House of Commons
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
1. What discussions his Department has had with HM Treasury on loss of revenue as a result of fuel laundering in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
My Department has regular discussions with HM Treasury on a wide range of issues. Fuel fraud is primarily an excise offence and, therefore, an excepted matter that falls to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which works closely with the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland and its counterparts in Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
Despite the fact that over the past six years more than £2 billion has been lost in revenue as a result of criminal activities through fuel laundering, HMRC has taken only 28 cases to court, and there has been only one custodial sentence, which was suspended. Does the Secretary of State believe that that is an adequate response from HMRC or the court system in Northern Ireland?
Mr Paterson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and I appreciate his knowledge of this subject, as Minister of Finance and Personnel. He makes a very good point, which I have discussed with David Ford, the Minister of Justice. We have agreed that we should work together so that Northern Ireland sentences can be appealed against if considered too lenient.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
In the Select Committee’s recent report, we identified as a major problem the fact that a marker had not been developed sufficiently quickly. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with HMRC about the development of that marker, which would make fuel fraud and laundering far more difficult?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question and congratulate him on a very interesting report, which showed that real progress had been made—£250 million lost in forgone revenue down to £70 million, which is a major improvement. He makes a very good point about marking. There is an HMRC strategy and there is also a memorandum of understanding that has been signed with the Irish Revenue Commissioners. We keep in close touch on this matter.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of the effects of welfare reform on Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
The reforms that we have introduced give us a rare opportunity to transform our welfare system into one that is fair to all, looks after the most vulnerable in society, and above all, always rewards work.
Mr Clarke
In view of recent criticisms of the Work programme and the Prime Minister’s view that housing benefit for the under-25s should be discontinued, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government’s policy is for youngsters? Is it to create jobs or simply to tolerate their exploitation?
Mr Paterson
I think the right hon. Gentleman underestimates the fact that the issue is devolved, and we are working closely with the devolved Minister with responsibility in this area and other Ministers in the Executive on the arrangements which will be debated shortly as the Bill is taken through the Assembly. It is very important that local circumstances are taken into account so that the Bill that emerges from the Assembly suits the circumstances in Northern Ireland.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
When does my right hon. Friend expect the Welfare Reform Bill to be introduced by the Executive?
Mr Paterson
I am in regular contact with Nelson McCausland, the relevant Minister, and he is optimistic that he will stick to the schedule, which will enable Northern Ireland to come on stream, as planned, with the Department for Work and Pensions here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Many people in Northern Ireland view changes caused by welfare reform with increasing concern. Northern Ireland has had 30 years of a terrorist campaign. That has led to many people suffering disability, both physical and mental; 15,000 people in Northern Ireland are on incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, and 180,000 people are on disability living allowance. Can the Secretary of State assure us that every step will be taken to ensure that the unique position of Northern Ireland is taken into account when it comes to the benefits system?
Mr Paterson
Nobody underestimates the terrible damage the troubles did to people physically and mentally, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that high rates of DLA are not unique to Northern Ireland; Merthyr Tydfil has a rate of 13%, which is very similar to that of Belfast. What I think is important is that for the first time each person will be treated as an individual, his circumstances will be taken into account and rehabilitation, re-education and training will be offered. That has not come about before.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Given that many benefit claimants in Northern Ireland have their payments paid directly into Ulster bank and, because of the ongoing debacle caused by the IT problems, have therefore been unable to access their only source of income and their own money, what assurance can the Secretary of State give that he has had robust discussions with RBS, his colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Northern Ireland Executive, to find a long-term solution to this agonising problem for many people, which has heaped on them misery upon misery?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the very real problems that people both in and out of work are suffering due to the IT breakdown. I raised the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills yesterday. Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of RBS, was in Northern Ireland on Monday and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State talked with him yesterday and is keeping in close touch. Ultimately, this is a problem for RBS to resolve internally, through Ulster bank, by getting the computer technology right, but the hon. Lady is right to raise the matter. This is causing horrendous problems not just for benefit claimants, but for those in regular employment.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
3. What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the likely implications for Northern Ireland of banking reform and financial service regulation.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been in discussion with ministerial colleagues about this matter. The action plan announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Monday will drive up standards and bring much-needed and long overdue regulation to the sector.
Mark Durkan
The Minister will recognise that Ulster bank customers are currently experiencing a third-class, poor standard of care. Does he feel that there is some risk of a similar syndrome whereby Northern Ireland is only an afterthought in the hierarchy of consideration when it comes to wider banking regulation and reform? We all rightly ask about the banking of business, but should more active consideration be given to the future of the business of banking in the region, particularly given the compound implications of reform and regulation from London and the changing Irish banking landscape, including moves on banking union?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, as was recognised in his exchange with the Chancellor on 28 June, when the Chancellor acknowledged that
“Northern Ireland has suffered enormously from the failure of banks in the UK and in the Republic, and it has paid perhaps a heavier price than anyone else”—[Official Report, 28 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 476.]
On the specific point about banking reform, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a Banking Reform White Paper, the consultation period for which closes in September, so I urge him to contribute. On Ulster bank, I think we should be clear that this is not a failure of banking, but a failure of IT, and we should not confuse the two.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On that point about Ulster bank and the failure of IT, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, but is it not frankly outrageous and unacceptable that 15 days after the problem first appeared, individuals, households and businesses still cannot access their money in the normal way? Can he outline in more detail what he and his colleagues in the Treasury are doing to provide a little more flexibility for those facing cash-flow problems?
Mr Swire
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman and some of this colleagues are meeting Ulster bank and RBS this afternoon to represent the views of their constituents, and rightly so. Let us not underestimate this. There are people in the Northern Ireland Office who cannot get money either, so this is something very close to many of us. He will be aware of the press release that RBS issued this morning. It is fair to point out in my conversation yesterday with Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of RBS, he told me that they would
“treat our customers properly and fairly”
and that the bank will
“compensate fully for financial loss”.
We shall hold the bank to that undertaking.
Mr Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and for raising the issue of compensation, but does he agree that, as well as reimbursing customers for direct costs, Ulster bank and RBS must ensure that where financial damage and loss has occurred, whether to a customer, either an individual or business, or a non-customer who has suffered loss as a result of the crisis, compensation in full must be paid in all those circumstances? I would welcome his support in lobbying RBS on that point.
Mr Swire
The right hon. Gentleman will certainly have the support of the Secretary of State and myself in ensuring that no one loses out as a result of this IT failure. I was specific on that point to Sir Philip Hampton and I cannot do more than repeat the words he said to me, as I have just done. I will also check with him on Monday to ensure that the bank is making progress in clearing up this sorry mess, which it says it will do over the weekend.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the ongoing problems at Ulster bank underline the need to look at how banks operate? Frankly, this is a crisis. Many families cannot pay their mortgages or rent, get their groceries, buy food or put petrol in the car, and older people cannot get access to their pensions. The Minister has told us what he has done, but what is he doing to try to sort this mess out?
Mr Swire
I have a transcript of the shadow Secretary of State’s two interviews on the “Nolan” show, and I have read them carefully, but I am none the wiser as to what he is suggesting. When he was asked about the solvency of some businesses and about liquidity, he said that
“I would expect that government here in Westminster but also government at Stormont needs to consider what to do in those particular circumstances.”
Mr Nolan then asked:
“What could they do?”
The hon. Gentleman replied:
“I don’t know the answer to that”.
If he does not know the answer, we do: it is to make sure that this sorry debacle, involving an IT problem with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Ulster bank, which, let us face it, affected the whole UK, is cleared up quickly so that people can go about their normal business in Northern Ireland.
Vernon Coaker
What we have heard there is a complacent answer that does nothing to say to the people of Northern Ireland what should be done. What the Secretary of State and the Minister should have done, and what they should be doing now, is call an emergency summit—get a summit together—of all the people who are responsible for the situation, including the Treasury, Treasury officials and RBS senior management, and to get them to recognise the seriousness of the problem, get it sorted and get a grip. That is what the Minister should do.
Mr Swire
I am not an IT expert, but I think that appearing on the “Nolan” show twice and saying absolutely nothing does not show tremendous activity. On the shadow Secretary of State’s further point about banking reform, he will be pleased that this Government have set up an independent commission on banking reform to look at the future of banking and to clear up something that his Government failed to do over 13 years—
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on attracting inward investment.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I have regular meetings with the Northern Ireland Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment to discuss how best we can support the Northern Ireland Executive in attracting inward investment and promoting growth. We have jointly agreed to invite ambassadors from the Gulf states, for example, to visit in the autumn in order to explore how we can promote investment and increase export opportunities.
Julian Sturdy
As with other parts of the UK, including my home city of York, Northern Ireland’s lower operational costs make it an attractive location for investment, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do more to promote such areas if we are truly going to rebalance our economies?
Mr Swire
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an ingenious connection between York and Northern Ireland—the only connection that attracted investment before was probably with the Vikings, who took an early interest in both areas.
There are clearly tremendous advantages in Northern Ireland: it is not in the euro; it is extremely good in terms of education; it is a great place to live; and it has low costs, good IT, good connections and good transport connections. Yes, we can do more, but let us just look very carefully at how well Northern Ireland has done to date in attracting inward investment.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
If we can move on from the battle of Clontarf, I must say that the Secretary of State is getting the reputation of being something of a one-club golfer when it comes to the Northern Ireland economy. When even yesterday’s Belfast Telegraph referred to a putative corporation tax as “an economic disaster”, one has to ask: does the Secretary of State have another driver in his bag, and will he or his caddy whip it out and show it to us?
Mr Swire
It is not a disaster; it is what we have been looking at very carefully.
There are other things that we need to do to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy, which both Governments over a successive number of years allowed to become far too dependent, for obvious reasons, and we will use any club available in our or anyone else’s bag to bring that about.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
On a recent visit to my constituency, the Minister will have seen some of the inward investment there, but does he agree that it is imperative that Northern Ireland retains its 100% status for regional aid?
Mr Swire
What is key, as I saw when I was with the hon. Gentleman, is planning, among other issues, which needs to be speeded up to facilitate inward investment and private sector investment, such as in the new supermarket in his constituency. Northern Ireland had automatic assisted area status, but that is not going to continue, and people in Northern Ireland mainly agree that other areas in the UK are now worse off than Northern Ireland.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I inform the Minister that that is not agreed in Northern Ireland; all political parties there unanimously want Northern Ireland to retain 100% regional aid status because of the special circumstances and the poverty, under-employment, under-achievement and poor prosperity. Can the Minister assure us that he will persuade his colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to support that programme?
Mr Swire
I do not think that I said that regional aid was not important; I merely said that, as part of rebalancing the economy and encouraging inward investment, we need to make sure that the 2014 map covers the areas of Northern Ireland that do need assistance. We no longer believe that it is justifiable, however, for Northern Ireland as a whole to have 100% automatic coverage.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
In evidence to the Northern Ireland Committee, we were told by one witness—I should point out that it was only one witness—that we had one airport too many and that, instead of having both Belfast International airport and Belfast City airport, we should have only one. If such a daft idea were implemented, what impact does the Minister think it would have on economic investment coming to Northern Ireland?
Mr Swire
A very negative one. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Northern Ireland justifies two airports. They are both thriving concerns and we have had some good news on air passenger duty. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is saying that I should not forget Eglinton airport either, and possibly others. We should certainly have Aldergrove and George Best Belfast City airports, which should thrive. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister and I are very positive and optimistic; we are trying to attract more airlines to fly in and out of Northern Ireland to grow the economy. The hon. Lady is spot on.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
5. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
11. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I meet regularly with Northern Ireland Ministers in support of their efforts to promote economic development and to help rebuild and rebalance the economy.
Alok Sharma
What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Northern Ireland Executive to encourage them to set up enterprise zones?
Mr Paterson
I have regular discussions with the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Minister of Finance. Last year’s Budget, which became the Finance Act 2011, made that facility available. There are 24 enterprise zones in England, four in Scotland and seven in Wales. They have the capacity also to have enhanced capital allowances. I am in favour of them as a benefit for Northern Ireland, but this is a devolved issue and a devolved decision.
Eric Ollerenshaw
Does my right hon. Friend agree that economic development in Northern Ireland would be much assisted by greater competition on the ferry routes in the Irish sea? A good start would be the restoration of the ferry link between Fleetwood and Larne.
Mr Paterson
I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend is doing in trying to improve ferry links across the Irish sea. I cannot think of a better place to expand to than Fleetwood.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State accept that economic development is being hampered in Northern Ireland by the lack of willingness among the banks to assist businesses through these difficult economic times? Surely the Government can do more to force the banks to assist our economy, bearing in mind that taxpayers are the ones who helped them in their hour of crisis.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. No one could have worked harder than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the First Secretary, who have been working with the banks ensuring that credit is freed up. Above all, let us not forget the complete mess that we inherited—the biggest deficit in western Europe. Through the robust measures that we have taken, we have kept the confidence of the international markets and have the lowest interest rates since the middle ages.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
7. What assessment he has made of the likely effect on Londonderry of becoming the UK’s first city of culture; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
rose—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) aspires to be a statesman; he should not be yelling across the Chamber—yes, you!
Oliver Colvile
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I also ask him what lessons the city of Plymouth can learn from the city of Londonderry-Derry in its bid to be the city of culture in 2014?
Mr Swire
Of course, as a west country Member of Parliament I am hugely supportive of Plymouth. The whole issue of whether the city should be called Londonderry or Derry seems to be resolved, as we are now going to call it Legenderry. Plymouth is already legendary, not least on account of its excellent Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend should get his councillors to come over to Londonderry during its year as the city of culture, and I will introduce him to all the key players who are going to make it the most happening place in Europe.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In promoting Londonderry as the first UK city of culture, does the Minister agree that job retention and job maintenance is a crucial factor? In that context, will he speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who I assume will make an announcement on this in a written statement today, to ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency offices are preserved in Northern Ireland so that 260 jobs are not lost in my constituency?
Mr Swire
On the latter point, I understand that the Minister is putting out a written statement today, and I do not want to prejudge what he might say in that.
On the longer-term economic benefits to Londonderry, yes, that is a vital issue. Of course, there will be a lot of prosperity around in the year that it is the city of culture, but that should be the building block to cement the renaissance that has gone on in the city, not least with the regeneration of the Ebrington barracks site and the peace bridge.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at “severe”. The Government remain fully committed to countering violence in all its forms and supporting the overwhelming majority of people who want to live without fear and intimidation.
Nick Smith
The Secretary of State is aware of the so-called punishment attacks by paramilitaries on young people in Northern Ireland. These attacks are increasing, particularly in Derry, by a group styling itself Republican Action Against Drugs. What every community needs is strong policing, not vigilantes. Will he proscribe this group? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind the House that we are discussing the security situation in Northern Ireland? This is a matter of the utmost seriousness, and I think that some display of attention would be appreciated by the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. These attacks are barbaric and inhumane and have absolutely no place in a modern Northern Ireland. The only legitimate police force enforcing law and order is the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and it is for it to work with the community. On proscription, I keep all these issues under review.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
13. The Chief Constable of the PSNI, Matt Baggott, recently said that the Northern Ireland Executive must do more to tackle disadvantage in the areas where dissident republicans hold sway. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Executive to address this issue?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The second layer of our strategy in bearing down on these groups is to get into those communities, but nearly all the projects are in the hands of local Ministers. We strongly support the CSI—cohesion, sharing and integration—strategy, which we want to be published as soon as possible, because we believe that the future is a shared future, not a shared-out future.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
12. Last night we had a briefing from senior retired police officers about the threat to national security from evidence that is being given in inquests in Northern Ireland that opens up the whole modus operandi of our security forces and security services. What do the Government intend to do to protect national security from this threat?
Mr Paterson
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. A whole number of legacy inquests—up to 32—are coming down the track. I would like to assure him formally that measures are in place under the existing arrangements that allow an inquest to go ahead fairly, but information that might be dangerous if released to individuals can be held back. There are measures that can be worked out, but the final decision rests with the coroner. Until now, these arrangements have worked well, and they will continue in their current guise.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Given that many of those historic inquests will doubtless require the disclosure of highly sensitive national security intelligence, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Justice Secretary about his decision not to provide for a closed material procedure in relation to inquests?
Mr Paterson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I have regular meetings with the Justice Secretary. I talked to him on the telephone this morning. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would wait, I treat each case individually and remain in close touch with the local Justice Minister on such issues.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 July.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the three British servicemen who were killed in Afghanistan in the appalling incident on Sunday, Guardsman Apete Tuisovurua and Guardsman Craig Roderick of 1st Battalion Welsh Guards and Warrant Officer Class 2 Leonard Thomas of the Royal Corps of Signals. We send our heartfelt condolences to the families of the servicemen who were killed in that tragic incident. They will never be forgotten by our nation.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Fiona O'Donnell
I am sure that the whole House will want to associate itself with the Prime Minister’s remarks and to send our deepest condolences to the families of the crew from RAF Lossiemouth who were lost earlier this week.
Food prices rose by 4.6% between March last year and this year. I understand why, so will the Prime Minister spare me the lecture and tell the House what he is doing about food inflation?
The Prime Minister
First, I join the hon. Lady in what she said about the Tornado aircraft accident at RAF Lossiemouth. She is right that our thoughts should be with the friends, families and colleagues of those involved. The circumstances remain uncertain, but it was clearly a serious incident. The investigation is ongoing and more details will be released by the RAF in due course. It is a reminder of the risks that our service personnel take, not only when they are on active service, but when they are undergoing vital training for that service.
On food inflation, I would first make the point that inflation is now falling in our country, which is extremely good news. It is vital that the food prices in our shops are not too hard on people’s budgets, but the way to keep inflation down is to have a responsible monetary policy, which is what we have in our country.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the serious banking difficulties must be dealt with, it is vital that we retain the central importance of the City of London, and that any reforms must be proportionate and not damage such a brilliant asset for our country?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We have to get to the bottom of what has happened and we have to do so quickly. In doing that, we should bear in mind the remarks of Richard Lambert, who ran the CBI very successfully for many years, who carried out an investigation for the Labour party and whom I respect a great deal:
“the Libor scandal means that the required changes have to be tougher…that is the argument for a short, sharp inquiry. Going back to square one would, to put it mildly, be a serious mistake. The economy cannot recover in the absence of a stable banking system: nothing can be more urgent than that.”
That is not the only consideration. We must get to the truth, but we should listen to such expert opinions as well.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Guardsman Apete Tuisovurua, Guardsman Craig Roderick of 1st Battalion Welsh Guards and Warrant Officer Class 2 Leonard Thomas of the Royal Corps of Signals, who died in the most tragic of circumstances. Our hearts go out to their families and friends. I also join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the incident at RAF Lossiemouth.
The banking scandals of the last week have revealed traders cheating and the mis-selling of insurance products to small businesses, and come on top of other scandals in the banking system and the continuing multi-million-pound bonus merry-go-round. How can the Prime Minister convince people that a parliamentary inquiry is a better way of restoring people’s confidence than a full, independent, forensic and open judge-led inquiry?
The Prime Minister
On the substance of the issue, there is no disagreement between us. This banking scandal is appalling. It is outrageous, frankly, that home owners may have paid higher mortgage rates and small businesses may have paid higher interest rates because of spivvy and probably illegal activity in the City. People want to know that crime in our banks and financial services will be pursued and punished like crimes on our streets. As well as people being held accountable, the public want rapid action to make sure that this cannot happen again.
In my view, the most important thing about an inquiry is that it is swift and decisive, is set up as fast as possible, gets going as fast as possible, reports as fast as possible and is transparent and open at every stage. That is why I favour a public parliamentary inquiry rather than a judge-led inquiry. I want us to legislate on this, starting next year.
Edward Miliband
I do understand the Prime Minister’s concerns about speed, but there are concerns also that the inquiry that has been talked about is far too narrow, focused solely on the scandal of LIBOR when we know that the problems go much wider, to the culture and practices in the City. I believe, however, that there is a way forward that we could agree upon—that we have a two-part, judge-led inquiry that is instructed to report by Christmas on the scandal surrounding LIBOR, which is his timetable. The second part of the inquiry should look, over 12 months, at the much wider area of the culture and practices of the industry. That would satisfy his requirement of speed but also the necessary requirement to look at the wider culture and practices in the City. Will he agree to my proposal?
The Prime Minister
I always listen carefully to proposals from all parts of the House. Let me make three points in response. First, on the structure and future of banking, we set up the Vickers inquiry. It reported, and we are going to implement that inquiry, which will for the first time separate investment banking from retail banking. That is a major step forward. Secondly, the parliamentary inquiry that we are proposing is wider than the right hon. Gentleman says. It will look at the culture of banking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) confirmed this morning.
My third point—all these points need to be considered—is that the Serious Fraud Office is still considering whether to launch a criminal investigation. While that is happening, there are dangers in opting for a judge-led inquiry, which might not be able to get under way. If we want to do this as fast as possible and get action as fast as possible, I think the way we have suggested is right. There was a vote last night in which the House of Lords voted against a public inquiry, and we have made time available on Thursday—this has not happened before—for an Opposition motion and a Government motion to be debated and voted on. Frankly, what matters more than the process is the substance and getting on with it. I hope we can accept the results on Thursday.
Edward Miliband
We were in exactly the same position a year ago, when the Prime Minister initially rejected the idea of a judge-led inquiry into the press scandal and then rightly changed his mind. In justifying that decision, he said:
“I don’t believe there is any better process than an inquiry led by a judge”.
He said that would happen with
“the whole thing…pursued…by a team of barristers who are expert at finding out the facts”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1251.]
Why is it right to have that judge-led approach to the scandal in the press but wrong for the scandal in the banks?
The Prime Minister
I think there is a very profound difference between the circumstances of the Leveson inquiry and the circumstances of this inquiry, because of course the Leveson inquiry followed a whole series of unsuccessful and failed inquiries. On this occasion we have had a very successful inquiry by the Department of Justice in America and the Financial Services Authority, which has uncovered the wrongdoing. Now what is required is swift inquiry, swift action and swift legislation. That is what you will get from this Government.
Edward Miliband
I do not think the Prime Minister has understood the depths of public concern and the depths of the lack of confidence. He says both that the inquiry that he proposes can be completed within essentially four months and that it can go as wide as it likes. That is simply not realistic. I have listened to his concerns and proposed a way forward. I ask him again for a two-part inquiry, with a judge, to complete the part on LIBOR on the Chancellor’s timetable—by Christmas—and then to look at the wider issues about the culture and practices of the City, of which there are many.
The Prime Minister
I understand the public concern about this issue, which is why I want us to get on with it. Frankly, it is this Government who are legislating to split the banks, as Vickers suggested; who are scrapping the tripartite agreement that failed so badly under the last Government; who have introduced the bank levy so that the banks pay their taxes properly; and who have introduced the most transparent regime for pay and bonuses in any financial centre anywhere in the world. As evidence that the House of Commons is getting on with it, we are going to see Bob Diamond questioned upstairs by the Treasury Select Committee this afternoon. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are having a vote in the House of Commons tomorrow—a vote on his motion and a vote on the Government motion. Clearly, if the Opposition motion wins, there will be a full independent public inquiry. I urge him to say now that if the Government motion is carried, he will co-operate with a full parliamentary inquiry.
Edward Miliband
I do not think the Prime Minister gets it about the depth of public concern. I hope that he will reconsider his position. He says that the Government are implementing the Vickers inquiry. On a very important issue that has come out in the past two weeks—high street banks selling dodgy products to small businesses—the Vickers commission said that it should never be allowed to happen again, yet after lobbying by the banks the Government rejected this basic recommendation of Vickers. In the light of the recent scandal, with small businesses damaged, will he now U-turn and implement the Vickers recommendations in full?
The Prime Minister
First, I will not take a lecture on getting it from a party that was in office for 13 years when all these things took place. On his specific question about the Vickers inquiry, let me repeat that it was set up by this Government and will be implemented by this Government—something that had not happened before. Under the inquiry, complex derivatives will be included in the investment bank ring fence, not in the retail banks, which we want to make safer. But let me just say this to the right hon. Gentleman: if he wants a quick resolution, he must accept the outcome of a vote in the House of Commons. I am prepared to do that. Why is he not?
Mr Speaker
Order. Government Back Benchers who have been here for some years ought to have grasped by now that it is not the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to answer, so they should pipe down and try to be good boys, if they can.
Edward Miliband
If the Prime Minister wants a history lesson, let me repeat what he told the City of London on 28 March 2008:
“As a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say that”
the problem “of the past decade” is “too much regulation”.
Does that not say it all about the double standards of this Prime Minister? Whenever these scandals happen, he is slow to act and he stands up for the wrong people. The question people are asking is, “Who will act in the national interest, rather than the party interest?” His is a party bankrolled by the banks. If he fails to order a judge-led inquiry, people will come to one conclusion: he simply cannot act in the national interest.
The Prime Minister
Everybody can see what is happening here. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members must calm down. I said it to Government Back Benchers and I am now saying it to Opposition Back Benchers: let the answer be heard.
The Prime Minister
The party opposite want to talk about absolutely everything apart from their record of 13 years in government. I have to say that we may have found the Higgs boson particle, but Labour has not found a sense of shame.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
Today is a hugely significant day for British scientists with the announcement of the Higgs boson discovery. Some 6,000 scientists worked on it worldwide—700 from the UK—and there was a major contribution from the north-west. A constituent of mine, Professor Phil Allport, head of particle physics at Liverpool university, led the ATLAS experiment. Will the Prime Minister confirm this Government’s commitment to science and to institutes in the north-west?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, the immense British contribution there has been to this extraordinary breakthrough—not least that of Higgs himself—and the extraordinary work that, as she says, is done in the north-west of England. It is a very big step forward and we should congratulate everyone involved. This Government’s commitment to the science budget is without any doubt, not least because although we have had to make difficult cuts, we have preserved the science budget.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Q2. The last 15 days have witnessed absolute chaos in the Ulster bank. Direct debits continue to be removed and wages have not been put into accounts. Ulster bank is owned by RBS. We, the people, have an 82% share in RBS, so the Government have a major say in what happens in the Ulster bank in Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the 100,000 Ulster bank customers that the Prime Minister and the Government will have a direct input in addressing this issue, and that normal banking will resume immediately?
The Prime Minister
I can quite understand why the hon. Gentleman raises this on behalf of his constituents. What happened is not acceptable. Clearly, it is an operational matter for the bank, but the Financial Services Authority has been monitoring this very closely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spoke yesterday to the chairman of RBS. The lessons must be learned, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that RBS has said that it will reimburse any customer for penalty charges or overdraft fees—anything that is incurred because of these difficulties.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
Q3. To be blunt, my constituents and businesses are losing faith in their banks. What they need from the Prime Minister is a reassurance that there will be no more political skeletons in the cupboard left by the Labour party.
The Prime Minister
What matters for my hon. Friend’s constituents and, frankly, for everyone in this House is that we get to the bottom of what happened as quickly as possible. We have had a vote in the House of Lords; we will have a vote in the House of Commons; and then we need to get on with it. We are sent to this House to hold these inquiries, to find these facts, to pass these laws. Let us get on with it.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Q4. Yesterday, 117 manufacturing jobs were lost in my constituency on a rising trend of unemployment in north Wales. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that last week’s GDP figures showed that his Government’s performance was worse than he expected and requires change, and that the cause is his Government’s policies?
The Prime Minister
I very much regret any loss of jobs, including in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, particularly as, since the election, we have seen 800,000 extra jobs in the private sector. I am very concerned about the economic performance in Wales, which over the last decade or more has actually fallen further behind the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to work very hard with the Welsh Assembly Government to try to make sure that we are making Wales more competitive.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
A key part of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is that clinical change must be led by clinicians and patients. In my own hospital, the Eastbourne district general hospital, the majority of consultants have said that they have no confidence in the trust’s proposed clinical change, and the vast majority of the public in Eastbourne share that lack of confidence. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the local trust has to listen to the Act, the clinicians and local people in Eastbourne?
The Prime Minister
I can absolutely confirm that. Clearly, changes should not go ahead unless there is proper listening to local clinicians and local people. That is how our health service should operate. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will be making an announcement shortly. The good news is that across the health service in-patient and out-patient waiting times are down, and we have the best ever performance for patients waiting for longer than 18 weeks to be treated. Added to that, the number of mixed-sex wards is down and rates of infection are down; the health service is doing well.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
Q5. The Prime Minister will be aware that the Crown Office in Scotland has confirmed that it has been carrying out an investigation, led by the serious crime division, into allegations that several banks, including state-owned RBS, have provided false information to financial markets. Does the Prime Minister back that investigation? Given the scale of the crisis and the scale of public anger, will he back a full, independent, judge-led inquiry and, crucially, will he give us a free vote in the House tomorrow?
The Prime Minister
There are two important things here. First, we should allow all the investigative authorities to carry out their investigations and take them wherever the evidence leads them. That is true for the Serious Fraud Office, and it is true for the Financial Services Authority—we need to ensure that they have the resources necessary to do that. Then we have to consider the nature of the inquiry. The problem with the suggestion the hon. Gentleman makes is that as these investigations are ongoing, it is actually easier to hold a rapid investigation within Parliament than to set up an investigation outside Parliament.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
Q6. What message would the Prime Minister send to the emergency services, local authorities and communities across the north-east, which swung into action so effectively when the region was hit by flooding last week?
The Prime Minister
The first thing I would say is huge congratulations and thank you to the emergency services. I saw for myself—not in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but when I was in West Yorkshire—the incredible work that was done. The other thing to note is that whenever these things happen, there is an incredible coming together of community and social action to help people who have been flooded out of their homes. I am sure that everyone, in all parts of the House, will want to thank people for what they have done on others’ behalf.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Q7. On the question of a European referendum, is it the policy of the Prime Minister to be indecisive, or is he not sure?
The Prime Minister
I wonder how long in front of the bathroom mirror that one took. The point is this. There are two things that would not be right: the first would be to hold an in/out referendum now—I do not think that is the right approach—and the second would be to rule it out for all time. I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy is.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that central to any reforms of banking must be, from the point of view of ordinary punters, two things: first, the proposals which we are already working up to ensure that people can move their accounts quickly, cheaply and easily; and secondly, an absolute guarantee that Governments will never again bail out banks?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes two very important points. On the first point, about people being able to move their bank accounts, that will be in place later this year. On the issue of bailing out banks, we need to put in place mechanisms so that banks can fail without calling on taxpayers to support them. That resolution regime, which for 13 years was left untouched by Labour, has been dealt with by this Government.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Q8. The euro now has a solid record of destroying jobs and democracy throughout Europe. The Prime Minister is failing to repatriate any powers or resources to this country. When is he going to stop dithering and allow the electorate in this country to have a referendum on the European Union to decide whether to stay in or get out of that mess?
The Prime Minister
We have repatriated one power, which is that we have got out of the bail-out that the last Government put us into, and that is saving us billions of pounds. If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, he should be sitting on this side of the House rather than that side.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I want to draw my right hon. Friend’s attention away from banking for one moment—[Interruption]—and the Opposition’s attention—to more important matters: children’s lives in my constituency. Five children in my constituency have been involved in an accident on a crossing outside St Peter’s school in Heysham. I know this is a county council matter, but I would like the Prime Minister to assist me in trying to get a crossing outside St Peter’s school.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise a constituency case such as this, where so many people have lost their lives and where there is such a threat to safety. I will certainly look at what he says. As he says, it is a matter for the county council, but if I can help him to put his case, I will be pleased to do so.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Q9. Leicester is bearing the brunt of the Prime Minister’s double-dip recession, with the sad news today that yet another business is going under, resulting in the loss of local jobs. In that context, was he as disappointed as I was at the figures released last month showing that lending to small businesses was down by £1.7 billion? Is it not clear that the Chancellor’s credit easing policies are not working?
The Prime Minister
The credit easing policy—the national loan guarantee scheme—is going to make available £20 billion of extra loans; some of that money is already available. The Merlin scheme saw lending to small businesses go up in 2011. It is difficult when the banks are nervous about the economic situation, but the Treasury and the Bank of England are doing all that they can, including through the Merlin agreement, to get money out of the banks and into hard-pressed businesses.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
If, as a result of this shameful banking crisis, bank executives are dismissed or forced to resign, and the boards of their banks fail to act appropriately, will the Government do their best to ensure that the delinquents are not able to walk away with their bonuses and severance payments?
The Prime Minister
The Father of the House makes an extremely good point. It would be completely wrong if people who were leaving in those circumstances were given some vast pay-off. It would be completely inexplicable to the British public, and it would not be right. I very much hope that it does not happen. In terms of what the Government can do, we are going to legislate so that all pay deals are put to shareholders with a binding vote, and those deals should include any severance payments. The party opposite had 13 years to do that; we are going to do it in two.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Q10. Given that the richest 1,000 persons in Britain made gains of £155 billion in the past three years of austerity, why will the Government not charge those gains at the capital gains tax rate, which would bring in about £40 billion? That would be enough, without any increase in public borrowing, to generate 1 million or more jobs. It would be far better to cut the deficit in that way—through growth, rather than through the Chancellor’s failed slump.
The Prime Minister
I hate to remind the right hon. Gentleman, but he was a Minister in the Government whose capital gains tax rules meant that people in the City were paying less in tax than their cleaners were paying. We have lifted the rate of capital gains tax to 28% so that we have a fairer system.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Q11. The pupils I met recently at Corsham primary school told me, in their own creative ways, that they liked to learn together. They know, however, that many children in other countries never get that chance. How will the Prime Minister, as chair of the United Nations high-level panel on the millennium development goals, restart efforts to ensure that all girls and boys around the world go to school?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Many of us will have seen the “Send my Friend to School” campaign in our own constituencies; it is a brilliant way of teaching young people the importance of showing responsibility for those on the other side of the world who do not have the advantages that they do. Our aid is currently supporting 5.3 million children in primary education, and we hope to up that to 9 million people by 2014, so the Government are playing their part, but we want all of civil society—schools, parents and teachers—to join in that magnificent effort.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
In addition to what the Prime Minister said earlier about the Ulster bank crisis in Northern Ireland, in which households, individuals and businesses are being denied even basic banking facilities, will he and the Chancellor talk to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that some flexibility will be shown towards the liabilities of those households, individuals and businesses so that they can be helped through the cash-flow problems that are the result of problems that they did not create?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look at what the right hon. Gentleman says. As I said, RBS has said that it will ensure that people do not lose out through banking charges, but I will discuss his point about HMRC with the Chancellor.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Q12. I welcome the Government’s commitment to women and girls at the heart of their development policy. As this weekend’s Tokyo conference on the future of Afghanistan approaches, will the Prime Minister consider making aid to Afghanistan conditional on the protection of the hard-won rights of women and girls, which, as he knows, are under attack?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Whereas in 2001 fewer than 1 million children—and, of course, no girls—were attending school in Afghanistan, today 6 million children regularly attend school and 2 million of them are girls. I will reflect carefully on what she says about our aid programme and discuss it with the Secretary of State. It is important that we attach conditions and have real transparency and proper results from our aid. I think that is the only way we can take people with us as we continue to expand our aid budget at a time of economic difficulty at home. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue because if we want a stable and prosperous as well as a safe Afghanistan, we need an Afghanistan where the role of women is properly respected.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
Q13. May I give the Prime Minister the opportunity to answer the question put to him a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar)? If the Prime Minister believes in the sovereignty of Parliament, will he confirm that there will be a free vote across the House tomorrow?
The Prime Minister
There was a vote last night in the House of Lords when Labour peers were heavily whipped to vote for the Labour position. I have a clear view, the Government have a clear view and the whole of the coalition Government have a clear view about the right way ahead. There will be a motion for the Labour party, which they can vote for, and a motion for us, which we can vote for. Let me put this one more time to the Leader of the Opposition: I will be bound by a vote for a full public inquiry; will he be bound if the House votes for a parliamentary inquiry? If he cannot answer that question, people will take a very dim view of an Opposition party that stands in the way of an inquiry because they do not want their dirty washing done in public.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Q14. The Olympics provide a great opportunity to bring our nation together. Does the Prime Minister therefore share my dismay at the plans of some union leaders to disrupt this summer’s events?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Unite union is encouraging strikes on our buses in London. The Leader of the Opposition likes to talk about standing up to vested interests, but what have we heard from him on the trade union movement? Absolutely nothing, and the whole country will be listening to that. We want a strike-free Olympics, and Labour should talk to its paymasters about it.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Q15. We all witnessed last week’s storms across the country. My own village of Lanchester hit the headlines because of the floods. We are all grateful to the police, the fire brigade, Durham county council and the Weardale mountain rescue service, but will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will be there with real money to support these people and these agencies, and not offer just nice warm words?
The Prime Minister
Of course we will be there to do that. We are investing around £2 billion in future flood defences. Of course, all the emergency services have done an excellent job, and they remain ready to carry out further work if necessary. I also think the Government should lend a very sympathetic ear to the local councils and local organisations that are setting up hardship funds to help families, perhaps those that do not have insurance or cannot afford the excess when it comes to dealing with their problems. I have said to the Department for Communities and Local Government that we should be generous in helping people to get their lives back together again.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the news that over £1 billion has been raised in the last six months for start-ups in our life science sector—more than in the last three years combined? Does he agree that this is a massive statement of confidence in our innovation economy and in our policies to make Britain a place to do business?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has a close interest in life sciences and pharmaceutical industries, and knows a lot about what he says. One of the successes with part of the EU patent court coming to London is that the patents that cover life sciences, pharmaceuticals and similar industries will be in London as well. That means many, many jobs and tens of millions of pounds of investment in this industry and in our capital city.
Citroën (Car Charges)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I have a petition from my constituent, Mr D. Pickerill, who bought a Citroën car on 6 April 2011 for which he paid £14,615, although it had been advertised from 1 April 2011 for £12,995, or just under £13,000. He was required to pay the higher price because he ordered it before 1 April, which is really bad practice by Citroën. The petition states
“Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will urge the Government to ensure that fair trade remains a principle of doing business within the United Kingdom; and bring forward legislation to ensure that all transactions in the UK are equitable and that companies, such as Citroën, cannot advertise a product for one price and sell it at a higher price.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray”.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Humble Petition of Mr D Pickerill,
Sheweth,
That the Petitioner bought a Citroën C4 on 6 April 2011, which the Petitioner declares was purchased from Citroën for £14,615, but had been advertised from 1 April 2011 for £12,995; further declares that the Petitioner believes that he was wilfully overcharged; and declares that despite the assistance of the Honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley, Citroën have refused to refund or properly explain the difference.
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will urge the Government to ensure that fair trade remains a principle of doing business within the United Kingdom; and bring forward legislation to ensure that all transactions in the UK are equitable and that companies, such as Citroën, cannot advertise a product for one price and sell it at a higher price.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.]
[P001102]
NHS Annual Report and Care Objectives
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about my first annual report to Parliament on the health service, published today alongside the report on the NHS constitution and the draft mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board.
This year the NHS has made major progress in the transition to a new system: a system based on clinical leadership, patient empowerment and a resolute focus on improving outcomes for patients. In a year of change, as the annual report shows, NHS staff have performed admirably. Waiting times remain low and stable, below the level at the election, and the number of people waiting over a year is the lowest ever. Today only 4,317 patients are waiting more than a year for treatment, dramatically fewer than in May 2010. Nationally, all NHS waiting time standards for diagnostic tests and cancer treatment have been met. The £600 million cancer drugs fund has helped more than 12,500 patients to gain access to drugs that were previously denied to them.
We have extended screening programmes, potentially saving an extra 1,100 lives of sufferers from breast and bowel cancer every year by 2015. More than 90% of adult patients admitted to hospital—about a quarter of a million every week—are now assessed for venous thromboembolism, or blood clots, in what is a world-leading programme of its kind. In 2011-12, 528,000 people began treatment under the expanded improving access to psychological therapies programme—up from just 182,000 in 2009-10—and almost half have said that they have recovered. Following the success of the telehealth and telecare whole system demonstrator programme, which included a 45% fall in mortality, we are on course to transform the lives of 3 million people with long-term conditions over the next five years.
The NHS is also improving people’s experience of care. Patients are reporting better outcomes for hip and knee replacements and hernia repairs. In the latest GP patient survey, 88% of patients rated their GP practices as good or very good, and the result of the out-patient survey shows clear improvements in the cleanliness of wards and the number of patients reporting that they were treated with respect and dignity. MORI’S independent “Public Perceptions of the NHS” survey shows that satisfaction with the NHS remains high, at 70%. Mixed-sex accommodation breaches are down by 96%, MRSA infections are down by 25%, and clostridium difficile infections are down by 17% in the year.
Real progress is also being made in public health. More than 570,000 families have signed up to Change4Life, and our support for the School Games and Change4Life sports clubs in schools is helping to secure the Olympic legacy. The responsibility deal has seen the elimination of artificial trans fats, falling levels of salt in our diets, and better alcohol labelling. By the end of the year, more than 70% of high street fast food and takeaway chains will show the number of calories on their menus. To drive forward research in key areas such as dementia, I have announced a record £800 million for 11 National Institute for Health Research centres and 20 biomedical research units.
All that, and a million more people have access to NHS dentists; every ambulance trust is meeting its call response times; 96% of patients are waiting less than four hours in accident and emergency departments; quality, innovation, prevention and productivity—QIPP—savings across the NHS were £5.8 billion in the first year of the efficiency challenge; and NHS commissioning bodies delivered a £1.6 billion surplus, carried forward into the current financial year. All that, and a new system is taking shape. The NHS Commissioning Board has been established; health and wellbeing boards are preparing to shape and integrate local services; 212 clinical commissioning groups, which are already managing more than £30 billion in delegated budgets, are preparing to lead local services from April next year; and we are starting to measure outcomes comprehensively for the first time. Far from buckling under pressure, NHS staff—with the right leadership and the right framework—are performing brilliantly.
As well as the NHS annual report, I am today publishing a report on the NHS constitution. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 strengthens the legal foundation for the constitution, and includes a duty for commissioners and providers to promote and use it. This report—the first by a Secretary of State—will help commissioners and providers to assess how well the constitution has reinforced the principles and values of the NHS; the degree to which it has supported high-quality patient care; and whether patients, the public and staff are aware of their rights.
I am grateful to the NHS Future Forum and its chair, Professor Steve Field, for their advice on the effect of the NHS constitution. I have asked them whether there is further scope to strengthen the principles of the constitution before a full public consultation in the autumn. Any amendments would be reflected in a revised constitution, published by April 2013.
Rooted in the values of the constitution, we will drive further improvement across the NHS through a set of objectives called the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. I am publishing the draft mandate today. The mandate will redefine the relationship between Government and the NHS, with Ministers stepping back from day-to-day interference in the service. Through the mandate, we will set the board’s annual financial allocation and clearly set out what the Government expect it to achieve with that allocation, based on the measures set out in the NHS outcomes framework. Those include both measures of quality, such as whether people recover quickly from treatment, and the experience of those cared for, including whether they are treated as well as they would expect, and whether they would be happy for family and friends to be cared for similarly. The mandate will promote front-line autonomy, giving clinical commissioners the freedom and flexibility to respond to local needs—freedoms balanced by accountability.
Each year, the board will state how it intends to deliver the objectives and requirements of the mandate, and it will report on its performance at the end of that year. The Secretary of State will then present to Parliament an assessment of the board’s performance. If there are particular concerns, Ministers will, for example, ask the board to report publicly on what action it has taken, or ask the chair to write a letter setting out a plan for improvement.
Today’s publication of the draft mandate marks the beginning of a 12-week consultation. I look forward to working with patients, clinicians, staff and other stakeholders to finalise the mandate in the autumn.
These documents show how a new, exciting chapter is opening up for the NHS. Starting with strong performance and robust finances, we are driving towards integrated services and community-based care. This heralds a new era for the NHS, based on openness and transparency and focused on what matters most to patients: health outcomes, care quality, safety and positive experience of care. It heralds an era in which every part of the NHS—the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board, clinical commissioning groups and health-care providers—is publicly held to account for what is achieved. For the first time, Parliament, patients and the public will know exactly how the NHS is performing locally, nationally and by way of international comparison. This will be a new era in which patients are more in control, where clinicians lead services, and where outcomes are among the best in the world.
I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State today presents his first annual report—an annual report on a lost year in the NHS. Just when the NHS needed stability to focus all its energy on the money, what did he do? He pulled the rug from underneath it, with a reorganisation no one wanted and that this Prime Minister promised would never happen.
In fact, we have had not one, but two lost years in the NHS, as this Secretary of State has obsessed on structures and inflicted an ideological experiment on the NHS that made sense to him but, sadly, to no one else. It was his decision to allow the dismantling of existing structures before new ones were in place, which has led to a loss of financial grip at local level in the NHS. He mentioned QIPP savings. The truth is that two-thirds of NHS acute trusts—65%—are reported to have fallen behind on their efficiency targets. So we see temporary ward and accident and emergency closures, a quarter of walk-in centres closing across England, panic plans to close services sprouting up wherever we look, and crude, random rationing across the NHS, with 125 separate treatments—including cataracts, hip replacements and knees—being restricted or stopped altogether by one primary care trust or another. This is an NHS drifting dangerously towards trouble, or, in the words of the chief executive of the NHS Confederation,
“a supertanker heading for an iceberg”.
Let us remember that even before the added complexity of today’s mandate, the Secretary of State has already saddled his new board with an Act of Parliament that even the chair of that board, whom he appointed, calls “unintelligible”. Listening to the Secretary of State today, one could not but conclude that he cannot be looking at the same NHS as the head of the NHS Confederation. The statistics he just reeled off do not include the people who give up waiting in A and E, who have their operation cancelled, who cannot get a GP appointment for days or who cannot get into hospital in the first place because his Government are restricting access to operations. Perhaps that explains why the year that he hails as a great success was the same year that saw the biggest ever fall in public satisfaction with the national health service according to the British social attitudes survey.
Let me challenge the Secretary of State on this growing gap between Ministers’ statements and people’s real experience of the NHS. He has said that there will be no rationing by cost, but I have news for him: it is happening on his watch, right across the system, with a whole host of restrictions on important treatments and a postcode lottery running riot. Where is the instruction in the draft mandate to stop it and deliver on the promise that he and the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), made to patients? It is not there.
Let me turn to bureaucracy and targets. First, the Government said that they would scrap the four-hour A and E and 18-week targets; then they brought them back. Now they have gone further and adopted Labour’s guarantees, but they have gone even further today and have added a whole new complex web of outcomes and performance indicators for the NHS. The NHS needs simplicity and clarity, but what it has received today from this Secretary of State is a dense document with 60 outcome indicators grouped within five domains. I hope it is clear to him, because it will not be clear to anyone else. Will he treat the House again to his explanation of the difference between an outcome indicator and a target? The fact is there is not one and he is loading a whole new set of targets and burdens on to a NHS that is already struggling to cope with the challenges it is facing.
It will not have escaped people’s notice that today the Secretary of State was silent on the biggest issue of all: the unfolding crisis in adult social care. Out there in the real world, councils are not coping, services are collapsing and that is placing intolerable pressure on hospitals. He promised a White Paper soon on service change, but nothing on funding. Has he given up on the Dilnot proposals and the challenge of finding a fairer and more sustainable funding system?
Before we let the Secretary of State go today, the House needs to ask to whom this mandate is being given. We are witnessing the democratic responsibility and accountability to this House for the organisation that matters more to our constituents than any other being outsourced and handed over to an unelected and unaccountable board.
Another major announcement is taking place today on the review of the arrangements for children’s heart surgery. It will not have escaped people’s notice, however, that the Secretary of State did not mention that review in his statement. He said that Ministers are stepping back, and I think people in this House know what that means—it is now nothing to do with him. All these changes will take place and he will not be responsible.
What assurances can the Secretary of State give to right hon. and hon. Members that his new board will listen to their concerns? Who are the people on that board? With trademark catastrophic timing, we learn that he has given a leading role in the running of the NHS to—yes—the vice-chair of Barclays, none other than Mr Diamond’s right-hand man and someone who has given £106,000 in donations to the Conservative party. If that does not sum up this Government, I do not know what does.
We know the real mandate that the Secretary of State has given his new board—and that is a mandate for privatisation. He promised it would not happen, but it is happening with community services being outsourced. No wonder there is a crisis of leadership, with one third of directors of public health not planning to transfer to local authorities. Is it not the simple truth that the Secretary of State inherited a successful, self-confident NHS and, in just two years, has reduced it to a service that is demoralised, destabilised and fearful of the future? The man who promised to listen to doctors has completely ignored them, and now they are calling for his resignation. Despite all his claims today, the supertanker is still heading towards an iceberg. He gave us a new mandate when what we really needed was a change of direction and a change of personnel.
Mr Lansley
At no point did the shadow Secretary of State express any appreciation for what the staff of the NHS have achieved in the past year. A party political rant populated with most of his misconceptions and poorly based arguments does not get him anywhere.
The right hon. Gentleman went around the country trying to drum up something he could throw at us about things that he believed were going wrong in the NHS. Do you know what he ended up with, Mr Speaker? He ended up by saying the NHS was rationing care. What was the basis for that? That parts of the NHS have restrictions on weight-loss surgery, because people have to be obese before they have access to it. That is meaningless. I wrote to the shadow Secretary of State this morning, and went through his so-called health check. There is no such ban on surgery as he claims. Time and again, he says, “Oh, they are rationing.” They are not, because last year, the co-operation and competition panel produced a report that showed where there had been blanket bans on NHS services under a Labour Government. We introduced measures to ensure that that would not happen in future across the service. Not only is he not giving the NHS credit for the achievements that I listed in detail in my statement but he is now pretending that the NHS is somehow in chaos or financial trouble. It is complete nonsense. Across the NHS, only three primary care trusts out of 154 were in deficit at the end of the year. The cumulative surplus across all the PCTs and strategic health authorities is £1.6 billion carried forward into this financial year.
That means that the NHS begins 2012-13 in a stronger financial place than anyone had any right to expect, because it is delivering better services more effectively, with GP referrals reduced, and reduced growth in the number of patients attending emergency departments. The right hon. Gentleman asked, “What about patients who leave A and E without being seen?” Under the Labour Government, no one ever measured whether patients left A and E without being seen. For the first time, we are measuring that, and we publish the results in the A and E quality indicators. There was a variation between about 0.5% and 11% of patients leaving without being seen when we first published that, but since then the variation has reduced. The average number has gone down, and it is now at 3%, so he ought to know his facts before he stands up at the Dispatch Box and begins to make accusations. We published those facts for the first time.
I will not reiterate the A and E target, because I mentioned it in the statement, but 96% of patients are seen within four hours in A and E. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw all those absurd propositions that the NHS is not delivering. He should get up when next he can and express appreciation to the NHS for what it is achieving. Patients do so: last year, 92% of in-patients and 95% of out-patients thought that they had good or excellent care from the NHS, which is as high as in any previous year. That is what patients feel. Staff should be proud of what they achieve in the NHS, and the Labour party should be ashamed of itself.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s statement, which is very positive, will be widely welcomed, particularly what he said about low waiting times. He said that patients in future will be more in control. Is he referring to the personal health budgets in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and does he expect a greater range of treatments to be available on the health service in future?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many ways in which we can improve the control that patients can exercise, including greater opportunities for patients to exercise choice. In my announcement today, that includes the opportunity for patients to choose alternative providers of NHS care if, for example, the standard of 18 weeks that the constitution sets is not met. I might say that, at the last election, 209,000 patients were waiting for treatment beyond 18 weeks. That number has been brought down to 160,000.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the exercise of control on the part of patients, who have an opportunity to access clinically appropriate care through the NHS. We will make sure that that is available and, as he knows, in relation to homeopathic treatments, for example, we have maintained clinicians’ ability across the service to make such treatments available through the NHS when they think that it is appropriate to do so.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I have not been able to read the annual report in the last few minutes, but may I ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it gives any information on the benefits of high-street pharmacy companies taking over the running of hospital pharmacies?
Mr Lansley
No, the annual report makes no reference to that. It refers—I hope, for the first time—in detail to the performance of the NHS over the past year. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise any issues about that, I shall be glad to respond to him separately.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State and the annual report. Is he aware that the National Audit Office published a report last week on variations in the NHS across the United Kingdom? It specifically reported that life expectancy in Wales was lower than in other parts of the UK; there were fewer GPs per patient; longer hospital stays in Wales; and longer hospital waiting lists. Will he reassure me, in the light of his statement and of the NAO report, that he will not take any lessons from the Labour party, because it is responsible for running the health service in Wales that my constituents have to put up with, sometimes tragically?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—in fact, an excellent series of points. On his behalf I am glad to send to the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Labour Government in Wales a copy of the annual report for England, perhaps inviting her to publish a similar report in Wales. As the NAO said, and, indeed, as the Wales Audit Office said, only 60% or, on the latest data, only 68% of patients in Wales waiting for treatment accessed it within 18 weeks—the right under the NHS constitution—whereas in the NHS in England, the figure is 92%.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
NHS staff and patients simply do not have the same rosy view of the NHS as the Secretary of State. When a Government-commissioned survey asked people last summer what they thought of the NHS, why had satisfaction with the NHS plummeted from 70% to 55% in just a year under the Secretary of State?
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, because MORI conducted an independent survey last December after the survey conducted on behalf of the King’s Fund. The survey said that 70% of people were satisfied with the running of the NHS; 77% agreed that their local NHS provided a good service; and 73% agreed that England had one of the best national health services in the world—the highest level ever recorded in that survey.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am pleased and reassured by the comments from the Secretary of State on outcomes, which he said were among the best in the world. In view of that, would he perhaps reconsider whether it is wise to press ahead with such disruptive and damaging reforms?
Mr Lansley
One reason why the NHS continues to deliver such significant improvements in performance is that through the transition, we are increasing clinical leadership, which will make an important, positive difference, and can already be shown to have done so. For example, we are managing patients more effectively in the community, and reducing reliance on acute admission to hospital. The number of emergency admissions to hospital in the year just ended went down, which is a strong basis on which to develop services in future, and that is happening not least because of leadership in the primary care community. I hope that my hon. Friend from Cornwall, along with other Members, supports the assumption of clinical leadership through clinical commissioning groups by those clinicians.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the former Chair of the Select Committee on Health, I have not had sight of the report, but will the Secretary of State say what the cost to the public purse of the pause and the reorganisation will be?
Mr Lansley
I think that the hon. Lady knows that the figure is in the order of £1.2 billion to £1.3 billion. She also knows that, during this Parliament, we will deliver, as a result of the changes, reductions in bureaucracy and administration costs across the NHS, which cumulatively will be of the order of £5.5 billion.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Is the Minister also aware that the National Audit Office report shows without doubt that deep and damaging cuts are taking place within the national health service, but that they are all happening in Wales? Does he agree that the last thing we need is to see that repeated in England by allowing these people control of our NHS?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. There is only one part of the United Kingdom where the health service is being run by a Labour Government—in Wales, and that is the only part of the United Kingdom where the Government are deliberately cutting the budget of the NHS. We should not be surprised. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State, at the time of the last election and afterwards, told people that they should cut the budgets, and Labour in Wales did it.
Mr Speaker
On the whole, if at all possible, and it is not always possible, I prefer to avoid sibling rivalry so I shall now call Mr Keith Vaz.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I declare my interest as a type 2 diabetic and say how disappointed I am that the Secretary of State did not mention diabetes in his statement today? Fifty per cent. of adult diabetics have not had the nine care processes that are necessary. Will he ensure that commissioning groups are asked to ring-fence resources to help with diabetes prevention?
Mr Lansley
There are many conditions from which patients suffer that I did not mention in the statement because the purpose of the draft mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board is to improve the quality of services across the board, and the objectives we are looking for are about improvement across the whole service, rather than trying to isolate and identify individual conditions. But the NHS Commissioning Board will indeed go about the task of doing so. In recent years we have increased the proportion of patients with diabetes who have access to the nine recommended processes, and I know we will increase the number in future. I draw to the right hon. Gentleman’s attention, among the figures reflected in the report, the fact that, at the end of 2011-12, 99% of people with diabetes had been offered screening for diabetic retinopathy in the previous 12 months—an increase from 98.6% in the preceding quarter.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I particularly welcome the inclusion of the patient experience in the outcome framework. May I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that commissioners and communities can clearly access the patient experience data so that they can see the real value that communities can place on community hospitals, and may I urge him to set out a clear database of community hospitals across England so that it can be much more readily available?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that measuring patients’ experience of care is very important. Although there was and continues to be an NHS patients survey, there are many areas of patients’ experience that it did not reflect. For example, we received yesterday the first of the VOICES—views of informal carers for the evaluation of services—a survey of the experience of bereaved families of the quality of end-of-life care that their family member received. That is part of the process of ensuring that for the future we understand, measure and respond to the views of bereaved families about the quality of care they received. That is just one illustration. Another is for the very first time measuring the experience of care reported by young people below the age of 16. There is a complex inter-relationship with the specific benefits of community hospitals in individual locations, but I hope that one of the things we will be able to do is look at the data, which will be disaggregated across the country, and increasingly see what most contributes to the high levels of patient experience in different parts of the country.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating NHS staff on their hard work and dedication, which is even more remarkable given the disastrous reorganisation they are having to work through at present. The Secretary of State talks about the new era. Can he today in Parliament rule out any additional charges anywhere in the NHS for patients who use the NHS in the next few years?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I said during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that it had been intensively considered in its every aspect. The Act expressly rules out the introduction of any charges across the NHS, other than by further primary legislation, and there is no primary legislation to permit such a thing. So I reiterate the point: there will be no additional charging for treatment in the NHS.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Many of my constituents are concerned that under the Labour Government £11 billion of PFI contracts were signed, which will cost the NHS over £60 billion to pay back. They are concerned that PFI, Labour’s toxic legacy to the NHS, has the potential to bankrupt many health trusts. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents about possibly renegotiating some of these contracts?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. When the shadow Secretary of State was attempting to suggest that there were trusts in trouble across the country, he might have had the humility to admit that the hospital trusts in the greatest difficulty are the ones that were saddled with unsustainable debt by the Labour Government’s poorly negotiated PFI projects. He might have instanced Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Monitor wrote to him and his colleagues, telling them that that PFI project should not have proceeded. The Labour Government went ahead with it anyway and it is now unsustainable.
We have been very clear. We have gone through a process of identifying where trusts can manage, not least with us assisting them. In the latter part of last year we identified seven trusts that we will step in and support if we believe that they are otherwise unable to restore their finances to good health. It will entail about £1.5 billion of total support for them to be able to pay for their PFI projects. Where there are opportunities for renegotiation we will exercise them, but unfortunately it is in the nature of coming into government that we inherit what the previous Government left us. We were left with 102 hospital—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that they were our PFI schemes. No NHS PFI scheme was signed before the Labour Government took office in 1997. Two years ago we inherited 102 hospital projects with £73 billion of debt, yet the Opposition thought that in the years before they had used taxpayers’ money to build these new hospitals. No, they did not. They saddled the NHS for 30 years with that debt.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Talking about waste, will the Secretary of State explain why his Department has wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds on consultancy fees looking at my acute trust, and why his Department refuses to publish the reports? Could it be that they are a complete waste of time?
Mr Lansley
In the year before the election the Department of Health spent about £110 million on consultancy and we reduced it to £10 million. I will tell the hon. Gentleman about waste. In the past two years we have already racked up £1.4 billion of administration savings across the NHS—money that goes straight back into the front line. The Department is having to do work in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s hospital at Whiston only because of the PFI deal that his Government signed before the last election. We will have to help St Helen’s and Knowsley trust deal with that debt in the future.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the progress that East Cheshire clinical commissioning group is making in building a collaborative approach to delivering health care in the Macclesfield area? Does he believe that other areas could benefit from observing the constructive approach being taken there?
Mr Lansley
Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr Paul Bowen from his clinical commissioning group when I visited Blue Coat school in Liverpool. Leaders of clinical commissioning groups from across the north-west came together and many of them are already exercising 100% delegated responsibility for local commissioning budgets and showing how they can improve services using that. We know that in a financially challenging environment reducing cost is important, but redesigning services to deliver care more effectively with the resources available is even more important, and that is precisely what the clinical leadership in those groups is doing.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
In Ashfield in the past year the number of people waiting in accident and emergency for more than four hours has almost doubled, we have lost our NHS walk-in centre, and there are now proposals to close our community hospital. Why does the Secretary of State think these things are happening?
Mr Lansley
As I made clear in my statement, according to the latest data 96.5% of patients in A and E are assessed, treated and discharged within four hours. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) asked about the difference between a target and an outcome, but the point is that it is not enough to measure whether a patient has been seen and treated within four hours; the issue is the quality of treatment they receive, which is why our A and E quality indicators go further. The hon. Lady and I have had correspondence on this—I will be glad to look back and ensure that I have kept it up to date—so she knows that there has been a review of walk-in centres and that there is a need for people to have access not only to emergency departments, but to urgent care in a way that does not entail having to wait for a long time in A and E. I do not remember all the details, but I recall that some of the services offered in one walk-in centre in her constituency were being transferred to another that was adjacent to the A and E.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I welcome the statement. In order fully to fulfil the NHS mandate, we need to raise NHS staff morale. What plans does the Secretary of State have for doing that?
Mr Lansley
I think that what most gives staff a sense of motivation and morale, in any organisation in any walk of life, is being more in control of the service they deliver. That is evidenced across many areas of economic and service activity. That is what we are doing for the NHS. Whether in foundation trusts or clinical commissioning groups, staff will feel that they have more control over the service they deliver. Consequently, I believe that as we see the figures improve it will be less a case of politicians interfering, or even trying to take credit, and much more a case of NHS staff taking credit for the services they deliver.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Last week the board of the NHS North Yorkshire and York primary care trust cluster received a financial position statement that identified the need for cuts of £230 million, plus unfunded costs pressures of £55 million a year, and noted that
“the risks would grow even greater as it moved from a single organisation…to five much smaller clinical commissioning groups.”
Many treatments are already not available to patients in North Yorkshire and York, even though they are available to those in neighbouring areas. Bariatric surgery, for example, is available to people elsewhere with a body mass index of 40, but people in North Yorkshire and York have to be much more obese, with a body mass index of 50, to get it. Will the Secretary of State look at that report, make a thoughtful response and put both in the Library of the House so that Members can see how this financial crisis in the North Yorkshire and York primary care trust is being dealt with?
Mr Lansley
Identifying cost pressures and risks is, of course, a necessary part of the process of managing those risks, but I am afraid that the claim by the outgoing primary care trust that the risks cannot be managed by the incoming clinical commissioning groups is contrary to the experience of everybody in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world, as he must know from the experience of the primary care trusts in North Yorkshire. The primary care trusts of the past did not cope, and it is up to the new clinical leadership in Yorkshire to make these things happen more effectively. The PCT did not finish last year in deficit; only three in the whole of England did—Barnet, Enfield and Haringey. I will make sure—[Interruption.] If he listens to my answer, he will hear that we, along with the NHS Commissioning Board, intend all the new clinical commissioning groups across England to start on 1 April 2013 with clean balance sheets and without legacy debt from primary care trusts. That will give them the best possible chance of delivering the best possible care. On bariatric surgery, he must know that the NICE guidance recommends that it should be available to those with a BMI index of over 40, depending on their clinical circumstances.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not keep shouting out. He has asked his question and had the answer. We will now move on.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the lasting achievements of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 will be the integration of health and social care, which will be excellent news for people recovering from strokes or meningitis?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party completely ignores the fact that one of the central points is that the creation of health and wellbeing boards—I pay credit to my Liberal Democrat friends in the coalition for that—the involvement of democratic accountability and the opportunity to create joint strategies that integrate public health, social care and the NHS and impact additionally on the wider and social determinants of health will be absolutely instrumental in the improvement of services and health in future.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that shortly after taking office he downgraded the standard that the NHS should see A and E patients within four hours from 98% to 95% and that many A and E units are now failing to meet even that relaxed target? Does he believe that that was the right move, and does he have any other plans to change it again?
Mr Lansley
I did indeed reduce the standard to 95%, on clinical advice, and currently the NHS is achieving 96.5%.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
On a recent visit to observe the excellent work of my local ambulance station in Alfreton, I was shown the widely different times it takes certain hospitals to admit patients arriving by ambulance, which leads to ambulances being off the road for longer than they need to be. Is there anything the Secretary of State can do to strengthen the guidance on how hospitals should handle this process to avoid the problem?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Part of the measurement of the performance of ambulance trusts, together with their hospitals, is to record the number of occasions when ambulances wait more than 15 minutes before discharging their patients into the service. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), is very concerned and pursues precisely those issues, so I will ask him to look into the matter further and respond to my hon. Friend.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State told us earlier that every ambulance trust was meeting core response times, but I have to tell him that that is not the experience of my constituents, including Mrs Taylor, who had to wait 90 minutes after falling down stairs. Is not the truth that this is the result of reorganisation and the resulting cuts are making it impossible for ambulance trusts up and down the country to hit the times he says they are hitting, because they are not actually doing it?
Mr Lansley
No, and I do not think that the staff of ambulance trusts will appreciate the hon. Gentleman generalising from the particular. I have not said that ambulance trusts reach every case in the time we intend, but the figures show that all ambulance trusts across England have met the category A target for responding consistently at a level they have not previously achieved.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I welcome the reforms and improvement to the NHS that the Secretary of State is delivering. However, the NHS paid out £1.3 billion in compensation claims last year, a rise of almost 50% on the year before. A spokesman has said that that is partly due to aggressive marketing by no-win, no-fee lawyers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current level of compensation claims in this country, in both the public and private sectors, is completely unsustainable and that it is now time to curtail the out-of-control compensation culture?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. From our point of view, the legislation that passed through this House in the last Session, led by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), will be important and will help us in relation to some of these matters, not least on the use of no-win, no-fee arrangements. From time to time it has been deeply frustrating for us all to see that, of the money paid out by the NHS as a result of negligence claims, sometimes more is paid in fees, not least to lawyers, than is provided in compensation to those who have suffered harm. In the NHS we recognise the need to provide compensation when harm has occurred. It is extremely costly. The costs have risen and we want to minimise them. Reducing harm in the NHS will be important, but ensuring that we respond to complaints and offer redress more openly will also help us to manage the extent to which people resort expensively to the courts.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Of the 150 lines in the Secretary of State’s statement, only six referred specifically to mental health, despite the fact that between 1991 and 2011 the number of antidepressant prescriptions increased from 9 million to 46 million, a 500% increase. In 2004 NICE recommended mindfulness, a non-drug self-help therapy with no side effects, as better, more efficient and less costly than drug therapy, but it has not been taken up. I am not blaming him, but will we have an inquiry into the reasons for the massive increase in the prescription of antidepressants and the reason why mindfulness has not been taken up?
Mr Lansley
I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the purpose of reports across the NHS is not to isolate individual conditions and to report on all of them, because if we attempted to do so the resulting document would be not the size of the one before me, but 10 times that. The object is to improve outcomes across the board.
Let me make two points. First, one thing that the NHS did achieve last year involved 528,000 people having access to talking—psychological—therapies, and that in itself should substantially reduce dependence on medication for depression. Secondly, and I think importantly, of the 22 overall objectives established in the NHS Commissioning Board’s draft mandate, the ninth is about making mental health as important as physical health—creating a parity of esteem between the two. The measure is in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it is being carried through into the objectives of the NHS Commissioning Board and it will, in itself, be important when carried through into practice.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I warmly welcome the improvements in screening, diagnostics and treatment for those suffering from cancer, but patient outcomes are wildly different. For some, 10% of treatment will be successful, for others, 85% will be, and this means that we need more research to highlight which drugs and treatments should be introduced. May I make a bid for part of the surplus to be directed to the expensive equipment that is required to make such research happen, so that treatment and outcomes can be improved?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I was happy to announce earlier this year that in response to the report by Professor Sir John Bell and his colleagues we will now put resources behind the establishment of genetic testing centres throughout the NHS, which will enable us to undertake what is known as stratified medicine. This means that, by identifying when medicines have particular benefits for patients with certain genetic characteristics or phenotypes, we will be able to target such treatments, as we will be much more certain of their effectiveness and be able to reduce, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the many cases in which medicines are prescribed but turn out not to be effective in a particular patient’s circumstances.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
If the Secretary of State really believes that people will accept Ministers standing back from the consequences of their decisions, will he hear from families in my constituency, who are going to be devastated if, after all the turmoil—of which he is well aware—and after the forthcoming review, they are forced to travel for an hour and for 50 miles to receive consultant-led maternity services?
Mr Lansley
I do not construe what we are doing as Ministers stepping back from the consequences of our decisions. The Secretary of State will continue to be responsible for the comprehensive health service, and I fully expect, in the same way as I am making a statement today on the first annual report, that I and my successors will make statements in years to come on annual reports and be held to account for the performance of the service.
The point is that delivering the best possible care is not achieved by Ministers interfering on a day-to-day basis in how the NHS goes about its task. We have been very clear, through today’s mandate, about what we are looking for the NHS to achieve: consistently improving outcomes. We are not trying to tell the NHS to do so.
Any particular service change, such as the one the hon. Gentleman describes, has to meet four tests: being of clear clinical benefit; responding to the needs and wishes of local service commissioners; responding to strong patient and public engagement; and maintaining and protecting patient choice. If there are any questions and objections, stating that such a service change does not achieve those aims, his local authority has the right under legislation to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for its reconsideration, so I am not taking the Secretary of State out of the process completely.
The safe and sustainable review was set up independently by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, and it has been conducted completely independently, but, in the same way as I have just described, if local authorities have grounds for objections, they have also a mechanism, if they wish to use it, for referral.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I applaud my right hon. Friend for his statement today and the publication of the annual report, from which I note that 12,500 patients in England have been able to access specialist cancer treatment as a result of the cancer drugs fund. The corresponding figure in Wales is zero, because the Labour Government in Cardiff refuse to put in place a similar scheme in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that cancer patients in Wales deserve access to the same treatment as cancer patients in England?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I could not agree more. It was precisely because Professor Sir Mike Richards undertook an inquiry and produced a report identifying a lack of access in this country to new cancer medicines in the first year after their introduction that we instituted the cancer drugs fund. It is a matter of considerable regret to many of us that that example was not followed in a similar way in Wales.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
What message does the Secretary of State have for the 2 million people in west London, four of whose nine major hospitals are set to lose their A and E departments, including both Hammersmith and Charing Cross, in my constituency? That is the Secretary of State’s policy. He cannot pass the buck to the NHS on this or, indeed, on the threat to the Royal Brompton hospital’s children’s services; he has to answer for it.
Mr Lansley
No. Let me reiterate to the hon. Gentleman the point I have just made, because what he describes is not my policy. If there are proposals, they are proposals that have been generated in north-west and west London, and the safe and sustainable review is an independent review. It is not establishing the Government’s policy; it is an independent review in the NHS, looking at how services can be improved.
The review was not in any sense about costs; it was entirely about how we sustain the highest quality of excellent care for patients. The same will be—needs to be—true in relation to services in west London for emergency care. I will not go through this all again, but I reiterate that, if people object and say that such an aim will not be achieved, it is open to a local authority to refer the matter to a mere Secretary of State on the basis that the tests I have set down have not been met.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I welcome the encouraging and successful results of the work of our NHS staff in delivering the outcomes that the Secretary of State has reported in this first annual report. A vox pop in one of our local papers last month showed that everybody bar one thought that the NHS was doing a good job. The only complaint was that one person had to wait a little too long to be seen by their GP.
One thing that would encourage people also is to know that, if there ever are proposals to discontinue NHS services or to transfer them from NHS management to private or voluntary sector management, they will always be subject to consultation and proceed only with the consent of the public.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Let me just separate those two parts. First, when there are changes in a service, such as when there is a proposal to change the provider of community services from, for example, an NHS-owned provider to an independent sector provider, they will be a subject for local consultation.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when there is any proposal not to provide a service, the Secretary of State is responsible under legislation for the provision of a comprehensive health service. It is not open, as I have made clear to the right hon. Member for Leigh, to the NHS to discontinue the provision of NHS services. It has to—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position, “It is doing so,” but he is completely wrong. I wrote to him this morning.
We have stopped precisely the things that he said used to happen under the Labour Government, and it is precisely the case that trusts and future commissioners will have to maintain a comprehensive health service. They can apply clinical criteria and judge certain treatments to be of relatively poor value, but they must always maintain a service and show how they are responding to the clinical needs of their patients.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Ever since I was elected to Parliament, I have campaigned for an urgent care centre in a hospital in my constituency. Labour took NHS provision out of my constituency, but with the new Nene Valley clinical commissioning group we are going for the first time to have that urgent care centre. So I should welcome the Secretary of State to Wellingborough, but I must warn him that he would be carried shoulder-high through its streets—with people cheering him.
Mr Lansley
I cannot resist the enticement of such an invitation from my hon. Friend. It will reiterate what I found a year or so ago when I visited the nascent Nene Valley commissioning organisation. People there are really taking hold of things and showing how they can improve services in Northamptonshire.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Over the past year, the Department of Health has made statements about the fact that radiotherapy is eight times more effective than drugs. It is said that the cancer drugs fund is £100 million underspent and the figures of £150 million and £750 million have been mentioned in connection with new radiotherapy and radiosurgery services. Will the Secretary of State consider transferring at least that underspent funding into radiotherapy and radiosurgery services so that new services in the south-west do not depend on charitable funding?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The issue is important. In the cancer outcomes strategy, we responded positively to the recommendations of the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group. There was a £400 million programme for the support of radiotherapy; more recently, I have added to that a commitment to build two new centres for proton beam therapy. From about 2015, patients requiring such therapy will not have to go abroad to access it.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the early part of this year, we made additional resources available to the NHS supply chain so that more radiotherapy machines could be readily available for purchase or lease through the NHS without costs being incurred over the same period. I will look at what my hon. Friend has said. I think that in the cancer outcomes strategy we have set out all the investment in radiotherapy that we think is clinically indicated, but I will continue to review it.
Bus Services in Teesside and East Cleveland
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of East Cleveland and Middlesbrough,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that bus services in Teesside provided by Arriva have been second rate for too long; that buses do not run on time, services have been cut back and rising fares are threatening to price out vulnerable, elderly and young people from using public transport for educational purposes, as a means of transport for work and for accessing health services; and further declares that the Petitioners believe that Government cuts to subsidies for local bus services are making this already poor situation worse,
The 490 Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse cuts to local bus subsidies and take all possible steps to ensure that improvements are made to bus services in East Cleveland and Middlesbrough.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001104]
Point of Order
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hugh Bayley
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I let my indignation get the better of me.
I have a point of order that I hope you will consider, Mr Speaker. I went twice to the Vote Office this morning to see whether I could get a copy of the NHS annual report so that I could read it before we heard the statement. I was told that it would not be available. Could we change our procedures so that when a Minister is presenting a document to the House, the document itself is circulated around the Chamber as well the statement? Even better, the document could be put in the Vote Office under strict embargo, say, an hour beforehand. Could that be considered?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Of course, what he has mentioned is not a matter of current practice and the fact that it is not is what the hon. Gentleman judges to be unsatisfactory, and he seeks a change. It seems a perfectly reasonable subject for consideration by the Procedure Committee, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman will require much further encouragement to take the matter up with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight).
Rural Transport (Sadberge, Darlington)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
This is a petition on behalf of 127 residents of the small community of Sadberge in Sedgefield, who are deeply concerned about cuts to their local bus services. All bus services will be removed from that community at the end of the year.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Sadberge,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that in order to maintain a reliable rural transport network in Darlington Borough additional funding needs to be provided for rural bus services.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that there is funding in place to maintain the provision of reliable rural bus services in the Darlington Borough.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001105]
Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (Amendment)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 to limit the display of external advertisements concerning lettings; and for connected purposes.
My Bill is designed to deal with the overuse of estate agents’ “To Let” signs. It has supporters from each of the three main parties. Following the last constituency boundary changes, I represent, for the first time, the mixed residential area of Jesmond in Newcastle upon Tyne. As well as being home to long-term residents, the area has a large population of students and young graduate professionals. The attractiveness of the area is spoilt by a plethora of “To Let” estate agent signs—signs that seem to me to be permanent display items, regardless of whether the flat in question is actually to let or not.
Whatever the justification for the signs in the past, there is not much of a case for them now. Students and young professionals do not use “To Let” signs to find vacant flats; they use the internet, the lettings columns of Newcastle’s The Journal and Evening Chronicle and estate agents’ offices, and students can use the services provided by the universities and student unions.
The situation, of course, is not unique to Newcastle; the same problem occurs in a slightly different guise in seaside towns and other cities—and for the same underlying reason, I suspect. It seems likely that the real reason the estate agent signs proliferate and stay up much longer than for their stated purpose is that they serve as a form of advertisement for the estate agent. In a competitive market, each agent feels the need to have signs to advertise their presence, because rival estate agents have them.
My Bill has four clauses. The first disapplies schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 in so far as it applies to “To Let” signs. It deletes the phrase “or letting” from the Act. Thus “For Sale” signs would remain, while lettings signs would not.
Clause 2 enables local authorities to make byelaws regulating “To Let” signs for all or part of the local authority area. That seems to be in keeping with the Government’s desire to shift responsibility for purely local matters to local government.
It would therefore be possible for different rules to apply in different parts of the country according to the wishes of local people, as expressed through their local representatives. Local authorities enjoy day-to-day responsibility for housing policy, as well as local planning issues, so that seems a proportionate and appropriate way of dealing with the issue.
Clause 3 makes it clear that when local authorities have not made rules for “To Let” signs, the default is that the signs should be banned. Clause 4 is a penalties regime on conviction of committing the offence, on the appropriate county court scale, with rising penalties for repeat offenders. I accept that it is currently possible for local authorities to apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government for permission to take steps to deal with the problem. However, the present procedures are cumbersome and disproportionate. My proposal is a much neater and more clear cut way of dealing with the problem, and is rooted in our commitment to local democracy. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Nicholas Brown, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Frank Dobson, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Ian Mearns, Miss Anne McIntosh, Catherine McKinnell, Mr George Mudie, Chi Onwurah, Sir Bob Russell, Mr Andrew Smith and Bob Stewart present the Bill.
Mr Nicholas Brown accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 7 September 2012 and to be printed (Bill 56).
Estimates Day
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Vote on Account 2012-13
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Border Agency
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to open this important debate about not only the Home Office estimates but the Home Affairs Committee’s reports into the UK Border Agency. I am pleased to see the Minister and shadow Minister and so many right hon. and hon. Members who have direct experience of dealing with the UK Border Agency.
I particularly welcome members of the Home Affairs Committee who are here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) have made enormous contributions to the reports that the Select Committee has published in the past few years. The main feature of our reports is that they have been unanimous. Another feature has been our hope that with a succession of very carefully worded but carefully thought out reports we will be able to improve the quality of the UK Border Agency.
Right at the start, I want to make something clear. I have chaired the Home Affairs Committee for five years. We have produced our reports about the administration of the UKBA on a regular basis under the previous Government and the current Government, and we have been as critical in the former case as in the latter. There is no party political point in this; it is about trying to get the best possible service that can be provided to those who use the UKBA. We decided at the start of the Parliament to look regularly at how the UKBA operates, so every three months we revisit our report to see whether there has been any improvement in the system. We also decided to put up a number of key indicators by which we judge how the UKBA operates. It is not the usual kind of Select Committee report that has big and long recommendations; rather, we make specific suggestions that we want the UKBA to follow.
As the estimates indicate, the UKBA’s budget for 2012-13 is £1 billion, and it has a staff of 12,835, while the UK Border Force’s budget is £509 million, and it has a staff of 7,333. A number of ongoing issues arose under the previous Labour Government, and I shall touch on some of those. The first issue is foreign national offenders. There are 3,900 foreign national criminals living in the community who are subject to deportation, 57 of whom are part of the famous 2006 cohort who are still unable to be traced. In 2006, 1,013 foreign prisoners were released without any attempt being made to deport them. Of those, 844 people’s cases have been concluded, 399 people have been deported, 445 have not been deported, 93 are still in the process of being deported, 19 are serving another sentence, and 57 are untraceable. That situation has been ongoing for the past six years or so, and we will continue to monitor it until every one of those foreign national criminals has been found.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Did my right hon. Friend’s Committee consider why, when someone is found guilty of a criminal offence in this country and sentenced to prison, we cannot find a way of sending them back to serve their sentence in the country that they came from, instead of having them serve it in our prisons so that we have problems years later in trying to send them back? My constituents are always asking me about this.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These options need to be considered, as they were under the previous Labour Government in respect of Nigeria. Last Thursday, I was in her constituency with members of the Select Committee and we went to Brixton prison, where the governor told us that a third of the prisoners were foreign nationals and that he could not remember a single occasion when such a prisoner was removed at the end of their sentence; they were either taken into the community or made to report to a detention centre.
The Government need to be given credit for the fact that the average time taken to deport has been reduced from 131 days in 2008 to 74 days in 2011, but that is still far too long. There is still a lack of cohesion between the National Offender Management Service and the Home Office. UKBA staff are stationed at Brixton prison, but the problem is that the UKBA is not informed about cases involving foreign national criminals right at the beginning of the process, at the time of sentencing. We have recommended in successive reports that that should happen in order to shorten the period between the release of the prisoner and their being removed to his or her country.
In all the years I have been in this House, the main issue that has dogged the border forces has been the continual delays and backlogs that have gone on under successive Governments. We only recently discovered as part of our inquiry that a number of new, almost virtual reality, filing systems exist at the UKBA. There is the controlled archive which dates back to 2006; I prefer to call it the Tardis, because files go in there and seem never to come out. The controlled archive is the place where files are dumped in cases where the UKBA does not know where the people are.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the most significant reasons for the difficulty in returning people to their countries of origin is the fact that those countries, including some with which this nation has very good relations, often do not want them back and therefore obfuscate and create delay, making it much harder for us to deport them efficiently?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that is a problem, but that does not mean that we do not have to try to make sure that such deportations happen, because that would be a huge saving to the taxpayer and help us to meet the targets that the Government clearly want us to reach.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend referred to the TARDIS, as he calls it, but there are other cases in which people who have not yet been deported are simply categorised as “unknown issues”, so we have the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. That is a bizarre way of dealing with people, is it not?
Keith Vaz
It is indeed. There seems to be a paralysis on the part of senior officials of the UKBA, who just create more of these archives and move the backlog into different areas without trying to solve the problem.
The archive has now been reduced from 98,000 to 93,000, and from January to March 2012 it fell to 80,000. When Mr Whiteman, the chief executive of the UKBA, who has been brought in as a new broom to try to make sure that these matters are sorted out, last appeared before the Committee, he promised us that the archive will, in effect, be closed by 31 December 2012, and we will hold him to that promise. His predecessor, Lin Homer, who because of the fabulous work that she did at the UKBA has been promoted and is now one of the permanent secretaries at the Treasury, gave us a promise when she said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who had requested that the legacy cases be concluded by the end of last summer, that every single legacy case would be concluded by the end of last year. [Interruption.]As can be seen from the reaction of right hon. and hon. Members here today, that has not happened. The UKBA has probably just created another of the filing systems where it puts various files when it does not know what has happened to the people involved.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the key areas in which we need to hold the UKBA to account is data management? It is almost impossible to understand what is going on and who is going where if we do not have clarity and transparency about the numbers.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She makes that point every time the head of the UKBA appears before us; I do not know whether she is an expert on data management. It is a big problem because, in the end, the immigration debate is about statistics. If the statistics are not right and we are unable to get the proper data, we cannot have an effective debate about what is happening.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
To go back to the controlled archive and the removal of old cases, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that new cases are still being added to it? It is very much like filling up a Jaguar car with petrol while leaving the engine on, so more petrol is needed at the pump.
Keith Vaz
As the hon. Gentleman will know from his case load, it is a continuing process. He will hear about more of these cases on Friday when he holds his surgery. The Select Committee is saying that the backlog must be cleared, not just put in a different part of the UKBA. It cannot just move the files from Croydon to Liverpool and expect the situation to be sorted out. It must clear the backlog once and for all. With the willingness to do so and the £1 billion of resources that are available each year, that should be possible.
Fiona Mactaggart
I concur with what my right hon. Friend has said about clearing the backlog once and for all. One of my concerns is that, in the present exercise of dealing with legacy cases and the backlog, instead of making a final decision on cases—people used to be given indefinite leave to remain or were returned—lots of people are being given three years’ discretionary leave, which means that a new backlog is being created for three years’ time.
Richard Fuller
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that immigration is an issue of statistics. It may not be popular to say so, but does he agree that it is also an issue about the lives of individual people? In managing the statistics, we should not lose sight—no matter what the tabloids say—of the fact that we are talking about people who may have made a commitment to come here and who may have gone through extremely difficult circumstances to get here. How we treat such people should have just as much emphasis in our consideration as dealing with the statistics.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Yarl’s Wood is near his constituency, so he will have dealt with these kinds of cases. It is important that we look at the cases on an individual basis. Of course they form part of a grid, table or pie chart, but they involve individual people with real problems that we need to deal with.
I will move on to students, which is an issue of great interest to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. The Select Committee happens to contain not only the hon. Lady, but the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), so obviously student visas are an important issue to it. Of course, the fine universities of Northampton, Leicester, De Montfort and Rhondda are also represented in the Chamber. [Interruption.] If there is not a university of Rhondda, I am sure that there will be by the end of the week.
We love seeing the Minister for Immigration before the Committee, although we do not see him often enough. He is coming before us on Tuesday. When he last came before us, we talked about student visas. There is definitely a difference of emphasis between the Foreign Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Home Office. The Home Office feels that it is very important to reduce the number of students, and to reduce the intake only to the brightest and the best—whatever that means.
We all want to get rid of bogus colleges. That is why the Committee has pressed the UKBA to ensure that more of its visits are unannounced. The majority of its visits to colleges are still announced. People can therefore prepare for its arrival. We believe that it is important, as we have said in successive reports, that it just turns up on a Monday morning, a Friday afternoon or a Wednesday morning to see whether the college is operating. It is quite easy to do that. The UKBA does it for enforcement purposes. I have many examples of that. Indeed, the Home Secretary has given the example of a restaurant in her constituency, which she visited regularly and liked, being raided by the UKBA. It found that some of the workers were here illegally. If it is all right to raid restaurants, it should be all right to go into colleges to see whether they are bogus.
We and the university sector want as many genuine students to come here as possible, because if they do not come here, they will go to the United States of America. There is even evidence that France is setting up courses in English to attract people who do not want to apply to come to the United Kingdom. It is therefore important that we deal with student numbers.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
There are genuine students who apply to and are accepted by a college on the UKBA’s approved list only for the college to be delisted. Those students are given no opportunity to find an alternative course and are left high and dry. They, too, are victims of this system.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is right. I have many examples of people who have come to my constituency only for the colleges to be closed down. That has happened to one or two colleges in Leicester. Where do those people go in the meantime? The colleges are bogus, but the students are not. They have paid their money in good faith. They are then in limbo if they do not have a different educational establishment to go to.
Nicola Blackwood
As always, the right hon. Gentleman’s generosity is extraordinary. Does he agree that it is vital to get the message right on student visas? It must be clear that, although we are clamping down on illegal student immigration, we are still open to genuine student immigration, because it is vital to our higher education sector. We still need the brightest and best students to come to our fantastic universities, such as Oxford university and Oxford Brookes university.
Keith Vaz
I agree with the hon. Lady, but that is true not only of the elite, which includes Oxford and Oxford Brookes universities, but of all the other language schools and higher education colleges that provide such a wonderful service.
I will turn to family migration, which I know the Minister for Immigration will be asked about when he comes before the Select Committee on Tuesday. The new migration changes will come into effect on Monday. That, in my view, will be a disaster for the settled British Asian community. We are dealing not with people who come here illegally, but with the settled community, which the Prime Minister rightly praised recently at a big meeting of the Conservative Friends of India. Some 1,000 members of the diaspora turned up and listened to the Prime Minister’s speech. They liked what he said, but they will not like what the Minister and the Home Office are going to do on family visitor visas.
Last week, I was presented with a case involving a wedding that will take place in Leicester in three weeks’ time. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and I will go along, as we do with every wedding in Leicester. Two sisters of the bride had applied to come over from Toronto. One sister had been allowed to come, but the other had been refused. I wrote a letter, because there was no time for an appeal. The appeals system is so awful and takes so long, as the Minister keeps telling us and the UKBA, that there was no point in appealing, because the appeal would have come up next year, well after the wedding. I therefore wrote to ask for a review. I wrote to my account manager, Saleah Ahmed, who is very efficient. He is a post box—he does not make the decisions, but sent my letter to New York, which is the hub for north America. The letter that I got back said, “Sorry, the second sister’s case cannot be looked at because we only look at cases where there is a death or serious injury.” The first sister will be able to get into the country for the wedding, but the second sister will not be allowed in, despite the additional evidence that I have sent in, which will not even be considered. If the bridegroom or the bride died, the decision might be reconsidered, but otherwise, the second sister will not be allowed into the country and will miss her sister’s wedding.
That situation will be repeated thousands and thousands of times when the right of appeal is removed and there is no effective system to deal with such problems. We have asked the Minister for meeting. I hope that he will meet Members from all parts of the House who have an interest in this matter. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), members of whose community I have met, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who must have a huge immigration case load, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—I could go round the whole Chamber—will not like a system which means that they can no longer tell their constituents that there is a right of appeal. They will not like a system in which there is no review or in which the review will take longer than the period that is left before such a wedding. We will be inundated with cases and the system will collapse.
When I and other members of the Home Affairs Committee went to meet Jonathan Sedgwick, who heads the international section of the UKBA, he did not have a plan, because there was no ministerial plan in place. It is very important that we get such a plan in place before the changes take place. I do not like those changes, of course, but I will look at the plan that is on offer.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that the last Conservative Government abolished the right of appeal. As he said, when constituents who are sponsors write to us, we then write to the UKBA or the Minister and receive the predictable reply that the case was examined by the appropriate official, who took into consideration all the details and came to a decision. Writing to the Minister or the UKBA will get us no response other than one reaffirming the refusal. That is a denial of justice and means that the entry clearance officer is judge and jury, which is totally wrong and inappropriate. I hope the Minister will reconsider it.
Keith Vaz
I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments, although I have not made those points with quite the same passion and eloquence. This issue will simply not go away.
I hope that we will also consider the quality of refusal notices. I pay tribute to John Vine, who is doing a superb job as the independent inspector. He came before the Home Affairs Committee a few years ago, just after he was appointed, and I was worried that he would not be able to do a good job, but he has done a superb job. He makes the point that the process starts with the refusal notice. If that is not clear, we cannot make progress.
I do not know whether the Minister or other Members had the chance to see the Prime Minister’s appearance before the Liaison Committee yesterday. In his answer to my question about the UKBA, he was very clear that he did not believe bonuses should be paid if the job was not being done. The £3.5 million given to senior officials of the UKBA last year, in defiance of the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendation and the views of the Prime Minister and senior Ministers, who have no control over those bonuses, was wrong. Some 25% of the senior officials at the UKBA got a bonus of up to £7,000 each last year.
The Minister knows the problems of the UKBA. He knows about the queues at Heathrow airport and is well aware of what happened with the Brodie Clark saga. It is not an organisation whose senior officials are worthy of being given bonuses. When they do a good job, as Mr Whiteman has promised to do in the end, we can consider bonuses, but certainly not at the moment.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that the 7,000 people in the Border Force will be enough to deal with the inflow of the 5 million to 11 million people who it is estimated will come to the UK in the three-week period of the Olympics. I hope that the number of people that he promised would be at the airports to check people getting in will be forthcoming.
The Home Affairs Committee does not divide on its reports if it can help it, although on points of great principle my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) does his best to encourage us to be much more challenging—I was going to say divisive—in how we present our reports. We will continue to monitor the UKBA every three months, and we will continue to give it key indicators, of which there are 47 at the moment.
The one thing that really irritates the Committee is the fact that the UKBA delays in sending us information. I put that point to the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee yesterday. That was a problem under the Labour Government and, I am sorry to say, there is still a problem under the current Government. We are dealing by and large with the same officials—Ministers have changed, but the officials and the culture remain the same. When we write to the UKBA and ask for information, we want a reply by a deadline, because when it writes to our constituents it expects a reply by a deadline. We want to ensure that the data that we ask for are put forward and that our requests are not left on a Minister’s desk waiting to be replied to. We shall continue to hold the organisation to account in a rigorous and robust way, and we hope that that will be of benefit to Members.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I start by being somewhat self-indulgent and paying tribute to my office staff. As Members may imagine, they have an enormous burden of immigration work in a Bradford constituency. I also pay tribute to the Home Affairs Committee, which has raised many of the relevant issues so well that I can speak for a much shorter time than I normally would on such an important topic for my constituency.
