my noble friend Lady Berridge mentioned. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has already expressed deep concern about the paucity of evidence in the Green Paper which foreshadowed this Bill to justify the proposals and its failure to consider the impact of such a radical departure from long established principles of open justice on the media’s ability to report matters of public interest. I am sure that we will have important debates in this House on this vital issue, as we will on the draft communications data Bill, which has a potentially serious impact on the confidentiality of journalistic sources.
I do not want to trespass onto tomorrow’s economic business but I also commend the commitment to introduce the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill. Many local newspaper businesses in particular, like many of the creative industries, which are often small-scale start-ups, continue to suffer from the burdens of bureaucracy and red tape. I agree with my noble friend Lord Grade: let the bonfire of regulations begin. I believe that this Bill may do something to get the flames going. I hope that ways might also be found to speed, simplify and cut the costs of the frankly Byzantine processes that local newspapers have to go through to change ownership. At the moment, too many local newspapers are still closing because of the fear of the burdens and cost of a Competition Commission referral. This Bill would be a good place to start wholesale reform of the system in a way that would be of real value to local communities up and down the country. It would be a real policy for growth.
There is a great deal to be welcomed in the gracious Speech for those of us who have an interest in freedom of expression and in the protection of investigative journalism. I hope that the Defamation Bill, in particular, can now make speedy progress through Parliament as the changes within it cannot come a moment too soon.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I am very pleased to take this opportunity to speak on the gracious Speech and I do so partly with my new hat on. From about now, I shall be the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities on these Benches, and it is about equalities that I intend to speak today.
First, I pay tribute to the health team on these Benches, including my noble friend Lord Beecham, whom I was privileged to lead for two years. I assure them that I shall be with them in spirit, and occasionally in body, as and when required by the new shadow Minister, my noble friend Lord Hunt, ably supported by my noble friends Lady Wheeler and Lord Collins. Of course, I need to add that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I have been opposite each other for more than four years. Although we have done battle over some issues, I hope that I have always treated with respect his knowledge and forensic questioning, and certainly I could not have had a more charming and able opposite number. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, with a similar good relationship.
I intend to limit my remarks to three matters: equal marriage, the fact that the Government’s comprehensive spending review failed the equality test in some significant areas, and today’s announcement concerning the outcome of the Red Tape Challenge and reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I regard these matters as perfectly relevant to our debates on the humble Address either by their omission or due to the effect of government policies or legislation.
One of the many things not in the gracious Speech was a commitment to follow through on the consultation on equal civil marriage and to bring forward legislation in this Session. Appeasement of Conservative Back-Benchers seems to have been unkindly suggested. Indeed, Craig Whittaker, MP For Calder Valley, in his blog on 8 May warns the leader of his party that he will vote against equal marriage because he believes that it will lead to polygamous relationships. He says that in British Columbia there were major attempts to legalise polygamy through the courts using the precedent of same-sex marriage. Of course, Ms Nadine Dorries can always be relied upon. She says:
“Gay marriage is a policy which has been pursued by the metro elite gay activists and needs to be put into the same bin”.
She goes on:
“The policy is divisive, unpopular with the public, is tearing the Conservative Party apart”,
and then in somewhat contradictory fashion she says,
“and will influence absolutely no one in terms of the way they vote in the future”.
I can see why David Cameron might not wish to expose some of the more eccentric views of some of his Back-Benchers in this debate but, as Trevor Phillips, the respected and retiring chair of the EHRC, said on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, the truth is that, because there is policy agreement across the main parties, we should “get on with it”. We managed to get the Equality Act through Parliament at the end of the previous Government’s term largely through cross-party co-operation. The Liberal Democrat Benches, the Conservative Benches and the then government Benches worked together to get through those parts that we could agree on. Surely equal marriage must be a candidate for such expedition. Certainly we on these Benches would welcome such a move.
The consultation closes on 14 June. Depending on its results, the Government could easily commit to having a draft Bill in Parliament in the autumn and have equal marriage on the statute book by the time of the next Queen’s Speech. How wonderful would that be, and why not?
Yesterday’s report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission shows serious shortcomings in the Government’s approach to meeting their responsibility to assess the impact on equality of their policies—in this case, the public spending cuts. The Equality Act set out specific duties on all public sector bodies to assess the impact of their policies by gender, disability status and ethnicity. As figures emerged that around 70% of the additional burden from tax credit changes, benefit cuts and changes to public sector pensions in the spending review and emergency Budget would fall on women, unsurprisingly doubts emerged about whether this duty was being taken seriously by the Government.
