House of Commons
Prayers
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
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
1. What overall change in the level of crime has been identified by the British crime survey since May 2010.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
17. What overall change in the level of crime has been identified by the British crime survey since May 2010.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The crime survey shows that overall crime has remained broadly stable since May 2010. Police-recorded crime fell 3% in the year ending December 2011 compared with the previous 12 months, but as I have told the House previously, crime is still too high, and that is why we are making a number of reforms to policing to ensure that police are free to fight crime.
Seema Malhotra
Over the past two years overall crime has not fallen, whereas crime fell by more than 40% under Labour. Does the Home Secretary believe that the 20% cuts to the police are partly to blame, and will she now change course to a more proportionate cuts plan of 12% over this Parliament?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady bases her question on a premise that I do not accept and which is not accepted by the Home Affairs Committee or, indeed, by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which in its report on “Policing in austerity” recently stated that
“there is no evidence of a correlation between the change in number of officers and the change in total recorded crime.”
Barbara Keeley
Greater Manchester Chief Constable Peter Fahy says that crime reduction is achieved by neighbourhood policing and by the police strengthening their relationships with local people. The number of police officers on visible policing lines in Greater Manchester has fallen by 300 in the past two years, so what effect does the Secretary of State expect that to have on crime levels in the area?
Mrs May
As I just pointed out to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), what we see is that there is no simple link—this is supported by HMIC and by the Home Affairs Committee—between officer numbers and crime figures. In Greater Manchester, police officer numbers have fallen by 4%, but overall crime has fallen by 6%.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend congratulate those police forces in England and Wales which have worked to contribute to a 5% reduction in household crime between the years ending December 2010 and December 2011, and also welcome the 8% reduction in such crime in Cheshire, my local constabulary area?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The latest figures for year-on-year crime in Leicestershire show a reduction of 4.3%, or 3,083 offences, over the year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Leicestershire constabulary on its excellent work in the face of a challenging spending settlement?
Mrs May
I am very happy, again, to join my hon. Friend in congratulating police officers in Leicestershire on all their work in seeing that fall in crime. It is important; it matters to local communities; and it is clear that officers in Leicestershire and in many forces throughout the country are out there doing what we want them to do, which is to fight crime.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
In Nottinghamshire, we have seen over the past financial year the fifth largest increase in crime of any police force, yet we have had the fourth largest funding cut of any authority. Will the Home Secretary look again at the funding formula and, in particular, when she reviews the damping mechanism of those formulas, think carefully about the impact on Nottinghamshire? Police officers really do make a difference to crime.
Mrs May
As Home Secretaries and Policing Ministers through the years have discovered, there are forces that benefit from damping and forces that do not. We committed to look at the damping mechanism in the last two years of the spending review period, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has initiated that work already and is currently looking at the issue.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
In a year of unprecedented operational demand, with the Olympics following Euro 2012 events, recorded crime in East Sussex is at its lowest in five years. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating East Sussex police force on its excellent work in reducing crime in the county and in my constituency?
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
2. What plans she has to reduce the time taken to remove dangerous foreign nationals.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
We are working with the prisons, the courts and the police to overcome prisoner non-compliance in the removals process by establishing nationality and identity earlier; we are working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to increase the efficiency of the documentation process; and we are removing a significant number of prisoners much earlier in the process.
Gavin Barwell
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What prospects are there for removing foreign national offenders before they have completed their sentence so that the British taxpayer does not have to bear such a cost?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which we are working on. Where sentence length allows, consideration of deportation is now started up to 18 months before the earliest point of removal. As a result, we are removing a significant number of prisoners much earlier in the process. About a third of foreign national offenders removed in 2011 were removed before the end of their sentence, which is up from just under 20% in 2008.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Do the figures for removal in these circumstances differ between the different nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and if so, why?
Damian Green
There are not significant differences because these people are, by definition, foreign national offenders, so they do not come from any of the regions of the United Kingdom. Broadly speaking, how efficient we are relates to whether we have a concentration of foreign national prisoners in a prison where UK Border Agency officers can get at them early enough to make sure that all the schemes operate as efficiently as possible.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
3. How many visas were issued to overseas students to study at UK universities in the 2011-12 academic year.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
Figures for the 2011-12 academic year are not yet available, but 206,176 tier 4 student visas were issued in the year to March 2012. This figure covers all students, including those attending university. Last week, Universities UK told the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee that universities are projecting an increase in international students coming to the UK, and UCAS applications from international students have risen by 10%.
Hugh Bayley
We have some of the best universities in the world, and overseas students contribute £8 billion to our national economy and balance of trade. There has been lots of speculation over the weekend that the Government are about to change the migration figures so as to exclude overseas students. Will the Minister make a statement about the Government’s intentions, and will he think seriously about what can be done with the visa regime and the language requirements to encourage more genuine students to study at British universities?
Damian Green
I will happily make a statement now. There are no plans at all to change the definition of immigration. A student who comes here for three years or more is as much of an immigrant as somebody who comes on a work visa for two years or more. There is an international definition of immigration which covers everyone who moves to another country for more than a year, so students who come here for more than a year are included in that definition.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend reject any pressures to change the policy on students coming here in the light of the fact that the OECD estimates that a quarter of students subsequently stay on, 120,000 of them settle and 120,000 seek and are granted extensions of their stay while they are here, and there are some 150,000 outstanding illegal immigrants who came here on university visas?
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend makes a number of powerful points. There is, of course, no cap on genuine students coming to study genuinely at genuine institutions, and some of our universities, which are indeed the best in the world, benefit hugely from that. Nevertheless, we have driven out a huge amount of abuse in the student visa system. More than 500 colleges that used to take foreign students can no longer do so because we put in a proper checking and accreditation regime.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Many colleges’ licences have been cancelled for several reasons. Many students have been issued visas at the British high commissions in Delhi, Pakistan and other places. How many were refused entry at the airport when they arrived due to the cancellations of their colleges’ licences?
Damian Green
I am afraid that I cannot give the figure off the top of my head, but I doubt whether most of them would have been refused entry at the airport. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, and indeed to prospective students, that because of the action that we have taken in driving out abuse it is very much less likely now than two years ago for any genuine student from overseas to arrive in Britain and find that they have registered with a bogus college. Removing these bogus colleges has an enormous benefit for the British taxpayer and the integrity of our immigration system, but it also helps genuine foreign students to know that from now on they will be coming to get a proper education in Britain.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while overseas students are vital for our universities, this has become an increasingly abused immigration route, and that the blanket removal of students from the statistics would drive a coach and horses through the excellent measures that he has introduced?
Damian Green
I agree completely with the final point that my hon. Friend made. He was right about the abuse. I am happy to report to him and the House that, as of today, we are introducing more widespread interviewing of students to check their ability to benefit from a course here. We ran a pilot between December and February, and discovered that 17% of those who had been accepted on a course in this country should be refused because they could not even speak basic conversational English. There is always more abuse to drive out and we will continue to do so.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
4. What progress she has made on the draft Communications Data Bill; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
We published the draft Communications Data Bill on 14 June. The draft Bill will now be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses and a parallel inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Joint Committee has begun its work and is due to report in November.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. He will know that the draft Bill, particularly in clause 1, gives very wide powers to the Secretary of State by order. Will he tell us whether the Secretary of State has yet written those orders? In any event, will he give the undertaking that they will be published at the earliest available date?
James Brokenshire
It is worth underlining that communications data are an essential tool in solving and prosecuting crime. It is important that that is not eroded by changing technologies, which is why we need the flexibility to respond to change. We are working closely with the Joint Committee. We are absolutely committed to the pre-legislative scrutiny and to ensuring that the Committee can conduct robust scrutiny of the Bill.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Minister said that he was working with the Joint Committee on which I serve. He will be aware that the Joint Committee has not been given sight of the order. Will he promise that we will have a chance to see it while we are carrying out the pre-legislative scrutiny?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will know, scrutiny of the draft legislation is only just starting. I understand that the first sitting of the Joint Committee is due to take place this week. Officials from the Department will consider this matter and give evidence to the Committee. I will commit to keeping the issue under review as the legislative process develops, because we recognise the need to ensure that the Bill and the scrutiny that we will respond to are effective. We need to recognise that this is an important matter in ensuring that crimes continue to be prosecuted.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
5. What steps she is taking to help the police prevent crime in rural areas.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
The Government fully recognise the vulnerabilities of rural communities to particular crimes. The central grant to police forces continues to take into account the needs of rural areas. The election of police and crime commissioners will give rural communities a voice in determining local policing priorities.
George Freeman
I thank the Minister for that answer. His is a strong voice in reassuring people that the Government take crime in rural areas seriously. Will he join me in welcoming the excellent work that Norfolk police authority has done to clamp down on crime in rural areas? Does he agree that the central tension that such rural authorities face is between centralising work to prevent hardened crime from taking hold in rural counties and decentralising to maintain a strong footprint? Does he agree that joint working, as between Norfolk and Suffolk, is important in targeting resources?
Nick Herbert
I agree with my hon. Friend about the value of joint working and collaboration between forces, as is happening between Norfolk and Suffolk. That is a good example of how savings can be made. It is one reason why Norfolk has been able to increase the proportion of its officers who are on the front line, according to last week’s report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Devon and Cornwall police made significant cuts in the run-up to 2010 and are now struggling under further and faster cuts from this Government. Policing rural areas, and indeed urban areas such as Plymouth, is proving to be difficult with the loss of manpower. Will the Minister look at how the area cost adjustment for Devon and Cornwall is reached, because we lose out to places such as Surrey?
Nick Herbert
We do not believe that there are fundamental problems with the way in which grant is provided. We are looking at the issue of damping, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned earlier. The fundamental point is that Devon and Cornwall has not coped as well with the reduction in funds as similar forces that have continued to reduce crime. It is one of the three forces that HMIC said needed to look carefully at how they would make savings in future.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I know the Minister is busy, but will he meet the acting chief constable, soon to be chief constable, of Nottinghamshire, to see how he is working with Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire, and particularly at how he is managing to police rural as well as urban areas in these difficult times?