I also pay tribute to the staff of the UKBA, because although at times there appear to be systemically dysfunctional areas in the service, that should not lead to criticism of the individual officers with whom we work. In particular, I pay tribute to the account managers. Our own, Chris Taylor, has been excellent. I believe that structural changes to the service are planned, and I urge the Minister to retain the local connection. If that were taken away, it would be greatly to the detriment of the service that is provided. Is it intended to keep that local connection, which is so important to us?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important to get a good relationship between the person at the UKBA and the constituency office team? The UKBA does a far better job when it is willing to listen to MPs and their staff and respond positively. If it puts us at arm’s length and tries to run away from us, it delivers far less good a service.
Mr Ward
Absolutely. We often systematise things to try to improve them when they are really about personal relationships. We need to build close understandings and partnerships, which in our case have been to the benefit of clients with whom we have dealt.
We were told that the UKBA’s legacy of cases would be cleared, with the vast majority being fully concluded. As we now know, that meant the transferring of a big chunk of legacy cases into the controlled archive. Rightly or wrongly, the impression was given that the archive was a dumping ground and that the files were being transferred because the UKBA had given up on those cases. Dozens of people have walked into my constituency office and we have been able to find no trace of their case, because it has already been put in the controlled archive. It is then difficult to get it out again. I am sorry if this seems unfair, but it seems like our office is doing the work that the UKBA should have done, at the cost of the time that it takes away from other matters.
Will the Minister confirm or deny that cases are still being added to the controlled archive? My understanding is that if people do not turn up to report to the UKBA three times, their cases are transferred to the archive. If that is not true, a clear message needs to be put out to that effect, because that is what we are told.
Another issue that has cropped up regularly is cases being transferred into the controlled archive in error. That is not so bad if they are then retrieved and dealt with properly, but the evidence suggests that such cases go to the back of the queue when they are retrieved. That is patently unfair on people whose cases should never have been transferred in the first place. I understand that work is now taking place, with credit agencies and other means being utilised to deal with cases in the controlled archive. As I said, however, it is difficult to understand why those cases ever went there in the first place, given that other methods and techniques were available to deal with them first time around.
My final point concerns intelligence. I understand that my constituency office—one single office—accounts for 70% of the intelligence provided in the whole of the west-Yorkshire region, which indicates the number of cases we deal with and the confidence people have that they will be dealt with by my office. When I was a councillor, we were encouraged to dob in the dealers, and local residents would bring cases to us to take to the police. Those people did not hand in that information with disinterest, but wanted to know what would happen; they wanted feedback and to know whether the people dealing drugs in the phone box on the opposite side of the road had been dealt with.
We all think it important that residents support the police, but constituents want to know that something is actually happening. Yet that intelligence appears to disappear without them ever knowing what has happened, which is patently unfair, not only on my office, through which the information goes, but on the people who have provided it. Feedback is important because the people who provide the intelligence often do so at risk to themselves: they might be acting extremely bravely—they might be family members in marriages, some of them sham marriages—and under threat for having provided that evidence. Feedback, then, is not only good practice but humane. They need to know what happens to these people. Especially when there is a slow response in terms of removal, they have a right to know what is happening, because their personal safety might be at risk.
Mr Winnick
The Liberal Democrats have always supported the appeals system—as I recollect, they took the same view as us at the time of the previous Tory Government. Given that they are now part of the coalition and we know that the appeals system for visitors is being abolished, where does the hon. Gentleman stand?
Mr Winnick
I hope I am not being discourteous, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene a second time. If that is the position of the Liberal Democrats, what pressure are they putting on their coalition partner? Why are they not saying, “We won’t go along with this”?
Mr Ward
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I would rather make my speech than the one he probably wants to make. If he makes that speech, I shall intervene and support him, but I would like to finish mine first.
We are told that the number of complaints is a direct result of the complexity of the cases and their impact on individuals. Yes, that is the case to some degree, but the truth is also that the complaints arise from sheer mismanagement—lost files, poor administration and so on. That would not be so bad if the services provided value for money, but they are hugely expensive—as much as £1,000—which means that people rightly demand, and are entitled to, a good service. Given that the appeals process can cost another £120, which they do not get back if they are successful, they have a right to a first-rate system, yet that is clearly not being delivered. Will the Minister indicate what is being done to improve the level of service? I believe that the website talks about a six-month turnaround time. Nobody believes that. They are lucky if it is eight months. So there is this question of value for money.
Fiona Mactaggart
The hon. Gentleman says that nobody believes the turnaround time, but the problem is that many applicants do believe it, and then they come to people such as us and say, “Why am I being picked on?” I say, “You’re not being picked on. It’s like this for everyone”, and they do not believe us. It is time that the Home Office was at least honest about how long it takes.
Mr Ward
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In fact, everyone is being picked on, so in that sense it is fair really. But that is the claim on the website, and it simply is not being delivered. We need a sense of realism. Not only are these services very expensive, but on the delivery side there is a huge let-down, which makes it even worse when people come into our offices. So I would like the Minister to respond to those issues: value for money, intelligence and the issue of account managers and retaining that local connection.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) not only on the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which he chairs, but on what he said today, particularly how he ended his speech—on the abolition of appeal rights for visitors who are turned down.
If only because of the effluxion of time, as Winston Churchill called it, I have undoubtedly dealt with more immigration cases than any other Member ever has. At present, I have 71 cases on my “active” files, and as some are completed—occasionally positively but sometimes ending in despair—new ones flow in. When I hold my constituency advice bureaux, as I have done on the past two Saturdays, a preponderance of the cases I receive are immigration cases, and a substantial proportion of those who come to me are constituents of Pakistani or Bengali origin—although they do not all come from there; others are of African origin and so on. However, when I read in the newspapers, as I have done in the past few days, about a survey showing that people of Pakistani origin feel more British than anybody else in the country, I wonder how long it will last, given that the immigration service treats them as heartlessly, ineffectively, ineffectually and inefficiently as it does today.
I have dealt with Home Secretaries ever since I entered the House in 1970, but I do not deal with this Home Secretary because she is so arrogant that, unlike any other Home Secretary with whom I have corresponded, she will not touch an individual immigration case. For example, Douglas Hurd, among many other Tory Home Secretaries with whom I have had dealings, would not only deal with cases himself but, if I asked to see him about a case, which I rarely did, would immediately agree to see me. On one occasion, a man under a deportation notice said to me, “Let me see the Home Secretary so that he can tell me to my face why he is deporting me.” Douglas Hurd saw him, considered the case and reversed the decision, and that man is now living happily in Manchester with his family, who are now considerably grown-up. That was what Tory Home Secretaries such as Douglas Hurd, William Whitelaw, even Leon Brittan, were like. This Home Secretary believes she is too important to do what Douglas Hurd, Willie Whitelaw, Leon Brittan—and David Waddington and others—did.
Keith Vaz
In fact, given the abolition of the right of appeal, Members will want to go to Ministers much more often—that will delay Ministers and take up an enormous amount of their time—because there is nowhere else for them to go. They will be unable to go to the appeals system; they will have to go to Ministers.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
I accept that completely, but if my right hon. Friend will forgive me for apparently being patronising, he should not hope for too much from that process—in so far as it is a process.
It is not simply that the policy is a hard, harsh policy; individual cases are dealt with with a level of incompetence that would not be tolerated in pretty well any other area of activity. For example, last week the Minister for Immigration sent me a telephone number for a constituent to use when his DNA test had been completed—and it was completed successfully, I might say. The telephone number was wrong. That came from the Minister’s office, and with his signature. The Minister sometimes wonders why I insist on having my cases dealt with by a Minister. The answer is that the UK Border Agency is an agency, and a Minister’s signature on a letter is what a Member of Parliament has the right to have. We have only two rights: freedom of speech, within procedure, in this House; and access to Ministers. If we do not have those, we might as well not be here.
Let me give the House just a few examples of the botching that has gone on in cases I have dealt with. On 17 May, the Minister for Immigration wrote to me about a particular person, saying that a decision will be made on his application within the next four weeks. He came to me on Saturday, six weeks after that promise was made—no decision. Another constituent was told in a letter from the Minister that her application would be concluded within three months, yet it was not. What on earth is the point of him giving these specific commitments if they are to be broken?
Here is another one. The Minister wrote to me on 12 December 2011, saying that the case in question would be decided by the end of that month. By my calculation, we are into July 2012: no decision on that, after a promise by the Minister.
Richard Fuller
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for recounting stories that I think a number of us hear in our constituency surgeries. I am a new Member, having joined the House in 2010, but does he, like me, scratch his head at the number of constituents who have come to this country and have been waiting for many years for their cases to be resolved? What would he say, on reflection, about the attitude of the last Government in dealing with such cases as expeditiously as he is requesting this Government to do?
Sir Gerald Kaufman
I would be the first to say that it was not good enough. I remember when Charles Clarke was appointed Home Secretary. I ran into him in the Members’ Lobby, from which my office is 40 seconds away. I said, “I want you to come up to my office.” He did, and I showed him my special immigration file. I said, “I cannot lift it out of the filing cabinet. I expect, under your Home Secretaryship, to be able to lift the file.” It was not as good as it should have been. There were Ministers in that Government, including Charles Clarke and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who were personally accessible if there was a problem I wanted to discuss with them.
However, I have to tell the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that when I was gathering these cases to present to the House this afternoon, I had to use two files because my filing cabinet is now so full that I have to divide the cases into two, so that my secretary can lift one file or the other. I am not saying that it was paradise under the Labour Government by any means; what I am saying—I do not want to patronise the hon. Gentleman, but I do have the experience—is that things are far worse now.
Let me give one more example of a constituent whom the Home Secretary wrote to me about.
Mr Winnick
The Home Affairs Committee was critical of the Labour Government at the time, although the situation was not as bad as it is now. But of course it was the last Labour Government who brought back the right of appeal.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Of course it was, and they did so under pressure from a lot of us, including my hon. Friend and me. One of the problems, to which I will come in a moment, is that even now the right of appeal of itself may not necessarily provide a solution to the problem.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Gerald Kaufman
If I may, I will give a further example, and then of course I will give way to my hon. Friend.
A woman came to see me recently saying that she had been to the Border Agency office at Dallas Court, in Salford, and was told by a man called Ken that it was pointless for her to apply for indefinite leave to remain because she would be refused. She then asked him what she was supposed to do. He told her to go to her Member of Parliament. I wrote to the Home Secretary to ask what I was supposed to do, given that the Border Agency had told her that any application from her would be refused. I have yet to receive a reply to that letter, which I wrote on 21 May. I tabled a question about it and was told that a reply had been sent, but I have not received one. What on earth is a Member of Parliament supposed to do when a Border Agency official says that they have to solve their constituent’s problem? Let me make it clear: if I were allowed to solve these problems, I would happily do so, and life would be a great deal more tranquil for a lot of my constituents.
Seema Malhotra
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success rate of appeals against refusals of family visitor visas underlines concerns about the quality of initial decision making? For example, in 2010 almost 10% of family visit visas were issued after an appeal had been lodged. Any conversation about the removal of a right of appeal should be on the back of evidence that no decisions are being overturned.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
My hon. Friend is perfectly right; indeed, her intervention brings me to my next point, concerning visits.
One of the things about my Muslim constituents in particular—but not only my Muslim constituents—is that they have a very strong sense of family. I get case after case of somebody wanting to come here as a wedding guest but being turned down; and even with the right of appeal, the appeal process would be far longer than the period until the date of the wedding.
I raised one case in Prime Minister’s questions—the only question I have asked this Prime Minister—which involved a young woman in my constituency who wanted her 72-year-old grandmother to come to her wedding. Her grandmother was turned down, one of the reasons being that if she came here, she would try to get a job. Seventy-two years old; never left Pakistan in her life; cannot speak English; unemployment in my constituency at 10.7%—and this cunning old lady was going to twist her granddaughter’s wedding into an opportunity to get a job.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
She would be welcome.
I have of course had several wedding cases, like other hon. Members who have had similar experiences. I had a case the other day of a woman with a doctorate who wanted her mother to come from Pakistan for her graduation ceremony. I wrote to the Minister. When I really get the bit between my teeth, I do not simply write a letter and put it in the post; we actually use fax or e-mail—we have adopted these modern devices to try to get things speeded up. However, the mother of the lady concerned never got to her graduation ceremony. That is a lack in both their lives. What kind of human beings are they in the Border Agency that they do not take into account things of the heart and things of sentiment? That is what troubles me most about this issue. I also have a case of somebody who wants to come as a living kidney donor to a relative here. He has applied twice. The first time he was turned down—a living kidney donor!—and he has now applied again. I would be very interested to see what response I get this time.
One of the consequences of the way in which immigration administration is making a misery of the lives of many of my constituents is that before they come to me, or simultaneously with coming to me, they go to solicitors. I want to say this here and now: we have in the city of Manchester some of the most predatory and greedy solicitors. It is an utter disgrace. They take up a case, do nothing about it and then send the constituent to me to see whether I can sort it out. I wish that something could be done to deal with these greedy thieves, who deal with people who do not have much money anyhow. We do not have affluence in my constituency; we have deprivation. That is why, in cases such as that which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East spoke about, involving somebody coming for a wedding being turned down, the advice is not to appeal—that would take month upon month—but to make a new application. That was what I was advised in the case of the young woman with the 72-year-old grandmother, but that would have cost them a lot of money. They do not have that money: they have already spent it once.
I welcome the opportunity of today’s debate, because I feel so utterly frustrated on behalf of my constituents—good, decent people, who want to live family lives, but who are prevented from doing so—and by a Government who are so utterly incompetent. If the Home Secretary was so busy that a person like me was just too trivial for her to deal with, because she was pursuing other, valuable and useful policies, I might just accept that, egoist though I am. However, we have had information this week that, because of her cuts, Greater Manchester police force says that it will not be able to cope with riots, if there are any this summer—and there might well be: constituents were talking to me about their fear of this at the weekend. I feel very strongly indeed about many of the across-the-board policies that this Government pursue, but one that strikes right at the heart of good, decent, family people is their immigration policy and its administration. It is about time it was changed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am aware that we are due to start the next item at 4 o’clock. Owing to the numbers who wish to catch my eye, I suggest a limit of around eight minutes, which should enable us to get everybody in.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to listen to the contributions to this debate from both sides of the House and to make my own. I do so as someone who has been an immigrant most of his life—I left the country in 1986, before coming back to seek to represent the good people of Bedford and Kempston in 2004—and as a son of Bedford. Bedford is probably the most ethnically diverse, multicultural town in the country, and I am extraordinarily proud to be its representative. I also speak in this debate as a full supporter of this Government’s efforts to restore confidence in our immigration system.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you rightly pointed out at the beginning of the debate that we would have the opportunity to debate not only the estimates, but the specifics of the Home Affairs Committee’s report. If I may, however, I would like to move in a slightly different direction and review the morality of the decisions we make about immigration, which have led to us spending £1 billion a year and involving 12,000 people in an apparatus to ensure that our borders are secure and that people’s confidence in immigration is restored. I say that because the situation we are now in is a consequence of the policies and actions taken over a long period, and it has grown over time. If one looks at the scale of the issue in terms of immigration control, at the longevity of its relevance and also, if I may say so, at the arrogant dismissal of the issue for so long, one can see the context in which we are evaluating the UK Border Agency, which is essentially a child of those circumstances and those facts.
It is important for us to look at the reasons why concerns about immigration reached such a high level and why we are devoting such substantial resources to immigration control. Was it a matter of purpose or a matter of incompetence over a number of years, and who is to blame? Should we blame the bureaucrats and the agents, or should we blame the political masters? I do not wish to get into the commentary by Andrew Neather from a couple of years ago about the last Government’s deliberate policy to make the UK a multicultural society or the fact that they were not straight with the British people about that, but it strikes at our understanding of the context in which we will now ask for decisions to be made by this Home Secretary and this Minister for Immigration.
My general feeling, being a new Member of Parliament, is this. How on earth did we get into this position, where so many of my constituents come to me with such heart-wrenching stories of how their lives have been eviscerated by this country’s utter incompetence, over a long period, in sorting out its immigration? It hurts me in my heart to have to look at people who have suffered torture, had to flee their own countries and had to live under the wire of suspicion having to deal with not being able to guarantee that they can make a living while the system works out what should happen with their lives. It pains me, as a member of our country, to think what that says about the United Kingdom.
In the short time I have, let me take hon. Members through a couple of those points. The term “asylum seeker” used to be a badge of honour, but now we take it to be a token of shame to be bandied about in the tabloids and used as a reason for making excuses. The UK used to be seen as a beacon of liberty for asylum seekers. We are making changes in that regard, and I am not sure that all those changes are right.
I welcome fast-track detention as a policy, but I say to the Minister that if we are going to take people through a process quickly, let us assume that each of them has a valid case. In the short period that they have, let us give them the best counsel, the best lawyers and the best psychiatric help, so that we can make that evaluation according to the highest standards that people expect from a free society such as the United Kingdom.
Nicola Blackwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to take into account the possibility that those who go through that process might have been the victims of torture, and that we should implement rule 35 effectively?
Richard Fuller
Absolutely. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about being aware of that. Some Members might have heard, at the meeting held to discuss a report on fast-track detention, about the refugee from Uganda who had had to stand in a queue in an open room and explain to an immigration officer how he had been raped, and why he was claiming asylum. We must bring to an end such unfair and ineffective processes if we are to restore our sense of decency.
The policy has also led to the detention of the innocent. How did we manage to set up a policy that results in children being put into prison? What on earth were the previous Government thinking when they permitted that to happen? Why do we continue to keep pregnant women in detention? The Independent Monitoring Board’s report on Yarl’s Wood stated that it wanted the policy on the detention of pregnant women to be reviewed, and that, in the interim, detention should be the last resort. However, according to information that I have received from Yarl’s Wood Befrienders, there were cases of women who were 35 weeks pregnant being removed from Yarl’s Wood last month. I point this out to the Minister not because I am ashamed of what he is doing—I am proud of what he is doing to control immigration—but to illustrate how far we have allowed our morality to be debased by losing control over the system.
Let me deal with detention without trial. This country is supposed to be the home of habeas corpus, yet to my simple way of thinking we seem to be ignoring that when dealing with people who come here for immigration purposes. Studies show that there are 52 people in our immigration detention centres who have been detained for more than a year, and 16 who have been detained for more than two years. I understand the process issues, and I am sympathetic to the Minister on those, but if I want to hold my country to the highest standards, I cannot be satisfied unless the practice of detention without trial is brought to a conclusion. Will the Minister consider introducing a maximum detention period for people being detained under the immigration rules?
Will the Minister also ensure that the Home Office implements its own policies thoroughly? The Government have rightly said that they want to introduce a better process for people who have survived torture, who, according to the rules, are not deemed suitable for fast-tracking or detention. To avoid detention, however, such people are supposed to have their evidence to hand. The problem with that policy is that it is very hard for them to have that evidence to hand when they are assessed. It takes time to get it together. The pamphlet from Medical Justice, “The Second Torture”, gives 50 examples of people who have suffered torture but who have not been permitted to follow the appropriate process because the Home Office is not fulfilling its obligations.
Many hon. Members have talked about individual constituency cases of people who have lived under these policies and been in hiding. A gentleman who came to my office had been here since 1996. He had sought an opportunity to stay in this country, and received it in 2011, but the delays meant that he had been unable to see his terminally ill grandfather. I also met two constituents who had fled Zimbabwe. It is not easy for anyone who flees from Zimbabwe to get their documents from that country, so of course their documents will be false. When the marks of torture and shackles are still clearly visible on their legs, however, that should be sufficient evidence in itself. I ask my Minister to sort out this mess on immigration, and to seek to reassert the highest principles of British justice, British fairness and British compassion.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In addressing the subject of this debate, we must always remember that it involves families, and that is what I shall concentrate on today. Those families often pay huge fees. The £1,800 that it will cost a spouse to get settlement in this country is 10% of the income that the sponsor needs for the spouse to qualify. There is a lot of money involved, and those people have a right to a decent service. At the moment, however, they are not getting it.
I readily admit that the problem is not new; it has not developed under this Government. Indeed, when I was first elected in 1997, I remember discovering the antecedent of the controlled archive. It was in a room in the bottom of a building in Croydon, where the air was so poisonous that staff could not go in. It contained a huge heap of files that had been amassed there, and nobody knew what they were. So this is a long-standing problem.
We need to address the problems of inefficiency and the bad ways in which the system works, and I want to use the debate to make a series of specific requests of the Minister. Even though he and I do not agree on the entirety of the policy, I believe that he will be able to meet those requests. The first relates to dealing with legacy cases. At the moment, all the cases involving those who are to be granted indefinite or discretionary leave have to be checked by security and by the police national computer—and quite right, too. Unfortunately, when the UK Border Agency asks for the information, further checks have to be carried out, and photographs, vignettes and biometrics have to be obtained. That process often takes so long that the security clearance, which last only three months, has expired by the time it has been completed. I ask the Minister to instruct his staff to grant leave in such circumstances none the less. When the problem is the result of inefficiency in the system and involves further rounds of checks and further delays, let us not make his staff carry out those further checks and go through those further delays, using up time and capacity that they do not have.
My second point is one that I am sure many hon. Members will be familiar with from their constituencies. It relates to cases in which a woman—it is usually, but not always, a woman—has been deceived by a partner and been abandoned the day after he is granted indefinite leave to remain. Under the previous Government, after a long struggle, I managed to persuade the then Minister that such women should get a proper response when they requested information on their husbands’ immigration status and on what the Home Office was going to do about their situation. I got an agreement on that, and for a very short time, Ministers would write not only to me to tell me what was happening with the case, but to the women who had complained. That has now stopped.
I put it to the Minister that reinstating that practice would a much more effective means than the “dobbing-in” system on the Home Office website, because those women have specific information about their cheating spouses. He should give them the respect of a full response to their inquiries. He should also follow up those inquiries. In my view, it would be perfectly possible under the immigration rules to curtail the leave of husbands who had behaved in the way that I have described, on the grounds that their presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good, particularly if—as is often the case—they had a record of being vicious and violent towards their spouses. I would be really grateful if the Minister made that commitment today. I think that my request is fairly straightforward, and reinstating that practice would go with the grain of what he has been saying about using intelligence.
My next point is about the new immigration rules, which are due to come into force next week. I remember, when I was director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, getting a telephone call from a country solicitor who said, “I’ve got this person here and I’ve got the Immigration Act in front of me, and it refers to these things called the immigration rules. What are they?” I told him, and I felt rather scared that that person thought he was qualified to give immigration advice. Actually, he was being honest. He was trying to find out the best advice to give his client, but—as other hon. Members have pointed out—there are solicitors who are not in the least bit honest.
Actually, even the honest solicitors are going to find these new immigration rules completely incomprehensible. There is no statement of changes in the immigration rules; they are not numbered; there are typographical and other errors in them. I do not agree with their content, but if I were the Minister, I would say, “We aren’t going to bring them into force until we have done them properly.” Frankly, they are not proper at present. I would like the Minister simply to say that he will not bring them into force until he has got rid of the errors. I pray against them and hope he will not introduce them, but from his own point of view, if he does not get them right, he will make much more work for his officials, who will be constantly subject to representations and appeals because of the confusion that arises. Speaking as someone who has dealt with these issues for some 30 years, I have to say in the context of today’s discussion about the administration of the UK Border Agency that if the Minister persists in implementing these rules at this point—irrespective of whether they are the right thing to do in the long term—he will create much more unnecessary work for his people.
John McDonnell
Like me, my hon. Friend has prayed against the rules. Today is not the time to debate them in any detail, but does she agree that the Government should now give us the opportunity to debate the rules thoroughly on the Floor of the House?
Fiona Mactaggart
I think it would be helpful to do so, but in a way that is not the point here. The point is that if the Minister accepts that there are errors in the draft—I know that they are errors and not deliberate—he should take the opportunity to withdraw the rules until they can be remedied, to ensure that the immigration system is properly administered. Given the problems of administration—the queues at Heathrow and other issues, and the problem with posts overseas where we have had good reports from the independent chief inspector responsible for entry clearance, highlighting that the wrong decisions have been made—perhaps the Minister could do something about them.
One thing I have learned from my long involvement in these issues is that the biggest problem is trying to get the Home Office administration to do what it says on the tin—to do what the rules say to make sure that the administration is effective and efficient. It is not, and it has not been for decades. The simplest thing to do would be to try to drive out unnecessary processes and to use the people subject to immigration control as allies in making the system more efficient. The vast majority of people who are trying to join their families here or to visit Britain are trying to do the right thing. If we can work in a way whereby the people trying to do the right thing can help to make the system more efficient, we could envisage a system in which not everyone was subject to the degradation—frankly, it is degradation—that is a product of the gross inefficiency and bureaucracy of that system.
I have made some specific proposals, and if the Minister were to say yes to them today, we could take a couple of little steps in that direction. Many more are needed.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few short points in the debate. My first is about the structural changes taking place within the UK Border Agency. Does the Minister have strong views about these proposals? In his view, will they make a significant contribution to making UKBA an organisation or agency that is fit for purpose? He will be aware of the specific changes to operational areas, with specific directors and cross-cutting directorates being established.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs has played a central role in tracking developments at UKBA over recent years. I refer briefly to the 15th report published in November last year. That report rightly identifies initial decision making as central to much of what we are debating and covers appeals, which are clearly a two-way process. Yes, officials may well make wrong decisions, but it is equally clear from the information I have received that appeals are often successful because the information was not supplied correctly the first time round. The appeal was not based on a decision, but was one in which supplementary information led to a positive outcome. Making the right decision at the outset is key, as is ensuring that the right information is supplied by applicants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), who is no longer in his place but will return shortly, highlighted the importance of intelligence, and I certainly support what he said. When people come to MPs with intelligence about the activities of individuals who they think are here illegitimately, feedback is essential so that constituents can see that some action has been taken as a result. I appreciate the difficulties associated with data protection when providing feedback that is specific to an individual case, but we need to ensure that feedback is provided in some shape or form.
On correspondence between the MPs and the UKBA, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, my experience suggests that things have improved. They are not perfect, but there is no doubt about the improvement, and my staff would confirm that. I no longer experience the sort of thing that happened back in 1997, when many people I saw in my surgery had been in the UK for perhaps 10 years, yet their status had still not been determined. That is changing, which does not mean that things are perfect.
What MPs do quite successfully is to use individual cases to identify areas with a pattern of poor performance. I will not reel off a long list of individual cases, but I shall refer to one case of a family—I shall call them Mr and Mrs J—who were granted visas on appeal in February last year in Colombo, but who have still not received them. I do not know whether a specific problem in Colombo has caused that to happen, but if such cases help to identify an issue in a particular mission, I hope that the Government would respond.
Fiona Mactaggart
May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is not just specific to Colombo? This pattern is common; I have a number of such cases in Islamabad, for example.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which shows that it is essential for us collectively to identify such problems; we might believe that these are individual cases, but when the feedback comes in from all MPs, we see that the issue is a much wider one.
A number of Members have referred to data. Clearly, without strong data, it is difficult to determine whether policy is effective. I greatly welcome the fact that, following pressure from the Liberal Democrats on an issue that we have been running with for a number of years, exit checks will be reintroduced. Ultimately, that is the only way to secure high-quality data that can effectively inform debate.
On the problem of backlogs, I am sure the Minister will have received the briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which many of us, too, have received for today’s debate. The briefing refers to the definition of a review, and it challenges the UKBA statement that reviews have been carried out in respect of all asylum backlog cases. That might involve a definitional issue involving what constitutes a review. A paper review may involve no contact with either the legal representatives or the individual who is the subject of the review. In any event, the ILPA is concerned about whether every case has been reviewed.
I do not know whether the Minister was quoted accurately when he was reported to have said:
“The UK has been forced to launch a global charm offensive to convince foreign students it is not against immigration”.
The quotation comes from a BBC report headed “Please come to UK”. The Minister is shaking his head, so it appears it that is not an accurate representation of what he said. Whether it is or not, however, I should like him to tell me whether the capacity exists to make what I accept is a difficult distinction between students who, having applied to attend a college here quite legitimately, find that between their application and their arrival the college has been shut down—for perfectly legitimate reasons—and has taken their money but will not give them what they wanted, and those who are not students but have colluded to come here for purposes other than study. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish such people from students who fall foul of the rules through no fault of their own.
Mr Winnick
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was going to mention this, but may I put to him the question that I put earlier to his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward)? If he and his party believe that the appeals system is right for visitors, what input, if any, is the coalition receiving from his party on the issue?
Tom Brake
We have made written representations, but the hon. Gentleman may not have heard something that I said earlier. The most significant thing that the Government can do on behalf of everyone—the UKBA, the Government and, indeed, applicants—is ensure that the correct decisions are made the first time round.
The ILPA has drawn Members’ attention to changes made in October 2010 to the policy on suitability for detention. It alleges that conditions have worsened considerably, especially for people with serious medical conditions. Has the Minister had any dialogue with the UKBA on the subject, and is he satisfied that the rules ensure that a person’s health can be taken into account?
I shall not go into my final point in any great detail, because it has already been raised in the context of HC 194 “Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules”. Concern has been expressed not just about typographical errors, but about instances in which the understanding of the rules may have been different from what their intention now appears to be. The issue is too detailed for the Minister to respond now, but I hope that he will be able to clarify the Government’s position. I know that he has the relevant documentation.
I think that the coalition Government have made progress, particularly, I am pleased to say, on the issue of child detention, which was mentioned earlier. However, I accept that they still have a considerable distance to go.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Given that Heathrow is in my constituency, along with the two detention centres of Harmsworth and Colnbrook, dealing with these issues constitutes the daily work of my office, not just during the day but into the night and at weekends, because, like every other Member’s office, we are inundated at the moment. That was reflected in the speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) raised the issue of compliance with rule 35. I have met representatives of people whom I would describe as constituents, because they have been detained in my constituency, who have been victims of torture and whose circumstances have been affected deleteriously by their detention. That continues. Hunger strikes are currently taking place in detention centres. People who have come here to seek asylum as a result of torture and the loss of human rights have been denied it, have been locked up, and are now refusing food. Some are in a serious condition.
The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned the detention of children. The independent monitoring board produced a report about Heathrow’s short-term holding facilities at the beginning of the year. I pay tribute to the volunteers on the board for their excellent work and the commitment that they demonstrate. The report made a range of recommendations. It said that the children’s short-term holding facilities were a disgrace. Children had to witness the detention and forced deportation of people—scenes that no child should witness. I hope that the Minister will report that many of the board’s recommendations have now been implemented.
Performing tasks such as controlling our borders and processing applications for asylum or for visas requires staff to undertake that work. When they took office, the Government decided to cut 8,500 Home Office jobs and 22% of the staff at the UKBA. That, has inevitably led to massive queues at ports and airports, weaker security, huge backlogs of casework and, in some areas, an almost non-existent Customs operation. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who is not in the Chamber now, asked the Government to explain the rationale of the cuts and how they had been implemented in the Department. It seems that a head count was taken and a percentage cut was made with no real management. What we are seeing now is virtual panic management, in terms of both control of the borders and the case load itself.
Let me give one stark example. I have constituents who work at Heathrow, and sometimes anonymous letters are pushed through my door. I found the latest among my correspondence last weekend. It states:
“I am writing to you anonymously as identifying myself will cause me to get into trouble with my employers.
I want to bring to your attention that over the course of the last few weeks, on at least six separate occasions, UKBA officers at Heathrow Airport have missed disembarking subjects who are of interest to the security services for terrorism matters. These subjects are commonly referred to as SX subjects. They should have been identified upon presentation of their passport to UKBA officers and then referred on to the security service and police, but this has not happened.
This comes at a time when UKBA have had to draft in officers from different areas to make up the shortfall in frontline staff, following the recent political and media pressure regarding queue times. Unfortunately they have had to use staff with little or no training (such as MOD police and office staff) and in some cases bring back people who retired many years ago and are very out of touch with modern working practices. It is inevitable that with these elastoplast measures, mistakes are going to happen.”
I receive such reports from staff regularly. When the Minister and I met representatives of the Public and Commercial Services Union last week, they made clear that morale was at rock bottom, particularly at Heathrow. Staff are being dragged in from all over the country. High-grade staff at grade 6 and grade 7 are working unlimited overtime just to plug the gaps. Where have they been brought from? Customs.
Let me give the House an example that we were given last week. For the week beginning 30 April, the Felixstowe-based team responsible for ro-ro freight control was sent to Heathrow; there was no replacement cover. The following week, the Felixstowe-based team responsible for general maritime and general aviation controls at small ports and airports was reassigned to Heathrow. That meant that one of eight detection teams, which were already understaffed by 30%, was completely absent. I think that the UKBA is in turmoil. In addition to the failure to control our borders because of lack of staff, we are putting the country at risk, just as the Olympics are about to take place and we will have the largest influx of people into the country for decades.
On the backlogs of immigration and asylum casework, the Minister will no doubt assure us that additional staff are being taken on. We now hear that Serco has offered its services free of charge for six months to tackle some of this backlog. Some of us remember that it was Serco incompetence—lost files and so forth—that caused most of the backlog that we experienced a number of years ago.
The current situation is as follows: chaotic management; staff being bussed or flown in from all over the country who are either untrained or not adequately trained to do the border control job; and a backlog of immigration and asylum casework building up at the Home Office. The Government response is to try to change the rules, which will not deter people from making applications at all. It will also not deter people from wanting to make some form of appeal, but, as Members have said, the appeal will come to MPs, rather than go through the process. We will be inundated, therefore. We will be inundated with the pleas and cries of people just for fairness, so that their families can visit them and they can live and celebrate normal family life, including weddings and other celebrations.
We have reached the stage where Public and Commercial Services Union members are balloting on industrial action because their morale is so low. They feel that they have gone through a pay freeze for a number of years and are now faced with intolerable pressures—including bullying and victimisation—from management. They feel that they are being provoked to do whatever they can to defend themselves, and what they can do is take industrial action to highlight this issue and force management and Ministers to the negotiating table to recognise the realities.
More staff are needed, and they are needed immediately—the Government are recruiting some, but not enough. A change in the industrial relations atmosphere is also needed, as is an end to the privatisation and an acceptance that people need to be rewarded for the work they do. There must be respect for those at the front line. They must be listened to; people such as my constituents who send anonymous letters, because they know no other way of whistleblowing or raising issues without being victimised by management, must be listened to.
I am fearful about what might happen over the next few months because of the Government’s mismanagement of this process. I criticised the last Government, but this mess is even bigger than the mess was back then.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The issue we are debating is very important, and I thank the Home Affairs Committee for its continuing work on it. I encourage it to continue monitoring the work of the UK Border Agency. I am also grateful to the Minister for his active engagement with this issue, and with me as a constituency MP when I have brought cases to his attention or to the attention of his staff.
My general analysis is somewhat different from that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), as I do not think that under the last Government we were anywhere near nirvana in respect of immigration and asylum cases. The situation is considerably better now than it was under the last Labour Government. This has been a huge and intractable issue for the Home Office over many years. I am grateful for the progress that has been made, but that does not mean that I in any way think the UKBA or the Government have fully addressed all the problems.
Although we are talking about the UKBA, what we are actually talking about is people. I shall therefore refer to some people. First, I shall mention the two people in my office who every day try to unravel the knots of other people’s family lives when dealing with asylum and immigration cases. Magali Tang and James Harper are wonderful public servants—working for me as an MP—and they are hugely valued by our constituents. When I last checked a year or two ago, I was either first or second in the league table of Members who brought Home Office-related immigration and asylum constituency issues to the authorities. I have no idea where I am in the league table now, and that does not matter, but I do know that a large volume of such work gets done. Some 40% of the work that comes before my constituency office is Home Office-related, and we try to give a good service.
Achieving that depends on the individuals at the other end of the process as well—on the personality of the account manager. I pay tribute to Claire Shacklock who previously did the job for us in Southwark, when Southwark was an area on its own, and I pay tribute to her successor, Helen O’Brien, who is the account manager in Lambeth, Bexley, Greenwich and Southwark. After the handover, it took a little while for us to get the communication established and working well. It is now working well, and her staff are beginning to understand what we expect and are beginning to deliver. That required us to be quite gruff with them, however. We had to tell them what they needed to do and make them understand the urgency of some of the cases.
I asked my constituency team to tell me the three key issues. The first of them was post-study work visas. This is what my team said:
“This route is being closed and so everyone has applied at once, and this has thrown the system into chaos. We have had between 15-20 cases in the last month of people who have been waiting around 3 months, when the published waiting time is 1 month. They are stuck as they can’t work and some people are losing accommodation/job offers because of the delay. Why did the UKBA not see this coming and what are they doing to make sure the backlog is cleared quickly?”
The second issue was reconsideration requests, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned. My team said:
“Currently, when people make ‘in country’ applications for leave to remain and these are refused without a right of appeal, applicants can ask the UKBA to ‘reconsider’ the decision. This was always an informal process but it was accepted that in general the UKBA would reconsider a case once. It seems that a backlog of reconsideration requests has built up and now the UKBA are saying they are reviewing how they deal with these requests. What does this mean? Are they going to stop reconsidering cases”—
or define what a “reconsideration” is?
“If so, they need to say so to people clearly. In one case we had recently, a woman who had been told her reconsideration request had been received later received a letter from Serco saying that according to the UKBA, she had no basis of stay and should leave immediately.”
The left hand and the right hand were clearly not co-ordinated, which was very “confusing” as the Serco letter
“didn’t refer to her reconsideration request, which she felt was still outstanding. If the UKBA are going to stop reconsidering, they must surely explain this clearly to people, not just get Serco to send them letters telling them to go home.”
I hope it does not stop reconsidering; I hope there is a reconsideration process, and we know what it is and how it works.
The third issue my team raised was the UKBA website, which
“despite recent re-modelling, is still not well organised or user friendly, and constituents regularly report this to us. It needs to use clearer, non-technical English wherever possible and be better laid out. The DirectGov website is a good example of how a website can be user friendly, as is NHS Direct (medical advice online). There are always links saying ‘do you need help with x....if so click here…’, ‘was this what you were looking for?’…that sort of thing, and the English is very good and accessible. The UKBA website lags a long way behind these websites.”
It surely cannot be beyond the wit of Government, with all their technical advisers and expertise, to get that sorted out. Please can it be sorted out soon?
I would now like to make a few points of my own. As has been said, there are still a huge number of really rubbish legal advisers and solicitors. I am weekly, if not daily, rescuing people from having to pay considerable sums that they do not have for so-called advice, often bad, telling them to take action they do not need to take and that will not produce any positive results. That gives them false hope. They are also often asked to pay for a service that is never given because the case in question is either not dealt with at all or not soon enough to be of any use. Please can the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner get a grip and do its job properly? It is still not effective. It does not clamp down on bad advice; it tackles only crime and maladministration. That is not good enough. I should not have to be perpetually writing to these so-called solicitors or so-called advisers saying, “I want the money to be given back to my constituent because you haven’t done anything.” That is a scandal and it needs to be addressed.
The problem of so-called bogus colleges is not as bad as it was but I am not persuaded that there are not still some that do not produce the service they advertise. I encourage the Government to continue to be relentless in such cases. I want to encourage more students to come to this country and I think the Government understand the benefits of that—the universities and colleges certainly do—but that cause will not be helped if bogus colleges continue.
My penultimate point is to ask whether we can please not send people back to places such as Sri Lanka if they are Tamils whose life and liberty are likely to be at risk? I still think that the Home Office is not sensitive enough in such cases and I want a review of cases where there are historic and current conflicts.
Finally, I would like to help people to see the good side of some of the work done by those people with us. On Saturday, I went to the wedding of Sheku Jalloh and Raphaëlle de Joffrey. Sheku came to see me when he was in his teens as a Liberian asylum seeker and refugee. He has now married a Swiss graduate whom he met here, they have settled down and they are a good news story. There are lots of good news stories—
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the work of the UK Border Agency. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee and, as our Chair has said, we continue to scrutinise the work of the agency. I should point out that, although I might talk about the agency, it cannot and should not be separated from the Home Office. We have been very keen as a Committee to stress that point through our reports.
In our most recent report, we drew attention to the worryingly high levels of decisions that are overturned on appeal, in which applicants successfully challenge the initial decisions made by UKBA. Some right hon. and hon. Members have talked about that this afternoon. I intend to concentrate on one particular aspect of that question: women’s asylum cases and the fact that the initial decisions are not always the right ones.
UKBA rightly wants decisions to be made as quickly as possible, and of course I support that, but there is always a balance to be struck between speed and quality in the decision-making process and I am not sure that we always get it right. I remain seriously concerned about the quality of decision making on women’s asylum claims at the initial stage. Many women claiming asylum in the UK are fleeing gender-based persecution and have experienced sexual violence, and we know that rape is all too often used as a weapon of war. In 2010, of the 18,000 people claiming asylum in the UK only a third were women, but the appeal rate at tribunal is higher for women than for men according to the most recent Home Office figures that are available.
I am by no means suggesting that women should receive preferential treatment or that their claims should take precedence, but it is important that they receive a fair hearing and that there is recognition of the experiences women have when they come to the UK and of those they have had, including torture, and of how those experiences can differ from those of men. In order for that to happen, the Home Office and the UKBA need to make a number of changes, becoming more responsive and gender-sensitive in their work. I commend them for the work they have done so far. They have worked with Asylum Aid and other organisations to make some important changes, but there is still much to do.
First, female interviewers and interpreters should be available for women applicants. I know that that is meant to happen, but it does not always happen. Female applicants are understandably reluctant to talk openly about experiences of sexual violence, but it can become impossible if a man is in the room because a female interviewer or interpreter is not available. Sometimes, women bring children with them to the initial interview or to follow-up interviews and it is often wholly inappropriate for them to be expected to discuss experiences of sexual violence in front of their children.
The barriers mean that women do not always disclose sexual violence at interview, and if they do so later or submit additional evidence, it can be viewed by the UKBA as an attempt to be dishonest or to deceive. Those barriers aside, trauma and the nature of the violence can make it exceptionally difficult for women to be fully open immediately with people who are strangers to them. A recent report by Women for Refugee Women has highlighted those problems.
I would also suggest that the UKBA’s country of origin information should be developed further to include additional information on the position of women in-country. The agency has gender guidelines, but it is not always clear whether those guidelines and the country of origin information are followed as well as they could be by decision makers. I also believe that it is important that judges who sit on immigration tribunals should be offered appropriate training on gender-based persecution so that they fully understand the experiences of the women before them at tribunal.
I know that the Home Office wants to see a “right first time” approach. I agree and I hope that I have set out some areas where I believe that that could be supported. All asylum seekers deserve a fair hearing. Many will have their applications legitimately refused, but they deserve that fair hearing. A considerable cost to the taxpayer is associated with decisions that are not right first time and the National Audit Office has identified some of those costs. I believe that we could make significant savings if we improved the quality of the decision making at the initial stage.
There is of course a human cost to the individual applicant, but making improvements to the decision-making process also makes economic sense. I hope that the Government will carefully consider the changes that can be made to bring about a system that is fairer not just to the applicant but to us all, including the UK taxpayer.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
UKBA—the United Kingdom Borders Agency—might have a UK-wide remit, but it does not particularly serve Scotland. In Scotland, we have a different range of issues, challenges and priorities and the UKBA cannot even start to deal with our priorities.
We have issues to do with immigration and population, particularly concerning demography, and when I get to my feet I always try to set out why things are different in Scotland. I shall try to do it once again so that the House can more clearly understand. We occupy just over a third of the landmass of the UK but we have 8.4% of the population. We are one of the least densely populated parts of western Europe. Of course we need a different approach to immigration and our border agency, but will this Government consider any sort of policy that is regional or international within the UK? Not a bit of it. We have to experience the same decisions and policy as the rest of the UK and that is utter and total madness.
Our population reached 5.2 million in the course of last month, which is the highest population that Scotland has ever had. The Scottish Government issued a press release to welcome that fact. Could hon. Members imagine the UK Minister for Immigration ever putting out a press release welcoming the fact that the UK population was at an all-time high? That, more than anything, demonstrates the difference between Scotland and the UK.
What do we want from the UKBA? We want it to go away, basically. We need a specific Scottish agency which could serve our immigration priorities, our population necessities and our demographic needs. We have big problems. Our population is going up, but we do not know the medium to long-term prospects. There was a fear only a few months ago that Scotland’s population might dip below the iconic 5 million mark for the first time since the mid-20th century. That would have been a disaster for us. We have an ageing population and a shrinking working population and we need people to come to Scotland with specific skills and to meet specific requirements.
What the Government are doing to our universities is chaotic and disastrous and I want them to stop. We have more people coming to our universities from overseas than the rest of the UK; 19% of the students at Scottish universities come from overseas, as do 10% of the teaching staff. The competition for international students—the brightest and the best—is sensitive and fragile. The Government’s policies are deterring students from coming here and that is causing chaos for our universities. The Minister for Immigration has heard that from Universities Scotland, the CBI, the National Union of Students in Scotland and practically everybody who takes an interest. I ask him just to stop it. Leave our universities alone. Allow us to continue to attract the brightest and the best.
Pete Wishart
Quite right—why are students considered immigrants? They are here for only a few years.
We face particular issues with students at university, and I hope that the House will bear with me, as I should like to try to explain what they are. We need to continue to be a centre of excellence in Scotland. We have three universities in the top 100 in ratings around the world. Today, we have heard about the Higgs boson, whose existence was proposed by Peter Higgs, an Edinburgh university professor, which shows the excellence of Scottish universities. Those places are centres of excellence because we can attract the best and brightest, and we need to continue to be able to do so. However, we cannot do so if the new immigration rules and UKBA policies are implemented—and for what end? Students do not have recourse to public funds. They pay fees and maintenance, and have minimal impact on public services.
The benefits that we see in Scotland are not just financial, significant as they are—international students contribute £500 million to our economy. We gain so much by working with and learning from students from hundreds of countries who enhance our education system, our distinctive culture and Scottish society. We want to be at the forefront of the international marketplace for ideas and imagination. We want to continue to attract the brightest and best overseas academic talent to help build a smarter, wealthier and fairer Scotland. We want to welcome talented people to live, learn, work and remain here, but the proposals by the UK Government send out entirely the wrong message. They are already being perceived negatively overseas, deterring prospective students from applying to study across the UK, and that is particularly so in Scotland.
UKBA is simply doing its job: making tougher rules and enforcing them ever more rigidly. Perhaps the Minister for Immigration will confirm this, but I think that it is looking for a reduction of around 80,000 students across the UK—that is the target—and by heck it is going to achieve it regardless of the collateral damage to our universities. If it is bad for universities, tough luck. If we lose out on attracting the students we need for our economy and our institutions, too bad—UKBA has a job to do, and it is going to do it.
If it bad for students who now have to be relatively prosperous to come to the UK, for goodness’ sake they should not be poor and destitute if they are fleeing oppression, because in that condition they will undoubtedly remain. Our treatment of failed asylum seekers who cannot return to their country of origin because of fear of persecution or oppression should shame all in this House. There is almost positively a policy of destitution.
How is the UKBA dealing with people who are here legally?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast number of people in this country feel strongly about the question of failed asylum seekers and destitution, and provide food, support and somewhere to live in churches, mosques and other places? I agree that it is an absolute disgrace that we expect people to live in complete destitution until they have got through the relevant number of years, which the Government propose to extend, before they can get residence in this country. We need to be humane about it.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is spot on. I see those efforts in Scotland, particularly Glasgow, where we have a number of failed asylum seekers. We cannot return them to countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe—it would be absurd to do so—and the policy of destitution that the Government have imposed on them is a disgrace. We in the House are rightly appalled about the way in which we deal with them.
The people with whom we come into contact are those we have heard about from Members across the Chamber, and a feature of the debate has been the ultimate frustration experienced by ordinary Members of Parliament who have to deal with the UKBA. A couple of weeks ago, we had a debate on article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and several Members who attended that debate are here today. The House indulged in the usual kickabout stuff about marauding foreign rapists and murderers on every street corner who go home to their state-funded apartment and get all their swanky lawyers to invent reasons for them to stay in the UK. However, we deal with the real, mundane issues that are brought to our offices by people who suffer as a result of trying to ensure that they can stay here.
The UKBA’s job is quite simple: to stop people coming to the UK who want to come to our shores—people who should not be here should be kicked out—and to frustrate as much as possible those who are trying to go up the citizenship or immigration ladder. I have only a few minutes, but I want to mention two cases that I have dealt with. One is quite a celebrated case that the Immigration Minister may remember and shows the type of case we have to deal with. It concerns a lovely guy called Swarthwick Salins, who lived in my constituency. The UKBA, which was doing its job, looked into his bank account, and found that instead of £800, there was £740 there. There was no phone call to Swarthwick to say, “Listen, Mr Salins, there is an issue with your bank account. You’re £80 below the necessary level—this is a warning that you are £80 short.” The one and only course of action by the UKBA was to boot him out. That is the way it officiously applies the rules.
Let me explain who Swarthwick Salins is. He is a PhD student from St Andrews university, he has three Scottish children, he is a strong member of his church and a loyal member of the community. A community campaign was launched to ensure that Swarthwick Salins could remain in Perth and it was backed by practically everybody there. I would have paid the £80, and I would have put money on with the Minister, because I know that I would win the bet that he will never reduce immigration to the numbers that he wants.
The Government want to reduce immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. It ain’t going to happen. We live in an interconnected globalised world. We are here in London. One third of the people who live and work in London come from outwith the UK. That is the type of world we live in. It is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide to imagine for a minute that we are going to be able to deal with these issues. What has immigration done for London, as Monty Python would say? London is the most successful, dynamic city in the world. Let us hear a little more about the positive sides of immigration. Let us talk it up. Let us see what we can do to try to encourage a good feeling about it, because the Minister is not going to reach his targets. Regardless of an immigration-obsessed Conservative Government giving massive resources to the UKBA, the issue will never be effectively addressed.
Thankfully, in a few years, we will have control over and responsibility for our immigration policy in Scotland. We will do it differently. We will work in partnership with the rest of the UK, but we will not kick people out for £80, we will not harass overseas students who want to come and study in our universities, and we will deal with immigration damn well better than the UKBA is doing just now.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
To follow on directly from the nationalist argument that we have just heard, I presume that when Scotland is an independent country, if it is an independent country, it will join the European Union. Membership of the European Union requires that all new members are fully signed up to Schengen. Consequently, there will be a border between Scotland and England, so the Scottish border agency will spend most of its time dealing with whether people from England can go into Scotland. It is a nonsense.
A large number of right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in the debate this afternoon. It is an oddity that the debate is on a set of reports in relation to the UK Border Agency, yet it is also about spending £11 billion on the Home Office—a curiosity of how we do our financial expenditure in the House. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and from the hon. Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Bradford East (Mr Ward). Most notably, the greatest panjandrum of the lot, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) kicked us off, and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) spoke as well.
In his speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said one thing to which I took exception. He referred to a 72-year-old as being old. I am sure he thinks a 72-year-old is not old but is just coming to the prime of their life.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
I would say that a 72-year-old is gradually approaching the prime of her life.
Chris Bryant
And wisdom is slowly descending upon her.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is not in his seat but who, I am sure, will be back in a moment, referred to the fact that a large part of the casework of many hon. Members relates to the UKBA, and we heard the voice of those Members in the Chamber this afternoon. It was noticeable that only one Back-Bench Conservative Member made a speech in the debate, which is different from previous occasions. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
The role of the UKBA is to provide an immigration system that is efficient, effective, humane and as watertight as possible, and it must surely be an own goal if people can come in and out of our country or overstay, willy-nilly or, if the system is so complex that it is easy to circumvent or utterly impossible for an ordinary sane person to understand, or if the queues are so lengthy at our airports or ports that the UK’s reputation as a place to do business or as a place to come as a tourist is harmed, or if it costs too much money to run.
In the motion that we are discussing, we are spending £11,034,371,000. That is a significant amount of money and our constituents would want to make sure that it was being spent well.
As the various reports referred to in the debate—two of which are by the Home Affairs Committee—have made clear, the UKBA has not had an easy time. Last summer’s experiments by the Home Secretary meant that warnings index checks were suspended 354 times. They were suspended on European economic area school groups of under-16s travelling by coach at juxtaposed controls, originally with the permission of Ministers. The policy was then extended to sea ports and the Eurostar, which Ministers were notified of, but from February 2011 the age restriction was completely lifted without any degree of permission. The agency’s records on the suspension of warnings index checks were extremely poor, as Mr John Vine has testified. The secure ID was suspended 482 times between June 2010 and November 2011, 463 of which were at Heathrow, the country’s busiest airport.
We understand that this was all supposedly because the UKBA interpreted the Immigration Minister’s letter of 27 January 2011 as approval to lift the secure ID. He believes that that was not his intention whatsoever. The Home Secretary made clear her opposition to the moves being mooted on 13 April, yet it continued. This is obviously a sign of an organisation in chaos. Indeed, the independent chief inspector’s report states that
‘the language used in both the “Summer pressures” submission to Ministers and the response provided’—
in other words, by Ministers—
“was not clear and as a result was open to misinterpretation… there was confusion amongst staff”
not least because the Home Secretary’s office note did not clearly define any of the terms being used.
I would like to refer to another report by the independent chief inspector, on border control operations at Heathrow terminal 3 from August to November 2011, the same period covered by the Home Affairs Committee’s report. The inspector identified even more worrying signs, first of an
“inconsistent application of border security checks”,
and secondly of “completely inadequate” record keeping in two thirds of the cases examined. That matters, because all the references we have heard in the debate to paperwork further down the system being inadequate, poorly looked after, incomplete or disappearing into the black hole, or the Tardis, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East referred to it, stem from inadequate record keeping at the beginning. However, the report found such inadequate record keeping not only at terminal 3, but at Gatwick’s north terminal.
In addition, the inspector found:
“The introduction of team based working in July 2011, coupled with a new shift working system and the amalgamation of immigration and detection roles at Heathrow was far too much organisational change during the busiest time of the year at Heathrow.”
That goes to the heart of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made on how staff morale can be kept up so that they do an effective and efficient job if they are trying to cope with so much change at the same time. Perhaps we are demanding too much of them. The inspector also found that all this was
“complicated by staff reductions of 15% at Terminal 3”.
We want secure borders, but it is difficult to provide them if we do not provide enough resources to allow the job to be done properly. When I visited Stansted on Monday to see the operation there, staff working for the UKBA made it clear to me that all the new staff who have been drafted in to help in the run-up to the Olympics and through the games receive only three days of training. They are unable to do the full job that is necessary and, consequently, there is a real security problem. In addition, the fact that they are suddenly recruiting back from retirement people who were made redundant only last year makes it look as if they do not really know what they are doing.
The report also found that:
“The Agency was failing proactively to deal with absconders,”
and I really want to raise that issue with the Minister, because there is a serious problem with absconders, and it is not just at terminal 3—although the report found that it had increased there
“by 62% between 2009 and 2011.”
Indeed, not only did the figure for those absconding go up, but the figure for people who were captured having absconded went down, falling from 40% to 16%, meaning that during that period alone some 150 people absconded—and have not been found.
I raise the matter because I worry that the general level of absconders is rising throughout the country, so, first, I should be grateful if the Minister said how many people who have been told that they are no longer able to stay in this country are still in this country. Can he pitch a figure? Is it 100,000, 150,000, 250,000? I suspect that it is about 150,000.
Secondly, the Government and the UKBA have absolutely no idea where many of those people may be, or whether they have left the country, and that must surely be a concern, so can the Minister confirm whether all absconders are added to the national police computer, either as wanted or with a local trace mark, so that when somebody pops up in another area it is possible to track them down? If they are not, the UKBA is failing in its task.
I raise one other problem in relation to the independent inspector’s report, namely that of measuring queues. I noticed at Stansted that the UKBA starts measuring the length of a queue only from the moment at which someone enters the terminal building, but the queues often start long before the terminal building, and the time from the moment someone enters the terminal to their passport being dealt with is normally only 20 minutes, because the vast majority of the queue is backed up way down a series of tunnels, on trains and, sometimes, on aeroplanes, so I am distrustful of the figures for queuing times at Stansted.
Keith Vaz
I, too, went to Stansted, albeit at a different time from my hon. Friend, and the problem is that, when British citizens return to their own country, they are held by airline officials just before they join the escalators, all the way back to the plane, and that, when they reach the immigration hall, half the kiosks are un-personned.
Chris Bryant
Yes, “un-personned”: very correct of my right hon. Friend.
In addition, one of the biggest problems, which applies not only to Stansted but elsewhere, is that many staff who have been brought in to help in the run-up to the Olympics, a known problem that is coming along the track, are not able to work with non-EU passengers, and consequently the moment any arrive there is an enormous back-up. Further, when I was there on Monday morning not a single e-gate was working, and I understand that they were not working at any point at all on Monday.
The fact that e-gates are not working effectively is a significant problem across the estate and at several different ports. When IRIS finally goes in September, the real problem will be whether we have any automated system on which we can rely, so I should be grateful if the Minister commented on the future of automation.
I have one final complaint in relation to the inspector’s report, because at Heathrow terminal 3 there was a 58% drop in the issuing of IS81 forms, on which a passenger is told that they will be subject to further interrogation. That is important, as all too often in a simple desire to cut queues, we are cutting back on security, because staff are not able to do their job properly.
There is a further problem in relation to foreign national prisoners. Of the 5,012 who completed their sentences in 2010-11, 3,248 were removed, 471 were allowed to remain but the cases of 1,300—a staggering figure—are still outstanding. Only 500 of those are detained. There are other unspecified issues with 20 of them and, as I said earlier, 27% of them—some 350—are just categorised as unknown issues. In other words, the UKBA has next to no idea about what is happening with those people or about the likelihood of moving forward in a way that makes their lives easier or our country more secure.
In addition, immigration tribunals overturn UKBA decisions a dramatic number of times—41% of appeals are lost by the UKBA. That is a significant problem. Obviously, it delays people’s ability to get on with their lives and it is a significant additional expense for the UKBA. How will the Minister tackle the problem of so many appeals being lost at tribunal?
I have a minor comment to make about the common travel area, also at Stansted. It was pretty clear that it would be easy for someone to negotiate their way around without going through proper border controls, having printed off a boarding pass pretending that they had flown in from Ireland when in fact they had flown in from somewhere else. I hope that the Minister will be able to close that loophole.
My final point is that the Government are planning to cut staff at the UKBA by 5,300. I believe that that will make it phenomenally difficult for the agency to do its job effectively. In particular, in the run-up to the Olympics, which everybody knew were coming along, we have already seen how difficult it has been to maintain strong security and a decently short length of queue.
Lots of people have been flown in from different parts of the country as emergency measures in the run-up to the Olympics, and the relevant people have been prevented from taking holidays during the Olympics and Paralympics. My concern is that the moment that is over, it will be phenomenally difficult for the UKBA, without those resources, to get anywhere near doing its job properly. We can complain about the UKBA, but if we do not give it the resources to do its job properly, our complaints are worth nothing.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I start by thanking the Home Affairs Committee for its reports and its Chairman for his introduction, which set the tone of this debate. That tone has largely been thoughtful; oddly enough, there was more consensus that I might have expected when the debate started. Parliamentary scrutiny of Government Departments is crucial in ensuring that they are delivering Government policy properly and offering value for money.
A huge number of points have been made, and I will deal with them in a moment, but I would like to start with an overview of the UK Border Agency. The agency has changed radically in recent months. Much of the speech by the shadow Minister was devoted to the John Vine reports of last year, which were, of course, important. That is why, in February this year, the Home Secretary told the House that the UK Border Force would split from the UKBA to become a separate operational command with its own ethos of law enforcement, led by its own director general and directly accountable to Ministers.
Since then both the UK Border Force and the UKBA have done their different jobs in protecting the border and ensuring that Britain remains open for business, checking people travelling to the UK before they arrive—through visa checks, intelligence and the use of the e-borders system.
In this climate of change, we all rightly expect the agency to continue to deliver. The work of the agency is crucial in controlling migration and protecting national security. The Committee’s reports on the work of the agency have shown that, as with all organisations, there is certainly room for improvement. Of course I acknowledge that, and the Government have accepted most of the Committee’s recommendations.
I have said previously to the Committee that the agency is good in parts but needs to improve. That is why a transformation plan has been initiated by the chief executive, Rob Whiteman, to address precisely the weaknesses identified by many right hon. and hon. Members. Even if the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) does not necessarily agree with all the policies I implement, she would, as she said, like the system to work properly, and I can assure her that that is the purpose of many of the changes that Rob Whiteman is making. I am grateful for the remarks by my right hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said that at a constituency level their experience is of an organisation that is getting a bit better. That is clearly a step in the right direction.
The agency faces a serious challenge—to reduce net migration while ensuring that migrants who do come here are of the calibre we need to benefit the UK. As I have said from this Dispatch Box before, the immigration debate is partly about numbers, but it should not be wholly about numbers. We have always been clear that controlled, selective migration is good for the UK. Encouraging tourism is essential for the UK economy, and this will obviously be particularly true over the next few months as we welcome an unprecedented number of visitors from around the world.
Bringing down net migration and attracting the brightest and the best are not mutually exclusive objectives. We need to know that the right numbers of people are coming here and that the right people are coming here—people who will benefit Britain, not just those who will benefit from Britain. We want an immigration policy that reflects consensus about who should be able to come here and an immigration system that can actually deliver it, with a legal framework that reflects the will of Parliament while respecting our international legal obligations, and a system and a policy that make immigration work for Britain economically.
The Migration Advisory Committee recently published a study of how we calculate the costs and benefits of immigration. Its view is that the Government should focus on the impact of migration on the welfare of residents rather than on the old assumption that because immigration adds to GDP it strengthens the economy and therefore, logically, the more immigration the better. This key insight of the MAC’s work gives us the basis for a more intelligent debate and supports a more selective approach to migration. The comprehensive set of reforms that we have introduced on work, students, settlement and family have set the way forward for such a system.
At the heart of the organisation of that system—the subject of the Committee’s reports—lies our visa regime. The UKBA administers one of the most competitive and efficient visa services in the world, ensuring that tourists and other genuine visitors can travel to the UK, enjoy what our country has to offer, and then return home. I should like to put some figures on this, because it is often under-reported. In 2011, the agency processed over 2.5 million visa applications—a 3% increase on 2010 and a 7% increase on 2009. The most recent set of migration statistics—the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) should listen to this after his claim that it is impossible to bring immigration down—showed that numbers of visa grants in every category are falling, apart from those for visit visas. Student visas are down by 21%, family visas are down by 16%, work visas are down by 8%, and visit visas are up by 9%. Those are the key figures in the immigration debate. They demonstrate how the agency is delivering the reductions in long-term immigration that we expect while not preventing valuable and genuine visitors from coming to the UK. These include people from some of our key markets such as China and India, where we have twice, and in some cases three times, as many visa application centres as any of our competitors.
But of course the public have perfectly reasonable concerns about the number of migrants who continue to come here. The changes that we have already made are starting to have an impact, but we have always said that it would take the full term of this Parliament to achieve our objectives. As has been widely—I think universally—agreed in the debate, that is largely due to an ineffective system that goes back to a time way before this Government. It has taken a raft of tough new policy measures merely to stop the steady rise in net migration before we see it coming down.
The checks made by the UKBA represent the key tools in ensuring that our requirements are met and that our policies deliver what we expect. The agency now has a presence in 137 countries, and despite the considerable logistical challenges involved in running this global operation, it routinely exceeds its service standard of processing 90% of visa applications within three weeks. In 2011, it processed half the non-settlement visa applications and two thirds of the business visa applications within five days. It did so with a focus on quality decisions and excellent customer service. I say gently that the sustained good performance of the agency’s visa service has perhaps escaped the Select Committee’s otherwise all-seeing eye. However, no discussion of the work of the UKBA would be complete without acknowledging it. I hope that members of the Committee agree.
A number of issues have been raised, and I will start with students. We are dealing with migrant students who have been left without a college following the introduction of the tough new rules for institutions that wish to sponsor non-EU students. About 500 colleges have disappeared from the register and are no longer allowed to bring in foreign students. That is a distinct public policy success and, again, one that is not often acknowledged.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Although those colleges are now not functioning and have had their licences withdrawn, the British high commissions in places such as Delhi, Pakistan and Nepal have already issued the visas and received the fees, and the students have paid their college fees but are not allowed to study. Hundreds of students have lost their money because the colleges have closed, which is no fault of theirs. What are the Government doing about that?
Damian Green
I will say two things. First, there has been a huge amount of fraud in the past and the sweeping away of bogus colleges reduces the chances for such fraud. This point was also raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Individual students have 60 days to find a new college and their visa is still operational for that period. That is the sensible first step for them to take.
Stripping away the bogus colleges is only the first point. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a perfectly reasonable point about those who overstay or abscond. The UKBA has been working through tens of thousands of leave curtailments. It is stripping students and others of their right to remain in the UK if they have no right to be here and providing them with written notification that they should return home. In recent months, it has dealt with almost 25,000 curtailments. To ensure that such people return home, the UKBA is undertaking a summer enforcement campaign to target those who have overstayed their visa. The aim of the campaign is to galvanise intelligence-led enforcement activity against such individuals, with the intention of removing them. So far this summer, we have removed almost 1,800 overstayers. As has been said, that is probably 1,800 more overstayers than have been removed in any previous year. That is not just students, but all overstayers.
Damian Green
I apologise, but we are coming to the end of the debate and there are lots of points that I wish to respond to.
Foreign national offenders were mentioned by a number of Members. We now start deportation action 18 months before the end of the sentence to speed up the process. We are also chartering more flights to remove foreign offenders. Last year, we removed more than 4,500 foreign criminals—43% of them before the end of their prison sentence. Many Members raised the issue of those who are released from detention while awaiting deportation. In only 30% of those cases is the decision made by the UKBA. The courts make the other decisions.
The asylum legacy was perhaps the biggest bugbear of hon. Members from all parts of the House. I sympathise with them entirely. There are currently 80,000 cases in the asylum controlled archive. That is down 18,000 from last September. There is some confusion about this matter, but no new applications are being added to the archive. If we find cases while mopping up around the agency that belong in the archive, which is for very old cases, they are put there and processed. Nobody should be under the misapprehension—I think it was the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) who brought this up—that new applications are going into the archive; they are simply not.
As has been mentioned, we are now checking cases not just against public sector databases but against credit scoring databases and so on, to see whether people are leaving any footprint in this country. If they are not, there is clearly evidence that they have left, which allows us to concentrate on those who are here so that everyone gets a decision. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, the target is finally to clear the backlog this year.
Another big issue that many right hon. and hon. Members brought up was the changes that we are making to family visit visa appeals, which we are restricting. I should point out that no other category of visit visa attracts a full right of appeal, and it is a disproportionate use of taxpayers’ money to fund a full right of appeal for a visitor, to be heard by a tribunal in the UK. No other country does that. From 9 July, the new regulations will restrict the full right of appeal to those applying to visit a close family member with settled refugee or humanitarian status.
I repeat that it is quicker for people to reapply than to appeal, and it is not the case that every decision is simply rubber-stamped. I believe it was the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) who brought that up. I assure him that each case is examined by a more senior member of staff, and that some decisions are changed by the entry clearance manager.
Damian Green
I apologise, but I do not have time to give way.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) mentioned a number of individual cases, and if he wishes to grab me after the debate I will of course take them away and look at them. I strongly recommend that his office use the Members’ hotline and the case owner system, as other Members do. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, relationships can develop that may well deliver a faster service to constituents. I seek to reply to the many letters that I receive from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton as quickly and efficiently as possible, but he might find it easier and better for his constituents if he used the systems that have been set up precisely because of the various problems that have existed over the years.
I take the points that many Members made about the use of intelligence. We have set up a special directorate to use intelligence and information from the public much better, and we are developing a central database to enable allegations to be tracked on an end-to-end basis. I listened carefully to the point that, if possible, people who have given information should get some sort of response about what has happened, but I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that that cannot always happen.
The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has brought to our attention a few points of detail in the new appeal regulations, but they do not require us not to introduce those regulations on 9 July.
I do not believe that everything in the UKBA is perfect. It has a number of difficult jobs to do, and mistakes will be made, but the agency is now working to a clear and comprehensive set of policies to reduce net migration and is transforming its operations to perform its day-to-day business more efficiently. That is the current reality of the UKBA, and I hope that the many Members who for obvious reasons take a personal interest in its activities recognise that it is changing for the better.
Keith Vaz
I will speak only very briefly because the Home Affairs Committee does not want to intrude on the time available for the Foreign Affairs Committee’s debate, which is about to begin.
I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. They have all talked about their strong local relationships, and I want to pay tribute to my own caseworker, which I forgot to do earlier. Everyone else has paid tribute to theirs, so I should thank Diana Cank for her work.
The Home Affairs Committee will continue to scrutinise the UKBA in a robust way. We look forward to seeing the Minister before the Committee on Tuesday, and we will publish our next report in about three weeks.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred on the Question relating to the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012. The Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 209, so the Question was agreed to.
I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred on the Question relating to the draft order on the amendment of curriculum requirements. The Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 199, so the Question is agreed to.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
UK-Turkey Relations
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I am delighted that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, “UK-Turkey Relations and Turkey’s Regional Role”, which was published in April, has been chosen for this debate, and I start by paying tribute to the staff of the FAC who worked hard and long through the night to help the Committee produce the report.
Turkey’s role on the world stage is influenced by its geography. To the west, it looks to the long-established nations of Europe that are swept up in economic turmoil and that note its economic performance with envy, while, to the south and east, it looks to an unstable region with an uncertain future that can only dream of the democracy that Turkey enjoys.
The Arab spring, with its tidal wave of anti-Government protests, has unleashed forces of violence and instability, and Syria, whose Government are standing their ground, is sinking further and further into a bloody civil war, yet its neighbour and former ally, Turkey, has not looked on in silence. The force of events has obliged it to abandon its policy of zero problems with neighbours and make an outspoken condemnation of Syria’s brutal response.
Syria’s shooting down of a Turkish jet has raised the stakes, and Turkey is now on red alert, with six F-16 fighter jets positioned near its border with Syria. Given that Turkey has, until recently, been a long-term friend and ally of Syria, this is a remarkable development. I am sure we all welcome President Assad’s announcement yesterday in which he reportedly expressed regret for the downing of the Turkish plane.
The Foreign Secretary attended a meeting of an action group on Syria in Geneva last weekend, and, as colleagues might have noticed, there was a significant development. For the first time, all the permanent members of the Security Council, including Russia and China, reached a consensus on positive steps to support the Annan peace plan. It might turn out to be a turning point in the conflict. In responding to this debate, I would be grateful if the Minister set out what he understands to be Turkey’s intentions with respect to Syria and the risk of armed conflict between the two.
How the crisis will unfold is uncertain, but it is clear that Turkey has an important role in securing democracy, illustrating its importance as a strategic partner for the UK in the middle east. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister visited Turkey shortly after taking office, having placed it after only France, Germany, Afghanistan and the US for his early visits, and we share his view that Turkey is an inspiration that other countries can follow. This has particular resonance since the outbreak of the Arab spring.
The response to the Arab spring has brought Turkey closer to its western allies, and, at the same time, it has maintained strong relations with the Arab League. Having started its democratic path in the 1950s with the army sitting on its shoulder, Turkey has increasingly emerged as a strong democratic force, with the army focusing on security rather than politics, particularly since the 2011 general election.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I want to take my hon. Friend back to the issue of neighbour relations. Is he aware that the European Commission’s 2011 progress report on Turkey’s accession to the European Union concluded that no progress had been made in the previous year on the normalisation of relations with Armenia?
Richard Ottaway
I am aware of that and if I my hon. Friend will allow me, I will discuss extensively the EU accession point in just a minute.
The past 10 years have seen a shift in Turkey’s balance of power. It has moved from the Ataturk-style, secular military regime that suppressed Islamist political groups to a much more healthy partnership, involving an army that can live with a moderate Islamic Government under the Justice and Development party—sometimes known as the AKP—led by Prime Minister Erdogan. Now, Turkey is a good example of a secular democracy in a predominantly Muslim country, and the Foreign Office is quite right to treat it as an inspiration. It is an example that can be followed in the emerging democracies in north Africa and the middle east, and no more so than in Egypt, which has just elected its first non-military leader since 1952. Both countries have Sunni majorities and a long history of military dominance, and we can now welcome Mohamed Morsi, from the Freedom and Justice party, as Egypt’s new President. In conducting its parallel inquiry into the Arab spring, my Committee had the privilege of meeting Dr Morsi, and we wish him well in his task of continuing the transition towards democracy in Egypt. The closer we work with both Egypt and Turkey, the better for Britain and the west.
The current climate presents a great opportunity for Turkey to lead by example in the middle east. Western responses to Prime Minister Erdogan’s Government have often mistakenly been influenced by his party’s so-called Islamist roots. However, we were quite struck by the situation when we visited Turkey last autumn, and our doubts were removed. There was very little evidence that the AKP Government were seeking to Islamicise the Turkish state. The AKP is best seen as akin to a socially conservative Christian Democrat party continuing to govern within a secular state. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Turkey has made an overarching foreign policy realignment away from the west. We should not underestimate the extent to which the increased independence and regional focus of Turkish foreign policy may generate differences between Turkish and UK perspectives and policies. However, as long as its foreign policy efforts are directed towards the same ultimate goals, Turkey can add value as a foreign policy partner precisely because it is distinct from the UK.
The Government are right to continue to support the case for Turkey’s membership of the EU. Turkey’s accession would boost the EU’s economic growth and international weight, and at a time of long-term change across the Arab world, its influence could be invaluable. However, Turkey’s application to join the EU has had a troubled history, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has just pointed out. Progress is slow, but the problems can be overcome. Two major stumbling blocks exist: the opposition of other EU countries, predominantly France, and the continued lack of a settlement on Cyprus.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Given that Cyprus has assumed the EU presidency this week, is it not extraordinary that Turkey continues not to recognise the Republic of Cyprus and, in practical terms, does not abide by the customs union by continuing to refuse to allow ships and planes from Cyprus to enter its ports and airspace? Surely, at this time, Turkey needs to show in a practical way that it wants to enter the club by recognising that important agreement.
Richard Ottaway
I am grateful for that intervention. In truth, the argument cuts both ways, and I will come to just that point shortly.
Former President Sarkozy was unequivocal in his opposition to Turkish membership. There are signs that President Hollande might be more open than his predecessor to the idea. Turkey’s ambassador to the EU has hinted that France will lift its block on the talks, and I also understand that President Hollande met Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan on the sidelines of the Rio+20 summit last month. Prime Minister Erdogan described the meeting as very good, and President Hollande has agreed to visit Turkey. The omens are promising, although a note of caution should perhaps be struck before we get too enthusiastic.
What sort of Europe would Turkey be joining? My Committee’s impression was that our Turkish partners felt that they could not contribute to discussions about the EU’s future direction unless and until they join it. In my opinion, Turkey should be involved in the discussion of matters that will affect it intimately. The Minister for Europe, who will reply to this debate, told the Committee, when he gave evidence to us, that Turkey was unlikely to join the EU before 2020, and Turkey has made it clear that it would like to be a member by the centenary of the republic in 2023. However, all bets are off on exactly what the EU will look like in 2023. I would be grateful if, in responding to this debate, the Minister gave us his assessment of the extent to which the change of leadership in France is likely to make any difference to Turkey’s accession process.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that Turkey could never accede to the EU while it continues to occupy a fellow EU state militarily?
Richard Ottaway
I am just coming to the issue of Cyprus, but let me make the point that when we produced the report, we looked at Turkey and did not go into the merits of the dispute in Cyprus.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the change of Government in France, which may indeed be relevant, although what Monsieur Hollande said in the election was that Turkish membership was not on the cards before the next election—that is, in five years’ time—so he put it off. However, are not the political elites in Germany, Austria and a number of other countries in Europe just as implacably opposed to Turkey joining?
Richard Ottaway
I think it is wrong to say that they are just as implacably opposed. Germany would like a looser relationship than full membership; Austria, I think, is just following in its wake at the moment. In truth, it is France that has led the fundamental opposition to Turkey.
Let me turn in some detail to the dispute with Cyprus. Because of the long-running dispute, Cyprus continues to block Turkey’s EU accession process in many areas. When Cyprus became an EU member, an additional protocol was signed obliging Turkey to extend its customs union with the EU to Cyprus. However, Turkey has not implemented it, giving as the reason the EU’s continued isolation of northern Cyprus. Cyprus has just taken on the presidency of the EU Council, from 1 July, and in theory is responsible for presiding over accession negotiations with Turkey. However, Ankara has stated that its relations with the EU Council cannot continue as normal under the Cypriot presidency. As a result, we have a deadlock. EU Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon endeavoured to resolve the matter before Cyprus’s presidency, but failed. [Hon. Members: “EU Secretary-General?”] I beg the House’s pardon: UN Secretary-General.
The Cyprus deadlock is certainly regrettable. We believe that the Government should think creatively about whether the international community could do anything differently that might help the two sides on the island to reach an accommodation. The alternative seems to be continued drift. The Foreign Office could, for example, support the use of prospective revenues from potential gas reserves off Cyprus to facilitate a settlement. However, Turkey is now threatening to boycott energy companies co-operating with the Greek Cypriots, and the situation is getting worse, not better. That has consequences for us all.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Having just been back to Cyprus and on to Turkey and having had conversations on this issue, I do not think we should be too pessimistic or fatalistic. Once the six-month presidency is over and the elections have taken place in Cyprus, there will still be enough good will in Turkey and the Turkish community—in the Turkish republic, so-called, of northern Cyprus—that if the Cypriot Government were willing, there could be significant steps forward next year, with the help and encouragement of our Government and, indeed, a solution. I think that is also the view of the UN Secretary-General’s special representative, Mr Downer, who was in London last month saying similar things and who will be back this month, I hope saying the same things again.
Richard Ottaway
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I share his assessment of the situation; I do not think that the process is dead. There was optimism that the question might have been resolved by the end of June, but given the need to work to such a tight deadline, that has proved impossible.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, before we talk about blockages by Turkey on issues such as energy or the recognition of Cyprus, it is important to acknowledge that a blockage to better relations between NATO and the EU is being created when, every time the subject crops up in the EU, it is blocked by Cyprus, which is not prepared to welcome Turkey into EU operations?
Richard Ottaway
I note what my hon. Friend has said. The report is careful not to take sides in the dispute between Turkey and Greece over Cyprus, but I am sure that the House will have heard his point.
I was talking about how the situation with regard to gas reserves off the coast of Cyprus was deteriorating, rather than improving. Turkey is a rising regional economic power within reach of about 70% of the world’s gas and oil reserves. It forms part of the southern gas corridor, which is critical to reducing the EU’s dependence on Russia as a supplier of gas. Frustratingly, the stalling of Turkey’s EU accession process seems to be losing the EU influence over Turkey’s energy policy decisions. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point.
Cyprus is not the only major obstacle to Turkey’s EU accession. Let us turn to the sensitive matter of human rights. Shortcomings in the Turkish justice system are damaging the country’s international reputation. During our visit, we were struck by the country’s economic dynamism and international ambition, but we were taken aback by Turkish legal procedures and by the detention of large numbers of military figures, officials, elected politicians, journalists and activists. Such practices do not accord with the human rights standards that we fight for in the west. We were astonished to hear that, at the time of our inquiry, more journalists were in detention in Turkey than in China. The opaque nature of the system seemed to be part of the problem. Information about legal cases is hard to obtain, and we formed the view that the climate in Turkey was limiting freedom of expression and the media.
Improvements are in progress, however, and we are grateful to the Turkish ambassador for keeping us up to date. Only on Monday, the Turkish Parliament passed an important judicial reform package, which should reduce pre-trial detention and lead to some actions against journalists being dropped. It is clear that the situation is fast moving, and the Foreign Office should help in practical ways to achieve further improvements. That should be done gently and sensitively, however, with quiet reminders that we could support Turkey’s inspirational role in its region more strongly if it improved its democratic and human rights practices.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I acknowledge the package of legal reforms that my hon. Friend has just mentioned, but does he also accept that much more needs to be done in Turkey to prevent violence against women and girls, and to protect the rights of children?
Richard Ottaway
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for the rights of women and children. The report does not focus specifically on that aspect, but I am sure that the House will have heard the point that she has raised.
Turkey has committed to drawing up a new constitution, which presents a significant opportunity to advance reform. It could signal, at home and abroad, a decisive break with the country’s more authoritarian past, but reform is threatened by the continuing confrontation and conflict between Government and opposition, and between the Turkish state and the Kurdish PKK.
There have been civilian casualties on both sides of the Kurdish conflict, and cross-border violence into and out of northern Iraq continues. However, there are grounds for optimism. I understand, for example, that Prime Minister Erdogan held a meeting at the weekend with the leading Kurdish activist and MP Leyla Zana. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us his assessment of the latest prospects for progress towards a settlement for Turkey’s Kurds.
One issue that came up constantly during our visit was that of visas. Although there are considerable challenges, if we want a strategic partnership with Turkey, there are matters within our own gift to help achieve it. The UK’s visa regime for Turkish nationals is a big obstacle to UK-Turkey ties. It is commonly cited by businesses as inconvenient and humiliating. UK trade and academic exchanges suffer from the visa problem. We welcome the fact that the Foreign Office appears to recognise this and is exploring possibilities of easing the acquisition of UK entry visas for Turkish nationals.
An encouraging development is Turkey’s initialling of its long-awaited readmission agreement with the EU, under which it will take back illegal migrants who enter the EU from its territory. We also welcome the Schengen countries’ decision to start a process towards the lifting of visa requirements for Turkish nationals, although this may throw an even stronger spotlight on the UK’s own visa regime. I would be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister reported progress and gave us a sense of the feedback he has received on the new processes being trialled for Turkish applicants for British entry visas.
There is much than can and should be done to improve Turkey’s reputation and profile in the UK, and vice versa. The role of the British Council is critical. We urge it to use its contacts with the young Turkish population to further their awareness of the UK. Rather than risk becoming just an English language-learning operation, the British Council needs to engage the two nations through the soft power of cultural diplomacy. In the year of the London Olympics, for example, the British Council should exploit the fact that Turkey is bidding for the 2020 games—something that we know the British Council is already taking forward.
We remain concerned about the Foreign Office cut to the budget of the BBC World Service, and the service reductions that resulted from it. World Service Turkish radio broadcasts stopped in March 2011, with the loss of 450,000 listeners—a fifth of the World Service’s total audience in Turkey. On the brighter side, however, the World Service says that television and the internet are far more important. About 45% of the Turkish population has access to the internet, and the World Service’s online Turkey service is accessed by almost 500,000 unique users each week.
My Committee also welcomed the increase in the size of the Foreign Office’s diplomatic presence in Turkey. Of the 14 additional staff that the Turkey network is gaining, three are UK based, and they will be required to speak Turkish. This will send a strong signal that this Government are serious about developing strong links with Turkey, although we remain concerned about the deployment of language skills in the embassy generally.
The future shape and direction of the Arab region during a period of huge volatility is hard to predict. We must remain committed to supporting Turkey and its rapidly maturing democracy. We must make its EU accession a top priority and make the most of the opportunities it offers as a strategic partner of growing importance.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Will Members please resume their seats? We will now start a 12-minute limit, with the usual injury time of one minute for up to two interventions.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chairman of our Select Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), made it clear that during our visit to Turkey we were impressed by the progress it had made in recent years, not just economically but in dealing with long-standing issues of human rights and internal democracy, many of which persist. We were, however, concerned about the legal system, the long delays in the bringing of people to trial, and the continuing difficulties of many people in the Kurdish community.
It is clear that there is still a long way to go before Turkey meets the standards required to join the European Union. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and others pointed out, fundamental difficulties will remain for as long as certain EU countries take their current attitude to Turkey’s potential membership. According to an opinion poll which is quoted in the report, only 35% of the Turkish population now believe that their country will become a member of the EU.
That presents us with a fundamental challenge, because Turkey is growing rapidly, both in terms of its economic growth of 7%, 8% or 9% per annum and in terms of its political and regional influence. Syria has already been mentioned, but Turkey also has borders with Iran, Iraq and other countries. Geographically, it should be a strong partner, and potentially—this is the position of both the Government and the Opposition—a member of the European Union.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Turkey has been a strong partner in NATO and a steadfast friend of this country and the rest of NATO for many years. I share the hon. Gentleman’s wish that we get it into the European Union as soon as possible.
Mike Gapes
I shall say something about NATO in a moment.
The position taken by the countries in the EU that are resisting Turkey’s application is, of course, easier for them to take because of continuing difficulties over the resolution of the conflict involving Cyprus. I am disappointed that, although the Greek Cypriots elected a President who was, unlike his predecessor, committed to this process and although the Turkish Government have not opposed it, there has been no resolution. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), my friend from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, said earlier that the position could be viewed more optimistically in the light of Cyprus’s presidency of the Council of Ministers. I hope so, but I myself am not very optimistic, because I think that some of the deep-seated issues are still not easy to resolve regardless of whether Cyprus has the presidency.
We need to look to the future imaginatively. Who knows what the current debates about the future architecture of the European Union and the inner core of the eurozone and the other developments will lead to? It is possible that in five, seven or 10 years’ time, we shall be looking at a completely different structure of European foreign policy and political relations. If that proves so, it is tragic that people in this country should want Turkey to join the European Union while a substantial number of Government Members want the UK to leave it. It seems perverse to want Turkey to be in the EU while we ourselves want to leave it. That revolving-door approach to international relations strikes me as totally illogical and absurd—
Andrew Rosindell
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Turkey is a proud nation, and being part of the European family does not necessarily mean having to be part of a European political union, so we should give the Turkish people impartial advice rather than keep pushing them in only one direction?
Mike Gapes
I am sure Turkey receives lots of advice, both partial and impartial, from lots of different quarters. It is my understanding that the position of the hon. Gentleman’s Government is the same as that of my party’s last Government, which is to support Turkey’s membership of the EU. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a different view, however, and he can explain that when he speaks, if he catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Andrew Rosindell
The Turkish people should make that decision, and we should not hoodwink them into believing they have to join the EU to be part of the family of European nations. Switzerland and Norway manage perfectly successfully without being in the EU.
Mike Gapes
Switzerland and Norway are smaller countries than Turkey. The Turkish people are very wise and they will make their own decisions in their own national interests, but it is helpful of us to say that it is in the UK’s interests for Turkey to be part of an enlarged EU, and that that will promote democracy and stability as well as our influence throughout a very difficult part of the world.
Mr MacShane
Ad interim, having the status of a Switzerland or a Norway would be useful. Switzerland is a member of Schengen, and I think Turkey would love to join Schengen; and Norway implements more EU directives than we do, so if Turkey were to follow the Norwegian course, it would be far more a part of the EU than the UK is.
Mike Gapes
I agree.
Turkey has an important regional role to play. There are currently some interesting developments in relations between the Kurdish regional Government in Iraq and Turkey. There is growing economic investment from Turkey in infrastructure and other projects in the Kurdish region of Iraq. The Iraqi-Kurdish community wants to have good relations with Turkey because there is a Kurdish community within Turkey. The role of the terrorist organisation, the PKK, greatly complicates the situation, of course, but it is also interesting that relations have improved in recent years despite the PKK’s activities. Those of us who want a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq should recognise that Turkey has an important role to play in bringing that about. As the Kurdish region in Iraq exports its oil and gas via Turkey and has greater economic ties with Turkey, we must do all we can to ensure that that is not perceived in Baghdad as somehow leading to a division or break-up of Iraq. This is a very sensitive issue because there are also Kurdish minorities in Syria and Iran, as well as a large Kurdish community within Turkey.
The Turkish Government have shown great restraint so far in the face of terrible unwarranted military action by Syrian Government forces, including the shelling of refugees in Turkey and the shooting down of aircraft. Such actions are totally unacceptable and have rightly been condemned. Turkey would be justified in taking much stronger action than it has taken so far. The fact that it has not done so reflects its wish not to be drawn militarily into what might be a civil war in Syria, but the time will come when Turkey has to intervene. If the number of refugees continues to rise and the conflict within Syria spills over and presents security problems for Turkey, then Turkey might deem it necessary to act, in which case it will have to be shown solidarity and support by the international community. I hope that will occur not through a unilateral action but through discussion within NATO and the North Atlantic Council. If necessary, and if the Assad regime continues to behave provocatively and outrageously, we should be prepared to invoke article 5 of NATO’s charter to support Turkey and offer it our solidarity if it feels it wants that international umbrella of legitimacy and support in taking action to defend itself.
I hope that Turkey will continue to play a constructive role in assisting peace and security in the region. Interestingly, the Government’s response did not refer to one of the conclusions in our report, paragraph 129, which makes it clear that good relations between Turkey and Israel are in the UK’s interests. Perhaps the Government did not respond to that paragraph because we did not recommend anything, but I hope that the Minister will refer to it in his response and set out the Government’s position.
Unfortunately, Turkey’s relations with Israel have deteriorated significantly, mainly because of the Mavi Marmara incident and its mishandling by the Netanyahu Government. We had conversations in Turkey about that and the Turkish Government and their representatives felt that a proper apology was not given either when the incident happened or afterwards, even though they were led to believe that there would be a full apology. That would have led to the restoration of improved relations, which did not happen.
In conclusion, I want to mention the so-called Turkish model and its influence in the region. Our report suggests than rather than talking about Turkey as a model for the Arab world and the Arab spring, we should talk about it more as an inspiration. Reference was made to the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi in Egypt. It is significant that when Prime Minister Erdogan visited Egypt last year, there were initially huge crowds of Muslim Brotherhood people at the airport as well as demonstrations of support for him. After he said that they should be moving towards not an Islamic state but a secular state, such as that in Turkey, led by a Muslim party, there were very few people to greet him and praise him when he left the country. The message did not go down very well with some of the Muslim Brotherhood, who have now won the presidential election. It will be interesting to see how the development of one form of Islamic-led democracy influences another country that has just elected a Muslim Brotherhood president.
Turkey is an important player in its region and a growing power economically in the world. Turkey gives us an ally with whom we should be working in NATO and at some point, I hope, in an enlarged European Union.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate Ministers on the Treasury Bench on singling out the topic of UK-Turkey relations and Turkey’s foreign policy when considering the estimates for the Foreign Office.
Turkey is a delightful country. I think you know that, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I think you have been there on a number of occasions. I was reminded of it only yesterday when I got into a taxi in Belfast with a number of colleagues. The taxi driver asked where we were going for our holidays and then told us that he was going back to the same hotel, in the same town in Turkey, as he had for the past 19 years. He and the hotel owner were on such good terms that he no longer had to pay for the hotel room, and just for his flights; I do not know how much Guinness he drank when he got there. I, too, shall spend time in Turkey over the summer recess. As many colleagues know, my wife is Turkish, but my interest in and commitment to supporting Turkey’s role in European institutions long predates my marriage.
Turkey is a fascinating country, and there are similarities with our own history. We lost an empire; Turkey lost its empire about 50 years before we lost ours. Turkey’s greatest area of influence, political, economic and cultural, is in the former Ottoman empire, and we ignore that at our peril. Conservative estimates suggest that the EU neighbourhood policy costs in the order of €1.4 billion a year. When we add the cost of the new EU External Action Service, we can see that the EU spends an awful lot of money on our neighbourhood. Our political and economic effectiveness, however, is dwarfed by Turkish foreign policy in that very same neighbourhood.
A key argument to embrace Turkey and its foreign policy is our joint approach to our common neighbourhood; most of Europe’s neighbourhood was, in fact, part of the Ottoman empire. In areas of conflict and of post-conflict reconstruction, Europe has benefited from Turkey’s influence. In the Balkans, Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, Turkish influence is not to be underestimated, and we should recognise that. In the Maghreb—the countries of the Arab spring—Turkey was the first back in, in terms of influence, and it had influence that predated us in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. In the middle east, Turkey’s influence on its near neighbours—Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Syria—is something on which we should capitalise, and which we should not ignore.
It is not just in areas of conflict or post-conflict that Turkey has influence; it has economic influence in the Balkans, the Maghreb and the middle east, as well as the Caucasus and central Asia, particularly the Turkic-speaking nations of central Asia. Europe’s neighbourhood is Turkey’s neighbourhood. The Ottoman empire, to which I referred, significantly predated the British empire. In the middle ages, it dislodged Byzantium. By the mid-19th century, it was in serious decline. It was Tsar Nicholas I of Russia who coined the phrase that Turkey was the “sick man of Europe”. He thought that Britain and France would stand by while he took control of the Crimea, but he was mistaken. We reacted, not because we wanted to prolong the rule of the Ottoman empire but because we wanted to limit Russian influence, which has very much been part of our foreign policy ever since.