It seems from the report that Ministers were in such a rush to make cuts that decisions were being taken without stopping to make sure that their impact was being properly analysed. So while in six of the nine areas that the commission examined in detail it believes that the basic requirements of the duty were met, it points out that the Government often cited insufficient data as a reason for not examining the gender impacts of cuts, an assertion challenged by the Institute for Fiscal Studies among others. The Home Office—the Minister for Equality's own department—is particularly singled out for criticism as providing,
“no data or analysis on the potential impact of the Home Office's measures on race, gender or disability equality, to take into consideration when deciding the Home Office's settlement”.
That is a remarkable statement.
In three key areas—the introduction of the household benefit cap, the impact of cuts to the bus service operators grant and the abolition of the educational maintenance allowance—the commission was,
“unable to establish whether or not the decisions were in full accord with the requirements of the duty”.
For example, the gender impact of the household benefit cap was listed as “unknown”, despite the fact that subsequent analysis revealed that 60% of those affected would be single women and just 3% single men. I could go on.
Notwithstanding the Government’s inability to provide statistics, the House of Commons Library’s research showed that of nearly £15 billion cuts in tax, benefit and pensions announced in the emergency Budget, spending reviews 2011 and 2012 and the 2011 Autumn Statement, 74% of that—£11 billion—is being shouldered by women. That might possibly explain why the Government were having such trouble attracting women to their cause.
I turn to the announcement that we had today. The Home Secretary told the media that she has the EHRC under control through her response to the outcome of the Government's equalities Red Tape Challenge and the reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. My honourable friend the shadow Equalities Minister, Kate Green MP, said that at a time when many people across the country are losing their jobs and feeling financially squeezed and are increasingly worried about poverty, it is disappointing that the Government have chosen to continue watering down those provisions in the Equality Act that are intended to protect and support those who face discrimination and disadvantage. She is correct. I ask the Minister whether it is the Government’s intention to cut further the resources available to the EHRC and, if so, by how much. I specifically want to raise the Government’s proposed framework for the EHRC, which seems to see it reporting to the Home Office rather than directly to Parliament. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? I shall be happy to receive a letter on that.
I am old enough to remember the destructive work of the previous Conservative Government in this regard. I can remember the Equality Commission having its funding and powers cut. I can remember the Commission for Racial Equality finding itself under attack. It feels as though the salami slicing of resources and powers that went on then may be going on now. I am afraid that the warm words of Theresa May, Lynne Featherstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, saying how much they are committed to the equalities agenda—I know that they are—will only amount to something if they are judged by their actions and by the outcomes of discriminated groups. The test will be if people, individuals, groups, organisations, public bodies, businesses and employers understand their responsibilities, rights and duties and if people can easily access information and advice about discrimination and be supported to take action. I think that I have just written my own job description and I look forward to it.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it is after 10 o’clock; I am speaker number 57; I am on camera, as all of us have been; and the sky has not fallen in—as it has not over the many years of debates being broadcast from this and another Chamber. That may be enough for now on cameras in court save to say, in answer to the concern that counsel will play to the gallery—and this may be a risky observation—don’t they always?
In this House it is not just what you do but how you do it that matters. I am looking forward to seeing how the Government have responded to pre-legislative scrutiny —much mention has been made of the Defamation Bill—and how they have built on that sort of scrutiny. I am also pleased that we are starting on a new way of looking at how legislation that was passed a while ago is working.
The Queen’s Speech does not deal as much with the way Parliament does things as with what the Government plan to do, but I will mention one other aspect of the “how”. In no way is this aimed at our new Chairman of Committees, whom I welcome to his office. Indeed, I think that he may have sympathy with the point that the governance of our House is outdated. I use this opportunity to make the simple point that all our officeholders, not just the Lord Speaker, should be elected by their peers on the basis of a job description and a fixed term of office—instead of just emerging.
From the Government’s programme, on the issue of governance, the oversight of the security and intelligence agencies will present us with a challenge. How do we ensure good governance when access to the subject matter is restricted? It will be difficult to achieve public trust without complete transparency. I do not diminish the importance of the new National Crime Agency, but we will be debating it at Second Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill in less than two weeks.
To readers of Hansard looking for a mention of their own area of interest, I say that time constrains us. To those who say that reform of the House will crowd out everything else, I say that there will be a direct correlation with the number of times that we politicians feel the need to repeat the arguments. I understand, incidentally, that we have one day to cover so many subjects, compared with two days on constitutional issues, because the Opposition requested two days of debate on the constitution.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I have to set this canard straight—or whatever the expression is. Perhaps I have to shoot the canard and set the record straight. The Government came forward not just with a suggestion but saying that there would be two days of constitutional debate and that the other days would be apportioned as they are now. The Opposition said, “No, we do not think it is a good idea to have two days of debate on constitutional reform”. However, the Government chose to do that; it was not at the request of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
Baroness Hamwee
The House heard what the noble Baroness said. I was informed by somebody very close to the decisions. If it is a question of setting the canard straight, do I say “quack”?