Nick Herbert
Yes, I would be happy to have such a meeting. I meet chief constables regularly and visit forces a lot, and I am sure that I will visit Nottinghamshire again in due course. Police forces up and down the country are showing that they are broadly coping well with the reductions in funding. They are making savings and continuing to reduce crime while protecting the front line. That was what HMIC’s report said last week.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
In the county of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), 162 police officers will be lost by 2015, yet if reports in the weekend press are to be believed, the Home Secretary is asking the Treasury for more money to invest not in officers to tackle rural or other crime but in the election of police and crime commissioners. Is that true, and does it not show once again that the Government’s priorities are wrong on this matter?
Nick Herbert
I am absolutely astonished by the right hon. Gentleman’s question, since only last week he and I were in a Committee of this House debating how much money should be spent on promoting police and crime commissioner elections, and he called for an increase in resources and for us to spend more money on those elections. It is frankly astonishing that he should ask me the question that he just has.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
6. What steps she is taking under immigration rules to promote better integration.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
16. What steps she is taking under immigration rules to promote better integration.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
Our immigration reforms will return migration to sustainable levels in the tens of thousands, reducing pressures on communities. Changes to family immigration rules will ensure that migrants are not a burden on the taxpayer but can speak English and pay their way, and a new “Life in the UK” test will have British history and culture at its heart. All of that will help ensure that migrants are better able to integrate in the UK.
Richard Fuller
I welcome the Minister’s comments. The cornerstone of successful integration in Bedford and Kempston for generations has been a clear focus on hard work and strong family values. Will the Minister assure me that he will continue to promote those values, rather than the pattern of welfare dependency that has emerged in recent years?
Damian Green
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point, because most immigrants come here to work and we should encourage them to do so. That is why our new “Life in the UK” test booklet will concentrate more on British history, British values and great people in British history and rather less than the previous Government’s version did on how to claim benefits.
Sajid Javid
When my parents left their homeland in the 1960s to settle in the UK, they brought with them a deep respect and love for Britain. Sadly, too few migrants share that approach today. I therefore welcome the changes to the “Life in the UK” test that my hon. Friend has outlined. Does he agree that they will help to underline the importance of immigrants learning the English language?
Damian Green
That is absolutely right. It is obvious that it is easier for someone to make a success of their life in a new country if they can speak the language properly. That is why we have increased the English requirements across the board for migrants who intend to settle here. That will help them not only to integrate better in the wider community but to make a success of their own lives. Opposition Members who campaign against the changes are letting down future generations of migrants to this country.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that a continuing huge backlog of unprocessed cases in the “legacy” category, along with arbitrary and at times unfair decisions against genuine and entirely meritorious applicants for visas to visit relatives in the UK, continues to make it very difficult to promote effective immigration among sections of ethnic minorities who believe that the rules are not being applied fairly?
Damian Green
On legacy cases, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. In the middle of the last decade, half a million cases were famously discovered, and we are sorting that out. The asylum archive is now down by 24,000 from the high of 98,000 that it reached in 2011, so this Government, unlike the previous one, are getting to grips with the terrible problems that we inherited. We are increasingly successful in providing not just sustainable levels of immigration but a system in which people can—
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
7. What progress she has made on Olympic security preparations; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government and everyone involved are focused on delivering a safe, secure and successful games. We are confident in our planning and are leaving nothing to chance in our aim to deliver games that London, the UK and the whole world can enjoy.
Gregg McClymont
The Olympics are only 18 days away, but we learned over the weekend that G4S still needs to fill 9,000 security positions. Without those staff, security will surely be compromised. Will the Home Secretary therefore confirm that she has signed off G4S’s recruitment schedule? Will she also give a personal assurance to the House that those 9,000 security staff can be recruited, vetted and trained in the next 18 days?
Mrs May
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, venue security is being delivered by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, G4S and the military. It is a huge operation to protect more than 100 different venues, and delivering it is a big challenge. The Home Office has put in place a number of assurance processes to ensure that we have effective and robust scrutiny of venue security planning. We have been testing our plans thoroughly and are confident that our partners will deliver a safe and secure games, but we are not complacent and will leave nothing to chance, so we will stay on the case.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has not answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont). First, will she confirm that she personally signed off the G4S recruitment schedule? Secondly, will these 9,000 people be recruited, trained and in place, and will they have gone through the proper security vetting, by the opening of the Olympic games?
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
8. How many police forces in England and Wales wait until five separate households have complained about antisocial behaviour before responding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
Police forces and their local partners should respond to every complaint about antisocial behaviour, and most take the issue very seriously, but if repeated complaints have been ignored, our proposed community trigger will allow victims and communities to require agencies to take action.
Tom Blenkinsop
In some areas, people have to make at least three separate complaints of antisocial behaviour before getting a response. Is that not a symptom of police numbers being cut by 15,000—they are being cut to 1974 levels in Cleveland—and the fact that police powers are being weakened by this Government?
Lynne Featherstone
No, not at all. For a start, if the hon. Gentleman had read the HMIC report published last week, he would know that it makes it clear that front-line policing is being protected overall. He would also know that the service to the public has largely been maintained; the proportion of officers on the front line is increasing; the number of neighbourhood officers has gone up; crime is down; victim satisfaction is improving; and the response to emergency calls is being maintained.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Northamptonshire police are an excellent constabulary that is excellently run by Chief Constable Adrian Lee. It is doing great work fighting antisocial behaviour. Does my hon. Friend agree that police and crime commissioners will also do an awful lot to improve the fight against antisocial behaviour? Does she find it shocking that the Labour party does not support that?
Lynne Featherstone
I do find it shocking, given that so many of the Labour ilk are standing for the position of PCCs. The job of PCCs is to listen to what people want in their local communities and to give communities the powers to require agencies to act. That is happening under this Government, but it never happened under the Labour Government.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
9. What steps she has taken to empower police officers to reduce crime.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
19. What steps she has taken to empower police officers to reduce crime.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
The Government have swept away central targets and cut police red tape. Our package of policies to reduce bureaucracy is saving up to 4.5 million hours of police time a year, freeing officers to focus on their core mission, which is to cut crime.
Mr Ruffley
My right hon. Friend will know that in 2010 less than 15% of a patrol officer’s time, on average, was spent on patrol. What specific measures has he taken, and will he take, to cut the red tape at the police station that is keeping too many officers off the beat?
Nick Herbert
I mentioned the amount of officer time —the equivalent of more than 2,000 officers—that we have effectively released for front-line duties. For instance, we are returning charging decisions to the police, scrapping the national requirement for the stop-and-account form, reducing the burden of the stop-and-search procedures, employing new technology to ensure that police officers can give evidence from their police stations rather than having to go to court, and championing a simplified crime-recording process. I could go on, but the list is an impressive one and reflects our determination to free up officer time so that they can do the job we want them to do, which is to fight crime.
Mr Speaker
There is plenty of scope there for an Adjournment debate, I think.
Chris Skidmore
I have been working with Asda and Avon and Somerset police on setting up a police booth in Asda in Longwell Green to ensure an increased police presence in the area and to empower police officers to help reduce crime at little cost. Will the Minister welcome such innovative measures and encourage all forces to consider how to engage with local businesses that might be keen to fight crime?
Nick Herbert
I welcome that initiative, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. It is a very good example of how police forces are using innovative means to maintain, or indeed increase, their presence in local communities. Setting up such booths in supermarkets can bring a large number of people into contact with the police—far more than might choose to visit a police station.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as a candidate to be a police commissioner in south Wales. Does the Minister not accept that the best way of empowering police officers to reduce crime is to prevent reoffending? Instead of concentrating on bureaucratic requirements, such as having several reports before action can be taken, will he strengthen the use of antisocial behaviour orders, which have succeeded in preventing reoffending?
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are strengthening the powers available to the police with new tools to deal with antisocial behaviour. Police and crime commissioners will play a lead role in giving a voice to the people and will be under statutory duties to co-operate with other elements of the criminal justice system to ensure a focus on preventing crime and reducing reoffending.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The Leicestershire force is losing more than 200 front-line police officers and more than 150 support staff. Will crime rise or fall in the city of Leicester as a result?
Nick Herbert
Crime is falling in Leicestershire, which reflects the fact that, despite the challenge set for police forces in reducing their spending, they can do so while maintaining their front-line service and the service to the public, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), made completely clear. The majority of forces continue to cut crime, showing that it can be done.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
24. The Minister is aware that a deeply distressing child sexual exploitation case is currently being prosecuted in my constituency. What training and support are being offered to police forces to ensure that they can spot the signs of exploitation early and have the confidence to share and act on intelligence so that we can prevent these terrible crimes?
Nick Herbert
The Government’s progress report on tackling child sexual exploitation, published on 3 July by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education, who has responsibility for children and families, makes it clear that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Policing Improvement Agency are taking forward proposals for the training of front-line police officers in tackling child sexual exploitation. ACPO intends to do further work in this area.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
How will cutting a further 290 front-line Greater Manchester police officers in 2012-13 help what remains of our police force to cut crime?
Nick Herbert
There has been a 6% fall in crime in Greater Manchester. That shows that the force is able to deal with the necessary spending reductions while continuing to reduce crime. That is a credit to the force, its leadership and its officers. The hon. Gentleman, in common with his Labour colleagues, continues to call for increases in public spending, which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Minister look at the role that an institute for policing excellence could play in pulling together evidence of best practice and ensuring that the police use what works and what is cost-effective in tackling crime?
Nick Herbert
Yes. I am happy to reassure my right hon. Friend that we will be—indeed, we are—looking at that proposal. We are working constructively with the police to set up a professional body for policing, about which we will have more to say shortly. Tomorrow I shall be speaking in Cambridge about evidence-led policing, and about the importance of police forces developing links with academia, which includes the potential for faculties of policing.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
10. What recent assessment she has made of the ability of the Metropolitan police to provide an effective service to the public between now and 2015.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Last week Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary published “Policing in austerity: One year on”. The report showed that front-line policing is being protected, and that the vast majority of police forces are rising to the challenge. The report raised some important issues, including for the Metropolitan Police Service. I am confident that the Deputy Mayor for policing and crime, and the commissioner will deal with those issues firmly.