The final demise came in world war one, when Turkey backed the wrong side. The treaty of Sèvres in 1920 effectively destroyed the unity of the Turkish state and partitioned the Ottoman empire between the allied powers. Many educated Turks—and this is key to modern Turkey—were totally dissatisfied with that. The war of independence, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, who we now know as Ataturk, the name given to him by the Turkish Parliament, resulted in the 1923 treaty of Lausanne and the modern Turkish state.
Ataturk is somebody we should focus on. He was the man who wanted to create Turkey and reinforce it as a modern European state, a secular state. In the early years he set about banning the fez and the turban, and later the veil and the headscarf, all the paraphernalia of a religious state. Arabic script was banned and replaced by a Latin alphabet. Religious schools were outlawed. Women were given equal rights and universal suffrage. Islamic law was replaced by a civil code based on the Swiss model and a penal code based on the Italian model. This is the basis of modern Turkey.
The question which I know some of our colleagues in Germany and France still ask is, “Is Turkey a European country? Should it be a member of the EU?” We have already heard that it is a member of NATO, a founder member of the OECD, a member of the Council of Europe and a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It was an associate member of the Western European Union, and it participates in European Union battle groups, EU military operations and is also a participant in the European Court.
Turkey applied to join the European Union in 1963. That was also the year of the first French veto against our membership, but we joined eventually in 1973 and Turkey is still trying to join. In 1995 the customs union was concluded with the European Union, and 59% of Turkey’s exports go to the European Union—some 10% to Germany and 6% each to France, Italy and the United Kingdom. It is the fastest growing economy in Europe. It grew by 9% in 2010 and by 8.5% in 2011. Growth is slowing this year, but Turkey is still the fastest growing economy in Europe.
Politically and economically, Turkey brings so much to the table that we delay her membership at our peril. There are those who say that Europe is a Christian club and Turkey is a Muslim country. I suspect that Turkey would not have succeeded in joining the Holy Roman empire, but this is the modern Europe. It is a place for all cultures and we should not be discriminating on the basis of the predominant religion in that country. Our own nation is a good example of that, as are many others. European Union membership for Turkey is not without its problems, but Turkish membership is in our interest economically, politically and strategically. Turkey has always been a strong ally of Europe and should be recognised as such today. Europe should recognise her contribution and grant her membership as soon as possible.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I, too, have a taxi story, following the one from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). My taxi story started in Diyarbakir in the south-east of Turkey some years ago, when I was going to the very south-east of the country to look at the Ilusu dam area and the flooding of Batman and other areas which are of historic importance to Turkey and particularly to the Kurds. My taxi driver said to me, “I’ve sold my only cow.” I looked at him in amazement and he said, “To buy a satellite dish.” At that time he could see television programmes only in the Turkish language, and he wanted to see programmes in the Kurdish language. Things have moved on quite a bit since then,
I am pleased to say I have a long association with Turkey and want to see it in the European Union, and I can say strongly that this country is a friend of Turkey and also wants to see it in the European Union.
My friend the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, gave a comprehensive account of the areas the Committee has looked at and the recommendations it has made. I still have many concerns about human rights in Turkey. When I chaired the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s committee on the human rights of parliamentarians —you know it well, Mr Deputy Speaker—which is based in Geneva, we always had delegations from Turkey at its conferences twice a year because of complaints about the way members of the Turkish Parliament were being treated.
I see myself as a critic of Turkey and also a friend. When it needs a pat on the back, I am pleased to do so, but I will also kick it when that is necessary to get some action on human rights. There have been great changes in Turkey, and I have to say that the AK party Government have contributed much towards that. The change has not been as fast as some of us would like it to be, but nevertheless there has been considerable progress on human rights.
I still have concerns about the treatment of the Kurds in the south-east of the country, to which my friend the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) also referred. Few people have visited the south-east and seen for themselves where the majority of Turkey’s Kurdish population live and the strong feelings they have about the use of their own language. They want the right to speak in Kurdish whenever they want to do so. Of course, in the past that was very difficult and many have been put in prison for using Kurdish, which the Turkish Government have very strong views about.
I want to talk briefly about a friend of mine, Leyla Zana. I first met her nearly 20 years ago when I visited her in prison in Ankara. She had been a member of the Turkish Parliament, one of the first Kurds to be elected to it, and when she was sworn in she took her oath in Kurdish and wore Kurdish colours in her hair. It was not long before she found herself in prison. She was put in jail for 10 years because it was believed that she was strongly associated with the PKK. Of course, some of the PKK’s aims include language rights for the Kurds. I went to see her in jail and took her a birthday card, because it was her birthday. I had written the card in Welsh, which the Turkish authorities of course could not make out, and so was able to deliver it and wish her a happy birthday. The prison governor allowed me to stay with her for about an hour and a half, and afterwards he said to me, “You know, she shouldn’t be here.” I knew that she should not have been there.
Unfortunately, in the past few weeks Leyla Zana has been sentenced to another 10 years in jail, but because she is a member of parliament she has immunity, but there is no certainty that that immunity will remain. There are concerns that she could still face another 10 years in jail, which would be a disgrace. It is interesting that in the past few days Prime Minister Erdogan met Leyla Zana and they had a discussion, and she made some comments after it. The Prime Minister told journalists that it had gone very well and I believe that it was very productive. After the meeting, Leyla Zana spoke to the press and called on the Government to restart talks with militants, meaning the PKK. It is important that those talks take place. There have been awful incidents on both sides, and many people on both sides of the argument have died. Many in the military have been killed, but PKK personnel and innocent civilians have, too.
Ms Zana said that security-based policies had not worked, and she made the suggestion, anathema to many Turks, that Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader serving a life sentence, could be transferred to house arrest. She also praised the Prime Minister for meeting her, saying:
“He showed his sincerity on the need to open channels of dialogue. When I decided to meet with him, I based it on my reasoning, political experience and insight.”
Their meeting was dismissed by the PKK, which said:
“They have entered into a military-solution process. The AKP government lost the war it staged against the Kurds and Kurdish freedom movement in the last year.”
Interestingly, however, Leyla Zana could take over as leader of the PKK, and, although it is described as a terrorist organisation, we in this House all know how many times we have described organisations as terrorist and then sat down to talk with them. Such talks are beginning to take place, and I commend the Turkish Government on initiating that dialogue, which I very much hope will continue.
I am concerned also about the treatment of journalists in Turkey, as I know our Government are, and in our report we made several comments on that, stating:
“We recommend that the FCO should suggest that the Turkish government encourage prosecutors and judges to exercise restraint in the use of arrest and pre-trial detention, pending more thorough-going reform of the justice system.”
When I was in Istanbul I met journalists and journalist associations. They are afraid of saying anything that is sensitive to the Turkish Government, and too many of them are in jail. Our Government have welcomed recent steps to address those issues, because freedom of expression is a very necessary freedom, which any potential EU member must support, but Turkey need not be as sensitive as it is, because it has made substantial progress.
Indeed, I have paid tribute to Turkey for that progress over the years, because my first visit to the country took place when the military were in charge. I went on behalf of Amnesty International to a trial at a prison in Istanbul, where people who were the equivalent of members of CND were on trial, and that was a horrible time in Turkey’s history. Things are changing, however, and with a bit more initiative they will improve even faster.
Some time ago, in talks with the Foreign Office, I suggested that we invite Turkish MPs to this country to see bilingualism in practice and to show them that it does not mean separation. We now have bilingualism in Wales, and it was hard fought-for, but the Turks could learn a little from the process. All the Turkish MPs whom I have met have seemed very keen on the idea of coming to see how bilingualism works in practice, and, if they were convinced of it, the Kurdish problem in Turkey could be solved.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
One of the reasons why Turkey is such an exciting subject is that it is an exemplar not just for the whole middle east, but for British foreign policy. Turkey is a strange place for us. We have a huge great embassy—now the consulate general—in Istanbul, and it would impress hon. Members. It is more magnificent than this Chamber and even than the other place, with wooden parquet floors and beautiful marble courtyards.
Only 20 years ago, that all seemed a bit out of date and out of proportion. For all the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) pointed out, the embassy was conceived when the Ottoman empire was at its height and when Lord Palmerston, based in this House, was charging around frenetically, shelling the coast of what was then part of the Ottoman empire to seize Acre and play incredibly complicated games with Russia and France—and, indeed, Afghanistan and Persia on the Turkish borders.
By a decade ago, we could see that the Foreign Office had almost given up, and that is a real parable in what goes wrong in long-term British foreign policy planning. Ten years ago, the desk officer for Turkey, in London, said very confidently that there was absolutely no point in the Islamic department of the Foreign Office doing Islamic communication or anything in Turkey because in 2001 we were absolutely confident that Turkey was a secular state and that in Turkey there was absolutely no interest in Islam. Almost immediately after the desk officer made that comment, a Government with strong conservative Muslim roots, and a leadership with a history of political Islam, were elected to office in Turkey.
Even two years ago, the situation in our embassy in Turkey was still one of pretty extreme crisis. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has pointed out, we were shifting towards the system that eventually came about, involving the closing down of the BBC Turkish service and the British Council in Turkey hiding at the back of a large shopping mall with almost no evidence of Britain on display. It has an energetic, dynamic and dedicated Turkish staff who, understandably, struggle to communicate British culture to a Turkish audience, given that a significant number of them have never visited the United Kingdom.
As the report makes clear—last year the Foreign Office gave us the figures—we have 25 extensive Turkish speakers in the British diplomatic network, of whom exactly one was in the embassy in Turkey. That is the top level of Turkish language. We also had 23 operational Turkish speakers—and again, exactly one of them was to be found in Turkey. That is comparable with having 46 fast-jet pilots trained at great expense to the UK taxpayer and only two of them flying aeroplanes.
In addition, the focus has been taken from political work towards other forms of work. Why does that matter? It matters for all the reasons on which others in the Chamber have so eloquently held forth. Turkey is now a major exemplar for the region, a place of interest and importance to the United Kingdom and somewhere we ought to be able to exercise some influence.
Politically, of course, Turkey represents something that confounded our fears and predictions. Many commentators, looking at Turkey in 2001, were terrified, just as we were terrified about Islamic movements in Egypt, by the possibility of some kind of Islamist movement in Turkey which reliable commentators described in 2001 and 2002 as some form of new Taliban or even new al-Qaeda. Indeed, that was swept up by secular voices in Turkey, that focused on the worst-case scenario in terms of what the AKP would be. The reality is that those fears were not confirmed; in fact, that change is perhaps the strongest example worldwide of a democratic transition from a military Government—considerably more impressive even than the transition achieved in Indonesia.
As others have so eloquently pointed out, on the economic side the Turkish economy, in per capita GDP terms, is now larger than that of Bulgaria or Romania. It has grown considerably faster in the past decade, and the Istanbul littoral—the 20 million people around Istanbul—have a GDP per capita larger than that of Poland.
As regards the AKP’s conduct of foreign affairs, despite the opposition party complaining that it would be an unruly, destabilising force, we have found that although it has taken an independent policy on Israel and an unexpected policy on Syria and on Iran, it has not proved to be a dangerous force in the region at all. In fact, in Libya the AKP has proved to be an extraordinary example in being more generous and flexible than many other NATO members, and it has got considerably more credit from the Libyan people as a result.
Of course, this does not mean that everything is sunny in Turkey. As many people have pointed out, there are serious problems. From a foreign policy point of view, there is no point in our treating Turkey as though it were a superpower, because it remains a middle-ranking power. We cannot vest in it all responsibility for the middle east. We cannot imagine that it has the key to the solution in Afghanistan or in Syria. Despite Turkey’s extraordinary development over the past 30 years, there remains a significant gap in terms of human, financial and institutional capital that prevents it from occupying that kind of role. Economically, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) pointed out, there are considerable problems in eastern Turkey, where people have a GDP per capita that is one sixth that of people in Istanbul; in other words, they often have per capita incomes of about $4,000 to $5,000 a year. Turkey is not a wealthy country.
In terms of politics, we need seriously to consider the fact that despite the great advances and the extraordinary tightrope action of the AKP Government in the way that they improvised with the constitution, negotiated challenges with the judiciary, and took certain moves that were on the risky side, we have ended up—despite all the progress made with the military—with the scandal of what is happening with the terror laws. Turkey should, and can, be an example to the region, but that ought not to involve locking up peaceful dissidents, journalists and academics. That is not a necessary part of a counter-terrorism policy.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I think that 10% or more of the cases in the European Court of Human Rights emanate from Turkey. My hon. Friend and others have spoken about the steps that Turkey has managed to take in improving human rights. Will he tell the House what further measures he thinks necessary? The Minister could then tell us what steps the Government are taking to encourage those measures.
Rory Stewart
The central element is to focus on making sure—we in Britain have experienced this and people have gone through it in Spain—that the terror laws are not applied to peaceful protesters such as academics and journalists but targeted at people who are genuinely involved in armed struggle. Perhaps Britain, which has built up a good relationship with Turkey through taking a friendly attitude towards EU accession, has more leverage over that issue than countries such as France.
What can Britain do, though? The core question is not “Whither Turkey?” but “Whither Britain in Turkey?” What is the Foreign Office supposed to do? What sort of reforms are we supposed to introduce? How are we supposed to change our attitude towards the country to get more out of the relationship? The first thing we need to do is very difficult. It is all very well the Foreign Office saying that it has designated more speaker slots in Turkey, but the unfortunate reality is that if a slot has been designated for a Turkish speaker, there is no way of compelling anyone to fill it. Therefore, across the diplomatic network we have a number of slots designated for Arabic speakers or Turkish speakers that remain unfilled. If we are serious about making sure that out of 25 Turkish speakers a quarter, say, are in Turkey, we have to change the human resources procedures of the Foreign Office. We have to move from a situation where everybody is allowed to bid for posts towards one in which a manager can tell people that they should be going to Turkey given that the taxpayer has invested considerably in training them in the language.
That also necessitates difficult HR changes to the core competency framework that governs promotion within the Foreign Office. Currently, the second secretary for political affairs at the embassy in Ankara does not have a direct interest in continuing in political work. Despite good sounds coming from the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, saying that political work is increasingly important, and despite all the good messages about the diplomatic excellence initiative, the brutal reality remains that one’s career in the Foreign Office is determined by management expertise.
All the incentives are driving ambitious young people out of political work and into getting management experience. I can name two cases in the diplomatic network in Turkey of people who have chosen to go into UK Trade and Investment management roles because they do not believe that they will be promoted on the basis of political roles. The core competency framework, which governs promotion, does not take into account linguistic expertise or deep country knowledge in any way; it measures people purely—and is only allowed to measure people—on the basis of their management skills. That must be changed if we are fundamentally to change the culture of the Foreign Office. It is not enough for us to say that these things matter; we must promote people on the basis of them.
To deepen this further, we might need to change the criteria on which people are rewarded. We should have indicators of how many Turks, for example, somebody in the embassy meets. We should have indicators of how often they get outside Ankara and Istanbul to remote areas of the country. That should be part of the criteria for their assessment and promotion.
Finally, on commercial opportunities and UKTI, it is all very well our saying that we want to double UK trade and investment with Turkey, but how is that going to happen? Where are the people and where is the drive? It is difficult to make that happen. Italy is currently outperforming us twofold in Turkey—Italian trade to Turkey is nearly twice that of British. Sixteen flights a day go from Italy to Turkey, almost all of them from Milan. Big Italian infrastructure companies are building roads and getting involved in dams, and small and medium-sized Italian companies are outperforming British small and medium-sized enterprises on the ground.
I propose, modestly, that it might be worth looking at seconding 25-year-olds from major UK financial and consultancy companies, with proper incentive structures and targets, to try to achieve the difficult aim of boosting UK trade and investment. I do not want to pick out a particular company, but I would imagine that McKinsey would be quite happy to second somebody at the age of 25 to UKTI for two or three years, with a decent incentive structure, to see whether they could meet those targets.
All this is necessary because Turkey matters. It matters to Britain, and Britain’s leverage in Turkey is still potentially large. If we introduced those kinds of reforms in Turkey and other countries, we could achieve something extraordinary. The danger is that, having been worried 20 years ago that the great palace on a hill that we occupy was too large for Turkey and that Britain’s interests were elsewhere, we run the risk of being that other great building in Istanbul, which is of course the great representation of Venice—a palace even larger than ours, stuck up on the hill. That now seems out of date for a different reason—because Turkey is too big for Venice. Let us make sure that that does not happen to us.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I loved his idea that diplomats should get out and walk across the dusty plains of Anatolia. Perhaps one of them might write a book about such an excursion or go off and become a political commissioner, giving out political instruction and wisdom to others. I concur with his lament about foreign languages. It is terribly heartening to hear a Conservative Member say that a language other than English is spoken in the world. He spoke about the notion that promotion in the Foreign Office should depend on linguistic ability. Heaven forfend that that should be applied to Ministers. He was right to be lyrical.
I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s view that nothing had happened in Turkey until the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which he is a distinguished member, made its visit. I recall a most distinguished diplomat, Sir Peter Westmacott, who is now our representative in the United States, spending a great deal of time acting, with great linguistic ability, as the most effective bridge between any European state or any NATO member state and the Turks during his time in office there. I recall him working with Mr Erdogan and the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had invested an enormous amount of time cajoling, persuading, bullying, nudging—all the things that he was rather good at—his fellow European leaders to accept the opening of full negotiations with Turkey. That was touch and go. When I was Europe Minister, I remember being there right through to 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning as Mr Blair, Mr Erdogan and Sir Peter formed a troika that got Turkey to the start of discussions with the European Union.
I differ somewhat from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), a distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who seemed to finger France as the main problem. It was General de Gaulle who, in 1963, insisted that the European Economic Community should open a relationship with Turkey. He thought that the Europe that he dreamed of—the “Europe des patries”, as he called it—would have to be as large as possible and that to exclude a great, important and historic state such as Turkey simply did not make sense. On the whole, French political leaders have been quite good friends of Turkey from that moment on. President Chirac certainly supported Turkish admission, and the former Prime Minister Michel Rocard wrote an excellent book two or three years ago—in French, and sadly it is not available in English, although perhaps it is in Turkish—on the need for Turkey to join the EU and why France should support that.
President Sarkozy pandered to the part of the electorate that exists in all our countries that sees anything foreign as a bad thing. He pandered to the idea that any immigrants coming to France were a bad thing and that, as long as the gates of a nation are shut to incomers, that country will somehow be strong again. I am glad that in the presidential election President Hollande rejected such hostility to immigration and the idea that there is a need to place a cap on the number of immigrants coming into France. As we know, President Sarkozy’s reactionary anti-immigrant language was defeated.
I have been going to Turkey for nearly 30 years, first to small left-wing trade union meetings in the 1970s and then to the trial of Orhan Pamuk in 2005, when I was pushed to the ground and kicked by a few nasty right wingers. I keep going there as often as I can, and after each trip I come back more impressed but more perplexed. I am more impressed by the vitality and excitement—it really is one of the most exciting countries in the world to visit—but more perplexed by my failure to work out how the Rubik’s cube of Turkey is put together. I do not speak Turkish, and I do not think I am going to learn that language.
On one level Turkey is all the things that hon. Members have said it is. It is dynamic and growth-focused, and it has brought an enormous number of people into middle-class prosperity. Istanbul has some of the youngest and most exuberant art in the world. The last time I was there, I had dinner with Orhan Pamuk, who had won the Nobel prize and was threatened with death by Turkish nationalists and imprisonment by Turkish judges. We went to a restaurant on the Bosphorus and he was accompanied by a bodyguard. He was stopped by somebody and had a little chat. I asked, “Who was that?” He said, “Oh, that was the state attorney-general, who a couple of years ago was trying to put me in prison permanently. He said to me, ‘Orhan, you’re down to one bodyguard, are you? You see, we are making progress.’” I think that is true.
The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report is absolutely first-rate, and I commend its detail and thoroughness and the work of the Committee’s Chairman and members. I have some brief points to make about it. We need to reconsider our visa regime. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border talked about people learning Turkish and Turks getting to know Britain. It is a travesty that it was easier to visit the Soviet Union in the old days than it is for many Turks to get a visa to come to the United Kingdom. We have to grow up—we cannot say that we are open for business and be closed to foreigners. I am sorry if that language does not sit well, but it is the truth.
On page Ev 80 of the evidence published in the Committee’s report, Migration Watch UK states:
“The Poles are Catholics of European heritage…the bulk of Turkish immigrants in this country, and elsewhere in Europe, are poorer, less educated Muslims of Middle Eastern heritage who form the majority of Turkey’s population.”
That is the evidence presented by this wretched organisation, Migration Watch UK, to the Committee. One hundred years ago, we passed the Status of Aliens Act 1914, using exactly the same argument about Jews coming from the poorer parts of eastern Europe. Until we grow up and stop the Islamophobic dislike of people from outside Britain coming here, we will not have the influence we need.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently conflates two totally separate issues: first, his value judgment of the language used in the French elections; and secondly, the fact that the French legislature and courts made a value judgment on the systematic denial of the Armenian genocide of 1915. That is a separate issue and still going through the French courts. He should not conflate the electioneering language with an issue of principle.
Mr MacShane
The electioneering language from then President Sarkozy and right-wing politicians in France was simply hostile to Turkey, as it is in Germany and Austria. And believe me, if we want to list the politicians, newspapers and political cultures that are hostile to Turkey, we should look across the Rhine rather than in Paris. I wrote an article in Le Monde, which I am happy to send to the hon. Gentleman, condemning the absurd notion that the French Parliament would decide what was genocide and what was not. That is a matter for history, not politicians.
We need to ask one or two serious questions of Turkey. It demands absolute solidarity, which personally I give, in its fight against the PKK and its wretched killer terrorist leader, Ocalan, but when exactly the same type of organisation, Hamas, insists on its right to kill Jews and Israelis and to blow up people in the region, and the Israelis take the necessary action to protect their state from Hamas, Mr Erdogan supports Hamas while demanding condemnation of the PKK. Turkey must be asked to support not only friendly relations 360° around the compass, as its Foreign Minister said, but absolute geopolitical consistency. If we are to support Turkey’s campaign, action and language against the PKK, Turkey must ask itself why it supports terrorist organisations elsewhere in the region.
Mention has been made of Cyprus. The European Council first committed itself to opening trade links with northern Cyprus but then reneged. That said, Turkey does not need to maintain two full military divisions of 35,000 men stationed in the tiny area of northern Cyprus. It can withdraw any number of them, while still leaving an adequate security presence, and show to the world it is looking for a new relationship with Cyprus. Turkish-Cypriot relations are bitter and poisonous. I do not agree with the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said he thought, after a visit there, that it would all get better next year. There needs to be a huge sea change on both sides. My own view is that in any of these conflicts, the bigger, the more powerful and the more dominant nation—and, in 1974, the invading nation—should be the one to find the confidence to come to a better accord with the people it cannot find a solution even to talk to.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions Cyprus. Will he acknowledge that Turkey has done an awful lot in recent years to improve relations with Greece, and will he join me in expressing our satisfaction at that?
Mr MacShane
Absolutely. Turkish foreign policy is innovative, flexible and open. We remember President Gul’s state visit to London last year or perhaps 18 months ago. It was an important triumph, and he is a very distinguished statesman. There are many, many highly competent Turkish diplomats and business men, and the stronger the relations, the better, particularly with Greece. I agree strongly with that, but Greece spends 50% more of its GDP on defence than we or the Turks do. Greece has imported more weapons in the past 10 years than Israel. Why? Because Turkey will still not give an unqualified security guarantee to all the territory of Greece. There are overflights and rows on this and that—not a full-scale invasion—but I cannot meet a Greek who, when I say, “Why are you spending all this money on defence? You’re not going to go to war with Turkey,” does not shiver and shudder. Turkey could help to stabilise the Greek economy by signing a total non-aggression pact with Greece, saying that it will respect all Greek property and territorial frontiers.
Although Turkey opened its frontiers with Syria—now, however, it finds itself in the midst of the Syrian storm—it refuses to open its frontiers with Armenia because of the Nagorno-Karabakh situation and its relationship with the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijan. Again, I can half understand that, but closed frontiers are the curse of all modern economic development and political advances.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred to the problem of journalists, specifically Leyla Zana. As we speak, 205 people are on trial near Istanbul. The publisher Ragip Zarakolu, who was first condemned by the Turkish judicial system in 1971 for having secret links with Amnesty International, is again standing trial. That is not necessarily the Turkish Government’s fault; rather, the Turkish judicial system needs to rethink. If we want to increase parliamentary links, Labour Members should explain to the CHP—the nominally social democratic party—that Turkey’s penal code, with its legendary clause 301, which makes it a crime to insult the Turkish nation and gives the judicial system and prosecutors carte blanche to arrest and lock up anybody they want, is a real problem.
Those are the slight questions that I have, based on decades of visiting Turkey. I would like Britain to make a special effort on Turkey. The Minister is committed to doing so, but he is hamstrung by two great problems, the first of which is the attitude of the Home Office and its hostility to foreigners coming in to Britain. The other great difficulty is that, although we proclaim ourselves across the House to be the champions of Turkey joining the European Union, the rest of Europe listens to the Prime Minister talking about referendums and saying there is no terror for Britain outside the EU. The rest of Europe therefore thinks that we are on the way out. Turkey wants to come in—we may be on the way out. We need to rethink our approach to the European Union, but I am not sure that that will happen on this Government’s watch.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I always think myself unlucky to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in foreign affairs debates. To follow him and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is downright unfair. Both have displayed huge personal knowledge and experience of the issues the House is debating, and made incisive comments. I agreed with much of what both colleagues said. My perhaps more modest and limited remarks may serve as an opportunity for other colleagues to shine later.
I want to join those who congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on its excellent report, the significant amount of work that clearly went into it, and the understanding that he and his colleagues from across the House brought to the issue in informing Government policy on it. I was struck by his saying that Turkey is at the crossroads of the old world. To its north-west, Turkey sees Europe, which is experiencing difficult times economically, has an increasingly ageing population and, some would say, is experiencing a period of stagnation. To its south-east is the boom of the Arab spring—dynamic countries with much younger populations who are trying to thrust forward and create a destiny for themselves with self-determination. In the north-east, of course, Turkey has Russia on its periphery, with all the challenges and concerns that brings. Turkey operates in quite a complex security environment. It is that aspect of our strategic relationship that I would like to dwell on for a few minutes.
The whole House will want to acknowledge the contribution that Turkey has made to ISAF—the international security assistance force—in Afghanistan. At one point during operations there Turkey was the third largest force contributor. Turkey is responsible for the security of Kabul and has about 1,300 service personnel deployed there. That is Turkey’s active engagement on the ground in Afghanistan, but it is also a key ally for the United Kingdom in maintaining the air bridge, so that we can get our men and matériel into Afghanistan, to keep them effectively supplied to prosecute the operation there. When I had the great privilege of visiting Afghanistan and talking to some of the British and other international forces on operation there, it was clear that the relationship among all the NATO allies was effective on the ground. In particular, the people in the RAF I spoke to valued the co-operation of the Turkish authorities in maintaining the air bridge so effectively.
Equally, Turkey is a major contributor to the European Union force operating in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have to recognise and applaud Turkey for that. It is one of only two non-EU nations to be engaged in that level of activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border referred earlier to the extent of Turkish involvement in the Libyan campaign. I am sure that the whole House will also want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the Turkish authorities for their courageous and far-sighted decision to support NATO operations in that theatre.
We therefore already have strong and cohesive security links with Turkey, and it is right that the report sets out ways in which we and the Foreign Office can build on them. In particular, when we look to the medium term and the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons—by the Iranian regime, for instance—we see a ready willingness in Turkey to work with the United States, us and other countries to provide missile defence protection. Given the unwelcome uncertainty that we are experiencing with nuclear proliferation, that is something we should welcome. It cannot be an easy decision for Turkey to take, but it is one that I welcome.
As for Syria, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is not in his place, talked about Turkey’s remarkable restraint despite severe provocation, including shelling across the border and the destruction and shooting down by Syrian forces of a Turkish air force jet. However, there is clearly a limit beyond which Turkey will be drawn, and there may come a point when it decides that it is in its security interest to take action on its border. I would therefore ask the Minister to say what assessment of potential involvement through article 5 has been made and what discussions are continuing with the Turkish authorities.
I would hope that everybody in this House wants to see a prosperous, democratic, diverse Turkey being welcomed into the European Union. It has huge potential to act both as a driver of growth in the European economy and as a bridge from the European economy into the emerging markets in north Africa and the middle east. It has always been my belief that for us to secure the political change that we have seen in the region, we will have to cement economic advancement for the peoples of the region too. I think Turkey has the potential to be a hugely useful bridge for Europe into those other markets.
It is clear, however, that we need to see a resolution to the Cyprus question and, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said, to the issues relating to the political persecution of journalists and the persecution of women. I would add that Turkey’s record on the treatment of its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender minorities is not great. The report highlights many of the issues on which we must continue to press the Turkish authorities, but, crucially, we need Turkey’s attitude towards Cyprus to lead to a resolution of that issue in due course. I am not over-optimistic that we will see progress on that in the next year, however. The Cyprus presidency could make it an explosive issue—that is perhaps not the best use of the word “explosive”—but we need to see a willingness on both sides to come together and resolve their difficulties in due course.
I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who has recently led the creation of the British Mena—middle east and north Africa—Council here on the parliamentary estate. It is now the largest caucus of parliamentarians, with more than 200 Members of this House and the other place having expressed an interest in working on a cross-party basis to develop parliamentary relationships between the United Kingdom and the countries in those regions. I know that he remains interested in Turkey, as do I, and I am sure that the development of that new parliamentary body will pay dividends in the long run.
Turkey adds to religious diversity and brings economic dynamism and cultural and historical depth to the table, as well as providing a meeting point for cultures and continents, and it should remain a strategic partner of our Government. It is absolutely right that the Foreign Office should take that approach, and I hope that it will take the very best of the report and build on the relationships that are, as I said, already very strong.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome this debate, which has been initiated as a result of the hard work of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and which provides an opportunity to talk about relations between the United Kingdom and Turkey. There is consensus across the House on the importance of having a positive relationship with Turkey, given its strategic position. In that context, we have heard references to Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and beyond. Given Turkey’s geographical location between east and west, between Europe, north Africa and the middle east, it makes perfect sense for us to have a constructive relationship with it.
Turkey’s economic importance has also been mentioned. We need to focus on its vibrant, dynamic economy, and I welcome our Government’s efforts to promote and make progress on the bilateral trade relations between our two countries. Allied with the Foreign Office’s remit in those areas is its remit to encourage improvements in the fields of democratisation and the adherence to human rights. Such improvements are vital not only for Turkey’s relationships with other countries but for the people of Turkey and the wider region.
I count myself as a friend of Turkey. I often speak to members of the Turkish-speaking diaspora in my north London constituency, but it is easy to place too much emphasis on the Government of that country, and on whether one is a friend of that country. I have heard people making strong criticisms of Turkish Government policy, but that does not mean that they cannot be a friend of Turkey. I judge my friendship on the basis of the people of the country, particularly those I meet in my constituency, who make an enormous contribution to this country. I want to be a friend, but perhaps also a critical friend, of Turkey.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Turkey since the beginning of this Parliament, and I am proud to do so. Given the hon. Gentleman’s desire to continue his friendship with people in his constituency who are originally from Turkey and with the Turkish people more generally, would he consider joining the all-party group, if he is not already a member of it?
Mr Burrowes
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate. I am indeed a member of the group. I was recently invited to an all-party group visit, but if the hon. Gentleman is looking for names, I am not sure that I will be able to attend. My family is going to visit Turkey later in the summer.
In waxing lyrical about the positives of this latest report, there is a but. It relates to Cyprus. I do not ask for your leniency, Mr Speaker, in concentrating on Cyprus, as I see it as very much key to UK-Turkey relations. The report’s reference to Cyprus was minimal. I take the Chairman’s point that the Select Committee did not want to get too intervention-focused on issues surrounding Cyprus, but if we are considering UK-Turkey relations, Cyprus is very important. As paragraph 195 of the report states:
“Turkey’s EU accession process is effectively hostage to the reaching of a settlement on Cyprus.”
I understand that point, but the word “hostage” creates the impression that Turkey is a victim. The victims of the whole Cyprus issue are the people of Cyprus—both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and, indeed, other communities on the island. Those victims should be our focus, particularly when this country has historic responsibilities and is a guarantor power with legal responsibilities. It is important that Britain steps up to the plate. Over nearly four decades, this Parliament has seen some seemingly intractable problems in divided countries and countries at war, yet they have been solved. Cyprus, however, is still divided and is not settled. As parliamentarians, we must do all we can to raise the issue of Cyprus and not sidestep it. We must see it as central to making further progress towards positive relations between Britain and Turkey.
It is not just a matter of Cyprus alone, as the manner in which we abide by international agreements, Security Council resolutions and so forth also matters. How Turkey responds to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights matters, too. Such judgments go beyond, and have resonance beyond, Cyprus.
Reference has been made to Turkey’s record on human rights. One has to acknowledge that particular and significant progress has been made, but concerns remain about the free press and freedom of expression. We have heard about journalists who have recently been detained and we have heard about the disproportionate number of Turkish cases that have gone through to the ECHR.
A number of relatives of missing persons lost in the Cyprus conflict will come here next week. They come here every year. They can be seen on the green outside Parliament, usually with pictures of their lost relatives. What has also been lost is basic information and truth about their loved ones’ whereabouts. Progress has been made in Cyprus on a bi-communal basis to find the bones of the lost and to gain some element of truth. Unfortunately, however, there is a barrier, as they cannot get to the truth in areas under the control of Turkish forces. They cannot get information relating to relatives who went over to Turkey. The ECHR has said clearly that relevant information should be given to these relatives. Some of these people are citizens and constituents of mine and of other hon. Members. Year in, year out, they demand some element of truth, some information about basic human rights: they need to know what happened to their loves ones. The House has set up inquiries into missing persons, but in this case we are talking about people who have been missing for nearly four decades. Their relatives need to know the basic truth.
I am chair of the all-party Cyprus group, which will shortly conduct an inquiry to see whether we can support the good work going on under UN auspices in Cyprus to speed up this process. Turkey can help by abiding by the Court’s judgment and allowing relevant information to be given to relatives and to the authorities.
Another inquiry I have been involved in seeks to emphasise the positives in Turkey. I chaired an inquiry into the persecution of Christians in Iran for Christians in Parliament, which revealed the appalling abuses of brave people who had had to leave the country because of the persecution of themselves and their families. A number have been given refuge in Turkey. We should welcome that, and acknowledge its importance for Iranian Christians, some of whom I hope to meet when I visit Turkey. We should also note that Syrians have sought refuge there.
Let me return to the issue of Cyprus. We must not tolerate the intolerable. The status quo is unacceptable—unacceptable to us, given our relations with Turkey. We in Europe should not have allowed the existence of a divided capital and a divided island for so long. An area in the north of Cyprus is the most heavily militarised in the world, which is extraordinary. We should not accept that for the duration of the six-month presidency, saying “We shall just have to park it for six months, and see what the Irish can do when they have the presidency.” It cannot be right that Turkey does not recognise Cyprus as a sovereign nation. Britain does not have a remote responsibility; as I have said before, it is a guarantor power, and Cyprus has every right to take up the presidency which affirms its membership of the European Union and the sovereignty of the whole island.
As has been reported in the press, the Turkish Government recently said:
“no ministry or organisation of the Turkish Republic will take part in any activity that will be presided by southern Cyprus.”
I would expect our Government to agree that that is intolerable and unacceptable. Turkey wants to join Europe—it wants to join the club—but it must accept the rules which include a rotating presidency. Britain supports Turkey’s accession, but Turkey must not only recognise the Republic of Cyprus but fulfil its obligation under the Ankara protocol to allow Cypriot ships to use Turkish ports.
I want to be positive. The need for creativity has been mentioned, and both the report and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) referred to the opportunities presented by the hydrocarbon reserves. They are a new dynamic, and they are being explored in Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone for the benefit of the whole island and all its communities. That is crucial. The reserves are a natural resource for Cyprus alone, not for the guarantor powers. As the report says, that natural resource could facilitate a settlement and could enable Cyprus to rely less on the financial sector, which is increasingly fragile and volatile, on the recent EU bail-outs, and on the good will of Russian banks and interests.
It is also important to understand the wider dynamic: yes, a dynamic to support a settlement, but also one relating to the wider region which involves Turkey and Israel. There are agreements between the Republic of Cyprus and Israel, but the dynamic needs to be wider. There is an opportunity to provide a big source of energy for the region, and a source of security as well. We should welcome that development, and, given our expertise in this country, I hope that we can make real progress in supporting that resource for the benefit of Cypriots.
We also need to recognise that Turkey should not threaten Cyprus’s sovereign rights to explore and exploit hydrocarbon reserves in an exclusive economic zone. That is unacceptable, because that is threatening the very independence of the resource and Cyprus’s legal rights within the exclusive economic zone. We must not say that we have been fatigued by the Cyprus problem for so long that we will leave it to be solved by Cypriots. That should indeed happen, but we must exercise our responsibilities.
Another opportunity is presented by the Greek-Cypriot Varosha section of Famagusta, a small town on the east coast of Cyprus. Anyone who goes there will see the barbed wire. Varosha was frozen in time after being overrun by Turkish forces in 1974. It was sealed off, looted, became uninhabited, and has been decaying for nearly 40 years. However, we have the opportunity to accept United Nations Security Council resolutions 550 and 789, which call for Varosha to be under the control of the UN. If we can support Turkey in resolving this issue so that people can return to Varosha, it will create confidence and help greatly. If human rights are respected, information on missing people is given, the return to Varosha is supported and the natural gas question is addressed, we might be able to reunite Cyprus, which would be good for Cyprus, good for Turkey and good for UK-Turkey relations.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
There are not many benefits to being a Back Bencher, but one is that we can sometimes ruffle feathers and say what we think and, above all, challenge the received wisdom. I accept that the majority view in this debate is that the accession of Turkey to the EU would be a good thing. I agree that, in many ways, that is indeed the case, and it would be churlish and remiss of me not to acknowledge the very important point that Turkey is a major trading partner, with the 17th or 18th largest economy in the world and growth that is five times the EU average—although that is not particularly difficult to achieve nowadays.
Turkey has made progress in many key areas, and it was the eastern outpost of NATO command through the difficult years of the cold war. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, made clear, it has been a loyal supporter of both the UK and the United States over many years. The strategic importance of Turkey is not in doubt either, as it stands at the juncture of the west, the near east and the middle east.
I can well understand why Turkey still harbours strong ambitions to join the EU. The fact that that is in our strategic interests is based on two presuppositions, however: that we should filter out issues other than the economic progress of Turkey, and that we accept, to a certain degree, that our strategic geopolitical interests are the same as those of the US. It has always been in the US strategic interest for Turkey to be a bulwark against potential Islamist difficulties, whether in the form of violence or the exertion of influence in the sub-region.
I accept all that, and that Prime Minister Erdogan is making a good fist of reform in the country, but it is important to strike some notes of concern on human rights, free speech, crime, justice and immigration, as well as on an issue that should not be dismissed lightly— as it was by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane)—which is the continuing affront and offence of the systematic denial of the world’s first modern genocide. That word was invented in 1943 to describe what happened in the Ottoman empire, beginning in April 1915, to between 600,000 and 1.5 million ethnic Armenians. The fact that there is still that systematic denial causes great concern to many people across the world, most recently in France.
I am also mindful of the fact that insufficient work has been done in examining the possible ramifications of Turkey’s accession to the EU. I commend to the House the comprehensive Home Affairs Committee report of last July, “Implications for the Justice and Home Affairs area of the accession of Turkey to the European Union”. It made some very important points, but before I discuss them, let me point out that there are other areas of the criminal justice system that should cause us concern. One of them is the ill-treatment of prisoners in Turkish prisons. The Amnesty International 2012 report stated that allegations of torture persist and that there are ineffective investigations into alleged human rights abuses by state officials.
As has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), no progress has been made in protecting the rights of children in the judicial system. There are 47 states whose citizens can apply to the European Court of Human Rights, and at the end of 2011 Turkey applied for 10.5% of the 151,600 cases pending, requiring a judicial decision.The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report highlights concerns about Turkey’s domestic judicial capacity and the major backlog of cases, with 1.4 million criminal cases and more than 1 million civil cases pending at the end of 2010.
Serious concerns have been expressed over many years about the media and freedom of expression. In addition, women’s rights and equality remain a persistent concern, particularly, even though the numbers are decreasing, in the context of honour killings, domestic violence, sexual assault and forced marriage. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, like my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), rightly refers to religious freedom in Turkey, and states:
“We recommend that the FCO should remain vigilant on issues of religious freedom and discrimination and should ensure that its Turkish partners are clear about its stance in this respect.”
Not so long ago, Human Rights Watch said:
“As the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government focused on promoting Turkey’s regional interests in response to the pro-democracy Arab Spring movements, human rights suffered setbacks at home. The government has not prioritized human rights reforms since 2005, and freedom of expression and association have both been damaged by the ongoing prosecution and incarceration of journalists, writers, and hundreds of Kurdish political activists”,
particularly through the misuse of the overly broad terrorism laws that, to give him his due, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Committee, has mentioned.
Mr Jackson
No, I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as he has not been present for the whole debate.
I have concerns about justice and home affairs. I find it quite astonishing that the Home Office—or any Government Department—has not looked in any systematic way at how many people would be likely to move from Turkey to other European countries if the freedom of movement directive applied and after any transition period that was put in place. Figures ranging between 500,000 and 4.4 million are often cited.
Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, has stated that Turkish criminal groups are significantly involved in various forms of organised criminality, including the trafficking of heroin and synthetic drugs and the trafficking of cocaine to Europe from South America via Turkey and the Balkans. It has described “very high” levels of human trafficking to Turkey and high levels of trafficking through the country, as well as people smuggling and other criminal activities including fraud, firearms trafficking, money laundering and copyright offences.
Turkey has become a prominent stepping stone in irregular flows of migrants coming from further afield who aim to enter the European Union. The Turkish ambassador to the United Kingdom recently told the Home Affairs Committee that nearly 800,000 illegal immigrants have been apprehended while attempting to cross Turkish territory over the past 15 years. By October 2010, 46% of all irregular immigration detected at the EU external border took place at the land border between Greece and Turkey and the authorities estimated that up to 350 migrants were attempting to cross the 12.5 km land border near the Greek city of Orestiada every day.
EU accession would have implications. The length of the external land border with Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Iran and Syria would put great stresses and strains on the EU’s external border, given that the EU has already been critical of the Turkish border security capacity. The Minister may wish to comment on the fact that there has been no impact analysis of Turkish accession on future migration trends. We need to take a serious look at that, even though accession may be many years away.
It is appropriate to mention the Armenian genocide, which is an issue of great hurt and offence to Armenian people across the world. It began on 24 April 1915 and, with the systematic deportation and murder of up to 1.5 million people, it is the first modern example of genocide. Armenians perished as a result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment and physical abuse. A people who had lived in Turkey for nearly 3,000 years lost their homeland and were decimated in the first large-scale genocide of the 20th century. I concede that that was 97 years ago, but it is difficult to accept the fact that the Turkish Government refuse to countenance the idea that it is an incontestable historical fact.
Mr Walter
I hear what my hon. Friend says. For many years, historians have tried to define genocide. He is trying to condemn the Government of the modern Turkish state post-1923 for a crime that was, or was not, committed by the Ottoman empire, of which both Armenia and the Turkic peoples were part.
Mr Jackson
I yield to no one in my enormous respect for my colleague in the Inter-Parliamentary Union and his great love for Turkey and affinity for the country. I bear no malice as a candid friend to the wonderful, decent people of Turkey but I quote Leo Kuper, who was an eminent academic at the University of California, Los Angeles and said:
“The Armenian genocide is a contemporary current issue, given the persistent aggressive denial of the crime by the Turkish government—notwithstanding its own judgment in courts martial after the first World War, that its leading ministers had deliberately planned and carried out the annihilation of Armenians, with the participation of many regional administrators.”
My point is not that that series of events did not happen at the end of the Ottoman empire in Anatolia, which is now part of modern Turkey, but that a key issue in assessing the suitability and fitness of a country seeking to be part of a club founded on the bedrock of legality, fairness and equality is the fact that it should acknowledge past mistakes and crimes that took place almost 100 years ago. In that respect, just as the Turkish Government have to move on the issue of Cyprus and countenance the right of the Cypriot people to self-determination, democracy and freedom, they must accept that the Armenian genocide happened. They have to apologise and move forward, as happened in Northern Ireland, South Africa and elsewhere, with a truth and reconciliation process to put to rest that disastrous, despicable, appalling series of events almost 100 years ago.
We have had an interesting debate. I do not agree with everyone who has spoken, but these issues are of such great importance and clarity historically that they must be raised.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate, which is on an interesting subject. It has been an honour to listen to many speeches, not least from the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who introduced the debate and presides over a Committee that does some really good work, which should be recognised.
I have been to Turkey—mainly Istanbul, which is a vibrant, exciting city. I went there several years ago, partly because some friends of mine were moving their business interests there. I found it fascinating to watch how they were integrating with the Turkish business community and how Turkey was becoming quite an exciting place in which to invest. I did invest, incidentally, in a fez. The only useful thing that did was to alert all other traders to the fact that I was a tourist and should be approached immediately to see whether I would buy anything else.
I have also visited Cyprus and there I took note of the partition of that country between Greece and Turkey. I know that it is an important obstacle to Turkey’s eventual membership of the European Union, which I hope will be a reality some time in the future.
We have heard a little about the Ottoman empire, and quite right too. One thing to remember about the Ottoman empire is that its rise, its life and above all its fall were interesting to the rest of Europe. We should recognise that we are influenced by what goes on there, and we should be attempting to influence that area now. On that premise I shall make a number of points, not just about foreign policy, but about the economic situation in Turkey, which I have already mentioned. A country as big as Turkey, with a relatively vibrant economy—even a decline in growth rate will still give it a growth rate higher than ours for some time—is one that we should be cultivating as a potential partner in the European Union. We must develop trade and it is important that we focus on doing that.
I agree with some of the speakers who emphasised some of the difficulties that that process entails. This morning I was at a breakfast discussing trade with China. There we heard about the importance of our diplomats and our embassies in promoting trade, and we learned just how powerful and determined the Americans were at promoting business in other countries. The American diplomatic service is robust and determined to promote businesses. We even heard that ambassadors were present at various meetings for banks in competition with other banks, including one based in Britain. It is important that we recognise the strength and the power of our diplomatic corps in promoting business, and that certainly applies to Turkey.
As one or two other Members have pointed out in connection with energy, the European Union has another interest in Turkey because of energy development and other industrial and entrepreneurial activity. It is critical that we do not lose the opportunity to bind Turkey into the European Union at a time when that is feasible. Feasibility can be judged on several criteria, one of which is human rights. I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) that 10% of all cases currently before the European Court of Human Rights are from Turkey. The highest number of cases are from Russia, to which Turkey is second. That is a strong signal that Turkey must improve its human rights record, and we need to make sure that it is one of the tools that we bargain with, in order to encourage Turkey to think about human rights so that it can join the European Union at some time.
A change of Government in Turkey has altered the tendency to think western rather than eastern. We should recognise in our deliberations about Turkey that the new feeling in the Turkish Foreign Ministry is that, although it would be a good idea to join the European Union, there are other options. We should bear that in mind as we consider how we might tackle the issue. Many speakers in the debate mentioned that France in particular and Germany are slightly concerned about Turkey’s membership of the European Union. Germany, with its tradition of guest workers, will clearly have to think carefully about that, not just because of the history of that tradition, but because of the number of Turks currently in Germany.
France is an interesting case. I think that we should take a leaf out of Edward Heath’s book—oddly enough—because he recognised that getting Britain into the European Union depended not on persuading the Germans or any other country, but on persuading the country that was least keen on it, which was France. That is why he was so right to visit President Pompidou and ensure that he squared that off before going to the other nation states, unlike Harold Wilson, who did it in exactly the opposite direction, which inevitably ended in failure.
Turkey has some really interesting foreign policy issues that we need to think about swiftly and carefully. The first is that it has changed its mind about two key countries in its region. It used to be a pretty strong supporter of the Assad regime and the Syrian Government in general, but obviously now it is not. It is learning what to do, reacting to changes and is itself a change agent. Likewise, Turkey’s attitude to Israel has changed in recent years, demonstrating that it is thinking about its position in the region, which is something that Britain and the European Union as a whole need to understand, because Turkey will not sit there idly while the rest of us watch and wait. That is yet another reason why we should be very sensible in how we judge and calibrate exactly what we do and say to Turkey with regard to foreign policy.
One thing that is critical, but which has not really been mentioned in the debate in the context I am speaking about, is the fact that Turkey currently has an Islamic Government, but a moderate Islamic Government. Therefore, we should have a relationship with Turkey to influence the rest of the region through a Government who have some semblance of democracy and some interest in the west as well as the east. In other words, Turkey is a conduit to the places where we need more influence than we currently have. It seems to me that we should recognise that description of Turkey and apply the logical consequences. If we feel that it is a friendly Islamic country, we should be cultivating our friendship with it. That is one of the most important reasons why we should be talking about Turkey in a constructive way.
I will draw these threads together, because it seems to me that there is something very potent about recognising that human rights, economic interest and, in effect, good governance can be tied together. We can then demonstrate that the European Union, when it can request, prove and then expect all those things to be saluted for membership, is making progress. However, we can also take those three things and say to Turkey and the rest of the region, “These are the things we want and that are better for you, with regard to economic development, political stability and the recognition of states.” Of course, the situation in the middle east is the obvious and important example of that. It is just like the Helsinki accords in 1975, which effectively allowed in eastern Europe the recognition of human rights, economic interests and good governance, and the key driver then turned out to be human rights. That was the key driver motivating the signatories to the Helsinki accords, and the ones who were least confident and least free, with regard to their political rights, were the ones who ended up using them to get their freedoms eventually.
Through a combination of recognising that Turkey has economic interests that are akin to ours, that is has regional interests and is a moderate Islamic state that we can talk to and use as a conduit, and that there is enormous economic potential not just in Turkey but in the vicinity, we should think carefully about how, in the long run, Turkey can become a member of the European Union. It will not happen overnight or within a few years, but we should work for it, because it will mean good foreign policy in the long run.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I commend the Foreign Affairs Committee on its report and, indeed, the measured and sensible way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has introduced today’s debate. We do not debate these subjects enough, and we need to discuss our relationship with foreign states—particularly those that have a long record of friendship with, and are allies of, the United Kingdom—a lot more in this Chamber.
As we have heard, Turkey is a bridge, and a bridge in a number of directions. We saw its intervention in Libya and in other parts of the middle east—I think for the good; we see its influence growing in parts of what was the southern Soviet Union, where there are a number of Turkic states; and we see its influence through its relationships with Europe.
Europe has a problem, however, because we have tended to take the Turks too much for granted. They were staunch, solid allies of NATO for decades, and we would have been glad enough to have them side by side had we been in conflict with the Soviet Union; now, we are a little more fussy and critical of our relationship than we were when the Turks were very much our allies in the cold war.
One can argue whether Turkey should or should not join the European Union, but the promise has been made, and on occasions it has seen other states fast-tracked into the EU, while for decades it has expected to join but has not yet been given that opportunity.
I do not pretend that it will be easy for a large and still largely Muslim country to come into the EU, but the promise has been made and at some point the EU has to deal with the situation straightforwardly, otherwise we may end up with extremists in that country reacting against engagement with the European Union.
Turkey is a young and fast-growing country, it is certainly growing much faster than those in the eurozone and it is one of the main beneficiaries of the fact that its near neighbour, Greece, has the euro, because many Brits now go to Turkey and enjoy the benefits of a very cost-effective holiday. There is a great deal to benefit this country if we increase our trade and engagement with Turkey, but I do not mean playing at it; I mean having a long-term dialogue with the Turks.
I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, after he was elected, went to Turkey, and that President Obama, after he was elected, realised how important Turkey was and went to address its Parliament, but we cannot just pop up and make the odd speech; we need long-term engagement with the Turks, because there is still a lot of common ground and there is great potential for exports. Turkey is more likely to be a force for good than for harm. Of course it has to make progress on human rights, but its history of democracy and of human rights is rather more recent than ours, and, although it is improving, it will take a while yet.
This has been a worthwhile debate, and the Committee has produced a worthwhile report, which I commend to many in the House. We need to do a lot more to engage with states such as Turkey, which are good allies, good friends and could be good customers, promoting and sustaining many more jobs in the UK, as they grow at a much faster rate than our near neighbours in the European Union.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am proud, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to be associated with its report.
Turkey is a country that we should focus on a great deal more than we have in recent years—a country that has been a staunch ally as a member of NATO, and a country that we have always had good relations with in modern times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) said, we have in recent times taken it somewhat for granted. However, as a friend of Turkey’s, we should give it the honest advice that it needs during these developing years. It applied to join the European Union some time ago, but it has not yet been accepted. I was part of a delegation visiting Turkey last October and the clear message that I picked up, from speaking to many people, was that they wanted to join the European Union for reasons of acceptability, to be part of the family of European nations, and not necessarily for economic reasons; it is, of course, already part of a customs union.
We must be candid friends to Turkey. We must ensure that, whatever decision it makes about the European Union—and it is its decision whether to join—it is given the advice of a friend who has been a member of that organisation for many years. I hope that Turkey will continue wanting to be part of the family of European nations and carry on its tradition of wanting a secular society and western values.
I hope that we will respect the wishes of the people in Turkey. I think that there is a feeling there that they have, in some ways, been pushed aside by us in Europe and that we have not given them the respect that they deserve. We accepted the country’s support during the cold war, of course, but now it feels slightly disjointed. The British Government and all Governments in the European Union need to understand that.
I commend the Foreign Affairs Committee report and its findings. I reiterate my steadfast support for Turkey as it continues to navigate successfully towards a bright future as part of the family of democratic nations in the European region of the world.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I welcome today’s debate on UK-Turkey relations and Turkey’s regional role. I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I was briefly a member, on its excellent report on the issue.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have made thoughtful contributions. The Select Committee Chair gave a comprehensive overview of the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) underlined the need to resolve the Turkish question, and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) stressed that Europe’s neighbourhood is Turkey’s neighbourhood. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) reminded us that we can be both a friend and critic of Turkey’s. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) demonstrated, as ever, that he is the Foreign Office’s keenest human resources critic.
We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and the hon. Members for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).
Turkey is vital to the UK, geographically, strategically and economically. Geographically, it is at the crossroads between east and west and it remains one of the most important transit countries for the movement of goods and people anywhere in the world. It is as important now as when the merchants of the silk road travelled the country exchanging goods, philosophy and culture between Europe and the east.
Strategically, Turkey is its region’s rising power and it is vital to the UK, Europe and the United States. It is a key NATO partner, given not only its geography but the size of its military. It has the second largest army in NATO in terms of personnel, second only to the United States. Turkey is a democratic, secular Muslim country that offers hope and inspiration to countries in the region—especially those going through radical transformation as a result of the Arab spring. In the middle east, Turkey is central to securing stability across the region and, crucially, to solving the conflict in Syria and securing a nuclear-free Iran.
Economically, Turkey is a rapidly rising force. In the past 10 years, its economy has grown, on average, by more than 5% a year. Its gross domestic product has tripled. Trade and direct investment have increased dramatically. By 2050, it is set to be one of the world’s top 10 economies, with a vibrant, young and growing population, more than 50% of whom are under 30.
Turkey is already an important member of the G20 and its influence is growing. Its economic rise is impressive, especially given the dark economic days that it suffered in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Turkey’s democratic development is also impressive given the military dominance of the past century, with four coups in the past 50 years. The so-called deep state has now been successfully dismantled.
Given Turkey’s ever-increasing prominence and importance, we fully support the continued strengthening of the UK’s bilateral relationship. Labour Members are proud that in 2007 the then Prime Minister agreed the first UK-Turkey strategic partnership. In 2010, British exports to Turkey totalled over £1 billion. About 2 million British nationals visit Turkey every year. There are over 150,000 Turkish nationals and about 500,000 people of Turkish origin in the UK. In cities across the UK, we can see evidence of the contribution that these Turkish communities make to the fabric of British society. There continues to be a strong cultural exchange between our countries. We therefore support the Select Committee’s assertion that the Government are correct to seek to strengthen the UK’s relations with Turkey as a strategic partner. This partnership covers agreements on a range of issues including education, defence, regional stability and culture—from managing migration flows to the development of low-carbon technologies.
We welcome the Foreign Office’s commitment to increasing its diplomatic presence in the country. We also welcome the recent military co-operation treaty agreed and signed by the Government and the Turkish Government. The Select Committee is right to note that the strategic partnership is a means of measuring the success of the Government’s policy on our bilateral relations with Turkey. Two years on from his Government’s launch of the renewed strategic partnership, I look forward to hearing the Minister reflect on the key achievements to date and the key objectives for the years to come.
Alongside Turkey’s economic rise, its regional and international prominence has also been significantly enhanced. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay in saying that Labour Members commend Turkey for its ongoing commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. Turkey has supported many NATO, UK and EU foreign policy objectives. Today, crucially, Turkey is central to resolving the horrific conflict in Syria. We welcome Turkey’s involvement in the Friends of Syria group; it hosted the group’s second meeting in April. We welcome the steps that Turkey has taken to encourage dialogue between opposition leaders by hosting talks in Istanbul. Turkey has accepted over 36,000 Syrian refugees and, crucially, it has offered a safe haven for defectors from the Syrian military. As a fellow member of NATO, we welcome Turkey’s moderation in its reaction to Syria’s unprovoked and unacceptable attack on a Turkish aircraft on 22 June. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South emphasised, Turkey’s restraint in this matter was exemplary.
On Iran, Turkey has been proactive in trying to find solutions to securing a nuclear-free Iran. It recently hosted a P5 plus 1 meeting in Istanbul and this week it has been hosting a meeting of technical experts.
Turkey’s wider role in the region is also important. The hon. Member for North Dorset stressed its influence in the Balkans. The Kosovan Foreign Minister recently praised Turkey for its positive role in the region in recognition of its efforts in helping to establish better relations between Serbia and Kosova—a relationship that we and, I am sure, the Government will want to be improved.
Following the dramatic transformations triggered by the Arab spring, Turkey played a leading role in supporting democratic change. The Turkish Prime Minister was the first international leader to call for President Mubarak to stand down. The Select Committee is right to underline the importance of a democratic, secular and Muslim state such as Turkey acting as an inspiration to moderate political forces in north Africa and the middle east.
Finally, let me turn to Turkey’s EU membership. We welcome the continued cross-party consensus in this House in favour of Turkey’s EU membership. The Select Committee rightly focuses on this issue in the second part of its report. When Labour was in government, we were a strong advocate of Turkey’s accession, and we are pleased that the current Government have continued this policy. However, as several right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, we must recognise the difficulties in this area, not all of which relate to the acquis communautaire. It is regrettable that for the next six months the negotiations will be suspended. It is encouraging that relations between Turkey and France seem to be on a better footing since the election of François Hollande in May. President Hollande has accepted the invitation of Prime Minister Erdogan to visit Turkey, which will be the first such visit by a French President for 20 years.
There are also problems with regard to the acquis communautaire, as was highlighted by the European Commission’s recent progress report. Turkey has a great deal of progress to make on human rights, as has been pointed out by several hon. Members, in particular with regard to the freedom of expression and the reform of the judiciary. I welcome the Select Committee’s recommendations in that area, in particular that the Foreign Office should ensure that Turkey is left in no doubt that the shortcomings in its justice system are damaging to the country’s international reputation. We also agree with the recommendation that the Foreign Office should suggest that the Turkish Government encourage prosecutors and judges to exercise restraint in the use of pre-trial detention while the reforms to the justice system are being carried out.
We are concerned about the Select Committee’s finding that some improvements in human rights have been reversed, especially with regard to the limiting of media freedoms and freedom of expression. To echo the comments of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay, there are also concerns about LGBT rights. In its recent accession report, the European Parliament urges the Turkish Government to ensure that LGBT rights are guaranteed by the law effectively enforced and respected by the police.
The Select Committee is right that a settlement on the relationship between the Turkish state and Turkey’s Kurdish community is vital. It is of great concern that over the past year the level of violence in that decades-long conflict has increased. It is estimated that over the past 30 years 45,000 lives have been lost. As recently as last month, 34 people were killed at a military border post. However, there are also encouraging signs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South outlined, there is a greater level of co-operation between the Turkish Government and the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq, including plans to build an oil pipeline between the two areas. I echo the question put to the Minister by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee: what do the Government think the prospects are for a settlement on this issue in the months and years to come?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I have not heard the whole of my hon. Friend’s speech, but she has not touched on the Cyprus problem in the last part of it. I know that the matter has been discussed in the debate, but she has not mentioned it. Will she say something about Cyprus?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his late intervention. There has been quite a lot of discussion of the Cyprus question. It is clearly an obstacle to progress in Turkey’s accession negotiations. I referred to it somewhat obliquely when I talked about political problems, rather than problems relating to the acquis communautaire, in Turkey’s membership negotiations.
In conclusion, today’s debate has underlined the many reasons why Turkey is an important strategic and economic partner to the UK. As I touched on earlier, as a result of the Arab spring there is a high degree of hope for a democratic future in the middle east and north Africa, but also a high degree of uncertainty. The ongoing crisis in Syria and the problems with Iran serve only to exacerbate that instability. Turkey is a vital ally in that key region and beyond. It is a stable, democratic, secular, Islamic state, a beacon of democracy and an inspiration for countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. For all those reasons, it is clear that Turkey is a strategic partner of growing importance to the UK. I look forward to hearing how the Minister and the Government will continue to strengthen our bilateral relationship with this important country.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I first pay tribute to the Foreign Affairs Committee for a report that, even by its ordinarily high standards, is exceptional in its breadth and significance. It ranges across many aspects of both the UK’s bilateral relationship with Turkey and Turkey’s growing self-confidence and influence in her region and the world. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the other members of the Committee on the report and on securing the debate.
I welcome, too, the Committee’s recognition of the Government’ efforts to deepen our already strong bilateral relationship, building on the strategic partnership that the two Prime Ministers signed in 2010. President Gul’s state visit last November was a great success, and eight months on, when we look at the scale of co-operation between the United Kingdom and Turkey across the board—from trade and investment to justice and home affairs to our approach to the conflict in Syria—it is clear that our relationship has never been stronger.
In the time allotted to me, I wish to try to respond to the various points that Members have raised. I start with foreign policy, because the report and the debate have highlighted the truth that, today, Turkey matters on the world stage to an increasing extent. She is a vital foreign policy partner for the UK, increasingly driving forward international co-operation in regions that are critical to this country’s interests, notably the middle east. As a prosperous, modern democracy with a largely but not entirely Muslim population, Turkey continues to act as an inspiration to countries affected by the Arab spring.
In Syria, Turkey is playing a vital role within the international community to exert pressure on the Assad regime to end its violence. The support of the Turkish Government for opposition groups based in that country can play an important part in the transition to a peaceful and fully democratic Government in Syria. We support the active role that Turkey is playing, including its decision to host a ministerial meeting of the core group last month in Istanbul. Although it was not mentioned in the debate, it is right to commend the care that Turkey is providing to more than 35,000 refugees from Syria who have fled the violence in their own country.
As my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out, the shooting down of a Turkish aircraft on 22 June highlights the risks posed to all Syria’s neighbours by the continuing crisis there. In her response to the incident, Turkey has shown considerable restraint. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has condemned the Syrian regime’s actions in the strongest terms, as has NATO, and all NATO allies stand together with Turkey in solidarity and will continue to work closely with her in the months ahead. To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), there has been no discussion of invoking article 5.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) pointed out, Turkey has increasing regional influence, and an alliance with Turkey can therefore provide extra diplomatic reach to the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole. Although Syria has been our immediate focus, we continue to build our foreign policy co-operation with Turkey on areas such as Afghanistan—my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay rightly paid tribute to Turkey’s role in ISAF—Iran, the western Balkans, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said, and Somalia. We will look for all opportunities to deepen such co-operation over the coming months, both bilaterally and within the EU, where we welcomed Foreign Minister Davutoglu’s attendance at the March Foreign Affairs Council.
The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) asked me about Turkey’s rather fraught relationship with Israel. We must acknowledge that this is a sensitive issue for both countries, but the UK believes strongly that both should take steps towards reconciliation, because it is in both their interests and would be an important contribution to greater regional stability and the broader middle east peace process.
The general point about the need for an effort to improve relations also applies to Turkey’s relationship with Armenia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), pointed out, there is a history of grief and appalling human rights abuses in the early part of the 20th century. Modern Turkey and Armenia need to find a way to live together as neighbours and friends as soon as possible.
Commercially, Turkey has a great story to tell—a growing economy, good demographics, a strong entrepreneurial spirit and an increasing openness to international partnership and investment—and there are growing opportunities for British businesses, which we will look to exploit. The Prime Minister has committed the Government to doubling trade with Turkey by 2015. To this end, we have set up a joint economic and trade committee that meets annually and serves as an official forum for Ministers and officials from both countries to explore how to enhance that commercial relationship.
At the same time, we have established with the Turks a chief executive officer forum to bring together business leaders to discuss how to increase trade and investment flows. Finally, we have set up a knowledge partnership, launched by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary when he visited Turkey last September, the purpose of which is to promote science, innovation, entrepreneurship and investment between the UK and Turkey. All three forums will meet later this year.
The trade statistics so far demonstrate that we are on target to reach our goal. Bilateral trade with Turkey exceeded £9 billion in 2011—up nearly 40% from 2009—and last year our exports to Turkey increased by 20%, reaching £3.7 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) was interested in some examples. Invensys has succeeded in its bid for an £800 million rail upgrading project in Turkey. Diageo is, I believe, one of the leading raki manufacturers in Turkey, and Rolls-Royce, Thales and Ultra Electronics have been successful in the field of defence contracts.
Recent visits to Turkey by the lord mayor of London, by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, the Minister for Universities and Science and my noble Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Investment, Lord Green, are all helping to intensify our economic ties. The first joint UK Trade and Investment-CBI mission to Turkey, specifically aimed at medium-sized businesses, was led by Lord Green and John Cridland in April. We chose Turkey as the first global destination for this type of trade mission because of the opportunities Turkey can offer to UK business.
Energy brings together both political and economic interests. Turkey can be an important energy transit route, bringing non-Russian gas from the Caspian to Europe—something that is in Europe and the UK’s strategic interest and of direct benefit to British Petroleum, its being the major energy investor in Azerbaijan. We also welcome the agreement between Turkey and Azerbaijan, dated 26 June, on a trans-Anatolian pipeline. The opportunities that Turkey provides in the field of energy make it even more frustrating that the energy chapter in Turkey’s EU accession negotiations remains blocked, given that our deepening bilateral relationship is underpinned by continuing firm support for full Turkish membership of the European Union.
The Turkish-EU accession process and her relations with the EU were rightly a major theme of the Committee’s inquiry. We firmly believe that a stronger and closer relationship between the European Union and Turkey will support the security and prosperity of the United Kingdom and the EU. At the same time, we believe that the process of accession negotiations can be the most important driver towards economic, democratic, judicial and political reform within Turkey—reforms whose acceleration many Members on both sides of the House have been calling for in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, quite fairly, raised questions about migration and organised crime. Migration would have to be tackled during the accession negotiations and in the context of the stage of administrative, political and economic development that Turkey had reached at that time. On looking at other EU candidates or new EU members, the track record is that progress against organised crime is most likely to be accelerated when those countries are engaged in the detail of the accession process, with the requirement that that brings for serious action against corruption and organised crime.
We acknowledge that recent progress in the formal accession negotiations has been disappointing, and we have therefore strongly supported Commissioner Fule’s positive agenda for EU-Turkey relations. There is some sign of encouragement from the comments made by President Hollande in France, but we are right to remain cautious. This remains a very sensitive political issue within France.
I am not going to dwell at length on the issue of Cyprus, which the House will have other opportunities to debate. However, I say in direct response to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that we welcome President Christofias saying that the gas reserves should benefit all the people living in Cyprus. We hope that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus will take further steps to demonstrate to Turkish Cypriots that they have a clear interest in the development of these reserves. There has never been any doubt about the United Kingdom’s support for the right of the Republic of Cyprus to develop the reserves that lie within its exclusive economic zone.
The only other thing I would say about Cyprus is that we remain committed to a settlement based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation of Cyprus, with equal rights for all communities and citizens, and in compliance with the relevant United Nations organisation. We continue to support the Cypriot-led process, facilitated by the United Nations, to bring that about. A comprehensive, permanent political settlement in Cyprus is in the interest of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece, Europe and the United Kingdom, and would add hugely to the stability and prosperity of the whole eastern Mediterranean region.
I have very little time left, so I will write to those Members who made points about human rights if I do not have time to deal with them now. I do want to respond.
One of the most important aspects of the accession process is the role it has played in supporting Turkey’s reforms in areas such as civilian control of the military and the independence of the judiciary. There is, as many Members have said, a long way still to travel, but at the same time it is right that we acknowledge the transformation that has taken place in Turkish life since the military ran that country. Even as recently as last month, laws were passed to establish an independent human rights institute and an independent human rights ombudsman. This week, the Turkish Parliament voted through measures to speed up court procedures and institute other judicial reforms, and a draft law on trade union rights is now before the Turkish Parliament.
Those achievements over the past decade have been compelling, but as Turkey recognises, further improvements are needed in areas such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and women’s rights. We urge Turkey to accelerate the pace of reform in those areas, including through the introduction of further reform packages and an inclusive constitutional reform process. As the United Kingdom Government, we have offered, and continue to offer, technical assistance on a range of issues, including freedom of expression, women’s rights and judicial reform—
Estimates 2012-13
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.
The Government are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation Indian Mujahideen—the IM—to the list of 47 international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 10th proscription under the 2000 Act.
Section 3 of the 2000 Act provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including through the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation only if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, she may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way so early in what will probably be a short contribution. What reviews have been conducted of all the other organisations on the list? Every time these orders come up, we seem to add to the list, rather than subtract from it.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to tell the House that an annual review is undertaken in respect of all the proscribed organisations. I also note the recommendation from David Anderson, the independent reviewer on terrorism, in respect of a mechanism for de-proscription. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are examining that recommendation carefully, and that we will respond to David Anderson’s report in due course.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Select Committee’s report on the roots of radicalism supported what the Government were doing, but suggested that the matter needed to be looked at. It is six months since the publication of the report. Given that the Minister is now bringing another organisation before the House, will he tell us when we can expect a definitive answer from the Government on what form that mechanism will take?
James Brokenshire
I acknowledge the Select Committee’s interest. Indeed, I gave evidence to the Committee, and I remember the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked me during the evidence sessions. The matter is being considered, in relation to the Select Committee’s report and in the context of the recommendation made by the independent reviewer. All I can say is that we will make a further announcement in due course. Unfortunately, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a more specific answer now, but I acknowledge the point that he is making, and we will respond to the points made by the Select Committee and by the independent reviewer shortly.
We recognise that proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the United Kingdom. Proscription makes it a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or invite support for, the proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of the organisation, or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that could arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual was a member or supporter of the relevant organisation.
Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information and evidence on that organisation. Having carefully considered all the evidence, she firmly believes that IM is involved in terrorism. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail, but I am able to give them the following information. IM is a terrorist organisation based in India. It emerged in 2007. It uses violence in its attempts to achieve its stated objectives of creating an Islamic state in India and of implementing sharia law there.
The organisation has frequently perpetrated attacks on civilian targets, such as markets, with the intention of maximising casualties. In May 2008, for example, a spate of bomb detonations in the city of Jaipur killed 63, and in September last year an explosion outside the high court in Delhi reportedly killed 12 and injured 65. IM has sought to incite sectarian hatred in India by deliberately targeting Hindu places of worship. An example of that was an attack on a prayer ceremony in Varanasi, which killed a child, in December 2010.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I understand and wholeheartedly support the reason for proscribing the organisation here, but is it proscribed in India as well?
James Brokenshire
Yes, the organisation is proscribed in India and in several other countries, including the United States and New Zealand. The proscription here will align the UK with the emerging international consensus.
It is important, in the context of this order, to state that the group is also known to target areas popular with tourists. A shooting incident in Old Delhi wounded two Taiwanese tourists in September 2010, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to detonate an explosive device at the scene. The organisation has also publicly threatened to attack British tourists, so it clearly poses a threat to British nationals in India.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
My hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that the United States and other countries have also condemned these terrorist organisations. What international co-ordination is there to ensure that if such an organisation is proscribed in one country, it is proscribed in other countries that we see as our allies?
James Brokenshire
I understand my hon. Friend’s particular interest in this subject. Clearly, we need to be satisfied that a particular organisation meets the statutory requirements for proscription, which I outlined at the start of my contribution. We seek to draw on information wherever it is available so that we can determine that the relevant steps are met in respect of the statutory tests, thus giving the Home Secretary the discretion to exercise a determination to proscribe an organisation.
We believe there is ample evidence to suggest that IM is concerned in terrorism, and I believe it is right to add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 to the 2000 Act. I commend the order to the House.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I start by thanking the Minister for his courtesy in having discussions with me about the order. Proscription is serious, and it is quite right that the decision to proscribe an organisation is not taken lightly. The consequences of proscription are very serious, not least because it potentially criminalises the group’s members. Proscription must be reserved for the most dangerous groups where there is clear evidence of terrorist activity.
Under the regulations laid out in part II of the Terrorism Act 2000, a group may be proscribed only if the Home Secretary believes that the organisation commits or participates in acts of terrorism and the Opposition are confident that there is evidence to support the Minister’s assertions and will support the proscription.
I would like to ask the Minister a few questions about the Indian Mujahideen. It is quite clear that it is a terrorist organisation. Indeed, as the Minister set out, it has been behind some of the most appalling acts of terrorism of recent years—most horrifically, the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, in which nearly 170 people were killed. The IM also shares responsibility for the general decline in the security situation on the Indian subcontinent.
It is important, however, to look at the group’s history and to understand the wider movement from which it developed. It is particularly important to recognise the strong links between the IM and the Students Islamic Movement of India—a movement first identified back in 1977. In 1986, the SIMI called for the liberation of India’s Muslims, and evolved into a militant organisation at some point in the 1990s.
The Royal United Services Institute suggests that the IM needs to be understood as a product of the SIMI. This is important because, as far as I am aware, the Government have not banned the SIMI. Will the Minister explain why the SIMI has not been included in the order? As I understand it, if an IM branch converts back to become a SIMI group, it will not be proscribed and the Government will be unable to act against its members. Is that correct? Will the Minister confirm whether he considers the SIMI group to be a terrorist organisation? We also know of concerns about links between the IM and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has also been known to commit attacks on the Indian subcontinent and has already been proscribed.
Let me move on to other factors to which the Home Secretary has to give consideration in making a decision to proscribe. The first is to look at the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities. Will the Minister confirm whether the decision to proscribe this organisation now is a result of evidence suggesting an increase in the scale of the IM’s activities?
Secondly, the specific threat posed to British nationals overseas has to be considered. There are many British nationals in India, particularly in Mumbai. Sadly, British nationals have already been caught up in terrorist attacks in India. Does the fact that the Government are proscribing this organisation now mean that the UK Government recognise that there is an increased level of threat in India and to British nationals in particular?
The Minister has set out evidence of the targeting of UK nationals, and we know that the IM, being active in India, also has a presence in Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. I understand that it uses the porous borders between Nepal and Bangladesh and Bangladesh and India to avoid Indian security on the Pakistan border when it acquires weapons from factions based in Pakistan. May I also ask whether there is any evidence linking that group to forces attacking UK troops operating in Afghanistan?
Thirdly, there is the issue of the extent of the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom, and the question of whether any specific threat is posed to the UK. Is there any evidence that the IM is active in the UK, or receives direct support from it? Have the Government any estimate of the number of people in the UK who might be affected by the proscription of the group?
According to a 2011 report by the Royal United Services Institute,
“SIMI's (and, thereafter, IM's) distinguishing characteristic was that it was, essentially, home-grown. Its activists and leaders are virtually all Indian.”
Does the decision to proscribe the group reflect a change in its composition? Is there now a greater IM presence outside India? In particular, have links been found between that group and groups operating in the middle east and Europe?
As I said earlier, there are strong links between IM and the Students Islamic Movement of India. Will the Minister tell us whether SIMI is known to the Home Office, and whether there has been a proper assessment of its activities in the United Kingdom? Specifically, is there any evidence that it has operated in UK universities, colleges or mosques, or within communities? Is there any evidence that the IM has forged links with other Islamic terrorist organisations operating in the UK? As I said earlier, there is evidence that Lashkar-e-Taiba has given logistical support to the IM. Is there now evidence to suggest that the IM has developed links with any other groups? In particular, is there any evidence of links between the IM and any other groups on the UK’s proscribed list, which I think now contains about 47 international terrorist organisations?
Fourthly, the Home Secretary should bear in mind the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. The Minister has said that the UK is proscribing the IM when that has already been done by some of our international allies: India, New Zealand and the United States. Why is that? Did India ask the UK to proscribe the IM? Did discussions include a discussion of the role of other groups, including SIMI? Will this have any European consequences, and have any discussions taken place with our European allies?
Today is the fifth anniversary of the first Prime Minister’s Question Time after my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) became Prime Minister. On that occasion, the then Leader of the Opposition chose proscription as his first topic, using the opportunity to attack the then Government for not proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir. He said:
“Hizb ut-Tahrir. We think it should be banned—why has it not happened?”—[Official Report, 4 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 951.]
Five years later, the Minister stated in a letter to me:
“this is an organisation about which we have significant concerns and their activities are kept under review”.
Will he explain today why Hizb ut-Tahrir still has not been banned, five years after the present Prime Minister called for such action?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly why the coalition Government intend to proscribe this organisation. He could have listed, I believe, nine separate incidents in which it was involved between 2007 and 2011. It is clearly a prolific and dangerous organisation.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked a great many questions, to which I can add just one. I understand that the Minister may not be able to answer it—and many of the other questions—for security reasons, but is there any evidence of activity in the UK and specifically of, perhaps, charity work to support that organisation?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I do not wish to detain the House, as I know many of the Members present want us to move on. I can tell them that, given what we have heard from the Front Benches, I do not believe that the House will divide.
When we proscribe an organisation, it is important that we do so carefully, because it is something we do very rarely. Such a move is also almost never opposed by the Opposition. That has certainly been the case throughout all the years that I have been Home Affairs Committee Chair and, indeed, in Parliament—and throughout all the years you have been in Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker. In all that time, I have never known Government and Opposition to disagree on the proscription of an organisation. We will support the Government order because I am sure that the Home Secretary will have taken good advice before proscribing this organisation, and that she will not have taken the decision lightly.
However, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), was right to press the Minister on a number of issues concerning the operation of the organisation within the UK. The Minister is right: the Indian Government have banned the organisation, as it has conducted a number of atrocities, most recently in Mumbai in 2011. However, I represent a constituency that, on the last census, has more people of Indian origin than any other constituency in the country, and I am not aware of this organisation operating in the UK. The Home Secretary obviously knows better than I, so I am happy to take her lead, but it is important that we proscribe for a reason.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) rightly says we should not act in isolation. The Minister named five countries, including New Zealand, but there needs to be better co-ordination among countries, so that when we ban an organisation in our country, that applies also in other countries in the EU, because it would not of course be acceptable for that organisation to continue to operate in France, for instance, while being proscribed in the UK. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will confirm that we will also be asking other EU countries to make this decision, as well as other international organisations with which we are associated, and that we will act together with other countries that are friendly to the UK.
My main point goes back to an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), however, and it is specifically about proscription. When the Select Committee produced its unanimous report into the roots of radicalism—I note that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), a distinguished brain on the Committee, is present—we were very clear about the issue of de-proscription. We looked at the example of the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran. It took the then Government to court and it won, and that Government had to allow it to continue. We do not want to go along that path again. There needs to be a clear route for organisations that have become clean, or that have got rid of their terrorist operations—and for their supporters who may support certain causes but who do not support terrorism—to be able to be part of an exercise of de-proscription.
The excellent independent reviewer, David Anderson, proposes time-limiting proscription, so that Governments have to come back in two years and renew the proscription. The Select Committee has not taken a view on the time limit, but we certainly feel that there ought to be some such mechanism. The Minister has given us an answer, but I am afraid that it is similar to some of the letters I have received from the Home Secretary and other Ministers that use the words “in due course”. I know that when we use the seasons—spring and summer, for example—that can mean virtually anything and I know that “shortly” does not necessarily mean tomorrow, but “in due course” sounds like quite a long time. Clearly this will not happen before the recess, as that is in 10 days’ time, but it would be good to have a timetable so that people know what to expect.
I raise these issues because of my concern about my constituents who are members of the Tamil community. They still face difficulties in booking halls when they want to discuss Tamil issues because of the ban that remains on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. As the Minister knows, the LTTE lost the war in Sri Lanka, effectively all its leaders were killed and the organisation no longer exists. If he wants to take advice other than mine, he should talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and especially to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), who is, of course, a member of the Minister’s party and the chairman of the all-party group on Tamils. These members of the Tamil community wish to operate within the law and have no connection with the LTTE, but they still have difficulties in raising money for compassionate and charitable reasons because of the ban that remains on that group.
How do we de-proscribe an organisation that does not exist? Who makes the application when no members of the LTTE are operating in the United Kingdom? Who will write a letter to the Home Secretary to say, “Dear Home Secretary, please de-proscribe us” when the group no longer exists? The previous Government, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and I supported—although my hon. Friend was not a Home Office Minister in that Government, so I cannot hold her responsible—were unable to come to this House and say that they would de-proscribe any organisation. How will the Government demonstrate their good faith, therefore, not just as regards what they are doing today, which I fully support for the reasons set out by the Minister—many of which we obviously take on good faith because we have not seen the files—but by ensuring that there is a mechanism in law that will satisfy our constituents in cases such as the one that I have raised?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I shall be brief, but I want to follow up on the comments made by the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who speaks on behalf of the Opposition.
I feel that we should be cautious when we proscribe any organisation. As the Minister pointed out, the effect is that anti-terrorist law rather than normal criminal law applies to that organisation, not just in this country but in other countries. It almost ends up criminalising entire communities, as my right hon. Friend for Leicester East mentioned in the context of the Tamil community, but it affects many others too. We should not always reach out to anti-terror laws to deal with our problems in security; we should instead use the criminal law that we have.
The other effect of banning an organisation from a particular community can be to choke off perfectly open and legitimate political debate and deter people from taking part in normal political debate. It might also have the perverse effect of encouraging some people in completely the wrong direction. We should be more than slightly cautious about that.
These issues are not new and they have been raised many times. I realise than the Minister probably cannot give a full answer today, but I have asked questions concerning the Anderson inquiry and its proposals. There are a substantial number of organisations on that list and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the LTTE is a banned organisation although it no longer exists, so there does not seem to be a great deal of point in continuing that ban. Will the Minister give us a more specific indication than “in due course” of when he will be able to come before the House with a substantial reply to the queries of many Members about some of the organisations listed?
Will the Minister also give a strong message to the law enforcement officers in this country at all levels? If a specific organisation is banned, there is clearly a legal sanction against that organisation. However, it is not a legal sanction against all members of the community or against legitimate political debate. It is not a legal sanction against normal political discourse but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, some people somewhere hear that the LTTE is banned and therefore believe that all Tamil activity is banned. That is obviously not the case, but it is a message that some people misunderstand, or choose to misunderstand. If the Minister would set the record right, that would be extremely helpful. I look forward to his reply, and I hope that he can give a substantial answer to the report by the Home Affairs Committee sooner rather than later. I realise that that will not be before the summer recess, but if we could at least have an indication that it would be available in early autumn that would be helpful.
James Brokenshire
With the leave of the House, I shall be brief. Important points have been made, and I will reflect on de-proscription and the other things that have been raised this evening. I shall certainly write to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Select Committee, about relevant matters. I welcome support across the House for the measure. Unfortunately, there are a number of things on which I cannot comment because of intelligence and security matters, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand.
A number of issues were highlighted with regard to specific organisations. The Home Secretary has to be satisfied through the tests that I outlined that an organisation is connected with terrorism, so this is not a step that is taken lightly—it is a serious issue. I hope that the House understands that the Home Secretary has considered the issue carefully and that the IM has been engaged in indiscriminate mass-casualty attacks in India. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.
Business without Debate
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (5 JULY)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 11 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Bodies
That the draft Public Bodies (Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission: Abolition and Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 23 April 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
Defence
That the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 22 May, be approved.
Electronic Communications
That the draft Broadcasting (Local Digital Television Programme Services and Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 23 May, be approved.
Sea Fisheries
That the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012 (S.I., 2012, No. 1375), dated 21 May 2012, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 May, be approved.
Town and Country Planning
That the draft Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.
Police
That the draft Police and Crime Panels (Modification of Functions) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 11 June, be approved. —(Mr Syms.)
Question agreed to.
European Union Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),
Energy Agreements Between EU Member States and Third Countries
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13943/11, a draft Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up an information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements between Member States and third countries in the field of energy; and supports the Government’s efforts to achieve greater transparency in intergovernmental energy agreements, whilst ensuring that the provisions of the draft Decision do not alter the balance of competence between the Commission and Member States. —(Mr Syms.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I have a petition from my constituent, Mr D. Pickerill, who bought a Citroën car on 6 April 2011 for which he paid £14,615, although it had been advertised from 1 April 2011 for £12,995, or just under £13,000. He was required to pay the higher price because he ordered it before 1 April, which is really bad practice by Citroën. The petition states
“Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will urge the Government to ensure that fair trade remains a principle of doing business within the United Kingdom; and bring forward legislation to ensure that all transactions in the UK are equitable and that companies, such as Citroën, cannot advertise a product for one price and sell it at a higher price.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray”.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Humble Petition of Mr D Pickerill,
Sheweth,
That the Petitioner bought a Citroën C4 on 6 April 2011, which the Petitioner declares was purchased from Citroën for £14,615, but had been advertised from 1 April 2011 for £12,995; further declares that the Petitioner believes that he was wilfully overcharged; and declares that despite the assistance of the Honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley, Citroën have refused to refund or properly explain the difference.
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will urge the Government to ensure that fair trade remains a principle of doing business within the United Kingdom; and bring forward legislation to ensure that all transactions in the UK are equitable and that companies, such as Citroën, cannot advertise a product for one price and sell it at a higher price.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.]
[P001102]
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of East Cleveland and Middlesbrough,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that bus services in Teesside provided by Arriva have been second rate for too long; that buses do not run on time, services have been cut back and rising fares are threatening to price out vulnerable, elderly and young people from using public transport for educational purposes, as a means of transport for work and for accessing health services; and further declares that the Petitioners believe that Government cuts to subsidies for local bus services are making this already poor situation worse,
The 490 Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse cuts to local bus subsidies and take all possible steps to ensure that improvements are made to bus services in East Cleveland and Middlesbrough.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001104]
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
This is a petition on behalf of 127 residents of the small community of Sadberge in Sedgefield, who are deeply concerned about cuts to their local bus services. All bus services will be removed from that community at the end of the year.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Sadberge,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that in order to maintain a reliable rural transport network in Darlington Borough additional funding needs to be provided for rural bus services.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that there is funding in place to maintain the provision of reliable rural bus services in the Darlington Borough.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001105]
Navitus Wind Farm, Swanage
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I am grateful to have this debate on an issue of great concern to people in my constituency and others along the coast. I welcome this opportunity to talk about a proposal that could change the character of our coastline for decades. The Navitus Bay offshore wind farm will cover 76 square miles of seabed owned by the Crown Estate. It is to be located to the south and west of The Needles on the Isle of Wight and will be clearly visible from Swanage, one of the seaside resorts in my constituency.
The project is a 50:50 joint venture between two foreign firms—the Dutch energy company Eneco and the French utility giant EDF. It forms part of round 3 of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s programme of offshore development, which is designed to generate 33 GW of energy by 2020. Working at full capacity, the wind farm will generate enough electricity for about 800,000 homes. It will create jobs and foster engineering and marine-based skills, and it forms part of a regeneration agenda for some of the most run-down areas on the south coast. Put like that, and in the context of the Government’s enthusiasm for renewable energy, it seems almost irresistible.
However, Dorset and East Devon’s stunning Jurassic coast is the only natural UNESCO world heritage site in England. The Great Barrier reef has the same status, and if we were to suggest building 300 wind turbines off that, the Australians would tell us in typically blunt fashion exactly where to go. World heritage status was granted to the Jurassic coast 10 years ago in recognition of our glorious coastline, which UNESCO describes as being of “outstanding universal value”. It is a prized designation, and a magnet for 16 million visitors every year. Tourists spend nearly £700 million a year there and support more than 45,000 jobs. And yes, the unspoilt view is key to this success, so why are we considering jeopardising this jewel by siting a giant wind farm just offshore?
The precise details have yet to be confirmed when the three phases of public consultation are closed in autumn next year, but we know enough to be concerned. The aim is to generate between 900 MW and 1,200 MW of wind energy a year. That translates into a need for between 100 and 333 turbines. Each, depending upon capacity, will be somewhere between 150 and 210 metres tall. To put that in perspective, one of the larger turbines would dwarf the Gherkin in the City. Just one of these giant turbines would be significant; 100 of them, or more if smaller turbines are used, would blight the coastline for years to come.
Importantly, the proximity of this wind farm to our shoreline totally contradicts the Government’s own guidelines. The Department of Energy and Climate Change suggests that such developments should be more than 23 km from the coast. Unfortunately, the majority of this project is inside that limit. Indeed, the closest point is a mere 13 km away. Interestingly, there was, and presumably still is, the possibility of locating the turbines further out to sea. Originally, the Crown Estate earmarked a far larger area for the wind farm. Inevitably, the site chosen by Eneco and its partners is the closest to shore in depths of between 20 and 50 metres, which is clearly intended to reduce the cost. That would indicate, rather worryingly, that whatever the result of the public consultations there is little room for manoeuvre. The truth is that Navitus Bay will be too big and too close.
This is not just nimbyism. Those who think that a simple view should not impede our future energy requirements should think on this: UNESCO considered withdrawing the world heritage designation given to the beautiful and secluded site of Mont Saint Michel in France when it was threatened by just three wind turbines 20 km away. The French electricity firm involved quickly backed down and Mont Saint Michel remains undisturbed, surrounded by a permanent 40 by 80 km exclusion zone.
I have written to the UNESCO world heritage centre to warn that our own natural world heritage site is in jeopardy. It has written to the ambassador to the United Kingdom’s permanent delegation to UNESCO and to the advisory body of the World Heritage Committee. It has also demanded a visual analysis of the potential negative impact on the coastline. In the visual analysis I have seen, viewed from Durlston, a viewpoint in Swanage, a full third of the horizon is taken up by wind turbines. To be clear, that is the same Durlston that, following a £5 million restoration, is called the “Gateway to the Jurassic coast”. There would be a stretch of water between the land and the wind farm, but the undisturbed and peaceful skyline would be broken by man’s folly.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change has confirmed that Britain is still dedicated to producing 15% of the country’s energy from renewables by 2020, yet we know that wind energy generation has proved intermittent and unreliable. At peak output, wind farms average only a third of their proposed capacity, so wind energy has to be supplemented by conventional power stations or nuclear energy—not the stuff of green dreams—which are expensive to build and neither is renewable, but they will keep the lights on. Connecting Navitus Bay to the grid would be far costlier than anyone anticipated. The electricity networks’ strategy group reported this year on what it rather coyly describes as “regional connection issues”. Put simply, our networks cannot cope with carrying the extra capacity. The ENSG estimates that £450 million will need to be spent on “system reinforcement” in the south-west, which includes the proposed Navitus Bay development, before any electricity flows.
Then there is the vexed question of subsidies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has drawn our attention to so successfully. To make wind farms attractive, investors were lured with promises of excessive financial incentives, and 105 Members of this House have already protested against those subsidies.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and support him absolutely. The 105 signatures actually related to subsidies for onshore wind farms, but we know that the subsidies going into offshore wind are even greater and even less affordable for the taxpayer.
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come to that point and ask the Minister to reassure me that the subsidy withdrawal will also apply to offshore wind farms. With households already struggling to pay their energy bills, the financial incentives for investors are almost obscene. The news yesterday that such subsidies will eventually be reduced to zero should deter companies hoping to exploit our energy crisis.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Unfortunately, that news will not apply to schemes such as Navitus Bay because it will not be applied retrospectively, if ever it were to happen. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that, based on the numbers he has quoted, the total subsidy for that wind farm over the next two decades would be in the order of £1.5 billion to £2 billion, which is an awful lot of money for other consumers to find?