The Government have a lot to deal with that will not be solved by legislation. That point was raised by a number of noble Lords; it was never going to be a panacea. Conversely, I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken in the Ministry of Justice to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
One matter that is more often the subject of secondary legislation and rules is that of immigration, and the huge issue of the values and attitudes that underlie it. However, legislation will not address the two issues that I now mention. One is the problem of delays by the UK Border Agency. Here I am talking not about queues but about the issuing of visas—something that businesses find immensely frustrating. Nor am I talking about what many of us regard as the inappropriate inclusion of students in immigration totals. The Government are concerned that to exclude them would be fiddling the figures; our concern is that their inclusion distorts the real picture.
Sometimes legislation is needed, and I am disappointed that there is no Bill on the presumption of death of people who are missing. It was not until I saw the work of the charity Missing People that I came to understand how many practical and financial—leaving aside emotional—problems there are for families. The Justice Committee made recommendations and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has brought forward a Private Member’s Bill.
It is right that there is no Bill but that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny of provisions covering access to communications data. Scrutiny means testing the evidence, and parliamentarians need public debate between experts on both technology and security. We cannot turn back the clock. Perhaps I should be talking about technologies in the plural. Certainly we have moved on—not just from when we communicated by letter, but from when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was passed. We must not miss this chance to re-examine what is in place now to ensure our freedoms under the rule of law, which includes revisiting RIPA. I might also revisit the issue of legal professional privilege. It does not take a crystal ball to predict that the use of closed proceedings will get a thorough scrutiny too, although I hope that when we see the Bill it will be less—I search for an adjective—extreme than what was, after all, only a Green Paper. I noticed, however, that last week the Home Secretary talked in the Commons about,
“proposals to deal with the limitations of the current court rules which do not allow sensitive intelligence evidence to be heard in civil proceedings, even where it is of central relevance to the case”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/12; col. 177.]
That is not so. It is not the rules of court, it is the security services which withhold the information. Parliament is—and should be—in the business of protecting our freedoms in the complicated society which is the 21st century. Society changes, challenges to freedoms may change, but the freedoms themselves are millennia old. At the start of the service on the first night of the Jewish festival of Passover, which is about freedom, the service describes it thus:
“Freedom from bondage and freedom from oppression, freedom from hunger and freedom from want, freedom from hatred and freedom from fear, freedom to think and freedom to speak, freedom to learn and freedom to love, freedom to hope and freedom to rejoice”.
That is still entirely relevant.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, being the last Back-Bencher to speak, I thought I would talk about an issue that was not actually legislation in the gracious Speech; there was a statement of intent that the:
“Government will continue to work with the fifteen other Commonwealth Realms to take forward reform of the rules governing succession to the Crown”.
This is interpreted to mean that the eldest child, of either sex, would inherit the Crown and there would no longer be a ban on Roman Catholics inheriting. I suggest that this is not before time. The Prime Minister has also been quoted as saying that he will introduce legislation before the next election, so there is clearly not much hurry there.
Given that today’s debate includes legal issues, I thought it would be useful to suggest that this legislation should be extended to clarify the status and role of the Duchy of Cornwall. I raised this briefly during debate on the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill, for reasons I will explain later. The main issue to be resolved is whether the Duchy is a private or public body, something in between or outside the law completely. As a representative of the Duchy claimed at a hearing of the First-tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Council, which I quoted,
“the Duchy is not democratically accountable in any meaningful sense”.
I believe that it is time that it was. I have since uncovered a further list of rights, duties and obligations that the Duchy still has. Some are effectively dormant, some are used occasionally and some rather more frequently, but there is the threat of use and a lack of democratic accountability on all these counts. I shall quickly list them. One involves the harbour authority of the Isles of Scilly, which includes the right to create by-laws and breaching them would be a criminal offence, which would be rather odd if a private person was able to do it. The Duchy is a major landowner in much of Cornwall. Some say it is a good landowner, some say otherwise, but that is no great surprise. What is missing is the leaseholders’ ability to get enfranchisement or be able to buy the freehold of their property. If they were council tenants they would have been able to do that for years, but you cannot do that with the Duchy. The Duchy also has the right to Crown immunity. I understand that between 2003 and 2008 it made some £43 million in capital gains and did not pay any capital gains tax on that sum.