Heidi Alexander
Speaking on “Newsnight” last week, the Policing Minister described the impending loss of 6,000 Metropolitan police officers as a relatively marginal reduction. Is the £232 million black hole in the Metropolitan police’s finances also marginal? What guarantee can the Home Secretary give me that my constituents in Lewisham will not have their safety and security put at risk as a result of this financial crisis?
Mrs May
First, the hon. Lady makes a claim in her question about what my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister said, but he is absolutely clear that he did not say what she has said he did. Also, I challenge her use of the figure of 6,000 in relation to the Metropolitan police. I think she has used a figure that relates to certain officers across the whole country, rather than in the Metropolitan police. However, I can probably do no better than to quote Sir Denis O’Connor, who is currently Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary. Commenting on what has been reported about the Metropolitan police, he said:
“Are there some concerns? Yes. Should they be able to get on top of it? Yes.”
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Technology is crucial in helping the Metropolitan police and other police forces to tackle crime. I know that the Home Office has not quite grasped yet the importance of DNA and CCTV in tackling crime, but may I commend to the Home Secretary the use of SmartWater, a great UK success story that helps the police to reduce crime? The company is based in London. May I suggest that she goes to visit, to see what a great job it can do in helping to reduce crime?
Mrs May
I will not be tempted down the route that my hon. Friend is attempting to take me on some of the issues he referred to in his question—issues on which he has a different opinion from me. However, in answer to his question, we are very open and willing to look at any new technology that will help the police to do their job, which is to cut crime. I can assure him that either I or another Home Office Minister will be pleased to make the visit that he has requested.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary’s decision to replace control orders with TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—has put additional pressure on the Met’s resources. It now cannot keep dangerous terror suspects out of London, and this weekend it was revealed that a suspect who the Home Office itself says wishes to
“re-engage in terrorism-related activities”
had been to the Olympic park site five times before being arrested. Can the Home Secretary guarantee that none of the other terror suspects currently being monitored has been near to the Olympic park, and will she say whether she regrets her decision to downgrade terror powers in the Olympic year?
Mrs May
First, in relation to the case that the hon. Lady quoted, it is the case that on 27 June an individual known by the court initials CF was charged with breaching his TPIM notice. He is accused of travelling through the Olympic park area in Stratford, from which he is prohibited, on five occasions. However, the package of measures relating to TPIMs, including the requirement to wear a GPS tag, enables the police to respond and investigate any breach of a TPIM notice quickly and effectively. I cannot say more in detail about that case, because that would risk undermining the prosecution. However, TPIMs, which we have put in place, are a good tool and are being used effectively. The hon. Lady talks about the impact on the Metropolitan police, but she knows full well that extra funding has been provided to the Metropolitan police to cover any extra resources it needs.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
11. What steps she has taken to empower local communities to tackle crime.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
15. What steps she has taken to empower local communities to tackle crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
The Government are radically reforming the approach to tackling crime, shifting accountability away from Whitehall and directly to communities. We have provided the public with greater information, invested in neighbourhood policing and police community support officers, and increased direct accountability through beat meetings. This year, the public will be empowered through the election of police and crime commissioners—a landmark reform of policing that will increase accountability at the local level.
Angie Bray
Noisy neighbours and noise disturbance often blight the lives of those living in urban areas. What tools is the Home Office providing to help local communities to tackle this problem, particularly when police are unable to intervene?
Lynne Featherstone
I am sure that all Members have people coming to their surgeries with noise complaints that have gone on for years uninvestigated. As part of the reforms set out in the recent White Paper on antisocial behaviour, we propose to introduce the community protection notice, which will give front-line professionals a single flexible power to deal quickly with any inconsiderate behaviour that is affecting a community’s quality of life. The notice will also give the police new powers to deal with antisocial noise. We are putting power into the hands of local communities with the new community trigger—
Lynne Featherstone
It may be too long for the hon. Gentleman, but it is a darn sight more important to the people who live in these communities and want to use the community triggers.
Gavin Williamson
In Codsall, we have had to deal with a recent traumatic event when our scout hut was subjected to an arson attack following a period of antisocial activity in its vicinity. Does the Minister agree that the community triggers will go a long way towards empowering local communities such as those in Codsall to make sure that such things do not happen in the future?
Lynne Featherstone
It is upsetting when, after a number of complaints, a situation ends in something like an arson attack on a scout hut. It is very upsetting for the local community. Many police forces, councils and social landlords are working hard to deal with antisocial behaviour, but there are cases where communities report this same problem over and over again, and nothing is done. My hon. Friend is exactly right: the community trigger will ensure that, if necessary, everyone has a clear and simple way of making sure that the authorities take a problem seriously before it escalates.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Guidance for door supervisors on the seizure of identification documents such as passports and driving licences from those suspected of using friends’ passports or driving licences to enter pubs and clubs was withdrawn some months ago, pending revision. There is no interim guidance and no date for new guidance, so how can we be assured that, without such guidance, these documents will not be unlawfully seized and destroyed or enter the criminal or terrorist underground?
Lynne Featherstone
I will look into the issues that the hon. Lady raises, and I will reply to her by letter.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Faced with the impossible pressures generated by a 20% cut to its budget, leading to 1,200 police officers going, the admirable west midlands police service has told the community of Quinton in Birmingham that the local police station can stay open, but only if they agree to man it. Is this the Home Secretary’s vision for the future: a new approach towards community policing that says to local communities, “Man your own police station”—and ultimately, I presume—“Arrest your own criminals”?
Lynne Featherstone
I understand that there is a low footfall at that police station. However, community volunteers are a very good thing for police stations, and I can inform the hon. Gentleman that crime in his area is down by 7%.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
12. What assessment she has made of the likely key areas of expenditure in implementing the proposals contained in the draft Communications Data Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
As I told the House some moments ago, the Government published the draft Communications Data Bill on 14 June. It was accompanied by an impact assessment, which estimated overall cost for the likely areas of expenditure.
Duncan Hames
That estimate of overall costs was £1.8 billion. When the last Government first introduced plans for identity cards, the Home Office estimated costs at between £1.3 billion and £3 billion. By the time the coalition Government wisely cancelled ID cards, that estimate had passed £5 billion. How can we have confidence that these proposals will not also prove to be a burden on industry and the taxpayer alike?
James Brokenshire
I agree with my hon. Friend that the ID card scheme was disproportionate and intrusive, and a waste of public expenditure. Our proposals for communications data are critical to support for essential day-to-day police operations. The alternatives—covert human intelligence sources, directed surveillance and undercover officers—are more expensive, more intrusive and less effective.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the potential ability of terrorists to find their way around the provisions of the Bill?
James Brokenshire
The whole point of the Bill is that it provides flexibility. The key aspect of it is that it allows co-operation and collaboration with internet service providers to ensure that we respond to the changing nature of criminal operations. Criminals are changing their tactics, and the legislation needs to move with them.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
13. What progress she has made on the matter of deportations and article 8 of the European convention on human rights; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules that I laid before the House on 13 June has come into effect today. It introduces clear new rules to protect the public from foreign criminals who try to hide behind family life as a reason to stay here. In respect of the most serious offenders, only in exceptional cases will the public interest in deportation be outweighed by other factors.
Mr Leigh
Notwithstanding the excellent work that my right hon. Friend has done, does she not agree that the only real solution to the problem is to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998? Given that it is our Liberal friends who are blocking such action, may I, in the privacy of the Chamber, suggest this course of action to her? Why do we not all vote against House of Lords reform tomorrow, and end the sad, unmourned life of the coalition? Then we can have a general election and a Conservative Government, and we can repeal this hopeless Act.
Mr Speaker
I must remind the House that the question concerns deportations and article 8.
Mrs May
I am not entirely sure where my hon. Friend was going in linking the House of Lords with deportations, but I do not share the opinion that he has expressed. Personally, I shall be voting in favour of House of Lords reform, as I have done previously. As for the Human Rights Act, I have made my views known publicly on a number of occasions. What the Government are doing, crucially, is taking action to ensure that we can set out the criteria for article 8 so that fewer foreign criminals will be able to call on it in order to stay in this country.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
14. What recent assessment she has made of waiting times at UK borders.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
We will not compromise border security, but we always aim to keep disruption to a minimum by using our staff flexibly to meet demand. Our sampling of queues shows that the vast majority of passengers from the European economic area pass through immigration control quickly, but queue lengths have reached unacceptable levels on occasion, and we have introduced a range of measures to combat that.
Graeme Morrice
Data from Heathrow’s terminal 4 show that non-EEA queues exceeded the Government’s target on 21 days out of 30 in June, while at terminal 5 the targets were breached on 18 days. This continued chaos comes at a time when the eyes of the world are on the United Kingdom, and when the increased tourism created by the Olympic games should be incredibly important to our economy. What are the Government doing to deal with this shambolic situation and get a grip on our borders?
Damian Green
The times were unacceptable in April, and anything beyond the service level clearly remains unacceptable. For non-EEA passengers we met our targets 90% of the time in June, an increase from 75% in April. In response to those large passenger volumes, we increased the number of staff at Heathrow by more than 50% this weekend. We now have a new central control room to enable us to deploy people more quickly and efficiently, and we have mobile teams to fill the gaps more speedily than ever before.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do not trust those statistics, to be honest. [Interruption.] I trust the Minister, but I do not trust the statistics. I went to Stansted last week, and I know that UK Border Agency staff start counting the people in the queue only when they arrive in the hall itself, which physically cannot take more than 20 minutes. They do not count the people who are waiting on the escalators, or the people in the corridor, or the people round two bends or over the bridge or all the way back to the aeroplanes. When will the Government publish proper statistics, involving proper, independent counting, which would show that they are failing in their primary duty?
Damian Green
I am happy to reassure—and, hopefully, calm down—the hon. Gentleman. The figures I was citing were not border force or Home Office figures; they were BAA figures. BAA publishes the monthly figures every month on its website. Those June figures were figures from BAA, not the Government. I hope the hon. Gentleman trusts BAA to produce reliable figures.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Olympic games opening ceremony is now just over two weeks away. The Olympic torch relay continues to inspire the nation, and I pay tribute to all involved, including the police officers who are providing such effective, yet discreet, security. Sadly, I will not be able to see the torch when it passes through my constituency tomorrow morning. The eyes of the world will be on us during what promises to be a real celebration of sport. I am confident that our police and security services will deliver a safe and secure games that the whole country—indeed, the whole world—can enjoy.