Richard Drax
I entirely concur. At a time of austerity, when we are all looking for the pennies here and there to keep our country afloat, this is not a moment to dish out money to, in particular, foreign companies. That is what is so ironic: they are Dutch and French companies, not British.
To their credit, the companies involved, Navitus, Eneco and EDF, have consulted and are consulting those who live near to or use those waters, and they have promised to take their views into account. Opponents of Navitus believe that the giant turbines will have a catastrophic effect on the environment and on tourism. Millions of people do not flock to our coastline to watch turbine blades go round; they go for peace and a chance to escape this busy world in which we live.
I worry that our current planning guidelines will not help local people to defeat unwanted wind farm proposals. In a recent reply to my letter, the Minister explained that the Navitus Bay wind farm is a
“Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the planning act”.
As such, the project goes straight to the Planning Inspectorate, together with an environmental statement on the potential impact of the wind farm, and that, too, is prepared by the developer.
The Minister points out that the public may submit their views to the inspectorate, but he reminds me that the wind farm is part of our commitment to meet renewable targets. There is a hint of inevitability about his reply, and I should appreciate his reassurance that the scheme is not a foregone conclusion.
I fear, as with recent onshore wind farm planning appeals, that we may find inspectors citing renewable energy targets as more important than planning considerations. I sincerely hope that the national planning policy framework amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and by other colleagues in the House—in which we recommend that renewable energy targets should not be used by developers as a reason to override the unsuitability of specific locations, and that the wishes of local people should still be considered paramount—will be adopted in the case of offshore wind farm applications as well.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Perhaps I should declare an interest as someone who has enjoyed sailing off the Jurassic coast. I assure my hon. Friend that this historic and wonderful coast is enjoyed not just by Members and the people of Dorset but by many tourists from miles around, so on behalf of many other south-east MPs I support him. It is a valuable resource and a landmark of national importance, and that must not get lost in the planning process.
Richard Drax
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is absolutely right, and I hope that the Minister and the Government listen to him, to us in the House, to the millions of people who live on our coastline and to the millions of others who go down to use it.
There are other sites, further away and less visible, if such a wind farm is unavoidable, but there are no other natural sites designated as world heritage sites in the entire country. I ask the Government to think very carefully about what they are doing before we blight one of the jewels in our coastal crown.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to make a brief contribution to this debate.
I shall not dwell on the points that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has made so eloquently about the philosophy behind offshore or, indeed, onshore wind, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has also spoken at length in the past, except to say, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Baroness Thatcher once did:
“Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”
This is a profoundly serious issue for my constituents and, indeed, for the entirety of the conurbation, and that is demonstrated by the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—the entire conurbation—are in the Chamber this evening to highlight our profound and real concerns and reservations.
Bournemouth is well known to Members, who go there for the party conferences and will have all stood in the Highcliff hotel and enjoyed the incredible views across the bay. The bay and the view are the hook on which our local tourism economy hangs. The vital prosperity of our area is dependent on that, and we have profound reservations about this scheme and what it may do to the tourism economy.
I have extreme concerns about the process of consultation in which Eneco is involved. The initial consultation did not fill us with confidence; it included questions such as:
“How far do you agree with the following statement?” ‘People have a ‘not in my back yard’ attitude to wind parks’…. How far do you agree with the following statement? ‘I am happy to live close to an offshore wind park if it helps to combat climate change’…How many average households’ energy consumption do you think an offshore wind park can produce in one year?”
Those are not open-minded consultation questions, but dogma-driven ones.
We also have real concerns about the inability so far of the company to provide us with real graphics about what the park will look like. The company keeps telling us that it cannot yet do that because it does not know where in the development area the farm will be, how many turbines there will be or what height they will be. If the company does not know all those things, I find it strange that it can tell us exactly the quantity of energy the wind farm is intended to produce. When the company does give us illustrative graphics, they are of a dusky winter scene. We want them to show the wind farm at the height of the season on a clear, blue-sky day or on a clear night, so that we can see what it would mean for the area.
We are concerned about the economic impact assessment. In fairness, the company is seeking to talk to more than 400 businesses, but some are up to 10 miles away from the coastal area. That will not give us meaningful data about the potential impact on our area.
I close with a simple point, one of the most important that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset made. I would love the Minister to give us a firm and detailed reply. It is about proximity to the shore. Eneco’s preferred site is 7 nautical miles from the coast, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change offshore energy assessment 2 says that new offshore wind farm generation capacity
“should be sited away from the coast, generally outside 12 nautical miles”.
The same report goes on to acknowledge that
“The environmental sensitivity of coastal areas is not uniform, and in certain cases new offshore wind farm projects may be acceptable”.
“In certain cases”—I find it inconceivable that anyone could judge that an exception could be made for the case under discussion. My hon. Friend talked about the beauty of the Jurassic coastline and I have dwelt on the beauty of our area, which attracts so much tourism.
The project may be some way off, but our constituents—mine and others across the conurbation—will not forgive us if we do not highlight today the impact that it could have. If it damages our area, our constituents would rightly not forgive those of us sent to this place to stand up for the interests of the areas that we serve.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the latter of whom secured this important debate. I will not detain hon. Members for long as I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I echo some of our concerns in Bournemouth. Tourism is our biggest industry. It is the fifth biggest industry in the country, but it is certainly the biggest in Bournemouth. The wind farm installations will be sited 10 miles off the coast. We are supposed to be having a consultation, but we do not know three important things. We do not know the actual location of the wind farm within the upside-down “T” shape that has been given to the company by the Crown Estate. The company has chosen to take the very top of the “T” nearest the land, but we do not know exactly where the wind farm will be.
We also do not know the height of the turbines—whether they will be 100 metres or just over 200 metres high, and we do not know how many there will be. How can there be a consultation without some understanding of what we are considering and what might appear on our doorstep? I am not conceptually against offshore wind farms, but there is a threshold in respect of which they could be accepted.
People have managed to locate a wind farm 20 miles off the coast of our fellow tourist town of Blackpool, and that shows that such projects can work. There are 102 turbines 150 metres high there, and they provide 370 MW. Three times that amount will be required for the Bournemouth area. If the turbines were situated 20 miles off the coast, well within the identified Crown Estate area, that would work. The argument that the cable that links the site to the mainland would be too long is ridiculous, because the one at Blackpool is 43 km long. We can reach a compromise that will ensure that the wind farms can exist, if that is what these companies want, but also guarantee that they does not affect the tourism that is so important to the people of Bournemouth.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
I am grateful for the chance to respond to this brief debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and I appreciate the support for their comments that they have received from other hon. Friends. It is clear from their measured and thoughtful speeches that this matter is of profound concern to them and to their constituents. Those of us who know this particularly stunning piece of coastline, which has been enjoyed not only by local residents but by many visitors over the years, know that it is a special part of the countryside and we understand the emotions that lie behind their comments. It is important to say at the outset that no planning application has yet been made. This is an outline proposal on where some potential offshore wind farms can be positioned, but it has not yet moved to being a formal application.
I hope that my hon. Friends accept that all of us as Government Members agree that the way forward for our energy policy has to be secure, affordable and low carbon. That means having a mix of new nuclear, carbon capture to support coal and gas into the future, and renewable sources. We need to combine that with energy efficiency, which is the cheapest way of delivering energy security. Renewable energy, and offshore wind in particular, is set to be a major part of our energy future. Wind is a low-carbon energy source. It is also a domestic source of energy supply, which means that it will play a role in our energy security because we do not have to rely on imported fuels in order to deliver it.
Charles Hendry
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot because I have been given a relatively short time to respond and I want to pick up as many points as I can. If there is time at the end, I will be more than happy for him to contribute.
When we look around, we see that some of the most energy-rich countries in the world are also harnessing their renewable resources, be it solar power in Saudi Arabia, hydro power in Norway, or wind power in Kazakhstan. If it makes sense for them to be harnessing their renewable resources, it surely makes sense for us to do so. For us, offshore wind is a crucial part of that equation because it is one of our most abundant and deliverable renewable resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) talked about sailing on the southern coast. The fact that it is such a good area for sailing shows that the wind resource is strong there. That is one of the reasons the Crown Estate identified the area for potential development. Offshore wind generates more energy, and more often, than other technologies, and it is therefore right that we should be considering it.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset talked about the designation of the scheme as a nationally significant infrastructure project. That is not a subjective assessment made on the basis of having looked at its merits; it is simply a recognition that it is a scheme of more than 50 MW. Any scheme of more than 50 MW has to go through the new national planning system, but following the changes that the Government have made, the final decisions will be made by Ministers.
We understand the local community’s concerns about the proposed development. While we are committed to a rapid increase in offshore wind, we need to ensure that wind farms are located in the right places, and that is the purpose of the planning process. We recognise the need to make balanced decisions on the appropriate location of offshore wind farms. We also recognise that we must take account of the views of local residents, and I give that absolute assurance to my hon. Friend. A proposal must take account of the interests of other users of the sea and of the impact on the environment. All renewable energy developments take place within a fair and transparent planning process that allows all relevant stakeholders to put forward their views on the likely impact of a proposal.
Let me turn to concerns about the site selection process for offshore wind in the context of local sensitivities. Decisions regarding the location of the round 3 offshore wind farm zones, which include Navitus bay, were made by the Crown Estate based on its own analysis of multiple constraints and opportunities. That is a broad zoning aspect. It is then for the planning process to make recommendations on individual applications. It is during the planning process that all relevant stakeholders will have the chance to ensure that their views are heard, including on aspects such as the potential visual impact of a proposal. We all recognise that the environmental sensitivity of coastal areas is not uniform, and neither are the particulars of individual wind farm applications. It is therefore right and proper that decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis.
My understanding is that the developers for Navitus intend to submit an application to the Planning Inspectorate in the autumn next year. The inspectorate will decide whether the application can be accepted. It will examine in detail the application and all the relevant information, including the views of local stakeholders and the local community, before making its recommendation to the Secretary of State for a final determination. I know that my hon. Friends will understand that, as one of the Ministers involved in the determination process, it is not appropriate for me to go into the details of a specific application. However, I want to reassure them of the thoroughness of the process. Their views as local Members of Parliament, the views of their local authorities and the views of their constituents will be an integral part of that process.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset that this is not a done deal. That a project is of a scale that makes it nationally significant does not mean that it automatically will go through the process without changes being made. I understand the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West about the nature of the consultation, but that is an integral part of the process. It is important in determining the exact location that may ultimately be developed and the scale of the wind farm. We will try to accommodate the views of the local community. If there is not seen to be a full and proper consultation process, that will jeopardise the likelihood of success.
I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset about the nature of the process, and about the chance for his and his constituents’ views to be heard.
Charles Hendry
I want to make some further observations, but if there is a chance for my hon. Friend to make some further comments, I will be pleased let him do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Minister, may I ask you to face towards me and to speak into the microphone? We keep losing the sound when you turn around.
Charles Hendry
I willingly accept your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many people are quite glad when the sound goes off while I am speaking, but I know that in such an important debate the words are all important.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset raised the potential impact of offshore wind farms on the environment. That was a core part of his speech. The impacts on other sea users and the environment have to be assessed at a strategic level as part of the Department’s offshore energy strategic environmental assessment, and are assessed again at the application stage for each individual project in the environmental impact assessment. The most recent strategic environmental assessment report, which we published in 2011, concluded that at a strategic level, there were no overriding environmental considerations to prevent the achievement of up to 33 GW of offshore wind in the renewable energy zone and the English and Welsh territorial waters by 2020.
We should be in no doubt, however, that the level of ambition is linked directly to the costs involved. We are working with the industry to ensure that the costs of offshore wind can be brought down significantly. At the moment, the cost is about £140 per MWh; we need to see that brought down to £100 per MWh. The industry ambition of 18 GW by 2020 is absolutely dependent on progress being made in that direction. We understand that that has to happen in a way that works for consumers and the industry as investors. It is worth observing that, last year, there was pressure to push up bills by more than £100 because the wholesale price of gas rose by about 40%. The renewable energy element of a bill is less than £20, or less than 3%. We have to look at these issues in the round.
The most important message that I can give to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is that this is one proposal, which will come forward in a formal application next year. There will be significant opportunities to ensure that people’s views are heard. I am adamant as a Minister involved in the process that local engagement with the community will be an integral part of that process.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
That the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 209 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 199 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Culture, Media and Sport
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rachel Reeves
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what the (a) highest, (b) median, (c) median full-time equivalent and (d) lowest full-time equivalent salary was paid by (i) his Department and (ii) its public bodies in (A) 2010-11, (B) 2011-12 and (C) 2012-13.
[Official Report, 20 June 2012, Vol. 546, c. 1011W.]
Letter of correction from John Penrose:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on 20 June 2012. Since publication, it has been noted that figures in two of the column titles, ‘Lowest’ and ‘Lowest FTE’, in the table provided in the answer, were the wrong way around.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Vaizey
The information requested is set out in the following table:
Highest | Lowest | Lowest FTE | Median | Median FTE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010-11 | 228,883 | 19,436 | 6,827 | 34,498 | 33,034 |
2011-12 | 228,883 | 19,836 | 3,901 | 35,481 | 34,729 |
2012-13 | 228,883 | 19,836 | 3,901 | 35,582 | 34,769 |
The highest salary was paid to the director general in the Government Olympic Executive. Their remuneration details are published annually in the Department's Annual Reports and Accounts. This information is also disclosed on the Department's transparency website.
We do not hold this information for our arm’s length bodies. Accordingly, I have asked their chief executives to respond to the hon. Member.
Copies of the replies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The correct answer should have been:
John Penrose
The information requested is set out in the following table:
Highest | Lowest | Lowest FTE | Median | Median FTE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010-11 | 228,883 | 6,827 | 19,436 | 34,498 | 33,034 |
2011-12 | 228,883 | 3,901 | 19,836 | 35,481 | 34,729 |
2012-13 | 228,883 | 3,901 | 19,836 | 35,582 | 34,769 |
The highest salary was paid to the Director General in the Government Olympic Executive. Their remuneration details are published annually in the Department's Annual Reports and Accounts. This information is also disclosed on the Department's transparency website.
We do not hold this information for its arm’s length bodies. Accordingly, I have asked their chief executives to respond to the hon. Member.
Copies of the replies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Aviation
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and to have the Minister respond to the debate.
My interest in airports first came about because, at a time when many boys want to be train drivers, my younger brother had an ambition to be an airport manager. Consequently, whenever we went on holiday, my indulgent parents would take us to the airport four or five hours before we needed to be there, and my brother would go around and catalogue the catering outlets and investigate the cleaning rosters. I was delighted, a few years later, when he decided that he actually wanted to be a doctor.
As an economist, I worked for a short period on airline alliances, but my most significant involvement with aviation came 10 years ago when, following a leak in the Financial Times a few months earlier, the then Labour Government published the “South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study”—SERAS—which proposed an airport twice the size of Heathrow at a location it described as Cliffe, in the constituency I now represent. Then as now, many felt that that was a stalking horse to make airport expansion elsewhere seem more attractive by comparison.
Our first response was to look at that airport study, which we noted excluded any consideration of Gatwick expansion, on the basis that there was a planning agreement, and it looked no further at that idea at all. I was sort of blooded on that issue when I first asked whether that decision was perhaps irrational and something that would be questioned by the courts. Initially, a judicial review was proposed, which ultimately led to the Labour Government being forced to consider the case for a second runway at Gatwick, even though they had previously decided against it.
The debate that took place showed that an estuary airport would be environmentally devastating, and that the economics simply did not add up. I and many others were delighted to campaign with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Friends of North Kent Marshes, and many others who made the case that having a huge airport in the middle of Europe’s leading wetland landscape, with its millions of birds, was probably not a good idea.
The assumption by some that no people live in that area and that there would be no opposition was put paid to by more than 20,000 people who live on the broader Hoo peninsula, and who would suffer egregiously from such an airport. In addition, large numbers of people live on both sides of the estuary, and any flights taking off in a westerly direction would create new flight paths over heavily populated areas of London. The idea that such an airport would somehow be a problem-free solution that people would not complain about is, to coin a phrase, for the birds.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
To follow on from that, one point made by advocates of the estuary solution is that the area is crying out for new jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that ignores the economic growth that is already happening, particularly in south Essex, with the expansion of the port? That is the future of the estuary—ports, not airports.
Mark Reckless
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I congratulate her on her work in campaigning for economic development in her area. The fundamental point is that although jobs might be created—I do not deny that there would be a lot of jobs; perhaps 200,000, as some estimates suggest—they would come 10, 15 or 20 years from now, and would be almost entirely taken by a vast migration of people who would be forced to uproot themselves, perhaps from around Heathrow, and move to a new area. In terms of Government engineering, I cannot see the case for that in a free society.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Has he seen the report issued by the South East local enterprise partnership, which states that if we allowed our existing airports to expand, we could increase the number of jobs by about 100,000? That would generate in excess of £4 billion per annum.
Mark Reckless
Yes, I have seen that report, and I have a copy with me. Indeed, I encouraged Medway council, and through it the local enterprise partnership, to commission that excellent study. My hon. Friend and neighbour is right, and I will draw significantly on the analysis in that paper during my speech.
As well as the environmental issues, there is a knock-down argument against the Thames estuary airport: it is vastly more expensive to build a new airport than to expand existing provision. Recently, some of those issues have been revisited with Boris’s pie-in-the-sky proposals, whether for Boris island, for a Foster monstrosity over the Isle of Grain, or even to look again at the Cliffe option that was so unambiguously rejected. Some newer issues have come to the fore. For instance, there is the London Array wind farm, and billions of pounds of investment have been put into a major liquefied natural gas terminal. There is the Richard Montgomery, a sunken vessel laden with high explosives, which this Government—unlike the previous one—tell us about, and provide reports on, to clarify the risk. Furthermore, issues of air traffic control have become even more significant than they were 10 years ago, partly because of the expansion of Schiphol airport over that period.
I note from the Parsons Brinckerhoff report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) that Richard Deakin, the chief executive of the National Air Traffic Services, said that the proposed site for the new airport was
“directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports.”
Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said:
“The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here…We’re a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat with the air traffic controllers.”
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, but I am a bit depressed by the combination of nimbyism and sticking-plaster solutions that he puts forward. Is he aware that the UK remains without any direct connection to 11 cities in mainland China that are expected to be among the 25 biggest cities in the world by 2025? Only a hub airport can deliver the sort of connectivity for which businesses in Orpington, and doubtless in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are crying out.
Mark Reckless
I encourage my hon. Friend to listen to the rest of my speech, and not merely to recycle briefings that I, too, have received. There are many arguments for a hub airport, and I do not deny that some are valid. Many, however, are recycled by industry players with strong vested interests that are not necessarily those of the country as a whole. However, I will address my hon. Friend’s point later in my remarks.
Finally, some estimates suggest that the cost of the proposal will be £40 billion, £50 billion or even £100 billion. The Parsons Brinckerhoff report, a substantive piece of work, argues that
“even the £70 billion being discussed is a conservative estimate.”
Boris tells us that that money will come from private investors. Yes, but they will want a return. Even if we are looking at a 5% interest rate over a 50-year period, a return on that sort of money will add at least £50 to the cost of every plane ticket from the airport. Why would airlines, passengers, the Government, indeed anyone, want to pay that sort of money when the cost of expanding existing airports—including some that Members present may be promoting—is so much smaller?
The coalition Government were right to reverse the policy that the previous Government decided on in 2003. To recap, the then Government’s recommendation was a second runway at Stansted by 2011-12, a third runway at Heathrow by 2015 to 2020 and, following our judicial review, a second runway at Gatwick from the mid-2020s. The strongest reason why we were right to overturn that is that the projections on which the Labour Government operated from 2003 were, as I and many others set out clearly at the time, wholly unrealistic. They were based on a low case of 400 million passenger movements for the UK by 2030, and a high case of 600 million.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am listening with great attention and fascination to my hon. Friend’s speech, but he has not addressed a very pertinent point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson): at present we do not have access, or cannot fly directly, to those cities in China. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will come to that in his speech, but I am conscious that it is probably one of the most important questions that he could address, and I would very much like to hear his thoughts on it.
Mark Reckless
In deference to my hon. Friend, I shall bring forward my remarks on that point.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
Before my hon. Friend does so, will he say if he welcomes the fact that Heathrow delivers more flights to China than any of its continental rivals, meaning that we have excellent connectivity to important emerging markets such as China?
Mark Reckless
Yes, I hugely welcome that. From listening to the debate that is dominated by a small number of players with the strongest vested interests and the most public relations consultants, one would get almost the reverse impression. When we talk about flights to China, it is important to remember that the reason why we have relatively few different city destinations—that is separate from the overall number of flights, which the Minister was right to raise and I think is more important—is that it is for the convenience of British Airways, the dominant player at Heathrow, to use Hong Kong as a hub airport for China, in exactly the way that it uses Heathrow as a hub here, through the Oneworld alliance and Cathay Pacific.
Joseph Johnson
First, on a point of fact, according to BAA, London has only 31 flights a week to two destinations in mainland China, whereas there are 56 to three such cities from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport, and 51 to four such cities from Frankfurt. Furthermore, my hon. Friend references Hong Kong and Shanghai. Surely he is aware of the additional cost that comes from having to route products, goods and services through Shanghai and Hong Kong, as opposed to sending them directly to where the market is, in mainland China. Our businesses are crying out for connectivity. That is an obstacle.
Mark Reckless
I made no mention of Shanghai. The reason why there are only 31—
Mark Reckless
I mentioned Hong Kong, and the reason why Hong Kong is used so much is that that is hugely to the economic benefit of BA, Cathay Pacific and the Oneworld alliance. They use Hong Kong for exactly the same reasons why my hon. Friend promotes Heathrow—these great hub economics, which are certainly to the benefit of the airline providing a service. There are arguments for hub airports, but the arguments that my hon. Friend makes for point-to-point services to more cities are very strong ones. As for why we do not have them, I refer to a written answer from the Minister in March 2012. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) has seen it. It states:
“China—restricted to six points in the UK and six points in China since 2004”—
according to a 2004 treaty—
“with a current limit of 31 passenger services per week by the airlines of each side allowed”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 239W.]
If my hon. Friend would like to see more flights to more Chinese cities, the way to do it is to rip up that treaty, and for the UK to move to a unilateral open-skies position that allows any Chinese airline to fly to any city in the UK.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am trying to work through the maze of complicated arguments that my hon. Friend is presenting, but I have just a simple question. Does he believe that the United Kingdom as a whole needs more aviation capacity?
Tracey Crouch
There is an argument about competitiveness, and that argument is for today. Our colleagues are arguing that businesses in their constituencies require the opportunities now. Therefore we should be making the most of our existing airports, rather than waiting two decades for a new airport to be built to maximise opportunities.
Mark Reckless
I agree. There is huge scope for what my hon. Friend describes. It would hugely benefit not just the Medway towns and the south-east region, but the country as a whole.
I want to talk about one other area where the lobbyists have a certain position. I received a document yesterday from the Mayor of London, who tells me that he is delighted that I am having this debate. He says:
“France’s hub airport, Paris Charles de Gaulle (56 departures per week), has better connections to Brazil than Heathrow (27 departures per week).”
The reason is that we have a bilateral treaty with Brazil, with a current limit of 35 passenger services a week between the two countries. Again, that is vastly to the benefit of BA, which routes flights to Latin America, including Brazil in particular, through the joint hub that it now has in Madrid, through Iberia following the merger. We do not get pressure from BA to change that, because it hugely benefits its profits, but BA’s market capitalisation is in the low billions. The idea that our whole airline policy and the network of treaties negotiated by the previous Government should restrict those flights and prevent Brazilian or Chinese airlines from flying into our large cities is a huge mistake.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Even if we were to rip up every treaty that my hon. Friend has identified as a block, does he seriously believe that there is sufficient capacity at our hub airport? Will a hub airport alone sustain newly developing point-to-point routes? Does he seriously argue that Heathrow could suddenly accommodate more routes to developing countries?
Mark Reckless
Yes, I do argue that. The limit on Heathrow’s routes to developing countries is largely because of the fact that those who have the slots find it most profitable to put on vast numbers of flights to New York and almost as large numbers to Hong Kong. It would benefit the country as a whole much more if there were a wider network of routes, rather than just what happens to benefit British Airways and maximise its profits. To get to what my hon. Friend suggests, the treaty we need to rip up is the treaty of Rome, because it is under European directives—[Interruption.] The reason why the slots are organised as they are is that they have been capitalised into property rights for the airlines that historically happen to have used them, and it is because of European legislation that that has been allowed to happen. If we want a more effective route network for our country as a whole, within the existing constraints of Heathrow—of course, others will argue that it needs to be bigger or we need a hub somewhere else and so on—European legislation prevents us from having that. Anyone who wants to set up a marginal route to an emerging market needs to buy out, at vast expense, one of the existing airlines, particularly BA, which has a near monopoly power. They have to give BA a huge amount of money to take the slots they need for those routes. The reason why they cannot do that is cost, yet we have treaties that restrict the amount of access that overseas airlines have into the UK. They could otherwise be flying into Gatwick, Stansted or Birmingham as city pairs, but the routes and slots are at Heathrow, and the regulation creates that monopoly power.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that the key to our aviation problems is ripping up the treaty of Rome?
Mark Reckless
It would certainly help. There are other ways in which the issue could be addressed; for instance, the air passenger duty regime. Many lobbyists are against the size of air passenger duty, but in operating conditions where there is an almost perfect monopoly at Heathrow and, at peak and to an extent shoulder periods, a monopoly at Gatwick, what happens through the increase in air passenger duty is that some of the monopolised value of those slots and the power of the grandfather rights are given instead to the public purse. It is not a situation of perfect competition in which costs are passed on. To the extent that costs rise, whether they are landing fees or APD, that will largely be absorbed into the price, giving greater public benefit, and possibly driving some of the marginal leisure stuff out of Heathrow and Gatwick.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman mind running past me again how the treaty of Rome is an obstacle to more liberal air service agreements with other countries? When I was aviation Minister, we signed agreements with a variety of countries to allow more liberalised flight access to both countries, and the treaty of Rome was not an obstacle then. Given Gatwick’s recent expansion into five new routes, the treaty does not seem to be an obstacle. How will tearing up the treaty of Rome solve our aviation competitiveness questions?
Mark Reckless
There are two problems: first, the treaty of Rome gives property rights in-slot to airlines that have traditionally had them, which prevents new airlines from coming in with marginal routes to new emerging market countries, due to the cost of buying out the monopolist. Only more and more fights to New York or Hong Kong make such routes work. Secondly, the previous Government protected the monopolistic BA with restrictive agreements that prevent Brazilian airlines from flying here, saying that there should be no more than 35 passenger services a week and allowing only 31 a week to China. If we want more flights to emerging markets, we should just let Brazilian and Chinese airlines fly to any UK airport they want, without insisting on reciprocal rights for BA. That is what is holding the country back; the interests of Britain are not the interests of BA.
The final section of my speech is about our other airports. In 2010, we rightly said no to an estuary airport and to extra runways at Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow. That was the right policy for this Parliament. I do not know the Liberal Democrat position on when or if there should be future runway capacity in the south-east, but it is right that the Conservatives at least look at the case for new runways as and when demand requires. A lot can be done with existing capacity. Gatwick is expanding strongly and setting up point-to-point routes in new emerging markets, which I welcome. That would be helped if Gatwick were allowed to invest in the A380 facilities by charging more and coming to its own arrangements with new airlines to build those facilities without existing suppliers having a veto. I would support greater deregulation of Gatwick in that regard.
I understand that the option now being promoted by the Mayor of London is Stansted. Since the previous White Paper and the Labour Government’s view, usage at Stansted has fallen off significantly and intercontinental flights there have stopped. The Mayor says that we should expand Crossrail to Stansted, and I am keen to discuss that. He may have ideas that I have not appreciated fully, and that are certainly a lot more constructive than his pie in the sky proposals for a Thames estuary airport.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. When I spoke to those at Stansted recently, they made it clear that, given that the airport was at only 50% capacity, they want no more discussion of a second runway—that just messes up their relationship with the local community. Stansted wants a better rail service. I hope that he will support that.
Mark Reckless
That is certainly the position in the short-term. I am keen to see better surface travel into Gatwick. The deterioration in the train service there is most unfortunate. Investment is strongly in the national interest.
The British Chambers of Commerce initially proposed a “Heathwick” arrangement. There are some issues with the economics of it, but the existing system is the reason why it could be attractive. If we allowed Gatwick to invest £5 billion in a super-fast railway to Heathrow—by the way, BA, it would take 15 minutes airside, rather than an hour to connect them—it would be regulated capital and would lead to higher slot prices at Gatwick, which is a good thing anyway. Our problem with aviation in this country has been that we have held down the cost of landing fees at Heathrow and Gatwick, which means that they are operating at near capacity with all the problems mentioned. If we allowed landing fees to rise and entirely deregulated Gatwick and Heathrow, there would be a big transfer of economic value from the airlines to BAA.
Another way to do it would be differential APD, particularly on short-haul flights at Heathrow. Because we could get the cost back from higher landing charges at Gatwick, Heathwick, although not ideal, might make sense within the existing system; it would press out some of the leisure point-to-point flights from Gatwick and allow intercontinental flights to come there.
From Heathrow’s promoters, we hear that it is a great hub, that we need just one hub and that Paris Charles de Gaulle has more destinations than us, but those destinations are in French west Africa—Mali, Bangoui and Ouagadougou. I do not think that there is any suggestion that that should happen from Heathrow. Most demand is leisure, not business. Heathrow still flies more people and planes than other airports, even those with four or six runways.
We do not necessarily need a hub that is ideal for those who happen to operate that hub. There is a suggestion that a dual-hub is not ideal. That is true, but it is an awful lot better than no expansion and forcing more and more people to use European airports. According to the constrained Department for Transport forecast, which I find questionable in a number of ways, if we do not allow expansion in the south-east, 25 million rather than 4 million people will fly from Belfast by 2050 and 12 million people rather than 700,000 will fly from Exeter by 2030.
I question the plausibility of those forecasts, but if we deregulate air travel and allow a second runway at Gatwick in due course, after the agreement runs out in 2019—I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that it should not be immediately—it will make it more attractive for the airline to expand in the airport. At some point, the Liberal Democrats may think that we will need at least one runway in the south-east. The strongest demand from the vested interests is for that to be at Heathrow, but there is a strong argument for the country as a whole for it to be at Gatwick. It would benefit from being there because we would then have competing hubs, with potentially another airline alliance based at Gatwick. It would drive down prices, serve more destinations and operate for the benefit of UK consumers as a whole, rather than just those who happen to have the strongest vested interests and shout loudest in current consultations.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. If I may intrude on the London and south-east grief with a question about the midlands, what are his views on encouraging passengers from the midlands and further north not to go to Gatwick or Heathrow for their leisure flights, but to use the airport they are driving past? Does he support the idea of a congestion charge around London to make regional airports more competitive?
Mark Reckless
Higher APD on short-haul flights from Gatwick and particularly Heathrow could allow airports beyond the south-east to compete for marginal business that might make more sense at those airports, particularly the leisure flights of people based in the midlands and the north who are flying point to point. Similarly, if we deregulated our international air agreements, there would be a better chance that intercontinental networks would base themselves at Birmingham airport, for example, which now has a longer runway.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. An argument is that regional airports across the country will take up some of the slack. My airport, Leeds Bradford, has invested heavily—£11 million—in expansion and has new links to Heathrow. Is it not the case that despite the important role that regional airports play across the country, they will not lessen the need for expansion in the south-east and London? Ultimately, people want to fly into the capital city of a country and we cannot get away from that fact.
Mark Reckless
Yes, I think that is right. My argument is that it is entirely conceivable to have two hubs. Heathrow currently has many more passengers and planes using it than most of the other supposed competing hubs. The problem is that the slot prices are very high and profits are being maximised by those who, under EU law, own the property rights in those slots. If instead we allow a second hub, and Gatwick is the more attractive and conceivable hub to develop, and both operate in that way, competing airlines would drive down prices and give many more links to emerging markets, rather than very thick routes to New York and Hong Kong. That is my view, but perhaps the Mayor of London has considered matters that I have not. Stansted, and potentially regional airports—Southend and, I am delighted to see, Luton are developing in this way—could take many more point-to-point leisure flights, rather than them flying from Gatwick, or even Heathrow. Why does Heathrow have so many flights to Orlando? Why does it have flights to Malaga or Larnaca?
There is a very strong case for Gatwick. Many regional airports can help with the load. The debate that we have been having about aviation has been horribly distorted by what I am afraid are preposterous efforts by the Mayor of London to put the Thames estuary airport on the agenda, 10 years after it was categorically ruled out, and by the issue of Heathrow. Very strong vested interests want expansion at Heathrow. There are some economic arguments for the country as a whole for expansion there. However, there are costs, in terms of those living under the flight path, and in terms of our political promises; and the value of politicians sticking to what they promise is strong.
As to what the Transport Secretary says, and the argument that “It is all very well talking about a third runway at Heathrow, and mixed mode, but what is the next step?” it is incumbent on those who want expansion at Heathrow to say what happens in 30, 50 or more years. The reason the Secretary of State does not get the answers is that those with a vested interest at Heathrow—BAA and British Airways—do not want unlimited expansion there. It would undermine their monopoly position. The idea of going for mixed mode is attractive to BA—not necessarily to BAA, because it does not get the higher regulated capital. A third runway allowing marginal expansion of perhaps another 20 million passengers is attractive, because it maintains the value of the slots but allows them to develop. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) may want to discuss the fact that if we want Heathrow to be a mega-hub, perhaps remaining the biggest in the world and taking on Dubai as well as competitors in Europe—there are strong arguments against that, particularly from the point of view of people who live in the area, and the environment—it could mean taking over RAF Northolt and putting in several runways linked into Heathrow, as a long-term single giant hub solution.
Despite arguments that two hubs are not ideal, that is a far better solution than complete constraint on any expansion, or only looking after the interests of Heathrow. If we were to see the Oneworld alliance at Gatwick— short-term expansion is being done very well at the moment, and there could be longer-term expansion, but only once the 2019 agreement runs out—it would be a much more sensible way forward. There is a basket of other options, all of which make more sense than harking back to the preposterous estuary airport proposal, or looking at UK aviation solely through the issue of a third runway at Heathrow.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
Order. I have had seven notifications from hon. Members who want to speak. I intend to call the shadow Minister at 20 minutes to 11, so we have less than 40 minutes for those seven speeches.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, for what I think is the first time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on obtaining this important debate on the different issues relating to competition in the aviation industry. I agree with many of the points he made, and it is worth exploring further the points with which I disagree. He is serious about trying to find a solution to the country’s aviation policies, and that is worth discussing. Judging by the expressions of everyone taking part in the debate, there is agreement that Boris island is a complete non-starter. It is a decoy duck, Potemkin village, a red herring, or, as the previous Labour Secretary of State said, bonkers; it will not happen. But it is part of the illusions around aviation policy—which are the basis not of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying but of the Government’s policy—that somehow we do not know what has been happening in aviation, and there is more information to be found out. That simply is not true.
Going back to the Roskill commission in 1969 and a series of other White Papers and investigations, more is known about aviation policy in the south-east of England than about possibly any other area. If we want to be competitive, there must be more airport capacity in the south-east. Otherwise, the decline and damage that lack of aviation is causing to the economy will continue. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to suspend any discussion for the length of the Parliament. It might be right for the coalition agreement, but it is not right for the economy.
Graham Stringer
I will in a moment, but I want to go through some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
I do not think the “Heathwick” proposal works in detail. When I give way to the hon. Gentleman I want him to tell me about any city in the world—Toronto, Washington, Glasgow—that has tried having two airports. There are examples all round the world of countries saying “We will have an intercontinental airport here and a domestic one there,” and finding that neither of those airports has worked. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a city with two competing hubs. The nature of hubs, and what makes them valuable—both for countries and airlines—is that airlines from all over the world go into them, with great interconnectivity. The idea of competing hubs is a contradiction in terms, and there is no real evidence that having two adjoining airports works.
Mark Reckless
I am delighted to have some discussion of the issue in the current Parliament, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what decisions may be made about how that discussion should happen. I just do not think we should build any new runways during this Parliament.
I disagree about dual hubs. Perhaps the idea has been tried in, say, Tokyo and one or two other places and has not been ideal, but we are not making a comparison with the ideal; we are making a comparison with the constrained capacity possibility that 14 million people might try to fly from Exeter. Expanding Gatwick, rather than restricting it, will not result in the perfect economic hub airport, but hubs give declining returns, to scale, to the extent that they get bigger and bigger. If we allow flights to new emerging markets and competing hubs operating in the competitive interest of the country, rather than one hub operating in the interest of the monopolist based there, that would be a significantly better airline policy than the one we have.
Graham Stringer
All I would say is that the proposition has not worked. We are in decline and we need extra runways in the south-east. Only one new runway has been built in this country since the second world war. Heathrow was, I think, originally planned to have 12 runways, albeit in a different configuration. The hon. Gentleman can look at the history books if he wants to.
The hon. Gentleman’s argument relies on two issues: first, that our connections to China, as the Minister of State said, mean that we are not really suffering; and secondly, that slots are too cheap at Heathrow, and if we freed up that market we would help the economy as a whole. Let me give some evidence.
The Frontier Economics report, “Connecting for Growth”, which was produced in 2011, showed that trade is 20 times higher where there are direct flights to cities in China. It estimates that the UK is missing out as trade goes to France, Germany and Holland, and quantifies the cost to the UK economy of a lack of connections as £1.2 billion a year. Taking that present value over 10 years, that amounts to £14 billion. Paris and Frankfurt boast 1,000 more annual flights to the three largest Chinese cities, Beijing, Chongqing and Guangzhou, than we get from this country. The Minister of State is right to say that we send a large number of flights to Hong Kong, and that there is hubbing in the Oneworld alliance at Hong Kong. The City of London is doing quite a lot of damage at the moment, but if we consider some of the effects, and the latest financial centres index, the Hong Kong index has gone up by 21 and London has gone down by three. There is a correlation, if not a direct one, between the hubbing that is going on there and the damage that is being done to the UK economy. Forbes Magazine has shifted the UK down from sixth best country in the world in which to do business to 10th best. One contributing factor is our connections with other countries.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the problems that he has just described result not from lack of capacity but from poor prioritisation? Hundreds of flights every day to and from Heathrow involve places that do not in any way contribute to Heathrow’s hub status. We have short-haul flights, flights to Malaga and 15 flights a day to Cyprus. Such point-to-point flights could happen at any other airport. We have masses of spare capacity, but it is not all at Heathrow. If that is the problem, surely the priority is to make better use of existing capacity and to get rid of some of those pointless flights that could easily happen elsewhere.
Graham Stringer
I always find that a particularly difficult argument to be put by Conservatives, who suddenly want to plan routes and move away from a completely deregulated market in Europe—apart from where it is constrained by slots. Having argued ideologically for that position, all of a sudden they want to tell aeroplanes that they can only go from Manchester and Leeds and not from London. I do not believe that that is the Conservative party’s position at all. Even if we put up the price of slots, which has been kept artificially low by how slots are regulated, we would not necessarily get the flights going to the right parts of the world that will benefit this economy. We would get even more flights going to New York and the west coast of the United States because those are the most profitable routes from this country in the short term. The two cheap slots would not solve the problem because the central issue is lack of capacity.
I have a few more facts from the London chambers of commerce that represent the views of 350 business leaders from the BRIC countries: 92% made the general point about the importance of direct flights; 67% said that they were more likely to do business in a place if there were direct flights to it; and 62% said that they would only invest in an area if there were direct flights between the city in the country in which they were operating and the city in which they were likely to invest. Such flights to Brazil, Russia and China are limited.
I wanted to talk about the damage that air passenger duty is doing to regional airports, but I do not think that there is time because of the number of Members who wish to contribute to this debate. None the less, such duty is doing damage and the Government really need to change their policy. Twenty-two of our competitor countries in the EU have no air passenger duty whatever, so imposing a duty is a ridiculous anti-competitive position for this country to take.
I want to talk a little about how we use capacity in the regional airports. It is not possible to, as the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) suggested, somehow move flights about, but there is no reason whatever why we could not have a completely open skies policy in the regional airports. There is 15 times more capacity in our regional airports than would be provided by one extra runway at Heathrow. It would be against the law to direct flights within Europe to that runway; that simply could not happen. At the moment, airlines are reluctant to make use of the partial open skies policy in relation to major regional airports with fifth freedom rights, but the Government must agree that, and sometimes there are difficulties. Airlines, which have a real interest in getting into Heathrow, are suspicious that if they use the facility of partially open skies in the regional airports they will be kept out in any future negotiations to get into Heathrow. Having a completely open skies policy in the regions, however, might shift out one or two intercontinental routes. It will not change the whole structure of aviation, but it will help.
Finally, the central point of the Government’s policy, especially the Liberal Democrat part, seems to be that constraining capacity in the south-east will help the environment and not damage the economy. I hope that I have shown that that constraint in the south-east is already damaging our economic competitiveness, and the answer to that is to build extra runways and not a new airport. It is worth saying, and it has been said before, that our policy is damaging not only our economy, as we are, in effect, helping other hubs in France, Germany, Denmark, Spain and Holland to do better, but our environment. When planes take off from the United Kingdom, taking passengers to airports such as Schiphol to pick up intercontinental flights, they are putting more nitrous oxide, sulphur oxides and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would otherwise be the case. Although the whole aviation debate needs to be opened up, the solutions have been known for a long time, and the Government have had their head in the sand for their whole time in office.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
Order. Six Members still wish to speak in this interesting and important debate, so they will have roughly four minutes each before those on the Front Bench respond
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. In four minutes, I will speedily go through some of the points that I want to raise. First, may I mention the passengers? We did not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) say much about them. It is almost as if they are a pain in the neck for wanting to travel. I happen to regard leisure travel as a good thing—rather liberating, in fact. May I also say—I did not hear my hon. Friend say this—well done to the Government? The Minister might be shocked by that remark, given my track record on aviation.
The South East Airports Taskforce has effectively sweated our assets in the south-east, increasing throughput at all major airports. Like the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), I speak as a northern MP. Most of my constituents and businesses stopped using Heathrow as a hub long ago, which is one reason why Heathrow is already in decline. For the north of England, the hub is Amsterdam or Paris, which is a major national problem.
I congratulate the Government on their recognition, earlier this year, that we need a hub airport in the UK, and that we need only one hub airport. If I had more than four minutes, I could give a lecture on the economics of hub dynamics. There is no such thing as a twin hub; it is a contradiction in terms. I could tear out my hair in frustration every time I see that idea printed, or hear it being discussed. If we tried to make Heathrow and Gatwick a joint hub airport, all we would do is guarantee their obsolescence within a decade and the downgrading of the UK. It would be an absolute national disaster.
We have heard a lot about China. Some people say mainland China, while others say China, which allows us to accommodate Hong Kong into our calculations. Let me talk specifically about Wuhan, which has been of interest to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Air France has just launched a service to Wuhan to facilitate PSA Peugeot Citroën’s joint venture with Dongfeng Motor Corporation. Despite labouring under the heavy burden of the treaty of Rome, France has somehow managed to put its economic interests ahead of the interests of Brussels. How it managed it I would love to know, because we could then replicate it here. Clearly, it has put economic interests ahead of narrow, petty interests.
I am fascinated to note that COMAC—the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, a new Chinese aircraft manufacturer—is basing itself in Europe not in London but in Paris. I wonder why that is. Could it be because France has better links to China? Could it be because France is where China is getting inward investment from? Surely not.
If I had had more time this morning, I would also have mentioned air passenger duty. I realise that it is a controversial issue, but I make this plea: will the Department for Transport try to encourage the Treasury to conduct an independent economic assessment, bringing in all relevant factors, of the overall cost of APD to the UK economy? If I had more time, I would go on to talk about Chinese tourism. I know that it has been the subject of what might be called civil war in higher echelons in the Government, but it crystallises the problem that we face in this country. The problem is not that we have APD per se; it is the scale of our APD, compared to that charged by our competitors, that is a real problem.
We have heard lots of discussion about south-east airport capacity and about where airports should or should not be sited. We have also heard mention of New York, which has found what I would describe as a “string of pearls” solution—a number of sizeable airports, all of which act as international gateways, but none of which actually act as hubs. There is a perfectly logical and coherent argument to be put forward to say that that is what the UK might need. I would disagree with that argument, but it would be a rational argument to make.
Interestingly, in the Mayor of London’s submission, ahead of this debate, I could find no mention of Boris island. Can the Minister confirm that that option has been officially removed from the table? I looked very carefully; perhaps it was my eyesight, but I just could not see it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Dobbin, for calling me to speak.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing this debate and bringing the issue to the House today. In four minutes, I quickly want to give the Northern Ireland angle. In particular, I want to mention a subject that is often talked about, and perhaps hated: air passenger duty. It is an issue that must be considered.
Recent press coverage of APD shows that the Government raise very little money from internal flights from Northern Ireland, and airlines actually take advantage of the tax and retain it when flights are not taken up, as they charge a fee and most people do not ask for the refund. That was not the intention with regard to the tax, and that is the first thing that must change if we are to boost competitiveness.
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman yesterday about this debate and I said very clearly that I wanted to put forward the Northern Ireland angle. With the Government committed to regional rebalancing in the UK, and an economy that is heavily reliant on the south-east, where better to start than with a change to APD? I understand that APD does not apply to flights to Scottish islands. If the Government are serious about rebalancing the UK economy, surely Northern Ireland should have the same treatment in relation to APD as the Scottish islands. Making that change would send a strong signal that the Government are serious about regional rebalancing.
As a frequent flier from Northern Ireland to the mainland UK, I am well aware of flight prices and the critical importance of having a good flight system and links. Having spoken to various airport managers, I know there are some central themes that continually emerge. I want to touch on those themes quickly.
The first is future national economic growth. The UK needs improved links to key emerging markets. I was surprised to learn that UK businesses trade 20 times as much with countries to which there are daily flights than with those countries with which we have a less frequent service, or no direct service at all. It is very clear that the more direct flights to countries we have, the more our economy will grow, the more employment will grow, and the more we all benefit. We must boost growth by increasing inward investment and exports. Improving international connectivity is critical if those things are to happen. That is one reason why competitiveness is an essential component of growth. We should have regular contact with the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—and we should open up more links with them, because that will boost our economy.
London is open for business, and so is Gatwick airport, in particular. However, although in the summer months Gatwick is at full peak capacity, at other parts of the year it is not. Sometimes it is operating only at 78% capacity. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood spoke about that. There is potential for a further 11 million passengers to use Gatwick every year, which would represent a 25% increase on current levels. Gatwick has secured new direct routes to China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Vietnam and Nigeria. In each of these countries, there are opportunities for economic benefit, and the routes can only strengthen and enhance the possibilities.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) spoke about the need to improve rail surface access links to airports, and that is important, too. Millions of air passengers go on to use other transport infrastructure, such as rail lines. It is imperative that those lines are up to the standard that is expected of a thriving central business hub. That will encourage new flight-lines, which in turn will encourage competitiveness in the market. As soon as bmibaby pulled out of Belfast City airport last month, all the other airlines there upped their prices, and the reason was clear—they had less to compete with. Their flights were being almost filled at higher prices, which in the long term will affect businesses. A flight from Belfast can cost approximately £400 to £500. One can get a flight to the USA for £450. There has to be something wrong there, with regard to competitiveness.
The UK aviation industry provides about 352,000 jobs and more than £8.6 billion in tax each year, as well as contributing more than £50 billion to Britain’s gross domestic product. It is a major player in the economy of Great Britain, and when it comes to improving Britain’s international competitiveness, it is very important.
In conclusion, in a history class many moons ago, I was taught that the secret of the success of Great Britain was her mastery of the seas; that probably shows my age. That was not simply about having a good fishing fleet, or the Royal Navy; it was about having connections and building up trade all over the world. That must be an ingredient in our continuing success, and the key to true competitiveness.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing the debate.
We are world leaders in the aviation industry. London is the best connected city in the world, with seven runways operating at six airports, and Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh all pose formidable regional challenges to the dominance of the south-east. Gatwick is opening new routes to China, Vietnam and South Korea. British Airways has global alliances for massive hub operations. Airlines are competing to make use of the capacity we have, particularly since the BAA monopoly was broken.
However, there are constraints. By 2050, the UK must cut its carbon emissions by 80%. That is an important and challenging task, and if we allowed unconstrained expansion of aviation, as has been suggested by some Members, I believe that it would be all but impossible to achieve it. Given the environmental constraints, what kind of growth can we manage to have?
In 2009, the independent Committee on Climate Change said that if we are to meet our 2050 target, the aviation industry must not emit more than around 37.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2050. Allowing for increased plane loads, new technology and fuel improvements, that allows for a 60% increase on current passenger numbers to around 368 million passengers per annum. That is the carbon budget that we can have.
What is the capacity constraint? We have enough spare capacity in this country already. We can get to the limit imposed by our environmental obligations without any new runways anywhere: not at Heathrow, not at Gatwick, and not at Stansted. That is why the Liberal Democrats oppose the expansion of the airports in the south-east. We have spare capacity, and if we were to build more capacity and make use of all of it we would do irreparable damage to our global environment.
It is very hard to forecast demand, as the old “predict and provide” approach of the previous Government tried to do. Even in the US, the Federal Aviation Administration says that it is not possible to make reliable forecasts beyond 2030, so I simply do not understand how any Government think they can forecast demand to 2050. That is particularly true given that, with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, people are very bad at forecasting recessions and other economic changes.
We also have local environmental problems that make a huge difference to our nation’s well-being. One in four of all those in Europe who are affected by aviation noise live under the Heathrow flight path. I find it astonishing that so little has been done about that, and that the previous Labour Government were so keen to keep blindly increasing Heathrow. Now Labour are completely and utterly unclear as to what their policy on Heathrow expansion is; if the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the shadow Minister, wants to try to say what it is, I would be delighted to hear from him. No?
Aviation planning has categorically failed to take account of the north-south divide, and how we can ensure that we provide decent air quality and access to decent public transport. About half of all emissions from aviation are actually caused by the ground access to the airport rather than by the planes themselves. Rail access, which is being called for by so many airports now, is critical in reducing those emissions.
This is a very abbreviated speech so I cannot go through all the detail. What is the way forward? I have been very clear about Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted; I say a big “no,” and I am delighted that that is what the coalition agreement says. I have also been very clear about what we need to do to control UK aviation policy. We need to get the greatest hubbing potential that we can and achieve the greatest economic benefit possible, given all the constraints.
We should support growth, such as we are seeing at Gatwick; a fifth of Gatwick’s capacity is still free. Gatwick is doing well and it wants a new rail service. Stansted is half-full; its big call is for a new rail service, not a new runway. Birmingham is looking to expand and Manchester already has two runways. We need to provide the rail links to make those airports work.
We also need to reform air passenger duty. It is poorly designed, has a number of anomalies and favours short flights for which there are overground alternatives. We should be moving towards a per-plane duty. We should introduce new noise limits in population centres to incentivise quieter planes, and tough requirements for low-emission surface access, to reduce the overall impact. We also need to support the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, to promote the “polluter pays” principle.
What about the hub? Although the Government have done well to rule out proposals for a third runway and other expansion, we should also put an end to talk of mixed-mode operations at Heathrow. They cause damage to the air and through the noise they create; they are a non-starter and provide very little benefit. Heathrow is badly located, and mixed-mode operations would give all the pain with little of the gain. We need to move point-to-point flights elsewhere, as has been discussed, reform the EU allocation rules and perhaps consider a departure tax. Heathrow is not the place for a hub airport, but as Members have said, Boris island is certainly not right either, for a whole range of reasons; it is expensive, there is a higher risk of bird strike and it does not serve the north.
Our consideration of where to have a new hub needs to be subject to some serious constraints: a strategy for removing excess capacity above the climate change cap outside the airport; no net increase in the number of UK runways, so that we would have to close some to make up for new openings; greater recognition of the need to serve both north and south; and significantly lower noise impacts than at Heathrow. We could have something that is better both economically and environmentally, and I hope that the Government will consider the matter very carefully.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
The UK aviation industry has been a remarkable success story, post war. It is the second largest in the world. It has been so successful that most of us take it for granted and assume it will always be there. Sometimes we are a little disparaging of British Airways as a national carrier, but it is a competitive world out there, and in Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt there are people who want to compete with us and take jobs away. The aviation industry creates lots of well-paid jobs for lots of people, so we must think clearly about where we are going with it.
It is perfectly sensible to say “We will not expand Heathrow” or “We will not expand Gatwick” or “We will not expand Stansted”, but it is not sensible to say that we will not expand any of them. At some point, we have to increase airway capacity in the south-east of England. Some of the BALPA pilots who came to lobby us last week pointed out that one of the most environmentally dangerous things is to have 15 aircraft sitting on a runway running their engines while waiting for a take-off slot. Sometimes, an additional runway might not necessarily be a bad thing environmentally. We can do a lot to have smart working at Heathrow, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) that considering slot allocation would be a sensible way to begin.
It would be sensible to have a link between Heathrow and Gatwick. Given their proximity, a fast rail route would provide consumers with more diversity and variety of choice. However, the principal area that ought to be expanded is Stansted. I use the airport myself, and sometimes it looks as though it is half-shut. It has a lot of capacity but its biggest weakness is the rail link with central London. Passengers amble through the Essex countryside wondering whether they will ever get to the airport. On one occasion I was late for a flight, and I burnt up a lot of nervous energy on the way. If we could get a fast rail connection from Stansted to the rest of the rail network and the tube system and halve the journey time from 60 minutes to 30 or 35, many more people would use the airport. Stansted is as far from London as de Gaulle is from Paris and Schiphol is from Amsterdam, and potentially there is capacity for more people to start using it.
The other advantage of Stansted is that significant numbers of people do not live around it. One only has to stand in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and watch the number of aircraft coming in to realise that putting a lot of money into expanding Heathrow is not the environmentally sensible thing to do. One has to pay regard to the many millions of people who live below the flight path.
We can be smarter. We can invest in rail links and, at some point, we will have to increase capacity by putting in more runways, with the logical place being the underutilised Stansted. Although Heathrow will always remain the hub, we can be a bit smarter with the airports around London and make them a bit more efficient, thereby promoting our national interest.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing the debate. We have, I think, focused a little too much on the impact in the south-east and have not looked at the full national interest, although my hon. Friend tried to do so. I want to talk about the impact of aviation policy on the midlands.
One thing that pushes flight numbers in the south-east up to near capacity is passengers from the midlands needlessly driving down to use its airports—Gatwick in particular—to go on holiday, when there are perfectly sensible flights, probably to the same places, from midlands airports, which, in many cases, people drive straight past. Trying to find ways not of forcing but of encouraging such passengers to use the midlands airports rather than the London ones has to be a way of solving the problem. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) that it is strange for a Conservative to want to regulate and to force people to do something, so I suggest that we do exactly the opposite. The problem is that once we start regulating an industry and a market, we end up with a problem and decide that the solution is to regulate a bit more or a bit differently, or to bolt something on, to try to force a change in the behaviour that the regulation created in the first place. I suspect that the answer in this case is to deregulate much more of the industry.
I am not at all convinced of the logic of forcing BAA to sell Gatwick, and now Stansted, only to end up still economically regulating both airports. Surely we only regulate a dominant player in the market, and it is hard to see how in one market there can be three. I would free everything up and let Gatwick and Stansted compete with Heathrow, to see what they could do. That would get us a much better short-term fix than any of the other options.
In the midlands, what can we do to encourage people to use the regional airports? An interesting report was produced by Birmingham airport, and we have all seen the adverts on the tube about not putting all our eggs in Heathrow’s basket. If we are talking about fast rail links between airports and London, we have a plan for that; it is called high-speed rail to Birmingham, and it will reduce the journey time from Birmingham airport to London to just over 40 minutes, which is not far off the aspiration that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) mentioned for Stansted. I have driven to Stansted airport a few times, and it is an awful place to get to—a terrible location. I cannot see any real attraction in it. No offence to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), but it is not a solution for a national airport for the UK. Such a solution would be a complete disaster. If we want fast rail links into London, let us have high-speed rail, and then Birmingham airport can become London Birmingham airport, or some other such preposterous name.
More seriously, if we are trying to balance the economy away from the south-east, and out to the midlands and the north, aviation can play a role in encouraging airports in those areas to get more flights, including flights to the new emerging markets. The midlands is the centre of the UK’s manufacturing industry, so it would be good to have links between those local businesses and the major areas they serve. My constituency, for example, has about 550 employees at Rolls-Royce, who fly all over the world. If we are a Government looking at regional benefit rates and regional pay, why can we not consider regional air passenger duty? We have done it for Northern Ireland, so why not do it elsewhere and try to give the areas concerned a chance to build up their competitive airports, increase capacity, attract new routes, and generally grow the market outside London?
I do not pretend that the majority of people will not want to fly to London, and that that is not where the economic powerhouse will be, but we ought to consider the scope and capability that exists outside London as well, rather than just forcing people into the capital’s airports, which happen to be relatively cheap to fly to because they already have full capacity, in which they are protected, and because regulation keeps the prices down.
Finally, if we want our national hub to be truly national, we must ensure that regional airports to which the rail journey is too long have access to the hub. Otherwise, airlines will discontinue their routes to Belfast and Scotland, for example, because they can make more profit from routes to New York, and the hub will become purely a London and south-east one. That is not an attractive way of growing the economy all around the country.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
We have hit the deadline of 20 minutes to 11. I call the shadow Minister.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing this important debate. We all keenly anticipate the publication of the Government’s consultation documents—a subject that I will come back to later. If they had already published them, we might not have needed this debate. None the less, this is a great opportunity for the Minister to update us on the documents.
As many Members have said, aviation is a success story, whether we are talking about the Scottish airports, Manchester, Birmingham, East Midlands, or the other regional airports. The focus of this debate, and the focus generally in recent years, has been on London and the south-east. The third runway debate has overshadowed the excellent work, which a number of colleagues have mentioned, being done at Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted, but the capacity of the south-east remains the big issue.
Our aviation industry is central to our economic prosperity and should be a key driver of growth, without which we have no prospect of emerging from the dangerous economic situation that we are in. The industry contributes at least £11 billion to UK GDP—more than 1% of the total—although briefings for this debate state that the figure is £23 billion. It also supports up to 200,000 jobs directly and 600,000 indirectly across the UK. However, just as the Government do not have a credible strategy for growth, they have not yet managed to set out a credible strategy for aviation, let alone the role that it could play in our economic situation. Aviation is a crucial sector on which our economy depends, and the reaction from business to the Government’s decision not to set out an aviation strategy until the latter part of this Parliament has ranged from incredulity to plain bemusement.
Jim Fitzpatrick
If the Minister will allow me to get to end of my remarks, I will be happy to give way to her. I hope that I will be able to give way, but I am constrained by time.
The chairman of the Airport Operators Association, Mr Ed Anderson, has said that, while the industry knows what the Government are against,
“we are not sure yet what it is in favour of”.
He went on to describe “better, not bigger” as an “election slogan”, saying:
“Better not bigger doesn’t constitute a strategy.”
Sir David Rowlands, a former permanent secretary at the Department for Transport, has described the Government’s policy as “mildly extraordinary”. Baroness Valentine, who speaks for London First, said earlier this year that the
“government seems content for aviation policy to drift.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2011; Vol. 726, c. 872.]
She has also said, most damningly, that
“the Government’s aviation strategy is damaging our economy and enhancing that of our EU rivals.”
Seventy-four business leaders wrote to The Times, saying that setting a long-term strategic direction for aviation in London, the wider south-east and across the country is a vital part of delivering the growth and jobs the country needs. They concluded that all options must be considered—short term and long term—to address growing demand. Only last week, John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
“The Government must stop tiptoeing around on aviation because of short-term political considerations. Unless politicians grasp the nettle and make some tough decisions, both our export and inward investment potential will suffer.”
I hope that the Minister will indicate when we will be able to see the consultation documents.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I assure the Minister that if I finish what I have to say by 10.47 or 10.48 am, I will give way to her, but I want to get my points on the record.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who is no longer present, gave a couple of quotes from the Mayor of London’s briefing. To save time, I will not repeat what he said, but he did not cite two points—although others have mentioned this—relating to the loss of visitors to the UK. The Mayor’s briefing states:
“While France and Germany each managed to attract between 500,000 and 700,000 visitors from China in 2010, the UK had only 127,000. In total, France earns £1.3bn per year from Chinese tourist spending on visits in the country, compared to the UK’s Chinese tourist spending receipts of £115m.”
It also notes:
“France’s hub airport, Paris Charles de Gaulle (56 departures per week), has better connections to Brazil than Heathrow (27 departures per week). In 2009, inward investment from Brazil totalled $800m in France, and only $1.7m in the UK.”
The Mayor has a strong argument on those figures.
The Government seem to accept that there is a capacity issue. In the Budget statement, the Chancellor referred to south-east capacity, as did the Prime Minister in response to a question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) during Prime Minister’s questions. As I have said, we are waiting for the Government’s consultation document to indicate their likely direction of travel. Constraints on aviation, whether from a lack of capacity or lack of investment, will not stop flights happening—or increasing. As Members have said, those constraints will simply displace flights from the UK to Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle or elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood effectively articulated the arguments against the proposed estuary airport. He made some interesting points about EU competition law, and I will consider them carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) spoke with great authority on the issue, as he always does. He mentioned in passing other factors that affect aviation, such as air passenger duty, which was also mentioned by other colleagues. Nobody developed the argument, but APD is a huge factor in whether people decide to go to the UK or elsewhere in Europe. Given that it brings in between £2 billion and £3 billion for the Treasury, it will not surrender APD, but that is a factor and it needs to be looked at.
Another big issue that affects our economic performance is visas and the obstacles we place in the way of people who want to come to the UK, particularly from China. Moreover, as we discussed at length during deliberations in the Civil Aviation Bill Committee, the performance of the UK Border Agency—I accept that it is not the Minister’s responsibility—is harming the way that potential tourists and business visitors perceive the UK, because of what they read and hear in the media.
Lack of time meant that we did not have the opportunity to hear a lecture by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on hub dynamics. I would be interested to read it, so perhaps he could send me a copy. He made the point about the decline in our aviation industry and the rise of Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reinforced the points about connectivity and regional access, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) raised the issue of emissions. That issue has to be addressed, and we were addressing it when we were in government. The industry was confident that it could meet the levels set, but it meant using the emissions trading scheme, with the expectation that emissions would rise and that the industry would have to offset them elsewhere within the industry.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have nearly finished—I have three minutes left—and will give way to him when I have done so.
As I was saying, the industry was confident that it could meet the levels set, but the bottom line is that Lib Dem policy on aviation is the obstacle to the Government having any policy at all, certainly before 2015.
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) mentioned the need for more capacity and made the case for Stansted, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked how we can give more support to regional airports and proposed deregulation.
The aviation industry and Britain’s wider business community came together last week to call for a cross-party consensus on aviation that lasts beyond the term of one Parliament. For several months, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), has repeatedly offered to take the politics out of aviation, put party differences aside and work together on a joint aviation strategy for the good of the nation. It is a clear, unambiguous offer, with no catch. Aviation matters to the country, the economy and businesses and families throughout the country. It is an industry that needs stability in the long term and a long-term plan that straddles Parliaments and Governments. We must not repeat the party political wrangling that turned the proposed third runway at Heathrow into a political football, and we must agree to stick to the agreed strategy, whatever the outcome at the next election.
Mrs Villiers
These issues are very important, so why have the Opposition not suggested any ideas for dealing with the long-term capacity challenges in the south-east? They have suggested nothing at all.
Jim Fitzpatrick
The Minister knows that we had a game plan in place, but we lost the election. Then, as a gesture, to try to achieve national consensus on this important issue, we said that we would drop support for the third runway so that we could have cross-party talks. We have not even had the courtesy of a reply from the Secretary of State for Transport about engaging in talks. Until the Government introduce their consultation—it is they, not the Opposition, who are responsible for creating aviation policy—it is a bit rich of the Minister to ask me about policy.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party dropped its support for the third runway as a gesture. Will he be clear on what his party’s policy is now? Is it against a third runway, or is it merely in favour of having a blank page that can be filled with anything in future?
Jim Fitzpatrick
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to respond but, given that I fully explained our policy during a five-minute discussion only two days ago, I think that he knows what it is, and that he is just playing games to try to throw me off. He knows that we are in the throes of devising our aviation policy, and I assure him that it is likely to be formulated way before the coalition reveals its policy, which we do not think will be published until 2014, or even 2015.
Finally, I have the following questions for the Minister. What is it that the Government will publish? How long have we been waiting for the documents? What exactly will they consult on in the documents and—the most important question of all—when will we see them?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing the debate, which has been excellent; there have been many very useful contributions. There is no doubt that the UK has a highly successful aviation sector, and I pay tribute to the energy and enterprise that we see from that industry, in the face of challenges as tough as the global slow-down and, of course, rising world oil prices. Developments over the past 20 years, such as the introduction of low-cost, no-frills airlines, have provided real passenger benefits and unprecedented choice and opportunity to fly.
In the year of the Olympics and the diamond jubilee, we are reminded once again of aviation’s critical role as the route to bringing in tourism. However, the very success of our aviation industry presents us with a key challenge: how do we accommodate growth and seize the benefits generated by aviation while meeting our environmental commitments and addressing the quality-of-life impact of aircraft noise?
It is very clear that London is one of the best-connected cities in the world, with its five busy and successful airports—six, if newly expanded Southend is included. Together, those five airports provide direct links to around 360 international destinations, including virtually all the world’s great commercial centres. That compares with just 309 such links from Paris, and 250 from Frankfurt. Heathrow provides more flights to New York than Paris and Frankfurt put together, and has more flights to the crucial BRIC—Brazil, Russia, India and China—economies than other European hubs, including more services to China.
Airlines are launching new routes to key emerging-market destinations. BA has recently announced a new service to Seoul. China Southern Airlines now flies from Heathrow to Guangzhou. Gatwick has a new Air China service to Beijing, and the aviation industry continues to invest and innovate. Birmingham airport will shortly begin constructing a runway extension better to enable it to serve long-haul destinations. The operators of Heathrow and Gatwick are investing £5 billion and £1 billion respectively over the next few years in better infrastructure. Of course, it is important to press for the further liberalisation of aviation, in terms of opening up the opportunity for UK airlines to provide flights to more destinations—something called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood.
Mark Reckless
Why does it need to be UK airlines? Surely the benefit for the UK is to have airlines—Brazilian or Chinese as much as UK ones?
Mrs Villiers
Naturally, trade agreements on aviation between different countries provide mutual benefits. Liberalisation and expanding the range of airlines that can serve routes between the UK and other countries can provide real benefits economically and for passengers. We seek mutuality in these agreements, but we are also prepared to consider a more open approach for regional airports along the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).
It is true that Heathrow is pretty much full, and Gatwick, too, is starting to fill up. However, it is simply not true to claim that London’s connectivity is falling off a cliff-edge. We are taking action right now to make our airports better, as well as preparing for the longer-term challenges of capacity in the south-east. We are reforming the way aviation security is delivered to make it more passenger-friendly and cost-efficient. We are trialling a set of operational freedoms at Heathrow, which we hope will make the airport more resilient and reliable. However, we will carefully have to assess their environmental impact. We are finally making progress on the single European sky, which has the potential to cut fuel-burn, improve punctuality, address noise and increase capacity.
Mrs Villiers
I am sorry, but I do not have time. If I have time at the end, I will give way.
We have an extensive programme of surface access improvements under way. Hon. Friends were right to raise that as being important for our aviation competitiveness. Manchester is getting a new Metrolink extension and will benefit from Northern Hub improvements. Gatwick station is getting a major upgrade; Thameslink will benefit Gatwick and Luton; Luton is getting improved access from the M1; and tunnelling has started on Crossrail. That project will ultimately see Heathrow connected to the City and Canary Wharf by train directly for the first time.
In the longer term, High Speed 2 will provide greatly improved surface access to Heathrow and Birmingham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) mentioned, that is a real game-changer, bringing Birmingham within easy travelling distance of many more people across the country. Of course, our HS2 plans will also provide an attractive rail alternative to thousands of short-haul flights coming into our south-east airports. That will potentially free up even more space for the long-haul destinations that hon. Members have rightly identified as crucial to our economic success.
However, good government is about not only tackling the problems of today, but preparing for the future. That is why the Chancellor announced in last year’s autumn statement that we would explore the options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status, with the exception of a third runway at Heathrow. The coalition is clear that it does not support a third runway at Heathrow. The airport is unique in Europe, in terms of the magnitude of its noise impact on densely populated areas. Thousands live daily with a plane overhead every 90 seconds, and have more planes that wake them up at 4.30 in the morning. The quality-of-life impact of a third runway and up to 220,000 more flights over London every year would be massive, and there is no technological solution in sight to ensure that planes become quiet enough quickly enough to make that burden in any way tolerable. We do not support mixed mode, which would see the end of the much-valued respite period that means so much to those who live with Heathrow noise daily.
We need a better solution. Last year, we kicked off the process of deciding what that will be, with the publication of our scoping document on aviation. The 600 or so responses we received are being used to prepare our draft aviation policy framework consultation, which will be published shortly. We plan to adopt the final framework in March next year, as set out in our business plan. It will set out the overarching economic and environmental framework within which we want to see aviation grow. We also intend to issue an open call for evidence on maintaining the UK’s international aviation connectivity. We will fully consider all representations to that consultation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), wants us to go faster, but had no ideas whatever to share in today’s debate.
Mrs Villiers
The consultation will be published shortly. The decision is a crucial one that requires objective, thorough and evidence-based analysis of our connectivity needs and how best to meet them in a sustainable way. We do not want to make the mistake that the previous Government made of coming up with the wrong solution and seeking to reverse-engineer the evidence. Put simply, that landed them in court and ensured that they failed to deliver any new capacity. We need to get this right. We need to base our decisions on the evidence, and on a process that allows the communities affected by any of the options fully to take part and ensure that their voice is heard.
Zac Goldsmith
Can my right hon. Friend tell us what work her Department has done on considering the viability of maintaining two hubs rather than one? We have today heard a lot of statements from Members, but no evidence at all, that we must have a single hub. Has her Department looked at that question, and are there any data she can share with us?
Mrs Villiers
Certainly the debate that will be triggered by our call for evidence will look at a range of options, including how a hub can interact with highly successful point-to-point airports, and will consider connections between our airports to see if they can provide a way to improve and enhance our connectivity. Those are the sorts of ideas we have already been looking at, because they were proposed in response to our scoping document, and they will provide an important basis for future debate over the next few months on how we maintain London’s and the UK’s top-class connectivity.
Mrs Villiers
I am afraid that I am about to run out of time, so unfortunately not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood raised a number of issues about the potential for a new airport—issues relating to cost, airspace management and impact on the local environment. It is, of course, vital to consider the sorts of questions he raises about costs and local environmental impact whatever options are put forward as a result of our call for evidence. Those are important questions to ask, and important criteria against which to judge any of the potential ways to address the future connectivity needs of the south-east airports. On air passenger duty, as hon. Members will be aware, taxation is a matter for the Chancellor.
To conclude, we are taking forward a range of measures right now to improve our airports and ensure that they are top-class international gateways to the rest of the world, and we are carrying out the process needed to determine our future connectivity needs. We believe our approach represents a responsible, structured and proper process that takes us towards delivering a sustainable solution that will maintain the UK’s connectivity and competitiveness in the future.
Voluntary Sector
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I thank the Minister for coming, and I am pleased that some hon. Members are here today to celebrate the voluntary sector in small towns and cities. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) is keen to speak, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) is keen to intervene. I am happy for both to do so.
Everyone here today recognises the important contribution in our areas that the voluntary sector makes to many families and to our local economies. The voluntary sector receives and spends tens of billions of pounds every year and employs hundreds of thousands of people who are all trying to make a difference to the life of other people.
Before I raise two points with the Minister, I would like to celebrate the work of the 163 charities and more than 100 community groups in my constituency. Yes, that is right—in my constituency, with 69,000 people on the electoral roll, we have about 300 charities and local community groups all trying to make a difference. A classic example took place just this weekend, when Stevenage hosted the largest armed forces day celebration in Hertfordshire. The Stevenage indoor market traders, under the chairmanship of Peter Mason and its outstanding committee, welcomed the market stall that Mark Williams, a Gulf war veteran, runs for the national Gulf Veterans and families association. It not only raises funds, but tries to support servicemen and servicewomen who fought in the Gulf.
There were more than 20 charity stalls on the day, and thousands of people attended. I was honoured to be given the opportunity to speak at the opening of the day, and was humbled to meet a Dunkirk veteran who was collecting money in a bucket for the Royal British Legion. As a nurse, she had looked after wounded soldiers on the beaches at Dunkirk. I was very proud of what she had done, and it was an honour to meet her. There were many other stories from veterans and war widows. I was proud that our community came together to show our support for our armed forces.
Turning to more established local charities in my constituency, I am proud to be a patron of Turn the Tide, a local charity that tries to help disadvantaged young people. We are trying to teach children, in groups of two, how to build a small sailing dinghy. Once they have built the dinghy, we then teach them how to sail it on Fairlands Valley Park sailing lake. We hope this will develop into a lifelong hobby for the children, and we are also looking into the possibility of giving them access to some qualifications. The charity is run by a good group of people. A number of people have come through the scheme so far in the past year or so, and it is proving to be a huge success.
I am also a trustee of The Living Room in Stevenage, which is a charity founded and led by the inspirational Janis Feely, who now has an MBE for her services. The Living Room is a charity that helps people put their lives back together and makes a massive contribution to the local community. It simply tries to break the cycle of addiction and uses abstinence-based group therapy to help addicts recover, whether from drugs, alcohol, food or other addictions. The programme at The Living Room in Stevenage works. It has a high success rate because of a very unique selling point—all the counsellors have been addicts in the past. They have all reached rock bottom and they all know what it is like to be there. They know when the people they are counselling are pushing a little bit further than they should, and when they are not going fast enough. It is a unique charity and I am delighted to have been involved with it for a number of years.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. It is also a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin.
My hon. Friend mentioned being a trustee of various charities in his constituency. He also mentioned how many charities there were in his constituency. There are 270 charities and voluntary sector organisations in Lincoln. With the help of two companies, Lindum Group and Wright Vigar, we have a number of receptions coming up to thank the trustees of those charities. With 270 charities and voluntary organisations, the number of trustees in my constituency numbers in the thousands. I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to welcome that.
Stephen McPartland
The importance of trustees to charities is massive. The Minister will be aware that one of the biggest challenges for charities is to attract good-quality trustees. It is like being a school governor—they are overwhelmed with paperwork and given a huge amount of responsibility. Like most people involved in charities, all they want to do is help people. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is welcoming all the trustees in his constituency. It has given me a very good idea, and I will no doubt be doing something similar later this year.
Returning to the work of The Living Room, the charity is very good at putting people’s lives back together. It has helped mothers recover to the point where they have been able to get their children back out of care. It has helped to rebuild marriages, and it has helped many clients, as we call them, to go back to the world of work and put their lives back together. It is a fantastic organisation, and I am very proud to be associated with it.
Another charity that was started in Stevenage is unique, and I love it. It is run in partnership with Hertfordshire police and has expanded across the county, and I understand that a number of other police forces are interested in it. It is called Dog Watch. Everybody has heard of neighbourhood watch, but we have a system called Dog Watch. Dog walkers are often the ones who identify fly-tippers. It is usually a dog walker who is unfortunate enough to discover a dead body, because their dog finds it. More than 400 people have signed up with Hertfordshire police through the Dog Watch charity, and they are effectively the eyes and ears on the ground in Stevenage. There are many community events, and the whole community gets involved. Dog Watch helps rescued dogs and looks after a number of animals. Most importantly, people are out there with the police on a day-to-day basis. If something happens and the police are keen to find out what is going on, they have access to a resource of people who have probably walked past the very spot three times that week and may have seen a particular vehicle or something else. Dog Watch is led by a lady called Sarah Sheldrick, and she is also an inspiration.
Young people are very important in charities. Only last week, I visited Thomas Alleyne school in Stevenage, where the pupils presented me with a petition that I hope to give to the Secretary of State for International Development. They want all children throughout the world to have access to primary school education. You know, Mr Dobbin, that I am very interested in global poverty and what is going on around the world, especially in relation to access to education. The pupils of Thomas Alleyne school have gone a step further and raised enough money to send three African children to school for the next year. The pupils are making a personal demonstration to those children in Africa that they will try to help them get educated. That is very important, because it shows that in my constituency of Stevenage people are becoming involved with community spirit right from the start.
A slightly larger charity based in Stevenage is POhWER, which provides highly skilled advocates to support vulnerable people who find it difficult to challenge the NHS and other services when things go wrong, and to help people get the public services they need. I work very closely with POhWER and am a huge fan of the support it gives to people. It understands the challenges, as most of the board of trustees have used advocacy services themselves in the past. The Minister with responsibility for care services has written to POhWER to thank it for the work it does, particularly with those who have mental health issues. POhWER is also a success, because it is one of the few charities that has managed to win some Government contracts to provide advocacy services. That brings me to my first question to the Minister. Why is it so difficult for charities and community groups to win contracts from the public sector?
The Minister is keen for local councils, local NHS, police and various public sector bodies to work more closely with local charities and community groups, and many do, but that never seems to translate into a contract in my area. The tendering processes of local public bodies are bewildering. Most charities just want to get on with helping local people and cannot navigate the complex bureaucracy that is put in their way.
I met a couple of people last week who are keen to launch a self-empowerment service in Stevenage, but they are coming up against huge barriers and do not think that they can deal with the tendering process. They believe—I have heard this complaint from many small local charities—that many of the contracts are too large and say that, when they can get involved in a contract, they effectively have to subcontract to a larger charity or a private sector organisation, and feel that they do not get what was promised. I am also starting to hear complaints that charities are being used as a form of bid candy; that is, they are being used by large providers to win a contract, but see little benefit locally. That issue has arisen time and again in my constituency, especially in the past 18 months, as ever more contracts of this kind have gone out.
We need to level the playing field and have services delivered more locally, but how does the Minister intend to do that? The Government’s localism agenda works; it is the right thing to do. We have to push power away from central Government towards local people and communities. However, many local councils seem to be acting as a barrier between the Government and local communities. Councils pay lip service to the Government, but do little to help local community groups and small charities tender for contracts. It is almost as if they want to keep as much work as possible in-house. In my constituency, Stevenage borough council keeps everything in-house and does not outsource anything, so it is difficult for small groups and charities to be involved in any way.
Will the Minister consider introducing to councils more standardised bidding and monitoring forms that pass the plain English test? We are giving councils guidance and working hard—the Minister is desperate for them to engage with local community groups—but in my experience in the past two years, there is a barrier between the Government and local communities, which means that community groups cannot navigate bureaucracy and red tape. Those groups want to help people, just as small businesses want to get on and sell their product and not deal with health and safety and myriad other regulations. Many small charities and community groups are subject to the same regulations as businesses and are not geared up to work with them.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the issue of irrecoverable VAT, which costs local charities and community groups up to £500 million a year. This is a long-standing issue, but it is important that we try to tackle it.
Many people in my constituency come to me about Criminal Records Bureau forms. One man has had 15 CRB forms for the different groups that he is involved in. We put the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 into place and we are getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy to do with CRB forms, and I know that the idea is that, if there has been no change in people’s circumstances, they will be able to log on to the internet, check the system and move forward. However, it is two years on and that measure does not seem to have been implemented yet, and nobody knows when it will be implemented. People are agitated, saying, “Do I need to get my new CRB forms, because I’m going to be helping out?” The CRB forms are a huge barrier to people being involved in community groups.
The Government have made it clear that volunteers should not have to pay for CRB forms. However, most councils are, in my experience, charging an administration fee to process the forms, so the reality is that most volunteers are being charged for a CRB form, and that cost is borne by the individual or the charity. There is a sense of a barrier between what we want to achieve and what local communities want and what is happening. We need to leap across the barrier and deliver this free service to volunteers.
I would have loved to mention every one of the 300 charities and community groups in Stevenage, but no doubt we can do that in an hour-and-a-half debate in future.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on securing the debate, which is relevant to small towns and to cities, such as my constituency of Carlisle. I should like to make a small contribution to the debate.
The Government and politicians talk a lot about the role and importance of the public and private sectors, and the relationship between the two. That is natural, to a large extent, because the private sector is the wealth-producing part of our economy and creates the vast majority of our employment. It is dynamic, innovative and varied and vital to the success of our economy, nationally and locally. The public sector is similarly important. It provides our schools, hospitals, much of our infrastructure, the police and welfare and is important both nationally and locally. There is often political debate about the size of each sector and what each should do and how they should do it.
Sometimes, we neglect the third sector—the voluntary and charitable sector—which is equally important in small towns and in cities, as it makes a valuable contribution to communities in many ways. It plays a huge role, sometimes doing things that neither the private nor public sectors can or will do. It is important in terms of its contribution to society and to local communities, and in respect of how it helps people to get involved.
In 2009-10, 40% of adult volunteers formally volunteered once a year and 25% at least once a month. In my view, much of the voluntary sector flies below the radar: that is true of my constituency. Throughout the country, about 80% of voluntary organisations are not registered and there are an estimated 600,000 informal groups, many of which have annual incomes of less than £10,000; yet they play a vital, important role in our communities, especially in small towns and cities.
The voluntary sector is diverse. In my constituency, for example, Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line is a heritage trust that plays an important role in publicising the importance of that railway. A recently created charity called Cumbria Gateway helps people with drug issues move back into mainstream society. Cumbria Council for Voluntary Service helps voluntary groups generally with administration and encourages more people to get involved in the third sector.
It is important that we recognise the benefits of a thriving third sector, but it should be an independent sector that is not dependent on the state and it should not be over-regulated. What will the Government do to ensure that the sector continues to thrive, develop and expand? I want to be able to reassure organisations in my constituency that the Government support them. I should like the Minister to confirm that there are no proposals for additional regulation in the sector.
Although I appreciate that funding has been reduced, can smaller organisations in particular be provided with help to gain access to the funding that is out there? Often, small organisations struggle to find out where to get access to such finance, and even to find out where it is advertised and in which organisations or parts of government they have to seek it.
Stephen McPartland
Does my hon. Friend agree that small charities often find it difficult to apply for funding because they do not have the resources?
John Stevenson
Yes. Indeed, sometimes they do not even know where to go to seek such support. I also support my hon. Friend’s comment about the third sector having access to public sector contracts. It is important that small organisations have that opportunity, too, and that it is not just national charities that have priority in that regard.
The voluntary sector has an important role to play in our society—in changing the way we do things—and I seek reassurance that the Government will give as much support as they can to it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on securing the debate and for the sincere way in which he expressed his admiration and respect for the 300-odd local charities in Stevenage. He clearly does more than talk the talk: he walks the walk by being a patron and trustee of at least two of those organisations, which is admirable.
My hon. Friend and other colleagues are reflecting the importance of the sector to the country in a year when we are presenting to the world the best of Britain, and I have absolutely no doubt that the voluntary sector is part of that. The ecosystem of charities, supported by millions of people who give time and money to improve other people’s lives and the conditions in their neighbourhood, underpins our sense of well-being; it is massively important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) spoke well about organisations in his area. I vividly remember visiting the Living Well Trust on the Raffles estate when I first became a Member of Parliament. What was really brought home to me was that on a troubled estate the thing that made a difference—the people who made a difference—were Barrie, Kath and the team there. They did much more than anything a council could do to support residents from the estate. The Living Well Trust was the battery at the heart of the estate, and that forged a strong impression in my mind.
Times are challenging for such organisations: less money is around, there are more demands and there is a huge amount of change. We are sensitive to that. In the short time I have, I shall reassure colleagues that the Government are extremely committed to protecting the sector as best we can through a difficult short term, while putting in place measures that will underpin its resilience and effectiveness in the future. I will address specifically how we can make it easier for charities to access money and to help us deliver better public services.
First, we are trying to make it easier to run a charity. We all know that it is one of the most difficult things to do; it has always been difficult, but it is particularly hard now. The Government can do things to help, such as looking hard at the amount of bureaucracy and regulation imposed—my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle made that point—and we are undergoing probably the biggest and most comprehensive review of the regulation and legislation that affects the sector. Our instinct is to deregulate and to remove bureaucracy, so that there are fewer forms to fill and fewer daft questions to answer, freeing time and money that can be better spent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage mentioned CRB checks, which have been a huge source of frustration. We are certainly not going as fast as many people would like, but the reform is radical; millions fewer people will need to have CRB checks, and those who do will find it much easier to carry the check around the system. The reform, which my colleagues at the Home Office are working hard on, is complicated, but the new system will be in place at the beginning of next year. It will be a new era for CRB checks, with an injection of common sense in a system that had grown out of all proportion. That is only one example of the kind of things that we are doing to make life a bit easier.
Mention was made of how small charities can find access to what money is around. Information is important, so we have continued to fund a website called Funding Central, which I recommend to colleagues. It is probably the most comprehensive source of grants and pots of money available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) talked, importantly, about the value of trustees, which we are keen to encourage. The environment is challenging for charities, and most of them recognise that they lack certain things, such as business skills in particular, which will become increasingly relevant if they are competing for more tenders and public work. There are business skills in every constituency, but they happen to be engaged in different things. The impression I get in my constituency is that if we can make better connections between local businesses and local people with business skills and the charities that are on their doorstep, the effect can be transformational; it can raise the capacity and capability of small local charities. We will be doing a lot to make those connections work much better. Furthermore, some of those business people will be inspired to become trustees and become part of the governance of local charities.
Making it easier to run a charity, therefore, and helping the sector to modernise its skills is important. Behind most front-line charities, of course, sits a local council for voluntary service, or another support organisation, and we have invested £30 million in the CVS network to encourage the councils to think about how they can improve their offer to front-line charities. That is a serious investment when there is not a great deal of money around. Making it easier to run a charity is the first important strategic strand.
Secondly, how do we get more money into the sector? How do we get more resource in terms of more volunteers and people giving their time? I recommend to colleagues the White Paper on giving and the update we published last week for dissemination to local charities, because in those documents we communicate clearly our absolute commitment to broaden the base of people in this country who give.
I shall throw a spotlight on a couple of initiatives where we are putting up taxpayers’ money as a match to stimulate giving to local charities. Localgiving.com is a new platform set up by one of the participants in “The Secret Millionaire” to inspire more support for local charities. In September, we will be matching, pound for pound, local donations given through that site. It will be our third match. The previous one sold out in 24 hours, which tells us that if people are given information about the local charities on their doorstep, they are interested in doing more to support them. I encourage colleagues to get their local charities to register and get engaged with Localgiving.com, for the pound-for-pound match in September.
We have also put up £50 million to match donations from local philanthropists—people who have been relatively fortunate and want to put something back into their communities. We will match every £1 they give with an additional 50p towards the building of local endowments that will be a source of sustainable, long-term grants for local organisations. We are determined on such interventions for the long term, so getting more resources into the sector is hugely important to us.
Thirdly—a relatively new area—how do we make it easier for charities to participate in and help us to deliver better public services? Part of the problem is that the public services in the past have been closed and opportunities have not been available. The Government are opening up opportunities, but it is a big cultural change and will not happen overnight. Big question marks are raised about the capability and competence of commissioners throughout the country—many are new and many are being asked to do things in different ways—and of local charities, which need to step up and persuade commissioners that they have the resilience and ability to deliver.
We are working hard to make that a reality. We are sending strong signals to commissioners. We supported the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), which places a requirement on commissioners to consider social value in their commissioning processes. The “Best Value Statutory Guidance” issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to local authorities also makes it clear that we want them to consider social value. The Localism Act 2011 contains a right to challenge, so that local groups can question existing provision in a public and transparent way. We are setting up a commissioning academy, because commissioners need support, and the first cohort is going through this summer. That is about encouraging more intelligent commissioning, in particular at local level.
We are supporting local charities that want to do more in that space. A £10 million investment and contract readiness fund has been set up as a source of grants available to charities and social enterprises that want to do more public service delivery but recognise that they need a little more help and support to increase their capability and readiness. The principle is clear, however: we want the people buying on our behalf to have much more choice in who they buy from.
In some of the most stubborn and difficult social areas, charities and social enterprises frequently make the extra bit of difference in keeping people out of jail or off drugs, as has been said, but such organisations are often small. One of the challenges mentioned is a real one; commissioners naturally want to buy at scale, with all the potential efficiencies that can be pursued, but they find it difficult to reconcile that with including small, local charities that could make that additional bit of difference in the supply chain.
We are feeling our way, but there is definite progress. This morning, I had a meeting with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Serco, which have come together with a new framework to guide prime contractors—big private organisations or big charities—in their engagement with small charities in their supply chain. In an environment where we are paying people for outcomes, it is in the interests of bigger organisations to engage with the small local charities that, in our experience, can make just that additional bit of difference.
Finally, if my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage wants to bring any of the 300 magnificent charities in his constituency to meet the Minister, he is extremely welcome to do so, because I regularly have such meetings. I would like them to feel the appreciation of the Government for the incredible work that they do.
West Bank (Area C)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the important issue of Area C in Palestine. Following the Oslo agreement in 1995, the occupied Palestinian territories were divided into three areas: Area A, about 18% of the west bank, contains most of the main Palestinian settlements and is under full Palestinian civil and security control; Area B, roughly 22% of the west bank, is under Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control; and Area C, on which I want to concentrate, makes up the other 60% of the west bank and is under complete Israeli civil and security control.
The Oslo agreement as concerned with the west bank was intended to be interim and to last for only five years. The lands should have been handed over gradually to Palestinian control, but that has never happened.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that I cannot stay for the whole debate. Does he agree that Area C would, and does, make up the backbone of any future Palestinian state? The failure of the Oslo process to follow its proper track therefore jeopardises the whole future of the two-state solution. Will he ask for the Minister’s views on that?
Mr Doran
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention—I always thank the right hon. Lady, and I always give way to her. The Minister has heard her question, and I am sure that he will respond. Of course, I agree that the solution, if there is one, to the problems of Area C is crucial to the whole settlement of a particularly difficult issue.
Israel, as an occupying state, has clear and unambiguous responsibilities to the Palestinian people in Area C, including for the safety and welfare of civilians living in the occupied territory. It has no sovereignty over Area C or any other part of the west bank. I want to concentrate on Area C and the way in which the Israeli authorities have met their obligations under international law.
In May this year, I had the opportunity to visit Palestine for the first time, on a trip with some colleagues organised by the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group and CAABU, the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding. One of the first things I noticed travelling through the west bank, as a newcomer, is the enormous amount of new development. The hills are full of new housing complexes, but in Area C those developments do not belong to the indigenous population—they have all been developed by the occupying force, Israel, and are therefore illegal. The scale is staggering.
According to the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, there are 124 formally recognised settlements in the west bank, not including East Jerusalem, and about 100 informal settlements—outposts—that are illegal under Israeli law. As a result of the restricted road network—restricted for Palestinians, at least—the settlements dominate more than 40% of the west bank. There are 310,000 settlers now living in Area C, where the rate of population growth is much higher than in any other part of the country, with an increase of 4.75% per year.
The Israeli Government not only condone illegal development but encourage it, providing incentives, subsidies and funding for housing, education and infrastructure, including special roads and water connections. According to a Peace Now report from 2006, 40% of the land—or 3,400 buildings—on which settlements have been built in Area C is privately owned by Palestinians.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at most, about 5% of the west bank consists of settlements, and most of them are in settlement blocks? Does he not accept that the vast majority of the settlements are along the peace line and that, to get to peace, land swaps will be required? Most of those settlements are more than likely to come into Israel anyway.
Mr Doran
That does not alter the facts on the ground. Owing to the road networks, the various infrastructure around the settlements and the inability of Palestinians to go into that territory without a permit from the Israeli authorities, 40% of the land is effectively taken up by the settlements.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I, too, have recently returned from a visit to the region. Someone remarked that because of the Israeli settlements the whole of Area C looks similar to a Swiss cheese, which is a very good description. That lack of a contiguous, sustainable two-state solution in the area is making peace very difficult to achieve.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I refer the Chamber to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I take the issue of settlements seriously, but listening closely to the hon. Gentleman, I simply cannot understand his repeated reference to settlements taking up 40% of the west bank. I have the United Nations “Humanitarian Atlas”, and there is simply no way that the Israeli settlements amount to anywhere near 40% of the west bank. May I ask him to ensure that he is quoting a correct figure?