I turn now to more interesting issues. The Duchy has the right to any whale, sturgeon or porpoise that gets landed in the county. I am not sure whether the present Prince of Wales would exercise that privilege, and quite right too. The Duchy is the Receiver of Wrecks, and again, why is this different in Cornwall? It also has the right to the gold and silver mined in the county. It is interesting to note that apparently the Crown Estate is challenging this right. It is not the Government and it is not the Royal Family challenging each other; perhaps there is an argument for putting them all into one pot.
The Duchy owns the foreshore and fundus in Cornwall, so if you want to play on the beach or use a ferry, you have to pay a sort of tax to the Duchy. I believe that it is proposing to charge those people who want to use metal detectors on the beach £50 to do so. That is not done anywhere else in the country, so why should Cornwall be able to do it?
The next two things are much more difficult. Bona vacantia and escheat concern treasure trove, something that we all understand. Basically, it means that the Duchy has the right to ownerless property, goods and treasure. Is that a right for a private individual or a public body? There is also an obligation to meet part of the costs of the head of state—something we have debated often enough—and to submit accounts to Parliament. There is a right to be consulted on and give consent to Bills that affect the private interests of the Prince of Wales. That, too, is a good one.
No doubt there are many more of these issues, but the most important one is that the Duchy has the right to be represented by the Attorney-General. It would be nice to be represented by the Attorney-General at no cost. This is really why I tabled an amendment to the legal aid Bill because it is unfair that people who have a dispute with the Duchy have to provide for their own costs while the Duchy can use as much of the state legal machinery as it wants. Again, that is pretty unfair.
What should be done about this? There is a Bill in the Queen’s Speech which I mentioned earlier. At the moment we have the Duchy of Cornwall owned by Prince Charles as if it was his private fiefdom. It does not have any democratic accountability. Its tenants are left effectively without any means of making complaints because they know that if they do so, they will be treated rather badly. Why should an unelected body not only have such powers, but go on to claim that it is not even a public body at all, as it has done? It is as if it sees itself as sort of floating above the riff raff as it is not democratically accountable in any meaningful sense.
I suggest that it is time to modernise the Duchy and put it on a modern footing, or possibly dissolve it. The problem of revenue for Prince Charles could be solved through the Crown Estate because this year the Government have introduced a new law which says that the Royal Family should get 15% of the Crown Estate’s revenue. I did ask whether the Crown Estate has a forward budget and I was told it does not, but as it is to get a slice of all the revenue from the windmills that are being put up around our coast, I think that there is probably plenty of money around. I suggest that Duchy tenants should be allowed the right to buy their houses or properties as if they were council tenants, which in any case would be good revenue for the Treasury. Most important, the Duchy should not have Crown immunity and we should not need to ask permission to promote Bills that affect the Prince of Wales’s private interests. Moreover, the free legal services of the Attorney-General, although very nice, should be abolished. All these things are pretty important in order to bring the Duchy into the 21st century.
It may even be best to transfer all the residual rights to the Crown Estate and abolish the Duchy completely. Land could be handed to the local council. Would it be nationalised or was it nationalised already? That is a debate we can have, but anyway it could be done on the basis of localism, with surplus going to the Treasury. The harbour of the Isles of Scilly could be transferred to the council, or turned into a trust port, with enough land to help it. There is an awful lot to do and a lot of uncertainty about all this, and it is very unfair on people who are trying to do business or take action against the Duchy that there are all these things stacked up against them. I hope that the Government will look at this and take it forward.
In closing, I must challenge the statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in his response to me in that debate in January, when he said it was for the courts to decide whether a body is a public authority. He might be right if it is just the Human Rights Act we are talking about, but I suggest that it is for Parliament to decide and it is for the Government to start this process. I hope they will soon.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I begin by joining the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his tribute to my noble friend Lord Bach, who has given 14 years of most distinguished service on both the government and opposition Front Benches. It was a particular pleasure for me to work with him on the Legal Aid Bill—about the only aspect of that which gave me pleasure. Your Lordships will recall the famous declaration of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that, “Every Prime Minister needs a Willie”—so does the Labour Front Bench. We will miss him enormously. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Thornton, who has done a remarkable job, both in government and in opposition, particularly over the many months during which the Health and Social Care Bill was debated in your Lordships’ House.