David Tredinnick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has she had a chance to look at Leicestershire constabulary’s proposals to change its force shift patterns? How will that improve the policing in Hinckley in my constituency and the surrounding area, and will other forces also be looking at changing their shift patterns?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the shift patterns issue, and I welcome the work that a number of police forces across the country, including Leicestershire, have taken forward, so that they can use their resources rather better to ensure they can prioritise front-line services to the public while making the necessary savings. I would expect my hon. Friend’s force to be prioritising front-line services in exactly that way in his constituency.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has to make sure that there is proper border security without long queues. In April, Ministers promised that all immigration desks at Heathrow would be fully staffed during peak periods over the summer. Instead, June BAA data show that in the early-morning peak at terminal 3, there were only seven staff and at least half the desks were closed, and queues reached almost two hours long as a result. There are only 18 days to go until the Olympics; why is it still such a mess?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady should have listened to the response that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration gave to the shadow Immigration Minister just now. Over recent months we have been increasing the number of staff who are available at Heathrow and elsewhere, including the number of contingency staff, in response to what were, when we looked at them in April, unacceptably long queues. The right hon. Lady refers specifically to the Olympics. Extra arrangements will be in place for the Olympics. That was always what was planned. They will come into play before the Olympics opening ceremony, and therefore before significant numbers of tourists arrive for the Olympics.
Yvette Cooper
But BAA has said the queues over the last few days have been unacceptably long. Targets have been breached throughout June. There has been chaos again this morning. Olympics visitors are already starting to arrive. The rest of the country is working hard to show the world the best of British. All the right hon. Lady is doing is showing visitors how to queue. She has had years to plan this, but now she has got only two weeks to sort it out and make sure the Home Office does not embarrass everybody else.
Mrs May
I repeat to the right hon. Lady that, under the plans for the contingency numbers during the Olympics, there will be an increase in the number of staff at the borders. We will be manning all desks at peak times during the Olympics. The numbers will be there to do that. It is important that we ensure that we are providing security and a good experience for people arriving at Heathrow, and I was very pleased when I was at Heathrow a couple of weeks ago to be able to welcome five members of the Chinese team and ensure that they were put through the games family member lane.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T5. With long-distance crime and our resource allocation in mind, what are the Government doing to improve collaboration between forces, especially given the forthcoming police commissioners?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
My hon. Friend is right that collaboration is important. That is the case in respect of not only back-office functions, but operational functions, particularly to deal with serious and organised crime. That is increasingly what forces are doing, as the inspectorate of constabulary confirmed last week, and we have placed forces under new statutory duties to consider that.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T2. The Crown Prosecution Service is proposing to withdraw its staff from Athena House, the office it shares with the North Yorkshire police in York, where cases are processed for the courts. How many offices around the country are joint offices for prosecutors and police? Are the prosecutors being withdrawn from all those offices? What representations has the Minister made to the Law Officers?
Nick Herbert
I have discussed this matter with the hon. Gentleman. We are increasingly moving to integrated working between the Crown Prosecution Service and police force teams, but the specific operational decisions and how these units are resourced are matters for local decision making.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T6. Many of my constituents have raised with me, time and again, their concerns about immigration. Like me, they welcome the progress being made by the Government but are concerned about the abuse in the student immigration route. Given that 26% of students at private colleges were overstaying their visas compared with a figure of just 2% for universities, does the Minister agree that it is right for the Government to focus their reform on private colleges?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and he will have heard my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister making exactly that point earlier this afternoon. We think it is absolutely right that we focus on having the brightest and the best coming to the UK, and that we root out the abuse that, sadly, was allowed to occur in the system for too long under the previous Government, so that students are genuinely coming here for an education. That is exactly what we are doing by ensuring that colleges that have abused the system are not able to bring people in.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
T3. The UK Border Agency recently produced information showing that children from Vietnam, China and Nigeria were significantly less likely to be recognised as trafficking victims by the national referral mechanism. Will the Minister take seriously the concerns raised with his Department by non-governmental organisations that this system is failing to protect those children adequately?
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I met the various anti-trafficking NGOs recently, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, given her background in this sector. We are trying very hard to get better at recognising children who are genuine victims and not potential criminals, and there are now signs that our training of officers is having a good effect in this regard.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
T7. I recently visited the United States police hall of fame in Florida, which educates people and celebrates the work of the US police force, as well as providing a memorial to US police officers who have died in service. Building on the fantastic work of Michael Winner, does the Minister agree that having a UK police hall of fame would be very appropriate? Will the Home Office support setting one up?
Nick Herbert
I am sure the whole House would agree that we should honour those police officers who lose their lives while doing their duty for their country. There is a police memorial at the national arboretum, which I visited this year for the Care Of Police Survivors service. There is also an annual national police memorial day service, which Ministers attend and which will take place on 30 September, and there are police bravery awards. It is right that we do a great deal to recognise police bravery, and I am happy to discuss this with my hon. Friend.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
T4. One of my constituents is currently living abroad with his Chinese wife, but they both want to return to the UK to look after his seriously ill mother. Unfortunately, due to the change of rules this month, he is not going to be able to make the income limit, even though his return would prevent his mother from going into care. Should we not be practising the Christian values of this country before preaching them to others?
Damian Green
It is not immediately apparent to me how the new rules would affect that particular case, but if the hon. Lady wishes to write to me about it, I will take a personal interest in it.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
T8. Will the Immigration Minister look at the current practice whereby applications are sometimes turned down for technical reasons and are then resubmitted but may be out of time? We could, thus, save the Government loads of money and effort, and help applicants, who are often disadvantaged through no fault of their own.
Damian Green
I am very happy to do that for my right hon. Friend. Indeed, in many parts of the immigration system we are now able to process applications faster than ever before. That is particularly the case in the asylum system, where the worst delays used to happen and where we are now taking more than 50% of decisions within 30 days.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
T9. The Home Secretary will be familiar with the case of my constituent Nosratollah Tajik, who has been under arrest, tagged and subject to restrictive bail conditions for six years, pending extradition. For the majority of that time the Home Secretary has purportedly been considering medical reports. Will she now either make a full statement or meet me to discuss this very unsatisfactory situation?
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in cases of drink-related antisocial behaviour in hospital A and E departments hospital staff should be given further powers to hit troublesome drinkers with sufficiently stiff fixed penalty notices to crack down on what is becoming an endemic problem?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
My hon. Friend raises the issue of A and E departments and the penalties therein. We have introduced a simplified system, going from 19 orders to six, and criminal behaviour orders provide criminal sanctions if needed and also put people on a better behaviour route.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T10. The recent conviction of rioters from Nottingham was secured in part by forensic evidence recovered from the wicks of smashed petrol bombs, but the Forensic Science Service has been abolished, staff numbers have been slashed and local forensic services still face multi-million pound cuts. What assurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that front-line forensic services will not be harmed by her Government’s cuts?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
We had to address the problems with the Forensic Science Service, which was, sadly, making unsustainable losses. New arrangements have been put in place with private contractors and we are confident in the robustness of those measures.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
The median income in my constituency of Bradford East is £16,200, more than £2,000 below the income threshold to bring a spouse to the UK. How on earth does it help integration to deny people the right to a family life?
Damian Green
The minimum income requirement that comes into force today ensures that no one can any longer come to this country to get married and live off benefits from day one. I think that that will be widely welcomed.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I think it is very important that Ministers visit Heathrow at peak times. I was there at seven o’clock this morning and was appalled to see people being held in corridors, a full immigration hall and that half the kiosks were not open. May we please start the additional measures for the Olympics immediately?
Mrs May
Of course Ministers visit Heathrow and other ports at various times to see the operation of those ports in a variety of circumstances. At terminal 4 today, queues were in fact not over an hour long, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman has said that they were, staff were quickly redeployed and more than 80% of desks were open to process passengers as quickly as possible. That is what we have been doing by increasing the staff in recent days and in a week or so, the Olympic numbers will kick in, which will bring even more staff to Heathrow and ensure that people are processed properly and quickly.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary please review her decision to approve the extradition of Richard O’Dwyer to the US, where he faces up to 10 years for an alleged breach of copyright rules, an offence, if it is one, that our own authorities did not think merited a prosecution?
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
If, as the Home Secretary maintains, increased surveillance is as effective as the power to relocate terrorists, why was CF, a suspected serious terrorist, allowed to travel freely across the Olympic park five times before being arrested?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady should have listened carefully to the answer I gave earlier. The individual has not been allowed to travel across the Olympic park. I am not able to go into further details about the case, as it is before the courts and we do not wish to undermine the prosecution case, but I am confident in the TPIMs we have introduced and in the work of our police and security services.
Points of Order
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you be willing to rule on the question of hybridity relating to the House of Lords Reform Bill, which we are about to consider on Second Reading? The Speaker has previously defined a hybrid Bill as
“a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class”.
Clause 19 of the Bill treats some bishops of the Church of England in a different way from the class of bishops in the Church of England. I therefore wonder, Mr Speaker, as this matter is very important in relation to the Parliament Acts, whether you would consider referring it to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to see whether the Bill is hybrid.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. As he will know, and as, I think, he has just indicated that he knows, a hybrid Bill is a public Bill that affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class. The key phrase here is “private interest”. The only interest of bishops affected by the Bill is that of being part of the legislature. That is a public interest, not a private one. Accordingly, no question of hybridity arises. I hope that that is helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, not to mention the bishops.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to my question during Home Office questions on the withdrawal of guidance to door supervisory staff at licensed premises, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), said that she would look into the issue and get back to me. I put parliamentary questions on the issue to the same Minister on 11 and 25 June, and received an answer from another Home Office Minister on 15 May. Can the House be assured that the issue will be seriously looked into and appropriate guidance issued in future, before guidance is withdrawn?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. It sounds to me as though she has had, thus far, an interesting but inconclusive exchange, but I know her and she has a terrier-like quality that is unsurpassed in any part of the House. I can advise her only to redouble her efforts—not to settle for what she regards as an unsatisfactory answer, but to pursue the matter vigorously—although for the time being not through a point of order, but perhaps outside the Chamber.