Mr Doran
I stand by the figure. I am not suggesting that 40% is built on; that is not the issue. I am talking about the area of land that is restricted with regard to Palestinians. It includes the road network. The Swiss cheese effect was mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant). There are large areas to which the Palestinian community is denied access. That calculation is made, as I said, in a 2006 report by an Israeli human rights organisation. I want to make progress now, because the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) will have his opportunity to speak later.
On my visit to the west bank, I saw numerous examples of how the Israeli civil Administration restrict any kind of development by Palestinians. Around 70% of Area C, or 44% of the west bank, is effectively off limits to Palestinian construction—the hon. Member for Kettering made me nervous of getting into such statistics, but I have to stick by them—and is designated for exclusive use by Israeli settlements and the Israeli military, or is taken up by nature reserves or the barrier buffer zone. In the remaining 30% of Area C, a range of restrictions makes it virtually impossible for Palestinians to be granted permission for development.
The most frequent obstacle to Palestinian development is the requirement on the applicant to prove that he or she owns or has the right to use the land, but most land in the west bank is not registered, so the owners must go through a complex system involving tax and inheritance documents. The second ground for the rejection of most Palestinian permit applications is the requirement that the proposed building must be in conformity with an approved planning scheme that is detailed enough to enable building permits to be used. Palestinian villages, however, lack sufficiently detailed plans. The outdated plans that do exist are interpreted restrictively by the Israeli civil authority. In practice, only about 1% of Area C is available for the construction of new properties, and most of that is already built up.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he share my concern that among the buildings demolished are structures funded by the European Union, such as schools? I visited the occupied territories in the west bank a year ago, as part of a delegation, and saw a school that had been built with funding from an Italian charity, but that had been subject to a demolition notice.
Mr Doran
We were obviously on the same visit, because I will mention that particular project later. Under the restrictive laws and regulations, many Palestinian structures, including homes, schools, water systems and farming infrastructure, are treated as illegal and are therefore subject to demolition orders.
In 2011, nearly 1,100 Palestinians, half of them children, were displaced through 222 house demolitions—an 80% increase on the number of people displaced in 2010—and 4,200 people were affected by the destruction of structures necessary to their livelihoods, such as water storage and agricultural facilities. In total, 622 Palestinian structures were destroyed, including mosques and classrooms. At the end of 2011, there were more than 3,000 outstanding demolition orders. Those figures included 18 schools.
So far this year, 371 Palestinian structures have been demolished on the west bank, 124 of which were homes, and 600 people have been displaced so far this year. That is a significant and troubling increase in the weekly average, from 21 people a week displaced in 2011, to 24 a week this year. Of the structures demolished since the start of 2000—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris)—60 were EU-funded structures, and 110 are at risk of demolition. Will the Minister tell us the total cost of those demolished EU projects, and whether he has made any representations to the Israeli Government on this matter? It would also be helpful if he would identify any projects funded by the Department for International Development that have suffered the same fate.
In addition to the demolition of Palestinian structures, there is the issue of the natural resources of the occupied territories, which have for decades been diverted for the use of Israel and Israeli citizens. International law, of course, requires the natural resources of the occupied territories to be used for the benefit of the local population, except when they are required for an urgent military purpose. The most crucial natural resource on the west bank is water, and 80% of the water extracted from the west bank mountain aquifer goes to Israel, with only 20% going to the Palestinians.
Settlers consume between six and 10 times more per head than their Palestinian counterparts. Many settlers have swimming pools and are able to irrigate their farmland. By contrast, 190,000 Palestinians live in 134 villages without running water. Palestinian consumption in the occupied territories is about 70 litres per day, well below the 100 litres recommended by the World Health Organisation. In some rural communities, people survive on 20 litres per day, and many Palestinians are forced to buy water of dubious quality from mobile water tanks at high prices. Wells and systems built without permits are frequently destroyed by the Israeli army.
Demolition orders are in place, and actual demolition has occurred, all over Area C. On a recent trip, we visited two Bedouin communities. The first was Kahn al-Ahmar. The residents are a Bedouin community who are refugees from the Negev. The area in which they live could not be described as remote. They live cheek by jowl with a main highway, and there is a substantial settlement on the other side of the road. However, the actions of the ICA have led to the community being isolated in practical terms.
The residents recognised that one of the costs of that isolation was the impact on their children’s schooling, and they decided to build a school. They obtained funding support from an Italian non-governmental organisation, and were given help with design and materials. They managed to build a school, and the main material was used tyres—it is a fascinating building—covered in mud or some form of mortar, but it is well insulated and cool, and it suits the children very well in their environment. The children are being supplied with an education in good surroundings. However, the Bedouins there did not have permission to build the school, and since its construction it has been under constant threat of demolition.
The families living there have been targeted on two fronts. First, the ICA wants to demolish the school, and there is no permit. That is the law. That will deprive the children of their education. The second threat, which has been made to all the Bedouin groups in the area, is to move them to another site. The proposed site is next to a rubbish dump that services the settlement up the hill. Everything that will involve, and the risk to health for all those who are moved to the site, is anathema to the community involved. We spoke to a community leader, Abu Khamis, who said:
“They are saying they are moving us to a rubbish dump, if we move out of this community it should be to return to the home of our tribe in the Negev.”
He continued:
“Whether the rubbish dump or the French Riviera we don’t want to go”.
That Bedouin community lives where it does because there was a river and natural wells, but they were diverted to serve the local settlements on the other side of the road, and the land used for grazing the Bedouins’ sheep has been severely restricted. We were told about the harassment by nearby settlers. Abu Khamis told us that his wife had been beaten by settlers while on the hillside with their sheep. On the day we visited, a group of settlers had entered the community, and had taken photographs of the children and structures to intimidate the residents.
As well as settler intimidation, and the constant threats to demolish the school and of possible removal to the rubbish dump site, there is further institutional harassment. For example, the access route to the village from the main road that the villagers used to use was sealed off by the authorities, and the only access to the village by vehicle now is along an extremely rough river bed track. The authorities have built a sewage air vent 5 metres from the classroom, and that obviously affects the air that the children breathe in the school. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington visited the same site and he will recall how difficult the drive to the village was, but those people have to put up with that every day, and it is much worse for them because they are cheek by jowl with a major road.
Despite all that, Abu Khamis and his community are adamant that they will not be intimidated or moved from their home. Their most earnest wish is to return to their tribal home in the Negev, but that is not possible now. It is difficult to interpret the behaviour and actions of the Israeli authorities as anything other than intimidation of the worst kind. They hope that the constant threat from the authorities, and their mean and insidious actions, such as cutting off access, will grind the community down.
The community at Kahn al-Ahmar has in some respects become a symbol of the way in which the Israeli authority treats the Palestinian communities. There has been considerable media interest in the school project, and it is a tribute to Abu Khamis and his community that they have continued to resist all efforts to intimidate them from their home, but how long can that go on?
On the same day, we visited the Kurshan community, who also live nearby in the Khan al-Ahmar area. An international non-governmental organisation has funded a new home for each of the eight families in the community, but within a week of completion 24-hour eviction notices were served. On the day we visited, the community had been told that an appeal against the orders had been refused, and that their homes would be demolished the next afternoon. We were told that just an hour before came an ICA representative had visited and told the families that they would be relocated to the rubbish dump area—presumably the same rubbish dump area where the other sect of the tribe was to be moved to.
A member of the community, Abu Faris, said that he had told the ICA representative
“that’s a rubbish dump and I am a human being. In any country a human being should not live near a rubbish dump and I have a right to be a human being just like you have”.
He told us that they intended to carry on finishing the inside of the new building. I understand that the following day an injunction was obtained for the Kurshan community, and the court asked the ICA not to carry out the demolition. The case is winding its way through the court processes, but in the meantime the Kurshan Bedouin community remains in its new homes, but under constant threat of displacement.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
On the illegal demolition of infrastructure that has been built with British, UK, EU or international money, is it not time to move beyond the ritual criticism and condemnation that we always make of the Israeli authorities, and sue them for damages? They are recklessly wasting and destroying our taxpayers’ money, and our taxpayers deserve that money back from the Israeli Government.
Mr Doran
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I hope that the Minister has taken note of it. It raises another issue, because my understanding of how international law operates is that the Israeli authorities have responsibilities to the Palestinian communities that are being met by our country, the EU, and non-governmental organisations around the world, saving Israel that expense. There is a serious issue that needs to be considered.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way again. He makes the point that the Israeli authorities have responsibilities; does he also agree that it is in their interest to have a better-educated and better-off Palestinian population that is able to feed itself? That is in the interests of a two-state solution and long-term peace.
Mr Doran
This is the politics of the mad house. We have a very suppressed Palestinian population, and one day the kettle will explode. There is no question about that; it is just a question of when.
I started by mentioning the responsibilities of the Israeli authorities as the occupying force in Area C. It is clear that the Israeli Government are ignoring their responsibilities under international law, and I have raised a few points about that in this short debate. There is a virtual free-for-all, with new housing developments for settlers actively encouraged and supported financially by the Israeli Government. That development has taken place regardless of the rights of the true owners of the land. Resources, particularly water, have been channelled to the illegal settlers, but restricted or denied to the Palestinians, who have been denied all the rights given to illegal settlers.
As the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, we have a Swiss cheese approach. It is almost like the creation of bantustans; the communities will be separated out and surrounded by Israeli settlements, or roads that Palestinians cannot access. That appears to be a deliberate strategy by Israeli authorities to isolate Palestinian communities in Area C.
We in this Chamber are all politicians, and we know that the only solution to this problem is political. On where the two sides stand—I was aware of this in this country, but it was underlined for me in my short time in Palestine—the Palestinian Authority are frustrated and feel that they cannot go any further. They have done an excellent job in managing, looking after and ensuring security in the areas that they control, but they are frustrated that they cannot make any progress during talks. Whatever plans the Israeli authorities have in mind for the long term, settlement of this problem does not seem to be one of them.
When we met the Israeli authorities, it was clear that a number of things were on their mind. Iran was top of the list, and next was the Arab spring and the impact that that will have on their plans. There were also concerns about what a second Obama presidency might mean to the state of Israel.
We will reach a resolution only if we find a political solution, and it does not seem to me that either side is capable of working towards that. It is, therefore, a question for us. I know the excellent work that the Minister has done in this area, and his praises were sung virtually everywhere we went. I say that to him as an old football colleague; I know him and his integrity on these issues well. A simple fact, however, is that the people whom we and others in the debate met in Palestine, including those who live in Khan al-Ahmar, deserve a better life. It is our job to help them find it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). I am speaking loudly because I understand that the sound system is not very good and people cannot hear. I apologise if I am shouting like a sergeant-major, but I hope people can hear me.
I spent my boyhood in Amman; my father was an officer with Glubb Pasha. I loved Amman and I remember visiting Jerusalem. I even spoke a bit of Arabic. In 1967, when I was doing my A-levels, I watched the war in June with horror. My dad despaired. He just put his head in his hands and said, “What will happen now?”
I remember Security Council resolution 242 being passed. It said that Israel should go back to the pre-1967 boundaries, and that the security of Israel should be guaranteed internationally. In 45 years, that has not been achieved—[Interruption.] Oh—the sound is back on; I shall calm down.
Israel has only to lose a war once, so I understand why it is dominated by thoughts of its own security. It is surrounded by people and some states that wish nothing more than its demise. Iran has declared that it wants to see Israel eliminated, and rockets are fired into Israel by Hamas and associated terrorist groups that also carry out suicide bombings against innocent people.
Jerusalem is a holy city for the world’s three great Aramaic religions. Jews, Arabs and other peoples have always lived in Jerusalem together, almost since history began, and in a way it is the world’s first international city. However, I want to talk specifically about the west bank, particularly Area C.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has already explained the meaning of the three areas, A, B and C, but if I may, I will amplify his comments to stress that Area A is the population centre for the Palestinians and contains mainly towns; Area B is controlled administratively by the Palestinians—although not for security which lies with the Israelis—and has more villages; Area C, as the hon. Gentleman said, occupies about 60% of the west bank and includes about 310,000 settlers, not including the 200,000 who live in East Jerusalem, which is separate. That area is under full Israeli security and civil control. It also has Israeli-controlled water, planning and administration.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Oslo agreement was meant to be an interim measure, although it seems to be becoming the status quo. Internationally, Israel does not have sovereignty in Area C, or indeed the west bank—it does not. Therefore, under international law, Israel is the occupying power in that land, and it most definitely has responsibility for the people who live there.
Grahame M. Morris
The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. Does he agree that although under the terms of the Oslo agreement the Israeli authorities have responsibility for planning, water and security measures in Area C, that was an interim measure? The plan was for responsibility to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority over time, but that does not seem to be happening.
Bob Stewart
Yes, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about that.
Area C is, of course, the key to sorting out the problem because it makes up the majority of the west bank. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who is no longer in the Chamber, has already made that point.
Mr Hollobone
Can we please get the facts right? According to the United Nations, Area C is 39% of the west bank. That is not the same as the area covered by settlements. I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not correct to say that Area C makes up the majority of the west bank. According to the UN, it is 39%. I recognise that it is a big area, but let us get our facts and figures correct to better inform the debate.
Bob Stewart
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but when I look at the map he is holding up, it looks to me more like 60% blue. But let us not get into an argument; whether the area is 40% or 60%, something is wrong.
There are, as we have mentioned in the debate, about 310,000 Israeli settlers in Area C. There are 149 settlements—okay, people might dispute that, but it is more than 100—and there are about 100 outposts, which are illegal under both international law and Israeli civil law. Already, it is said, about four of the settlements could rightly be called cities. That is quite big. Under international law, all settlements are illegal and outposts are most definitely illegal.
Two kinds of people live in Area C. There are Israelis, who are subject to Israeli civil law, loosely—as I understand it—because they sometimes do not pay much attention to the Israeli police. In fairness, they are sometimes, apparently, in defiance of what Israeli police are trying to do. The other kind of people living there are Palestinians. They are subject to military law. That is wrong. When I visited Area C, the difference was quite clear. Palestinians cannot build where they live, except in a small percentage—1%, 2% or 3%—of the country; nor do they have freedom of movement. They have to stay in their home area. For example, a Palestinian living in Area C with relatives in East Jerusalem cannot easily go to visit them. That is wrong.
Andrew Percy
Does my hon. Friend accept, on the movement issue, that 100 roadblocks have been removed and movements between Israel and the west bank and within the west bank have increased significantly? Who does he blame for the lack of progress on a negotiated peace settlement? Everyone knows that the 1967 line will not be the final settlement, so who does my hon. Friend blame? Does he blame the Israelis or does he blame the Palestinian side?
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The answer to his question is that I do not blame either side. I have been involved in too many negotiations for the UN to start from a position of saying “You’re wrong” to one side or the other. The answer is: negotiate. There is wrong on both sides in this matter.
Mr Robin Walker
I neglected earlier to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is my hon. Friend aware of the work of organisations such as Breaking the Silence, which tries to show in Israel the damage that the occupation is doing to Israelis?
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I apologise if I seemed rude to my very good hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). I do not mean to be rude.
I am aware of the organisation Breaking the Silence. Perhaps someone else will bring it up.
Bob Stewart
Perhaps it will be my right hon. Friend, although he is not meant to be.
Mr Bradshaw
On this issue, I think I probably am. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a better description than settlement, which is a fairly neutral, anodyne word, would be colony? These are illegal colonies. Does he agree that the description that he has just given of Area C, although it is not a complete parallel, is moving towards a situation that is comparable with apartheid South Africa?
Bob Stewart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. I am trying to avoid using words such as “apartheid” and “ghetto”. They are emotive terms. “Colony” is just acceptable, but I am trying to avoid using those terms, because, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, I am trying to avoid putting blame on anyone. I am just trying to explain the situation.
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend, who is most definitely a very good friend. I agree. It is quite clear that that is one of the problems.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I recognise and accept that apportioning blame in this situation is not the right thing to do. We should be aiming to get people round the negotiating table, but does my hon. Friend not agree that during the 10-month period when the Israeli Government froze all settlement activity, there was a failure by the Palestinians to get round the negotiating table and make progress?
Bob Stewart
I give way to my hon. Friend, otherwise he will give me hell later.
Andrew Percy
Not at all, but I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Like other hon. Members in their contributions, he has hit on the nub of the situation, which is that we want to encourage economic development. That is probably the best way of going towards peace, but it is not the fact that continued Israeli frustration is harming the economy. The economy in the west bank is growing significantly. The number of work permits issued to citizens in the west bank to work in Israel has increased, and the number of work permits issued to west bank residents to work in the settlements has also increased. Trade between the west bank and Israel has increased substantially year on year in the last few years.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that a number of people still wish to speak, and the number who are able to do so is in your hands. The winding-up speeches will start promptly at 3.40 pm.
Bob Stewart
Thank you, Mrs Brooke. I will speed up and allow fewer interventions. I am going to speed up and cut down, because I think that is fair.
My experience as a United Nations commander informs me of one essential truth, which everyone in this room will fully understand without having been in my circumstances. Injustice will in the end cause such resentment that it will erupt. That happened in Ireland and it has happened in other places where I have been—it will eventually burst.
I know that Israel has often been provoked mightily, but what is happening in Area C worries me. There is continued expansion of settler communities in the west bank. That in a way signals to the Palestinians that there is very little intention to stop it or to come to some sort of solution. Unless the settlements stop, there can be no chance whatever of a two-state solution, and the only alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution—one state where Jews and Palestinians recognise one another as equals. Surely that is not totally utopian. Acceptance of human beings’ human rights is what the United Nations is all about and what everyone in this room feels strongly about, too. For its part, Hamas, in Gaza, must somehow recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist. After all, Israel did withdraw from Gaza in 2005.
Bob Stewart
For doing so, its reward was often a rain of rockets. The whole situation seems somewhat intractable. In my experience, it is always the little people, the ordinary people, who suffer in conflict situations. They simply want to live their lives as best they can. Whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, they are human beings. Remedial action must come from leaders on all sides. They must convince their people that it is necessary.
I end by asking God to bring back King Solomon. He was respected by Jews and Muslims equally, and my God, we need his wisdom now.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. Members can see by the number of people rising that not everybody will be able speak unless there is discipline over time.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
In deference not only to that, Mrs Brooke, but to the two fine speeches we heard setting out the core of the issue with Area C, I will keep my comments short and limit them principally to one case, which is the village of Susiya.
When debating Palestine, we sometimes lose a little context when we talk about Israel’s problems in its governance of the west bank. Israel is an occupying power of the west bank and has been since 1967. Over that time, it has engaged in an aggressive policy of colonisation, which has also involved the active displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population, whether they be settled or Bedouin communities. That is the context.
The lives of the Palestinians are compromised and disrupted daily, whether physically, by the settlements, barriers and checkpoints, or organisationally, through pass laws and restrictions on movement, trade and so on, which, sadly, bear a resemblance to some activities of the apartheid regime in South Africa—pass laws and such matters. The fact is that Israel has no business under international law being in the west bank. That is why, although I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that we must try to bring people together, blame must be attached where blame falls. It principally lies with the occupying power.
To assist the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I can tell him the figures that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency gave recently when it came to Parliament to brief Members on the situation in Area C: Area A, which is under full Palestinian control, is about 17% of the west bank; Area B is about 21%; and Area C, where there is full Israeli control, is about 61%. Those figures were given to us within the past two weeks.
Equally important when considering Area C is the fact that 70% of that 60% is off limits to Palestinians. It is either settlements, land controlled by settlements or other areas—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) mentioned nature reserves and other “scams”, for want of a better word—that restrict Palestinian access. Given that 29% is already built-up land, only 1% of Area C is actually potentially available for development by Palestinians—the people whose land it is. We will get nowhere until that situation is resolved.
I will briefly use the example of the village of Susiya to show exactly what the Palestinians are up against. It is a Bedouin village on an escarpment in the south Hebron hills, and is the agricultural centre of the region. It has been settled by the same families since the 19th century. In that respect, it is similar to other villages around Jerusalem or in the Negev. I visited one of the villages and have seen villages in the Negev that have been demolished five times by Israeli forces and then rebuilt. Just this week, B'Tselem, a well respected human rights organisation, said about Susiya:
“On Tuesday, 12 June 2012, Israel’s Civil Administration distributed demolition orders to…50—
that is essentially all—
“structures in the Palestinian village of Susiya in the South Hebron Hills. The orders stated that they were renewals of demolition orders originally issued in the 1990s. Residents were given three days, until 15 June 2012, to appeal the orders…Residents are planning to submit their opposition”.
With the intervention of human rights groups, the demolition orders were extended to last Sunday, but they have now expired again. We are talking about residential tents, which house over 100 people; kitchens; shops; a clinic; a community centre; museums; the solar panels that provide electricity; and shelters for animals. The entire village—everything—will be demolished. The villagers are on watch every day waiting for the bulldozers to arrive under the protection of the army. That is life for many Palestinians. Will the Minister take up that case, not only because it is important in itself, but because it is the tip of the iceberg of what is happening to villages in that area? If he has not done so already, I ask him to make particular mention of the case to the Government of Israel.
I was alerted to that case by an organisation called the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, which is a very good Christian organisation through which people live peacefully with Palestinian villagers for months. Its members brought in videos that showed me not only threats from the military, but from another village called Susiya, which is a nearby, well developed Israeli settler village with every modern convenience. Under the protection of the military, the settlers come down to the Palestinian village armed with guns; they throw stones and attack Palestinian villagers. That is something that I have seen myself on video and film.
Mrs Grant
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the activities of the Israeli defence and security forces in a number of situations have a real effect on normal people—the little people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to—and engender an atmosphere of worrying hate and distrust?
Mr Slaughter
Absolutely. Occupation does that in its own right, but this is not a benign occupation. This is violence. It has accelerated with an increase in settler violence of 144% in the past two years. It is an organised campaign to disrupt the lives of Palestinians and to extend the occupation, which continues year-on-year and which, as the hon. Member for Beckenham said, increasingly makes a two-state solution difficult, if not impossible. That is why we need more from the Government—not only words, but action.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most cynical aspects is the Kafkaesque way in which the illegal occupiers use international law to say, “Ah, we should rely on the established law—Ottoman law and mandate law—for the legal framework for house demolitions”? Those laws are used in a perverted way to disadvantage the Palestinian residents who should have rights in that illegally occupied land, while a completely different set of legal rights are applied to the illegal occupations. Is it not that twisted way of interpreting the law that adds offence to the physical destruction of homes, schools and other properties?
Mr Slaughter
My right hon. Friend is right. Rules and regulations are manipulated in an absolutely cynical way to wear down and break the spirit of Palestinians living in the west bank. I think that it has been proved that that does not work. The resilience of the Palestinian people there is extraordinary, which is why there is also violence. Arrests, detention—including of children—and administrative detention, which happens on a continual basis, are all designed to break the will of the Palestinian people and favour the occupier and settlers over the indigenous population. I know that the Minister knows those matters well, but I hope that he will redouble his efforts. I will end on that point.
I know that it is a little cheeky, but in the interests of trying to be conciliatory on these matters, can I get a response from the Minister fairly soon on Mohammed Abu Mueleq? He is a former Hamas fighter and activist who is now reformed and wishes to come to the UK to talk to us about the ways of peace.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.
Because of the number of hon. Members still wanting to speak, I am imposing a time limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches. Each of the first two interventions accepted will stop the clock and give the Member accepting the intervention an extra minute. The Clerk will ring the bell when there is one minute left.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I think I understand the timings, Mrs Brooke, and will try to stick to them. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing the debate, and on his point of order, which reminds me that I should also draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I feel that some rebalancing is needed in some of our discussions in the House on this subject. I make no apology for my position of support for Israel as a state, and its right to exist. Accepting it as the only legitimate democracy in its part of the world, we rightly attach to Israel a higher standard than we do to others. That is entirely correct. However, the middle east process is fraught with difficulty and nuances, and it is important to give a fair hearing to both sides.
The use of language is important, and I bristle somewhat at the use of the word “apartheid”, just as I do not approve of those who accuse people of being anti-Semitic if they criticise Israel. Some of the issues raised today, such as settlement, are important factors, which deserve debate and must be dealt with. However, they do not necessarily lie at the core of the conflict. Making them, as has happened increasingly in recent years, the sole reason for the lack of peace, while blaming Israeli intransigence, is not helpful. It is important to look at the history of peace negotiations and offers.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Percy
I will give way quickly, because I get my extra minute, and I want to hear the hon. Lady.
Cathy Jamieson
Before the hon. Gentleman goes on to talk about the history, will he accept that, notwithstanding all he has outlined, and all the nuances, we should be concerned when we hear of the basic humanitarian issue of people not getting enough water to live on?
Andrew Percy
Absolutely, and projects have just been approved, I think, by the United States Agency for International Development that we hope will resolve that. The issue of water needs to be resolved quickly. My support, if one calls it that, for the state of Israel does not mean that I am an unconditional friend. There are things that the Israeli Government do that I—and a large number of Israeli citizens—do not approve of. It is important to remember that some of the biggest criticisms of the Israeli Government come from within Israel.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
On the humanitarian issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, people often describe the security barrier as an apartheid tool. Has not the number of people killed in suicide attacks and similar occurrences fallen dramatically as a result of the building of the wall? Does not every state have a responsibility to protect its citizens from violence?
Andrew Percy
That is true. It is important to remember that the barrier—the figures speak for themselves, but I do not have time to quote them—protects Israeli citizens, including Arab and Christian Israelis, as well as Jewish Israelis. We should never forget that. We should also not forget that the Israeli Government have been taken to court and have lost in the courts on the issue, because Israel is a democracy.
Let us look at some of the offers that have been made. There were peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994. Both of those are clear examples of land being relinquished in return for a peaceful settlement. It is not true that Israel is not prepared to cede land for peace. In 2000, at Camp David, a major peace offer was made by Israel. Had that been accepted, 97% of the land in the west bank and Gaza would have been available to create a Palestinian state. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned the settlement freeze. That was rejected and ignored, and then, all of a sudden, at the end of it, with about a month to go, settlements were an issue that was key to bringing the Palestinians around the table.
On a recent visit to Israel, hon. Members heard from Ehud Olmert that the offer made in 2008 would have meant withdrawal from 93% of the west bank. As I said in some of my interventions, we need to understand that there have not been any new settlements since 1993. I personally do not agree with the expansion of settlements, but we must understand that the vast majority of those settlements are along the 1967 green line, and most of them will come into Israel. Israel has not been frightened in the past of removing illegal settlements, as it is doing with outposts at the moment.
I am a bit confused as to how long I have left for my speech. [Interruption.] I think that is a minute—excellent. My goose is cooked in a minute. I wanted to talk about incitement. It is a matter of concern that documents from junior Foreign Office officials say that incitement is being used as an excuse in Israel. That is not the case. Some of the examples of how Israel, Jewish people and, indeed, Christians are described on Palestinian television are unacceptable. There is incitement in the Palestinian Authority, which has a serious impact. It is an abuse of the population there, and it has an impact on bringing the two sides together. That needs to be addressed more rigorously. In particular, there is the issue of school text books, on which we have not received a satisfactory response from the Department for International Development. At the end of the day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) said, the issue is education and increasing trade. Those things are more likely to bring both sides together—
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.
We have talked about the context, and I want to go back to that. When the state of Israel was created, the Jewish population was given 55% of the land, even though three quarters of the population of the then state of Palestine was Palestinian. In 1948, after the war of independence, Israel managed to obtain 78% of the land, and the Palestinians were given 22%, which is what we call Gaza and the west bank. More than 3 million Palestinians were expelled by the Israelis during those times.
One part of the Oslo agreement related to the west bank, and it was divided into three sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) has talked about that, and I want to talk about Area C, which is now controlled by the Israelis. As a result of various actions in the past few years, it appears that a further percentage will be absorbed, and that Area C will probably end up as part of Israel, leaving Palestine with only 12% of the land.
I am not overly fond of statistics, but they show the stark contrast in the picture. In 1972 the number of Israeli settlers in Area C was 1,200; in 1993 it was 110,000; and in 2010 it was 310,000. That does not include the 200,000 living in East Jerusalem. The number of Palestinians, as of now, is only 150,000. The illegal settlers often live in the 124 formal and about 100 informal settlements, both of which have been declared illegal under international law and, as been mentioned, under Israeli law as well.
If people doubt the sources of my information, what I am referring to comes from the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. A fact-file from January states:
“The forced displacement of Palestinian families and the destruction of civilian homes and other property by Israeli forces in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, have a serious humanitarian impact. Demolitions deprive people of their homes, often their main source of physical and economic security. They also disrupt their livelihoods”.
The psychological effects on families are distressing. The fact file adds that the Israeli authorities say that often
“demolitions are carried out because structures lack the required building permits. In reality, it is almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain permits. The zoning and planning regime”—
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I have listened with interest to the debate. One of the problems is that we get hung up on the issue of settlements. We must consider Israel’s history of dealing with settlements in relation to peace. In 2005, Israel destroyed the Jewish settlements in Gaza and withdrew from them. In 1982, in return for peace with Egypt, it withdrew from Sinai, destroying the settlements as part of the peace agreement. In fact, only last month, the outpost of Ulpana was ruled illegal by the Israeli courts. Israel has withdrawn from that and will demolish it.
The key point is that the Israeli Government will remove settlements once peace has been agreed. I have been to Israel and the west bank with the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I have also been to Jordan, the west bank and Israel with the Council for European Palestinian Relations, and I have seen that the situation on the ground is dire. It is important that negotiations take place without preconditions.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the settlement of Ulpana, which is being demolished. Will he confirm that the deal that demolishes that illegal settlement includes the construction of 851 other units somewhere else? When he refers to settlements, does he include East Jerusalem, which Israel does not regard as settlement building?
Bob Blackman
East Jerusalem must be part of the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israeli Government. The reality is that there are now more Arabs living in Jerusalem than ever before. I agree that the negotiations are paramount and must take place forthwith. The problem is that while the Palestinians fail to get round the negotiating table, and continue to set preconditions that will not be acceptable to the Israeli Government, settlement activity will continue apace. We have heard lots of statistics today. The reality is that just 5% of Area C is occupied by settlements. There will be a negotiation at some future time over whether that land is to be part of Palestine and the west bank, or part of Israel, as a result of land swaps.
The key issue before us today is the need to encourage the Government of Israel and the Palestinian authorities to get round the table. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do all that he can to persuade both parties to do so immediately. The position now is that Netanyahu is heading a coalition Government, which gives Israel certainty for the indefinite future. Under freedom of information requests, we have discovered that Foreign Office officials seem to have written off Netanyahu. That is wrong, and what we should be doing is encouraging him and his whole Government to get round the table with the Palestinians.
Guto Bebb
On the issue of the Netanyahu coalition, does my hon. Friend share my aspirations to see the Kadima and Likud Government move forward to constructive dialogue? Such a dialogue might have been difficult in the past because of the dependence of the previous coalition on some of the extremist parties in Israeli politics.
Bob Blackman
Indeed. The one thing that I would not wish on anyone is Israel’s system of elections. However, the coalition Government give us the potential for a lasting and just settlement, and the opportunity for stability and peace. It is for the Palestinians to grasp this opportunity. It is right that they get round the table now, without preconditions, to ensure that they achieve that peace.
Finally, there is one significant gap in the Queen’s long reign: she has never paid a proper state visit to Israel or any part of Palestine. I ask the Foreign Office—I have written to the Foreign Secretary about this—to prevail upon the Queen to make such a visit. After all, if she can go to Northern Ireland and shake hands with the Deputy First Minister, why not go and seek peace in that great part of the holy lands of this world?
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
I draw the Chamber’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that I accompanied my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on his recent visit to the region.
What the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) described as preconditions were, until recently, regarded as the mutually agreed starting point for the way to achieve a two-state solution. Those have now been withdrawn from negotiations, which makes things more difficult. I wanted to highlight the way that Area C, which was originally conceived of as a transitional measure—part of the process of going to a two-state solution—is slowly but surely being taken by the Israelis as an area of Israeli authority, in which they are able to impose their will, often with a fiction of law, as I said in an intervention, to the disadvantage of the Palestinian people. That is a very different concept of Area C. It raises a number of important questions.
As European taxpayers, we are, to a considerable extent, paying the human and social cost of that occupation. We are paying the very substantial funding for the Palestinian Authority, and for pretty much all of what is described as economic growth within the occupied territories. It has been wholly right to provide funding in that way, as part of a genuine transition towards a two-state solution. It is not at all obvious to me how we will continue to make the case for European taxpayers finding that money when we are funding not a transition to a peaceful solution, but the status quo.
One of the things that struck me on my most recent visit was how small the place is and how critical the issues are. We went to the Ma’ale Adumim area, where the Bedouin whom we talked about earlier were. The area between that settlement and Jericho is the same as the area between my constituency in Southampton and Winchester. On a train, that is about enough time get a cup of coffee and get out a laptop. Yet if that settlement continues, the west bank is effectively wholly divided. There is no possibility of a Palestinian state with physical integrity. That is why the settlement must stop now; otherwise, it will be almost impossible for the negotiations to reach a resolution.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham). I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this debate. This is a hugely complex issue. All of us who have visited Israel or the Palestinian Authority will know what a small geographical area of land we are talking about. It is important to get these complex issues into some sense of proportion. We are talking about Area C, in which 150,000 Palestinians live. There are 1.4 million Palestinians living in Israel and 2.5 million Palestinians living in Areas A and B. It would be wrong if this Chamber today gave the world the impression that we are talking about most of the Palestinian population, because we are not.
The west bank has always been under occupation. In 1948, it was annexed by Jordan, which, as far as I can tell, did not do much with it. The Gaza strip was annexed by Egypt, and then the situation was even worse. To imply that it is just Israel that has occupied this benighted land would be quite inaccurate.
Mr Slaughter
The hon. Gentleman is showing uncharacteristic false logic. The reason for designating Area A is because it contains the main Palestinian towns. It would be a bit like saying that as long as we excluded London, Manchester and Birmingham, we could allow someone else to occupy all the rural areas of England. This is the Palestinians’ land, and they are entitled to all of it.
Mr Hollobone
One of the big tragedies of the Palestinian nation was that it did not accept the United Nations partition plan in 1948. A whole series of wrong decisions have been made by the Arab people since that time. The Israelis are not going to go away. After the holocaust in Europe, they deserve a homeland. As David Ben-Gurion said, we will have to arrive at a peaceful settlement with the Arab people who live in the Holy Land. We are all still in pursuit of that peace. Some of the Palestinians live in terrible situations. I visited them myself in the Gaza strip, and on the west bank. That is all the more reason to arrive at a peace settlement with Israel, so that both peoples can live in harmony with each other. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I am not in the blame game. I recognise that this is a hugely complicated situation, but we must get a sense of proportion if we are to arrive at sensible and lasting peace for both the Israeli and Palestinian people.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
I call Ben Bradshaw—literally for one minute.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for giving me—a former middle east Minister —a minute to speak.
I want to ask the Minister specifically about the Government’s policy on produce from the illegal settlements. As he will be aware, the Foreign Office has consistently said that it cannot move the British Government’s policy forward on this issue, because it would be illegal to do so. However, he may be aware that the Foreign Office has recently received new legal advice—if he is not aware of it, I hope that he will make himself aware of it—that points to the opposite being the case. It is actually arguable that a country that sells or receives produce from the illegal settlements is itself breaking the law—in other words, we may be breaking the law—and that a ban on produce from the illegal settlements would not be illegal under EU law, under World Trade Organisation law or under the general agreement on tariffs and trade obligations.
I make this appeal to the Minister if he is interested in doing something that I think most people here would like him to do. Condemnation and criticism is all very well but it has achieved nothing with the Netanyahu Government. The remorseless expansion of settlements continued during the years when I was a Minister, it continued under my successors and it still continues now that he is Minister. Will he please look at the issue again and, with his European partners, ensure that we have a much more robust policy on importing goods from the illegal settlements?
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a privilege to be here in Westminster Hall under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and to have listened to the contributions to the debate. As always seems to be the case when we have debates on the middle east, we have not had enough time for people to expand their arguments. It would be very welcome indeed if we could have a longer debate. Perhaps we could consider approaching the Backbench Business Committee to ask for an opportunity to discuss matters at greater length. That would be very helpful.
I also want to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was privileged to go to the middle east—to Israel and Palestine—recently, in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). As a member of Labour Friends of Israel, I visited Israel last November, in the company of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander).
On my most recent visit, which was about two months ago, I was struck by the urgency of the issues relating to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and by the profound frustration that I found on the west bank in Ramallah when I spoke to representatives of the Palestinian Authority about the pace of progress in the discussions that were taking place. Like most people, before I went out there I was aware that people were perhaps looking to a second term for President Obama as a time when there might be some progress. However, the message I received from the Palestinian Authority was that the situation on the ground was very pressing indeed and much more urgent than I had appreciated. There is a real sense of frustration, and I feared what the consequences of that frustration might be when I visited communities in the west bank.
Let us be clear. If we are to build a two-state solution, which I think everyone in the Chamber wants, there must be two viable states, which are secure in their borders. It is, of course, accepted that the precise nature of the two states—their geographical outline—will be a matter of negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but the continued expansion of the settlements poses an urgent threat to the future for a two-state solution.
I was very struck when I was in Israel by a discussion that I had—other Members in the Chamber were present—with an official from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. First, he said that, in his words, “A one-state solution would be a disaster for the state of Israel.” Secondly, he said that he wanted to see a two-state solution but time was running out for the creation of two viable states in Israel and Palestine. The reason why time is running out is the expansion of the settlements, which is happening each day, each week and each month that goes by. The Palestinian Authority has done a very good job in improving security, which is a profound and legitimate concern for Israel, but it feels that it is not making progress with Israel in the way that it wishes to.
Many of us are very frustrated by the present approach of the Israeli Government. I am a very strong supporter of an Israeli state; for so long, although thankfully no longer, it was the only democracy in the middle east. However, it is imperative that we continue to engage with Israel, and I deplore those who suppress discussion and debate with legitimate organisations that support Israel, because none of us will get anywhere by cutting off discussion and debate; it is very important indeed that they continue.
When I meet friends from the Israeli embassy, I always make clear my frustration about the expansion of settlements. It is a key issue and it must be resolved. One or two comments in the debate have rather diminished it, but it is central and it must be resolved if we are to make real progress.
I am afraid that when I visited the west bank I was depressed by what I saw. I will talk about one particular visit, which was to Hebron, a beautiful city.
Ian Lucas
It is profoundly sad, because Hebron is a place that I would love to see in better times. In the centre, a horrible concrete wall runs down the middle of the main shopping street, which separates Palestinians from Israelis. It is profoundly sad to see, and the situation is clearly untenable in the longer term.
Sometimes I think that we have too many maps of Israel and Palestine, and not enough good sense, because this is about attitude, state of mind and trust between communities. Of course people have lived together in communities for a long time in the region, but it is imperative that some element of trust is built up. In the Palestinian Authority, it is very clear that Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is highly thought of by the Israelis, and the security situation has improved enormously, but the authority feels that the progress that has been made, including some economic progress, is not being rewarded by progress in the creation of an atmosphere of trust that will lead to proper negotiations that will bring resolution to the dispute.
Israel has a very strong record, with an independent judiciary and judges who stand up to the Government, much as our judges do—sometimes—in this country. However, I am afraid that Israel is not applying the law fairly in areas of the west bank, as we have heard. I visited a military prison where juvenile offenders were being tried. They had not had access to legal advice; indeed, they were not allowed to have their parents present at interrogations. Israel could do something about that. Israel has a proud tradition of giving individual rights to people, and that tradition should be extended to those courts. I have written to the Israeli embassy expressing that view in forthright terms, because this is about building up trust.
At the moment, there is an increasing sense of resentment in the west bank among Palestinian communities who are seeing the expansion of settlements. “Settlements” is a very misleading word, because they are huge estates and developments; they do not appear temporary at all. We need a different attitude from the parties to the dispute, to begin to take matters forward. I hope that comes from the creation of a new Government in Israel—set up in the week I was there—but as yet, I am afraid that no progress has been made.
I urge the Minister to convey the strong views that have been expressed today to the Israeli authorities and to Palestine, and to ensure that the Palestinian Authority sees that engagement with Israel and discussion about the pressing issues is vital—I am sure he will. There needs to be active discussion, certainly before the presidential elections in the United States. The current situation cannot continue. The two-state solution is under threat.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) for securing the debate, and for the thoughtful and measured, but passionate, set of remarks with which he opened it, in typical fashion. That was followed by a number of high-quality contributions from Members on both sides—so many, in fact, that I hope colleagues will appreciate that I am not able to refer to each and every one. They were followed in turn, and in no small measure, by the equally thoughtful remarks of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas).
In a sense, we have two issues: the placing of the discussion of Area C in the context of the overall settlement, to which a number of colleagues referred, and the matters that relate specifically to Area C. I will concentrate on the latter but, as all colleagues know, and as many have mentioned, it is impossible to separate the ultimate future of Area C and the issues that we have discussed from the overall context of the need for a conclusion to the long-standing dispute between Israel and Palestine.
I want to pick up, and endorse entirely, the sense of urgency with which the hon. Member for Wrexham spoke. In the past 18 months, when the world’s attention has been directed to many things in the region, not least the Arab spring, the Government have sought continually to raise with those most closely involved the importance of not losing sight of making progress in the middle east peace process, efforts of which I hope colleagues are proud. I recognise the sense of urgency. I recognise the sense of frustration when visiting areas where people are wondering what happens next. We convey that to both sides, and it is why we have engagement.
In the past few days, I have spoken to the negotiators on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Despite the fact that talks in Oman earlier this year were not conclusive, there is still contact on both sides. I think there is recognition that something has to happen, but it is tentative stuff, as we all know. We encourage both sides to be as flexible as possible, and not to talk about preconditions but to ensure that those who need to talk together are able to do so. Ultimately, this is all about Israel’s future security, about ensuring that it is a viable, secure and universally recognised state, and that there is an independent and viable state of Palestine that has the opportunity to develop.
Richard Burden
I certainly know the sincerity with which the Minister is talking. He has been clear—both Front-Bench speakers have—about the illegality of settlements, and about the fact that the window for a two-state solution is closing rapidly. Will he, though, address the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) asked? If the settlements are illegal—they are—and the European Union and the UK purchase goods from them, or are involved with companies that trade with them, there is growing legal opinion that we are colluding in that illegality. Is the Minister prepared to look into that? There might need to be some pressure, if we are going to move this along in the way that we need to.
Alistair Burt
I will come to settlements in a moment. On settlement produce, we value the fact that people have choice about their purchase of goods, but the issue of settlement produce and financing is under active consideration in London and in Brussels.
I shall say a little bit about settlements. The fact that we have such a good relationship with both Israel and the Palestinians is important. It enables us to discuss issues directly. Israel is a valued friend to the United Kingdom, and we are working together to deepen that relationship in a number of important areas, but not at the expense of other relationships. Just as we are building a strong partnership with Israel, so too we are continuing to enhance our relationship with the Palestinians. We do not always agree with each other, and one of our primary concerns, which a number of Members have addressed, is in relation to settlements. We take the view, which we have repeated, and which is shared on both sides of the House, that settlement building is illegal under international law and increasingly threatens the viability of the two-state solution. The issue is rising up the international agenda, and I urge the Israeli authorities to listen carefully. They do not take the same view of its importance as those outside Israel do.
The issue of settlements is increasingly important, and we will repeat our concerns when we hear about new ones, but it cannot be denied that the issue will not be concluded unless the overall settlement is agreed. That is why we encourage both sides to get to work on it. Merely complaining about settlements will not be enough. I assure the House that we take the matter seriously, and continually urge the Israeli authorities to try to understand why we are so concerned. If the viability of the two-state solution is threatened, I do not think that the ultimate prospects will be as good for Israel as they should be.
The international community considers the west bank and Gaza as occupied territory, and recognises the applicability of the fourth Geneva convention on the protection of civilians. In relation to Area C, certain things could be addressed now, regardless of the overall context, one of which is building. Figures from the Israeli civil administration show that between 2007 and 2010, 1,426 building permit applications were submitted by Palestinians in Area C, of which only 64 led to permits being issued. That is in contrast to Israeli settlement and development, and it affects the economic viability of Area C and the west bank. That viability is to the mutual benefit of Israel and the Palestinians, and we hope to see the issue settled. Equally, until Area C comes more under Palestinian control, it will not be possible for the Palestinian Authority to build up its revenues and deliver to the rest of the Palestinian people, which would save the rest of us money because we support that economic development and the Palestinian Authority.
A particular concern, which a number of Members have highlighted, is the situation of the Bedouin in Area C. We have objected strongly to Israel’s plans for the forced transfer of Bedouin communities, in particular from the area east of Jerusalem. A number of Members mentioned Khan al-Ahmar, and colleagues probably know that I, too, have been there, and have seen the school that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned. I saw the construction of the road barriers, because we dropped in unannounced on the day they were being put in, so we saw that the access to the village had been changed.
We have discussed the Bedouin settlement itself; the question is what to do in the future. The chances of the settlement being moved to a rubbish dump are now lower than they were, but that is not conclusive. Of importance is that I also spent time with Israeli Minister Benny Begin. He is Minister without portfolio, who is responsible for the difficult job of talking to the Bedouin community about their ultimate future. I formed the view that he is sincere in his efforts to consult with the many different Bedouin groups, to try to find an answer that is not forced, but colleagues will have the chance to judge for themselves because he is due to be in the UK next week. His programme is not fully settled, but I am hopeful that there will be an opportunity for Members to have a conversation with him about the matter. I recommend that they take the opportunity, should it arise, as I think they would find it helpful.
A point was raised about EU projects being demolished. That issue has been taken up with the Foreign Affairs Council. We need to work hard to ensure that the EU builds things that are not prone to demolition, but we have expressed our concerns.
Finally, Members raised the different treatment under the law of Palestinians, particularly children, in the west bank and Area C. The matter was recently taken up by an independent report, which speaks for itself. We will be looking closely to see how the Israeli authorities, who have said many good things about wanting to change the law, deliver.
It is 4 o’clock, so I conclude by saying that I appreciate colleagues’ engagement with such an important topic.
Nuclear Power
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Brooke.
In the debate on the future nuclear programme, our inability to learn from past mistakes is sometimes staggering. I well remember the 2008 Public Accounts Committee report that drew attention to the vastly underestimated cost of nuclear power and highlighted the nuclear industry’s tendency to lumber the taxpayer with an ever-increasing and seemingly endless bill. The fallacy of committing billions more pounds of public expenditure to nuclear energy has never been more apparent than it is now. Whether it is the disastrous consequences of the Japanese earthquake, Germany’s decision to end investment in nuclear or, closer to home, the billions of pounds of subsidies being squandered at the uneconomical mixed oxide—MOX—plant at Sellafield and the decision of RWE, SSE and E.ON to pull out of the market, it is clear that nuclear is not the energy source on which the Government should be concentrating.
Hon. Members may be wondering why an MP from a constituency in Northern Ireland has a particular interest in this subject. I represent the constituency of South Down, which is straight across the Irish sea from Sellafield, and we have had many concerns over the years. I am very pleased that the Minister is here to respond to the debate. Although its main focus will be the economic costs, I must mention the impact of nuclear on public safety, which cannot be separated from the economic argument.
The real point in looking at a disaster such as Fukushima in Japan is not necessarily to try to draw a direct parallel to what might happen here, but rather to use it to illustrate the fact that nuclear power can never be made entirely safe. There will always be unforeseen contingencies that have potentially disastrous consequences. People in my constituency and across Ireland have been living in the shadow of such a possibility because of the Sellafield plant, which has been considered the most radioactive site on the planet for more than 40 years.
Over the plant’s lifespan, there have been hundreds of recorded safety breaches and high levels of indiscriminate discharges of radioactive waste into the Irish sea. The MOX plant at Sellafield, which was built to process spent fuel from the old thermal oxide reprocessing plant or THORP—itself the subject of an international nuclear event scale level 3 leak—has also required high levels of hazardous transportation of plutonium dioxide through the Irish sea to Cumbria. All this for a plant that was disastrously inefficient and had to be closed following its financial failure. It is not therefore surprising that public opinion in my constituency has been consistently anti-nuclear, and it must be recognised that a major incident will not heed, or relate to, any borders on our island. There is also concern about the possibility of underground storage for the world’s radioactive waste.
It was against the backdrop of such catastrophic risk, as demonstrated by the disaster at Fukushima, and with a more realistic appraisal of the spiralling cost of nuclear power provision, that Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German Parliament decided to pull out of the nuclear market and to invest in a truly secure, low-carbon renewable energy future. Given where I come from, I want this Parliament to move in a similar direction.
Nuclear power development has always required high levels of public subsidy. The Minister should know better than anyone the deferred cost of an ill-thought-out nuclear programme, as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority spends £1.7 billion a year on managing nuclear waste and other liabilities from Britain’s current nuclear power programme. That amounts to more than half the budget of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which is a staggering legacy for the taxpayer and one to which the previous Secretary of State frequently alluded.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was also responsible for closing the MOX plant at Sellafield. That plant cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion, and was another disastrous legacy of the nuclear programme. Its existence also meant that a constant stream of hazardous material was being shipped daily through the Irish sea and along the Irish coast. That was all for a plant designed to process 120 tonnes of MOX a year, but which instead produced the grand total of six tonnes over its entire lifespan.
On the draft Energy Bill 2012 and the future nuclear programme, sadly, there are warning signs that this Government are prepared to repeat the same mistakes. I fear that people will be having a similar debate in 20 years’ time. It could not be clearer, given current record oil and petrol prices, that reliance on imported fossil fuels is not serving customers, business or the wider economy. Although I commend the stated aim in the Government’s draft Energy Bill to decarbonise the electricity sector, the path set out in the legislation seems to prioritise subsidising nuclear fuel, and people will continue to be vulnerable to high prices.
In Northern Ireland, more people every year are falling into fuel poverty, and the draft Bill was an opportunity to make the bold changes necessary to reform the energy market with a view to the long-term needs of the economy. Consumers and businesses are suffering and they need a coherent strategy that delivers clean, green jobs and sustainable fuel prices. Sadly, the draft Bill appears to do little more than nod to the renewable industry, while winking at the nuclear industry. The Government seem intent on delivering more of the same, especially in their continued obsession with the expensive and ultimately unsafe energy source that is nuclear power.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate, and I agree with all the points in her extremely cogent argument. Is not one of the many risks that consumers, and the economy generally, will get locked into artificially high prices for electricity as the only means of making it viable for energy companies to undertake the huge investment necessary to build nuclear plants?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with that thesis. I want to make a little progress.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She is talking about the level of subsidy in relation to the current Bill and in general. Does she not agree that the level of subsidy that will be proposed for nuclear is considerably lower than that for solar, offshore wind or, indeed, onshore wind? How does that equate with her concerns about fuel poverty, because that seems a little odd?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I take what he says, but I am obviously putting forward a different thesis. I disagree with his fundamental point, but perhaps I can provide some explanation, if he will let me continue.
The Government are clearly going in the face of the energy industry, given the decision by various companies to pull out of the future nuclear programme. Even EDF, the only remaining player in the game, has seemingly adopted a lukewarm approach to the new build programme and has postponed its commitment to it, saying only that it will decide at the turn of the year. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question on cost, I come from the position of favouring renewables; I have a strong belief in them, as opposed to nuclear, given the geographical position that I come from. EDF’s approach is hardly a ringing endorsement, from the only company that has even tentatively committed to the future nuclear programme. It seems that no serious player in the industry thinks that future investment can go ahead without a serious public subsidy. Indeed, no nuclear plant has ever been developed without large amounts of public subsidy, and it is obvious that the companies will not enter into the future nuclear programme without such assurances.
The Government’s proposal in the draft Energy Bill for contracts for difference appears to be little more than a subsidy through the back door. CFDs allow utility firms to levy a top-up charge should the price fall below a certain level. If the cost of nuclear power is to be cheaper than the current market rate, or at least competitive, as EDF and the Government maintain, why is the complex mechanism of CFDs required at all? In the words of Keith MacLean, policy director of Scottish and Southern Energy, which has itself pulled out of the future nuclear programme:
“This complex and messy CFD policy looks like an attempt to try to hide the state aid from the European Commission and the subsidy from political opponents of new nuclear.”
David Mowat
CFDs are necessary because nuclear is considerably more expensive than either coal or gas, even though it is many multiples cheaper than most large-scale renewables. I find the hon. Lady’s position difficult to understand, given her concern about fuel poverty.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have made it clear that I am opposed to nuclear power, which, as he has said, is very expensive—it has required Government subsidy to sustain it, and I fundamentally disagree with that.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Her position is contradictory, because she seems to be complaining about subsidy for the nuclear industry, yet applauding it for the renewable sector. Surely we should have a level playing field. I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about fuel poverty, but in my part of north Wales we have poverty because our nuclear industry is closing down. If we do not get a replacement for the nuclear capacity in north Wales, we will see real poverty in many parts of north-west Wales.
Ms Ritchie
I understand the concerns of hon. Members whose constituencies have nuclear facilities, but I see the issue from a different perspective. We have witnessed the harmful effects of nuclear on the environment. I will not talk about its harmful effects on health, because I do not think that the evidential base has been built up sufficiently, but it has definitely had an effect on the environment. There has been too much public subsidy for nuclear, and I firmly believe in and support renewables.
How can CFDs be seen as anything other than a veiled subsidy, and how is that coherent with the coalition agreement, which ruled out any such subsidy? Has the Minister consulted on the potential conflict with European Union state aid rules? Is he able to rule out a potential long-running wrangle with the EU, which would do nothing other than bring more uncertainty to the sector and to renewable energy investment at this vital time?
No nuclear plant has ever been built without state subsidy, and such plants simply cannot exist in the open market. There is a pattern of activity to underscore that, because every statement from and move by the industry is a tacit admission of that fact. We must learn from past mistakes and acknowledge that the headline price attached to nuclear power is always far below the eventual cost once decommissioning and waste disposal have been accounted for. It not only presents a potential environmental catastrophe, but leaves a radioactive economic legacy. It is not good enough to buy now and leave taxpayers and future Governments to foot the bill years down the line.
In summary, is the Minister not concerned that three of the four major players in the nuclear new build programme have pulled out; that the fourth, EDF, has expressed serious concerns; that no nuclear plant and subsequent decommissioning has ever been achieved without a large Government subsidy; and that the draft Energy Bill’s proposals have been considered by many in the industry as tacit admission that the new build programme is little more than a subsidy through the back door that may contravene EU state aid regulations?
It is often said in relation to energy policy that the Government should not try to pick winners, but it seems as though they are determined to pick a loser. I do not want us to be left with a potential environmental catastrophe that we will have to subsidise for years to come. Instead, we need a lasting commitment to truly renewable energy sources and a green new deal. The coalition Government have underscored a commitment to the Green investment bank and to green and renewable resources. I am firmly committed to that and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various issues that I have raised. I understand the points made by hon. Members who reside in Britain and have nuclear facilities in their constituencies that provide jobs, but I see the issue from a different geographical and political perspective.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for securing this timely debate. Transparency and openness are an important part of the discussions that we need to have about nuclear. In that context, I want to start by making a couple of corrections to what she said. We are not down to just one major nuclear player alongside EDF. Centrica, the UK’s biggest energy company, is a partner in its consortium, and other major European players, such as Gaz de France and Iberdrola, as well as other international players, are considering how they can be part of the nuclear renaissance in the United Kingdom. This is an area that has attracted a significant amount of investment from major companies, and it continues to do so.
On another issue of transparency—to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—I hope that the hon. Lady would also accept that, if she rules out the least costly large-scale, low-carbon source of generation, the consequence for her constituents, particularly those who are off-gas-grid customers and have a greater reliance on electricity, would be a rise in their bills, because of their reliance on higher-cost sources of generation. That is an integral part of understanding the economics of this debate.
The challenge of building new nuclear is undoubtedly significant. Since 1995, when Sizewell B began generating electricity, no new nuclear power station has been built in Britain, which demonstrates the challenge of ensuring that the first new nuclear power station is followed by a full nuclear programme. Although new nuclear power stations are being built elsewhere around the world, some of them have gone over time and over budget.
Tackling the nuclear legacy is a national priority, as the hon. Lady has said. We are keen to see it dealt with with a degree of vigour that has never been seen before. We want to ensure that the current and previous UK nuclear fleet is cleaned up and decommissioned properly as the various sites cease operation. To do that, we must understand and learn from the lessons of the past on nuclear decommissioning.
That is why the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), commissioned a report, which was published in March, by Professor Gordon MacKerron of the university of Sussex, on the history of managing nuclear wastes and decommissioning. Professor MacKerron paints a warts-and-all picture of the UK’s nuclear history and explains why we have such a difficult legacy of old facilities and waste to manage. He found that delays by Government and public bodies in tackling nuclear liabilities led to a progressive escalation of costs and a deterioration in facilities, which has only begun to be addressed in recent years.
The cost of decommissioning those old nuclear facilities today is high for two primary reasons. The first is the post-war military and research origins of the UK nuclear industry as this country raced to build a nuclear deterrent. We are dealing with many of those costs today. The second reason is that those responsible—in Government and industry—gave too little priority to clean-up. As the hon. Lady has said, half the Department of Energy and Climate Change budget is spent on that, and the amount will rise to two thirds of our budget in due course. We are absolutely adamant that there should be no financial constraints on dealing with those legacy matters. To all of us involved in these policy issues, an unparalleled commitment to clearing up the legacy of the past is an integral part of having permission for a new-build nuclear programme in the future.
It is necessary to understand that the UK’s civil nuclear legacy is quite unique, as it is made up of a range of experimental facilities created up to 50 years ago. The poor condition of some of the estate and the high cost of dealing with it now reflects the unfortunate fact that, historically, decommissioning challenges were overlooked and ignored. However, that also means we are moving into the sector ahead of many other countries. There is a very important business opportunity for British companies in the sector to win international contracts as other countries start their decommissioning programmes as well.
Of course, with new nuclear power will come nuclear waste. The cost of managing our existing nuclear liabilities is significant. The current discounted estimate of the cost of managing that programme is some £50 billion. That is why we are so committed to finding a long-term, cost-effective solution for managing and disposing of our radioactive waste going forward. The Government’s policy for the longer term is a safe and secure management of higher-activity radioactive waste by placing it in a geological disposal facility. That is the internationally accepted way forward and it is the Government’s policy, which continues on from the work of the previous Administration.
Ms Ritchie
On the potential disposal site for radioactive waste, will the Minister indicate where it might be located and which countries the waste might come from? There are concerns in my constituency about that because of the geological fault line that lies in Cumbria and the clear, direct parallel with my constituency straight across the Irish sea in South Down.
Charles Hendry
Let me give the hon. Lady a complete assurance that we are looking at managing our own legacy waste, which includes one of the biggest stockpiles of plutonium in the world. Alongside that we are looking at whether there are ways to reuse that plutonium as a fuel. We are looking for volunteer communities and have identified some in Cumbria who are prepared to work with us to see where appropriate sites might be. However, that would only happen if we are absolutely clear about the geological safety of the sites being proposed. We are just beginning to carry out such a process. We want to move it forward faster than has been the case so far, but that can only happen if we are absolutely satisfied about the environmental, geological and geographical matters that relate to it. Builders of new plant will have to put funds into an independent fund to ensure that their own costs associated with their nuclear waste in due course can be managed within that programme. This is an integral part of the process moving forward.
I want to focus now on why I believe we need new nuclear in this country and how that ties in with the concerns the hon. Member for South Down has raised about market reform and why that is such an important part of this process. We estimate that in order to have a low-carbon economy where we have sufficient generation to ensure security of supply we will need up to 70 GW of new low-carbon generation by 2030. To put that in context, the ambition of the industry in the nuclear sector is for 16 GW by 2025. The overwhelming focus, therefore, is on a range of other low-carbon technologies alongside nuclear, including carbon capture and harnessing our own renewables. It is completely wrong to suggest that we are focusing only on nuclear. We see that as a very important element within a much wider and more balanced programme.
Guto Bebb
The point my hon. Friend has just made is extremely important because sometimes the debate is structured in terms of renewables versus nuclear. That is not the issue. For example, in north-west Wales, the commitment has been made to develop all sorts of energy sources, not just nuclear.
Charles Hendry
I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend’s point. I recently had the chance to be in Anglesey, which is close to his constituency, to see its vision as an energy island. An immense amount of work is going on there by a range of industrial and educational partners, the local authority and others to create a very compelling case for investment in renewables alongside nuclear as part of a balanced mix.
The process of market reform is fundamental to achieving that. We have structured things in a way that we believe delivers the necessary investment at the lowest cost to consumers. The hon. Lady highlighted one part of the contract for difference and said that if the price drops, more will be paid. However, the corollary of that is that if the price is high, we will claw back the contribution. Investors will have continuity, certainty and predictability of income stream, which reduces the cost of capital and of the building programme to consumers.
In answer to the point made by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) in his intervention, such an approach is necessary because we must secure twice as much investment each and every year of this decade, compared with the previous decade, to keep the lights on. The matter is a national emergency in terms of our energy security and is absolutely critical.
Charles Hendry
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not give way in the last remaining moments. I think that I have picked up on some of his points. I completely agree with him that market reform is the best way of delivering for consumers and that having a range of policies and technologies is the best way of delivering security of supply.
On new build, as on decommissioning, we are keen to control costs. The progress of construction of the first new nuclear power station in the UK will be watched carefully by potential investors and developers. We know that an inability to deliver to time and on budget will affect the level of interest in nuclear new build in the future, and that would severely limit the potential for a new nuclear programme.
If we are to maintain strong public support—this is one of the few countries where public support for nuclear has grown since the Fukushima accident in Japan—we must continue to demonstrate that we are learning from experiences around the world. Implementing lessons from other nuclear power plant construction projects has the potential to reduce the cost in the United Kingdom, reduce the construction risks, help to validate timings and identify design changes that will allow for more efficient construction practices. Some of those are already being dealt with, and the whole process of the generic design assessment programme has been absolutely at the heart of that. We must ensure that we have identified the exact nature of the new reactors to be built before we start taking that forward.
One of the most important aspects of the whole programme has been the work to take the matter out of politics and carry on Lord Hutton’s work when he was Secretary of State. He did an enormous amount to identify the challenges and give security to investors in enabling them to understand that there is a continuity of Government approach here that will secure the investment.
Finally, I want to deal with the issue of subsidy. Let me make it absolutely clear where we stand on the matter. The coalition agreement set out clearly that nuclear power plants should be taken forward without public subsidy and, in a written statement to Parliament in October 2010, we reconfirmed that policy. There will be no market support to a private sector new nuclear operator for electricity supplied or capacity provided unless similar support is also made available more widely to other types of generation.
Within that, it is implicit that we recognise that nuclear is the lowest-cost large-scale, low-carbon source of generation and that, therefore, additional support will need to be made available to those emerging technologies in the renewable sector. They will be a very important part of the process. Any such change requires state aid approval. We have started to engage with the European Commission on that and we believe that approval will be achieved because the Government are not providing support; they are providing a mechanism whereby investors can get a return on their investment.
We see nuclear as an important part of our energy future, which has the potential to bring an enormous number of jobs to the United Kingdom. We have already seen the university of Oxford, which is represented in part by the right hon. Member for Oxford East, harnessing its own nuclear skills and working in coalition and partnership with the university of Bristol. Many other universities are coming forward, and a tremendous number of companies recognise that they can benefit from the programme.
I assure the hon. Member for South Down that we are looking at the matter very much in the round. We see the benefits of nuclear power, but we will only take that forward when we are completely convinced about the wider issues. Market reform is an important part of that process and will be critical to securing the necessary investment. The wider range of issues—safety and security matters and long-term waste management—are also important. We have a programme in place that comprehensively addresses those and I hope that I have been able to help to reassure her on those points.
Cruise Market (Competition)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.
At the outset, I pay tribute to all the right hon. and hon. Members who called for this important debate. I draw the Minister’s attention to the cross-party nature and geographical spread represented by those present. This is not simply Southampton versus Liverpool; it is about the principles of fair application of competition rules wherever they are applied. The issue relates to all parts of the country. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). There are very few things that can bring together the south coast ports of Southampton and Portsmouth, so I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) cannot be here, but she has expressed sympathy on the matter before.
I direct the attention of right hon. and hon. Members much further north to the Scottish satirical writer, Thomas Carlyle, who said:
“Our life is not really a mutual helpfulness; but rather, it’s fair competition cloaked under due laws of war”.
That is why so many hon. Members here today are flummoxed or angry, or both, at the different application of due laws of war to different parts of the country, to different ports and to different port operators. Those due laws of war are not simply set down by a very British sense of fair play and a desire to see a level playing field—or whatever the equivalent nautical term is—but are clearly set out in European competition rules designed to ensure that state aid is not available to give an unfair advantage.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, which is also of significant concern to the people of Dover and its very successful cruise turnaround business. When it comes to state aid, should not the entire £19 million be repaid?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and for standing up for the cruise business in Dover. He makes an interesting point, which I will move on to later.
I have an unashamed loyalty to my home port of Southampton, the second-largest cruise port in Europe and the embarkation point of a cruise voyage for 720,000 passengers a year. Southampton is not a port that is afraid of competition. It is not afraid to invest private money to provide the facilities required for a thriving and expanding cruise business. As port director Doug Morrison, who has taken the time to be here today, has said on more than one occasion:
“We believe in fair competition. We do not fear Liverpool and competition, but it is simply not right.”
Of course, that is what our debate is about: ensuring that competition in the cruise industry is on an equal footing, and that a leg-up to one port is not an iceberg to another.
European competition rules on state aid are clear. The European Commission website devotes a considerable number of words to explaining them. Why does that come as no surprise? The Commission seems to be very good at devoting a considerable number of words to many things, but perhaps less good at applying those ideals when it comes to the crunch. I will quote those words to the Minister:
“Sometimes Government authorities spend public money supporting local industries or individual companies. This gives them an unfair advantage over similar sectors in other EU countries. In other words, it damages competition and distorts trade...It is the Commission’s job to prevent this,”
which seems a fairly unequivocal statement to me. It does not say that the Commission’s job is to sit back and allow market distortion. No—it is the Commission’s specific job to prevent it. However, first it must apparently ask some questions. That is fair enough, and I would like to take hon. Members and the Minister through those questions and ask whether they have been rigorously asked and responded to in relation to the UK cruise market.
Have state authorities given support, for example, in the form of grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, holdings in companies, or goods and services provided on preferential terms? The answer strikes me as a big yes in the case of the port of Liverpool, which has received £19 million in grant and been asked to pay back only somewhere between £8.8 million and £12.6 million. Has such aid been available to other port operators in the UK, or has investment and expansion in their cruise facilities been without such support and advantage?
Is the support likely to affect trade between EU countries? Arguably, yes again. Barcelona and Venice are two of the leading ports in southern Europe, and a significant proportion of the UK cruise market heads directly to the Mediterranean. Clearly, therefore, there is potential for an impact. Of course, it is not only ports on the Mediterranean, but other European ports, too. For the past two years, the port of Copenhagen, primarily hosting departures to the Norwegian fjords and the Baltic, has been rated as Europe’s leading cruise port at the world travel awards. In Southampton, we might have a view on that, but it would come as no surprise to learn that cruises from Liverpool might reasonably be expected to head in that direction as well.
Southampton has been shortlisted at the world travel awards for the past four years, and I am pleased to see that it is nominated again for 2012. I have no doubt that the other ports shortlisted this year, which range from Las Palmas in Gran Canaria to Stockholm in Sweden, are all extremely concerned about the state aid to the Liverpool cruise terminal, which could have a very detrimental effect on the business they have worked so hard to attract. It is a market that continues to expand, as one in every eight British package holidays sold is a cruise.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She has made a compelling case about the importance of EU rules in this case. I am sure that she will be aware of the recent statement by Commissioner Almunia, who said that he has reminded the British Government
“of their obligation to comply with EU state aid rules.”
Does the hon. Lady agree that this is not a matter where the Minister can simply say that it is down to the European Commission in Brussels? He has a personal responsibility to ensure compliance with the rules, which means taking action to prevent Liverpool from breaking them.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that comment. When I conclude, I will ask the Minister to work with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government on that very subject.
Is the support selective? Does it confer an advantage on specific companies, parts of industries, or on companies in specific regions? Yes, again. No other port operator, whether ABP, Hutchison or the port of Tyne, has received that sort of assistance for their cruise facilities. They have had to invest in their facilities themselves using private capital, just as they should in a free and fair market.
Has competition been distorted or might it be in future? We can fairly safely respond to that one. In requiring Liverpool city council to get state aid clearance from the European Commission prior to commencing turnaround cruises, the Government appear to endorse that view. However, what has happened in Liverpool? It has started anyway. The European Commission states that if that has happened, the Commission must disallow the support unless it is shown to be compatible with the common market.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Would the hon. Lady care to comment on what appear to be further proposals by Liverpool for a permanent terminal by investing £23 million, including a further £10 million of possible public subsidy? I understand that that was not discussed with the Department for Transport when competition was first raised. Does she consider that it indicates a possible permanent arrangement as far as distortion of trade is concerned?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are not just talking about £21 million of public money, but future moneys, including the £10 million he mentioned, for a permanent turnaround facility that, in my view and that of several other hon. Members across the country, will have a permanent distortion on the cruise market.
To relate some of the history, as the Minister is well aware, the city of Liverpool cruise terminal was built using £19 million of public money on the explicit condition that it would not compete with other ports that had invested their own money to build similar facilities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the Chamber. We all have constituencies where cruise ships bring benefits. People come to Belfast and then go by bus to enjoy the scenery and history of the Strangford area. Does the hon. Lady feel that we need—perhaps the Minister will drive it—a UK or Great Britain strategy that involves all regions to ensure that competition is fair and that we all gain advantage from cruise ships?
Caroline Nokes
Of course, the existing port strategy makes a very clear point about the need for fair competition and a level playing field.
When talking about ports that have invested their own money, I could mention Southampton again, but there are many other examples, such as the port of Tyne, where investment worth £100 million has been put in over the past 10 years, and Harwich, where there has been significant investment since 1998, when it joined the Hutchison Port Holdings Group. Throughout the country, as evidenced by hon. Members today, large private investment has been put into both freight and passenger-focused ports.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Like my colleagues, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North on securing this important debate. Surely, fairness is an important consideration when talking about private investment. State aid clearance is crucial. We hope that the Minister will assure us that fairness will be the key in this matter.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady is correct. I commend her on the extensive work that she has done on the subject. She hits the nail on the head: state aid and fairness are what matter.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend gets back into her stride, does she agree that good faith, as well as fairness, should come into account? It was revealed, as a result of a freedom of information request, that Liverpool city council resisted pressing for a turnaround facility at the outset
“due to advice that there could be state aid complications which could prevent the terminal being built at all.”
The key words are:
“Their approach was to build as a port of call facility and address turnaround later.”
It seems that it was using a Trojan horse tactic and acting in very bad faith.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is partly about good faith and trusting that the port of Liverpool and Liverpool city council will abide by conditions and rules that are set for them.
By 2008, Liverpool city council had launched its first attempt to lift the conditions, and the conclusion, after a detailed assessment by the Department for Transport, was that the change of use to turnaround cruises would have an
“unfair and adverse effect on competition between Liverpool and other cruise ports. It would be unfair to allow one port to benefit when competitors have found, or would have to find, private money to achieve the same objective.”
And so to today. The Government have decided, “based on independent advice”—even though that advice is from First Economics, a consultancy that freely admits it is not expert in either competition or the cruise industry—that they will withdraw their objection to removing the funding condition and Liverpool being used for turnaround calls, provided Liverpool repays either £8.8 million upfront or £12.6 million over 15 years. None of the European regional development fund money would have to be paid back, but—this is crucial and goes back to the good faith argument—state aid clearance from the European Commission would have to be secured.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my hon. Friend agree that what is happening is astonishingly high-handed? The project has gone ahead regardless, without state aid clearance having been obtained. I note that no Member of Parliament representing Liverpool is in the Chamber.
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that. I was about to move on to that point.
Within one week of the Government’s making their announcement and prior to having even sought, let alone secured, European clearance under state aid rules, the port of Liverpool accepted its first turnaround cruise, which visited France, Guernsey and the Scilly Isles. A quick inspection of the cruises scheduled for the coming year reveals a number of cruises to the Canaries, a focus on the Baltic and various other destinations. Whatever else that was, it certainly was not playing by the rules of war so eloquently described by Thomas Carlyle; it was more like a massive two-fingered salute to the Government and to anyone’s idea of fair play.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
I cannot resist intervening in a debate that brackets South Shields and Venice in the same speech. I congratulate the hon. Lady on that. The addition of Trojan horses raises extraordinary prospects. I congratulate her on securing the debate.
Does the hon. Lady agree that the uncertainty of the current situation will blight a lot of the business development that is taking place around the country? The port that is of interest to me is the port of Tyne, which has a ferry terminal in North Shields and its headquarters in South Shields. It has doubled the number of cruise ships docking in the past year and there is concern that an elongated, uncertain process will damage the business investment planning that it is trying to do. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need some clarity from the Government to get the sequencing of decisions clear and right?
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Gentleman is spot on. We want certainty and we want a level playing field for private investors, who might otherwise feel nervous and anxious about investing in a number of ports throughout the country. It is important that they have that certainty from the Government.
It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that there is fair competition. The Minister will have heard that hon. Members wish to hear that state aid rules are not flouted and that original conditions and amended agreements are adhered to. As I said, within a week Liverpool had started turnaround calls without having made any effort to ensure that it had clearance to do so.
The European Commission is in contact with the United Kingdom authorities and has reminded them of their obligations to comply with EU rules. The Commission has written to the United Kingdom requesting information to assess the change in use of European regional development funding. Should the conditions of the original grant offer no longer be complied with, recovery of that grant may be necessary.
A letter dated 8 June 2012, from the head of the ERDF closure team at the Department for Communities and Local Government, states:
“DCLG recognises that the commencement of turnaround operations in advance of State Aid clearance from the Commission may result in financial penalties if the Commission concludes that there is unlawful State Aid.”
The most pertinent statement in the letter is that any penalties that are subsequently levied would fall upon Liverpool city council and will not be recovered from the Government.
As Andrew Carnegie once said:
“And while the law of competition may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race”.
Are any hon. Members suggesting that Liverpool would not survive if obliged to refund all the public moneys it has received? Not a bit of it. If the business model is good and if the figures stack up, the operators of the port of Liverpool should be prepared to do what every other port operator in the country has done and put their money where their mouth is. However, we are where we are. As free marketeers, we have to deal in the marketplace where we find ourselves—a marketplace that has become or has the potential to become distorted.
I call on the Minister to respond to three points. First, I should like him to justify the current inaction on the flouting of the conditions laid down for Liverpool with regard to the commencement of turnaround calls before state aid clearance was sought or received, and to use a suspension injunction to prevent further turnaround cruises until such time as the outstanding issues are resolved. Secondly, I should like him to support the calls by Members of the European Parliament throughout the country to the European Commission for Liverpool city council to repay the European regional development funding, and to work with his colleagues in the DCLG to ensure that that goal is achieved. Thirdly, I should like him to ensure that the apparent “anything goes” attitude to the use of taxpayers’ money is halted forthwith and that, in these difficult times, the private companies that we wish to see lead the economic recovery are not disadvantaged by unfair competition from a state-subsidised operation that appears to have no respect for the rules of competition that I mentioned at the start of the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to be here, Mrs Brooke. I should like to get some facts on the record, not only for my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), but to give the Government’s side.
Like my hon. Friend, I am keen on competition, because I am a free marketeer as well. I am also keen, as a Minister, to consider in detail a request made by anybody anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is not what happened in 2008. The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) knows full well that when a request was submitted in 2008, it was dismissed quickly. I have not seen any legal advice instructing the Government that it would be illegal for them to look at the matter. Certainly, my legal advice, when Liverpool city council said that it would like to start turnaround, was not that I could not look at that. As a free marketeer, the Minister for the whole United Kingdom, and a Tory MP, here I am defending Liverpool. That is an interesting anomaly. Lord Heseltine would be proud of me.
It is clear that we were open and transparent all the way through; I will come back to how we achieved that. I met the operators of Southampton port—and Members from across the House—on more than one occasion to explain things exactly. In a democratic society that believes in a free market, any request should be looked at fairly by a Minister of the Crown. I looked at the request made by Liverpool city council, and I asked my officials what the procedures would be, what powers I had, and what powers were not in my hands. It was obvious that I had the power to look at the request, so we consulted widely, and got submissions from all parts of the House and across the country on what should happen. The key thing that I got back from the submissions was the point about fairness; that needs to be in whatever we do.
I looked at what I could do about the two separate payments made to Liverpool when it got the grants. First, I asked whether I or anyone in the UK had the power to ask for the regional development grant to be repaid. The answer was no; it is a Commission issue, for the Commission alone to deal with.
Mike Penning
I will continue for the moment, because I am conscious of the time, and I want to cover many of the points made. If I have time at the end, I shall come back to my hon. Friend.
The issue is being looked at by the Commission, and it is for it to decide. What was in my power was the ability look at whether Liverpool had to pay back the full UK part of the grant, whether there was any depreciation because of the length of time, and whether interest would be added. My Department made an evaluation, and Liverpool asked to pay £5.3 million as a lump sum, which I rejected. The assumptions of my officials were that the amount should be about £8 million —we ended up with a figure of £8.8 million. To ensure that I was seen to be impartial, I asked for some independent advice on how much money should be repaid. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North came up with the right amount, which was £8.8 million, or £12.6 million if phased. That is almost identical to the figures that the modelling came up with, after consideration of how other repayments were made.
I made that decision, and put it to Liverpool that it would have to pay those moneys back. As yet, Liverpool has not indicated how it will pay that—in stages, or in one lump sum. The assumption—that is all it is—is that it will be a one-stage payment. As yet, Liverpool has not indicated to the Department for Communities and Local Government how it will pay the money, or when it intends to do so. My officials have been in touch with DCLG officials, who have been in touch with the city council to push it on the need for a decision.
It is absolutely the case that state aid has not been cleared yet, but I do not have any power to stop Liverpool while we wait for the Commission to act. The key to the situation is that my officials and I as the Minister, independently and with no vested interests, have looked at what can be done. I believe that competition is good, and that competition around the country will drive up the excellent cruise market. I was at the European Cruise Council conference in Brussels only last week, and even after the terrible Costa Concordia disaster, the market has picked itself up and is moving forward again.
Mike Penning
If the right hon. Gentleman could bear with me, I will give way in a moment.
Looking at the situation from my point of view, have we been open and completely honest about what we did and the process? I believe we have. Is Liverpool doing what I asked it to do? No, because it has not paid the money back and we do not yet have state aid clearance. Do I have the power to stop Liverpool? The answer is no. Would I really want to? If the European Commission declares the payment to be incorrectly done state aid—my legal advice is that it is not—Liverpool would have to pay the moneys back. Liverpool, however, has indicated that it will pay the money back. The words of the then leader of Liverpool city council, now the mayor, were, in effect: “We will pay back what you ask us to pay back.”
Mike Penning
Will the hon. Lady bear with me for a second, because two other colleagues have tried to intervene as well? I have been given only 10 minutes to sum up the debate and, with so many people present, we could have done with a little longer.
The key for me is whether the effect on other ports and other incomes around the country will be dramatic. I have seen no evidence for that yet. At the European cruise conference, I spoke to the representative of a cruise operator that does not operate here at the moment, but will put 22 cruises in next year. I asked, “Would you be doing this at any other port in the UK?” The answer was no. I had to take that at face value. Will there be such a dramatic effect? I do not honestly think so. The Government have been genuine and honest about how much pain there should be, and Liverpool city council will have to step up to that and be as honest and open with us, and with its own electorate, as we were with it on what will have to be paid back and when. Also, should it have gone ahead without state aid approval? No, it should not have done.
Dr Julian Lewis
With regard to the European money, are the Government in a position to make representations to the European Commission on the matter? If the Government think that the Commission is unlikely to ask for the money back, does that not suggest that the Commission acted in a distorting and anti-competitive way when making the money available in the first place?
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend is leading me down a path that I am probably quite happy to be led down. I understand from my legal advice that the Commission has never asked for any such funding back in other, similar cases. Looking around Europe at subsidies, the Commission would probably rather not open such a Pandora’s box.
Mr Denham
The Minister says that he has no power to act, but infraction proceedings would be taken against the British Government in the first instance, not Liverpool. Ministers have always had the ability to prevent the misuse of European regional development fund money, if they thought the misuse would leave the Government liable to action by the Commission. There must be legal powers for him to take to guard against the risk of infraction proceedings by the European Commission.
Mike Penning
The right hon. Gentleman would be absolutely right if my legal advice was that I would be in breach, but my legal advice is that I will not be. He has had far more senior positions in government than me, so he knows that Ministers look at their legal advice and sometimes ignore it and sometimes accept it. In this case, I decided to accept the legal advice, as it came from those more qualified than me.
Mrs Glindon
I thank the Minister for giving way. In 2009, the Department for Transport specifically said that the port of Tyne would be adversely affected by the lifting of the restrictive conditions, and that remains the case, because as a port, we are in direct competition with Liverpool for some of the cruise destinations. Furthermore, if the Government do not enforce a suspension injunction, they could be failing to comply with their EU treaty obligations.
Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have visited the great port of Tyne, and there are great plans for it. I was not a Minister in the Department for Transport in 2009, so she will have to speak to her colleagues about not paying back the subsidy. The key is that there is a formula for how much should be paid back, because there is a discount for the period of time, and interest must be added. That formula produced the figure. The issue is difficult for hon. Members, especially those who represent other ports, and I would probably feel exactly the same if I represented a port. The issue is all about fairness and what is legal.
I have sought advice. Any former Minister in this Chamber knows that we would never have said how much must be paid back without obtaining legal advice on whether it would be in breach of anything. Based on the legal advice that I have received, we are not in breach, and that is why I gave Liverpool the option of paying back the £8-plus million, or £12 million over a period. That is what Liverpool must make up its mind about. It should have paid back earlier, and it should not have gone ahead as it did.
Mike Penning
I need to come to my conclusion. It is useful that people understand that the process has been open. I have tried throughout to ensure that competition is fair. I know that some colleagues will not like the result, and that people in other ports think that there will be a huge adverse effect. As a Conservative, I passionately believe in competition, and that is what this is all about. If the legal advice is that under the formula £8.8 million should be paid back, subject to the Commission’s permission, that is only fair. If I had acted in any other way, I would have had a load of Liverpool MPs in this Chamber arguing the matter the other way around.
Instead of ignoring the situation, I looked at it carefully, and instead of dismissing it straight away, which is what happened in 2008, we considered whether we could increase capacity, create jobs and create more turnaround. That is what I hope we have done. This debate has been useful, but I do not think everyone will agree.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Employee Ownership
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
Graeme Nuttall has today published the final report of his review of employee ownership. He will launch it at a summit hosted by the Deputy Prime Minister.
“Sharing Success: The Nuttall Review of Employee Ownership” collates the evidence into the benefits of employee ownership, identifies the barriers to its uptake in the private sector economy and makes recommendations to Government and others on addressing those barriers and further promoting employee ownership.
Government will respond to the recommendations Mr Nuttall makes in the autumn. Copies of his report are available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the BIS website: http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-law/employee-ownership.
Mr Nuttall was appointed by my predecessor as Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs in January 2012 to provide advice to Government on how to make it easier for businesses to adopt employee ownership.
Public Service Pensions
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
On 20 December 2011 I set out to the House the main elements of the new public service pension scheme designs, following the agreements reached with the majority of unions representing health, civil service and teachers’ workers Official Report, column 1201. These agreements were based on the Government’s enhanced offer, an 8% value increase, which I announced in the House on 2 November 2011, Official Report, column 927.
Departments continued to engage with trade unions to finalise the remaining details of the new schemes. Those discussions concluded earlier this year, with proposed final agreements being reached. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) and the Secretary of State for Health reported the details of these final agreements to the House in written ministerial statements on 12 March 2012, Official Report, columns 1WS, 4WS and 7WS respectively.
The Government made it clear that the proposed final agreements were their final position. Most of the unions agreed to take the agreements to their executives on this basis, as the best deal that could be achieved through negotiations.
Most unions have now consulted their membership on the final scheme designs for the NHS pension scheme, teachers’ pension scheme and principal civil service pension scheme.
I am now confirming to the House that the Government will be taking forward legislation based on the position reached in March. Legislation will be introduced during the current parliamentary Session to take these changes forward, as announced in the Queen’s Speech on 9 May.
I can also confirm that the Government have reviewed the fair deal policy and agreed to maintain the overall approach, but deliver this by offering access to public service pension schemes for transferring staff. When implemented, this means that all staff whose employment is compulsorily transferred from the public service under TUPE, including subsequent TUPE transfers, to independent providers of public services will retain membership of their current employer’s pension arrangements. These arrangements will replace the current broad comparability and bulk transfer approach under fair deal, which will then no longer apply. The Government will bring forward detailed proposals for implementing this in the autumn.
The Government will now focus on implementing the public service pension reforms and unions are invited to work with the Government to ensure the changes are introduced as effectively as possible.
S4C Governance
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
My Department undertook a public consultation on proposals to amend S4C’s governance arrangements, which ran from 1 February to 4 May 2012. There were 14 responses to the consultation and these will be published on my Department’s website shortly. I am grateful to respondents for taking the time to contribute their views. I have carefully considered the responses and my conclusions are as follows.
In relation to the question of whether the selection panel for the appointment of members to the Welsh authority should include a representative of any body providing funding for S4C, I note the concerns raised that this could undermine S4C’s editorial independence and the principle of the S4C-BBC partnership. I do not, however, share these concerns and agree with the viewpoint that it is right and proper for any body involved in the funding and accountability of S4C to be represented on the selection panel.
Respondents also raised several points and concerns about the method and level of funding S4C and about governance arrangements generally. I have reflected on these points but do not believe there is anything that necessitates a change in the provisional agreement reached between S4C and the BBC in October 2011 or in the current Government position on S4C reform which I welcomed at the time and still consider to be a very positive basis for successful partnership.
The consultation sought views on whether it should be a statutory requirement for any body entering into an agreement to fund S4C to have an operating agreement with S4C. There were general objections to having an operating agreement, on the basis that it would undermine S4C’s independence. Other respondents favoured an operating agreement, for purposes of clarity, transparency and stability. There was not, however, overwhelming evidence for the need for the operating agreement to be enshrined in legislation. My view is that there is a clear need for an operating agreement but I do not believe the need for an operating agreement need be enshrined in legislation, at least not in the short term. I am keen to provide for an opportunity for the operating agreement currently under consideration by BBC and S4C to work in practice without creating new legislation. I believe that the BBC and S4C intend to consult publicly on the content of this operating agreement later in the summer. If, in the future, it becomes clear that the absence of legislation has caused difficulties in the effectiveness of the operating agreement, then I would be prepared to reconsider the need for legislation. Under the Public Bodies Act 2011, there is provision until February 2017 for an operating agreement to be enshrined in legislation.
As a result of these decisions, I am pleased to confirm that we have now made the new arrangements for the governance and funding of S4C as set out in the amended BBC agreement (September 2011).
Forestry and Woodland Policy in England (Independent Report)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I am grateful to Bishop James Jones and all the panel members for their considerable work, detailed consideration and sound advice on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England. I very much welcome their report. I would also like to thank the many groups and individuals who contributed to the panel’s thinking in the course of their work—their role has been important.
Forests and woodlands are an important part of our heritage and future, and I want to see them make an increased contribution to the environment, economic growth and personal well-being and for everyone to enjoy the many benefits they offer. We know that people feel passionately about forestry and the panel’s report has given us a vision for how a more vibrant future for England’s woods and forests can be achieved.
The natural environment White Paper set out our vision which placed nature at the centre of the choices our nation must make. By properly valuing nature today, we can safeguard the natural areas that we all cherish and from which we derive vital services. We stated an ambition for a major increase in the area of woodland in England, better management of existing woodlands, and a renewed commitment to conserving and restoring ancient woodlands. The panel’s advice will help us to achieve this. The panel’s report shows clearly how forestry has the potential to offer more in terms of green products and green jobs, often in rural economies.
The panel’s work will also inform the future of the public forest estate, a key component of our English woodland network. I therefore agree with the panel that the public forest estate should continue to benefit from public ownership. A well managed and publicly owned estate provides the sort of public benefits we need to protect—such as access and biodiversity.
But I also agree with the International Panel on Forests (IPF) that the way that the estate is cared for and managed should evolve to meet the challenges ahead of us. We need a new model that is able to draw in private finance, make best use of Government funding and a means to facilitate wider and more comprehensive community support.
The Government will now need time to properly consider the work of the panel—we will respond more fully by January 2013 and I look forward to working with the many interested organisations in the development of this response. While we will consider our detailed response we will continue with the general suspension of sales of estate land. In the meantime, we expect the Forestry Commission to continue to manage the estate to deliver the most public benefits.
Syria
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I would like to inform the House of the latest developments on Syria, including the meeting of the ministerial action group in Geneva on 30 June.
The situation in Syria remains grave, with hundreds of people dying every week, mainly at the hands of the Syrian regime. The British Government are at the forefront of international activity aimed at bringing about an end to the violence and making progress on political transition in Syria.
On 30 June, I travelled to Geneva for the first meeting of the ministerial action group on Syria, at the request of United Nations-Arab League Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan. The action group held intensive talks on a political transition plan for Syria and agreed that there should be a transitional governing body in Syria; that it should be made up of representatives of the present Syrian Government, the opposition and other groups, formed on the basis of mutual consent. It is our clear understanding that this would preclude President Assad.
It is important that those Governments present in Geneva now maintain the pace of the political process, and hold the Syrian parties—starting with the Syrian Government—to comply fully with the cessation of violence and engage in a genuine political process.
To that end we welcome the meeting of Syrian opposition members in Cairo on 2-3 July. We commend the Arab League and joint special envoy’s efforts to bring the opposition together, and we will continue to stress the need for the opposition to have unity of purpose. We have increased UK funding for the Syrian opposition and civil society groups, providing £1.5 million of assistance in this financial year to help provide human rights monitoring and media training for activists, and other non-lethal support, including communications equipment.
I will attend the next meeting of the Friends of Syria in Paris on 6 July. We will look to the meeting to endorse the outcome of the ministerial action group, and reiterate that President Assad cannot form part of any transition in Syria.
We will also call on countries represented at the Friends of Syria meeting to implement further sanctions against the Syrian regime, building on the 16 rounds of EU sanctions which have included asset freezes and travel bans on a total of 129 individuals and 49 entities. In particular, we call on countries to support the EU oil embargo and to adopt their own embargoes, in order to maintain the financial pressure on the regime. We welcome the EU’s recent decision to strengthen the arms embargo by introducing a specific prohibition on insurance related to arms shipments bound for Syria. We are strongly urging all countries to refrain from providing weapons to the Syrian regime. In parallel, we will take forward work in the United Nations. We continue to believe the UN Security Council must shoulder its responsibilities to bring about an end to the violence. We will continue discussions on a UN Security Council resolution. We will support the efforts of the Human Rights Council and commission of inquiry in documenting crimes and human rights violations and abuses that have been committed, so that those responsible can be held to account.
The British Government will continue to focus on the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Syria. The UK is providing £8.5 million for food, medical care, shelter and other essential support to tens of thousands of people in need in Syria as well as to help refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. In partnership with the UN and international community, we will put pressure on the Syrian Government to match their words with actions and immediately allow full, unimpeded access for humanitarian agencies.
Late Night Drinking
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My noble Friend Lord Henley, the Minister of State for Crime Prevention and Antisocial Behaviour Reduction, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
The response to the consultation on the secondary legislation for the late night levy and early morning alcohol restriction orders has been published today.
The late night levy and early morning alcohol restriction orders (EMROs) are two alcohol measures in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The extension of EMROs will allow local councils to restrict the sale of alcohol in their local area flexibly between 12am and 6am. This is a tool that licensing authorities can use to prevent problems in the night-time economy in either a part or the whole of their area. The late night levy will fulfil our commitment to allow councils to levy a charge from those selling alcohol late at night in their area to help contribute towards high policing costs in the late-night economy. Again, it can be applied flexibly between 12am and 6am. These measures will empower local communities to act to achieve a more viable night-time economy and contribute to the Government’s alcohol strategy to turn the tide against irresponsible drinking.
The response to the “Dealing with the Problems of Late Night Drinking” consultation considers the various comments received from a wide range of respondents. Their views have contributed to the development of the regulations that detail how these policies will be implemented. The first of these regulations have been laid today.