Today we have at last moved on from the seemingly interminable debate about Lords reform which has so gripped the popular imagination. However, the Queen’s Speech—though, as ever, gracious—might be thought to suffer by comparison with “The King’s Speech” in terms of both its content and dramatic impact. True, there is at least one feature in common: the leitmotif of “The King’s Speech” is a monarch with a stutter; the background to the Queen’s Speech is a Government in charge of a stuttering economy. The difference is that the King took steps to deal with his problem. The Queen’s Speech betrays little evidence of a Government with the will or capability of doing likewise.
In a recent debate, I briefly entertained the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with a reference to Dickens. As it is Dickens’s bicentenary year, I will draw on him again for it seems to me that this Government increasingly resemble the theatrical troupe in “Nicholas Nickleby”, with the Prime Minister as Vincent Crummles and the Chancellor as the “Infant Phenomenon”.
It is as instructive to consider what is not in the Government’s programme as it is to ponder what is. As several of my noble friends and indeed other noble Lords have pointed out, there is nothing on social care beyond a limited draft Bill. There is nothing likely to make a significant difference to the economy and job creation. The noble Lord, Lord Grade, is wrong if he believes that we are more heavily regulated than our competitors. In the light of his rather reactionary views about these matters, he might consider adding the prefix “retro-” to his surname.
Those are not the only areas in which the Queen’s Speech is lacking. There is nothing to tackle the growing housing problem, forced marriage or media ownership, despite the urgings of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The cry there is, “Wait for Leveson”, although his inquiry’s brief does not run that far. I suspect that we might as well be waiting for Godot, and the same goes for legislation on lobbying, much talked about but by no means visible.
What chiefly characterises the Government’s programme, legislative and otherwise, is its underlying ideology, resting as it does on an aversion to public services and an almost unquestioning espousal of the merits of the market, privatisation and, increasingly, payment by results—although I hope for the sake of Ministers that that rule will not apply to them.
Alongside these dogmas, we see also the fragmentation of local government and local accountability, with councils and, for that matter, parents being completely sidelined in education and accountability being directed upwards to the Secretary of State. Talk of freeing schools from council control is specious: it is many years since councils controlled schools. What we are seeing, to the growing dismay of the teaching profession and others, is an unseemly, competitive scramble rather than the co-operation of the whole education service in the interests of the whole community.
Similarly in policing, as my noble friend Lord Mackenzie reminded us, November will witness, at a cost of £70 million, the election of 41 police commissioners controlling 11% of council tax in England but at a remove from local authorities. Turnout in the recent local elections was disappointingly low. How many people will turn out in a cold and damp November to vote for this new and unsought-for position? I note in passing that there will apparently be no turnout of Liberal Democrat candidates, as they profess now to oppose the creation of the posts for which they voted when the legislation was passed.
In the matter of voter participation, how will the Government ensure that, under their electoral registration Bill, the fears of the Electoral Commission about a significant drop in registration are not realised? This is especially important given the pending boundary review and the frequency of future reviews.
Let us at least, however, celebrate the inclusion in the gracious Speech of the worthy Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which will be for ever more the talk of Tesco.
In the realm of crime and justice, there are five Bills. Reform of the law of defamation is welcome, as many of your Lordships have commented today, especially since it will bring, one hopes, an end to libel tourism. We need to ensure that access to redress is available to victims of limited means, and we will want to examine what is meant by “serious harm” to reputation, not so much for companies and corporate bodies as for individuals who may feel that they have been defamed. Similarly, moves to reduce reoffending and encourage effective community sentences will also receive our support, though we will wish to ensure that the punitive aspects do not outweigh the constructive.
However, just as the Labour Government might legitimately be held to have laid greater stress on being tough on crime than on the causes of crime, so the Crime and Courts Bill should not stand alone. What is needed is a recognition that early intervention and the involvement of many agencies of government, local and national, will be required if the indicators and predictors of offending, ranging from poor literacy and numeracy skills to early parenthood, unemployment and the high prevalence of mental health problems and personality disorders, are not to continue damaging lives and communities. This requires the kind of whole-system approach advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, in relation to health and social care. In addition, it is time to address the problems implicit in the disproportionate number of defendants from black and minority ethnic communities being denied bail or sentenced to imprisonment compared to other defendants tried for comparable offences and with comparable backgrounds.
We will also support proposals—although one listened with care to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—to make it an offence to drive under the influence of drugs. That seems a very sensible measure, although what she said today will need to be very carefully considered.
The justice and security Bill raises serious issues and will need careful scrutiny. The notion of secret trials or inquests, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, or of evidence given without the possibility of rebuttal, would be a major departure from our traditions, not lightly to be undertaken. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kerr, in the Supreme Court, to be truly valuable,
“evidence must be capable of withstanding challenge. I go further. Evidence which has been insulated from challenge may positively mislead”.