House of Lords Reform Bill
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful, as will be the House, to the Deputy Prime Minister. Before we get the debate under way, I can inform the House that several dozen right hon. and hon. Members are today seeking to catch the eye of the Chair. The Deputy Speakers and I have compiled a list, very painstakingly. We are doing our best to accommodate as many colleagues as possible, but let me say at the outset that I ask colleagues please not—repeat, not—to come to the Chair inquiring whether and, if so, when they will be called to speak. Colleagues must display some patience. Just wait, attend to the debate and hope for the best. The Chair is trying to accommodate colleagues. To that end, in view of the level of interest, there will be a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
No one doubts the commitment and public service of many Members of the House of Lords, but dedicated individuals cannot compensate for flawed institutions. The Bill is about fixing a flawed institution, so let me begin by setting out why our upper Chamber is in need of these reforms—the three simple reasons why I hope Members will give it their full support. The first is that we—all of us here—believe in democracy. We believe that the people who make the laws should be chosen by the people who are subject to those laws. That principle was established in Britain after centuries of struggle and it is a principle that we still send our servicemen and women halfway across the world to defend, yet right now we are only one of only two countries in the world —the other being Lesotho—with an upper parliamentary chamber that is totally unelected and instead selects its members by birthright and patronage.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I should like to make a little progress.
The House of Lords is an institution that offers its Members a job for life; an institution that serves the whole of the United Kingdom, yet draws around half its members from London and the south-east; an institution in which there are eight times as many people over 90 as there are people under 40; an institution that has no democratic mandate—none whatsoever—but that exercises real power. The House of Lords initiates Bills, it shapes legislation and, as Governments of all persuasions know, it can block Government proposals, too. These reforms seek to create a democratic House of Lords, matching power with legitimacy.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think that it is both flawed in theory, because of its lack of democratic legitimacy, and flawed in practice, because the status quo is unsustainable, as I shall now explain.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I shall make a little progress before giving way again.
Under our proposals, 80% of Members would be chosen at the ballot box, with elections taking place every five years, and the remaining 20% would be appointed by an independent statutory commission. There would be no more jobs for life—we propose single, non-renewable, limited terms of about 15 years—and our reforms would guarantee representation for every region of the United Kingdom. At the heart of the Bill is the vision of a House of Lords that is more modern, more representative and more legitimate—a Chamber fit for the 21st century.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
A moment ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that one of the functions of the House of Lords was to introduce legislation. Can he give us an example—of importance—of a Bill introduced in the other House that has affected this country but that did not have the Government’s permission to be introduced and seen through? Is not the Lords job different from ours? Our job is to initiate and pass legislation on the condition of the Government; the Lords job is to deliberate on that legislation.
The Deputy Prime Minister
All legislation, whether it originates here or in the other place, of course requires the support of the Government of the day to make its way on to the statute book.
The second reason that the reforms will lead to better laws—this may help to answer the right hon. Gentleman—is that the Bill is not just about who legislates, but about how we legislate. Right now in our political system, power is still over-concentrated in the Executive. Governments, quite simply, can be too powerful. During their political lifetime, many Members have seen landslide Administrations able to railroad whichever Bills they like through the Commons, and we have all heard colleagues complain about different Governments trying to ram Bills through the other place when they should have been trying to win the argument in both Houses. Despite its assertiveness, too often Governments believe they can disregard the Lords.
Mr Shepherd
My intervention was prompted by the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement of the principle that those who make the law should be elected by those who bear it. Of course, the older and greater principle is that those who make the laws should be accountable to those who bear the laws, and there is no accountability in the process that he is introducing.
The Deputy Prime Minister
In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that there is neither accountability nor legitimacy in the status quo. These are jobs for life, which are entirely discharged without any reference to the British people. Surely, it is simply time to trust the British people.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I shall make a little more progress, if I may.
The Bill, by creating a more legitimate House of Lords, gives it more authority to hold Governments to account—a greater check on Executive power. That does not mean emboldening the Lords to the point that it threatens the Commons—I shall come on to those concerns shortly—but it does mean bolstering its role as a Chamber that scrutinises Government. It means forcing Governments to treat an elected upper Chamber with greater respect. The aim of the Bill, to quote the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), is to create a second Chamber
“more independent of the executive, more able to exercise independent judgment”.
That will mean not only better laws, but fewer laws, restricting, again in the words of my right hon. Friend,
“the torrent of half-baked legislation”
that Governments are capable of.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Blair Government were defeated four times in the House of Commons and 460 times in the House of Lords. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that an elected House of political placemen will do a better job of opposing than does the current House of Lords?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It will be able to discharge that considerable authority with greater legitimacy, and therefore it will be harder for the Executive to ignore the opinions of the House of Lords. I would have thought, if I may say so, that it was a long-standing Conservative principle that it is the people who should be in the driving seat and the Executive who should be kept on their toes.
The third reason to support the Bill—
The Deputy Prime Minister
I shall make some more progress.
The third reason to support the Bill is simple practicality. The House of Lords cannot carry on on its current path. We need to reform the Lords to keep it functioning, and we need to do it soon.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will give way in a minute, if I may make this point.
Right now, we have an upper Chamber that is ever-expanding. That is one of the main consequences of the unfinished 1999 reforms. Very simply, after a general election, new Governments will always seek to reflect the balance of the vote in the Lords. But it is impossible to get rid of Members: the only way to leave is to die. So new Administrations inevitably have to make more appointments to get the balance right. [Interruption.] The current membership is 816. That will soon be over 1,000. Clearly, the status quo is unsustainable. [Interruption.] The House of Lords is already—
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Deputy Prime Minister. There is a permanent cacophony in the Chamber and Members might think that it is some sort of laughing matter, but as far as a lot of people observing our proceedings are concerned, it is just discourteous. The right hon. Gentleman has a right both to speak and to be heard with reasonable decorum. That is what Members would want for themselves; that is what Members should extend to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The point that I was making, then I shall give way, is that the status quo is unsustainable. The House of Lords is already too big, and it will continue to grow bigger still under whichever Government, unless we do something about it.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
If, for whatever reason, the Deputy Prime Minister is unsuccessful in getting the White Paper through this afternoon—[Hon. Members: “It is a Bill.”]—will he pledge today that he and other senior Liberal Democrats will not take their places in an unreformed House of Lords?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am making the case for the Government’s Bill. I am not going to make predictions about a vote tomorrow, which I firmly believe will be carried.
The Bill reverses that trend. It gradually reduces the membership and caps it at 450, plus 12 bishops. Some people have said that the numbers could be dealt with much more easily, that we can slim the other place by disqualifying convicted criminals or allowing Members to resign.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will give way shortly.
The first solution would bring the total down by a handful, potentially; the second perhaps by none. Others have said, “Yes, cap the House at an appropriate limit, but make it fully appointed.” But how could we possibly justify dramatic reform of the Lords that did not introduce a democratic element? That would be unthinkable. It would be in direct contravention of each of the three main parties’ manifestos, flying in the face of our collective promise to renew our politics. The only way to get to grips with the numbers is fundamental democratic reform. That is what the Bill does.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I entirely agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the people need to be part of the process and feel that Parliament belongs to them, so will he give them a vote on his proposals?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think that a referendum is not justified in this instance, for the following reasons: first, unlike other issues that are a source of great disagreement here, all three main parties are committed to delivering House of Lords reform, by way of their own manifestos, which they put to the British people at the last election, the one before that, and the one before that; secondly, it would be very expensive—£80 million—for something on which we are all supposed to agree; and thirdly, it would detract attention from the much more important referendum taking place in this Parliament: the referendum on the future of the United Kingdom.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen the Bill in the name of his right hon. Friend Lord Steel, the House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill, which addresses the issue of over-membership in the other place and has widespread support there?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course I have examined that Bill and discussed it with Lord Steel extensively. Any reasonable person who subjected it to any scrutiny would conclude that it would not deal with the practical issues to which I have alluded—the House of Lords getting bigger and bigger—because voluntary resignation or the kicking out of convicted criminals simply will not deal with the unsustainable trajectory of the size of the House of Lords.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will make a little more headway, and then of course I will give way.
Democracy, better laws and the urgent and practical need for reform are the three reasons why Members of this House should give the Bill their blessing and wish it a swift passage into law. Before addressing some of the concerns about the Government’s proposals, I would like to make the point that the Bill, although it has been introduced by the coalition Government, in many ways is not just the Government’s Bill. These reforms build on the work of our predecessors on both sides of the House. As with all the best examples of British constitutional reform, the proposals look to the future but are respectful of the past. Veterans of these debates will know that the coalition parties cannot claim full credit for the reforms presented here. If we go back to the White Paper produced by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in 2008, the late Robin Cook’s “Breaking the Deadlock”, the House of Lords Act 1999, Lord Wakeham’s royal commission and everything that went before over the past 100 years, it is clear that these reforms have a long bloodline that includes all our parties and political traditions.
Mrs Main
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not see that there is a degree of inconsistency between his view that we in this House are too powerful and therefore need neutering by the House of Lords and his voting to maintain the strengthening of the Executive and the boundary changes by keeping the number of Ministers yet reducing the number of Back-Bench Members of Parliament?
The Deputy Prime Minister
One of the Bill’s intentions is absolutely not to neuter the House of Commons, but to work in partnership with the House of Commons in holding the Executive to account. I would have thought that Members on both sides of the House would celebrate and support anything that means that Parliament as a whole can hold the Executive more fully to account. Indeed, in 1910, when Government proposals to limit the power of the House of Lords were introduced, it was Winston Churchill who said:
“I would like to see a Second Chamber which would be fair to all parties, and which would be properly subordinated to the House of Commons and harmoniously connected with the people.”
He ended by saying:
“The time for words is past; the time for action has arrived.”—[Official Report, 31 March 1910; Vol. 15, c. 1572-83.]