Copies of the response to the consultation will be placed in the House Library and it is also available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Serious Organised Crime Agency (Annual Report and Accounts)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) has today published its annual report and accounts for 2011-12. I have laid a copy before the House and the report will also be made available in the Vote Office.
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
In December 2011, I launched a full consultation around a programme of work to transform the way that the DVLA delivers its services to customers. The consultation recognised the need to modernise the way these services are delivered and to respond to the growing demand for more flexible public services.
Today I am announcing that the DVLA will press ahead with its proposals to modernise its services. As a result of this decision the DVLA will centralise its enforcement operations by March 2013 and will close its 39 local offices by the end of 2013. While I recognise that a large number of respondents expressed concerns, I believe that many of these concerns can be mitigated and I am confident that this programme will result in modern, effective services delivering savings of £26 million each year.
I am also announcing that the DVLA will work to ensure that customers in Northern Ireland have access to the full range of vehicle services available to the rest of the UK. This will include online taxing of vehicles and introducing additional benefits such as retaining registration marks.
The DVLA will build on its successes in electronic delivery by providing more transactions online. Local businesses will act as intermediaries to offer motorists more convenient access to certain DVLA services through at least 4,000 outlets nationwide compared to the current 39 DVLA local offices. The DVLA will ensure that alternative service channels will be available before offices close.
Many of the concerns arising from the consultation related to issues around potential degradation of services and uncertainty over the alternative channels. The DVLA has developed its proposals to address these concerns. Discussions with stakeholders have helped shape these proposals, which will provide the motor trade and individual motorists with a more efficient and effective service through a greater number of convenient, accessible channels.
I am grateful to all those who engaged in the consultation process as their views have helped to develop the proposals in a way that can ensure customer needs are met.
Today, I am publishing a package of documents, including an impact assessment and a formal response to the consultation. These documents provide more detail of the future services and will be available on the DVLA website and in the Library of the House.
I am committed to maintaining or enhancing current service levels for all motorists and the DVLA will continue to work with stakeholders to support their transition onto new channels.
Access to Work
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
This Government are committed to ensuring that the protected budget for disability employment helps more disabled people into work.
Access to Work provides support for transport to work, support workers and specialist adaptations and equipment over and above that which is a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. It can provide essential support not only for people with physical impairments but also for people with learning disabilities and mental health conditions.
We know that Access to Work is a highly effective programme which currently helps around 35,000 disabled people in work each year. Liz Sayce’s review of specialist disability employment provision highlighted Access to Work’s effectiveness. However, she also called it the “best kept secret in Government”. We do not think it is right for Access to Work to be a hidden success and expanding, strengthening and modernising this programme will make work and choice of work possible for many more disabled people.
We have already announced an extra £15 million for Access to Work and plans to launch a targeted marketing campaign. Today I am announcing more about the marketing campaign and other key changes to improve the programme so that it can support more disabled people into work.
We are building awareness with individuals who could benefit from Access to Work and employers looking to recruit or retain a disabled person. We know that certain groups of disabled people, such as those with mental health conditions and those aged 16 to 24 do not benefit from the programme as much as they could. We have therefore launched a 12-month targeted marketing campaign to actively encourage more people from these under-represented groups to use Access to Work.
We are focusing on regions where Access to Work is not widely used, such as in Wales. We will seek to use the disabled people’s user-led organisation ambassador for Wales to increase awareness of the benefits of Access to Work. We will also work with key stakeholders and charities in Wales to understand why take-up is lower and how they can increase the number of disabled people supported in Wales.
We will use the most appropriate channels to reach these audiences, including human resources departments of large employers to increase understanding among those with mental health conditions and user-led organisation ambassadors. We will also work with small and medium-sized enterprises to promote Access to Work within organisations that may not be aware of how it can help them recruit or retain a disabled person.
I am also announcing today some changes we are making to help young people through Access to Work.
From the autumn Access to Work will be available to support young disabled people undertaking voluntary work experience under the youth contract. This change will help thousands of young disabled people take their first significant step towards employment by supporting them to benefit from a voluntary work experience placement over the next three years.
We will also do more to raise awareness of Access to Work among young people in education. Our targeted marketing campaign will focus on this group by working with careers advisors to raise the programme’s profile, and working with charities and other organisations involved in supporting young people as they move out of secondary education.
Looking more widely across Government, from autumn we will support the Department for Education’s supported internships for 16 to 25-year-olds with the most complex learning difficulties or disabilities. We will ensure that Access to Work provision is in place to support young people accessing the supported internship trials, enabling them to receive a seamless package of support as they move from education into employment where their internship results in the offer of a job.
These changes are the first steps in our programme to ensure that Access to Work is expanded to help more people, including young people.
On 7 March I confirmed that we would be accepting all of Liz Sayce’s recommendations on Access to Work, subject to further co-production with disabled people and employers to ensure that we get these right. We have already started work to implement some of the more straightforward changes such as strengthening the pre-employment eligibility letter and introducing a stronger triage system of Access to Work applicants. Today I am announcing that we have established an expert advisory panel to consider Liz Sayce’s other recommendations and advise the Department on the best way to take them forward.
But we want to go further than this. We want considerable modernisation of Access to Work. So we will also be asking the panel to make its own recommendations on how to significantly improve the programme. It will consider fundamental questions such as alternative delivery options and how to improve the programme on an operational level to make it more efficient. The panel will report on these fundamental questions in the new year.
I have asked Mike Adams OBE to lead the panel. Mike has a wealth of experience working for disability organisations and I look forward to working with him on this important task.
This programme of work—from protected budget to dramatic expansion—represents the most radical review of Access to Work in the programme’s history and reflects the Government’s commitment to build on Liz Sayce’s work and deliver disability employment support fit for the 21st century.
Grand Committee
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Civil Aviation Bill
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)
My Lords, I am required to remind you of what I think you know very well already. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we adjourn immediately and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 80: Advice and assistance in connection with aviation security
Amendment 51
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) The CAA may also provide advice and assistance to such persons in connection with security checks performed on users of civil air services who have religious clothing requirements in order that their dignity be maintained without compromising the rigour of those security checks.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the amendment is a minor part of the security issues that we are concerned about in our airports. In later amendments, we will have the opportunity to discuss the more substantial issues, but this issue is substantial to part of our community—the Sikhs—who could undergo considerable humiliation and total affront to their religious position by the action of those carrying out security.
As a nation, we are more appreciative of this issue than may be the case in many other parts of Europe, not least because we have a substantial Sikh population, but we also have a relationship with Sikhs that goes back over several centuries through the former British Empire in India. The issue raised by security is that Sikhs are not prepared to have their turban touched or in any way interfered with, because the turbaned hair is a fundamental point of observance in their religion. Obvious security difficulties attend that. After all, turbans can be very substantial headgear. Sikhs do not cut their hair and their turbans enclose substantial swathes of hair. As we know, many Sikhs are somewhat above average size in any case, so it is a substantial piece of clothing.
Under regulations that obtain under the European Community, security officers have the right to insist on scrutinising the head-dress, which means at the very least touching it and, in more obvious cases, asking for it to be unwound entirely. Some cases have caused enormous concern in the Sikh population. There was one case in Italy in which the security officer insisted on the removal of the head-dress. There was even the case of the coach to the internationally renowned golfer, Milkha Singh, who has achieved great prominence in golfing circles. The coach was subject to this challenge of the turban being touched.
We therefore cannot look at the conduct contained and outlined in European regulations as anything other than a straight affront to the Sikh population. The Indian Government watch this kind of situation with the greatest care. An Indian Minister went so far as to say that any insult to a Sikh, particularly on religious grounds, was an insult to the whole of India. Of course, he was reflecting the fact that India prides itself on its extraordinary tolerance and its capacity to operate a political system and create a society in which widely different religious groups are highly represented. One of the more obvious facts is that there are two million Muslims in India out of a population that is overwhelmingly Hindu.
We must therefore look at this issue in an international context, too. At British airports, the authorities deal with this issue—bearing in mind that they have every regard to security—by using swab tests. Beyond that, we know that there has been no development on the explosive trace detection which our airports are trialling. Swab tests are not totally satisfactory or convincingly effective, and the explosive trace detection is still a trial and not proven as yet. British citizens travelling to Europe, and Europe as a whole, are still subject to the regulations that were introduced a couple of years ago.
No Member of Parliament with a Sikh population could be anything but greatly exercised by the fact that there might be an incident at a British airport that provoked the repercussions that I have outlined and which have occurred in the past. There is a further implication that an incident might damage community relations and cause great concern among the whole of the Sikh population in the UK. There is not the slightest doubt that this is a very significant issue. The Committee will remember that this issue cropped up a number of years ago, in the 1960s, with the introduction of compulsory helmet wearing for motor cyclists. I cannot now recollect the years in which we had the debates in both Houses of Parliament, but we were able to deal with it, after considerable debate, in a sensitive manner.
I ask the Minister not to underestimate the significance of this issue. I hope he will feel that the amendment is expressed in constructive terms so that the CAA will be empowered to take effective action in this area. It may also be a clear indication of the sensitivity of the CAA and British Airports to other circumstances that we have to have great regard to because they mean so much to certain groups in our country and, of course, to whole populations elsewhere in the world. I beg to move.
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, I rise with a little concern because I do not want to give any religious affront to anyone. However, maybe we should put this into the context of the rest of the population. It is concerning that the risk of something occurring that was an affront to one person’s religious rights might be put before the safety of a planeload of people. I remind the Minister that at certain times the rest of the population have to undergo strip searches. I unfortunately have rather a lot of prosthetic material inside me, and I am patted down from head to toe every time I go through passport control. That is an affront to my person, but I accept it as a necessity for the safety of other people.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, we looked at the Sikh population’s concerns about motorcycles and a solution was found, but motorcycle safety issues relate mainly to the driver of the motorcycle. The safety concerns here are about the whole aircraft and the passengers in it. To repeat myself, I do not wish to cause affront to any religious person, but in this context we all have to undergo certain unpleasant procedures, and unfortunately everyone has to suffer in the same way.
Lord Soley
I will not delay the Committee, and I apologise for missing the opening remarks. Religious groups are very good at co-operating with the authorities. They are just as much at risk as the rest of the population. Indeed, Muslims have often been the victims of bombing attacks. So long as the CAA understands that it needs to work with religious leaders, that is the key to this. If religious leaders agree, we will not have the enormous problems to which the noble Lord refers. They are at least as much, and possibly more, concerned than many other citizens, simply because they are so often victims. We forget that.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I share the views of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. I wholly sympathise with the objective of the amendment, but it is going a bit too far to write it into the Bill in the form that the noble Lord proposes. I have one question for the Minister: what electronic tests and checks, such as X-rays or ultrasound, are available to examine Sikhs wearing turbans that they do not wish to remove?
Lord Clinton-Davis
Reference has already been made to the problems posed by the Sikh population. I refer also to Orthodox Jews. I am not one of them, but they would look askance at the possibility of being dealt with as ordinary citizens are rightly dealt with. Perhaps the Minister would outline what steps are taken towards people who are especially vulnerable, such as the ones I have mentioned.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for raising this important and sensitive issue. I fully agree with your Lordships that we need to ensure that passengers are treated with respect and dignity at all points during their journey through an airport.
I hope I can reassure your Lordships by explaining that the goal that the amendment is designed to achieve is already covered by the Bill. Airports are required by European and domestic regulations to undertake security checks on all passengers, and it is the responsibility of airports to ensure that their customers are treated with dignity and respect.
Clause 80 inserts new Sections 21H and 21I into the Aviation Security Act 1982. New Section 21I requires the CAA to provide such aviation security advice and assistance as it considers appropriate to the persons listed in its subsection (3), including the managers of aerodromes in the UK. In giving such advice and assistance, the CAA has to have regard to the purposes to which Part 2 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 applies, which are broadly the protection of civil aviation against acts of violence. Therefore, if the CAA considered it appropriate, having regard to the purposes to which Part 2 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 applies, it could provide advice and assistance on maintaining the dignity of passengers wearing religious clothing when subject to security checks.
I know that some passengers may worry about security checks and feel uncomfortable about being subjected to them—I certainly do—but, like my noble friend Lord Rotherwick and, I suspect, the whole Committee, I understand that such searches are essential if security is to be maintained in the face of a real and continuing threat from terrorist groups that seek to do us harm.
As I am sure your Lordships will know, each passenger departing from a UK airport undergoes standard security processes irrespective of their age, gender or ethnic background. These checks ensure that they are not carrying articles prohibited from the security-restricted area on to the aircraft. This principle will not change.
Security staff are trained to recognise that some passengers may have particular concerns about searches, particularly searches of some religious clothing, such as those from the Sikh community who wear turbans. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Orthodox Jews.
A problem emerged in April 2010 when new EU regulations came into force that required a hand search of turbans to be carried out. Physical contact with the turban causes hurt and offence to Sikhs. As pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, other European states might not be so sensitive to these issues. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State acted swiftly and instructed airports to continue with the method used prior to April 2010, which mainly involved hand-held metal detectors, while consideration was given to how to resolve the concerns expressed by the Sikh community. After intensive work, a pilot project was put together in a very short time and with the assistance of the Sikh community. The noble Lord pointed out that there is good co-operation between all communities because we are all in it together.
The trial is now under way at almost all the UK’s airports, using a combination of explosive trace detection and hand-held metal detectors as an alternative to a hand search of the turban. The trial is going well and we have been keeping the European Commission up to date with the results. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Aviation has written to Ministers around Europe to highlight the importance of the issue and to draw their attention to the trial.
We hope that the trial will provide a sound basis of evidence for the EU in deciding on whether it is possible to change the European rules on security to meet the concerns of Sikhs and to ensure that they operate in a culturally sensitive way. The Department for Transport submitted a report on the trial to the European Commission on 28 June. The trial delivered good results and is continuing for the remainder of the summer at least.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Would it not be very simple for people who are especially vulnerable to be searched in private—in other words, to go to an area where other people are not present?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point. Passengers may request a private search. I am confident on that point, but perhaps it would be helpful if I wrote to the Committee in a little more detail on it.
The trial delivered good results and is continuing for the remainder of the summer at least. We are actively engaging with the EU with a view to continuing to conduct such searches in this manner. I hope that the Committee will agree that the matter is under control.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Would the Minister say that the discussions with the commissioner concerned were very positive, or otherwise?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am very sorry, but I did not catch what the noble Lord said.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I think there have been discussions between the Government and the Commission. Is the commissioner concerned on the Government’s side in this matter?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that the Commission is in a listening mode, because otherwise it could be storing up problems for itself in future.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which was encouraging. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, will recognise that, given the advanced years of many of us, we have great difficulty going through airport security without the implied suggestion that we have a submachine gun in our belt. When our belt has been taken off, the gun must be somewhere else. Having had a hip replacement a few years ago, I go through agonies at airport control. We all have to pay that price. I do not think that any of us doubt that airport security is of the greatest significance, and we all realise that some privations are attendant on it. However, some practices need to be looked at very carefully.
The Minister is assiduous in writing to us when he feels that he has not made a point absolutely explicit in a reply. I do not think that he needs to write to us on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. Privacy will not solve the problem. The issue is not that something is being done in public; it is that someone is touching the turban. Therefore, if the same security process is followed in private as in public, the offence will be exactly the same.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I absolutely accept the point about touching the turban, but there may be some other perfectly reasonable reason why a passenger does not want to be searched in public. They may want to explain a medical condition, for instance, that it would be too embarrassing to discuss in public, but as soon as they went into a private room they would be able to explain the circumstances and have a thorough search.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, of course I know that the practice occurs; it is essential where people have enormous sensitivities that ought to be respected. However, the amendment is about Sikhs. I am merely indicating that for a Sikh, an offence conducted in private is no less an offence than if it were done in the public arena. Therefore, the issue is how we maintain our security and check the Sikh population effectively when they travel, without giving extreme offence by touching the turban.
I am grateful that the Minister indicated that we are making progress on tests that will obviate the need to touch the turban, so I hope that the problem will soon be resolved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“(b) the individual employed in the civil service of the Crown, and(c) representatives of individuals employed as defined in paragraph (b)”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, these are probing amendments to explore how the Government intend to ensure that there is no significant or damaging loss of staff with experience of relevant security issues when aviation security regulation functions are transferred from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority.
As to the first amendment, Clause 82 refers only to the Secretary of State consulting the Civil Aviation Authority before making a transfer scheme to the CAA. Who else would the Secretary of State consult, particularly on the impact of such a transfer on individual employees who are directly affected or potentially directly affected? The second amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the impact of such transfers on the security functions of the CAA before making such a scheme, given that there does not appear to be a clear provision in the Bill, and proper assessment of the impact of such a transfer scheme on security and security functions must surely be a key responsibility of the Secretary of State before deciding whether to proceed.
It appears from the impact assessments for the legislation that the primary purpose of this switch of aviation security regulation functions from the Department for Transport to the CAA has been driven by financial considerations and the spending review, which may not be the most appropriate driving force for change when dealing with an issue of this nature—particularly when a highly successful security regime has been in operation since the tragic Lockerbie bombing.
The Transport Select Committee in the other place expressed concern that the decision to transfer aviation security regulation functions from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority was included in the draft Bill at a late stage and was not subject to consultation. The committee also said that it was important that the CAA had sufficient security expertise to undertake its new role and that the Department for Transport and the CAA should investigate employment arrangements, possibly including secondments rather than transfers, precisely to avoid losing experience staff and expertise in the transfer of posts from the department to the CAA.
In Committee in the other place, the Transport Minister said that some 85 staff might be seconded rather than transferred, and no doubt the noble Earl will give an update on the present arrangements and intentions, the number of staff who will be transferred and seconded, and why being seconded would not be a better option for the staff as a whole. It would also be helpful if the noble Earl could say what steps are being taken to encourage staff affected to stay on in order to ensure that this transfer will not lead to loss of expertise in such a crucial part of our security provision and protection. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, let me begin with Amendment 52. The Department for Transport has already begun to engage with staff and their trade union representatives on the proposed transfer of staff from the DfT to the CAA. The department’s human resources unit has formally engaged with the Public and Commercial Services trade union and the Prospect trade union on matters relating to the proposed transfer of posts and post holders to the CAA.
There have been briefing events for staff, including a joint event with the CAA on 31 January, and staff are kept informed with regular written and oral updates. We will engage with staff and their trade union representatives as we develop the transfer arrangements over the coming months until the planned transfer in spring 2014.
Engagement with staff is vital, not least because we want to ensure that as many staff as possible transfer to the CAA, taking their skills and experience with them. A particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that we do not lose this valuable expertise. We have no intention of doing anything that would cause unnecessary losses. We will work to provide as much visibility and clarity as possible about the transfer, but we cannot answer all the questions yet. The Government believe that there is no need to amend the Bill to achieve something that is already happening, so I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment 52 in due course.
Lord Soley
Will the noble Lord clarify a point? Much of the concern is about staff morale. I know that this is not directly connected, but morale was a major factor in what happened with the Immigration Service. If this is not handled carefully, staff morale will go down and they will either work to rule—literally—to ensure that they are not guilty of making any mistakes, or they will just feel demoralised. I know that this is a probing amendment, which I am sure has been taken into account, but I have no doubt in my mind that the security issue is so important that staff morale is equally critical.
Earl Attlee
I remind noble Lords that we are in Committee, so we can speak as many times as we like. The noble Lord is absolutely right that staff morale in any organisation is key. This is of course a leadership issue, particularly for the senior personnel at the CAA. It must be remembered that some staff do not work in fixed locations; some of the staff who ensure that security is carried out properly are fairly mobile. But I accept that morale is an absolutely key issue.
Earl Attlee
It is indeed, my Lords. If we thought that we would lose a large number—or a majority—of the experienced staff due to this change, we would not do it. However, I see no reason why aviation security specialists who currently work for the DfT would not be equally happy working for the CAA. If they were being invited to work in the private sector, that could be much more of an issue. However, they will be transferring from one respected government department to another respected organisation.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank my noble friends Lord Soley and Lord Clinton-Davis for their helpful contributions. The Minister said, I believe, that the driving force on the financial side was the principle that the user pays. Surely when we talk about aviation security regulation the principle that the user pays should not take precedence over the principle that we want the most effective security regulation arrangements.
I have not yet heard the Minister or anyone else argue that the current arrangements, which we have had for a number of years, are not highly successful and effective, as they are recognised to be. Frankly, if the real reason for this change is financial—namely, that the user pays—and is not based on improving the present arrangements for aviation security regulation, I suggest that the Government have got wrong the driving force for the change. Certainly I have not heard from the Minister any criticism of the current arrangements, any indication of how they have failed or any indication of how they will be made more successful and more efficient by the proposed change.
The Minister said that we should not go into detail about numbers. However, as I said, in Committee in the other place the Transport Minister referred to numbers and said that 80 staff might be seconded rather than transferred. I made reference to the view that was expressed that it might be better if staff were seconded rather than transferred.
Lord Clinton-Davis
The Minister did not say how often this provision will be regarded. When I was Civil Aviation Minister, it was inevitably the case that this would be reviewed regularly. I hope that this provision will continue to apply.
Lord Rosser
I thank my noble friend for that point. Perhaps the Minister will comment on it in a moment.
I asked whether the Minister could give an update on how many staff will be transferred and how many will be seconded and say why secondment would not be a better option for staff generally. I am not asking him to go into the details of discussions that are taking place, but he might be able to respond to those particular points. Is the Minister willing to do so before I withdraw the amendments? I intend to withdraw them—as I said, they are probing amendments.
Earl Attlee
The Government believe that industry will benefit from the efficiencies that could be gained from having aviation security and safety regulation in one place. The CAA has potentially valuable experience of safety management systems that are designed to manage risks as effectively as possible. We think that this experience, coupled with the skills and experience of the DfT staff, could bring real benefit to how we regulate aviation security in the UK. That move would also mean that the principle that the user pays is applied to aviation security in the same way as it is applied to aviation safety.
Charging the industry for the regulation of aviation security will align it with the vast majority of other forms of regulation, including the CAA’s regulation of aviation safety. The aviation industry already meets the costs of providing security at close to £1 billion per annum, so the cost of regulation at £4.8 million per annum is a small addition that could be neutralised by efficiency savings arising from the reform package.
The noble Lord asked me about secondments, which the PCS trade union also raised in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons. We can look at how secondments might be used as we develop our plans for the transfer. However, we consider that seconding DfT staff to the CAA instead of transferring them is unlikely to help to ensure that experienced staff remain with the CAA when the secondments end.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Will the noble Lord respond to my suggestion that this provision should be looked at regularly?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that when they make a change, all Governments consider whether they have done the right thing. I am not sure about a formal review, but all Ministers look back to make sure that the changes that they have implemented are working.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for the further information that he has given. I am sure that he will not be entirely surprised when I say that I still have the impression that this one is financially driven rather than driven by any real belief that the aviation security regulation function will somehow be carried out more effectively through the arrangements that the Government are proposing than they are at present. However, I have expressed my views on this and the Minister has replied on behalf of the Government. I also said that these were probing amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“Risk-based aviation security regime
(1) The Secretary of State may direct the operators of airport areas to implement an outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime to govern the exercise of their functions in relation to aviation security.
(2) When making directions under this section, the Secretary of State must by order set out the framework for the introduction of the outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime.
(3) An order under this section must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 75, which is linked with this amendment. We have begun our discussions on the outcomes-focused, risk-based scheme, and I hope that, during the Minister’s reply to this amendment, he will be kind enough to explain sufficiently what this term implies to satisfy the Committee and ensure that all Members are fully aware of what is envisaged. As my noble friend indicated when speaking to the previous amendment, we are not entirely satisfied about replacing what after all has borne the test of time in airport security in this country, with one or two obviously notable exceptions. We are not clear about the principles behind the scheme and we would be grateful if the Minister would elaborate on them.
Our concerns are born of the fact that this concept was added to the Bill quite late. It occasioned anxieties in the Transport Committee of the other place because the concept had not been subject to any serious pre-legislative scrutiny. Moreover, as others have said, it has been somewhat sprung on the industry, which I know is mixed in its response. I think the Minister will be pressed to say whether there is tremendous enthusiasm for this development, although he may be able to point to the progress that is being made. Suffice it to say that there did not appear to be a great deal of consultation about the scheme before it appeared in the Bill.
The scheme has one conspicuous merit for the Government; as the noble Lord neatly put it, it transfers the costs to the user. That is an interesting concept; an airline is using security and should bear the costs. What the industry might be doing is picking up the costs that are transferred from the department and therefore helping the department’s budget in the wake of the Chancellor’s cuts, detailed last year. The absence of consultation, the fact that the concept was added late and the fact that it needs considerable elaboration and definition are all points to which I am sure the Minister will set his mind.
Earl Attlee
I welcome these amendments, which enable us to consider an outcomes-focused, risk-based regime. I hope in responding to them to be able to allay the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. However, I am not convinced that the amendment is related to the previous one, which concerned the important matter of DfT staff being looked after on transfer. They are separate issues.
The DfT has consulted on proposals to modernise the regulatory regime for aviation security. They are designed to promote innovation and efficiency, to ensure the best possible passenger experience and to bring the regime into line with better-regulation principles. The Government’s priority at all times is to ensure high levels of aviation security in the UK. We simply cannot afford a failure.
The proposed new approach is intended to give operators greater flexibility and responsibility to design security processes that deliver specified security outcomes, with greater emphasis placed on the needs of their passengers. A similar approach has been taken in aviation safety regulation.
Modernisation would be achieved by introducing the use of security management systems, or SeMS, by industry and a regulatory regime that is more outcomes-focused and risk-based—the so-called OFRB. SeMS is a systematic approach to managing and embedding security in the day-to-day activities of an organisation. We are starting with a series of pilots in which industry operators will develop the SeMS approach and, in so doing, create an enhanced internal security culture. Once these pilots have been concluded and we are satisfied that the SeMS framework is sufficiently robust, we shall look to roll it out generally across the industry. This will provide a sound basis for the design and development of the OFRB regime.
The proposed reforms represent a significant change in the approach to the regulation of aviation security both for the industry and the regulator. We have therefore decided to take an incremental approach to reform to ensure that the UK’s high level of aviation security is maintained at all times. This incremental approach also aligns well with the Government’s intention to embed in industry a culture of continuous improvement of the UK’s aviation security regime, as has been the case for aviation safety.
Many organisations have commented that the full benefits of OFRB—in particular, flexibility for operators in the design of security processes—require changes to the highly prescriptive European legislation, which specifies common basic standards for aviation security. We will use the SeMS pilots to build the evidence base necessary to engage with our European partners and to make the case for change. This will take some time.
I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that the move to OFRB will not be a single big change but a continuing one—it will not be sprung on stakeholders. This is also necessary because some 1,000 industry entities in the UK are directed to implement aviation security measures, and it would not be feasible or sensible for them all to move to OFRB at once.
The Secretary of State intends to take forward the reformed approach to aviation security regulation under powers in Part 2 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 by giving directions to industry operators, such as airports. In passing Part 2 of the 1982 Act, Parliament has granted the Secretary of State a power to give directions to industry for the purpose of protecting civil aviation against acts of violence. Successive Transport Secretaries, irrespective of party, have made aviation security directions that they consider necessary to protect the security of civil aviation. The Secretary of State’s direction-making powers set out in Part 2 of the 1982 Act do not require the approval of Parliament before they can come into force.
Introducing a new layer of legislative approval for the introduction of an OFRB aviation security regime could risk damaging our ability to respond swiftly to implement necessary changes to aviation security in the face of continuing and evolving threats. These amendments would mean that if the response to a new threat affected the framework of the outcomes-focused, risk-based regime, an order would be required that would be subject to the approval of both Houses. This would inevitably take time, even with the most efficient business managers in charge of Parliament’s agenda. Your Lordships will know that it is sometimes necessary to make changes very quickly to respond to new threats, in some cases within a matter of hours.
For example, swift action, including an immediate ban on liquids, had to be taken in response to the liquid bomb plot. The plot was uncovered during the Summer Recess, and if it had been necessary to recall Parliament and have these matters debated by both Houses, it would have been impossible to respond effectively. I am sure that your Lordships will recall the printer bomb plot in October 2010, when it was necessary to place emergency restrictions on air cargo. If my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State had not been able to act quickly to ban certain consignments, we could have been left exposed to similar attacks.
Noble Lords will have seen the Written Ministerial Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the 26 June about the reform of the aviation security regulatory regime and the Government’s response to the preceding consultation. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to keep Parliament informed as we develop, pilot and implement the new regime over the coming years. However, I hope the Committee will agree that Amendments 54 and 75 would not only be impractical but could have a damaging impact on our ability to keep passengers secure. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw or not to move the amendments.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I have a bone of contention with the Minister. I am not prepared to accept what he said about the new measures necessary to deal with the threat of the liquid bombs. Clearly effective action was taken and we all know the constraints. I can even remember the size of the cardboard box that Heathrow kindly provided for me to ensure that the baggage that I was taking to the cabin could be measured accurately. It was the least precise device that I have ever seen. Nevertheless, you cannot expect technology to appear at every point in an airport. I am not prepared to have that emergency response to a clearly individual, defined threat compared with a whole schematic change to the concept of airport security.
After all, it is the Minister who is dressing up the scheme in excellent technical language. It is he who has to take responsibility for the fact that the scheme arrived on the scene somewhat late and was not subject to scrutiny before it appeared in the legislation. It is the Minister who has to bear the responsibility for the fact that the most apparent thing to the industry about the scheme was that the costs were being transferred. We all know the driver for that, so he will not mind if there is an element of suspicion in the Committee that the issue that drives the scheme is the transfer of costs rather than the more successful implementation of a security regime.
Earl Attlee
I would not want to leave the noble Lord upset. However, first, I remind the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State retains responsibility for aviation security. None of this changes that. In addition, I would like to remind the Committee of one thing. If we were to adopt the noble Lord’s amendment, it could have unintended consequences. We might think that it would be fine; but when we wanted to change something quickly, we would come up against that most ancient law, the law of unintended consequences. We need to be extremely cautious, therefore, before we think about tying the hands of the Secretary of State and removing that flexibility that she has to give the necessary directions in respect of aviation security.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I would be the last person to want to see a reduction in the Secretary of State’s powers in this very important area, and I am not suggesting that Parliament will set out to destroy the security scheme for the aviation industry. Responsible Members of Parliament would do no such thing, of course. What we are looking for is a clearer evaluation than that presently to hand of the merits of this approach, apart from cost savings for the department. The industry will accept this grudgingly, because the costs are put upon it. It may be entirely proper that it should bear the cost. However, one would have thought that this would be presented to the industry with greater consultation than it has had.
As for Parliament, it is clear that we are all taking a great deal from the Minister on faith. I have no doubt that the concept is excellent, if it is ever clearly explained to me. However, the Minister has not taken the opportunity on this occasion to explain its merits over what we have at the present time. If he had said, “Of course, I can’t do that, because that would imply that I am giving some comparative analysis that would give information to hostile elements”, I would probably have taken that in my stride, but he did not say that.
Earl Attlee
Certainly not—that would be a weak argument. I can suggest, however, that if the noble Lord would like, I can organise a briefing between him and the officials who are handling this issue. We can go into it in greater detail and ensure that both of us are happy about it.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Minister is generous with letters that whizz round after Committee proceedings, and he is always generous in his replies, although they do not always meet the exact points. I am probably obliged to take him up on his offer of what will be an enormously illuminating occasion. However, I am not clear whether it will be of any use to other Members of the Committee, or to other Members of either House of Parliament, to know that the opposition spokesman will be a bit wiser in a few days than he is at present. The noble Lord might think that that suffices, but I do not. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) greenhouse gas emissions resulting from both domestic flights and flights to European Union Member States, with greenhouse gas emissions for an equivalent journey via rail or coach.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 57 and 60 in this group. The amendments seek to enhance the principle that the Minister accepted in earlier discussions in Committee of the advantages of the openness and transparency of the CAA, and the fact that because it is in a position to garner critical information the nation would benefit significantly if that information were distributed widely.
The first amendment in the group asks the CAA to publish information comparing greenhouse gas emissions resulting from domestic and EU flights with equivalent journeys by other transport means. The public are becoming increasingly aware of their climate change obligations. As the Minister knows, a whole range of activities by other departments makes it incumbent on them or their agencies accurately to identify to the nation the nature of greenhouse gas emissions. The issue runs across government policy. It is one to which the Government in principle subscribe, and we are proud of the fact that we initiated it in government some years ago.
The most obvious issue for people when it comes to transport modes is price. It may be that the very wealthy never bother about relative prices, but I assure the noble Lord that, particularly in these days of economic stringency, large numbers of our fellow citizens look at price first when they travel. That is why low-cost airlines have done so well in recent years. It is also why long-distance coach travel has expanded. Another increasingly important consideration is the cost of their travel in terms of the increased damage to the environment. This information may not be acted on by huge numbers of people in the first years that it is given, but we know that a substantial proportion of the population is clamouring for the information at present. We also know that as anxieties about climate change increase, the public’s need for information to make them fully aware of greenhouse gas emissions will be of surpassing importance. The first amendment therefore relates to information that is not massively difficult for the Government to collect and distribute. We think that it would be very useful to people when choosing travel modes.
Amendment 57 relates to an issue that we have already debated. There is no doubt that people first choose their flight and airline. However, airports differ substantially in how easy it is to park a car, how passengers are processed, and the facilities available, and these issues count for a great deal more than when mass flying first came along. People then were grateful just for the fact that the aircraft was parked in the right place and that they had arrived at the right airport to catch it. The Government have emphasised that they are eager to see competition between airports. Indeed, we have even discussed whether we will see the Government encouraging competition between terminals, an interesting proposition that we considered during our last session in Committee. This side was not entirely convinced about it. If there is going to be competition between airports, people will need to be able to make accurate judgments about the efficacy of airports and the services they offer.
Lord Soley
Does my noble friend agree that if we have competition for airports, we should also have it for train and coach stations? Should we have the same information made available about them?
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I would be a great enthusiast for that. Whatever anxieties people might have about airports, only a small percentage of the population travels by air on a daily basis, while a large number make journeys by train every day. The only thing I would say to my noble friend is that I am not at liberty to introduce rail into the Bill, so he will have to be patient until we can tackle the rail industry with the same forthright approach that has been brought to aviation.
The last amendment in the group relates to the question of air transport services and their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. We know that airports have made considerable strides in reducing their emissions. There was a time when one could well have formed the impression that the largest aircraft taxiing on a runway was unlikely to create as much emissions as the gear being used to tow it to its bay. Sundry vehicles could be seen sauntering around airports, many of them of somewhat archaic design and certainly capable of spouting noxious fumes. We know that airports have already addressed these issues, so why should we not have the information that allows us to appreciate those achievements and thus encourage them to do even better? I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Providing information on other modes of transport is perfectly okay, but I am a little worried about any comparison between aviation and other modes of transport. Having said that, it is important that information should be readily available to passengers. It is not a criterion that dominates their thinking at the moment, but it is an important consideration if we are thinking about ameliorating greenhouse gas emissions. Different considerations necessarily apply to different modes of transport. It is right to emphasise the importance of the ordinary passenger being able to measure the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from different modes of transport.
I conclude that information is one thing, and I am all in favour of it being expanded, but comparisons between modes of transport ought not to be disseminated. Perhaps this is gilding the lily, but I think that all modes of transport can make their contribution. I am not sure that they do at the moment, but it is a continuing process and I hope that it will continue beneficially.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
I support in general terms each of the three amendments, although I shall speak especially to Amendments 55 and 60. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, in the background is the Climate Change Act, which he tells us that he proudly initiated. That requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 80% by 2050 against a 1990 baseline. That is a huge requirement. Given that the only way we know how to propel air transport is by turning hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide—and I understand that there is no prospect of any other way to propel planes through the sky—the 80% reduction has to come in other spheres. There is also the relentless increase in air transportation and the need for larger airport hubs, and so forth. Improvements in efficiency through using plastics rather than metals have a limit as to what they can achieve on that front.
If we are to get anywhere near the reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 that we have set in law, people will have to be very aware of the consequences of their decisions between different transport choices. It is entirely right that information should be provided. Whether the public are increasingly aware of their climate change responsibilities, and whether public anxiety is set to increase, we will have to wait to see. I do not notice that happening at present, because so much is unknown about the future. How that will work out is one of Donald Rumsfeld’s known unknowns.
I am one of those who thinks that there are benefits of going more slowly about things generally. Even if it takes a bit longer typically, I prefer rail travel to air travel.
There seems to be a case for providing information so that people, whatever their view about the climate change agenda, can take a rational decision. It is perfectly possible to agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said simply on the basis of the need to conserve a finite resource, oil, without signing up to the climate change agenda. Rather, one might believe that, in a finite world with an ever-growing human population, to be able to take decisions about travel that minimise outputs of carbon dioxide is a good thing in itself. In general terms, as I said, I support the amendments, and I hope that the figures to which they refer can be provided.
Lord Rotherwick
I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on his amendments and believe that what he is trying to do is right. I have gone a long way towards trying to produce green energy at home. I came up with a solar farm scheme that was totally supported by my local community—indeed, it participated in it—only to be shunned by Natural England, which suggested that the solar panels could damage the lacewing population by seducing the birds to lay their eggs on them. A month later, another oil tragedy occurred and tens of thousands of animals and birds were killed. I had fallen victim to eco-nimbyism.
On the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I would be concerned that we might expend too much money and effort recording all those statistics, when our efforts should be directed at resolving the issues. In the excellent briefings that we received in advance of this Bill, we learnt that the CAA has done work on environmental performance—we look forward to the results being published. More effort should surely go into work of that kind, and I hope that amendments such as this will not drain the resources or divert the attention of the CAA away from it.
We heard that it was hoped that continuous-climb operations would reduce fuel burn and emissions by up to 30%. We heard that free routing, which means not having to go from waypoint to waypoint, would reduce journey times, costs and emissions and would promote the flexible use of airspaces, such as military airspace when it is not being used. I hope that the French might manage to do this in their northern sector, because their military airspace there causes huge diversions. While I commend the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on his intentions, I hope that his amendment will not divert us from devoting scarce resources and energies to achieving some difference.
Lord Soley
I go further than the noble Lord in commending the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the skill with which he presented this amendment. He is right in principle, but the reason for my slightly mischievous intervention is my concern that one always finds provisions such as this being put into aviation Bills and not into train or road transport Bills. The reason for my concern is not that I am for or against the aviation industry, which after many years of kicking and prodding from people such as me has begun to get its act together on presenting its case on climate change and emissions, but that such provisions lead people to believe that you cannot fly but that you can travel as much as you like by road or rail, which is untrue.
I took great issue a few years back with front-page adverts from rail companies about high-speed rail links, saying, “Travel by train and zero emissions”. I thought, “Fantastic! Energy direct from the sun! We have no power stations using coal, oil, gas or nuclear fuel; we just direct it from the sun”. I pick up wonderful magazines, such as that of the RSPB, of which I am very fond, which tell me that we have to stop building airports and flying, and that it is really wicked. I then turn to the back pages and find between 10 and 20 adverts telling me to fly off to exotic places where I can see wonderful birds that are about to be wiped out by climate change. That is the cause of my slightly mischievous intervention on my noble friend’s amendment.
When we talk about building high-speed rail, which I am greatly in favour of, we are talking about producing concrete for a couple of thousand miles of track. To produce one tonne of concrete requires the production of one tonne of CO2—to knock off 10 or 20 minutes of the journey time to Birmingham. We cannot make the case on climate change. We can make it on other grounds and do lots of other things on climate change. I can tell the right reverend Prelate, who made a useful speech, that one piece of good news for him is that many airlines, including BA, Virgin and Air New Zealand, are now flying with a mix of fuels in their tank that includes algae and other environmentally friendly fuels. Algae have a good future. They will never be an entire replacement—they will probably be about 20%—but they are making a difference.
Returning to the amendment, before I get pulled up, the principle is right but my preferred way to address this is that every transport form, road rail or air, ought to be instructed clearly to drive down emissions. That is what matters. I do not object to the amendment in principle, but it has to apply to rail stations and bus stations as well. If I stand in King’s Cross or Euston, I know that it is not oxygen that is being belched out of the train engines or the taxis with their engines running waiting to pick up people; it is CO2. I would prefer that we said that we should drive down emissions across the board. For the past 20 or 30 years, I have never doubted the dangers of climate change—I have written about it from time to time—but we have to be realistic about it. At the moment, the way in which we measure it is not terribly accurate and has a long way to go. All forms of transport—rail, road, air and anything else—should drive down emissions. If we want to put up something to say what we think emissions are in airports, I have no problem with that in principle; I would just extend it to other areas.
Earl Attlee
I will begin with Amendment 57, because it raises different issues from the other two amendments. I am aware, however, that similarly worded amendments were tabled in Committee in the House of Commons and defeated in a Division.
Before turning to the detailed points made by your Lordships, it is important that I emphasise the function of the clause that the amendment would alter. Clause 83 gives the CAA a new and important statutory role in promoting better public information about the aviation industry’s performance. This is intended to improve choice in the market and address what economists call asymmetric information, in that passengers do not always have the information they need to compare the services on offer.
Giving consumers more information on service quality provided by airports and airlines will help to ensure that markets deliver consumer benefits in practice. These issues fall fairly and squarely within the remit that Clause 83 would give to the CAA. Indeed, these may well be issues that the CAA will wish to focus on, though I would not wish to pre-empt its consideration and consultation on the use of these functions.
In our previous sitting, we had a good debate about immigration and baggage handling, but no noble Lord has raised those issues today, so I shall not speak about them unless a noble Lord would like me to.
On Amendments 57 and 60, it is important to emphasise the importance of the clauses that the amendments would alter. I fully agree about the benefits that can be gained by giving passengers clearer and better information about the environmental impact of their travel choices, including the carbon impact. We are committed to ensuring that the transport sector plays a full part in delivering the emissions reductions needed to meet our Climate Change Act targets. The Government have already set stretching, legally binding carbon budgets which will see a 50% reduction in emissions by 2025, compared to 1990 levels, on a path towards an 80% reduction by 2050.
On 1 December, the Government published the Carbon Plan, setting out how we will meet the UK’s legally binding carbon reduction targets over the next two decades and beyond. The Carbon Plan details our ambitious plans to deliver major reductions in carbon emissions from the transport sector and from other sectors over the coming decades. It sets out a radical vision for the almost complete decarbonisation of cars and vans by 2050.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I thought that the Minister’s response did justice to an excellent debate, and I congratulate him on the constructive way in which he identified our concerns and the nation’s concerns about the issues and the way in which they need to be tackled. I will certainly bear in mind the fact that he considers that I have addressed the amendment to the wrong part of the Bill. That is easily corrected and I am therefore very grateful for the information.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is right about the question of information, but he must know that the premise behind economics and intelligent rational economic decision-taking is perfect information. We all know that perfect information is extremely difficult to get on almost any economic choice but what is clear is that the more information that is available to the individual, the more rational their choice can prove to be. That is the thinking behind the amendments and, as the Minister indicated, it is government thinking in crucial areas with regard to transport. We have no doubt that when it comes to emissions, transport has competitors, but it is one of the more significant areas of economic activity that present a threat to the environment. I was greatly encouraged by his response.
I was grateful, too, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for his endorsement of the amendments. His amendment, like mine, will suffer from not being in the right place or from not quite tuning with the Minister’s preferences, but he has occasioned an illustration of how the Government are tackling this matter. I hope that this also betokens an unremitting requirement upon aviation to be clear about its emissions and the strategy that it is adopting to reduce them.
In response to my noble friend Lord Soley, the reason why we put the other transport forms into the amendment is obvious enough: this is an aviation Bill but we thought that we would incur a calumny and be criticised for being desperately partial if we addressed ourselves to the demands upon aviation with no indication at all of our anxieties about other forms of transport—not least because there are areas such as high-speed rail and improved rail services that are directly competitive with air in a way that was not the case 20 to 25 years ago.
The great friend of mine, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who is sadly no longer with us, enjoyed the privilege of being my predecessor as Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. I always said that I could never fill his boots, and that was literally so because I could not get them on. He had many extraordinary attributes but there was one in particular that I always admired: on the final afternoon before every Recess he would depart from this place, particularly in the summer, wearing the right kind of gear, and announce to everyone that he was catching the TGV to Avignon, where he had a home. I was always in complete envy of him for that journey, particularly because it was by train and would not have been possible a decade or so previously. There is no doubt that the TGV to Avignon is competitive with services from Paris to Avignon or to Marseilles by air. That is why we need a comparison, and not least a fair one, because we ought to be able to guarantee that the various transport modes are measured in ways that allow the consumer to make an accurate choice.
Lord Rosser
“( ) the full cost of travel for users of air transport services, including all relevant surcharges such users would be expected to pay.”
Lord Rosser
Clause 83(1) requires the Civil Aviation Authority to publish,
“such information and advice as it considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting users of air transport services to compare—
(a) air transport services provided to or from a civil airport;
(b) services and facilities provided at a civil airport in the United Kingdom;
(c) services and facilities provided elsewhere in the United Kingdom and used, or likely to be used, in connection with the use of air transport services provided to or from a civil airport”.
This information is to be provided for the benefit of users of air transport services, no doubt in the light of the Civil Aviation Authority’s primary and overriding duty under Clause 1 to carry out its functions,
“in a manner which it considers will further the interests of users of air transport services”,
including in relation to the cost of current airport operation services.
Taking into account that reference to cost, the amendment adds an additional requirement on the Civil Aviation Authority to publish information and advice to assist users of air transport services to compare the full cost of travel for users of air transport services, including all relevant surcharges such users would be expected to pay. Indeed, one might think it surprising that the specific duty to make such information relating to cost available to users is not already in the Bill and is apparently left entirely to the discretion of the CAA, since the Bill says that the CAA should publish such information and advice as it considers appropriate.
The issue of charges and surcharges when travelling by air is increasingly important to those who are travelling, not least because some of the extra charges or potential extra charges are not always as clear as they might be. What might therefore seem to be a relatively cheap budget airline flight may not necessarily prove to be the case as the actual cost of travel can prove much higher than the basic fare quoted by the airline operator—indeed, in certain circumstances, more than if travelling with a mainstream operator.
Reference was made at Second Reading to a survey published in May in a national newspaper that showed that one well known budget airline’s high-season rate for a 20-kilogramme bag to go in the hold was £70 return, and if you did not book online but turned up at the airport with your bag the fee was £130 one way. The survey of budget airlines’ add-on charges showed that it could cost as much as £110 to change the name on a ticket and £120 because your bag weighed 3 kilogrammes over the limit. It also showed that add-on charges apply to a multitude of things covering bags, seat reservations, credit card fees, name-change fees, flight-change fees and fees for taking on special items such as golf clubs. Indeed, when the survey tested costs for a one-week return flight to Malaga for one person taking a 20-kilogramme bag and paying by credit card, it found add-on costs ranging from just under £35 to £82, depending on the low-cost airline operator.
The credit card surcharges to which I have made reference are a significant money-spinner for the airlines. The Office of Fair Trading has said that UK consumers spent £300 million on payment surcharges to airlines in 2010. Even though there is an attempt to clamp down on excessive card fees from the end of this year, there is evidence that airlines may seek to get around that by referring to the charge in future as an administration fee related to costs associated with the booking system.
The purpose of the amendment is not to pass judgment on the apparent proliferation of add-on charges but simply to say that such information on the level of charges and the many different things that they cover, which many might have thought would have been included in the basic fare or not charged for at all, should be made clear so that those using air transport services are able to make accurate comparisons of the full cost of travel, or potential full cost of travel, and not get caught out by a charge that they were not anticipating and of which they were unaware. Indeed, determining the add-on costs is not a straightforward or easy business for those travelling or thinking of doing so, given that some airlines charge flat-rate fees while others levy charges based on the cost of the flight.
The figures that I have quoted reveal a wide disparity in the level and incidence of such charges, and one would have thought it highly appropriate for the Civil Aviation Authority to have a role in ensuring that such information was readily available in an impartial and objective form as part of its duty under Clause 83 to provide information for the benefit of users of air transport services. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend without any hesitation. Let us not beat about the bush: one of the worst offenders in this area is Ryanair which, if it continues for much longer as it has been, will have a big photograph of its founder on the way in to the airport and you will have to pay to bow to it. He is adding costs and charges that are totally unreasonable. He is by far the worst offender but there are others too. The time is long overdue when all the costs of a flight should be properly advertised. It is very important. We are expecting people at the moment to book tickets when they do not really know what the full cost is and, as my noble friend has indicated, when they get to the airport they suddenly discover that the cost is infinitely more than they thought it would be, because of extra bags and taking special items on board. A short while ago we had a dreadful incident with regard to wheelchairs. All this is utterly appalling and utterly wrong.
I do not think we should mess about on these issues. All airlines should be made to set out all the charges that are imposed on customers so that they know in advance what they are going to have to pay for their tickets. My noble friend’s amendment is wholly good. If the Minister cannot accept it as it is, I hope that he can at least ensure that it goes into the Bill in some form. These practices need to be stopped.
Lord Rotherwick
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on his amendment. We all have friends who have encountered this problem. When they think they have secured low-cost tickets, they suddenly come across these hideous charges. My wife uses low-cost airlines and constantly comes across these problems. The matter needs to be addressed.
Lord Bradshaw
Perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on what he has said. I do not know whether the amendment is acceptable in this form, but I look forward to seeing something at Report stage that will safeguard the interests of consumers.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the amendment addresses two concerns, both of which I share. I can recall very well the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, on precisely these issues, and I hope that I gave a positive response at the time. One of the issues is the ability of the CAA to publish comparable information on air transport service pricing, and the other is that of showing the full costs of travel and surcharges. In responding, I will show that the first is already provided for in the Bill and that the second is being addressed in other ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right to say that the CAA should have a role. Clause 83 is widely drawn and thus gives the CAA a new and important statutory role in promoting better public information about the aviation industry’s performance. It imposes a duty on the authority either to publish, or to arrange for the aviation sector to publish, consumer information and advice that it considers appropriate to help people compare aviation prices and services. The judgment of what is appropriate will be a matter for the regulator, which is required to prepare and consult on a statement of its policy with regard to the use of these functions. The information that Clause 83 requires the CAA to publish, if it considers that appropriate, is defined in a way that includes price comparison data, and the proposed amendment will not therefore add anything to what the CAA will be able to do. For that reason, the amendment is not necessary, and the Government oppose it.
In the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, expressed his concerns about the full costs of travel and surcharges. I will therefore set out what the Government are doing to address the issue. On the full cost of travel, consumers are already protected throughout the EU by Article 23 of EU Regulation 1008/2008, which is sometimes referred to as the ticket transparency regulation. It requires airlines to display at all times their prices inclusive of all unavoidable and foreseeable taxes, fees and charges. It also requires any optional services such as checked baggage or priority boarding to be offered on an opt-in basis only, and that the prices for these optional extras are clearly and unambiguously displayed at the start of the booking process. In addition to displaying fully inclusive prices, the regulation requires a breakdown of the price into the fare and any taxes, charges, surcharges and fees where these are added. These services should be displayed clearly and unambiguously at the start of the booking process. These requirements are designed to ensure that consumers are able to compare the price of flights across a number of airlines and to ensure that they select only the optional extras they require.
Lord Soley
I am slightly worried about the direction of travel of the Minister’s comments. It is one thing to say that they must publish information under Article 23; it is another to say that they are right up front so that a passenger knows. I do not believe that Ryanair has been giving true and full information to people in a way that enables them to assess the full cost, rather than flicking over it in the small print—although I accept that the print will not necessarily be that small. I would be happier if there were some proactive way to intervene—for the CAA, or whoever, to look at it and say, “This is utterly unacceptable and has to stop”. As far as I know—I have not tried it myself recently but this is what I have been told by passengers recently—this is still happening with Ryanair.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords share the noble Lord’s view of that airline but, on the issue of publication, it is up to the CAA to determine what to publish, taking into consideration the results of the consultation.
On the second issue of payment surcharges, like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I share consumers’ concerns about the high level of payment surcharges applied by some companies and that often people are not aware of the level of these charges until almost at the end of the booking process. That makes it difficult to compare prices and shop around for a good deal. It is not right that a business should try to hide the true cost of its services by implying that its prices are made up of elements beyond its control when they are not.
Your Lordships will be aware that consumers are already protected against misleading pricing under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. Additionally, on 23 December 2011 the Government announced our intention to consult on implementing the payment surcharges provision of the consumer rights directive ahead of the June 2014 deadline. We intend to issue a consultation in the summer to seek views on the timing of implementation and other details on how the provision should be applied. Responses to the consultation will inform our decision on timing and our guidance to businesses.
I hope that it is clear from what I have said that the intent of the amendment is already implicit in the primary duty and that effective mechanisms are already in place to secure the result intended. Given that, I hope that at the appropriate time the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his reply, which I thought was going to be even more helpful than it proved to be, although I do not question his desire for transparency to be brought into charges and surcharges levied on air transport users.
I thought I heard the Minister say—when or shortly after he referred to the article under EU regulations—that the Civil Aviation Authority was of the view that airlines were complying with the regulation. If I understood correctly what the Minister said, and if the CAA is basically happy with the current situation, my only comment is that Clause 83(1), with its requirement for the CAA to publish or arrange for publication of information to assist users of air transport services, will not have any great force if the CAA considers that the situation is already satisfactory in relation to making the charges and surcharges known.
However, the extremely helpful contributions of my noble friend Lord Soley and the noble Lords, Lord Rotherwick and Lord Bradshaw, indicated that the current situation is not satisfactory and that charges are not easily and readily available to users of air transport services. For that reason, I feel somewhat concerned by the nature of the Minister’s reply. I get the feeling that the Civil Aviation Authority thinks that, in essence, the situation at the current time is satisfactory. Clearly, from the comments made in this debate, and from reports in the newspapers of individuals who have fallen foul of the surcharges, it is not. If the Government do not like the wording of the amendment, perhaps they will go away and produce wording that they think is appropriate. It is a test of how determined they are to be on the side of users of air transport services.
The Minister may argue that the issues are covered by this or that legislation or by something in the Bill, but Clause 83(1) makes no reference to charges or surcharges. Clearly there is still a problem here. This is an opportunity for the Government to show their determination to be on the side of the users of air transport services, who have suffered from these additional charges. The Government can show that by making it even more explicit than they believe it to be in the Bill that it is a duty and a responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority to make sure that the full cost of travel for users of air transport services, including all relevant surcharges that such users will be expected to pay, is available through CAA channels or directives. The CAA would be regarded as an impartial and objective body that would give reliable information rather than information that might be open to more than one interpretation.
I beg the Minister to think again about this. The issue is about making information clear and stopping people finding additional charges that they did not expect. It ought to be possible—I argue that it is necessary—to make sure that the Civil Aviation Authority, with its powers under the Bill, should provide this service for air transport users. The Government should make it very clear in the Bill that that is part of the CAA’s role and that this is the kind of information that it should provide in a clear, objective and impartial form that is easily available to those who want to use air transport services. This is about the importance that the Government attach to highlighting this problem and dealing with it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I reiterate to the Committee that the Government accept that there is a problem. We are determined to deal with it but we need to do so in the right way. The noble Lord asked me about what I said about Article 23. Perhaps it is worth carefully going over it because it was carefully drafted. The CAA has been working with airlines to ensure compliance with this requirement and considers that the airlines that it worked with are now compliant with Article 23. That implies that the airlines that it did not work with are not compliant.
Lord Soley
That is the point: some of them are not. I could name Ryanair, but there are others too. Some of this is down to the psychological trick where, as you go through your booking form, usually on a computer, you tick the “something extra”. Each one on its own seems small; you get to the position where you enter your card number and book the flight; you say, “All right, I will go ahead”; and then you add it all up afterwards and it is painful. My noble friend Lord Rosser is right: we need to get much tougher on this.
I have not looked at Article 23. I will do so and I am grateful to the Minister for drawing it to our attention, but I have a strong feeling that unless there is a tough ruling on this we will not get what we want, or not for a very long time.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s analysis. However, it is open to and up to the CAA to determine how it will publicise the situation. It may choose to report on the headline price of a ticket offered by an airline and then say, “But just before you click, you will find out that it is three times more expensive”. It is a matter for the CAA to say how it is going to do this.
It may be helpful if I say what the CAA is already doing in this area. The CAA has researched the fees and charges of the top 24 airlines operating from the UK, including the cost of paying by credit card, booking an assigned seat and taking various weights of hold luggage, and has published a comparison table. This table provides consumers shopping around with the ability to see what charges they might face, and the ability to use that information to help them decide which airline to travel with, based on their individual needs. The CAA has also recently updated all the information and advice available to passengers through its website, in order to give pre-shopping advice as well as advice on resolving travel problems.
I am aware that I myself have never thought of looking at the CAA’s website when considering purchasing an airline ticket. Perhaps there is a lack of knowledge among consumers that this information is available.
Lord Soley
I do not think that the Minister is alone in not looking at the CAA website before booking his ticket; that is fairly common for most people. It is clear that the CAA is hearing this debate now. Could we ask it, through the Minister, to report to him on what it is doing so that he can let the Committee know? It is the sleight of hand by some of these airlines that needs to be addressed. As a Member of this House, I would like a very clear response from the CAA about what it is going to do because the situation is unsatisfactory.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am fairly confident that the CAA will be listening very carefully to what the Committee has to say.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his further comments. It is fair to say that he did not address my point that Clause 83(1), which covers the CAA publishing information, does not actually lay a specific requirement on the CAA to cover information on the costs of travel, including all relevant surcharges; it says that the CAA must publish what “it considers appropriate”. Surely it would be much happier for the Bill to make it clearer that the CAA is expected to publish this information on charges and surcharges, for the benefit of users of air transport services. I am genuinely sorry that the Minister has not been prepared to move on this. Bearing in mind that he has accepted that there is a problem, it is not satisfactory to seek to argue that it is covered elsewhere, when the opportunity is here in the Bill to ensure that there is a clear responsibility for the CAA to act for the benefit of air transport users in respect of charges and surcharges. It would not cost the Government anything to put it in, but it would make it very clear to everybody that this was a role for the CAA. Frankly, in the light of what the Minister has said—he accepts that it is a problem, and he seeks to argue that it is covered in other parts of the Bill or in other regulations—why does he resist putting it in the Bill, clearly and emphatically, in the way that I suggest?
Despite the further representations that my noble friend Lord Soley and I have made, it is clear that the Minister is not going to budge on this one even though, as I say, it is difficult to understand what the difficulty is. If that is the Minister’s stance, there is little else that I can do at this stage but withdraw my amendment, but obviously we shall have to consider whether we wish to pursue this matter further on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
I apologise for not being here earlier. I hope that I am in order in asking the Minister one question arising from Clause 83(1) on the reference to civil airports and all the divisions of the clause that relate to them. He will be aware that some military airports accept civil flights. What will be the position in that case?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend has questioned whether Clause 83 should stand part of the Bill without having given notice on the Marshalled List. That does not put me in a very good position to answer his question. However, I am very happy to write to him.
Lord Rotherwick
“Provision of information about aviation
(1) The CAA must publish, or arrange for the publication of, such information and advice as it considers appropriate for the purposes of assisting users of general and business aviation services to compare—
(a) airport operation services and facilities provided for general and business aviation at a civil airport in the United Kingdom;(b) services and facilities provided elsewhere in the United Kingdom and used, or likely to be used, in connection with general and business aviation.(2) The CAA must publish guidance and advice with a view to improving the standard of such services for general and business aviation users of airport operation services and facilities.
(3) The CAA must take such steps as it considers practicable to keep under review the information, guidance and other advice that is published under this section by the CAA or other persons.
(4) For the purposes of carrying out its functions under this section, the CAA may carry out, commission or provide financial or other support for research.
(5) In this section “user”, in relation to a service provided for general and business aviation, includes flight training providers, air taxi services, air ambulances, private pilots and passengers and operators of general and business aviation aircraft.
(6) In this section references to users of a general and business aviation service or facility include potential users of such services and facilities.”
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I made a declaration of interest earlier on. Clause 83 requires the CAA to provide information about airport services and facilities for air transport users. This is a very valuable aspect of the Bill and it ought to be extended to cover the direct users of the airport operation services and facilities from the general and business aviation sector, the GBA. Now that I say it, that sounds a bit like GBH, but it is not. Amendment 58 endeavours to do that.
By way of introduction to my amendment, I invite the Committee to look at the Bill. It is unambitious because it is so limited in scope. The opportunity was there and the groundwork had been laid for a Bill that would have declared to Europe that Britain was open for aviation business in all its forms and was ready and able to grasp the economic and business opportunities that that could bring, so I feel that I can offer no more than a muted cheer for the Bill.
Where the Bill most needs improvement is in its potential to recognise and make provision for the GBA. However, it concentrates on the economic regulation of a small number of dominant airports and on looking after the interests of airline passengers and owners of air cargo. That is commendable, hence the two muted cheers, but my concern is for the interest ignored in the Bill: the GBA. As I said previously, 96% of UK-registered aircraft are ignored by the Bill’s principal provisions. The Minister has accepted that the Bill is limited in scope. He said that it,
“seeks primarily to provide for better regulation of our airports and is not designed to be a comprehensive overhaul of our legislation”.—[Official Report, 27/6/12; col. GC 143.]
Had the Bill grasped the opportunity to perform that overhaul, it would have deserved three hearty cheers.
With my small number of amendments, I seek to highlight the importance and needs of the GBA, to probe the Government on their attitudes towards this important sector and to introduce some helpful amendments. I feel that I have already made some progress. On day one of this Committee the Minister said that,
“the Government absolutely recognise the valuable contribution of the general and business aviation sector … It also has growing economic importance for the European manufacturing industry”.—[Official Report, 27/6/12; col. GC 144.]
With that recognition placed on record, I am encouraged that I may be able to seduce the Government into bringing forward an amendment that will make a useful contribution to the welfare of the GBA sector.
Part 2 of the Bill includes 10 clauses under the banner, “Provision of information about aviation”. The first of those, Clause 83, is entitled, “Information for benefit of users of air transport services”. My proposition is that there is information that could be of great benefit to the direct users of airport operation services and facilities from the GBA sector. The CAA is best placed to collect and collate that information and make it available. That would be of benefit to the market.
I am sorry to say that GBA users are often at best neglected and at worst positively discriminated against by operators of airports predominantly serving commercial aviation. My amendment would address that failing. In an information age, it seems archaic that there is no single source of advice for the GBA sector. There is no CAA website allowing GBA users to compare facilities and services at different airfields. Ideally, such information should be available on all airfields, but even if the scope of this proposed new clause were restricted to dominant airfields it would still represent a significant step forward in openness and transparency, allowing better informed decisions to be made.
The new clause, cast in exactly the same terms as the Government’s Clause 83, would require the CAA to,
“publish guidance and advice with a view to improving the standard of … services facilities for general and business aviation users of”,
airports. I would like that to include a whole range of airfields, but if that would be a step too far I would settle for its scope being restricted to dominant airports. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Rotherwick and, I think, my noble friend Lord Goschen, who is not in his place, I was much disappointed by the Minister’s replies to amendments about civil aviation earlier in our consideration of the Bill the other day. I hope that he will be a bit more forthcoming in response to the latest amendment from my noble friend, which has my strong support.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling the amendment. We had an informed debate about general and business aviation on the first day of Committee, and I committed to meeting my noble friend Lord Rotherwick and his team to discuss the interests of general and business aviation further. I am sorry that my noble friends were disappointed by my response on that occasion.
The proposed new clause seeks to replicate the information publishing requirements being imposed on the Civil Aviation Authority by Clause 83. However, the Bill already covers general and business aviation interests where the flights include passengers, cargo or both. So, for example, where a corporate flight is carrying business passengers, the proposed duty under Clause 83 will extend to these situations because the passengers comprise users of air transport services. In these cases, the CAA functions will allow it to correct the asymmetric information market failure that I alluded to when we debated Clause 83 in all instances where there are users of air transport services.
The Bill does not include either the part of general aviation that is for non-commercial leisure use or the part that comprises commercial services that do not involve the carriage of cargo or passengers. Examples of these are crop spraying, flight training and surveying—I suspect that that is a concern of my noble friend. The amendment extends a duty to publish information beyond passengers and cargo. However, the market for general aviation is more transparent than that for the ordinary consumer. General aviation users comprise trained and licensed pilots with ready access to networks and sources of information. Comprehensive information on what facilities are available to pilots at each UK-licensed airport and airfield is already freely available online from, for example, the UKGA website. Much more information is also available through published flight guides or from the relevant aerodromes.
A further duty on the CAA, as the amendment proposes, to take into account the reasonable interests of general and business aviation is therefore unlikely to make a material difference to the information that is available to those airport service users. Against that background, we do not think it appropriate to give specific prominence to the interests of general and business aviation or, indeed, to any other specific sector. Moreover, we consider that such a duty would impose an unreasonable financial burden on the CAA and the aviation industry. The burden would fall either on the aviation industry generally, which would not be equitable, or on the general aviation community, which as I have explained has access to the information that it needs. For these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for his support. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I think I will need to read it as well. The overall principle that I am trying to establish is that the CAA should have more regard to championing the cause of general and business aviation. At present, the sector does not feel that it has a champion to look after it, and this is but a small area in which it has concerns. However, I thank my noble friend once again for his kind words and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Access for disabled and reduced mobility air passengers
The Secretary of State and the CAA will produce an annual report on disabled and reduced mobility air transport passenger experiences of airport operation services and air transport services which must include evidence on the extent to which airport operations and air transport services are compliant with relevant legislation, regulations and codes of practice for the time being in force.”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this amendment would insert into the Bill a new clause on access for disabled and reduced mobility air passengers. It would require the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority to produce an annual report,
“which must include evidence on the extent to which airport operations and air transport services are compliant with relevant legislation, regulations and codes of practice”,
as well as information on the experiences of disabled and reduced mobility passengers of airport operation services and air transport services. Passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility need to be given appropriate assistance at airports, especially when passing through security. The Department for Transport’s decision to abolish the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which gave advice on the experiences of disabled people that enabled transport provision to be improved, has meant the loss of a valuable source of advice to airports and policy-makers.
The Civil Aviation Authority has a primary duty to carry out its functions in a manner that furthers the interests of users of air transport services. However, Clause 1(5) states that:
“If, in a particular case, the CAA considers that there is a conflict—
(a) between the interests of different classes of user of air transport services, or
(b) between the interests of users of air transport services in different matters mentioned in subsection (1)”—
—that is, the,
“range, availability, continuity, cost and quality of airport operation services”—
the Civil Aviation Authority’s duty under that subsection in those circumstances is,
“to carry out the functions in a manner which it considers will further such of those interests as it thinks best”.
Lord Clinton-Davis
My noble friend has addressed a very important issue. I speak as someone who is partially disabled. Some sort of annual report is desirable. I am not sure whether it has to be dealt with in legislation, but there ought to be a clear obligation to ensure that the requirement is enforced. I cannot understand why there should be any opposition to that. I do not care whether there is a requirement in law, but there ought to be an understanding, if there is not a requirement in law, that that should be invoked.
People who are disabled or have reduced mobility are highly important passengers. At the moment, their requirements are not properly met. Therefore the proposition advanced in the amendment ought to be implemented forthwith. Again, disabled and reduced mobility passengers are vital and should not be overlooked. I hope that the Minister will properly address the important point made by my noble friend Lord Rosser.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, of course the Government agree that it is important that airlines and airports are sensitive to the needs of disabled people and comply with the European regulation which has been enacted to protect the interests of people with disabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has asked a specific question about how the CAA balances its duties under Clause 1 with the needs of disabled passengers. The answer is that the CAA has to strike a balance. The reason for that is that disabled passengers are also users of air transport services, so they need to be taken into consideration.
Unfortunately, however, I cannot support the amendment for several reasons. I must highlight concern about how it would work in practice: my first concern is practical. The amendment is drafted in such a way as to put the obligation to produce an annual report jointly on the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority. I have significant doubt about linking together the regulator and the Secretary of State in that way. The aviation regulator and the national enforcement body for European aviation consumer legislation is separate from the Secretary of State in respect of ensuring compliance with EU law, and the amendment could be seen to compromise the CAA’s independence in that role.
The second reason why I cannot support the amendment is that effective mechanisms are already in place to secure the commendable result intended. I say in answer to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Clinton-Davis that the CAA already publishes an annual report and corporate plan and makes a considerable amount of consumer information available on its website. An extra annual report on a specific area of legislation, on top of those more wide-ranging reports, would be disproportionate. The CAA is already committed to the principles of better regulation and aims to be as transparent as possible in all its work, including compliance with and enforcement of consumer protection legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the future of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The Government have gone out to public consultation on the future of the DPTAC. The consultation closes in September. The CAA continues to develop its capacity to help consumers and has advanced the setting-up of a new consumer advisory panel to act as a critical friend of the regulator as it moves forward in putting consumers at the heart of its regulatory efforts.
Lord Clinton-Davis
The noble Lord explained that there was an obligation on the CAA to do something like this. Do ordinary consumers have the ability to understand the obligations of the CAA at present? That is all-important; I am not sure that they have.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. In a debate on an earlier amendment I admitted that I had not looked at the information that the CAA published on issues such as fares. I also admit that I have never looked at the CAA website, and I suspect that most passengers never look at it. However, several organisations look after the needs of disabled people, and I have no doubt that they will look very closely at all the information that is published by the CAA.
Lord Clinton-Davis
That is not good enough. There is an obligation on everyone in this Committee to understand precisely how disabled people, or those with reduced mobility, are protected. It is absolutely important.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if the noble Lord will let me finish my speech, he may gain a better understanding. Also, I will send him more details by post.
Noble Lords will know that the CAA announced in April that the chair of the new panel would be Keith Richards. Mr Richards has considerable experience of disabled air passenger issues, having been chair of the aviation working group at the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee for many years, as well as a former head of consumer affairs at the Association of British Travel Agents. The CAA and the new panel chair will need time to develop a relationship, but, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the experience of disabled passengers at airports and on planes will be of considerable interest to the new chair. I suggest that it would be better to allow the new CAA consumer panel to have the space to develop how it will go about its work, and how best to support and inform passengers, than to impose an obligation on it in the way suggested by the noble Lord’s amendment. In view of this, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment in due course.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for his very helpful contribution. I do not see the amendment, as the Minister implied with his last comment that he sees it, as imposing a great burden in future on the CAA. If part of the problem is that the Secretary of State is also involved and the Minister does not think that appropriate, that issue could be addressed in a further amendment at a later stage.
The Minister did not address the enhanced, more important and more influential role that the CAA will surely have under the Bill, which gives it additional responsibilities and lays on it a general duty to carry out its functions in a way that will further the interests of users of air transport services. Simply to say that it already produces a report perhaps does not do justice to the enhanced role and greater importance and influence of the CAA that appears to be provided for in this legislation.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am not without sympathy for the noble Lord’s amendment. It would be a bit much to ask the Civil Aviation Authority to produce a separate, free-standing annual report on this matter, but might it be possible to require it to put a relevant passage into its general annual report, which is already published regularly?
Lord Rosser
I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. If the Minister had stood up and said that—unless he is going to say that such a passage is already in the annual report from the CAA, in which case I suspect that it would need to be expanded in view of its enhanced role—I might well have felt that it was a move in the direction of the amendment. My concern is not so much about whether the report is a separate document as about whether the issue is covered and addressed by the CAA. If it can address that properly and fully in an existing annual report, I am sure that that would go a long way towards meeting the point that I have made in the amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about the difficult point of the CAA balancing the needs of different users. As I have already said, they are in the same group—that is, users of air transport services. However, there is nothing to prevent the CAA focusing on different groups of users in exercising its information duties. I will write to the noble Lord in greater and more carefully considered detail on these points. I can see that he is very interested in exactly how the legislation works. The matter is far too technical for me to be able to respond orally, and I am sure that it is much better handled in writing.
Lord Rosser
As I said, my main concern is not that there is a separate document but that the issue is covered. Can the Minister give assurances that in annual reports from the CAA—he has expressed his concern about the Secretary of State also being involved—the issues that we have been discussing can be addressed under the new powers that the CAA will have under the Bill?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think it is much wiser for me to confine all that to my letter to the noble Lord.
Lord Rosser
I am happy to accept that, if the Minister will address the matter in his response. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“( ) The Competition Appeal Tribunal may allow an appeal under paragraph 1 only to the extent that it is satisfied that the decision appealed against was wrong on one or more of the following grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;(b) that the decision was wrong in law; (c) that an error was made in the exercise of a discretion.”
“( ) When deciding an appeal under paragraph 1 (including giving directions), the Competition Appeal Tribunal must have regard to the matters in respect of which duties are imposed on the CAA by section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.”
Earl Attlee
“(d) that a person (“P”) acting in the course of a business carried on by P does not in the United Kingdom facilitate the making available of flight accommodation by another person in circumstances in which one or more prescribed arrangements relating to payment apply, unless P meets the condition in subsection (1A).”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) scheme, which is run by the Civil Aviation Authority, has been effectively protecting holidaymakers from the insolvency of travel companies selling package holidays including a flight since the 1970s.
Last year, 18.5 million passengers were protected by the ATOL scheme, with 47,000 being repatriated and 146,000 receiving refunds when their travel companies became insolvent.
However, we need to modernise the scheme so that it better reflects the way that holidays are now bought and sold in today’s market, particularly with the increasing importance of the internet. For example, it has become increasingly difficult for consumers to know whether their holiday is a package holiday, and so protected under the ATOL scheme, or is comprised of individually sold elements that do not have full ATOL protection. The framework for businesses selling holidays including a flight could also benefit from being clearer and more consistent.
That is why on 30 April 2012, the Government introduced new ATOL regulations made under existing powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to provide greater clarity for consumers about whether their holiday is protected by bringing flight-plus holidays sold by tour operators and travel agents into the scheme. Those are holidays which look like a package but which sit outside the legal definition of a package. From October, consumers will also receive an ATOL certificate whenever they purchase an ATOL-protected product confirming that their holiday is protected, increasing clarity about the scheme’s coverage.
Clause 94 would allow those reforms to go further by broadening the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations under Section 71 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 so that holidays sold by airlines could be brought into the ATOL scheme, as far as is consistent with EU law, as well as those arranged on what is called an agent-for-consumer basis.
The proposals were consulted on last summer. Bringing agent-for-consumer holidays into the ATOL scheme was strongly supported as a way of improving consumer clarity and ending a potential way for businesses to avoid the scheme. Bringing holidays sold by airlines into the scheme received mixed views. It was not supported by airlines, which argued that it would be disproportionate regulation. However, on balance, the Government decided that they should have the power to do that, because it could create a more consistent and coherent framework for businesses as well as further improving consumer clarity about the scheme’s scope. Should the clause become law, the Government would expect to consult stakeholders in 2013 on new draft regulations to give effect to these changes. The proposals were welcomed by both sides in discussion of the Bill in the House of Commons and in our debate at Second Reading.
While preparing for the introduction of the new ATOL regulations on 30 April, two circumstances were identified that might allow some businesses to avoid the ATOL scheme. Without addressing these, the objective of providing greater clarity for consumers and more consistent regulation for businesses could be compromised. It is not possible for these issues to be resolved through further secondary legislation, as the powers in Section 71 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, even if amended by Clause 94, are not sufficient. For this reason, the Government have brought forward Amendments 63A to 63D. I shall deal first with Amendments 63A and 63B.
A model used by some businesses in arranging a flight-plus holiday is to facilitate the purchase of a flight; that is, purchasing a seat on a flight from an airline at the request of a consumer. By acting in this way, a business may not be covered by the current ATOL scheme and is not making available a seat on a flight by acting on behalf of the airline. The business’s way of trading may also not be that of an agent for the consumer, and so it would not be covered by the ATOL scheme if it were to be amended under the powers extended by Clause 94. However, it could be difficult for consumers to tell when the purchase of a holiday including a flight was being facilitated and sold outside the ATOL scheme, as the holiday purchase could be identical to those which are protected under the ATOL scheme. To reduce the risk of confusion for consumers and to ensure that the facilitating model does not provide a way for businesses to avoid the ATOL scheme, Amendments 63A and 63B would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to require businesses that facilitate making available flight accommodation to have an ATOL licence. Although this may appear to be a broad power, it is important to note that it can be used only where a business makes or receives a payment in relation to the flight accommodation or facilitates the making or receiving of a payment.
I turn to Amendments 63C and 63D. The current ATOL regulation-making power in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 allows goods, services and other benefits such as hotel accommodation or car hire to be regulated when they are supplied in connection with a contract for a flight that is subject to the ATOL scheme. That is the basis for including flight-plus holidays in the ATOL scheme. However, some businesses could argue that as any hotel accommodation, for example, purchased by a consumer alongside the flight is supplied on an entirely separate contract from that for the flight, which might be clearly stated in their terms and conditions, the holiday is not subject to the ATOL scheme. To address this, Amendment 63C would allow future ATOL regulations to specify the circumstances where goods, services and other benefits purchased alongside a flight are to be regulated under the ATOL scheme rather than limiting them to where they applied in connection to the contract for the flight.
Finally, Amendment 63D is a consequential amendment to ensure that identical wording to that used in Amendment 63C is used in another part of Clause 94 concerned with goods, services and other benefits that are within the ATOL scheme. Subject to the passage of the Bill, the Government’s intention is to consult fully in 2013 with stakeholders on the potential use of the powers in Clause 94 as drafted. An impact assessment will also be produced as part of that consultation. Should the amendment to Clause 94 that I have outlined today become law, that consultation and the accompanying impact assessment will also include the use of the powers in the amendments.
To conclude, without these amendments there is a risk that the achievement of the Government's objectives for ATOL reform—to provide greater clarity for consumers about the scope of the scheme and a more consistent regulatory framework for business—may be compromised. The amendments are intended to ensure that those objectives can be achieved as envisaged. It is not the Government’s intention that that should lead to a significant extension of the ATOL scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Minister is certainly correct in saying that the extension of the ATOL scheme contained in the Bill has won the support of both sides in the other House. We also indicated at Second Reading how much we approved of this extension of the ATOL scheme. We thoroughly endorse the main objective which the Minister is seeking to achieve and are delighted to see it in the Bill. I take it that the categories that are extended will receive the ATOL certificate in the same way as all others that are part of the scheme, so that consumers will know they are contained within the scheme under the new arrangements of Amendments 63A and 63B. I am making that assumption—if the Minister nods his assent, I am reassured on that front. That is excellent news.
On the other question, I understand the point that there is no attempt to greatly extend the boundary of the scheme while seeking to preserve protection in those specific cases. I hope that that boundary is easily maintained, because that is what is being put in the legislation. We all know that there are two categories of disappointed people. There are those who did not participate in the ATOL scheme and were never therefore covered, who are utterly dismayed when things go badly wrong. There is no event in one’s normal life much worse than a holiday going badly wrong. However, if anything, it is worse to think that you are covered when you are not. As long as there is clarity at the boundary about that, I am entirely satisfied with the amendments and am delighted to see them being proposed.
Earl Attlee
I thank the noble Lord for his support for my amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
“(1D) The arrangements relating to payment that may be prescribed under subsection (1)(d) are any arrangements under which P makes or receives payment, or facilitates the making or receipt of payment by another person, in connection with the making available of the flight accommodation.””
“(a) in paragraph (b), for the words from “the minimum charges” to the end substitute “goods, services and other benefits which are or are not to be provided by any person in prescribed circumstances;”, and”
House of Lords
Economic Policies
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the success of their economic policies.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, returning the UK to sustainable, balanced economic growth is the Government’s overriding priority. Although considerable external risks remain, the Government’s actions to reduce the deficit and rebuild the economy have secured stability and positioned the UK as a relatively safe haven, with interest rates near record lows benefiting families, businesses and the taxpayer.
Lord Low of Dalston
I am glad that we are no longer expected to thank Ministers for their replies. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the gap between what Ministers say about the economy and what is actually the case. In the debate on the Queen’s Speech, the Minister told the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that sustainable recovery was underway. When I asked him on 29 May how he squared that with the fact that we were in double-dip recession, he palmed me off with references to the success of the private sector in generating jobs and exports. No sooner were the words out of his mouth than manufacturing output plummeted. It is up a bit in June, but yesterday we learnt that activity in the construction sector had fallen at the fastest rate for two and a half years. We are probably heading towards a third-quarter recession.
Lord Low of Dalston
What has the Minister to say about all of that; and can we believe a word of what he says when he has said it?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I will try to make the answer shorter than the question.
Lord Sassoon
The noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, raises some important points. Let me try to summarise. On the one hand, the public sector deficit has already been reduced from 11% to 8% of GDP. Public sector employment is down more than 400,000 from the unsustainable levels that it had reached. That is very real progress and we are on track on that dimension.
On the other side, we should not underplay the real success of the private sector in the most difficult and challenging conditions. Some 800,000 new jobs have been created since the election—166,000 new private sector jobs in the past quarter. Unemployment is down by 51,000 in the latest quarter. The private sector is doing a fantastic job to get this country out of the mess that we were left with. That is what it is all about.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, last week, the noble Lord misled the House in a reply to a question from my noble friend Lord Peston. He said that the IMF supported the Government's “fiscal course”. May I quote directly from what the IMF said? It said that although it endorsed the deficit cutting plans of the Government, if growth failed to pick up it would help to consider delaying cuts in expenditure and also,
“focus on temporary tax cuts and greater”,
infrastructure expenditure. The noble Lord likes the IMF. Will he take its advice?
Lord Sassoon
I did not bring my IMF quote book today to trade on this one, because the Question is about the Government's assessment of the success of their economic policies, not what the IMF is saying about them. I am sure that we will come back to that on another occasion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, although reducing the deficit, and even more so the debt, is important, is not relying exclusively on reducing the deficit a bit like playing golf with only one club? Do we not have to have more emphasis on supply-side measures that will encourage the private sector to create the jobs and wealth that the country desperately needs?
Lord Sassoon
My noble friend is completely right, and it would be a one-club game if we were not doing all sorts of things on the supply side, such as reducing corporation tax from 28% to 22%, the national loan guarantee scheme of £20 billion, cutting red tape for the first time in living history, enterprise zones, the Regional Growth Fund, the largest number of apprenticeships ever funded by any Government and completely overhauling the planning system, to name a few supply-side reforms.
Lord Grocott
Is it in any way conceivable that some of the responsibility—just a smidgeon—for the fact that we are in a double-dip recession lies with the Government?
Lord Sassoon
We are working extremely hard on the reforms that I have talked about to make sure that we have sustainable public finances and a more balanced economy.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, the latest report from the Federation of Small Businesses shows, in the second quarter of this year, an increase to 73% in the number of small businesses finding access to credit difficult and an increase to 41% in refusals of credit applications. Given the Government’s efforts to provide funding for the banks to lend to businesses, can the Minister explain why this is so?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, even though the latest business surveys show that private sector employment is significantly up and that manufacturing and service sector sales continue to grow, it is certainly the case that that is happening in the face of very tough financing conditions. That is why, among other things, the national loan guarantee scheme and the announcements from the Chancellor and the governor about the new funding for lending scheme, details of which will be put out in the coming weeks, were very important.
Lord Peston
My Lords, bearing in mind the extreme antipathy of the Europhobes on his own Benches and their desire to leave the European Union, why therefore are they so happy to have our economy run by the credit rating agencies?
Lord Sassoon
I am not sure that was a question that was addressed to me. However, I do not think that characterises the position of any noble friends of mine.
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, will my noble friend cast his mind back to the memoirs of the last Labour Chancellor—and how good those words sometimes sound—in which he described the situation at the end of his tenure of office as being “brutal and volcanic”? It is not clear to me whether he was talking simply about the economic situation that he passed on or his relationship with the Prime Minister, but when my noble friend looks at the sea of outrage opposite, does he not think that, even for them, it comes a bit rich?
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, as but one little wavelet on the sea of outrage, may I ask the noble Lord whether, when he referred to the Government achieving stability for the British economy, he was referring to their achievement of reducing the growth rate from 2% to zero?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I was referring to 800,000 new private sector jobs since the election. I am talking about interest rates at levels we have not seen for 300 years, and more of the same.
Vehicles: Insurance
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many uninsured vehicles are in regular use on United Kingdom roads, and what action they are taking to reduce that number.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, 1.2 million vehicles are recorded as being uninsured. Our actions to reduce this are, first, the offence of keeping a vehicle without insurance; and, secondly, allowing insurers access to DVLA driver details on penalty points and disqualifications in order to reduce fraud. The Secretary of State recently hosted a cross-government summit with insurers on measures to reduce the cost of premiums, which would lessen the incentive to drive uninsured.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that in France all motor vehicles have to carry a pink disc alongside their equivalent of our tax disc, with their insurance details obvious in the windscreens at all times and updated when required by law? Surely this is a simple way of assessment as other members of the public will notice cars that are not carrying a pink disc and any policeman or other enforcement officer passing by will know immediately that a car is not insured.
Earl Attlee
I thank my noble friend for a very sensible suggestion. However, under the new system of continuous enforcement insurance the vehicle keeper will have to insure the vehicle or declare it to be off the road by means of a Statutory Off Road Notice. If the keeper does neither, a fixed-penalty notice for £100 will be issued. This will strip out the softer evader, leaving a smaller group of more persistent evaders for the police to target on the road. Another little difficulty with my noble friend’s suggestion is, of course, that the insurance may have been cancelled due to non-payment of the premiums.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, the number of young people who have been found to be driving without insurance has halved in the past three years, which is very welcome, but the very high cost of insurance for young people is proving very difficult for many of them. What discussions are the Government having with the insurance industry to make life a little easier for young drivers?
Earl Attlee
My noble friend makes an extremely important point. On 2 May, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport hosted a cross-government insurance summit with the insurance industry to take stock of the action taken since the Prime Minister’s summit in February to reduce the cost of motor insurance. We are working closely with the industry to outline further measures being taken to reduce premiums.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Will the Minister explain why, while the number of motor accidents has gone down, the number of personal insurance claims has gone up? That means that the cost of insurance has risen substantially. Did the summit that he has just referred to discuss this, what conclusions did it come to and what action has been taken as a result of its conclusions?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are working with the insurance industry to reduce the level of fraud. We are aware, for instance, that at 76%, the UK has twice the average percentage of whiplash claims as a proportion of personal injury claims. So we are well aware of the problem and we are working on it.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, will my noble friend explain why he believes that the French Government and, I believe, the Irish Government find having insurance discs next to tax discs on the windscreen perfectly acceptable when, presumably, French and Irish people might be subject to the same temptations which he uses as an argument not to have it in this country?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, as I gently pointed out to my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, the problem with an insurance disc is that the insurance may have been cancelled due to non-payment. What is the use of having an insurance disc that can be cancelled?
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister has not answered the question he was asked. If it works abroad, why can it not work here?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I suggested very good reasons as to why it would not work.
Earl Attlee
We also have a much better system, which is continuous enforcement, and we will clamp down on those motorists who do not insure their vehicles.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Is the Minister aware that many people who come here from other European countries insure their vehicles there, bring them over here and then take them back again to buy very cheap insurance? If anyone has an accident here involving one of those vehicles, the claim is almost impossible to enforce. Is he aware of that and can anything be done about it?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not aware of the detail of what my noble friend is telling me. However, I will ask my officials about it. I would point out that the number of foreign vehicles operating in the UK is relatively small.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, I believe the Minister said that there has been a summit with the insurance companies and that the Government were working closely with the insurance industry. Will he publish the conclusions of those summit meetings with a checklist of what the Government are doing about it?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord with an update and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, what conversations does the Minister have with other countries within Europe and with those outside to ensure that all the heavy trucks on UK roads are insured?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we cannot use the DVLA database to work out whether a foreign truck is insured. It would be a matter of the truck driver producing his insurance paperwork, but I am not aware that there is a huge problem with commercial vehicles being uninsured. The much more serious problem is their mechanical state.
Lord Davies of Coity
My Lords, if there is some improvement as a result of what they do in Ireland and France, why do not we do something that will be an improvement on the current situation?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have already explained my position on the insurance disc. I cannot understand why noble Lords find it so difficult to understand. A few weeks ago I went out with Hampshire police and the police officer, using his ANPR equipment, stopped a motorist because she was uninsured. The reason she had no insurance was that it was cancelled because she could not keep up the payments on it.
Elephant Poaching
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord St John of Bletso
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures to address the increase in elephant poaching and the illegal sale of ivory to the Far East they plan to support at the Standing Committee meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species on 23 July.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, as a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the UK is supportive of CITES’s increasing focus on enforcement and work to reduce elephant poaching and the illegal trade in ivory. Defra officials are working with the European Commission and other member states to agree a common position to be taken in preparing for, and negotiating at, the CITES meeting in three weeks’ time.
Lord St John of Bletso
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply but is he aware that a recent analysis, commissioned by CITES, indicates that as many as 12% of Africa’s elephants were poached last year in order to satisfy the burgeoning demand for ivory, particularly from Asia? Based on this analysis and the 2007 estimates of the continent’s elephant population, in excess of 35,000 elephants may have been killed last year. Can the Minister provide assurances that the British Government will use their influence to ensure that the European Union will reject any proposals for further ivory sales, including stockpiles, and the down-listing of the elephant population?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. We certainly cannot be confident that smuggling and the poaching of ivory are currently under control. The Government take very seriously the threat to elephants and other wildlife from smuggling and the international trafficking of wildlife products. Richard Benyon, the Minister responsible, announced last year that the illegal trade under CITES, in particular the trade in elephant ivory, is a UK wildlife crime priority for the National Wildlife Crime Unit.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Space for Giants, the wildlife charity. I heard what my noble friend said about a common position with the EU, but are this Government having direct conversations with member states to ensure that the EU votes as a bloc to prevent those further ivory sales?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is exactly the purpose of the negotiations that Defra is engaged in at the moment. The meeting to be held in three weeks’ time is very important and we want to have a common position, which indeed will protect elephants from the threats that they face from poachers.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in South Africa almost two rhino are poached every day? The value of rhino horn is now in excess of the value of gold. What additional measures can be taken to protect the ever diminishing number of these beautiful and important animals in Africa?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I could not agree more with my noble friend. The threat to the rhino is acute, particularly given the scale of the population and the threat that it is under. The UK chairs a working group on this issue, with a wide remit to look at the question of poaching for rhino horn and the drivers of the illegal trade in it. This work is progressing well, and our leadership of that group is important.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, further to the question about black rhino horn, which was brought to my attention when I visited Chester Zoo recently, will the Minister have urgent consultations with the Vietnamese and Chinese ambassadors? The Vietnamese are very worried that black rhino horn, which is an aphrodisiac, is sold on to people in China. Will he turn his attention to that important area?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure that the Government are well aware of these particular problems, the patterns of this illegal trade, and the threats that it poses to these populations. We are not complacent about it. I thank the noble Lord for that recommendation, and I am sure that colleagues will take that up.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, can the Government do more in terms of the cultures of those who are involved in this trade? Perhaps there are ways in which we could use technology to encourage young people who live in countries which deal in this trade to change their hearts and minds about the use of elephant tusks, and rhino horn in particular, and then ask them to have an influence on their elders.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Noble Lords will be aware that there are a number of programmes that are designed to address just these sorts of issues. However, these attitudes are complex, cultural, and difficult to shift. There are two ends to the problem. One is the weakness of enforcement in certain African countries, and the second is the persistent demand for these products. Both of them pose a threat to wildlife, and this Government are doing their best to stamp them out.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, poaching for ivory is on the rise and is of great concern. An example is the story of poachers from Sudan coming over and killing as many as 650 elephants in a Cameroonian national park in the first two months of this year. I am reassured by what the Minister said in terms of the UK position at CITES later on this month. Do the Government accept that their credibility in that negotiation is to some extent governed by how well we enforce CITES in this country? On that basis, will he give some reassurance about sustaining funding and support for the National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is responsible for gathering information and intelligence around CITES infringements in this country?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I have already mentioned the commitment of my colleague, Mr Richard Benyon, and the high priority that this is being given. As noble Lords will know, the border agency is responsible for seizing these products and identifying them, and it operates, of course, on intelligence, which is most important. In many ways ivory has presented the least numerical challenge compared with many others in the CITES area. However, I agree that it is by demonstrating our own vigour that we present a confident position to our colleagues.
Baroness Sharples
Can my noble friend say whether the ivory is poached for so-called medicinal purposes?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is believed that some is for medicinal purposes, but the majority is for ornamentation.