While the protection of the public is paramount, it is necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, reinforce judicial and independent scrutiny of the security and intelligence services so that the rights of the individual are not impaired without the most thorough scrutiny and the most cogent reasons.
In relation to closed-material procedures, the Government's proposals go further than in any other country surveyed in their Justice and Security Green Paper, including the USA. We understand that part of the rationale for the Government’s proposals lies in fears that the US may be less disposed to share intelligence information without them. The recent experience of the US over the underpants bomber and the dissemination of information—which undoubtedly they wish had not been disclosed, though it had nothing to do with this country—makes that claim worthy of the most careful exploration.
I endorse and welcome the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on these matters. I echo his doubts about the proposed national crime agency and there being single court systems. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, on the difficulties that may be occasioned in the perception of local justice with the closure of magistrates’ courts. I share her reservations about single lay magistrates sitting and taking decisions.
As ever, the Opposition will do their duty in scrutinising this and other legislation, improving it where possible and opposing it where necessary under the rubric which I have voiced before and make no apology for repeating: “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue”. Of course, we will hold the Government to account for their sins of omission, too. We invite other Members to join us in so doing.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I rise as the 60th speaker in this debate and the House will be grateful that I am the last. The House will be even more grateful that, when I looked at the list yesterday, it looked as though there would be 76 speakers in the debate. At that point, I did my sums and worked out that I could devote something of the order of 20 seconds to each speaker. That has presumably increased by some marginal amount but not much. I make that point purely to make it clear that I cannot devote that much time to every individual speech. I hope that, where appropriate, I will be able to write and respond to the points that have been made.
As always, it has been a very wide-ranging debate. We have covered quite a number of different departments —the Department for Education, DCMS, my own department the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions. I think I have been associated with virtually every one of those departments at one time or other, with the exception of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that I can still respond to some of those points.
As always, considerable expertise has been shown by noble Lords from all sides of the House. I will pick out one or two examples. We were very grateful for the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who served on the Dilnot commission and comes with his experience as a former Health Minister. We look forward to the help, advice and constructive criticism—and, no doubt, unconstructive criticism—that he will give in due course as various bits of legislation go through. Turning to the Cross Benches, again I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who comes with his experience as chief executive of Turning Point. I offer him my thanks for the various trips that he has arranged for me to see some of those organisations. I particularly remember one—I think it was in Manchester. If it was a Thursday it must have been Manchester; it was that sort of visit. I am grateful to him for doing that.
Turning to my own Benches, I am glad as always that my noble friend Lord Colwyn brought his experience as a dentist, of dentistry and the NHS and dentistry. Turning to my noble friends on the Lib Dem Benches, I was particularly grateful to have two eminent QCs in the form of my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames offering their advice on some of the Home Office and Ministry of Justice Bills. My noble friend Lord McNally and I certainly look forward to their very helpful advice and constructive criticism on the Crime and Courts Bill, no doubt on the communications data Bill in due course, the justice and security Bill and the Defamation Bill. I think I can say on behalf of myself and my noble friend that if we do not get as much support as we should have on those Bills, we will send them off to help out on the Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill. I think that they will find that somewhat drier a matter to deal with.
As I said, we have dealt with a whole range of points. I want briefly to touch on some of the points that do not really relate to the Queen’s Speech but deserve passing mention. I start by dealing with the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and echoed by others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. They regretted that there was no higher education Bill and that there have been delays in this area. The right reverend Prelate and others will have to accept that there have been competing demands, as there always are, for space in the legislative timetable. The White Paper is out, and we hope to publish our response to the consultation, to use a ministerial word, shortly—or in due course. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me for that.
We had a very interesting intervention from my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon on weights and measures. I have to say to him that, although it has been dragging on for some time, I think that we would wish to take the people with us on that. If one looks at the metric martyrs and others, I am not sure that we have quite convinced the rest of the population of the merits of proceeding in the direction he wants us to go in.
We had an interesting intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, on funds going to the Lawn Tennis Association. I regret to see that the noble Baroness is not in her place. It offered an interesting parable about how some public money gets spent without due checks and balances. I was shocked when I heard what she said was happening and how much money was going out. I was encouraged to hear that, as I understand it, Sport England will now be looking for greater use of payment by results, which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will no doubt regret. Proper checks on how government money is spent strikes me as a much better process than handing over £26 million a year—or perhaps it was £26 million over four years—with no proper audit.