More than 100 years later, I could not agree more.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Many of us who have sympathy with the need to reform the other place are still deeply concerned about these proposals. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what it was in his recent experiences that has suggested that the kind of democracy we need is one where politicians can say what the hell they like, stay for 15 years and never have to face the voters again?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think that it is preferable to their being there, making the laws of the land and never being put before the British people. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman, if he believes in House of Lords reform as strongly as the Labour party always has—it used to be a long and noble campaigning tradition for the party—will not only will the ends by backing Second Reading, but will the means by backing the programme motion.
The Deputy Prime Minister
If I could just make some progress—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Yes, of course I give way.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, but will he cease to quote Churchill on these matters, given that they relate to Churchill’s views on the House of Lords at a time of great conflict between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the 1920s? As he grew up through his political life, he dropped those views and had great reverence and respect for the institution of the House of Lords—something that I suggest my right hon. Friend should have as well.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course I will always refer to the views of Winston Churchill with a great deal of respect, but I point out only that he expressed those views in 1910, when of course he was a Liberal, not in the 1920s. I know that he changed his views later, and they are a matter of record.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister cease also to say that the Labour party has supported reform of the House of Lords since 1910? What we supported in 1910 was abolition.
The Deputy Prime Minister
If the Labour party’s views have evolved over the past 100 years, which in this matter, if not in others, they may have, I hope none the less that the right hon. Lady will confirm that there was a clear manifesto commitment from the Labour party not only to support the principle of House of Lords reform, but to deliver it in practice.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I shall make a little more progress, if I may.
In 2007, the Commons voted overwhelmingly for a mostly elected second Chamber. Each of the main parties stood on a platform of Lords reform at the last election, and since coming into Government the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and I have looked for every way to take it forward by consensus.
We convened a cross-party Committee, which I chaired. We then published a White Paper and a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I shall make a little more headway.
A Joint Committee of both Houses spent nine months considering that White Paper and draft Bill, and I remain extremely grateful for the Joint Committee’s forensic and detailed analysis. We accepted more than half its recommendations and reshaped the Bill around its advice.
This Bill is therefore the sincere result of long and shared endeavour. Its history belongs to us all: to Liberals, to Conservatives, to Labour and to all other parties in this House, as well as to the great political reformers and pragmatists of the past.
Conor Burns
The Deputy Prime Minister is making an articulate case for a position to which he holds with great conviction, and I respect his integrity in that, but does he accept that many of us fear that by electing the second Chamber and giving it the greater legitimacy he talks about, we will end up creating a rival to this Chamber, rather than the revising Chamber that we all want.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Gentleman holds his views, although different from mine, with great sincerity, and I respect him for that, but in a bicameral democratic system there is nothing unusual about having two Chambers, both of which are either fully elected or mainly elected, and in which there is a clear imbalance, an asymmetry—a hierarchy, if you like —in the relationship of one Chamber with the other. I am sure that we can manage it here. The predictions that it would lead to gridlock and to rivalry between the two Chambers were made when reform took place in 1958 and in 1999. They did not materialise then; I really do not believe that they will this time, either.
The Deputy Prime Minister
If I can make a little more progress, I will give way.
Of course, this does not mean that every Member of this House agrees with every clause—[Laughter.] That is an understatement! There is no perfect blueprint for a modernised second Chamber. Even within each of the main parties, differing visions of reform can be found, and this Bill reflects a number of compromises that have been made to accommodate differences across the House. I say to Members of this House who have specific worries about particular aspects of this Bill that this is precisely what further scrutiny of the proposals, in both Houses, will be about. The concerns that remain fall into two main camps: the myths, which I will now seek to dispel; and the fears, which I hope to address. But before doing so, I give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Chris Bryant
The Deputy Prime Minister knows that I support reform and have done for a very long time, but there are elements of the Bill that I do not like, such as the 15-year term and the fact that it is not clear enough about the respective powers of the two Houses. If the Government are going to end up Parliament-Acting the Bill because the Lords refuses to deal with it, it is all the more incumbent on us to get it right before we send it down the corridor. That is why I say to him, regretfully, that his programme does not fit the bill.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I would be intrigued if the hon. Gentleman could tell me—if not now, afterwards —exactly how many days Labour Members want.
The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said today in The Guardian that the reason he is opposing the programme motion has nothing to do with scrutiny of the Bill:
“Within the rest of the legislative programme are loads of right-wing bills which will damage people in Britain. So I don’t think it is any part of our responsibility to try and get those bills into statute.”
In other words, Labour’s ulterior motive appears to be to disrupt the rest of the Government’s business. That is not a legitimate way of dealing with a programme motion, which is a perfectly reasonable way for the Government to try to make progress on this important piece of legislation without disrupting all other parts of our business.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will make a little more progress and then give way again.
First, let me take the myths in turn. I have heard the accusation that the reforms will be too quick and too abrupt and that the Bill amounts to some frantic act of constitutional violence. The truth? These reforms would be implemented over about 15 years. New Members would be appointed or elected in three tranches over three elections. The political parties and groups would have maximum discretion over how to reduce their existing numbers.
I have heard it said that the modernised Lords will cost the earth. The truth? Taken as a whole, and once completed, the Government’s reforms of Parliament will be broadly cost-neutral.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will give way later.
The additional costs attached to running a reformed House of Lords—which, incidentally, are much more modest than some of the estimates doing the rounds—will be offset by the saving from reducing the number of MPs. Once all this is implemented, the real-terms cost of running Parliament is expected to be roughly the same as it is now; the only additional cost will be conducting the elections themselves.
Mr Nuttall
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify not holding a referendum on these proposals when a referendum was held on the alternative vote system, which, by any stretch of the imagination, was not as wide-ranging?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The reason is that the electoral system that votes Members to this House is a matter on which there is profound disagreement between the parties, whereas the principle of House of Lords reform is something to which we have committed ourselves in all our party manifestos over a prolonged period.
It is essential that we make a start by having the first 120 elected peers elected in 2015. If the hon. Gentleman or other Members of this place want further reassurance about the triggers that would then allow the second and third waves of election to take place, of course I, and the Government as a whole, will be prepared to engage with that.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will make a little more progress and then give way again.
I have heard Lords reform presented as some kind of Liberal Democrat crusade. The truth, as I have said on a number of occasions, is that it made its way into all the party manifestos—in the case of the Labour party, as the right hon. Member for Neath has indicated, going all the way back to Keir Hardie’s 1911 manifesto.
The final myth is this: I have heard it said that the House of Commons should not be concerning itself—
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I first deal with this important point? The hon. Lady has raised it with me personally on a number of occasions, so perhaps she would care to listen to my answer.
The final myth is that the House of Commons should not be concerning itself with Lords reform at a time of economic difficulty. My answer is this: let’s get on with it—proper scrutiny, yes; years of foot-dragging, no. I do not remember this complaint being made when we legislated to create elected police commissioners, or when we were debating local government finance or legal aid reform. It is odd to suggest that Parliament cannot do more than one thing at a time. I certainly agree that jobs and growth are the priority, so let us not tie ourselves up in knots on Lords reform. We do not need to—all the parties are signed up to it. We should vote for the Bill and the programme motion so that we can scrutinise the Bill properly while still allowing ourselves to make progress on other Government priorities.
Mrs Laing
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It happens that he has just hit on the very point on which I agree with him entirely. We do have a duty to reform the House of Lords, even though we are doing other things at the same time. He is absolutely right about that, but what a pity that he does not accept Lord Steel’s Bill and get on with the necessary reform that everybody agrees with. If all three party manifestos gave no choice on House of Lords reform, is that not a good reason to put it to the people in a referendum, because in the election they had no chance to vote against it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Following that logic, the commitment to a referendum on House of Lords reform should have been included in the party manifestos.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know, but it was not in the manifestos of two of the three main parties.
The second point that I make to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who was a distinguished member of the Joint Committee, is that although she and I do not agree on this matter, I hope she does agree that the Government listened meticulously to the conclusions of the Joint Committee, which supported the main tenets of the Bill on a cross-party basis and was chaired by a Member of the other place who was not from either of the coalition parties. That shows how consensual we have been in working up our ideas.
I will move on from the myths that have abounded to some of the fears about the Bill, many of which, I accept, have been expressed in good faith. Broadly, there is a worry that we risk upsetting a delicate constitutional balance, creating a second Chamber that is too assertive and therefore a threat to this place, as was alluded to earlier. I am not surprised by that. It is part of a—
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will give way in a minute, if I may make progress on this point.
I am not surprised by that fear because it is part of a normal and familiar pattern. Every time the other place has been reformed, questions over the primacy of the Commons have arisen, with predictions ranging from disaster to apocalypse. In 1999, some said that the new life peers would not accept the traditional conventions and would block manifesto Bills in which Governments legislate on their election promises, resulting in endless gridlock over Government priorities. As with all such predictions, that was completely wrong. The reformed House accepted that the conventions would continue and adjusted to its new status without overreaching its role as a junior partner, as it will again.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will just deal with the issue of primacy. Although questions of primacy are important and must be answered, we must remember that these fears are the routine reflexes to Lords reform. The Bill will not turn the other place into some kind of monster. It relates to size and composition only and contains no new powers for the other place.
Philip Davies
If we may go back to myths for a second, one myth is that it is an important principle to the right hon. Gentleman that people who initiate legislation should be elected. If that is such an important principle, why does he not insist on elections for European Commissioners, who initiate far more legislation in this country than people in the House of Lords?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European Commission has no right to adopt legislation. If he applied part of his well-renowned fervour against unelected bureaucrats in Brussels to unelected peers in the House of Lords, we would make a considerable progress.
Ultimately, the primacy of the Commons will remain grounded in our conventions and absolutely guaranteed by our laws.
The Deputy Prime Minister
If I may, I will make progress on the issue of primacy.
To ensure that there is a rock-solid legal backstop, the Parliament Acts will remain. We have reaffirmed those Acts in the Bill to make that point crystal clear. The Government will still be based in the Commons, the appointed element of the new Chamber means that it will never be able to claim greater electoral legitimacy, and the Commons will, of course, continue to have sole responsibility for money Bills.