Royal Bank of Scotland: LIBOR
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether and when they were made aware by the Royal Bank of Scotland that the bank had dismissed employees for inappropriate behaviour in relation to setting LIBOR rates.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Government are aware that several banks are being investigated by the Financial Services Authority in relation to the setting of the LIBOR rate. While the investigation is going on, it would be inappropriate to comment on any specifics relating to the Royal Bank of Scotland. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government’s response to the LIBOR issue on Monday.
Lord Empey
I thank the Minister for his response. Before I ask my principal supplementary question, I ask: will the Minister comment on the disastrous handling by RBS Group of the customers of Ulster Bank, who are still suffering over two weeks after the crisis began?
With regard to my main Question, will the Minister tell us what instructions he has given to UK Financial Investments Ltd, which looks after taxpayers’ interests with regard to shares held by the Government in various banks? Can he assure the House that the reporting mechanisms back to the Treasury as principal shareholder, particularly in RBS, will be such as to enable the Government to pick up evidence of any malpractice or inappropriate behaviour at an early stage?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, on the RBS/NatWest/Ulster Bank IT failure, RBS has assured customers that nobody will be left out of pocket as a result of the problems. There is a Question down for tomorrow—number 4—from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that touches on Ulster Bank, so I am sure we will return to that tomorrow.
On the instructions to RBS and the monitoring of them, the Government manage their shareholdings in RBS at arm’s length through UK Financial Investments and the governance arrangements are set out in the framework document and the investment mandate between UKFI and the Treasury. It is all there transparently on the website. I believe that those arrangements continue to be appropriate for the arm’s-length management. As it happens, UKFI published its annual report only this week. It sets out a very full account of the issues that it has been engaged in with RBS and with Lloyds Bank. I believe that all the appropriate channels are there and that there is a high degree of transparency. I can reassure the noble Lord on that.
Lord Flight
My Lords, will the Minister advise the House how many banks from how many countries provide regular LIBOR information in order to produce the average LIBOR rate?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I was looking at the setting of one of the rates the other day, and there is a panel of 18 banks. I think that is typical of the number of currencies and the different time horizons, so it is of the order of 18 or so banks on each one. Of course, they are typically the complete spread of global banks. It is by no means an activity of UK banks, notwithstanding the name of the rate.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, at the heart of the LIBOR scandal we now have a classic conflict of evidence—
Lord Morris of Aberavon
Will the Minister confirm that the legal provisions for the offences—
Lord Davies of Stamford
I have already given way once. Tucker is saying one thing and Diamond is saying another, so one or other of them must be lying. On the outcome—
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
When two noble Lords are trying to speak at the same time one really ought to give way to the other. They are both from the Labour Party so perhaps they ought to decide among themselves.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
Will the Minister confirm that the legal provisions for the offences of conspiracy to defraud and false accounting are sufficiently wide to cover most, if not all, of the wrongdoing in this field?
Lord Sassoon
The noble and learned Lord clearly points to a couple of very important offences in this area, but in the various inquiries that my right honourable friends have announced we also want to see whether there are any gaps. There is one obvious and glaring gap, which a Front-Bench spokesman from the Opposition conceded a couple of days ago, in that FiSMA is defective in the sense of not allowing direct prosecution for LIBOR fixing under the regime, and that needs to be put right.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
In view of the poor behaviour of the banks, could we consider changing the name “bank holiday” back to its original name, “Lubbock Day”? The workers used to call them St Lubbock Day, after the distinguished MP, the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that at Prime Minister’s Questions today my right honourable friend Ed Miliband emphasised the need for great speed in sorting out the issues around the LIBOR scandal, and the need for more considered speed with respect to wider issues. Surely the greatest speed would be achieved by a judicial inquiry which could now sit for five days per week. How many days per week will a parliamentary inquiry sit?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, it is not a question of trading how many days one inquiry or another will sit. I could read out the long list of judicial inquiries that have taken two, three, four, five or 10 years and more. We believe that a parliamentary inquiry can do its work effectively by Christmas. These matters will be debated in another place tomorrow.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, going back to the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Empey, can the Minister tell the House, without going into specifics, what was the first point in time at which the Government gained any information about the possibility of the rigging of LIBOR?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am tempted to go back into history beyond the last two years but the answer is that I cannot. It would be inappropriate to discuss that while investigations are still going on.
Finance Bill
Broadcasting (Local Digital Television Programme Services and Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2012
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That the draft order laid before the House on 23 May be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 25 June.
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
That the draft order laid before the House on 22 May be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 25 June.
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Owen
I do not wish to detain the House but, on the point that I raised on Report, the Minister with his customary kindness and courtesy has written me a letter. As I understand it, on that point, there will be no obstacle. In some circumstances, when there might be a crisis in the eurozone, the procedures adopted will allow the Government to use the unanimous procedures for amendment, which were part of the Lisbon treaty, in the European Council and to bring the matter to this House to declare that the amendments regarding a transfer of power are not significant in relation to the UK, while simultaneously, saying that there would be a referendum in this country to deal with other wider measures.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I say on behalf of the Opposition that it is very necessary that the Bill should pass. It is more necessary in the light of the deepening of the euro crisis and last week’s European Council meeting, at which the role of the ESM was strengthened in both its ability to recapitalise the banks directly, which is the key to restructuring the banking system, and its ability to buy bonds where countries that are complying with their obligations are under pressure. Therefore, this facilitating measure is very necessary.
My fear about the question of a referendum, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, is that when the Bill goes to the other place, many Back-Benchers who do not share his political views may use the opportunity of the Bill to make the case for holding a referendum on British membership of the European Union very soon. From the Opposition’s perspective, at this moment, this is a complete distraction. It is no answer to the economic problems on which this country should be focusing and no substitute for an effective policy on the European Union.
Those who demand a referendum do not even know what they are asking for a referendum on. They say that they joined a Europe that was in favour of free trade, but even on that question they are not clear about whether they want to take Britain out of the EU, so that we would then face protectionist barriers, or whether we would then be in the European Economic Area, where we would be bound by the rules but would still contribute to the budget. This is a complete distraction because of confusion and we should not go down this road. We want effective action from the Government to protect Britain’s interests in the light of the necessary measures to strengthen the eurozone. However, at the moment, we do not see in Brussels a Government who are engaging with and getting inside the discussions; they want to be outside, which is a disaster for the UK national interest.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Does the Minister recall the Committee stage of the Bill, when we debated several amendments tabled by a diligent Back-Bencher? If he recalls that, and the time that was taken over very careful and correct scrutiny of the Bill, will he confirm that those amendments and many more could have been tabled on Report and at Third Reading? Will he draw to the attention of the Leader of the House that if he and the Government continue in the way that they are, there might not just be one awkward Back-Bencher on one Bill but many awkward Back-Benchers on many Bills?
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, this is a vital measure but a very small and technical one. Throughout Second Reading, Committee and Report, the opposition Front Bench supported it, as did most people around the House. It is now important that it goes through to the House of Commons, where it should pass as speedily as possible, because the eurozone and the broader EU need to get on with solving the crisis.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am sorry to intrude further on the time of the House. I shall be brief. I took part in proceedings on the Bill, speaking at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. The matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, today go far beyond what is contained in the Bill. I should very much like to answer the points that he made but, in deference to the next Bill and the time of the House, I will not do so.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, I am rather in the same state of mind as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on these matters. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his first words confirming the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition for this Bill, although his later remarks, while interesting, seem to be spectacularly out of order; but never mind about that.
In his intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, raised extremely important and wider issues, which I think all in this House would wish to discuss at the appropriate time. However, this Bill is simply concerned with approval to amend Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and it would be inappropriate, perhaps even out of order, for me to stray into a debate on these matters now.
I would emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that, as I think he knows, I would be very happy to discuss his ideas on the future of the European Union, the eurozone and the single market—as, if I may say so, set out in his recent book on this subject, which is full of very interesting ideas—and I hope that we will have the opportunity to do that. If he would like to put down a Question, it will be possible to answer in even more detail the specific points that he has raised today. I think that that is the best way forward. However, as there are no amendments to this Bill on Third Reading —although amendments were excellently advanced earlier with great precision by a certain Member of this House—there will be no further amendments. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
“( ) This section shall not have effect in relation to an appeal against a refusal of entry clearance where that decision was taken wholly or partly on a general ground for refusal in rules as laid by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 1(4) of the Immigration Act 1971.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, the intention of Clause 24 is that refusal of a family visit visa will no longer be subject to a right of appeal, save on human rights or race discrimination grounds. However, as I shall explain, the race discrimination ground has been inadvertently removed, except in Northern Ireland.
In July 2011, the UK Border Agency stated in the publication Family Migration: A Consultation:
“Many British citizens and persons settled in the UK have family members living outside the UK. This results in a high volume of visa applications from people wishing to visit family in the UK”.
It goes on to say that such visits,
“are a means of maintaining family links and of enabling family members living abroad to participate in important family occasions in the UK, such as births, weddings and funerals. Such visits and associated tourism also bring economic benefits to the UK”.
The following month, the Prime Minister said:
“If it hurts families, if it undermines commitment, if it tramples over the values that keep people together, or stops families from being together, then we shouldn't do it”.
Clause 24 will undoubtedly stop many families being together by denying persons refused a visa to visit family a right of appeal to an independent tribunal to correct wrong assertions by entry clearance officers that otherwise would lead to the refusal of their current and future applications to visit family.
The rise in the success rate of appeals in family visit cases, from 19% in 2004 to 45% in 2010, underlines the necessity of the right of appeal against refusal. If Clause 24 remains in the Bill, nearly half of all applicants in future will be wrongly rejected and will have to reapply at a cost of £78 for a single visit or £270 for multiple visits over two years to get the decision reversed.
So what is the argument for this proposal? The Immigration Minister, giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, complained that there were many more appeals than had been anticipated in 2000, when the right of repeal was restored. He suggested that the removal of the full appeal rights would be better for applicants because, if a genuine mistake has been made on the application, the amended version is normally dealt with in 15 days, whereas an appeal takes eight months. Clearly, one good reason for the increasing volume of appeals is that the quality of first decisions has progressively deteriorated, as shown by the steady increase in the proportion of successful appeals. Another is that, as successive reports of chief inspectors have revealed, many refusals are not to do with a mistake by the applicant but a mistake by the ECO, or because applicants had to submit additional material, the need for which they could not have anticipated at the time of the original application.
Mrs N, who lives in Beirut, where she is the carer of her 89 year-old mother, has been here a dozen times in the past decade and has had no difficulty getting visas to visit her husband, a Londoner who is a close friend of mine. Now she has been refused a family visit because, they say, she has insufficient ties to Lebanon. This is one example of the way in which applications are being refused on the basis of failure to supply information, the need for which the applicant could not have anticipated. The agency dealing with applications for family visits in Beirut now wants a doctor’s certificate and bank statements from the applicant’s mother, documents that have never been required in the past. The Minister turned that sort of situation around and said that 63% of the appeals lost by the UKBA were the result of new evidence introduced at appeal stage. One way in which to reduce the number would be for the UKBA to make it clear exactly what information it wants in the explanatory notes that it sends to family visit applicants.
In 2011, the UKBA chief inspector, as he was then, looked at entry clearance decisions where there is currently no right of appeal. He found that the ECO had not properly considered the evidence in one-third of the 1,500-odd cases examined and, in a further 14% of the sample, it was not possible to determine from the file whether the evidence had been properly examined. In 16% of the cases, the refusal was based on failure,
“to provide information which”,
the applicant,
“could not have been aware”,
was required,
“at the time of making their application”.
When an ECO wrongly impugns an applicant’s integrity in the reason for refusal, if the applicant is not able to clear his or her name it may well be relied on to refuse any future application whether for a family visa or some other type of visa, whether in an application to the UK or some other country. In some circumstances the previous allegation by the ECO will require any future visa application to be refused for up to 10 years—for instance, when the ECO alleges that the applicant has made a false statement in his or her application. Among the reasons given for refusal of family visit applications are that the applicant is not genuinely seeking entry as a visitor only or is not intending to leave the UK at the end of the visit. Refusals may also include reasons impugning the character of the applicant, such as that she has made a false statement in her application. Any false statement would require the application to be refused. The right of appeal, at which family members appear and can give oral evidence, is essential to afford a proper opportunity to answer allegations as to the integrity of the applicant or her relations.
If your Lordships approve Clause 24, it will normally be possible to challenge these refusals only by way of judicial review or administrative review, a process internal to the UKBA, introduced in 2008 to replace the full right of appeal against refusal of entry clearance in student and worker visa cases dealt with under the points-based system. That involves a review by an entry clearance manager of the decision by the ECO, a procedure which means, as David Winnick MP observed in the Home Affairs Select Committee, that the UK is “judge and jury” in its own cause. The chief inspector, in his global review, looked at 475 such internal reviews and found that in 30% of the cases the entry clearance manager failed to pick up on poor decision-making by the ECO. He was explicit in finding that the internal review system is not working effectively.
The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 required the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the effect of removing the full right of appeal in points-based system entry clearance cases. That report, in March 2011, was by the UKBA itself and was therefore not independent. It sets out what is expected of entry clearance managers in conducting reviews whereas the chief inspector’s findings show that, in many cases, those expectations are not met. The report argues that it is reasonable to substitute an internal review for the right of appeal in points-based system cases and emphasis is placed on the context of the new, more objective and transparent process of making decisions under the points-based system.
The points-based system has not resulted in an objective and transparent process as intended but even if it had, it would not be an argument for applying internal reviews to the entirely different process of deciding on family visits. There is no suggestion that family visit visas are to be decided on criteria in relation to which scope for subjective decision-making is removed. The defects of the internal review system would therefore be intensified if applied to family visit refusals.
The Labour Party made the restoration of appeal rights a manifesto commitment in 1997, and when it implemented that undertaking in 2000 my right honourable friend Simon Hughes said:
“The Conservative Government … abolished the right of those who had applied for visas to enter this country to appeal against rejection. That caused widespread disapproval, dissatisfaction and anger. Understandably, the Labour Opposition, like the Liberal Democrats, were committed to restoring the right of appeal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/00; col. 109.]
This feeling was shared on all sides of another place and of this House. The late Lord Newton of Braintree was among many who emphasised the importance of family members in the UK being able to attend an independent tribunal to address implicit or explicit allegations as to the integrity of the would-be visitor or the family members. My friend the late Earl Russell, in his inimitable way, related a 17th century anecdote to illustrate a point about family relationships and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, criticised the restoration of appeal rights in family visit cases only on the grounds that fees were to be payable which would mean that there would not be many appeals.
Last Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, drew attention to the latest report of the chief inspector of the Border Agency on visa applications. Mr Vine points out that on entry clearance decisions as a whole ECOs had not considered the evidence properly in 33% of cases, and that rose to 37% for Africa and to 50% for the region covering the Gulf, Iran and Pakistan. The poorest performing posts on the use of evidence were Abu Dhabi, Abuja, Moscow and New Delhi and these same posts were the worst on failure to seek initial information as well. Three of them were among the five worst posts on the retention of documentation. The Government say that a right of appeal is to be retained on race discrimination and/or human rights grounds against the refusal of a family visit visa. Section 84(1)(e) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 permits as a ground of appeal that a decision is,
“not in accordance with the law”,
which includes a ground of race discrimination on an appeal, but unlike the specific race discrimination ground that had resided in Section 84(1)(b), it is only applicable when a full right of appeal is available. Reference to the Race Relations Act 1976 was removed from Section 84(1)(b) on 5 April 2011 by the Equality Act 2010 (Public Authorities and Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2011 and no substitute was included in its place. I hope that my noble kinsman, when he comes to reply, can give me an assurance that an amendment will be introduced to remedy this problem on Report.
In conclusion, the reasons advanced for Clause 24 are those given in the UKBA consultation document Family Migration: A Consultation in July 2011; namely, assertions about the use of new evidence in a sample of 363 determinations in family visit appeals that it had considered. ILPA put the following questions to the UK Border Agency regarding this sample:
“Of the allowed appeals, was the new evidence produced, evidence that is clearly required on the application form or website?”,
and:
“Of the allowed appeals, was any contact made by the entry clearance officer making the decision with the applicant to request that the evidence be supplied?”.
The UK Border Agency’s response to each of these questions was:
“The information requested was not collated when the sampling was carried out”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I will speak to our Amendments 148AA and 155EA. These are probing amendments into what I think are very serious issues. The Minister will recall that I raised concerns about these matters at Second Reading. I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had to say, and I fear I may duplicate some of his comments, but only where they are worth duplicating and I think it useful to your Lordships’ House.
Our amendments would delay the commencement of Clause 24 until the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has completed a report on entry clearance decision-making within the UK Border Agency for family visit visas, which retain the right of appeal. The Minister will recall that I drew some comparisons at Second Reading with the issues that had arisen where the right of appeal had already changed in other visa applications.
It is worth rehearsing some of the difficulties, delays and problems that we have seen with initial decision-making in family visitor visa decisions. In 2010-11, 38% of the appeals against family visitor visa decisions were successful—over a third of the decisions were overturned on appeal. The noble Lord previously said that that was because in many cases people had provided wrong information. I will come on to that point but I do not think it is relevant in many cases. This seems to be a systemic problem and the Government cannot address the problem of inaccurate and wrong decisions being made by trying to change the rules. By removing the right of appeal, you cannot sweep under the carpet the fact that so many decisions have been appealed successfully.
Family visitor visas are an important way for many British communities to preserve family and cultural links with other countries. The kinds of applications we are talking about are for family members to attend family occasions such as weddings and birthdays; there can be urgent cases, many with a compassionate element, such as needing a visa to visit a sick relative or even attend a funeral. These are not the kind of people who are going to bring vexatious appeals against the Government. Appeals are brought in these cases to right a wrong, to overturn a wrong decision.
It is worth listening to what the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has said on this issue. In 2011 he reported that in 33% of cases he reviewed, the entry clearance officer had not properly considered the evidence that was submitted. Why should that 33% of people who have not had their applications properly considered be forced to resubmit an application because of chronic administrative errors within the UK Border Agency? It is penalising those who have been refused through no fault of their own but through poor decision-making.
As I mentioned earlier, the Government argued that,
“63% of appeals are lost entirely because of new evidence introduced at the appeal stage”.
That comment was made by the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. I again look back at what John Vine, the chief inspector, noted in his report: in the 16% of cases reviewed, applications had been refused on the basis of a failure to provide information of which the applicant could not have been aware at the time of making their application.
It is true that in many cases, submitting a new application is quicker than appealing a decision, but the Government have failed to address the fact that, when a decision is appealed it allows, particularly in those highly urgent and exceptional cases, Members of Parliament and advocates to intervene directly with the Home Office on their behalf and expedite decisions. If they do not know, or are not aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, what information is required before submitting the application, that is a poor reason for the Government to change the rules. The wrong information was submitted, and it should be very clear to applicants what that information should be.
When a wrong decision has been made, it is a matter of integrity that it should be addressed. The UK Border Agency should also consider when decisions have been wrongly made and address the problems within the organisation that has allowed that to happen. To remove appeal rights of applicants who have been wrongly refused because of Home Office errors is unfair. It also leaves applicants with no indication of how they should amend their application the second time around, and the possibility that the same errors or omissions could continue to be made. It also neglects the added burden of cost that many applicants face. The cost of an appeal is roughly the same as an application but the costs of making an application go beyond the fee. I am sure that the Minister and other noble Lords will be aware that family members travel hundreds of miles and cross borders to submit in person an application and the documents required. It is significant that when refusals are made on the basis of an allegation that an individual has made a false statement in the application, it can result in that individual being refused entry for up to 10 years. If there is no right of appeal it leaves no way to address the issue. Making another application cannot undo the fact that the individual has been banned for the next 10 years. That is a significant failing in the clause as it stands, particularly when we see how many errors are made in decision-making.
Most importantly, removing the full appeal rights removes pressure on the Home Office to improve the situation. We want a reduction in errors in decision-making. It is bad for the Home Office, and it is certainly bad for the applicant. I raised in a Question in your Lordship’s House not that long ago the report from Sir John Vine: A Comparative Inspection of the UK Border Agency Visa Sections that Process Applications Submitted in Africa. He looked at four areas. There was some good news and some improvements, but I found it fairly shocking. The most difficult part was when he said:
“Despite my making recommendations in previous inspections to help the Agency improve, I found that little progress had been made in a number of areas. This is especially frustrating considering the Agency has accepted the recommendations and yet I continue to identify the same issues”.
How frustrating is that for the chief inspector of the UK Borders Agency whose sole purpose is to want the agency to improve its decision-making? Yet, he is making the same recommendations; the agency agreed those recommendations and that there should be a plan to address the issues. He then has to make the same recommendations the next year and the year after that. He then said:
“In summary, I found performance varied significantly across the four posts inspected in the Africa region. I was disappointed to still find a clear need for improvement in the quality and consistency of decision making. I have made 12 recommendations, a number of which I have made before, in previous reports”.
It is very difficult to understand why this kind of measure is being brought in when we know that the decision-making is inadequate and not up to scratch.
There is another, slightly different side to this. Something caught my eye earlier today concerning the failings in visa controls and considerations. It was about not family visas but other visas. Mr Vine’s inquiry looked at 100 visa applications from Pakistani nationals and found that there were cases where entry was granted when it should not have been and cases where it was not granted where it should have been. Both are equally wrong and I am sure that that is an issue that the Minister wants to address.
I find it very difficult to understand why the Government want to remove the right of appeal for family visit visas when they know that the decision-making is inadequate, that many mistakes are made and that the consequences for those individuals are severe. The amendments that we are dealing with today are intended to find out how the Government intend to improve entry clearance decision-making within the UKBA and ensure that individuals are not unfairly penalised because of systemic failures if their full right of appeal is taken away. As things stand at the moment, significant harm is being caused to those individuals because of the quality of the decision-making.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not want to repeat absolutely everything that the noble Baroness and my noble friend have said, but I am afraid that there will be a little repetition and I hope your Lordships will understand that it goes to emphasise the seriousness of the points being made. Both previous speakers referred to the knock-on effect on future applications of clearance being refused, with the applicant’s integrity being impugned in the reasons for refusal. I think that we should take that very seriously.
There have been many complaints about the lack of clarity regarding what is required at the application stage, with the real reason for refusal not being revealed until the appeal hearing. If that is the case—and I have no reason to doubt what we are hearing—it is bound to lead to additional evidence being presented. That is a simple consequence and not something for which we should be criticising applicants. Are there no mechanisms for additional information, or for clarification of information, to be requested without an application being rejected? It seems common sense that the mechanisms should allow for some simple process of that sort.
Like other noble Lords, I am keen to know whether the Government have confidence in the internal review process. Regarding confidence, the noble Baroness asked whether improvements will be made. I would add: are the Government confident that improvements have been made since the chief inspector’s review in December? Unless they have, we are presented with a difficulty regarding this proposal. I simply conclude by saying that it is quite clear that there is a problem, and it is quite clear to at least three speakers that this is not the solution to the problem.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I start by saying to my noble friend Lady Hamwee that I accept the seriousness of the points being made and I hope that I can deal with them in the course of this debate. I also noted what my noble kinsman Lord Avebury said about the right of appeal on race discrimination grounds, which I think is the subject of his next amendment. As it was my noble kinsman who wanted the amendments to be taken separately, I would prefer to deal with that issue when we come to Amendment 148B.
We have three amendments and a clause stand part debate in this group. My noble kinsman has tabled Amendment 148A and has given notice of his intention to oppose Clause 24, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has tabled Amendments 148AA and 155EA.
As we are all aware, Clause 24 makes provision to remove the full right of appeal against refusal of visa applications to visit family members in the United Kingdom. The Government understand that a visit visa can help maintain family links: we granted some 370,000 family visit visas in 2011 and 1.26 million other visit visas in 2010-11. That is also why we issue, on application, longer validity multiple entry visit visas in some cases, which offer convenience to the family visitors who are granted them. The clause is not in any way about stopping people visiting their family members in the United Kingdom. The rules to qualify for entry are the same for both tourists and family visitors. Any family member who meets our immigration rules will be granted that visit visa.
Lord Rea
Before the Minister sits down, will he answer a simple question? When an appeal is refused under the new rules, he says that it will be open to the applicant to make a new application, benefiting perhaps from the reasons given for the asylum refusal. But that will surely add enormously to the load on the border control officers who are controlling applications for visas in the first place. Will that not give them a huge overload? Anyway, are there not rules that specify the length of time after the first application is refused before a second one can be made? What sort of period are we looking at? Is it six months, a year or two years? Is there a period at all?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we are finding that, with a large number of appeals, the point that they are appealing on is in effect new evidence that they did not put in their original application. We suggest that it is cheaper to make a new application than to appeal. It does not clog up the appeal system if they make a new application, bringing in that new evidence. Therefore, the appropriate process is to use the new application route rather than clog up the appeals system. That is why I was emphasising that, despite the original intentions of the system brought in by the Government of whom the noble Lord is such a distinguished supporter, it has clogged up the system in a manner that we do not think is appropriate. The new application would be a far simpler, cheaper and better way of dealing with these matters.
Lord Henley
A new application can be made immediately. That would be far quicker for the applicant than waiting for possibly eight months for the appeal to be dealt with. A new application can be dealt with within 15 days. That is a better deal for all involved, particularly if they are coming over for a family event such as a wedding. In eight months, the whole thing might be over: it would depend on how much advance notice they had for the wedding.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, as the Minister said, the fee for a new application is a little cheaper than that for an appeal. He quoted a figure for the savings that the measure would achieve. I have just had a look at the impact assessment—although I may not have the right piece of paper with me—which gives in narrative form an explanation of what is proposed, but I cannot find any figures in it for this particular clause.
The Minister may well not have the detail with him at the moment. If he does not, perhaps he could write to noble Lords to unpack that figure, which I think was £102 million, although I might have got that wrong. In any event, when it comes to the amount that the Government expect to save by this, I am having a little difficulty in putting all this together in a mathematical form.
Lord Henley
My Lords, impact assessments are always somewhat obscure documents, as my noble friend and others will well understand. I do not have the impact assessment in front of me at the moment but I think the figure I quoted was savings over 10 years of something like £103 million. My noble friend says £102 million, but what is £1 million between friends? The best I can do on this particular occasion is to offer to write to my noble friend with greater clarity about the impact assessment and what we reckon the savings will be. We think that there are very considerable savings to be made here and that the process is not working as it should or as it was originally intended because there are far many more appeals coming in. A new application would be a simpler way of processing these matters.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it might help if I just say that it seems that an explanation for any savings may be with regard to the time that officers put into dealing with either an appeal or an application. That in itself raises issues. I make that point now in case the answer comes back simply in terms of figures, when there will need to be an explanation if we are all to understand. However, we all agree that the system is not working very well.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am reminded that the figure I quoted originally was £107 million, so we are talking about a difference of £5 million between myself and my noble friend, which is real money. However, I still promise to write to my noble friend on these matters and to try to bring her greater clarity.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister seeks to reassure me and I wish that he could. However, unfortunately, he has not. There are a number of issues. If, as he points out, it would be quicker, cheaper and easier for everybody concerned—the Government and all the applicants—for there to be no appeals process, why does everybody not welcome this with open arms?
As I pointed out in my earlier comments and as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it would be quicker, cheaper and less onerous if so many wrong decisions were not made in the first place. I imagine that those appeals that were not upheld were much easier decisions to make if the application was turned down and the appeal rejected. I am very concerned about those where a wrong decision is made and the appeal is successful because of the wrong decision. I know the noble Lord says that in many cases it is because new information is provided, but it would be very simple to make it absolutely clear what information is required in the first place. That would make the whole application process much quicker and more efficient.
The other problem with making new applications is that there is no opportunity for advocacy or for people to make representations on an applicant’s behalf. I made the point earlier that if somebody is refused and the decision-maker says that they gave inaccurate or wrong information, they can be barred for 10 years. The Minister says they can apply next year and the year after, but in those circumstances they will not be able to apply for 10 years. Even though the decision may be based on inaccurate information, and the person who has been refused a family visitor visa has been told the information they gave was wrong and misleading, there is no opportunity to appeal that and they cannot make another application for 10 years. That seems to be a gap in the noble Lord’s reasoning.
I wonder whether he is dealing with this problem from the wrong end. If we deal with improving the quality of decision-making, in some cases by making it easier, and so more straightforward, for applicants to know what is required of them, we would see this logjam that he talks about removed. To try to deal with the logjam by merely removing the right to appeal does not seem to me to be the right way round.
I was surprised that he drew any comfort from the chief inspector’s report. I think that it is quite damning. Basically, he says, “I make these recommendations, people accept them, but it does not get any better”. Before the Government take an action such as this, they should seek significant changes and improvements in decision-making. I do not lay it all at the door of poor decision-making. However, he tells me that every decision is reviewed by a senior manager, so clearly something is wrong when so many appeals succeed despite that. Something in the process is going badly wrong.
I will not press my amendment today. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out the deficiencies in my drafting but, despite his very brave attempts, I am not really reassured.
Lord Henley
My Lords, before my noble kinsman decides what to do with his amendment—obviously, it is his decision—I want to pick up one point. The noble Baroness says that an awful lot of appeals are the result of wrong decisions. I accept that some are the result of wrong decisions, but as she would accept, an awful lot are the result of the wrong information coming forward, and that is something far better dealt with by means of a new application. Obviously, we might have to look at how to ensure that people get the right information into their original application so that the correct decision can be made. That is a matter of making sure that we have the right procedures in place and I will certainly be prepared to look at that. However, I do not think that she should imply that all the problems are down to bad decision-making; an awful lot are the result of new information coming forward. That is why there are so many appeals.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
If the noble Lord reads Hansard and looks at my previous comments and at what I have just said, he will find that I acknowledge that sometimes a wrong decision is made because the right information is not supplied. Indeed, I quoted the chief inspector as saying that in 16% of the cases reviewed, applications had been refused on the basis of a failure to provide information, but the applicant was not aware of what information was required. I acknowledge that important point. If the Minister were to take that back to the UK Borders Agency and act on it, that would be an extremely positive step, so that all applicants are made fully aware at the time of application what information is required.
Lord Hussain
My Lords, may I raise one question? I live in a community where a lot of migration takes place and I can quote examples. However, I need some clarification from the Minister. On more than one occasion, applications from family visitors, who have visited Britain more than once, have been refused even though they have complied with the law and have done nothing against the law. They say, “Yes, we accept that the applicant has been to Britain in the past and that they have not broken any law, but things have changed and, on the balance of probabilities, we believe that they will not go back”. I wonder what sort of new information they will supply if they resubmit their application. The only answer I can see is a right of appeal, so that they can prove that they can fulfil all the requirements and guarantees needed to show that they will go back, as they have done in the past.
Lord Henley
My Lords, without knowing more about the sort of cases that my noble friend refers to, I do not think that I can respond to him at this stage. The more general point, and the reason for bringing this clause forward, is that we feel that many of the applications can be dealt with by a new application and so the process of a right of appeal is not the right way forward. We are bringing it into line with other parts of the immigration system. In the main, we have found that so many appeals have been on the basis of new information. This is a more appropriate way of dealing with it.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I dread to think of how many occasions I have sat here and listened to Ministers from the Front Bench saying that they will make amends for the all the criticisms that have come from the chief inspectors of the UK Border Agency or their predecessors; yet on the next occasion we debate precisely the same thing. It is with some reluctance that one accepts the assurances that the Minister has given that the Government are going to sort out the UK Border Agency so that fewer false decisions are made. I am sure that he has been told by the officials that they have this matter in hand but the benefit of past experience shows us that we cannot rely on that.
In relation to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, that there should be some mechanism whereby, if the entry certificate officer needs some further information that the applicant could not possibly have known would be required on his original application, that should not be the cause of a refusal but of a communication from the ECO to the applicant to say exactly what kind of information is needed and that that would be considered in making the decision. There is no such mechanism at the moment and I am not satisfied that the assurances the Minister has given, that he will look at the proposal, are sufficient. My suggestion is that we could perhaps think about this before Report and come back to it then, to hear further from the Minister about what progress he has been able to make on my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s suggestion.
Even so, there remains a problem: that the applicant has a black mark against them in the Home Office records, which may have deleterious effects on any further application that he makes. When he comes to make another visit and officers look up what happened in the past, they will see that he has had a refusal. In the case that I mentioned of Mrs N in Beirut, who made a number of visits to her husband in London, no problem was ever encountered. It was rather like the case cited by my noble friend Lord Hussain. Quite simply, they granted the entry certificate. She came to visit her husband in London and went back to Beirut afterwards, for the very simple reason that she had an 89-year-old mother there for whom she is the primary carer, as I explained. That was known—it must be on the files—yet on this occasion, after she has been from Beirut to London perhaps a dozen times without any problem, suddenly she was refused.
Mrs N’s solicitor advised her not only to put in a fresh application, which my noble friend thinks is the ultimate solution, but to appeal because she does not want a stain to appear on her record. That is not going to vanish. There is no way in which you can rub off a record of a refusal, except by means of an appeal. Although people may be able to get permission more quickly to come here by putting in a fresh application, as my noble friend says, that application will have to be considered in the light of the fact that there is a record of a refusal. It is less likely that that person will be able to come here in future. The solution that my noble friend has suggested is not the answer and I say again that we will have to return to this on Report, when I hope we can make some further progress on it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury
“Immigration appeals: race discrimination grounds
In the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, in section 84(1)(b), after “Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997” insert “or relates to section 115 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the protected characteristic identified in section 9 of that Act”.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, the specific race discrimination ground of appeal in immigration cases now relates only to Northern Ireland. The 2002 Act continues to allow an immigration judge to find an immigration decision to be unlawful by reason of race or other unlawful discrimination, because Section 84(1)(e) provides a ground of appeal,
“that the decision is otherwise not in accordance with the law”,
but only where he or she has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the first place.
The importance of the specific race discrimination ground of appeal is that it is one of two statutory grounds that generally preserve an appeal right that would otherwise be precluded by the 2002 Act. Thus, in the various and complex sections restricting appeal rights in that Act, the following general formula is repeated several times: that the relevant restriction,
“does not prevent the bringing of an appeal on either or both of the grounds referred to in section 84(1)(b) and (c)”.
This general formula previously preserved the right of appeal against an immigration decision, where the would-be appellant sought to challenge the immigration decision on race discrimination or human rights grounds. This has particular relevance to Clause 24 of the Bill, by which it is intended to remove the right of appeal against the refusal of a family visit visa. The provisions that Clause 24 amends will continue to retain the general formula intended to preserve a right of appeal on race discrimination or human rights grounds. Preserving the right of appeal on those grounds is clearly intended, as is stated by paragraph 373 of the Explanatory Notes. It was also made clear on the UK Border Agency website when the Bill was first published, as well as in a more recent announcement on that website concerning changes to remove the right of appeal for aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins against a refusal of a family visit visa.
However, the omission of the relevant words in Section 84(1)(b) undermines all this. The general formula now preserves appeal rights only where the appeal is brought on human rights grounds in England and Wales or Scotland, and on both race discrimination and human rights grounds in Northern Ireland. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has raised this with the Home Office, and it has been confirmed that this was not intended. ILPA informs us that the Home Office is looking at how best to remedy the omission, and we hope that it can be done while this Bill is in progress. Ideally, the Government will be able to say how and by when this omission is to be corrected in answer to this amendment, and we would then expect to see it implemented on Report.
The events that led to the inadvertent omission of the specific race discrimination ground of appeal highlight once again the notorious complexity of immigration law, including the highly complex statutory appeal provisions. We have just enacted the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, in the face of widespread concern both within and outside Parliament about the removal of legal aid in areas such as immigration, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said on the last day of debate in the House of Lords before enactment,
“will hit hardest the weakest and most impoverished sections of our society, often on complex questions of law such as are raised by immigration law”.—[Official Report, 25/4/12; col. 1797.]
If the Government cannot even foresee the consequences for the statutory immigration appeals scheme when they draft legislation with an impact on that scheme, they can hardly expect individuals without legal advice or representation to understand the rules and to know what appeal rights they still have, if any. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble kinsman has spotted something, and it will be suitable for me to intervene at this stage and save ourselves a debate. As he has explained, Amendment 148B is intended to reinstate a right of appeal against an immigration decision on race relations grounds. Such a right of appeal existed prior to the commencement of the Equality Act 2010, but many noble Lords will remember that the latter stages of that Act were rushed through rather fast in the run-up to the election, and that right was inadvertently removed by the consequential amendments made under that Act. That might encourage us to think more carefully about the wash-up process in the future because of the mistakes that can creep in.
The Government’s stated policy remains that there should be a right of appeal on race relations grounds, and we agree that this appeal right should be reinstated. My noble kinsman asked how we can do that. We do not apparently need primary legislation to rectify this problem as we could effect the necessary change through secondary legislation made under the Equality Act 2010, a point that has been recognised by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association in its briefing on this amendment.
I am happy to give a commitment that the problem will be rectified and to explore further over the summer —my noble kinsman will be aware that we have quite a few months before we get to Report—how best this might be achieved. In light of this reassurance, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury
I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis of that assurance.
Lord Avebury
“Immigration appeals: asylum and humanitarian protection
In the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, in section 83(1)(b) omit the words from “Kingdom” to the end.”
Lord Avebury
I shall speak also to Amendment 148D. Section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 currently provides that a person may appeal to the tribunal against the rejection of his asylum claim where,
“he has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a period exceeding one year (or for periods exceeding one year in aggregate)”.
This amendment would extend the right of appeal against refusal of asylum in any case where the Secretary of State had granted the person leave to enter or remain for whatever period. Asylum seekers who are not granted leave to enter or remain when refused asylum have a right of appeal under the provisions of Section 83(1), thus currently it is only asylum seekers who are granted leave to enter or remain for 12 months or less who are unable to appeal when refused asylum.
Where an asylum seeker is refused, there are various reasons why he or she might none the less be granted leave to enter or remain for a limited period. For example, a person refused asylum may be granted humanitarian protection because it is accepted that he or she is at risk of serious harm if returned to his or her country of origin, but it is not accepted that that harm is for a refugee convention reason—that is to say that the harm is not,
“for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”—
or because it is accepted that his or her removal would constitute an unlawful interference with his or her private or family life. Grants of leave on either basis would normally be for more than 12 months. In these situations, Section 83 provides a right of appeal against the asylum refusal.
The group of asylum seekers most affected by the 12-month stipulation in Section 83(1)(b) is unaccompanied children. Unaccompanied children refused asylum are often granted discretionary leave on the basis that there are no adequate reception arrangements in their country of origin to which they could be returned. Discretionary leave granted to an unaccompanied child on this basis is granted for whichever is the shorter period of three years or until he or she is aged 17 and a half. Thus an unaccompanied child aged 16 and a half or over at the time of being refused asylum will not be granted discretionary leave of sufficient length to allow him or her to appeal against the refusal of asylum. He or she will have to wait until his or her discretionary leave is nearing its expiry and apply for an extension of the discretionary leave. If that extension is refused or granted for a period that when added to the period in the original grant comes to more than 12 months, he or she can appeal against the refusal of asylum.
This has serious implications for such a child. First, in many cases the UKBA does not decide an application for an extension of discretionary leave for many months, or sometimes years, after the application is made, so a child age 16 and a half when originally refused asylum may be well into adulthood before he or she is provided any opportunity of bringing an appeal against the refusal of asylum. Delay in establishing refugee status can cause substantial harm to the child’s welfare and development over and above the ongoing uncertainty as to the child’s longer term future. For example, children and young people with only discretionary leave to remain rather than refugee leave may have difficulty accessing further or higher education or accessing financial support for this purpose. Generally, unaccompanied children and young people awaiting a decision on their application for an extension of discretionary leave may have difficulties accessing a range of entitlements because, while in law they continue to have discretionary leave, the document by which that leave is given will show it to have expired.
Secondly, changes in circumstances as regards the child or his or her country of origin may mean it is more difficult or not possible to now succeed on appeal. This is because in an asylum appeal the issue for the immigration judge is not whether a person was a refugee when he or she originally claimed or was refused asylum, but whether the person is now at risk of persecution. For example, the child wrongly refused asylum but at risk of being recruited as a child soldier may be unable to establish his or her asylum claim by being denied a right of appeal until after he or she has ceased to be a child. Additionally, a child, like any other person, will normally be best able to recall events and give evidence in an appeal the closer in time the appeal is to those events.
Thirdly, provisions and guidance designed to protect a child’s interests in immigration procedures, including appeals, will be unavailable during procedures that take place after the child reaches adulthood. These provisions and guidance include judicial guidance on dealing with child applicants and witnesses, UK Border Agency guidance on dealing with children and Legal Services Commission guidance on availability of legal aid. The protections stipulate that particular care is needed in taking evidence from a child, that children are not to be detained and that a child should not be left without legal representation at appeal.
In the light of these considerations, the current provision acts contrary to the UK’s international and domestic obligations to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. It is contrary to the children’s best interests and hence to Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Given that the provision overwhelmingly acts to prejudice children, it is contrary to Article 2 of the convention as being discriminatory in practice on grounds of age and a person being a child.
I turn to Amendment 148D. Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 empowers the Secretary of State to prevent an asylum seeker or person making a human rights claim from exercising a right of appeal before his or her departure, voluntary or enforced, from the UK. The provision is often referred to as a non-suspensive appeals provision because ordinarily where an asylum or human rights claim was made by a person in the UK, the power to remove a person from the UK is suspended while he or she may bring or is pursuing an appeal.
When Section 94 was first debated by your Lordships in July 2002, the late Lord Archer of Sandwell asked:
“How many basic principles can be brought into contempt in 65 lines?”.
Having noted that succeeding on an asylum or human rights appeal after one has been removed from the UK may simply be too late, he cautioned:
“Once the claimant has passed out of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, we have no control over what happens to him”.
He also highlighted the great difficulties presented in trying to exercise one’s appeal from outside the country, including in particular where,
“the outcome may—usually does—depend on the assessment”,
by the immigration judge,
“of the applicant's evidence … and … to a substantial degree on seeing and hearing the witness”.—[Official Report, 23/7/02; cols. 344-45.]
The amendment removes the presumption of safety contained in Section 94(8) where the Secretary of State intends to remove the person to what she claims is a safe third country—not the person’s country of origin—and where she says the person will not suffer any human rights abuse and where she has issued a certificate under Section 94(7).
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I, too, was sent a brief with the same information by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, which briefed the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on his amendments. There is a case here that is of interest. There is not much that I can add to what the noble Lord has said but I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, particularly to Amendment 148C. I am concerned about the arrangements for young people and children, particularly those aged under 16. My only comment is that I am willing to listen to the noble Lord’s response to those amendments.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will deal with the amendments in the same order as my noble kinsman did. Amendment 148C would create a right of appeal whenever someone is refused asylum but is granted any form of leave. It would also have the effect of providing for multiple rights of appeal against the refusal of asylum for a group of cases where no right currently exists, as there will be a right of appeal every time a fresh grant of leave is given. That is possibly an undesirable position.
The original purpose of Section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which, again, the noble Baroness will well remember, was to provide a right of appeal where an asylum application has been refused but the applicant was granted more than 12 months’ leave. Normally when a claim for asylum is refused, there is a right of appeal against the subsequent removal from the UK rather than against the refusal of asylum itself. The appellant can raise asylum grounds as part of that appeal against his removal. However, where someone has been refused asylum but granted leave of less than 12 months, removal directions will not be set and therefore no appeal right arises. In these cases, the short duration of the leave necessarily means that the case will be considered again quickly, reducing the need for an appeal. Where there are no grounds to grant asylum but there are other valid reasons why someone cannot return to their home country, another form of immigration leave is sometimes granted. If leave is granted for more than 12 months, Section 83 of the 2002 Act provides for a right of appeal against the refusal of asylum.
Amendment 148C would remove the 12-month restriction and would create a right of appeal against the refusal of asylum, even where a short period of leave is granted. It is not unusual for these short periods of leave to be extended more than once, and recent case law means that the amendment would create a right of appeal against the earlier refusal of asylum every time further leave was granted. If a decision to remove the applicant from the UK was ultimately taken, a separate right of appeal would arise against that decision. The amendment would possibly undermine the intention of the existing asylum appeals framework, which aims to prevent multiple, fruitless appeals being used to prolong someone’s time in the United Kingdom, often at significant cost to the taxpayer.
My noble kinsman and the noble Baroness asked about the impact on children, particularly unaccompanied children, who are refused asylum. They are normally granted leave until they reach the age of 17 and a half. The 12-month restriction therefore means that some unaccompanied children will be refused asylum and granted less than 12 months’ leave, which means that they do not get an appeal right under Section 83 of the 2002 Act. Those children may not have their asylum considered by a court for more than a year after they first claimed asylum. That is an unfortunate consequence of the otherwise very sensible 12-month restriction, and I can assure my noble kinsman that we will review our policies concerning the length of leave granted to children to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of the sort that he and the noble Baroness implied.
Amendment 148D concerns the Secretary of State’s powers to certify, under Section 94(7) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, that removing a person to a safe third country will not breach his or her human rights. The effect of the certificate in such cases is that an appeal can be brought out of country only after that person has been removed. This provision is designed to prevent spurious appeals being used to delay removal in hopeless cases. When determining whether such persons may be removed, the third country must be a place from which the person will not be sent to another country other than in accordance with the refugee convention; we want to make that clear. If the certificate is challenged by judicial review, the court is required to regard the third country as one where the person’s rights under the refugee convention will not be breached. I believe, therefore, that Amendment 148D is unnecessary because the courts are already able to consider whether the person’s human rights may be breached by way of judicial review challenging the issue of that certificate. Once the person has been removed to the third country, an appeal may be brought and refugee convention issues can be considered. In light of that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble kinsman for what he has said about Amendment 148C. I look forward to hearing further from him, perhaps on Report, about the results of the policy review on the length of permission granted for a child and the effects of an appeal being heard after the child has reached the age of adulthood. I hope that I may take it, from what he said, that we will be able to have a more concrete idea of what the Government propose to do to remedy the situation before Report. If legislation is required to remedy it, we must not miss the opportunity presented by the Bill.
On Amendment 148D, the question of whether we need changes in the statute to cope with the cases that I have mentioned, where it was found that the presumption was not justified, is a matter on which I need to take further legal advice, so I will not pursue the matter any further at this point but may well return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury
“Appeal in progress
In the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, in section 99(1), omit “96(1) or (2)”.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, under Sections 96 to 99 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Secretary of State may issue a certificate causing a properly initiated and extant appeal before the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, or onward appeal against a decision of that chamber, to be summarily terminated. The cases dealt with in Sections 97 and 98 concern matters of national security or certain cases where the Secretary of State has certified that a person’s presence in the UK is, or would not be, conducive to the public good, and these amendments do not affect those provisions.
Section 96(1) and (2) concern situations where the Secretary of State asserts that the subject matter a person now relies upon could and should have been raised in previous appeal proceedings. However, the Secretary of State’s opportunity to make such an assertion and issue a certificate to exclude a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal is when she is making her decision in relation to the subject matter, not after she has rejected it and an appeal initiated. Indeed, Section 96 expressly recognises this. Section 96(7) states:
“A certificate under subsection (1) or (2) shall have no effect in relation to an appeal instituted before the certificate is issued”.
Section 99 was commenced on 1 April 2003 by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (Commencement No. 4) Order. Section 96, however, was later revised and Section 96(7) inserted on 1 October 2004 by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2004. However, when this revision was made, Section 99 was not amended so as to reflect the change introduced under the 2004 Act. The ineffective and erroneous part of Section 99, which the amendment seeks to remove, is another example highlighting the degree of complexity in the statutory immigration appeals provisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I can be very brief on this, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, explained his amendment in great detail. My understanding from the briefing that I received is that this proposal would be a modest tidying and simplification of what the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association said was a highly complex statutory appeals process. On that basis, it appears to be a tidying-up amendment, but it would be helpful to know whether the Minister shares that view or whether he believes that it represents a significant change. My legal knowledge is not great enough, but I would like to hear the other side of it, and if it is just a simplification and tidying-up I hope that the Government would agree to it.
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness knows that my legal knowledge is equally limited but my understanding also is that this is a relatively simple tidying-up amendment, and I congratulate my noble kinsman on doing it. If I have understood him properly, he is trying to clarify that certifying a decision under Section 96 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has no effect on any pending appeal. If that is correct, we would want to look at it. If he is willing to withdraw his amendment I am more than happy to consider the matter further and to report back to him in advance of the next stage. Because of the timing of this Bill we are in the very happy position of having some months, even with party conferences, between this stage and the next stage of the Bill—although, sadly, some of us might miss our own party conference because of the date of the next day in Committee on the Bill. We will look at this and if my noble kinsman is prepared to withdraw it, I will get back to him and see what we can do.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. I have been following these debates as best I can. I have been at the Bar for a very long time. My wife is an immigration and asylum judge. I note that the Court of Appeal has begged the Government to codify and simplify the morass of unintelligible legislation which only my noble friend Lord Avebury truly understands. Is there any hope that once this Bill becomes law the Government will heed the court’s plea—to which I would add people such as my wife who, as a judge, has to interpret and apply this law—so that even if ordinary men and women cannot understand it, at least ordinary lawyers may be able to do so?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I would be the first to say to my noble friend that he is not an ordinary lawyer and nor is his wife—they are both very eminent lawyers. If they say it is a morass of unintelligible law obviously it must be. However, I am not sure it is as unintelligible as he claims. Obviously, we will look at this. As with all law, if consolidation can make matters simpler it is something that can be looked at. If it is a matter for departments—in this case the Home Office—we must look at it. As my noble friend will be aware, finding time for any legislative changes is always difficult.
Lord Deben
I hope that my noble friend will accept that it is not just a matter of making the law intelligible for lawyers. The people who suffer—if I may put it like that—under the immigration laws are people who ought to feel, at least as far as they can, that they have been dealt with fairly. We have had examples already this afternoon of situations that are so complex that it would be very hard to explain to one of these people that they have been dealt with fairly. If they leave this country I would be much happier if they said, “Of course, I ought to have got in but actually I was dealt with fairly”, than if they go away feeling, “I really don’t know why the blazes I wasn’t allowed in”. It seems to me hugely important that we get this formulation right.
Lord Henley
My noble friend is absolutely correct. It is always difficult to make sure that any law is understandable to the ordinary man or woman in the street or the ordinary man or woman on the Clapham omnibus. It is obviously, as our noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill put it, sometimes difficult to make the law intelligible to even the extraordinary lawyers let alone the ordinary ones. We try to make sure that it is as intelligible as possible but, as I think my noble friend Lord Lester is aware, even with some of the simplest laws one lawyer will take one view and another will take another view. These matters are often argued in the courts at some considerable length. We try to do what we can to make things as simple as possible. I hoped that this would be a very short amendment, and I hope that the reassurance that I offered to my noble kinsman will be sufficient for him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury
The important thing is that my noble kinsman has agreed to tidy up Section 99 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I am most grateful to him for that assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury
“(4) This section does not apply if—
(a) the person concerned is stateless, (b) the person concerned has previously made an asylum claim or a human rights claim and been granted leave on that basis, or(c) the person concerned asserts in his or her grounds of appeal an asylum claim or a human rights claim.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, in moving Amendment 148F, I will speak also to Amendments 148G, 149A and Clause 25 stand part.
Clause 25 is unjust and oppressive. It is contrary to the principles underpinning a fair trial. It applies where the Secretary of State cancels or curtails a person’s leave to be in the UK while that person is outside the UK, using the power in Section 82(2)(e) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. If the Secretary of State certifies that the decision is or was taken wholly or partly on the grounds that it is no longer conducive to the public good for the person to have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, the person will be precluded from exercising any right of appeal from within the UK. Even when the person has returned to the UK and launched an appeal before the certificate is issued, Clause 25(4) means that when the Secretary of State issues the certificate, the appeal will lapse and the person will be excluded from any right of appeal until he or she has again left the UK.
That persons are outside the UK when their leave is cancelled is not an unhappy accident; it is a result of the policy of waiting until a person is outside the country to serve the decision to cancel their leave. A person whose leave is cancelled is normally entitled to an in-country appeal against the decision to take away their leave, as well as the continuation of their leave on the same terms and conditions during the period within which an appeal can be brought and, if they do appeal, while the appeal is pending. The Home Office took the view that a person who was outside the country at the time when the leave was cancelled was not entitled to an in-country appeal. The courts held that as a matter of statutory construction, a person’s leave continues on the same terms and conditions during the 10-day period within which an in-country appeal can be brought and that they must be given the opportunity to return to the UK to launch the appeal within this time limit. If the person does not take that opportunity, they do not have an in-country right of appeal, but if they do, they have such a right and their leave continues until that appeal is finally determined. It is this ruling that Clause 25 would reverse.
Why should the Secretary of State use the information she holds about a person’s whereabouts to cancel their leave when they are out of the country and thus dictate whether or not they have an in-country right of appeal? That one party to litigation can control whether the other party has an in-country right of appeal offends against the principles of fairness. Why should one person have an in-country right of appeal and another, who has received the very same immigration decision, not do so just because one of them happened to have left the UK for a few days at the time the decision was served? There is no rational basis for the differential treatment.
The case of MK illustrates the oppressive nature of Clause 25. He was a recognised refugee and lived in the UK for several years with his wife and daughters. A European arrest warrant was issued for his arrest in connection with terrorism-related activities. Extradition to Italy was sought. His challenge to extradition failed. It was accepted in the course of the extradition proceedings that he was at risk of torture in Tunisia, his country of nationality. No real risk was seen that Italy would refoule him to Tunisia. MK’s wife and daughters, his dependants, remained at home in the UK.
MK was tried in Italy and acquitted of all charges except one, relating to the procurement of a false travel document, which all agreed did not relate to terrorist activities. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment but had already served that time on remand. Nevertheless, he continued to be held in immigration detention in Italy against his return to the country of his nationality, Tunisia, because a request was immediately made by the Italian police for his expulsion there. What had been considered unthinkable by the court in the UK extradition hearings was actually happening.
MK told the Italian authorities that he was a refugee and they took steps to determine whether he could be returned to the UK, his country of refuge. Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights intervened at MK’s request, indicating to Italy that under rule 39 of the rules of court he should not be returned to Tunisia. Seven days later, the Secretary of State wrote to MK’s solicitors in the UK that she had decided to revoke his refugee status and had also decided to cancel his indefinite leave to remain on the grounds that his exclusion from the UK would be conducive to the public good. MK’s solicitors lodged an appeal within the time limits applicable. It was argued by the Secretary of State that she was under no obligation to facilitate his return so that he could exercise an in-country right of appeal. The judge disagreed, concluding that the proper construction of Section 3D of the Immigration Act 1971 was that leave was extended for the 10 days that would enable the individual wishing to do so to make arrangements to return to the UK to pursue the appeal against the cancellation.
MK’s case is chilling but it is far from as bad as it could be. He knew of the decisions taken against him. They were not simply sitting on the mat undiscovered but served on him as a matter of law, which provides that a decision is deemed to be served two days after delivery to a person’s last known address. He had at all times the benefit of lawyers on the record ready to act in the UK, overseas and at the level of the European Court of Human Rights to protect him. He had challenged his extradition in the UK prior to its execution and thus had findings of fact as to the risk of torture in Tunisia. He was extradited to a country that is party to the European Convention on Human Rights, being thus able to benefit from an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights, designed to prevent onward refoulement from Italy.
MK lodged an appeal before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and also had a claim involving asylum matters, on both of which grounds, even after the coming into effect of the LASPO Act 2012, he would continue to be eligible for legal aid. It is not difficult to imagine cases to which Clause 25 will apply when the facts are very different and the risks enormously increased.
In MK, the Secretary of State accepted that there are advantages in being present in the UK to pursue an appeal. The Court of Appeal in that case described the right to an in-country appeal as “valuable”. It is difficult to pursue an appeal that turns on your character when you cannot appear in person before the court. It is difficult to find and work with legal representatives to bring an appeal if you are outside the UK and particularly, as was the case with MK, you are not in your country of nationality but stranded in a third country. It can be costly. Under the LASPO Act those who come before the SIAC or who claim asylum continue to be eligible for legal aid for their appeal, but those who are heard before ordinary tribunals and who make no claim for asylum will not.
If a person does return to the UK to appeal, they submit to the UK’s powers. They can be prosecuted for any criminal offence they have committed. The Home Secretary loses none of her powers of administrative detention under the immigration Acts. The person gains the advantage of continuing leave to be in the UK but at a price. The only reason for wanting to be in the UK to challenge the decision is that a person thinks that they have a chance of winning.
On Amendment 148F, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the concerns expressed by the UNHCR. It has exercised its good offices for many persons recognised as refugees by the UK but who, having left the country temporarily for personal reasons, found themselves unable to return here. They can turn only to us, as it was the UK that granted them international protection. The UNHCR says that if they are now to be deprived of the right to return to the UK to challenge a decision to cancel or curtail their leave to enter or remain in the UK, this would increase their vulnerability and leave them at a risk of refoulement. Amendment 148F addresses this concern by disapplying Clause 25 to stateless persons, refugees and persons granted humanitarian protection, and persons who challenge the cancellation of their leave on the basis that it would breach their rights under the UN convention relating to the status of refugees.
The UNHCR refers specifically to new Section 97B or the NIA Act, which deprives a person of his normal in-country right of appeal if the Secretary of State deems him to be a person whose presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. The 1951 convention and its 1967 protocol list exhaustively the means by which a person can have their refugee status abrogated, and these do not include the procedure of the kind specified in proposed new Section 97B. The UNHCR says that a UK refugee labelled as “non-conducive to the public good” while he is out of the country should be able to return here and challenge the decision before the courts. The same principle should apply to stateless persons. The reduction, if not eradication, of statelessness is a shared responsibility of states. As was demonstrated at a conference to mark the 50th anniversary of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness organised jointly by the UNHCR and the Parliamentary Human Rights Group last December, the UK has effectively assumed responsibility for many different stateless communities, such as the Kuwaiti Bidoon, altogether numbering thousands of people, by granting them leave to remain and ultimately, after a lapse of years, UK citizenship.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have a copy of the briefing that was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I have had the opportunity to read through what is quite a lengthy and complex explanation as he has been speaking, which has been helpful. Therefore, I do not want to repeat the arguments that he has made.
I do have some questions, although I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to respond. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will withdraw his amendment, possibly bringing it back on Report depending on the Minister’s answer. However, I have a few questions, as I am uncertain about some of the provisions in the clause and in the amendment, and it would be helpful if the noble Lord could address them. I am quite happy to have the response in writing.
From the briefing—I am sure I am not the only Member of the Committee to have received the same briefing on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—there is an implication regarding the circumstances under which somebody’s leave to remain will be cancelled while they are out of the country. I should be interested to hear from the Minister the criteria for cancelling somebody’s leave to remain while they are out of the country. Is this purely an administrative decision or, as is implied, is it almost the case that the Home Secretary is lying in wait, wanting to cancel leave to remain and waiting until a person leaves the country before doing so? It would be helpful to have some information on that. What proportion of cancelled leave to remain is taken when somebody is out of the country, as opposed to somebody being in-country?
Finally—we have had a very full explanation of the amendments—the legislation refers to the decision on removing the right to remain as being,
“taken wholly or partly on the ground that it is no longer conducive to the public good”,
for the person to have that leave. Is there a definition of “public good”? Is there a definition of when there is no longer that public good and the leave to remain is withdrawn? My concerns are about people being treated fairly and that there is no presumption that, because somebody leaves the country—well, I will come back to that. However, there must not be many of these cases. It would be interesting to know what proportion of cancelled leave to remain relates to people out of the country as opposed to people who are in-country.
Lord Judd
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is absolutely right to put down the amendment. I am glad he drew attention to the comments by UNHCR, because UNHCR has immense responsibilities on behalf of the international community and its very serious considerations are sometimes treated too lightly.
Wrapped up in this issue is something on which I dwelt at Second Reading: concern about the division between what I would call administrative law and a real search for justice. In the fraught area of migration in general and the more difficult areas of asylum and the rest in particular, where all kinds of pressures and real dangers operate for the people concerned, it is most important to be certain that the balance remains on the side of justice. I would be grateful for the Minister’s considered view on whether this priority for justice—as distinct from a self-evident rationalisation of what may be convenient within political circles—can be pursued. The individual concerned is much more vulnerable when they are abroad. As the noble Lord has said, it is much more complex, challenging and difficult to mount an appeal from abroad. Can we really ensure that justice prevails if we have this provision? Should someone who has a right to appeal not have the right to pursue it here, where they can put their case fully before the courts and be tested in depth by them on their position and where there is an opportunity for others who may have a perspective on a case to bring their views and judgments into the deliberations that are taking place?
I hope the Minister will forgive me for saying that I am profoundly worried about this and would like his assurance that he is equally worried and is looking to make sure that, in this area, it is justice and not administrative convenience—whatever the apparent logical reasons for this administrative convenience—that has pride of place.
Lord Henley
My Lords, we are speaking to my noble kinsman’s Amendment 148F, to which is attached his Motion relating to whether Clause 25 should stand part of the Bill, his new Amendment 149A and Amendment 149 in my name and his—which my noble kinsman seemed to think he got down first. I presumed I had got it down first, because my name is at the top of the list. However, we will not argue about that point because I presume that my noble kinsman is grateful for the fact that we have both come to the same conclusion on that, and I will deal with it in due course.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that I have also seen the briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association on these amendments and others. I will therefore, I hope, address most of the points that have been put forward by noble Lords on these matters in my response. I will deal with the questions that she has raised and those put by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Obviously, again—because I presume my noble kinsman is not going to press these amendments, other than government Amendment 149 —we can come back to this on Report. The noble Baroness is making signs of a writing nature at me. I will, of course, write to her in due course; I thought that she was asking for the bill—but not this Bill.
I will first set out what we think Clause 25 does and then say something about the amendments as appropriate. Clause 25 addresses the current anomaly in legislation that allows an individual to return here to appeal a decision to cancel leave, despite being excluded by the Secretary of State—that is, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—from the United Kingdom. Exclusion is obviously a key tool in tackling those who seek to cause harm to the United Kingdom; we have to remember my right honourable friend’s key and important role in the safety of the kingdom. Exclusion is used to tackle a range of conduct, including terrorist-related activity, serious criminality and engagement in unacceptable behaviours. The exclusion power is used sparingly and is reserved for those who are considered to be the highest-harm cases. It is therefore crucial that, once the Secretary of State makes such a decision, it is given full and immediate effect. It should not be undermined by a separate immigration decision, taken only to give effect to the exclusion and the accompanying appeal right it brings.
Of course, any such decision by my right honourable friend should be open to challenge and review by the courts. However, the Government believe that, given the nature of these cases, it is—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was saying—wholly reasonable that judicial scrutiny of the decision should be carried out while the individual remains outside the United Kingdom.
Clause 25 therefore seeks to provide the Secretary of State with a certification power where she decides that the decision to cancel leave under Section 82(2)(e) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was taken on the grounds that the individual’s presence in the United Kingdom would not be conducive to the public good. The effect of that is that, upon certification, where the individual is outside the United Kingdom at the time of the decision, the in-country right of appeal under Section 92 of the 2002 Act no longer applies to such a decision and is replaced by an appeal from outside the United Kingdom only.
We accept that the power to remove appeal rights from the UK to abroad must be reserved for the highest-harm cases; this is obviously not something that can be done on a whim. This is why we have restricted such a change to individuals whose presence in the UK is certified by the Secretary of State to be non-conducive to the public good. We have also expressly stated that this applies only to individuals outside the United Kingdom at the time of the decision.
Government Amendment 149, which is also in the name of my noble kinsman, seeks to remove subsection (4) of Clause 25. My noble kinsman has identified an issue of concern, which we want to address with our amendment. Subsection (4) would result in the lapsing of appeals against a cancellation of leave which are certified under the new certification power. These individuals will be left without any appeal right. That is not our intention. The intention of subsection (4) was to provide for an initial in-country right of appeal to lapse in the event that the decision to cancel leave was taken before the exclusion decision. However, as drafted, subsection (4) would cause all appeal rights to lapse. Removing subsection (4) ensures that all cases falling within the provisions of Clause 25 will have an out-of-country right of appeal against the decision to cancel leave.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, we will not quarrel about the priority of tabling subsection (4) and I express my gratitude to my noble kinsman for agreeing that that provision should be deleted. With regard to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, about the criteria for declaring a person non-conducive to the public good, of course they do not have to be stated. It is the Secretary of State’s right to make such a declaration without explanation and no appeal can be mounted against that because the individual concerned has no knowledge of the reasons why that order was made in the first place. The power to declare somebody non-conducive to the public good is a very draconian power and it is a pity we have to invoke it without giving the target any legal right of challenge.
On Amendment 148F, I am not sure that my noble kinsman fully addressed the concerns that were expressed by the UNHCR, which, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have to be taken very seriously indeed, because they are the guardians of the people who are concerned by this amendment. As the noble Lord suggested, we will probably have to return to this matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley
Lord Avebury
“Immigration and nationality appeals from the Upper Tribunal
Section 13(6) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (right of appeal to Court of Appeal etc.) does not apply in relation to immigration and nationality appeals from the Upper Tribunal.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, in moving Amendment 149B, I shall also discuss Amendment 149C. These are alternative amendments reducing the impact of the additional and highly restrictive requirement to show an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason, in immigration and nationality appeals from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal. This additional requirement is referred to as the “second-tier appeals test”. The second of the two alternatives I have tabled is narrower, removing this test in asylum and human rights appeals but not other immigration appeals.
The second-tier appeals test was introduced by Section 13(6) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 for certain appeals from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal. During the passage of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill in 2009, your Lordships voted through amendments to prevent the test applying to immigration and nationality appeals. This amendment derives from the wording of the amendment originally tabled by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, QC, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, QC, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and subsequently adopted by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and the late Lord Kingsland as part of a wider amendment concerning the Upper Tribunal. The Joint Committee on Human Rights had concurred with the legal opinion of Sir Richard Buxton, a recently retired Lord Justice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal, that the introduction of such restrictions might not be compatible with the UK’s international obligations.
The same considerations apply now as they did then, and there is a new factor. The increased rotation of judges under the Crime and Courts Bill will mean that there are more judges in the Upper Tribunal who are not immersed in these cases making asylum and immigration decisions, and they will be without the supervision of the Court of Appeal if the clause is unamended. At the moment, we continue to see the higher courts engaged on these issues. There are some poor tribunal decisions but, to be fair, this is an incredibly complex, difficult and fast-moving area of the law. The tribunal judges sitting from time to time in the immigration and asylum chambers of the tribunal may be excellent tribunal judges. However, they are not infallible, and the effect of the LASPO Act 2012, whether directly, in immigration, or indirectly, in asylum, will be that more appellants are unrepresented.
Among the concerns expressed in 2009 was the impact of the second-tier appeals test in potentially excluding appeals to the Court of Appeal where the individuals faced removal in breach of the refugee convention and their human rights as a result of errors of law by the tribunal. Ministers gave assurances in both Houses that these sorts of cases would be the ones that could be expected to meet the test. Phil Woolas said,
“the test would not stop cases that raise important issues concerning human rights or asylum being granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/09; col. 210.]
There were other soothing comments, of which I will cite only one, made by the current Immigration Minister, Damian Green, who said:
“The widespread feeling is that Home Office failings must not be compensated for by a lessening of appeal rights in those complex cases that involve human rights issues or constitutional principles, and that the inadequate handling of judicial reviews by an untested tribunal risks increasing the work load of the supervising court, the Court of Appeal, and reducing supervision at the Home Office”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/07/09; col. 212.]
Those assurances have proved to be ephemeral following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of PR (Sri Lanka). The Court of Appeal considered the ministerial assurances given in 2009, concluding that,
“it would be wrong in principle”,
to be constrained by those assurances and, in applying the second-tier appeals test, refused permission to appeal in each of the three asylum cases before the court. In one of those cases the appellant had been detained and tortured in Sri Lanka. Applying the test, the Court of Appeal concluded:
“The claimed risks are, unhappily, in no way exceptional in this jurisdiction, and not in themselves such as to require the attention of the Court of Appeal”.
In another of the three cases, the judge identified an error of law in the failure of the tribunals below to correctly apply country guidance in respect of Zimbabwe asylum claims, but concluded that the test none the less precluded any appeal to the court. In the last of the three cases, Lord Justice Pitchford found the reasoning of the tribunals below to be, “obscure and contradictory” and such as to give rise to a real prospect of success on the appeal if permission had been granted.
In the case of JD (Congo), however, the Court of Appeal granted JD permission to appeal on the basis that there was an error of law in the Upper Tribunal’s conclusion that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, but the UT’s criticisms of the FTT’s decision amount to no more than a disagreement as to the proportionality of removal. The consequences of removal for JD and his partner were acknowledged to be very severe.
Taken together, these two judgments show that asylum and other human rights cases are neither exempt from the test, nor grounds in themselves to meet the test. That an error could lead to a person being returned to a country where he or she may be tortured will not necessarily mean that the test is met, as in the case of PR (Sri Lanka).
There are other significant conclusions to be drawn from these cases, as the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association emphasised in its briefing for your Lordships on these amendments. I hope that my noble kinsman has had an opportunity of considering them carefully in making up his mind as to how to respond this afternoon.
In conclusion, leaving aside all the complexities of the second-tier appeals test, which have preoccupied the Court of Appeal, it has been shown that without Amendment 149B, or at least Amendment 149C, we shall be in breach of our obligations under both the refugee convention and the ECHR and that we have been warned by no less an authority than the UNHCR itself. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, we are again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the detail with which he explained his amendment. I think that these are amendments drafted by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. As I understand the noble Lord, they are alternative amendments. The first removes the requirement to show an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason, in immigration and nationality appeals from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal: that is known as the second-tier appeals test. The second, if I understand it correctly, is a lesser amendment and would apply to all immigration and nationality appeals concerning asylum and human rights. The noble Lord indicates that I do understand correctly.
The noble Lord referred to the impact the second-tier appeals test has had and I would like to hear the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. There were some serious points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If the Government are opposing the amendment, we need to understand their case for doing so, including their views on the impact this would have if implemented and the reasons and evidence used to justify holding those views. It would be helpful to hear from the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has made a detailed and interesting case and there must be some justification if the Government are not going to accept the amendments.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendment 149B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Avebury, seeks to remove immigration and nationality appeals from the provisions in Section 13(6) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Similarly, Amendment 149C seeks to remove a narrower class of appeals—those which relate to the refugee convention or the European Convention on Human Rights—from the provisions in that section. Section 13(6) of the 2007 Act enables the Lord Chancellor to set out, by order, the test which applications have to meet for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Upper Tribunal. That order-making power has been exercised so that where a party seeks permission to appeal on a point of law against a decision of the Upper Tribunal, the second-tier appeals test will be applied, as noble Lords have said. That test requires that in order to grant permission, the Upper Tribunal or Court of Appeal has to consider that the proposed appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, or that there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal.
The Government, like the courts themselves, fully appreciate the gravity of the subject of these appeals. Amendment 149C is concerned with appeals of the most serious kind, where the claim may be that if the appellant is returned home they may face torture or even death. Such cases undoubtedly deserve what has been called anxious scrutiny. In the Government’s view, that is what the system currently provides. At present, if a person makes a claim to asylum in the United Kingdom, for example, and that claim is rejected, he or she can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. If that tribunal dismisses the appeal, there is a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Alternatively, if the appeal is allowed, the UK Border Agency may appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
Both the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal are composed of judges who are experts in this most sensitive of subjects. Therefore, if the Upper Tribunal rejects the appeal, it seems right to the Government that the test to take the matter to a third judicial body should be high. The courts have been clear that there is no case for saying that the UK would be in breach of its international obligations if appeals from the Upper Tribunal are available only in these circumstances. At present, all appeals from the various jurisdictions of the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal are considered under the second-tier appeals test. That same test, under the Access to Justice Act 1999, also applies where there is an appeal against a decision of the High Court and where the latter was acting in its appellate capacity.
The Government believe that the same level of consideration should be given to all types of appeals, even to the sorts of cases with which Amendment 149C is concerned. One reason for this is that not all claims which are made are substantiated when they are put to the test. The second-tier appeals test gives judges appropriate control over the cases that reach the Court of Appeal. Removing this test could cause the Court of Appeal to be inundated with cases that may not justify their consideration. This would cause delays in the provision of justice for the whole range of decisions that are brought to the Court of Appeal and put further pressure on the judicial resources available to that court.
The courts have made a number of important judgments recently that help to clarify the application of the test for cases seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the immigration and asylum context. For instance, if a person maintains in their application for permission to appeal that they will be persecuted if they are returned home, that will be a matter which the Upper Tribunal can consider in determining whether the “some other compelling reason” limb of Section 13(6), is met in reference to the second-tier appeals test. If it refuses permission, it is open to the appellant to apply direct to the Court of Appeal for permission.
There is no doubt that the class of cases dealt with by Amendment 149C can be both complex and of the utmost importance. It is our belief that the current structure, including applying the second-tier appeals test in appeals from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal, is the right one. That was of course the position of those who are now the Opposition when they were in government, as they argued the case then. As we consider that the case is not made out to change the test for the most serious kinds of cases—and as we also heard the other day from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in defence of the Upper Tribunal’s track record in what has happened since this was debated a few years back—it follows that we do not accept that that test should be removed for the wider category of cases covered by Amendment 149B. I therefore urge my noble friend to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Avebury
I cannot say that I am not disappointed by that reply, because, as I said initially, there have been cases where people at very serious risk of torture have not been allowed to appeal to the Court of Appeal. For example, in the case that I mentioned of PR (Sri Lanka), the individual had been tortured in Sri Lanka and that was acknowledged by the courts but not deemed to be sufficient reason for the second-tier appeal test to have been satisfied. There have been conflicting decisions by the courts on the second-tier appeal. The only safe thing would be to ensure that where considerations of human rights are involved, as they were in the case of PR, the right of appeal to the Upper Court should be retained and the second-tier appeal test should be modified in the manner that I suggested. However, since my noble friend has suggested that we defer this matter until Report—
Baroness Northover
Perhaps I might point out to my noble friend that it is not the case that the second-tier appeals test does not allow for materially wrong decisions to be challenged by the Court of Appeal and that in the JD (Congo) case, three of the four appellants seeking permission were granted it. The immigration and asylum chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal have been set up specifically to deal with these kinds of matters. My noble friend mentioned the complexity and sensitivity of these kinds of cases, and I should have answered by addressing that point.
Lord Avebury
I mentioned the case of JD (Congo) in my first speech—I have it in front of me—and I accept that in that case, the second-tier appeals test was found to have been met. However, there are other cases in which the circumstances were equally compelling and where that test has not been met. It was in the hope that we would clear up that ambiguity in how the second-tier appeals test is interpreted that I tabled my amendment. As I was about to say, we will have to reflect on this and perhaps come back to it on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, in the clause that my amendment seeks to address the Government are proposing to extend vastly the powers of the UK Border Agency’s customs and immigration officers. I do not necessarily oppose this in principle. We have to understand the very challenging nature of the work undertaken by border control. The nature of international and global threats is constantly changing and we have to pay tribute to the immigration officers. They have a difficult job, they work in a challenging environment, and they have suffered cuts to their numbers in the last couple of years. However, we need to look at two things.
First, such an extension of powers would need to be properly justified and explained to your Lordships’ House. Secondly, we need to ensure that those exercising those powers have the necessary skills, rank, and remit, in order to ensure public confidence in the UK Border Agency as well as confidence within it. Also, is it up to it? I do not in any way mean the individual border officers, but rather whether they have the resources, training and capacity to undertake those roles.
Clause 26 extends a number of powers to immigration officers, both under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act. Those powers are significant: the power to authorise the use of covert surveillance—“intrusive surveillance”, according to the Bill—and property interference such as wiretapping and installation of listening devices, as well as powers to authorise confiscation and detained cash and money-laundering investigations. These are serious new powers to give to immigration officers. They are currently only authorised by senior officers, and they are exercised by experienced and specialised professionals. Our amendments seek to ensure that if those powers are to be extended to immigration officers, they will be exercised with the same level of expertise and seniority.
When I first looked at the Bill it seemed to contain very wide-ranging powers, and there is a case for the Government to justify those. However, I looked at the Explanatory Notes, and the amendments seek to put on the face of the Bill what is in them. The Explanatory Notes are very helpful in this regard, because they make clear—I refer to page 64 and paragraph 380 in particular—that the intrusive surveillance available under RIPA should only be extended to officers working within the criminal and financial investigation teams. The paragraph says:
“The purpose of this amendment”—
which we are talking about, and which is in the clause—
“is to provide for immigration officers working in Criminal and Financial Investigation (‘CFI’) teams in the UK Border Agency … to be able to apply to exercise property interference powers equivalent to those already used by customs officials”.
It cites the Act and legislation under which they can use them, and states that:
“CFI teams have responsibility for investigating smuggling of drugs, firearms and weapons and organised immigration and customs crimes”.
If, as I understand from the Explanatory Notes, the Government intend these powers to be used only in the specific context of criminal and financial investigation by immigration officers, then it would be helpful to state that in the Bill and be very clear about it, rather than allowing the scope—as seems to be the case at the moment in this clause—for any immigration officer to exercise those powers. I am concerned about whether training and support could be available to all immigration officers, and whether it would be for all staff or only for those above a certain rank. That gives me some cause for concern, because if all immigration officers had that power, there is then the understanding that any immigration officer could exercise that power, even without the training or the appropriate rank or experience. What is in the Explanatory Notes is therefore better than what is in the Bill, though that may be an oversight in drafting.
Amendments 149CB and 153B, which follow Amendment 149CA, are intended to probe the Government’s justification for these highly specialised powers. These probing amendments remove Clause 26(4) and (5) and paragraphs 14 to 39 of Schedule 14, which extend to the UK Border Agency’s chief operating officer the ability to authorise immigration officers’ powers of investigation into confiscation, detained cash and money-laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act. At present, the only individuals who can exercise those powers are accredited financial investigators, police constables or Customs officials, and in the case of confiscation investigations only SOCA officers—although SOCA has now been absorbed into the National Crime Agency. Notwithstanding police constables, all these individuals work within the specific field of serious financial and economic crime. I assume that once the National Crime Agency is up and running and fully established, it will have responsibility for those crimes.
The Government need to explain and justify for what purposes immigration officers also need such powers. What will be the relationship between the immigration officers who have this power and the National Crime Agency? Earlier clauses in the Bill refer to the relationship between the National Crime Agency and local police forces, and the powers of notification. If immigration officers are given new powers, there should be the same kind of co-operation and information-sharing between immigration officers, who have such powers, and the National Crime Agency, otherwise there will be a gap to fall through; both groups could end up investigating similar crimes or there could be an overlap of crimes. It would be helpful if the Government could clearly explain for what purposes immigration officers need these powers, and why, with the existing powers they have, there could not be co-operation with the National Crime Agency.
Paragraph 381 in the Explanatory Notes says that:
“At present, the UKBA is able to authorise applications from immigration officers investigating serious organised immigration for directed surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources … and the ‘senior authorising officer’ can authorise applications for intrusive surveillance”.
However, this amendment takes it one stage further, so there needs to be a little more justification and understanding. I can understand the issue around the crimes, but I am not clear why any immigration officer could have those powers—which appears to be the case in the Bill, though perhaps not in the Explanatory Notes. Why is it not sufficient to extend the powers of current specialised officers, or to work with them and the National Crime Agency? I would also be interested in some information on the training that would be given to the specialised officers. Would there originally have been any expectation that they should have any specialised skills, or would it have been something that any immigration officer could take on if they had had the appropriate training?
Finally, does the UK Border Agency have the capacity to take on this role? The following amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which we will discuss shortly, covers a number of issues including queues at Heathrow, where we have seen enormous pressures put on the staff. Given the current wording of the Bill, and in particular that it would seem to apply to any immigration officer, I worry about giving very wide-ranging additional powers and responsibilities to a border agency that, as we heard earlier, is struggling to maintain its current responsibilities. It has had to draft in officers from the Ministry of Defence and civil servants from other parts of the Government. I want an assurance that anybody drafted in on a temporary basis—to help out with extended queues at Heathrow, for example—would not be given the powers of entry and surveillance as outlined in the Bill.
It would be helpful if the Minister could give some answers to those questions. The new powers given to the UK Border Agency are very extensive, and it would be interesting to know the Minister’s justification of them, and how he imagines that they will operate.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out what she is trying to do in these amendments, which I take it are merely probing amendments, as I believe she said. I am also grateful that she paid tribute to the very difficult job that immigration officers do. However, she probably used rather unfortunate language when she asked whether they were quite up to it, although she qualified what she meant by that. She then said that she thought that the Explanatory Notes were possibly better than the Bill itself. Sadly, we do not have legislation by Explanatory Note. However, I am always more than happy to look again at the wording of individual clauses, should it be necessary. Again, as always, we have any amount of time to deal with these matters between now and Report and the further stages as this Bill proceeds through Parliament.
Put very simply, the noble Baroness is asking what Clause 26 is about and why we think it is necessary. The proposed extension of powers is saying that it is necessary for the United Kingdom Border Agency to have extra powers to respond robustly to serious and organised crime. Customs officials within the UK Border Agency are already entitled to apply for intrusive surveillance under RIPA and for property interference under the Police Act for the purpose of investigating customs offences. This clause will rightly extend these powers to immigration officers for the purpose of investigating serious and organised crime.
I turn to the amendments and, in doing so, I hope that I will answer some of the points. I suspect that the noble Baroness has not quite got the wording of the amendments right because Amendment 149CA achieves the opposite effect to the one she wants. It would require the authorising officer, who is responsible for authorising applications to interfere with property under Section 93 of the Police Act 1997, to be a senior official who is working within a criminal and financial investigation team of the UK Border Agency. Although I suspect it may not have been the intention of the noble Baroness, the effect of this amendment would be to restrict and potentially lower the grade of the authorising officer.
Clause 26(1) already limits the role of the authorising officer to a senior official within the meaning of RIPA who has been designated for that purpose by the Secretary of State—that is, the Home Secretary. Within the police, the relevant rank for an authorising officer would be a chief constable. Under the UK Border Agency’s structure, this would be the current director of operations and deputy chief executive. No one working in the criminal and financial investigation teams would be senior enough to equate to that grade. I am sure that the Committee and the noble Baroness share our view that an authorisation to interfere with property should not be approved by anyone less senior than that level. I should also note that the director of operations and deputy chief executive of the UK Border Agency already effectively authorises applications under Section 93 of the Police Act 1997 with regard to customs investigations.
I appreciate that this is a probing amendment but, in short, it would weaken rather than tighten the controls on the exercise of these intrusive powers under Part 3 of the Police Act 1997. All that said, the noble Baroness made it clear that she is seeking to give effect to our commitment that we will limit the exercise of these intrusive powers—that is why she wanted to know why we are seeking extra powers—to specially trained immigration officers in the UK Border Agency’s criminal and financial investigation teams. We do not, however, consider it appropriate to include such an express provision in the Bill given the existing safeguards in the Police Act 1997 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. We do not have such specificity for customs officials, and the aim is to provide parity for immigration officers.
As the noble Baroness will be aware, Section 28 of RIPA provides that for a senior authorising officer to grant an authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance, they must ensure that the activity is proportionate and necessary for preventing or detecting serious crime or in the interests of national security or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. The Police Act 1997 also imposes similarly strict controls over the authorisation of property interference.
I appreciate that Amendments 149CB and 153B are probing amendments. They would remove the powers sought for immigration officers in relation to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These powers have been sought for good reason in an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the UK Border Agency’s investigatory capability. Providing access to the relevant Proceeds of Crime Act powers will ensure that the UK Border Agency’s immigration officers are able to play their part in dealing with the proceeds of organised immigration crime.
Moreover, these provisions will place immigration officers on the same footing as their police and customs counterparts and reduce their reliance on outside bodies such as the police. At present, only the UK Border Agency’s customs officials are able to use the full range of Proceeds of Crime Act powers and even then only in relation to customs offences. Immigration officers presently have to rely on the very few accredited financial investigators within the UK Border Agency or on seconded police officers to conduct those investigations. This is clearly a weakness in the UK Border Agency’s ability to fight organised immigration crime. The Bill ultimately ensures that the UK Border Agency can take action to deal with the proceeds of all the criminal offences in its remit, whether commodity smuggling or serious immigration and nationality crime.
The noble Baroness sought an assurance that, where civil servants and others are drafted in to help, we will be able to maintain the border appropriately and that they will have the extant powers. I can give an assurance that any civil servants brought in to help check passports will not be given the powers being sought. They would obviously not have the training that the noble Baroness and we think is appropriate to do so. In any case, those who are brought in to assist with the management of queues are being brought in specifically for that purpose and not to investigate criminal activity.
I do not know what the usual channels and others are thinking about the timing of these matters or whether the noble Baroness will have to keep going for another three minutes, but I hope that, with those assurances, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment. It may be necessary for me to write to her with further detail. I have explained why I think Amendment 149CA is defective. I leave it to the noble Baroness to consider what to do with her amendments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am puzzled about my amendment being defective. I know the noble Lord has enjoyed explaining that to me on a number of amendments. I always say they are about the intention behind the amendment and that we will come back on Report with one that satisfies him.
I understand that the Explanatory Notes are not part of legislation, as the Minister pointed out to me the other week—I am rather long in the tooth in regard to some of these things—and I am sure that they are not intended to be misleading. They state:
“The purpose of this amendment is to provide for immigration officers working in Criminal and Financial Investigation … teams in the UK Border Agency … to be able to apply to exercise”—
and then they go on to say what those powers are.
I will have to read very carefully what the Minister said in Hansard to make sure I fully understand what he is saying about it not being exclusively those officers—even though the Explanatory Notes say it would be—but that it would be other officers of a certain grade and level.
I said at the very beginning that we are not opposed to the extension of powers in principle, but we just need to understand the Government’s justification and to have some explanations and clarifications. I will read the Minister’s comments in Hansard to clarify the position for myself, but I wonder whether he is talking about slightly different things. At some point, he may have been talking about the authorisation of the action, while I am talking about the officers undertaking the surveillance as well. I hope we have not misunderstood each other. I want an assurance that the officers undertaking very intrusive forms of surveillance—perhaps phone tapping, as it says in here—will not just be authorised by a senior officer, but will have the appropriate skills, experience and training and that safeguards for the public are built in. This is a probing amendment but it may not remain one. We want to look at this a bit further and in more detail, but I am grateful to the Minister for taking time to explain some of the measures. I will look at what he has said in Hansard and I may come back to him on the point about who will have the powers and what training will be provided and I shall also look for an assurance that it will not undermine the skills of existing police officers.
One area on which the Minister did not respond was the relationship between such officers and the National Crime Agency. Given the debates that we have had earlier during the passage of the Bill, it would be helpful to explore the relationship that border officers, who deal with organised and serious crime issues as regards immigration and border control, have with the National Crime Agency, which is a national police force for organised and serious crime. We need to explore that further. I would be happy for the Minister to write to me on that point. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
NHS: Annual Report and Care Objectives
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place on the subject of the Secretary of State’s report to Parliament on the health service, the Secretary of State’s mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board and the NHS Constitution. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about my first annual report to Parliament on the health service, published today, alongside the report on the NHS Constitution and the draft mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board.
This year, the NHS has made major progress in the transition to a new system, one based on clinical leadership, patient empowerment and a resolute focus on improving outcomes for patients. In a year of change, as the annual report shows, NHS staff have performed admirably. Waiting times remain low and stable, below the level at the election, with the number of people waiting over a year at its lowest ever level. Today, only 4,317 patients are waiting more than a year for treatment, dramatically lower than in May 2010. Nationally, all waiting-time standards for diagnostic tests and cancer treatment have been met.
The £600 million Cancer Drugs Fund has helped over 12,500 patients to access the drugs previously denied them. We have extended screening programmes, potentially saving an extra 1,100 lives from breast and bowel cancer every year by 2015. More than 90 per cent of adult patients admitted to hospital–around 260,000 every week–are now assessed for venous thromboembolism, a world-leading programme. In 2011 and 2012, 528,000 people began treatment under the expanded Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme, up from just 182,000 in 2009-10, with almost half saying they have recovered. Following the success of the telehealth and telecare whole system demonstrator programme, including a 45% fall in mortality, we are on course to transform the lives of 3 million people with long-term conditions over the next five years.
The NHS is also improving people’s experience of care. Patients are reporting better outcomes for hip and knee replacements and for hernias. In the latest GP patient survey, 88% of patients rated their GP practice as good or very good. The outpatient survey shows clear improvements in the cleanliness of wards and patients reporting that they were treated with respect and dignity. MORI’s independent public perceptions of the NHS survey shows that satisfaction with the NHS remains high at 70%. Mixed-sex accommodation breaches are down 96%. MRSA infections are down 25% in a year, while C. difficile infections are down 17%.
Real progress, too, is being made in public health. More than 570,000 families have signed up to Change4Life. And our support for the school games and Change4Life sports clubs in schools is helping to secure the Olympic legacy. The Responsibility Deal has seen the elimination of artificial trans-fats, falling levels of salt in our diets and better alcohol labelling. By the end of the year, over 70% of high street fast food and takeaway chains will show calories on the menu. To drive forward research into key areas like dementia, I have announced a record £800 million for 11 National Institute for Health Research Centres and 20 Biomedical Research Units.
All of this and a million more people with an NHS dentist, every ambulance trust meeting their call response times, 96% of patients waiting for fewer than four hours in A&E, QIPP savings across the NHS of £5.8 billion in the first year of the efficiency challenge and NHS commissioning bodies delivering a £1.6 billion surplus, carried forward into this financial year. Yes, all of this and a new system taking shape. The NHS Commissioning Board has been established, health and well-being boards are preparing to shape and integrate local services and 212 clinical commissioning groups, managing more than £30 billion in delegated budgets, are preparing to lead local services from April next year. We are also starting to measure outcomes comprehensively for the first time. Far from buckling under pressure, with the right leadership and the right framework, NHS staff are performing brilliantly.
In addition to the NHS annual report, I am today publishing a report on the NHS Constitution. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 strengthens the legal foundation for the constitution, including a duty on commissioners and providers to promote and use it. This report, the first by a Secretary of State, will help commissioners and providers to assess how well the constitution has reinforced the principles and values of the NHS, the degree to which it has supported high-quality patient care and whether patients, the public and staff are aware of their rights.
I am grateful to the NHS Future Forum and to its chair, Professor Steve Field, for their advice on the effect of the NHS Constitution. I have asked them whether there is further scope to strengthen the principles of the constitution before a full public consultation in the autumn. Any amendments would be reflected in a revised constitution, published by April 2013.
Rooted in the values of the constitution, we will drive further improvement across the NHS through a set of objectives called the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. The draft mandate is also published today. The mandate will redefine the relationship between Government and the NHS, with Ministers stepping back from day-to-day interference in the service. Through the mandate we will set the Commissioning Board’s annual financial allocation and clearly set out what the Government expect it to achieve with that allocation, based on the measures set out in the NHS outcomes framework.
These include measures of quality, such as whether people recover quickly from treatment, and also people’s experiences, including whether they are treated as well as they expect, and whether they would be happy for family and friends to be cared for in a similar way. It will promote front-line autonomy, giving clinical commissioners the freedom and flexibility to respond to local needs—freedoms balanced by accountability.
Each year, the Commissioning Board will state how it intends to deliver the objectives and requirements of the mandate, reporting on its performance at the end of that year. The Secretary of State will then present to Parliament an assessment of the board’s performance. If there are particular concerns, Ministers will, for example, ask the board to report publicly on what action it had taken or ask the chair to write a letter setting out a plan for improvement. Today’s publication of the draft mandate marks the beginning of a 12-week consultation. I look forward to working with patients, clinicians, staff and other stakeholders to finalise the mandate in the autumn.
These documents show how a new exciting chapter is opening up for the NHS. Starting with strong performance and robust finances, we are driving towards integrated services and community-based care. It will be a new era based on openness and transparency, and focused on what matters most to patients—health outcomes, care quality, safety and experience. It will be an era in which every part of the NHS—the Secretary of State, the Commissioning Board, clinical commissioning groups and healthcare providers—is publicly held to account for what is achieved. For the first time, Parliament, patients and the public will know exactly how the NHS is performing locally, nationally and internationally. It will be a new era in which patients feel in control, clinicians lead services and outcomes are among the best in the world. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in the other place, I first refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register, which include being chairman of an NHS foundation trust and being a consultant and trainer in the NHS.
The Secretary of State has today presented his first annual report, which I can describe only as a report on a lost year in the National Health Service. Just when the NHS needed stability to focus all its energy on the financial and service challenges that it faces, which are momentous, the Secretary of State pulled the rug from underneath it with a reorganisation that no one wanted and the Prime Minister had promised would never happen. In fact, we have had not one but two lost years in National Health Service as the Secretary of State has obsessed over structures and inflicted on it an ideological experiment that made sense to him but, sadly, to very few other people.