We had a whole range of other interventions. We had very useful ones from my noble friend Lord Stoneham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on pensions. No doubt those are matters that we can look at in due course under the pensions Bill, which will be one of those carry-over Bills that will extend into this Session.
We had interesting interventions from the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Maginnis, on police corruption. I reject the complaints that they are making. I think that there might be individual cases of corruption, but, as I made clear at Question Time, we have adequate processes to ensure that they are checked by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The important fact is that that commission is independent. I repeat that for us within the Home Office to try to second-guess what it was doing would undermine it.
We have ranged wide over many things. A number of questions have been put which I hope to deal with largely by correspondence. I want to get on to a number of particular points that have been raised.
If noble Lords can remember that far back, I start by going back to the introductory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, when she complained that we are not dealing with the issues that matter. I think there is quite a lot here that matters and that we have to do. I have to remind her what we have achieved over the past year—over the past two years, because we have had a lengthy Session. She might not like all of what we have achieved, but I take her back to the reforms that we have made to the police with the police and crime commissioners; the health reforms that, sadly, my noble friend Lord Howe has had to leave but which are seared on his soul, from his having taken them through this House; the welfare reforms achieved by my noble friend Lord Freud; the reforms we have made to education taken through this House and another place; and the LASPO Bill and other reforms to criminal justice. I also give an assurance, as a reminder of the point which I think my noble friend Lord Dholakia made, of the reduction in the number of young people we have seen who are in detention.
Perhaps I might start by saying a word or two about the children and families Bill and its timetable, because that was a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and others—including, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey—who were concerned about it having a carryover slot. The noble Baroness then implied that it was not even going to be fit to go on the statute book until the end of this Parliament. In fact, it is only carried over for one Session. I remind her that carryover is a process introduced by the previous Government and one which, ever since it was introduced, all Governments have found convenient for the better management of Bills. We believe that that Bill needs a carryover slot because keeping it to the second Session would not have allowed enough time for the valuable learning and evidence from the special educational needs local authority pathfinders to be incorporated into the legislation. I give an assurance that there will be independent evaluation reports in spring—at the end of this year and in March 2013.
On that same children and families Bill, there was a faint feeling that we were fixated with numbers on adoption. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, made this point but it was echoed by my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton. I have to say that while we are starting with adoption, we have not lost sight of other important matters. Adoption is the first and, we believe, the most pressing priority at this stage but the Government want all children for whom adoption is in their best interests to be adopted without delay—as long as it is, I stress, within their best interests. The introduction of special guardianship orders may have an impact on numbers being adopted, and we have commissioned further research to understand that.
If I may, I will move on to the care and support Bill. I start off by reminding the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who accused my noble friend Lord McNally of not mentioning it in his introductory speech, that if he looks carefully at that speech he will find that the Bill was mentioned. I invite him to do that. This Bill has been brought in draft and we recognise its importance. What we feel to be important is simplifying and clarifying the care and support legislation; we do not want to miss this opportunity. We believe it is an important objective in its own right and will make a difference to all those who need care and support, and who work in providing these crucial services. The draft Bill will be a key step towards delivering the Government’s vision, which will be set out shortly—I am afraid I have to use that word again—in the White Paper on care and support. As to the precise timing, I am afraid that I cannot take the noble Lord and others of your Lordships any further at this stage. However, publishing it in draft will give all those with experience and expertise, of which there is a great deal in this House, an opportunity to get things right.
Perhaps I might address the point about funding which I think was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. As regards funding, we recognise the pressures which the system faces as part of the spending review and we allocated an additional £2 billion per annum by 2014-15 for social care, including an unprecedented transfer from the National Health Service to social care support joint working. We know that in the longer term, however, we need a sustainable and affordable solution and we want a social care system that is a partnership between the state and the individual.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the question of equal marriage. I start by offering an apology to him and to my noble friend Lord Grade: I missed their speeches because one has to take some time out in the course of an eight-hour debate. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Thornton, also raised the issue of equal marriage. We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue and are committed to enabling same-sex couples to have civil marriage, and we are consulting on how to do that. That is something that my honourable friend in the Home Office, Lynne Featherstone, has made quite clear. We also recognise, though, that it would not be right for any religious organisation to be forced to conduct same-sex marriages as a result of those proposals.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made clear, the consultation closes on 14 June, and we encourage those who have not yet done so to come forward with their views—they have three or four weeks. We know that this is an issue that people feel strongly about, which is why we want to hear from anyone with an interest, but the consultation proposals relate only to civil marriage ceremonies. We believe that a couple who want to get married and move on in this way should not be denied the right to marry just because of their sexual orientation.