Mr Tom Clarke
The Deputy Prime Minister has referred on a number of occasions to the Joint Committee on which I and other colleagues served. Does he think that it best served the purposes of reform when the Government declined, despite our encouragement, to give us any information about funding and refused us legal advice in the form of the Attorney-General?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his work on the Joint Committee. As I hope he knows, we have published the costings of our proposals in full and in detail. Everyone can scrutinise them line by line. Of course, we were not in a position to provide him with a line-by-line analysis of the costings at that stage because we were waiting to change the Bill in view of the conclusions of the Joint Committee. Without finalising the Bill, we could not finalise the analysis of the costs.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will give way in a moment, but I want to make a couple of points.
A separate but related fear is that opening up the Lords to election will politicise it, creating a Chamber of career politicians likely to rival MPs and robbing the Lords of its wisdom and expertise. Let us be clear about the current situation. The other place contains some extremely eminent individuals who bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to Parliament, but it is hardly entirely dispassionate, an institution somehow untouched by party politics. More than 70% of its Members receive their peerage from party leaders—that is, more than two thirds of Members take a party Whip, and very few rebel.
Members of the House of Lords are more likely to come from this place than from any other profession, with 189 being ex-MPs. In a reformed House, Members will see themselves and their role very differently from us here, not least because of their longer term and the means by which they elected.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If this reform goes through, 189 will be people who never managed to become MPs.
The Deputy Prime Minister
What the hon. Gentleman misses is that the Bill will in fact make space in Parliament for a different kind of politician. [Interruption.] Let me explain. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard. All this noise just slows up the proceedings. A lot of Members—more than 80—want to speak today, and only a small proportion will do so.
The Deputy Prime Minister
What we are doing is what the Joint Committee itself recommended. The Government not only accepted its recommendation that appointed Members should be able to combine membership with a role outside the House, but have extended that principle to elected Members.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am answering the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh).
The Lords should be a place for people who are public spirited, have political and ideological affiliations and want to serve the country, but who also want to continue to lead a life outside politics. It should be for people who want or need to work and have neither the desire nor the inclination to be an MP. They will not be allowed to leave the Lords and immediately seek election to the Commons, so they will be encouraged to see their time in the House of Lords as their one real chance to make their mark.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken a great deal about the Joint Committee and his respect for it. Will he please think again about the central recommendation of both the Joint Committee and the alternative report, which is the necessity for a referendum?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will not repeat the reasons why I believe a referendum would be unjustified, expensive and a huge distraction from the most important referendum of all, which is on the future of the United Kingdom. However, I will repeat what I said in response to an earlier intervention. If the hon. Gentleman or other Members feel that they need some assurances after the first wave of peers have been elected, so that the second and third stages of reform are subject to some type of trigger, I will of course be prepared to consider that.
The combination of elections by proportional representation, single terms and a specific duty on the appointments commission to consider diversity could encourage more women, more members of black and minority ethnic communities and more people with disabilities to serve.
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I just make this point? I have been very generous, and I will take more interventions in a moment.
Crucially, the list system will mean that the new membership will be properly representative of all parts of the United Kingdom. Right now, nearly half the Members of the House of Lords are drawn from London and the south-east, whereas only 5% come from the north-west and 2.6% from the north-east. Our proposals will correct that imbalance. Proportionately, the west midlands will see its representation more than double, and for the east midlands it will treble. The Bill has sewn into it the chance to create a richer, more diverse House drawn from many more walks of life.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend not think that people watching this debate will be bemused? Back in 2010, they voted for three parties that had House of Lords reform in their manifesto, yet Back Benchers in some of those parties are now trying to block it. It has been 101 years, and the people voted for it in 2010; let us get on with it.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that, given all the other major challenges that our country faces—particularly the economic and social ones—it is inexplicable to members of the British public that this Bill is the one thing on which opponents want to tie us up in knots for months if not years to come.
Helen Jones
The Deputy Prime Minister has referred repeatedly to democratic accountability. Why, then, does he insist that the Lords should be elected by proportional representation when the voters of this country decisively rejected that in a referendum, which he now seeks to deny them?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Both coalition parties agreed in the coalition agreement that elections to the House of Lords should take place on a proportional basis to ensure that we do not create a carbon copy of the Commons, and to ensure a proper balance of power, reflecting all the different parties and regions of the country in the House of Lords, so that it can play a different role to the Commons, as I am sure the hon. Lady agrees.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider an amendment to the programme motion that I have tabled today? It would allow an extra three days’ debate, which would mean that the Committee of the whole House would be one of the longest on constitutional issues? That would allow us to debate the issues in depth, but it would also allow us to get on with the much needed reform of the other place, which is rotten and based on patronage and entitlement.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support, hoarsely delivered as it was—she has a cough. It is crucial to wait to hear from the official Opposition what their attitude is to the programme motion. Will they not accept any form of programme motion, or do they have suggestions of their own on the number of days required to deal with the legislation? The Government have been very generous already.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister spoke earlier of the need to reform the other place to make it fit for the 21st century. Does he accept that science and technology are very much part of our future? Will he accept an amendment that would mean greater recognition of expert Cross-Bench expertise in engineering, science, technology, maths and medicine? In addition, I am very happy to explain the correct use of the term “lobotomy”.
The Deputy Prime Minister
We can have precisely that debate and a multitude of others on the detail of the Bill as long as we make progress on Second Reading and the programme motion this week. As the hon. Lady may well know, the appointments commission envisaged in the Bill will be statutorily required to ensure proper diversity and representation of expertise in the 20% of non-elected peers in a reformed House of Lords.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Many hon. Members want to make their views known, so I should like to conclude my remarks. I have been very generous in giving way and would now like to make progress.
I shall conclude my speech as I began. There are three reasons to vote in favour of the Bill and its orderly passage: because we believe in democracy, for the sake of better laws, and because reform cannot be ducked. I welcome the reasoned and expert questions, arguments and concerns that I know many Members will raise. I also know that some will not be interested in rational discussion—those who would oppose Lords reform in whatever form, at whatever time and in whatever century, no matter what commitments their parties have made.
This project has always been dogged by those who fear change. What encourages me is that it is being kept alive by those who champion democracy: the reformers and modernisers who believe simply that power belongs in the hands of the people. We have a chance to finish their work. This has been a 100-year long project. Let us now get it done. I commend the Bill to the House.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I am pleased to be here to debate these important constitutional changes. I admit that while the country is stuck in a double-dip recession and millions are still out of work, this would not have been my priority if I were sitting on the Government Benches, but unfortunately we cannot set the Government’s priorities, and we are where we are.
I am pleased to be here because, frankly, the Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill is a bit of a mess, and I am afraid that his speech did not help matters much either. As a supporter of House of Lords reform, I want to do what I can to ensure that reform comes about, but that it is the right reform and is supported by the people. The Bill has huge implications for how Parliament and our Government operate, so we need to get it right. The reforms will form the basis of a lasting settlement between Parliament and the British people, so we need time to get it right—something I shall speak to a little later.
The Chamber has debated House of Lords reform many times, as anyone who reads the excellent House of Lords Library paper on the chronology of Lords reform will soon realise. It is 95 pages long—and that is only for the period 1997 to 2010. It does not include the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the creation of life peerages in 1958 or other unsuccessful attempts at reform.
The Labour party remains very much in favour of reforming the second Chamber and will support the Bill on Second Reading tomorrow night. Ever since I have been in my current role, I have emphasised our desire to seek a consensus on Lords reform, as did Labour Ministers when we were in government. The Deputy Prime Minister referred to cross-party talks and consensus. I attended the cross-party discussions that he chaired, but unfortunately they were curtailed before we had the chance to discuss all the issues. Our last meeting was in November 2010.
When in government, we recognised that consensus building was crucial to the success of constitutional change, as well as the dangers of impermanence stemming from one Government imposing their will on our constitution, only to see their changes undone by the next Government. Our constitution deserves better than partisan self-serving change.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I have a simple question. The right hon. Gentleman says he needs more time to look at the Bill and get it right. How much more time does he need?
Sadiq Khan
I shall give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer: wait and hear!
Rather than working with us on House of Lords reform, the Deputy Prime Minister has occasionally chosen to pursue a lofty, hectoring stance. I am afraid that his piety has done great harm to the cause of constitutional reform. Labour has decided to support the Bill on Second Reading in spite of his attitude, not because of it.
Let me take this opportunity to lay to rest the myths spread about Labour’s record on House of Lords reform. The changes that Labour enacted to the second Chamber between 1997 and 2010 were unparalleled. No political party—certainly not in modern times—comes anywhere near our legacy. Just 15 years ago, in 1997, the second Chamber was still full of hereditary peers, so the government of the country was still determined by a group of people chosen by birth right. It was the politics of a previous century and a different time. After considerable debate, Labour pushed ahead with the removal of hereditary peers. Many here will remember the enormous objections in the other place and from Conservative Members. In fact, 13 of the current Cabinet voted against the Second Reading of the House of Lords Act 1999.
And what did the Liberal Democrats do?
Stephen Gilbert
Rather than the right hon. Gentleman asking me questions, I would like to ask him one. How will the Labour party vote on the programme motion?
Sadiq Khan
I will answer the question myself. On the Third Reading of the Bill abolishing 90% of hereditary peers, the Lib Dems abstained. I know a reshuffle is due, but the hon. Gentleman should stop reading the Whips’ sheet and listen to the debate.
The Lib Dems abstained. Subsequently, we introduced people’s peers and a proper appointments process, and we also sought to ensure that no single party would have a majority of Members in the second Chamber. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 resulted in a far-reaching separation of powers, with senior Law Lords removed from the other place. The UK for the first time had its own dedicated Supreme Court, which is now firmly established on the other side of Parliament square. It is also worth reminding the House what happened on that occasion. Thirteen members of the current Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, supported a reasoned amendment declining to give that Bill a Second Reading in 2005. What did the Liberal Democrats do on Third Reading? Yes, they decisively abstained. We are therefore comfortable with our record in government on good constitutional reform.