His decision to dismantle existing structures before new ones were put in place has led to a potential loss of financial grip at local level in the NHS. Two-thirds of NHS acute trusts are reported to have fallen behind on their efficiency targets. I can speak personally here of the issues that that causes. We see temporary ward and A&E closures, panicked plans to close services sprouting up wherever you look, and crude rationing restrictions across the NHS, with 125 separate treatments, including those for cataracts and hip replacements, being restricted or stopped altogether by one primary care trust or another. This is an NHS that is drifting dangerously towards trouble or, in the words of the NHS chief executive, a former senior official in the noble Earl’s department and a distinguished health service manager to boot,
“a supertanker heading for an iceberg”.
Listening to the Secretary of State’s Statement, you could conclude that he is not looking at the same NHS as the head of the NHS Confederation. I wonder which world Mr Lansley lives in; perhaps it is la-la land, as it is sometimes called by well known commentators on the NHS. Perhaps that explains why the year has been hailed as a great success by the Secretary of State when it saw the biggest ever fall in public satisfaction with the NHS, as recorded by the British Social Attitudes Survey. I note that the Statement was rather selective in quoting from surveys of opinion, but this is the question that has been asked consistently since 1983.
Life on the ground is very tough in the health service, even for foundation trusts such as mine, which have consistently broken even. Acute trusts are in the dock. We are told that we take in too many patients. At times, Ministers say that we take too long to discharge those patients. At others, if media stories go in the other direction, we are told that we discharge patients too quickly. Rather than these knee-jerk reactions, we need an integrated approach. The problem is that the Government’s changes are working in the opposite direction. On the one hand, acute trusts face major squeezes on finances and therefore have to reduce capacity because the only way to make the big efficiencies needed is to close wards and reduce staffing levels. On the other, acute trusts are the most accessible part of the system, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year. They have a much better offering than most GP deputising services.
Therefore, I ask the noble Earl whether primary care is stepping up to the plate and increasing its own accessibility. I will be very interested in his comments. I certainly find it bizarre that walk-in centres are being closed up and down the country. Can we look forward to primary care surgeries extending their hours to make up for that? Will primary care contribute to demand-management plans? I refer the noble Earl to Mr Lansley’s original speeches, in which he said that the reason for these changes was to put GPs in charge of the budget because, without that, doctors behave irresponsibly. Clearly, the intention was that GPs should ration services and manage the demands made on the rest of the system.
I do not see much sign of effective demand-management, although we certainly see rationing. Primary care trusts are dying but clinical commissioning groups are not focused on the big issues because, at the moment, they must seek authorisation, get themselves up and get the infrastructure ready. Therefore, at local level there is a great hiatus in ensuring that there is a system-wide response to these great challenges.
Paragraph 5.16 of the mandate comments that the NHS Commissioning Board,
“will be responsible for around £20 billion of direct commissioning, including primary care”.
Will the noble Earl tell me how the board will ensure that primary care is commissioned effectively? In paragraph 3.6, there is a very appropriate reference to the need for patient choice and primary care is mentioned. How will the public be given choice in primary care? The issue has bedevilled the health service for many years. We should like to hear how the Commissioning Board will ensure that there is genuine choice so that people can choose which GP’s surgery to belong to.
In paragraph 5.6 of the mandate, we come to this wonderful phrase:
“The Government’s aim is to move away from the top-down management of the NHS to a system where fully authorised CCGs will have, as the Future Forum put it, ‘assumed liberty’”.
The idea that the Government are currently engaged in letting go is a fantasy. The system is being tightly controlled from the centre. Clinical commissioning groups are being told what to do and there is very little sign of any autonomy whatever. I have to tell the noble Earl that nobody in the health service believes a word of what is contained in paragraph 5.6.
I come now to the intention, expressed in the mandate, that judgments will be placed on each part of the provider side of the NHS, in particular by asking patients whether they would recommend a hospital to a family member or friend,
“as a high quality place to receive treatment”.
I very much applaud the intention behind this; it is called the net recommender index. It has been taken from the private sector—the retail trade, I think. However, there is of course a difference. In the private sector, one can take it that most people want to shop, whereas most people do not want to be in hospital. On a scale of nought to 10, anything up to seven is regarded as not being a recommended value. The Picker Institute and CQC have both said that they have real concerns about the methodology. Before the Government simply go in for a simplistic league table, I urge the noble Earl to talk to the health service, let it have an input and come up with a system that actually will be seen as credible and owned. If the department insists on a very crude approach on this issue, I very much fear that it will give very false impressions of the quality of care in individual hospitals.
I welcome in paragraph 4.9 the commitment to promoting innovation and research. The noble Earl himself has a major part to play in this, and it is very welcome.
Alongside the mandate, the Statement is silent on the severe funding problems of local authorities that impact on their ability to provide support either to help to prevent patients having to go into hospital in the first place or to allow for their successful discharge as early as possible. Indeed, the Secretary of State was silent on the unfolding crises in adult social care. We have been promised a White Paper on service change, but the Government are silent on funding. It is widely believed that they have given up on the Dilnot proposals. Can the noble Earl reassure me on that matter?
I also want to ask the noble Earl about ministerial statements that there will be no rationing by cost in the health service. He will know that the recent survey undertaken by the Labour Party showed that rationing is happening on Ministers’ watch right across the system with a whole host of restrictions, not just on unnecessary treatments but important ones—a postcode lottery running riot. Have Ministers issued instructions to the health service to stop this?
I turn to bureaucracy and targets. The Government said when they first came in that they would scrap the four-hour A&E and 18-week targets; they have brought them back. Now they have gone further and adopted Labour’s guarantees. Today they have added on top of that a whole new, complex web of outcomes and performance indicators. The NHS needs simplicity and clarity; what it has got is a dense document with a complex web of 60 outcome indicators grouped within five domains. The House is entitled to an explanation of the difference between an outcome indicator and a target; but there is no difference. In fact, at the time of the greatest financial squeeze the health service has ever had to face, the Government are loading new targets on to the NHS, which is struggling to cope with the challenges that it is facing.
The House also needs to ask: to whom is this mandate to be given? What is happening here is the outsourcing of democratic responsibility and accountability to Parliament for the organisation that constituents value most to an unelected and unaccountable board. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to noble Lords that the Commissioning Board will listen to the concerns of parliamentarians?
I want to ask finally about the mandate that the Secretary of State has given to his new board. There is widespread concern in the health service that the mandate given to the Commissioning Board is one for privatisation. It was repeatedly claimed in both Houses during the passage of the dreadful Health and Social Care Bill that has been passed into law that there would be no privatisation, yet it is happening at speed as the NHS is being broken up and clinical commissioning groups are being forced to tender community services and create back-office commissioning clusters. In the mandate there is not one mention, except in the distribution list, of an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust. It is quite clear what is happening. The department is using the language of providers because it wants, in the end, to float the provider side off from the National Health Service. There is widespread distrust of this Government in the health service and outside, and I am afraid that this Statement does nothing to assuage that view.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I would like to rise, as I usually do, to thank the noble Lord for his response, but I cannot do that on this occasion. The noble Lord must know that most of what he said was absolute rubbish. It sounded suspiciously to me like the words of his right honourable friend Mr Burnham in another place. In fact, I listened to Mr Burnham earlier and I thought that I recognised verbatim some of his turns of phrase in the speech that the noble Lord has just made.
I counsel noble Lords not to accept most of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just said about the performance of the NHS. He began by saying that the NHS has had two lost years, that we are engaged in an ideological experiment, and that there has been a loss of financial grip and wholesale closure of services. None of that is true. I am disappointed in the noble Lord because he is usually much more constructive and usually much readier to acknowledge the wonderful efforts of those who work in the health service and the achievements that they have brought to us throughout the year. I did not hear him mention those efforts and how grateful we all should be to those who work in the NHS for what they do for us.
I do not see in any of the figures that I read out the picture that the noble Lord presented to us. The NHS has delivered QIPP savings—that is part of the £20 billion Nicholson challenge that noble Lords will know about—of £5.8 billion. It is on track—this year the expected QIPP savings are £4.9 billion. The NHS delivered a surplus last year of £2.1 billion—£1.6 billion in the commissioning sector and £600 million in the provider sector. The commissioners’ surplus of £1.6 billion will be returned to them in full this year. To me, that is not a sign of financial strain. Yes, there are trusts that are reporting a gross operating deficit. How many are there? There are eight, in the entire country of England. Those, of course, are a matter of concern but we are working with those trusts to help them to resolve their difficulties—difficulties that very often originate from PFI deals set up under the previous Administration that were unsustainable. I am not decrying PFI as a tool or a lever, but the fact is that some of the business cases were very poorly founded.
The noble Lord asked whether we had instructed services to be rationed. I noted the other day the document published by the Labour Party on its NHS Check. What we have said is that PCTs should not make commissioning decisions on the basis of cost alone in deciding whether to commission a particular procedure. PCTs should consider the benefits of the procedure as well as the cost, but they could reasonably take a view that the evidence on a procedure suggests that it will not normally offer sufficient clinical benefit to justify its cost. That is nothing particularly new but it is very important. In other words, the resources involved may be better used in providing other treatments that have a greater impact in preventing or addressing ill health. No healthcare system in the world can afford to provide every possible treatment, irrespective of the evidence of whether it will do any good. The noble Lord is trying to paint a picture of the NHS denying treatment to people, while what it is doing is sensibly looking at what is value for money.
The noble Lord referred to patient satisfaction. When the public are asked to rate their satisfaction with services, their response may well be influenced by a wide range of factors. Our own polling of the general public, undertaken independently by MORI and published last month, shows that satisfaction with NHS is broadly stable at around 70%. Those are, by and large, people who have used the NHS recently. Of course we acknowledge that there is some disquiet among the public about the reforms to the NHS, which have indeed been misrepresented quite widely. However, acute trusts are not buckling under the strain; they are doing extremely well. Is primary care stepping up to the plate? Are CCGs focused on the big issues? In my experience, the clinical commissioning groups that are forming around the country are having exactly the right conversations. They are conversing with secondary care clinicians, public health specialists and those in social care, and looking at how care can be joined up across the system. It is an exciting opportunity for primary care.
The noble Lord asked about how patients could get choice in primary care. Well, the NHS constitution provides for the right to choice. The noble Lord will know that we have agreed two things with the BMA. One is that the boundaries of PCT practices can be varied, so that if somebody moves a few streets down the road they can still stay at their GP of choice rather than having to move. That is surely welcome. We have pilots around the country operating to look at whether commuters who come into the centre of London, for example, would like to have their GP near their place of work, not necessarily near their home. We will look to see what the lessons are from that; it is entirely right that patients should be given that choice.
The noble Lord referred to the Government not letting go and the tight grip from the centre. I do not know who he has been talking to. This afternoon I went to see the National Association of Primary Care and had a very good discussion; the climate of opinion there was that we had the balance just right between allowing it to influence clinical leaders locally, on the one hand and, on the other, the Department of Health providing sensible guidance and pointers to facilitate the process of clinical engagement.
On social care funding, no, we have not given up on Dilnot—far from it. The principles of Dilnot are sound, and we are working with the Opposition, as the noble Lord knows, to see what the best and most affordable formula might be, and the principles around that formula. I have said in recent days and repeat today that along with the White Paper we shall publish a progress report on funding and the draft Bill, which will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.
The noble Lord said that there was no difference between targets and indicators. I beg to differ there. There is an enormous difference between a target that is centrally set by government and an indicator, which is a meaningful signal devised by clinicians themselves to help them to drive up the quality of their own care. That is the difference—and that is what we want to see in the commissioning outcomes framework, which will stem from the NHS outcomes framework embodied in the mandate.
In view of time, I hardly want to rehearse again the rejoinder to the noble Lord’s final comment about privatisation. He should know that the Health and Social Care Act prohibits the takeover of any foundation trust by a private organisation. It simply cannot happen. There is no equity capital to be purchased, for one thing. Privatisation means different things to different people. Yes, if we are talking about choice for patients between an NHS provider and an independent sector provider or a charity, we should welcome that, because choice in that context drives up quality. If we are talking about selling NHS assets and hospitals to the private sector, that is off the agenda—and it will be permanently off the agenda, as far as I am concerned. The Health and Social Care Act ensures that there is no bias in favour of the private sector when commissioners are designing care in their locality, so that as far as possible there will be a level playing field between all types of provider. There is no hidden agenda in this area.
I hope that I have covered most of the points covered by the noble Lord and I hope that he will think again about some of the criticisms that he unfairly levelled against the NHS.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing a highly innovative document. This is the first time that the NHS has ever been treated in this way, with a document of this kind brought to Parliament and put out to consultation. I am delighted that in such a milestone document mental health has not been forgotten and is included alongside physical health.
I wish to ask the Minister three quick questions, because this document is important and the process of consultation about it is important for the future of the NHS. First, in the section on commissioning, will the Minister tell us whether he believes that the document fully reflects the decision taken in this House during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act that commissioners should not be under any obligation to put services out to tender when there is a justifiable case not to do so in the best interests of patient care? I want to make sure that he believes, as I do, that that point needs to be stressed during this period of consultation.
Secondly, with reference to the Public Administration Committee report in 2011 about the need for government to have robust accountability and audit trails as services are increasingly delivered by other providers, will the noble Lord reassure the House what the processes will be, given all the work that was done by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby about the capacity of Parliament and the Secretary of State to have sufficient information to judge whether or not the aims and aspirations of the document have been met in practice? How will it be evaluated and what data will be made available to Parliament to make that judgment?
Finally, I welcome the part of the mandate about the NHS in its broader context, but does the Minister agree that the omission of any mention of housing is a serious one—in particular aids and adaptations, which are so important to prevention of ill health and for the reablement of people who have been in acute care?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. On her first question about commissioning and the matter that we discussed during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act, she will remember that the cardinal principle of “any qualified provider” is that it is for commissioners to judge whether putting a service out to tender is in the best interests of patients. If there is no need to bring in competition, there is no obligation on a commissioner to do so. Why should they wish to? On the other hand, a service may be failing. The classic example that I always give is that of children’s wheelchair services. In some parts of the country it is appalling. There is every reason in the world for a community service like that to be put out to tender. Nobody argues with that, if it delivers a better service at the same or roughly equivalent price. So I can reassure her on that point.
On accountability and audit trails, the way in which the board will hold the service to account will be based on the commissioning outcomes framework very largely, but of course there will be very tight financial controls through the accounting officer of every CCG. Broadly speaking, the service will be held to account through the results achieved for patients, the quality of care and the outcomes. There will be metrics attached to those—the indicators that I referred to, which fall below the NHS outcomes framework, as it were.
My noble friend will notice in the mandate that we have quite consciously not articulated umpteen sets of targets or indicators for particular disease areas, such as cancer or coronary heart disease. Once we started to do that, we would produce a volume 500 pages long; nobody wants that—the clear message that we had was that the mandate should be brief, succinct and to the point. That is what we have produced in draft, and we would be very interested to hear what noble Lords think about that. I encourage all noble Lords to feed in their views as to whether we have got the balance right.
On housing aids, I do not think there is anything specifically in the mandate on that. On the other hand, one of the features of the integration of services will be for the health service to work much more closely with social care. We believe that the health and well-being boards will provide the best forum to do that. I hope that through mechanisms such as pooled budgets—and indeed the support that my department is already giving local authorities to bolster their social care budget—such housing aids can be maintained as we move into the future.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, many aspects of the Statement are most welcome. I particularly commend the reference to the enhancement of research in the National Health Service, which was one of the concerns widely expressed during the debates on the Health and Social Care Bill, which is now an Act. Turning to that Act, can the Minister say what progress is going to be made and what help will be given to the major general hospitals that are intended to become foundation trusts but which at the moment have no particular prospect of becoming so for a variety of reasons?
Perhaps I may also briefly mention something that was not covered in the Statement—the crucial importance of issues relating to the education of healthcare professionals, a matter to which I, and many of my colleagues, referred during the debates on the Act. What progress has made on establishing the so-called clinical senates? I know that according to Sir David Nicholson we can no longer talk about regions—we can talk about sub-national structures. What is going to happen to those clinical senates that are going to have the responsibility of holding the postgraduate deans and the programmes of education and training which they will in future supervise?
The other thing about which we were very concerned was the commissioning of highly specialised services which, during the debates, it was agreed would become the responsibility of the national Commissioning Board. What progress has been made in developing the outreach centres under the national Commissioning Board that will be responsible for commissioning those highly specialised services at a local level? In relation to that, there is an issue that is quite crucial and important—the future of the organisation presently called the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services. It has a budget at the moment of about £100,000 a year. It has been able to support the introduction and use of remedies for treatment of a number of exceptionally rare diseases. It fulfils a vital function. Will it be absorbed and taken over by the national Commissioning Board? Will that body then carry on with those responsibilities? These are quite important issues about which many of us are concerned.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions and I will do my best to answer them. First, on education and training, the news is that on 28 June Health Education England was legally established as a special health authority and held its first board meeting. From October this year, Health Education England will start to provide national leadership and oversight to the new education and training framework in England. It will take on, as the noble Lord knows, its full responsibilities from April 2013. The chair, Sir Keith Pearson, and the chief executive, Ian Cumming, have been appointed. Both are men of very high calibre, as I am sure the noble Lord knows.
On the matter of clinical senates, the plans for those will develop over the summer. My advice from Sir David Nicholson is that he should be able to provide further and better particulars in the autumn on how they will look. The noble Lord is absolutely right that they will play an important part in helping to advise not only commissioners in the health service but also the local education and training boards about configuration.
On specialised services, the draft mandate emphasises the importance of driving improvements in the £20 billion of services commissioned directly by the board, including specialised services for people with rare or very rare conditions. One of our proposed objectives in the draft mandate asks the board to put in place arrangements to demonstrate transparently that these services are of high quality and represent value for money. Objective 21 is the crucial one to which I would refer the noble Lord.
On the question about the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services, we will be making an announcement about AGNSS as soon as we can. There is work in train at the moment to look at exactly how AGNSS’s work, which of course is very valuable, can be transposed into the new system. Unfortunately, I do not have any definite news for the noble Lord at the moment.
As regards assistance for foundation trusts, the noble Lord asked about the foundation trust pipeline. I would refer him to page 28 of the Secretary of State’s annual report. Broadly speaking, however, apart from a few financially distressed trusts, some of which I have already referred to, we believe that the great majority of NHS trusts will be ready to take on foundation trust status either in the spring of 2014 or fairly soon thereafter. We have no reason to think that the timetable we discussed during the passage of the Bill has slipped materially.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I add my appreciation to that of my noble friend Lady Barker to the Government for putting so much information before Parliament and for inviting Parliament to help work out some of the massive changes that will be required to enable the NHS to deal with the problems confronting it. I also welcome my noble friend the Minister’s comments making it clear that a level playing field now exists between the NHS and the private sector, contrary to widespread views that the NHS is coming to a messy end.
I have one important question for my noble friend which echoes in some ways the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. It concerns the issue of primary care which he was discussing with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Clearly, a reconfiguration of health will be heavily dependent on the ability of the primary care sector to deal with a great many of the issues that come before it and to pass them on to the community or ancillary professions wherever possible in order to avoid unnecessary attributions or referrals to hospital. In that context there is one very disturbing issue which we have to address and on which I would particularly welcome the Minister’s comments. He will know, as most of us in the House who are concerned with the health service will know, that there has been a much more rapid increase in the number of young men and women trained for consultancy than for general practice—the figure is something like three times the increase for GPs in the past five years. Given that there is in general practice a very rapidly rising proportion of young women, there is an issue of maternity care and the necessary reduction in hours associated with many young women GPs. I say that with the recognition that it creates some problems. I think that most of us in the House would agree that their quality is equal to that of the men but often they do need periods of shorter service.
Finally, there is the very serious problem of the substantial bulge in GP retirement that is coming up in the next couple of years, as the Minister will know. My question echoes that of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in terms of training and education. What provision is being made to encourage young men and women to go into general practice; is adequate provision being made to train them; and are there incentives for them to enter into the profession in that capacity?
Earl Howe
As so often, my noble friend has alighted on a real issue and I am grateful to her. She is right that we are not seeing enough trainee doctors going into general practice. The previous Government and we have had informal targets for new GPs. We have not met those targets for a few years now. It is a matter of concern and we are working very closely with the universities, the Royal College of GPs and others to see how the numbers can be rectified. It is not just a numbers game because, as she rightly alluded to, we should increasingly be seeing a better sharing-out of responsibilities in the community between not only GPs but community nurses, practice nurses, midwives, health visitors and others. There is quite a lot of work to be done there.
My noble friend is right about women GPs, and headcount numbers in that context are not always the most reliable indicator of the workforce number. This is part of the reason why we set up Health Education England, because with the advice of the Centre for Workforce Intelligence, the body that advises the Government on long-range forecasts of workforce needs, and the input from local providers—primary care providers, not just hospitals—of what they see as their needs into the future, we ought to get a much better handle on long-term needs for the different professional disciplines.
I do not at all brush aside this problem. I hope my noble friend realises that this is a real issue and we are grappling with it. Actually the NHS has grappled with it for a number of years, partly unsuccessfully, but we hope to do better with the new configuration that we have debated so often.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, I welcome the report and in particular I thank the noble Earl for his emphasis—which I would like him to re-emphasise when he responds—on just how hard people are working in the NHS. As always, I reflect my own experience. I do not live in a different world from other people and I certainly know from the trust that I am chair of that people are working exceedingly hard.
Although there are some reservations, if I may say so to the noble Earl, around the progress we are having, I think that that is more about people getting used to what the changes mean. In particular, I want to focus on the CCGs. As the noble Earl knows, my trust has a hospital in Barnet and one in Enfield. Barnet CCG is firing away and working brilliantly. Enfield is still trying very hard to get its act together. The noble Earl knows how much I care about this, and the effect is that we are not getting the primary care out in Enfield where we need it. I would have liked the report to have focused more on moving away from hospitals—which I know is supposed to be heresy for someone who is the chair of a provider trust, but I really believe this—and making sure that we have the opportunity for more primary healthcare and support for those CCGs to be urged forward.
I know we have only a minute so I am not going to say anything else because I know other colleagues have been waiting desperately to get in, but there is a lot more I could say.
Earl Howe
The short answer to the noble Baroness is that she is, of course, absolutely right about service redesign locally. It involves the kinds of conversations that are already happening in many areas between primary and secondary care clinicians to see how we can bring about that shift that most experts agree is desirable and certainly patients want to see. This is an ongoing conversation. I do not know as much as I should about the noble Baroness’s particular area of the country, but I will gladly follow that up with her after this.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, very briefly, my noble friend indicated progress towards the elimination of mixed-sex wards. This issue causes quite a degree of anguish in the country. When can we expect to see the end of them?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. However, the NHS has made staggering progress. The reduction in mixed-sex accommodation has been virtually—but not quite—total, but it is something that we continue to emphasise to the health service and which will continue to matter, in the context of the NHS outcomes framework, in the patient experience domain, which is contained in the mandate.
Global Fund: AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for helping the development of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, first, I very much welcome the number of speakers who have put their names down for this short debate, which I think speaks volumes for the importance of making progress in this area.
I speak as an enthusiastic supporter of the Global Fund. I saw it in its early stages, when Richard Feachem was director, and I pay tribute to all the pioneering work that was done then. The fund has already done vast good. It has an enormous canvas: HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Without exaggeration, it is one of the most ambitious health programmes that the world has ever seen. The lives of millions of people have been saved, but the bleak fact is that much, much more needs to be done. The challenge remains immense.
With HIV/AIDS, the world death toll is still 1.8 million a year, 30 or 40 years after the virus began its deadly sweep, first through sub-Saharan Africa and then through so much of the rest of the world. With TB, the latest figures show a death toll of 1.7 million, with the highest number of deaths in the Africa region. With malaria, there were an estimated 655,000 deaths in 2010, of which 91% were in Africa. Of course, these diseases do not fit into neat, separate boxes. Together, HIV and TB form a lethal combination, each speeding the other’s progress.
There is no question of the size of the death toll, but the added tragedy is that we are not being held back by a lack of knowledge of what needs to be done or what measures are necessary to save lives. When I was Health Secretary, dealing with HIV at the beginning of the crisis, there were no drugs to prolong life. I remember visiting a hospital in San Francisco, where there was a large ward full of young men simply dying from AIDS, with nurses being able to do absolutely nothing. Of course, the same was true here in London. Today is the exact 30th anniversary of the death of Terrence Higgins, the first person in the UK to be publicly identified as dying from AIDS, who has given his name to one of Europe’s most effective civil society organisations working in this field.
That was the 1980s, but today we have anti-retroviral drugs that are easy to take and able to ensure that a man or woman can live a long life. The means are there to tackle the disease, just as they are with TB and malaria. What is lacking in the world today are the resources that are necessary to take full advantage of the medical advances, and the political will to bring this about.
In its brief life, the Global Fund has done wonders. It has approved grants worth $22 billion for 150 countries. It has provided anti-retroviral therapy for an estimated 3 million people. It has detected and treated almost 8 million cases of TB between 2002 and today. It has enabled the treatment of 170 million cases of malaria. Of course, I acknowledge that there have been some problems in resources reaching the people for whom they were intended, although frankly these should not be exaggerated. When they have arisen, they have been tackled, and they continue to be tackled very effectively by the Global Fund and its excellent new general manager, Gabriel Jaramillo. The real characteristic is that money donated to the Global Fund has reached its target; that is not the problem.
The real problem lies with Governments. Some do not give anything at all and simply ignore the problem that is on their doorstep. I will give one example from the area I know best, HIV. One of the fastest growing epidemics in the world today is driven by injecting drugs. It is a problem in eastern Europe and many other countries. It is certainly fuelled by criminally imported drugs, but also by deadly home-made combinations. According to UNAIDS, only eight of every 100 people who inject drugs have regular access to sterile injecting equipment. Half the countries with epidemics centred on injecting drug users have no needle and syringe programmes at all. Yet all the evidence is that programmes such as clean needle exchanges work in reducing and almost eliminating infection. In Britain we started such a policy in 1986-87 and the result is that only 2% of new cases now come that way. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to underline the continuing support of the Government to this policy, given the comments that have been made outside this House.
That brings me on to a specific issue concerning the Global Fund. Ukraine, where I spent a week recently looking at the issues, has a massive problem of drug users injecting themselves. There are no government-run needle exchanges and no substitution programmes, but a great deal of discrimination and stigma. All prevention work is carried out by civil society organisations, notably the excellent International HIV/AIDS Alliance. It, in turn, is financed by the Global Fund. It has limits on its financial resources, so has decided to concentrate help on the poorest nations. We can see the reasoning behind that, but it means that help for poor, middle-income countries such as Ukraine will reduce and eventually be eliminated. The effect is to throw responsibility back on the Government of Ukraine, but frankly there is no sign whatever that they are ready to pick up the challenge and give that policy priority. We face the real prospect that the progress that has been made will be reversed.
That is the underlying fear in all three areas that we are debating tonight. Massive advances have been made by the Global Fund but the danger is that the potential to do more good and save more lives will be ignored as we walk on the other side of the road. In that respect, let me say this about the Government’s response. Like the previous Government, the coalition has been a firm supporter of the Global Fund. We are the third biggest contributor and no one can doubt the commitment of DfID and the Secretary of State, Andrew Mitchell—I would expect nothing less from the MP for Sutton Coldfield. However, the general position is not remotely as encouraging. We are going through the most difficult period in the fund’s history. At the end of last year it cancelled its 11th round of grant-making, which would have involved spending of $1.5 billion. It did that because of fears of inadequate funding. The result is that no new grants will be approved until 2014, although existing contracts will obviously be continued.
That position has caused dismay among civil society organisations. Again, it needs to be stressed just how much is done in all these areas by non-government organisations. They have filled a gap and without their work millions of lives would have been lost. In these circumstances what can this country do? The answer is that we should seek to take a lead to give an example that others might follow. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is prepared to increase very substantially the Government’s contribution to the Global Fund for 2013 to 2015 by up to double—in other words, double the current amount of £384 million. That is a very significant promise that I wholeheartedly welcome. I urge that the occasion should now be found to make the pledge a firm commitment. By itself, the increased contribution will save lives but the hope must be that an announcement of that kind will unlock other funds from around the world. The Global Fund has already shown what it can achieve. The aim must now be to allow it to achieve its full potential.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate and for introducing it so well. Since he has provided a large number of relevant statistics, I am spared the trouble of having to rehearse them.
I think that the Global Fund has been doing excellent work, largely because of its overall strategy. It is innovative and engages in demand-driven financing. Its funding is based on performance, it engages local communities, and it receives contributions from the private sector as well as voluntary organisations and the Government. All that gives it a certain strength. As it is in the process of revising its strategy for the next few years, I want to propose three or four important ideas that it might like to consider.
First, the fund used to do a little more than it has done so far to negotiate with manufacturers to reduce drug prices, which eat into its funding and limit its capacity to help the 150-odd countries that are its members. Secondly, it needs to concentrate a little more than it has done on strengthening health systems. Currently it allocates about 36% of its investment to that. I feel that it needs to do a little more in this area and to reconsider its priorities. In terms of strengthening health systems it needs to pay more attention to raising public awareness of the three major pandemics with which it is concerned, concentrating as much on prevention as on cure, making sure that the nursing staff and others are well trained and that there is an international exchange of experts from developed countries to the poorer countries. It has almost completely ignored that area and my experience is that there are a lot of people who could be persuaded to go to developing countries and help to train staff.
Thirdly, regional results are uneven. Grants for TB were achieving between 82% and 100% of their targets, but for malaria the figure fell to between 59% and 82%. Why are the malaria-related grants performing less well than those for TB? One could say that in some parts of the world there has been a growth of parasites that are resistant to artemisinin—for example, in south-west Asia. That by itself would not explain it and one would like to see some monitoring of those uneven results. Finally, although the Global Fund has been involving civil society organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, pointed out, perhaps there is scope for greater civil society intervention in terms of planning strategy, putting pressure on Governments and monitoring the harmful industrial activities that resulted in these three pandemics in the first instance. That kind of work can be done only by civil society organisations, because the Global Fund by itself is seen as an external body and cannot be seen to be interfering in the internal politics and activities of the receiving countries.
Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on initiating this debate and on his long-term commitment in this area. I declare non-financial interests as a trustee of the Sabin Vaccine Institute and vice-chairman of the Parliamentary All-Party Group on Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that these diseases tackled by the Global Fund do not form neat, separate boxes. Indeed, they do not. Tonight, I want to concentrate on the connectivity and co-morbidity between neglected tropical diseases and the diseases covered by the Global Fund. Recent evidence, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in an article by Peter Hotez, the director of the Sabin Vaccine Institute, Jeffrey Sachs, and others has shown that there is a widespread geographical overlap between the prevalence and severity of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and NTDs. In the brief time tonight, I wish to highlight some of the opportunities that the cheap and effective treatments available for NTDs bring to that fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB.
Investment in mass drug administration programmes were given a great boost at the London summit on NTDs, partly by, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, will be pleased to hear, the vastly increased donations of drugs from pharmaceutical companies and the very welcome additional funding from DfID. Sustained effort in this field would not only diminish the suffering and increase the educational and economic prospects of some of the world’s poorest people but, beyond that, additional resources and support from the global fund for integrated programmes could prove highly potent in the fight against the major killers that we are discussing tonight.
The scientific evidence for such an approach is, I believe, growing more potent by the day. For example, we know that those poor children infected by helminths—horrible worms which debilitate and stunt their lives and which can be treated for 50p per child per year—are more likely to acquire TB, and the acquisition of TB will make for more expensive and problematic treatments. Similarly, when hookworm overlaps with malaria, as it does throughout sub-Saharan Africa, the result is profound and debilitating anaemia, especially in young children. The association between schistosomiasis and HIV prevalence and susceptibility is becoming clearer all the time. Research has shown that treating girls and women regularly for schistosomiasis can help to protect them from HIV infection, and that women with female urogenital schistosomiasis, which causes genital lesions, are three or four times more likely to have HIV infection.
It is difficult to deal with some of these complicated interactions in the short time available but I should like to make it clear tonight that, by investing in research into possible vaccines for some of these diseases, bundling together treatments for NTDs and the Global Fund diseases, we do not lose focus; rather, we prevent ourselves putting on blindfolds that could stop us getting great value for money and alleviating much suffering.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I know that what noble Lords have to say is extremely important. However, they will appreciate that this is a time-limited debate and that there is very little spare time in the budget. Every noble Lord who goes over his three minutes is therefore eating into the time of noble Lords who speak after him.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fowler has done this House another profound service by bringing before us this evening the state of this important and ambitious Global Fund on the anniversary of the death of Terrence Higgins. I repeat some of the astonishing figures that he gave.
By the end of last year, the fund’s work had given more than 3 million people access to antiretroviral drug treatments to combat HIV, almost 8 million people had been treated for tuberculosis, and more than 230 million mosquito nets had been distributed to help to combat malaria. These are truly impressive figures, and they underline the importance of securing effective solutions to the fund’s recent administrative and internal problems. As the International Development Select Committee of the House of Commons noted, donor contributions fell as the fund attracted some negative reports about the misappropriation of some limited funds. A body which has come to be regarded, in the committee’s words, as,
“an effective international financing institution”,
and which has helped to save 7.7 million lives in over 150 countries was forced to cancel its latest round of funding applications, as we heard from my noble friend, anticipating significant shortfalls as a result, in part, of growing doubts among donors about the organisation’s management.
The pace of reform at the fund has been significant. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development said recently that,
“strong leadership is now in place and action is being taken to begin a process of robust reform”.
He made it clear that the Government are,
“prepared to agree a significant increase”,
in their contribution to the fund if the reforms succeed. If the British contribution is increased, a clear signal will surely be sent to other donors that Britain believes that the fund has established itself firmly as a strong and efficient organisation capable of providing the continuity of care which millions in the world’s poorest countries need so much. As the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stressed at the height of the allegations over fraud, while,
“dealing with these hard-to-reach places is challenging ... not trying to save these lives is unacceptable”.
Now that the fund is committed to,
“better financial and risk management”,
and to delivering the best possible returns on taxpayers’ money, Britain should prepare itself to lead a global recommitment to support an institution upon which so many depend.
This coalition Government pledged at the outset to strengthen our country’s contribution to tackling the problems of the developing world. It is to the Government’s credit that, even during a time of severe economic stringency at home, they have held fast to that pledge. Compassionate conservatism is in fruitful alliance with liberal democracy. In Milton’s words from Paradise Lost:
“good, the more
Communicated, more abundant grows”.
Lord Rea
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has, as usual, chosen a topic which urgently needs to be addressed. In three minutes I shall try to cut to the quick.
The Global Fund has been an overall success, as everyone has said. DfID has played a major part in this, recognising its transparency and accountability. In fact, the Global Fund itself recently detected and put right a minor accountability problem within its organisation. It was a small fraudulent diversion of funds, I believe, but that was seen to.
The Global Fund is a very focused organisation which funds vertical targeted programmes. However, subsidiary aims are to assist and strengthen national healthcare systems and support civil society. Many, like the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, feel that this should have greater emphasis, as only then will the programme initiated by the Global Fund be sustainable. These aims need to be integrated into the general healthcare provision of the countries concerned. HIV, TB and malaria are a heavy burden but they are only part of the whole infectious diseases picture, let alone the increasing role in the developing world of non-communicable diseases.
In April, the Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, said that, following up its already substantial grant to the transitional funding arrangements to take the place of the missing funds from the cancelled round 11, the UK could increase its contribution to the Global Fund very substantially, as the noble Lord said, in 2013, 2014 and 2015 by up to double the current £384 million pledge. Can the noble Baroness give us some indication of how much it will be and when the amount will be announced? What occasion will the Secretary of State choose to make that statement? The money is urgently needed, as already several programmes have had to be either contracted or postponed. I am worried in particular by the postponement of plans to address emerging threats such as resistance to artemisinin combination therapy, in Myanmar—Burma. That of course is the main, if not the only, weapon against the malaria parasite. I hope that, if a donation is made, other countries will be encouraged to contribute to the fund, as the noble Lord suggested will be the case.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, the worldwide emergence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is a major and most important threat to global tuberculosis control. The continued spread of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis throughout Asia, eastern Europe and southern Africa is an ominous sign. There are two issues regarding multidrug-resistant TB. There is a lack of diagnostic tests, and new diagnostic technologies for detecting drug-resistant TB are now available but are expensive and constrained by round 11 of the grant of the Global Fund. There is lack of access to second-line TB drugs for drug-resistant TB and the Global Fund should invest more in provision of adequate TB drugs. In Africa, 70% of TB patients are co-infected with HIV. A large percentage of TB and HIV cases remain undiagnosed. More proactive routine screening needs to be introduced at all points of care. All receiving countries should account for their funds so there is no malpractice.
Decades of the use of anti-TB drug treatments have resulted in the growth of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis strains. The highest ever prevalence in the world of MDR TB was found in Minsk, Belarus. MDR TB was found in 35.3% of new cases and in 76.5% of those previously treated. In addition, extensively drug-resistant TB was found in 14% of MDR TB cases. This is much higher than the global average. We must not be complacent. I think of the unfortunate 15-year-old girl who died of TB in Birmingham having not been diagnosed by her GP or four different hospitals. She had had TB in 2009 and was struck down again in 2010. I hope lessons will be learnt from this tragic case. Eastern Europe has the highest level of infection, but London has the highest TB rate in any European city. I am pleased that WHO has praised the UK’s Find and Treat service, which uses a mobile X-ray van to screen homeless people and drug addicts in London for TB. I too think that it does a splendid job: its vital work must always be supported.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I join with others in the heartfelt plaudits for my noble friend and welcome the vital work of the Global Fund. For more than 10 years it has been saving lives, saving families and sometimes saving entire communities that might have been ravaged by TB, malaria or HIV. However, the fine work that the fund undertakes will only ever be part of the solution unless we do much, much more across the world to tackle the stigma which is so often the engine which drives the transmission of these diseases.
This issue is at its starkest in the battle to bring HIV and AIDS under control in the developing world. In much of Africa, particularly in those countries ravaged by HIV, it is still regarded as a great taboo, with sufferers marginalised by society. Far too many of them continue to be driven underground, their conditions untreated, allowing the virus to flourish, often on the margins of society.
Decriminalisation of homosexuality in countries where it is still illegal—some 80 of them worldwide, which is a shocking figure—would be a major step forward in breaking this vicious cycle of stigma. I commend the work of the Human Dignity Trust in this field. Its efforts to ensure the application of international human rights laws in countries where they are ignored is groundbreaking and will do a huge amount to complement the vital work of the Global Fund. They must work hand in hand. I hope this House may be able to debate the subject of decriminalisation at some point.
TB too suffers from stigma which can make it difficult to tackle. It is all too often seen as a disease of the poor and disfranchised, of those living on the fringes of society. Although it can be treated quite easily, many do not get the therapy they need—including a long and expensive drug programme—because of the fear of marginalisation. One of the principles of the Global Fund is to,
“pursue an integrated and balanced approach to prevention and treatment”.
That should include the provision of carefully formulated and informed education programmes to ensure that those societies and communities most affected or at risk have a better understanding of these diseases, for it is only understanding that will lead to a reduction in stigma. Schools and a free media have an absolutely fundamental role to play in ensuring that, over time, those who suffer from HIV and TB in particular are treated not as pariahs but as ordinary people who, through no fault of their own, have contracted illnesses which, if left untreated, will kill them.
Lord Boateng
My Lords, the whole House—and, indeed, the wider world—owes the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, a debt of gratitude, not only for this debate but for his leadership on this issue. The Global Fund is a unique and special model for development in that it is a partnership between donor Governments, civil society and the private sector. That is a very special partnership and I declare an interest, serving as I do on the global health advisory board of a major pharmaceutical company led by Sir Richard Feachem, the founder of the fund.
I seek, this evening, to draw attention to one particular aspect of that partnership in the fight against malaria that urgently needs additional resource if the momentum is to be maintained. The reality is that the funds committed to malaria are expected to peak this year at just under £2 billion. They will remain substantially lower than the resources required to achieve the global targets under the millennium development goals, which are estimated at just under £5 billion for 2010 to 2015. We will not be able to build on the real gains that have been made in combating malaria globally, and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular, without added momentum being given by additional, concrete pledges to the Global Fund. The fund has been described by our own multilateral aid review as having given “very good value” to the taxpayer and,
“very high standards for financial management and audit”.
That is where the Global Fund is now, after the reforms, and we should back it. I commend the Secretary of State for International Development for the excellent work that he and the department have done in supporting development generally and healthcare in particular. However, we now have to concretise that support in terms of pledges if we are to see the gains already made consolidated.
I will make five quick points in relation to malaria. We know that interventions on it are cost-effective, saving more lives per dollar spent than interventions for most other diseases. We also know that it requires long-term financing commitment for country-implementation activities and, importantly, for research and development. From my own experience of a childhood lived under bed nets—and with ready access to drugs, because of the fortune of my parents’ financial situation—in a country which was first colonial, then newly independent, and where there was an effective public health system able to promote spraying as part of a unified response to the challenge of malaria, I know that it works. It is something where you can see real gains made and we have seen them in Swaziland, Namibia and South Africa.
In Swaziland there is a blessing: “Pula! Pula! Pula!”—let it rain, three times. Let the demonstrated largesse and compassion of the British taxpayer rain on the Global Fund.
The Earl of Sandwich
I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and to the all-party group which has very helpfully briefed us. My experience comes from the voluntary sector in east Africa with Christian Aid and other local church partners working on HIV/AIDS. On these visits, I am always impressed by the resilience of the individuals who often suffer—as the noble Lord, Lord Black, says—in isolation and the critical role of the family and the community around them, on which the hope and investment of outsiders must always be based. I also admire their ability to put up with the ignorance and incompetence of outsiders coming in—even health professionals—who may be the victims of larger issues such as corruption in their department. On a parliamentary visit to Kenya a few years ago it was clear that the extent of graft in the procurement of pharmaceuticals was such that the health ministry had been simply split in two, and no one could even rely on the safe supply of drugs on the WHO list; they were still stuck in warehouses.
Today, we are primarily concerned with the shortfall in funding but, as we go along, we have to recognise the frailty of human beings and systems. Families are so often left to cope alone. We need to train more local health auxiliaries. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, has said, we need to give much more support to civil society. It is always easy for aid agencies to throw money at poverty through ineffective bureaucracy rather than working closely with the people most concerned. This is how the World Bank and other large organisations came a cropper in South Sudan two years ago. We know that the Global Fund itself has suffered from serious fraud, although I am glad that that has been addressed. I join others, including the International Development Committee, in again asking Her Majesty’s Government whether and why DfID’s funding is being held up, and if they are delivering on their promises.
I find that I can trust the voluntary agencies to work closely with the local community. Agencies like Save the Children are expanding their HIV and AIDS programmes all the time. Save the Children is in 16 countries. In 2010 it reached more than 194,000 children in Ethiopia and Mozambique. My main question for the Minister is whether DfID is adequately committed to working closely with the voluntary sector. Are the IPAPs—the international partnership agreement programmes, whereby DfID ensures continuity and funding over a given period—still in place?
The Global Fund has a remarkable record and DfID has been one of its leading advocates. Can the Minister say what proportion of Global Fund funding has been through the non-governmental agencies? I know that that is a difficult figure to arrive at but, if it could be as high as 20%, that would be an amazing achievement for the voluntary sector.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a truly worthy cause which has transformed the lives of many since its creation in 2002. Programmes supported by the global fund have provided AIDS treatment for 3.3 million, anti-tuberculosis treatment for 8.6 million and 230 million mosquito nets for the prevention of malaria. It has also approved over £14 billion for programmes in 150 countries. The global fund works in collaboration with other bilateral and multilateral organisations to supplement existing efforts in tackling the three diseases. The factors I find most appealing about the global fund model are the concept of country ownership and performance-based funding. It is making a direct contribution to the fulfilment of three millennium development goals, which cover child health, maternal health and combating HIV/AIDS.
Noble Lords will be aware that the global fund was plagued by scandals involving corruption and the misappropriation of funds which caused some countries to temporarily suspend payments. It was necessary to implement structural and management reforms. The global fund has recognised the need for there to be transparency and the need to root out corruption and malpractice.
The global fund has now made efforts to achieve greater efficiency by streamlining its operations through creating small departments with particular remits. Disease management committees meet once a month, including partner countries, to assess progress. The global fund also monitors the results of its direct investments in the 150 countries. I sincerely hope that this will provide comfort to some taxpayers who are doubtful about the merits of international aid.
The UK is the global fund’s third largest donor. Last March, DfID’s multilateral aid review rated the fund as one of the highest-performing multilateral organisations, which gave “very good value” to the taxpayer and had,
“very high standards for financial management and audit”.
It is for this very reason that I feel Britain should increase its contribution to the global fund over and above the current £384 million pledge over three years. If we increase our contribution, it will also help to attract greater financial support from other countries. I therefore ask the Minister to tell your Lordships’ House whether there are any plans to increase our contribution to the global fund.
Lord May of Oxford
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for this characteristically excellent debate. My contribution is essentially a statistical appendix to some of the earlier statements, particularly those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I also declare a professional interest: my contribution is an attempt at a three-minute précis of my one-hour opening keynote to the International Congress of Parasitology in Glasgow six years ago.
We all know that the better understanding of biomedical things has lengthened lives in both the developed and developing worlds, but what actually is the pattern? A recent study shows that in rich countries about 7% of mortality is associated with infectious diseases. Only one of those seven percentage points is covered by TB, HIV and malaria. In the developing world, by remarkable contrast, 57% of mortality and morbidity arises from infectious diseases, and 16 of those 57 percentage points—two in seven—are the big three that are currently centre stage.
The neglected tropical diseases that my noble friend Lady Hayman referred to have many manifestations. First, a study of research in the four major medical journals shows that something like 12% of papers deal with diseases of the tropics; the British journals are better than the American ones, I would say. Not surprisingly, perhaps, of the 1,233 new drugs licensed world wide from 1975 to 2000, only 13—less than 1%—were for tropical diseases. Of those, five were accidental by-products of veterinary studies; only four were actually targeted deliberately.
Why is that? Only 1% of the global expenditure on drugs and vaccines comes from Africa. Only another 1% of it comes from the Middle East. Even south-east Asia and China account for only 7%. We are focused on diseases of the rich. We need to change that perspective.
In conclusion, not everything is biomedicine. The millennium development goals focus on maternal health and infant health. It is increasingly clear that smaller families work towards delivering both those goals. We are seeing declining birth rates as more women are educated, and we see more demand for access to non-coercive fertility control. Against that background, it is obscene that US legislation forbids any advice on contraception under work sponsored by government funds. It is even more obscene that the Vatican has an arm explicitly dedicated to communicating untruths about the inefficiency of condoms against HIV. In short, we are doing well but we could do a hell of a lot better.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to wind up for the Opposition on this very important Question. In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Kinnock, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on his commendable efforts tonight and on his long-standing and excellent record in this area.
We heard a very important contribution from the noble Lord, Lord May, which I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to. I also commend the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for the remarks that she made. She reminded us that, although tonight we debate the global challenge of HIV, TB and malaria, we have a challenge in this country. She mentioned my own city, Birmingham, and a very tragic TB case. The trust that I chair runs one of the clinics involved. I want to tell her that I very much take her point to heart. Just as tonight we support the Global Fund in its worldwide efforts, it is very important in Birmingham that all of us get our act together to make sure that we deal with issues in relation to HIV and TB in an effective way.
The previous Government gave tremendous support to the fund and I echo my noble friend’s remarks on that matter. But so, too, we commend Mr Mitchell for the work that he has done. I hope that in the spirit of all sides of the House coming together, the Minister will be able to give us good news when she comes to wind up the debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, much has been done by the fund but much more needs to happen. There is real concern about the decision that the fund had to take to cancel Round 11 of the funding grants in November 2011. There were various reasons for that, which we have heard about, such as the global economic downturn and the issue about fraud, which was exposed in part, as Aidspan has argued, because the fund has a commendable commitment to anti-corruption and transparency. As the Minister will know, the fund has moved swiftly to implement a programme of reform. Her noble friend has already told the International Development Select Committee that his department would announce new funds as soon as they were confident that the money would be well spent.
Clearly the Global Fund has to do more, but it has moved very quickly in the past few months. I simply ask the Minister whether she will prevail on her right honourable friend Mr Mitchell to be able to make an announcement very soon. That would be a fitting conclusion to this excellent debate.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for securing this debate on the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. My noble friend’s record in this area is second to none, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated, and he introduced this debate very powerfully. I, too, pay tribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust on this, the 30th anniversary of Terrence Higgins’ death.
As many noble Lords have said, the Global Fund has accomplished much, but there is still much to do. It was founded to increase funding on a massive scale to change the course of AIDS, TB and malaria, and in its first decade results have been dramatic. The fund has become the largest multilateral funder of programmes addressing the health-related MDGs. It has approved more than $23 billion for more than 150 countries.
The UK Government—this and the previous one—have been a major supporter of the fund. In 2007, they pledged up to £1 billion between 2008 and 2015. They have consistently brought forward and increased their commitments to live up to this pledge. Recently my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development confirmed that the Government would commit £128 million this year, next year and the year after. That means that we will meet in full, and a year early, the 2007 pledge to make the UK the fourth largest donor to the fund.
More than 3.3 million people in the world's poorest countries are receiving life-saving and life-prolonging antiretroviral treatment through the fund. Ten years ago, there were almost none. The fund has helped to detect and treat more than 8.6 million new cases of infectious TB and has delivered 142 million malaria drug treatments and more than 230 million insecticide-treated bed nets, saving an estimated 6.5 million lives.
Prices for first-line HIV treatment have fallen dramatically, from approximately $10,000 per patient per year in 2000 to $125 in 2009. The fund has played a major role in shaping the market. New research suggests that treatment can also play an important role in prevention, and we have the opportunity to eliminate the transmission of HIV from mothers to children and to eliminate malaria in many endemic countries.
More than 33 million people live with HIV. There were 2.7 million new infections in 2012. Globally, the number of new infections is falling, but that hides regional disparities and, for every person put on treatment, two others become newly infected. According to the WHO, fewer than half of the 19 million people who need ARV treatment receive it.
Over the past few years, there has been significant progress in reducing deaths and illness due to TB, and 187 countries implement the WHO treatment guidelines. That has resulted in a decline of one third in deaths associated with TB since 1990. But the global burden remains significant and TB caused the deaths of 1.7 million people in 2009. There remain challenges: getting people to complete the long course of treatment; responding to drug resistance, as emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham; and HIV/TB co-infections. On drug-resistant TB, through DfID’s support, 13 low-income countries with a high burden of TB now have state-of-the-art testing laboratories to detect multidrug-resistant TB. We also know that the issue is increasingly important within the United Kingdom.
Malaria is preventable and treatable. Insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying and new artemisinin combination therapies (ACT), together with better diagnostic technologies and new vaccines under trial potentially give us powerful tools to combat this disease. Improvements in child and maternal health have been achieved. But there are many hard-to-reach people in fragile and conflict-affected regions, and drug and insecticide resistance pose real challenges for the future. That is an area where DfID is investing. I assure the House that that is a significant investment. Those were issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Boateng.
The fund remains critical to the fight against the three diseases. The UK's Multilateral Aid Review, as noble Lords have said, assessed the fund as providing very good value for money, but identified the need for serious reforms. My noble friend Lord Fowler and others referred to some of the issues that have arisen in recent times. In September 2011, a high-level independent review panel recognised the achievements of the fund but identified significant areas for improvement and reform. It argued that the fund needed to transform from an emergency to a more sustainable response to the three diseases. There is cross-over between these three diseases and others such as the so-called neglected tropical diseases to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred. We have seen a knock-on benefit from investment in the three diseases in bringing down other diseases as well.
The Government have strongly advocated reform of the fund: a DfID official, in his personal capacity, chairs the board, and the UK continues to take a close interest in the fund and to lobby others to achieve the necessary changes. In November last year, a new strategy for the fund was approved. This challenges the fund to invest more strategically, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, referred, and to provide better support to improve implementation at country level, to promote and protect human rights, and to raise money.
At the same time, there was considerable uncertainty over the financial position of the fund, which noble Lords mentioned. The board decided that it could not move forward with round 11, but in response to concerns that people then flagged up—that people would suffer as a result—it agreed transitional funding. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that the fund board has decided to accelerate funding decisions to spring 2013 and it still plans to spend between $9 billion and $10 billion during 2012-2014. The board also decided to bring in new, interim leadership to transform the organisation, and we are pleased that significant and rapid progress has been made. I note with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said about strategically sharing expertise. He is right to look at the fund’s activities in that strategic sense.
The fund also needs to think about where it works. Much remains to be done in low-income countries but there are particular challenges elsewhere. Nowhere is the spread of HIV/AIDS more rapid and aggressive than in eastern Europe and central Asia. As my noble friend Lord Fowler said, Ukraine has done almost nothing to address the challenges of HIV spreading among injecting drug users. Civil society organisations, often funded by the global fund, play a crucial role, as he emphasised.
In responding to a number of other points, I assure my noble friend Lord Fowler that the UK’s drug strategy 2010 acknowledges the value of needle and syringe programmes. I am very happy to emphasise that. The noble Lord, Lord Black, and other noble Lords are quite right about the importance of addressing stigma, an issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has been at the forefront throughout his own work. The noble Lord, Lord Black, may wish to note the commitment to human rights in the fund’s strategy.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and other noble Lords, I say that 33% of the fund’s disbursements are to civil society. The noble Lords, Lord Rea, Lord Fowler, Lord Lexden, and Lord Sheikh, and other noble Lords, asked about the uplift in commitment. The Government are looking for clear evidence in key reforms so that they can make sound judgments in early 2013 on future funding increases in 2013 and 2014. I have given the commitments that are already in place, so I am talking here about that increase.
I thank noble Lords for their tributes to DfID for its support in this area but also for making sure that money will be well spent, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords pointed out. The noble Lord, Lord May, focused on the absence of research into new drugs for neglected tropical diseases. It is certainly very important in the control of neglected topical diseases, and others, that research is carried out. I think he will be aware of the initiative that DfID announced, putting £21.4 million into that up to 2013.
In conclusion—I know noble Lords are desperate to get back to the Crime and Courts Bill—I emphasise that the Government will continue to support and monitor progress in the Global Fund. We have already confirmed that the UK will live up to its financial commitments. I confirm again that a significant uplift is also possible, subject to continued progress. We are optimistic in terms of the reforms that have been taken through. We recognise how the Global Fund, in 10 years, has transformed the prospects of millions around the world who were suffering from these three terrible diseases. However, we and the fund know how much more there is to achieve, which is why this debate is so timely.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
“(6A) In the UK Borders Act 2007, in section 48 (establishment) after paragraph (2)(b) insert—
“(c) practice and procedure in facilitating the entry into the UK of all bona fide EU and other passport holders, in monitoring of waiting times for processing of incoming passengers at fixed control points, and in processing passengers on international train services between the nearest stations served on each side of the border.””
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Berkeley is not here but I will take the opportunity to move his amendment, if only to hear the Minister’s reply. This amendment seems to address some of the concerns covered in the previous group, but relates to international rail services and the problem of delays to passengers on the Eurostar services caused by new immigration controls. It also sets out how that might be addressed. The amendment contains a number of proposals and appears to suggest a policy of facilitating and welcoming visitors rather than treating everyone in perhaps a less than friendly manner as a result of some of the delays which I understand occur on the Eurostar services at both Brussels and St Pancras. The amendment also refers to the monitoring of waiting times to process incoming passengers at fixed control points. It also talks about processing passengers on international train services between the nearest stations served on each side of the border.
I believe rather than know that there have been meetings between my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the Minister in which the issue of processing passengers on the train—which is perhaps a rather unfortunate phrase—might have been raised. The amendment also raises that issue. We are now part of an expanding high-speed rail network with the introduction of new routes using the Channel Tunnel and the prospect of new operators entering the field.
I think that I am right in asserting that there are significant issues with delays, certainly with Brussels-to-London traffic, which I think are caused in part by double passport checks on passengers at both Brussels and St Pancras, where, I am told, delays can be over an hour. If that statement is right—and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if it is not—it could be damaging to our image as a country and to our economy as it would have an adverse effect on tourism and on the UK as a base for new and expanding businesses.
I am absolutely sure that my noble friend Lord Berkeley would have had a great deal more to say, and that he would have said it an awful lot more effectively than I have, but if I am right in saying that the Minister has had meetings with him, I hope that the Minister will also be able to say where we are on the issue. Perhaps he could also say whether the issue of processing passengers on the train was raised with a view to eliminating some of the delays that are currently occurring. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I will be relatively brief on this. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that I have discussed this with his noble friend Lord Berkeley. I also welcome him back to this Bill from his travails on the Civil Aviation Bill. This amendment is, in effect, about the remit of the chief inspector. I think that I can give the noble Lord an assurance that this is all largely dealt with by Section 48 of the UK Borders Act 2007. I have a copy of Section 48 and could go through it in some detail but I do not think that the noble Lord or the rest of the Committee would welcome that. I will just say that the remit of the chief inspector is adequately dealt with in that and he can cover all those matters.
As the noble Lord said, I have had a meeting with his noble friend Lord Berkeley at which we discussed a number of issues, particularly the so-called Lille loophole; the problems coming into St Pancras, problems that we are aware are likely to get much worse when other services, such as the German trains, start coming in, just because of the physical layout of St Pancras; and how we deal with that. We also discussed—again, this is very important—the possibility of using immigration officers on the train to deal with the particular problems that the noble Lord quite rightly highlighted. That is something that we will have to look at for the future, beyond 2015, which is when Deutsche Bahn is likely to start bringing trains in.
Lord Rosser
I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his reply which I am sure will be read by my noble friend Lord Berkeley with interest and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley
(c) in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of any of the following offences (insofar as that does not involve the exercise of a function which falls within paragraph (a) or (b))—(i) an offence under section 26(1)(a), (b) or (g) of the Immigration Act 1971 (refusal or failure to submit to examination or to furnish information etc, or obstruction of immigration officer);(ii) an offence under section 22 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (assaulting an immigration officer).”
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 151 to 154. I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, but I shall explain briefly to the Committee what the amendments do. They are essentially technical and drafting changes to provisions in Clause 26 and Schedule 14.
Amendments 150, 151 and 152 better define what is meant by an immigration offence within the context of Sections 136 to 139 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, with which I am sure all noble Lords will be very familiar. The former allows immigration officers to exercise cross-border powers relating to warrants, arrest and search. The latter establishes a power of detention and arrest for immigration and nationality offences in Scotland. The amendments expand on the original wording which might, if given a narrow construction, have been read to limit the powers of immigration officers to dealing only with foreign nationals entering, residing in or transiting the UK. It is intended to encompass immigration enforcement offences, comprising offences of assaulting or obstructing an immigration officer, or failing to submit to, or produce documents requested during, an examination.
Amendment 154 relates to the provision of legal advice. Among other things, Clause 26 and Schedule 14 ensure that those detained on suspicion of having committed an immigration or nationality offence in Scotland are automatically eligible for publicly funded legal advice. However, as a corollary to this, a duty needs to be placed on the Scottish Legal Aid Board to ensure the availability of solicitors to provide such advice. The amendment makes the necessary change to the Criminal Legal Assistance (Duty Solicitors) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 to provide for this.
Amendment 153 simply corrects a drafting error in Clause 26(13). I beg to move.
Lord Henley
““immigration enforcement offence” means any of the following offences (insofar as they are not immigration or nationality offences)—
(a) an offence under section 26(1)(a), (b) or (g) of the Immigration Act 1971 (refusal or failure to submit to examination or to furnish information etc, or obstruction of immigration officer);(b) an offence under section 22 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (assaulting an immigration officer);”
Lord Henley
“(4) Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Criminal Legal Assistance (Duty Solicitors) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (duty solicitors: advice for suspects) applies in relation to a person to whom section 25A of the 1995 Act applies by virtue of its amendment by paragraph 46 of this Schedule; and, accordingly, in regulation 3(1)(b), after “customs” insert “, immigration and nationality”.
(5) But regulation 3(1)(b) does not have effect in relation to such a person in a case where—
(a) the person is detained under section 24 of the 1995 Act, and the period of detention began before the time at which paragraph 46 of this Schedule comes into force; (b) the person attends as mentioned in section 25A(1)(d) of the 1995 Act, and the period of attendance began before that time; or(c) the person is arrested and detained as mentioned in section 25A(1)(e) of that Act, and the arrest occurred before that time.(6) Sub-paragraph (4) does not affect the application of regulation 3(1)(b) in relation to a person to whom section 25A of the 1995 Act applies otherwise than by virtue of its amendment by paragraph 47 of this Schedule.
(7) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) do not prevent regulation 3(1)(b) from being amended or revoked by exercise of any power conferred by the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 or any other power.
(8) In this paragraph “1995 Act” means the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.”
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps I may move Amendment 154ZA. I imagine that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is somewhere on the estate panicking at this moment, but I am happy to move Amendment 154ZA and later she will be able to speak to her own amendment, which we discussed this morning. What I had to say on this group of amendments very much goes to her amendment, which is to leave out the reference to “controlled” drugs.
I do not for a moment condone driving while impaired by drugs—that is what Section 4 of the 1988 Act deals with. I should say that I am speaking for myself. I do not want to put words into the mouth of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but I am apprehensive about legislation which may not be necessary, may not be sufficiently clear, may require technical tools which are not available and may cause more problems than it solves. If my fears are justified I think that the provision does not do justice to the victims of drug-driving and their families.
No doubt the Minister will give us information about the current level of prosecutions for driving under the influence of drugs, the success rate of the prosecutions and the reliability of the testing equipment. Reliability is not the whole of the issue, but is the technology and the equipment adequate? I understand, for instance, that oral swabs to detect drugs are affected by an outdoor setting. I ask this because, of course, errors can lead to unnecessary detentions, to legal challenge and, indeed, to injustice. My amendments largely go to whether the driver’s performance is impaired while unfit to drive through drugs, as Section 4 says—Section 4 is not being repealed—and whether a strict liability offence is appropriate.
There are many very commonly prescribed medicines and over-the-counter medicines which contain patient information in which, in literally small print, there are warnings against driving—I quote from one which I got out of my own bedside drawer—
“if you feel dizzy, tired or sleepy.”
They may refer to dizziness or light-headedness, saying:
“Do not drive if you are affected in any way”.
Some of these warnings are given as part of a warning about the effect if taken alongside other medication or alcohol. This suggests to me at least two problems regarding evidence: did the driver feel dizzy, tired, light-headed or whatever, and did the driver take other medicines? If the level is set at zero this will disqualify, for instance, thousands of people taking very common medicines that control, to take just one example, raised blood pressure. It does not mean that you cannot drive but it does not mean that you can, so the patient is left with a decision.
To answer a criticism before it is made: I believe in taking responsibility for oneself, but sometimes the sensible decision can be very difficult to arrive at. It will be very difficult to disprove impairment; presumably, that is why we are presented with strict liability. Under proposed new Section 5A(3)(b), the defence will be “to show” that the defendant took the prescribed,
“drug in accordance with any”,
and all “instructions”, which presumably means oral as well as written instructions. That seems fairly onerous. I acknowledge that the burden of proof is on the prosecution but there is initially an evidential burden on the defendant under subsection (3) of the proposed new section, which is subject to subsection (4). It all seems to require a lot of investigation and argument.
I have said that the difficulties may be compounded when a patient is taking new medication. Of course, the same may apply if the patient changes medication. Patients with chronic pain who are on a stable dose of a prescription or over-the-counter opioid analgesic may well be over the limit without impairment, while some may be impaired and some not because there is a variable impact on different people. I suggest that it is a fair bet that many of us take, and sometimes rely on, analgesics containing ibuprofen and codeine. They may enable us to drive—actually, they may enable us to drive a debate, given the ergonomic failings of these Benches—by being more in control than one can be if driving in pain. I say that from some experience.
I am quite conscious that parallels can be drawn with people who boast that they can hold their drink, and are quite okay to drive to collect the Sunday papers with an alcohol level that has not quite subsided from the night before, but what all this really amounts to is that prescribed and over-the-counter drugs do not lend themselves to this strict liability offence. There could be unintended consequences, such as the risk of spending a lot of police time on people who do not present a risk on the roads or, indeed, the risk of deterring people from driving who then become dependent on others.
My Amendment 154B proposes consultation with a number of bodies: with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, where one is talking about controlled drugs and impairment issues; with the medical profession and pharmaceutical industry, for the reasons that I have mentioned and no doubt others; and indeed with patients. I am not concerned only with prescribed drugs. In the case of controlled drugs, we know that cannabis can be detected a long time after it has been taken and long after the effects have worn off. I do not believe that it would assist the cause of road safety if the application of a law such as this brought the law into disrepute. Finally, one can only too easily see that the police might stop a driver because of a suspicion of some small thing being wrong with their car—such as a failed brake light, which the driver may not be aware of—then test the driver and find a trace of a drug. It is not being too alarmist to say that this could become the new stop and search. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I must first apologise to the Minister and to my colleagues and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, very much indeed for stepping into the breach. I completely misjudged the pace of your Lordships’ progress on the previous amendments.
I shall speak to Amendments 154ZA, 154ZB, 154CA and 154DA. I am encouraged by the fact that, perhaps for the first time, an attempt is being made to form legislation that tries to look across from drugs to alcohol and from alcohol to drugs, and to achieve some sort of reasonable comparison in the response to these drugs in relation to driving. Alcohol is of course one of the most dangerous drugs that people take. I endorse the Government’s commitment to try to find a fair and consistent way to control driving under the influence of drugs. This is overdue and important. There is no question that I would suggest that people can drive while under the influence of drugs; that would be inconceivable on my part.
The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that young people are not criminalised unless any drugs in their system really are causing impairment while they are driving. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has suggested, there are several reasons why a driver may have a drug in their system but be entirely safe behind the driving wheel. One of my main concerns is that a very substantial minority of young people, as we know, take herbal cannabis. That is a relatively harmless thing to do—I emphasise relatively. It is much better that young people do not take cannabis or drink, or smoke, but we know that the great majority of them will do at least one of those. It is possibly better that they take a bit of herbal cannabis on occasions, so long as they do not do it too often, rather than smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. I must emphasise that skunk is a completely different matter.
I understand that the active ingredient, THC, disappears and has a short life in the body, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, whereas the safe and perhaps even positive ingredients of the cannabinoids, which could improve driving, can remain there for some considerable time—perhaps many weeks. This legislation could lead to the criminalising of considerable numbers of young people who took cannabis at a party several weeks before and are then stopped for some minor reason. Traces are then found in their body of the cannabinoid, which have nothing whatever to do with the quality of their driving. I know that the Minister is perfectly well aware of these problems, and I hope that he will take them into account. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance to the House on this matter.
I want to explain my Amendment 154ZA, to leave out the word “controlled” from new Section 5A(1(b) in Clause 27. There are at least two strong arguments for doing this. The distinction between controlled and uncontrolled drugs is not evidence-based. Alcohol and tobacco, as we know, are far more dangerous than some drugs that are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Any evidence-based legislation—which I understand this is designed to be—should not reference the outdated and discredited Misuse of Drugs Act. I applaud the Minister for insisting that this is road safety legislation; it is not about controlling drugs, it will be evidence-based, and I know that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes to make sure that that is so. However, we do have a problem with cannabis, and we need to hold on to that. In discussing cannabis, I should make it absolutely clear that I support the control of cannabis supply, but I hope that we can reach a point where the method of control—possibly some form of regulation—could be based on the evidence of the relative efficacy of different forms of control.
My second point is that a number of the so-called legal highs, or new psychoactive substances, are the drugs that may prove far more of a risk to drivers. Of course, these are controlled through temporary bans, but as Ministers and everybody else know, as soon as one of these drugs is controlled, the creators of these substances get back into their labs and create some new ones by changing a few molecules, and for a while those substances will be legal. There is, therefore, no rationale for limiting this legislation to controlled drugs, because drugs that are not controlled cause just as many problems, if not more.
I will now turn to Amendment 154ZB, where my objectives are twofold. First, it would ensure that there is a good reason for police involvement, either that the police are responding to a road accident, or that the roadside evidence suggests that the driver is impaired and that this may be due to alcohol or a drug in their system. I understand that as regards any drug where a specified limit within the driver’s blood or urine cannot be identified—above which it would be safe to assume impaired driving capacity—these cases will be dealt with under the existing Road Traffic Act. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister could give the House an assurance that under this legislation a driver will not be charged for driving under the influence of drugs unless there has either been a road traffic accident or there is roadside evidence of impairment, that the driver is not taking prescribed medication, and if the level of the drug in the driver’s blood or urine is above the level approved in regulations as presenting no threat to road safety.
I will explain paragraph (c) of Amendment 154ZB. I am concerned that the legislation could cause the inappropriate arrest and charging of patients prescribed medications for chronic pain and other long-term conditions. In particular, patients on a stable dose of opioid and analgesia may—according to Napp Pharmaceuticals—have no impairment of their ability to drive safely compared with other drivers who have taken similar quantities, or perhaps even far less, of that opioid. Apparently, the body simply adjusts to higher and higher levels of opioid, so you could be pretty heavily drugged and yet a perfectly safe driver. Therefore, without some way of dealing with these opioid prescriptions and people on those prescriptions, very unwell people who are suffering a lot of pain could be unnecessarily arrested, charged, taken to a police station, put in a cell and left there to wait for a forensic physician to come in and do a full examination, and so on. It would be a huge distress and greatly upsetting, and would also use a lot of police resources. I hope that the Minister can somehow give an assurance to the House that this issue will be very clearly dealt with.
I will quickly turn to amendment 154CA. My concern here is that new Section 5A(9) of Clause 27 appears to respond to the North report recommendation that:
“If … it should prove beyond scientific reach to set specific levels of deemed impairment, the Government should consider whether a ‘zero tolerance’ offence should be introduced in relation to”—
a list of controlled drugs. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that a zero-tolerance approach will not be introduced in relation to cannabinoids—because this would be the temptation. It will be difficult to establish this limit for these drugs, because of the longevity of the survival of the cannabinoid in the blood. It would be helpful at this stage if the Minister can give us some assurance of that, and also give some indication, if possible, about the drugs that the Government have in mind for zero-tolerance treatment.
Finally, Amendment 154DA is a consequential amendment, and I will not say anything about that. In conclusion, I hope very much that the Minister will accept the principles behind these amendments—although I fully recognise that I put them together myself, and I am certainly no lawyer. If I brought them back on Report I would undoubtedly wish to change the wording therein.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, on this clause the Committee has benefited from the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher. Looking through the clause, I found this issue difficult. It is very easy to identify the problem, and we want to address it and resolve this issue. No one wants to see people driving under the influence, whether of drink or drugs, or in an impaired state or the problems that that can cause, but we have to construct legislation that addresses that issue but at the same time does not penalise unnecessarily strictly or inconvenience those at whom it is not aimed. There is a danger that this legislation could have an impact beyond what is intended. Both noble Baronesses indicated that.
When I looked at this clause, what struck me—and listening to the debate has reinforced that feeling—is that this is work in progress. We fully support what the Minister is trying to achieve. I know that he is not particularly wedded to this wording and would be happy to look at ways of making sure that it achieves its aim. Our amendments are probing amendments, but they deal with significant issues. They provide an opportunity to look at the wider concerns. I was able to let the Minister know of some of my questions, and I apologise that I have others because while I looked at the clause more questions arose—I had more questions than answers when looking at it. I would be very happy to have some responses this evening and some in writing so that when we get to Report, we can give this further consideration.
Clause 27 introduces the new offence of drug-driving above a specified limit. It will sit alongside the offence of being unfit to drive while under the influence of drugs in the Road Traffic Act, as has already been mentioned. The difference is that that offence requires proof of impairment to be guilty, but this new offence does not. It relates only to controlled drugs because we specify those drugs in secondary legislation, not in this legislation. The limits for each drug covered by the new offence have to be specified in the regulations. If I understand subsection (9) of the new section, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hamwee, referred to, the limit could be set as low as zero, which creates some difficulties. The BMA stated:
“Drugs have a variable impact upon the measurable skills needed to drive safely, between individuals and at different blood levels”.
Yet the Explanatory Notes state:
“For some controlled drugs … it may not be technically possible to determine a level which impairs most people’s driving. This may be, for example, because tolerances vary widely in the population, or because the drug is often taken in conjunction with other drugs and is associated with abuse or risk-taking behaviour”.
The Explanatory Notes highlight some of the difficulties in getting this right.
The noble Baronesses spoke about the problem with the zero-tolerance approach—the difficulty of determining the appropriate impairment level risks decoupling the defence from the crime. A blanket ban on certain drugs that can be medicated could also seriously impact the standard of life of people on long-term medication as well as on people’s attitudes towards, and their compliance, with the treatment they require should they be prohibited from driving as a result of it. The difficulty is to look beyond the immediate offence to the impact it would have if somebody was worried that they would not be able to drive if they took certain controlled drugs on prescription. They might, therefore, on occasion not take their medication in order to drive.
In relation to medication classified as a controlled substance, as the legislation stands, individuals would be required to prove that they had a medical or dental prescription and that they took the drug in accordance with the doctor’s and the manufacturer’s or distributor’s directions. In reading the Bill, I was unclear about whether individuals who are unable to prove that they have a prescription for their medication would be required to attend a police station or would have a number of days in which to produce that evidence.
The Government have not been able to indicate how they intend to prove whether an individual has taken a drug in accordance with the medical directions—that is subsection (3) of the new section proposed in Clause 27. Would an individual be guilty of an offence if they have deviated, even only slightly, from the instructions? For example, the prescription may say to take the drug every five hours and on that occasion the patient took them within two hours because they had been out and had dinner or had forgotten. If we have it in legislation that they have to take the drugs according to the manufacturer’s and prescriber’s instructions, any deviation from those instructions could be a criminal offence.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness is an eternal optimist if she thinks that we will have everything ironed out by Report stage but I am grateful for that optimism. I am also grateful to her for giving me a list of the various questions that she wanted to ask and then putting forward another list of slightly more detailed questions, not all of which I can begin to answer. It will become clear why it is neither possible nor necessary to answer them now. This is probably just the first stage in quite a long discussion that will take place in this House and the other House so that we can get these matters absolutely right.
I am very grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made it in time. At one point I thought that her amendment would not even be moved. It is very important that we have the first discussion—it is only a first discussion—on this clause. I agree with her that this is a road safety issue. It has nothing to do with other drugs issues. She and I will discuss those in other arenas on other occasions. The important point to remember is that anyone who is impaired as a result of using drugs, whether controlled or uncontrolled, can commit an offence under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
In responding, I shall try to keep a very complicated issue as simple as possible. For that reason, those who are old enough—even in this House, that does not necessarily mean everyone—should remember what it was like pre-breathalyser in relation to one drug, namely alcohol. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, was probably a young policeman at the time. There was an offence of driving while impaired by alcohol but it was very difficult to prove. There were all sorts of methods by which one could try to do so. We probably have to go back to the Wilson Government of 1964 when Barbara Castle was Secretary of State for Transport and, as a result of legislation, the breathalyser was introduced. The idea was that you did not have to show that you were impaired; you were deemed to be impaired if you were over a certain limit—that is, if there was so much alcohol in your blood. That has proved very effective over the years.
I do not have the figures in front of me for the number of deaths, other casualties and accidents over the years. However, we have seen not only a massive decline in those but quite a big cultural shift in people’s attitudes to drink-driving. People take much greater care about not being over the limit, as they put it, even though they might think that they are still capable of driving. In other words, people accept that being at the limit means that they are impaired.
In Clause 27 we are trying to do something similar with drugs. However, as I said, on an issue that we want to keep very simple, this is going to be very difficult indeed. All noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—and, I imagine, all those listening as well—will accept that we are dealing with a whole range of different drugs. There are controlled drugs and uncontrolled drugs—a vast array of over-the-counter drugs, which people take for colds or whatever, that we all know can impair driving, and people should be careful whether they take them. I have even seen on a bottle of cough mixture for my children when they were very small, “Do not drive heavy vehicles after using this”. I am not sure why my children were likely to be driving heavy vehicles or heavy machinery after taking some cough mixture, but there is often such advice with medicine. Whether a drug is controlled or uncontrolled, it will still be covered by Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Clause 27 is trying to deal with the controlled drugs at this stage, and we need expert advice on that. Noble Lords who have spoken will also be fully aware that we have set up an expert panel to look at this. I do not have the list of names in front of me, but everyone will know that the people dealing with this matter are very eminent in their field. They will have to work very hard to find ways of defining the appropriate drugs and the appropriate limits. Because of the way we have drafted the Bill at the moment, there might have to be zero tolerance with some drugs, but I note the points that the noble Baroness made, particularly about cannabis and other drugs and how long they stay in the bloodstream. I accept that it is difficult, but we want to wait and hear the advice from the panel. I very much hope that we will have some initial advice before we get to Report. As I said, we are in this lucky position of having Report delayed somewhat until, I imagine, late in October or the beginning of November, so it does give us time to see what comes out, to listen to what the panel has to say and to have further discussions.
Again, we are at that happy stage of the Bill starting in this House and we have the joy of discussing it, but it can go on to another place. Even in another place they sometimes discuss these things seriously and in great detail, as the noble Baroness knows from her great experience there. We have time to get this right and make sure that we have the right procedures in place. In response to the points made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, we want to make sure that there are appropriate defences for those who have taken over-the-counter medicines inadvertently or incorrectly, or for those who are on prescribed drugs from their doctor—for example, in the case of a statutory offence of someone who takes controlled drugs for medical reasons. We need to look at all these issues.
At the same time, we want to make sure that the expert panel can offer advice about setting appropriate levels for whatever drugs we decide to include in the interests of public safety. I go back to the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—that this is a road safety issue first and foremost. For some drugs, we might have to say that zero is the only safe limit, but we want to wait until we get advice from the experts in this field because, however knowledgeable we are, we are not the experts and we need to listen to that in due course.
I said that I was trying to keep a very complicated issue as simple as possible at this stage, because all I wanted to do was set out what we were trying to do and what the problems are. I hope that between now and Report we can have further discussions about this, and I certainly hope to involve colleagues in the Department for Transport, because I think that they should be involved. This is not a Home Office issue; it just happens to be in a Bill that the Home Office is taking through the House. Others might be involved, and I hope they want to be.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The Minister’s alcohol analogy is a useful one, although the caution that I would place on that is that testing for alcohol is testing for one drug. As he said, there is an almost unlimited number of drugs to be tested in this case. His comments have reassured me that the matter is being taken seriously and that he recognises that it is a work in progress. However, I am always slightly concerned—alarmed is too strong a word—when the Minister refers to matters coming back to this place and says that we do not have to worry if we do not get it completely right because it then goes to the other place as well. I am glad that he is shaking his head. That is not what he meant, but it has happened a couple of times in the course of this Bill. There is an obligation on us to get it as right as we possibly can. I know that we are not experts—I do not think that I am an expert in anything—but we are legislators or we are advising on legislation, and it is incumbent on us to ask the kind of questions that have been raised today. We need assurances that we will have the answers to those questions before the legislation goes to the other place. If we had answers to those questions before we pass legislation through both Houses, and when this House passes its advice to the other House, we could in all confidence say that we know that we have the procedures in place for this offence to protect people as we think it should.
Lord Henley
My Lords, if I put the matter in the terms described by the noble Baroness, I should not have done. We want to get it right and we shall try very hard to do so, but we need that expert advice. That is why I hope that we will have the beginnings of the expert advice from the expert panel before Report stage. At this stage, I was trying to make it clear that it was the beginnings of a discussion on a very simple idea, although it does not sound simple. The noble Baroness is right to say that we have had it very easy with alcohol, because it is just one drug and we have just one limit. We are now talking about lots of drugs—controlled, legal or illegal—and where we put the limits. It is going to be very complicated, so we want to listen to the experts and have further discussions.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for his response and openness to further discussions. Can he give a commitment that, if at all possible before Report, we could have an opportunity for some feedback from the expert panel and a discussion with it about the implications of its preliminary findings?
Lord Henley
I can never give an absolute commitment in relation to an expert panel discussing these things, because I cannot put a gun to its head about how it should proceed. However, I would very much welcome a chance for some sort of informal seminar among noble Lords interested in these things in the early days of October. That might be a useful way in which to take these things forward. I see a nod from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and, no doubt, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I look forward to it. Tea and coffee will be available on that occasion at some time in October.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we are being offered caffeine.
It is interesting that those of us who have spoken on this are not opposing the underlying proposition. We are all looking at it as a road safety issue, but we want to get it right. Although I welcome the Minister’s optimism about ironing out the problems, I said to him in the break earlier this evening that the months of the summer recess have a habit of disappearing awfully fast and October will be on us quite quickly. More seriously, I express some concern about being asked to deal with this hugely important and complicated issue while work is still going on.
I do not think it is appropriate to seek to make a lot of points now as I am sure we will come back to this on Report. I had already written down “meeting ?”, but I was thinking that something more than a meeting, such as a roundtable discussion, might be needed so that we can swap ideas and get questions answered. I am sure that there are more questions than have been raised tonight. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has been muttering to me about evidence and burdens of proof—I did mention burden of proof—and how the prosecution would deal with the issues. Bringing together the medical and the legal would be extremely helpful. I am grateful to the Minister for his suggestion. I will bring the biscuits.
I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 154ZA.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
I understand that the amendment is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved it. Does the noble Baroness wish to speak?
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I am advised that I must withdraw my amendment so I withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if I may say so, has beaten you to the draw.
Lord Mawhinney
“Public orderPublic order offences
(1) Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs there is substituted “or abusive”.”
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, I have been sitting here contemplating that it falls to me to move the last amendment, at the end of a long day, at the end of six days of Committee. I wondered whether it was more appropriate to say “better late than never” or “last but not least”.
At least this amendment has the virtue of simplicity. We have had some fairly heavy and complicated amendments to deal with today. This one is dead easy. It is about freedom of expression. All of us would say that we are supporters of freedom of expression. I stake my latest colours to the mast: I had the privilege of chairing the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill and one of our very first recommendations said:
“We recommend that the Government has particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression when bringing forward this Bill”.
I think the best definition of freedom of expression falls to a learned opinion given by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who was a distinguished DPP and is a cosignatory to this amendment. He is overseas tonight and not able to take part in this debate. He wrote, in an opinion that I do not think has been seriously challenged legally, about removing the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:
“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of [democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to Article 10 (2), it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb”.
Those last words are very important.
This is the second time in just over a year that Parliament has been invited to remove the word “insulting” from Section 5. Edward Leigh MP tabled such an amendment in the other place in May 2011. The Government, in the form of James Brokenshire MP, promised a public consultation, which indeed was launched on 13 October last year and closed on 13 January this year. That, plus the handling of the Bill in the Commons, meant that the other place never got around to pursuing an amendment to Section 5.
As your Lordships will know, the guidance is that the Government should respond within three months to a public consultation. We are now heading towards six months and, as of two days ago, the Government still had not responded. The Minister then promised conclusions “as quickly as possible”. It is probably worth taking a minute to ask ourselves: what is the problem that is constituted by the inclusion of the word “insulting” in Section 5?
Four very brief examples will illustrate the problem. An Oxford student said to a police constable, “Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”. He was arrested and the police tried to fine him £80. A man growled and said, “Woof!” to two Labrador dogs and he was detained by the police and fined by magistrates. A 16 year-old boy held a placard saying, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”, and he was arrested. An elderly street preacher displayed a sign that said, “Stop immorality. Stop homosexuality. Stop lesbianism. Jesus is Lord”. He was arrested, convicted and wound up being £600 out of pocket. All those stem from the inclusion of the word “insulting” in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Is this a quirk of those of us who actually believe that Jesus is Lord, or does the opposition here have a somewhat broader base? I say particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that this is not a party-political issue. Concern about this stretches across the Benches in both Houses, and the fact that I quote one Conservative MP does not mean that I am trying to make it party political; I just think that David Davis MP summed up the issue better than most speeches I have heard from Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem MPs. He said:
“Section 5, amongst other things, makes it illegal to insult somebody. This … law makes other things illegal which should be: incitement to violence is illegal; abusive behaviour is illegal. But an insult? Who should decide who’s insulted? … What this does is actually make the courts, the police, sit in judgment on whether somebody feels insulted or not, which actually has a terrible chilling effect on democracy”.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it sounds as though in 1986 mere insults would have been quite a relief. I congratulate the noble Lord on the amendment, to which I put my name along with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who, in a professional as well as a political capacity, has been quoted. I said at Second Reading that I hoped that the Bill might be a vehicle for this move, but I had little optimism that the Public Bill Office would accept the amendment as being within the scope of the Bill. So my congratulations to the noble Lord are doubled on that score.
I can spot when the House is ready to draw its business to a close and I have no doubt that we will have an opportunity to come to this at Report. When he left earlier today, my noble friend Lord Lester muttered to me that he would speak on it at Report. I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether that is a threat or a promise. The House has already heard that taking the word “insulting” out of Section 5 is Liberal Democrat party policy because, in summary, insults should not be criminalised and because of the essential nature of free speech. Our policy would, indeed, go further and take the word out of Section 4A as well. I, and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, very much support the amendment.
Lord Dear
My Lords, I will take up very little time in your Lordships’ House this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has made a very powerful case, citing a lot of examples of the way in which this word has been abused within the purview of the Public Order Act 1986. We should, in fact, note that the words have been around since they first went on to the statute book in the Public Order Act 1936. However, it is only in the last 10 or 12 years that the word “insulting” has attracted this sort of attention. As many of your Lordships know, I have taken a close interest in this for a very long time. I have spoken on at least half a dozen occasions in your Lordships’ House; I have tabled numerous Questions for Written Answer and written articles in national newspapers, including one in the Daily Mail online today, always pressing for the removal of this word from the Public Order Act. Over the last two or three years that I have been engaged in this campaign, I have watched public opinion switch from either indifference or opposition through to almost complete unanimity in the public domain. One might almost say that the door is swinging wide open—something that the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has noticed for himself.
I will quickly cite two examples. I spoke on exactly this point at Second Reading during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act last November, and again on the fourth day of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on 15 May this year, and reflected that—but for the three-month consultation period which had produced something of a logjam in the process—I would be tabling the amendment myself. On 15 May, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, from the government Front Bench said in reply:
“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”.—[Official Report, 15/5/12; col. 376]
As has been said, we are still waiting and patience is perhaps being stretched a little but I, for one, am prepared to wait, particularly since we have the prospect of the summer recess in which the Home Office can come to a conclusion on this. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has tabled the amendment now, because it presses exactly the same point that has been pressed before and we are still waiting for the opportunity to get the consultation out of the way and then have a clear run at the issue.
My response is fairly self-evident. I will continue to advocate the removal of “insulting” from the Public Order Act and, to that end, I shall exert all the pressure I can in due course. This is not an amendment that I would have tabled today and I hope that it will be withdrawn at this stage. It would be helpful if the Minister could again signal an urgency in the Home Office to deal with the consultation so that we can properly address the issue at Report.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, as has been said, the amendment removes the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has explained the reasoning behind the amendment. We will need to be satisfied as to its justification, the evidence advanced as to why it is needed and the extent to which that evidence reveals a problem that can only really be addressed by a change to the legislation. We will also want to be satisfied that removing “insulting” will not mean that people using such words or behaviour cannot be prosecuted when there is every justification and reason for doing so.
The consultation on this issue closed in January. The Government have not, as far as I am aware, published the replies to that consultation or their own response. Despite this, the Deputy Prime Minister, presumably in his official capacity, has apparently made comments supportive of the approach in the amendment. Bearing that in mind, and the distinguished noble Lords whose names adorn the amendment, I suspect that the Government, at worst, are not going to reject its intentions.
For our part, we will listen to whatever points the Minister has to make, as well as the points made by noble Lords in the debate, to which we will want to pay regard. We also want to consider the replies to the consultation when they are published, along with the Government’s response, before coming to a firm conclusion.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I hope that I can be relatively brief in responding to the speech of my noble friend in moving the amendment, and the remarks that other noble Lords have made. My noble friend need not apologise for the fact that he was a member of the Government and was a signatory to the Public Order Act 1986, which included the word “insulting”. As the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has reminded us, “insulting” goes back to the Public Order Act 1936, introduced by the then National Liberal Home Secretary, Sir John Simon. That was very much borne out of the fascist marches of the 1930s. Section 5 of that Act referred to any,
“person who, in a public place or at a public meeting, uses threatening, abusive or insulting words”.
That is much the same as the 1986 Act which my noble friend now feels embarrassed about having signed up to.
To take the history lessons back a bit further, I take my noble friend back to the Metropolitan Act of 1839. That was under a Whig Government—the forebears of the Liberal Democrats—who, again, introduced the word “insulting”, but which applied only in London and not in other parts of the country. I make this point to say that this has been going on for some time.
Similarly, I apologise to my noble friend for the fact that our consultation ended in January and we have not responded within the appropriate three months; however, it did cover a number of other issues. Obviously, it is now six months since that consultation ended. As has been made clear by a number of noble Lords who spoke, we had some 2,500 responses to that consultation and we want to consider them carefully. It is clear that there are a number of different and passionately held views on the subject. Given the complexity of the issues raised, we in the Home Office, as Ministers and officials, are still considering the balance of all those representations. So, I say to the Committee—and to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—that I am not in a position today to set out the Government’s position on the amendment.
This is a timely debate, which will help to inform the Government’s further deliberations. I would have been grateful if it could have happened at a time when more noble Lords were here in Committee. Although I appreciate that the names on the amendment of those who support it come from different parts of the House and they all seemed to be on the same side, there are strong believers in other views. We have heard a number of cases indicating the weakness of having “insulting” in the provision. Different noble Lords have cited a number of different cases.
We also have to accept that freedom of expression is never an absolute right. It needs to be balanced with other competing rights. It was made quite clear in the case of Percy and the DPP that Section 5 is proportionate and contains that necessary balance between the right of freedom of expression and the right of others to go about their business without being harassed, alarmed or distressed.
I do not want to go into details at this stage because we are debating this at too late an hour with too empty a Chamber. All that I am saying is that we have had a consultation. That has ended and we have had 2,500 responses. Those need to be considered carefully and all of us need in time to take a view. I hope that all noble Lords will accept that there are arguments on both sides, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, put it. Those need to be considered very carefully. I am pretty sure that I can say to my noble friend Lord Mawhinney that we are likely to come back to this issue at a later stage in the Bill.
As I have said on other occasions, we have some considerable time before we get to Report. That might make it easier to come to that considered view. I hope at that point we will be able to put forward the Government’s considered view to the House. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will, on this occasion, feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to other colleagues who have spoken. None of us who spoke is responsible for the fact that the debate is on very late and the House has well below the number of noble Lords who might normally have considered the matter. That is not our fault. I hear what the Minister said about the lateness of the hour tonight. If we come back to this at Report, I am not sure that that argument will carry much water were it to be tried a second time around.
The Minister will have heard that those who have spoken have all spoken with one voice. I would like to pick up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, made about the timing of this. Having been privileged to spend 26 years at the other end of this Corridor and a mere seven at this end, I understand why Governments and Parliament issue guidance. They issue guidance to constrain the power of the Executive to put stuff in the long grass and let it lie there. Guidance is designed to say to Ministers, “You can have reasonable time, but there comes a point when Parliament must be accorded the rights and privileges that go with the name Parliament”.
My noble friend pointed out that there were 2,500 replies, and six months later they are still studying them. Okay, but the guidance was that they should have replied in three months, so at the very least we should have had a message from the Executive two months ago saying, “This is really taking us longer than we thought. We hope Parliament won’t mind if we take a little longer”. Do you know what? I am guessing that Parliament would have said, “Okay, take a little longer”, but here we are after six months. I say to my noble friend, “Take a little longer”. However, I also say that the mood of the House and the mood of the other place would be that, well before Report stage, we would wish to be encouraged to believe that not only had the Government formed a view, which they were willing to share, but that they had done something politically quite sensible and aligned themselves with the vast majority of people who want to see “insulting” removed from Section 5.
As my noble friend goes away to sit at his desk over the summer pondering things, I offer him a reflection from former US President Harry Truman, who had only two frames on his desk. One frame held a picture of his wife, and in the other was a saying from Mark Twain. Every day, Harry Truman read these words:
“Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest”.
I offer that encouraging thought to the Minister as he contemplates those 2,500 responses and the content of this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.