I turn to the Crime and Courts Bill, which received a degree of criticism from my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and others. There was as always the usual criticism of the Home Office; that is something that we have come to expect and which I think we can live with. I am grateful that there was at least some support, from the noble Lord, Lord Dear, for the creation of the National Crime Agency. I welcome his support for the provisions that will enable that agency, working with other law enforcement agencies, to ensure that there is an effective national response to serious and organised crime. As he says, these provisions will be critical for the future success of the NCA.
As for the noble Lord’s particular remarks about Section 5 of the Public Order Act, I ask again that he be patient for a little longer. It is a complex issue, and we have to give careful consideration to the views expressed in the 2,500 responses that we have had to the consultation. We believe that the NCA will be able to build on SOCA’s strengths but will be distinctly different. The threat from serious organised crime is changing and criminals are constantly adapting to evade detection using the latest technologies to commit crimes that harm individuals, communities and the economy. The NCA will be different from SOCA and will have to address those threats. It will also take a leading role in changing the way that the whole of the law enforcement landscape works together, and will be able to say just how law enforcement agencies operate across the piece.
I note my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s criticisms of the UK Border Agency and UK Border Force, and we will listen to them most carefully. He has taken considerable trouble to go to see UKBA and inform himself of what it is doing. Obviously there is more that we can do, and we expect the highest standards of UKBA and the rest of the Border Force staff. We hope that the majority carry out their roles with appropriate professionalism and integrity. We will listen to the suggestions that my noble friend has made and look forward to improving the way these agencies work. However, I have to remind noble Lords that we have, in effect, two conflicting desires to keep together here. One is to make sure that we maintain the security of our borders and the other is to make sure that everyone can get through immigration with appropriate speed and without having their journeys disrupted, as has happened on some occasions in recent days.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, raised a number of points, and there is one I want to deal with. It is about giving the police the right to strike. When I look at the changes being proposed by Tom Winsor, I see that we currently have a very outdated pay system that was designed some 30 years ago and does not reflect the skill and professionalism of the service. The proposals in part 2 of Tom Winsor’s report would reward hard-working officers in some of the toughest jobs. We are going through the very proper process of considering and consulting on those proposals, but police officers cannot strike and we do not think that it is right that they should strike, and that is not going to change. The police are a civil emergency service, and it is vital that that service is able to discharge its duty to protect the public and keep the peace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, touched on drug-driving, as did, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, and others. I accept that this will be a difficult matter to get right technically. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, spoke about that while offering his support. This is a matter that we will have to consider very carefully when we get to that Bill because there are technical matters relating to how you test for drugs, which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, touched on, how much should still be in the body and whether it has an effect, but all those matters can be considered in due course.
We are grateful for the varied and interesting points that have been raised in the debate in relation to the Defamation Bill by my noble friends Lord Marks, Lord Grade and Lord Black of Brentwood, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, and others. As my noble friend Lord McNally indicated in his opening speech, our core aim in introducing this Bill is to reform the law so that it strikes the right balance between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. As all the points that have been raised illustrate, there is a wide range of views on exactly what that balance should be and how individual issues should be dealt with, but I think that when we get that Bill we will have an interesting and informed debate on the subject as it proceeds through the House.
Finally, because we have had a long day and it is time that we rose and left things for another day, I shall just say a word or two about the Olympics. This subject was scarcely raised during the debate, other than, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. We are now down to fewer than 100 days until the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. I think we can all say that we are on track for a great Games. The project is on time and on budget. Test events and readiness exercises are taking place repeatedly and, as I understand it, the athletes are also in training. The focus of the Government and everyone involved is to deliver a safe and secure Games for London, the United Kingdom and the whole world to enjoy. Home Office-led activity is there to safeguard and secure the Games and remains firmly on track, but we do not want these Games to be the security Games; we want the security to be as low-key as possible while maintaining the highest possible standards. Safety and security funding for the Games has been protected and we believe it is an appropriate investment in the safety and security of the public and our international visitors. The terrorist threat that we face today is real, but we have planned to a threat level of “Severe” to ensure that the greatest possible flexibility exists.
As I said earlier, it is very challenging for me to do justice to a debate of this sort. I appreciate that I have answered a mere tithe of the questions that have been raised and I recognise that many other points will be raised. I will certainly make it my role to ensure that I respond, where appropriate, to all the questions that have been put forward.
More importantly, I certainly look forward to discussing the various Home Office, Ministry of Justice, Department for Work and Pensions and other Bills that are coming to us in reality or in draft. I look forward to vigorous debates on all those measures announced in the Queen’s Speech. I commend the programme to the House.