Andrew Bridgen
The right hon. Gentleman talks about creating a consensus across the Chamber about Lords reform, but is not the truth that this Bill, if enacted, will not reform the House of Lords, but effectively abolish it? The House of Lords is a fine institution. It is not broken, so why do we need to fix it?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman is right that the reforms, if carried through, will replace the House of Lords as we know it now. However, I will come to the semantics of the words “abolish” or “replace” in a moment.
It is fair to say that Labour would have liked to go much further. On occasion we tried to achieve much more, but we were held back. Our decision to proceed only with cross-party consensus acted as a restraint on the pace of reform. Proposals floated by Labour ran into fierce opposition. Despite healthy general election majorities, Labour did not seek to impose our wholesale reforms on a divided House of Commons. It is ironic that this has left us open to criticism by the Deputy Prime Minister—and, I hear, the Chancellor—for not doing enough during our years in government.
The House of Lords Reform Bill was first published on 27 June. A draft Bill was published in May last year, which was largely castigated in this Chamber and the other place. Before the Bill’s publication, the Deputy Prime Minister set great store by the findings of the Joint Committee established to look into the draft Bill. Let me take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Joint Committee, who spent nine months on the report. The Joint Committee published its report on 23 April, with an alternative report published by 12 of its members.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman’s manifesto at the last election stated:
“To begin the task of building a new politics, we will let the British people decide on whether to make Parliament more democratic and accountable”
in a referendum. Is that still his party’s view?
Sadiq Khan
It very much is. Unlike the hon. Gentleman’s coalition partners, we keep our promises.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman said that he required time to consider the Bill. How long does he require—10, 15, 20 or 25 days? Will he enlighten the House by saying how long he feels is necessary?
Sadiq Khan
We are in favour of reform. I will come to the issue of timing in a moment.
I note from his opening statement that the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted areas where the Bill had been amended as a result of the Joint Committee’s report, but he was less keen to highlight those where he has not taken on board the Joint Committee’s views. He knows as well as I do that he has cherry-picked from the Joint Committee’s report, while blindly ignoring its other key recommendations and concerns. Let me turn to the Bill itself. If I was being generous, I would have to say that the Bill as it stands is a bit of a mess.
Mrs Laing
Having sat on the Joint Committee for eight months, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the report was critical of the Government’s Bill. The alternative report—signed by 12 of the Joint Committee’s 25 members—was even more critical. The Committee agreed that eight months was not long enough to give proper scrutiny to the Bill, so how could 10 days be long enough for this House?
Sadiq Khan
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She reminds us that there are still a number of major deficiencies, which will need to be looked at in Committee, if the Bill is to be improved. Our support for giving the Bill a Second Reading should therefore not be taken as a blank cheque.
We have many concerns—many of them major—about the content of the Bill, but I shall concentrate on three areas.
The area of powers and conventions deserves our greatest attention. With all the focus on form, the Government have neglected function. On primacy, the Government have sought to rewrite the inadequate clause 2 of the draft Bill and dropped any reference to the conventions governing the relationship between the Houses. It remains to be seen whether this will deal satisfactorily with the issue; constitutional experts are no doubt poring over this as we speak. As the Bill will be debated on the Floor of the House, and as new clause 2 was not considered by the Joint Committee, there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny. We simply do not know whether the provision is adequate. Labour Members want to ensure that the Commons maintains its primacy even when a second Chamber becomes elected.
It is impossible to predict what changes might develop in the culture of the House of Lords following reform, but it seems likely that elected Members will expect to play at least a fairly assertive role and that voters may share that view. When the European Parliament went from being an appointed to an elected body, it demanded more powers to reflect its democratic mandate. Why should elected Members of the second Chamber be bound by conventions that bind a Chamber of hereditary and appointed peers? The Bill effectively washes its hands of this issue.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is good enough to have a referendum when we are electing a mayor in a city, yet not good enough to have one when we are changing the constitution?
Sadiq Khan
I heard the Deputy Prime Minister desperately trying to answer that question, but on four or five occasions when such questions were put to him by his hon. Friends, he failed to answer them.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Did my hon. Friend notice that in answering one of his colleagues earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the coalition had decided on a change to the voting system in favour of proportional representation? Only a few months ago, however, the electorate rejected that, but the coalition is not prepared to accept the democratic will of the electorate.
Sadiq Khan
It is worse than that. The Joint Committee did not even examine the type of voting system that is now being proposed. It was pulled out of a hat without any proper consideration.
Although the Bill recognises that conventions—[Interruption.] Ministers on the Treasury Bench need to calm down.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the semi-open list system was exactly the system that he personally asked for in the Joint Committee?
Sadiq Khan
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm two things: first, that the Joint Committee stopped sitting in November 2010; and, secondly, that the Joint Committee of both Houses failed to consider this system? He decides not to respond.
Sadiq Khan
The Bill recognises that conventions may evolve, and assumes this will happen of its own accord during the transition phases. We believe that that is too passive and is a dangerous position. The obvious questions requiring clarification include the following. What is the position on the Salisbury-Addison convention about Bills and the prevention of manifesto commitments? What about the convention that the Lords does not usually object to secondary legislation? More than 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation go through Parliament each year; the Parliament Acts do not cover this. What about the convention that the Government should get their business through in reasonable time? The Parliament Acts still allow Bills to be delayed for 13 months. What is the position on the exchange of amendments between Houses? The Lords could force the Commons to concede on major changes or resort to the use of the Parliament Acts. I am not saying that those questions cannot be answered adequately; it is just that the Government appear not even to realise that these are live issues. They have their heads in the sand.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State is making a powerful speech. He refers to the Government’s Bill. Is it not a fact that there are 10 Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today, of whom only two are Conservative and eight are Liberal? Does that not show where the real support for this Bill comes from?
Sadiq Khan
It is not for me to get involved in private family grief.
It is simply not clear how any dispute about the use of powers or appropriate interpretation of conventions could be adjudicated or effectively enforced? We think the Bill will need to play a more active role in addressing powers and conventions, particularly if we are to placate the legitimate fears of colleagues on all sides and in both Chambers. Failure to do so risks storing up big problems for the future.
Mrs Main
I should appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the function of this apparent second House. Does he share my fear that when the majority of its Members are elected and a small proportion will be appointed, there will be a divided second House some of whose Members will have more power than others? When it comes to a tied vote, who will really win?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Lady raises one of the issues that need to be resolved.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman has been very patient, so I will give way to him.
Tim Farron
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statesmanlike address. He seeks credit for the Labour party for reforming history, and he is right to do so. The last but one Labour Prime Minister, who introduced devolution in Scotland and Wales and a Northern Ireland Assembly, and, indeed, introduced proportional representation for European elections without a referendum, deserves enormous credit.
Does the right hon. Gentleman feel comfortable about concentrating on the details now, and essentially asking for a prevaricators’ charter? Does he feel comfortable about being ranked as a pygmy alongside those giants of constitutional reform?
Sadiq Khan
I am not sure whether I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He seems to be suggesting that we skip the details and rush the Bill through the House, and I am not sure that that is my idea of good government.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend feel as uncomfortable as I do when listening to the Liberal Democrats lecturing people on referendum commitments in manifestos when they cannot even keep to their own commitments to their coalition colleagues, or on tuition fees?
Sadiq Khan
I am always uncomfortable when listening to Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Sheerman
My right hon. Friend is making some very good points. I have been in the House for long enough to have voted for many of the progressive measures introduced by a Labour Government, but one of the things that worry the reformers on the Opposition Benches who want change in the upper House is the quality of the people who would end up there—and there is nothing in the Bill to assure us that the party machines will not control all the people who end up there.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend highlights one of the problems of a list system. That is one of the reasons why we are surprised that the Joint Committee, which sat for nine months, did not consider the type of system that is being imposed in the Bill.
“I am a supporter of a fully elected House of Lords”.—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 879.]
Those are not my words—although I agree with them—but the words of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, his Bill proposes the establishment of an 80% elected Chamber. We are disappointed that it has not gone for a fully elected second Chamber. Even the Joint Committee was split, recognising that there was a case for that.
Our position is that we want a fully elected second Chamber, and that was also the position taken in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. By allowing some Members still to be appointed, the Deputy Prime Minister is weakening his own arguments for having elected Members in the second Chamber. The Deputy Prime Minister’s pet phrase—although he did not use it today—is “Do not let the best be the enemy of the good”, but in proposing a hybrid Chamber he may be storing up problems for the future.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I was a little confused by the right hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the open list system. One of the things that we did after listening to the Joint Committee was adopt an open list system, in the spirit of consensus, as it is exactly what the Labour party put in its manifesto.
Sadiq Khan
The Minister is wrong to suggest that the Joint Committee had an opportunity to consider the system that he has now put in the Bill. It simply did not. I am willing to give way to the Minister again. Did the Joint Committee consider the type of voting system that is in the Bill? Well, the Minister has decided to remain in his seat, which is his prerogative.
There are legitimate concerns about the possibility that this hybrid system will lead to tensions between the different types of Member, and that those who are elected and are full time will consider themselves more legitimate, and be treated as such, than those who are unelected and part time. There are also other concerns, which will no doubt be raised over the next two days.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Joint Committee had considered the issue of open lists. Obviously we did not consider the specific clauses that are now in the Bill, but if he reads our report he will see that there is a section referring to open lists, and a recommendation that states
“In the Committee's view, the voting system chosen should give voters the widest choice… of where to cast their preferences, whether that is within a single party or across candidates”.
We did consider the issue, and the right hon. Gentleman may wish to correct the record.
Sadiq Khan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me out by confirming that the clause was not considered by the Joint Committee.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
In answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the Deputy Prime Minister said there could be some kind of referendum or investigation after the election of the first tranche of peers. That shows that we need a more detailed investigation of the Bill, because the rules are changing as we go along.
Sadiq Khan
It is worrying that the Deputy Prime Minister has today decided to pull a rabbit out of the hat by suggesting the idea of a referendum once we have some peers appointed or elected in the way that he wants.
We also need to be clear that the model is not quite as simple as the 80:20 split that has been portrayed. The Bill permits the Prime Minister of the day to appoint eight additional Ministers to sit in the Chamber. That will mean that, once again, patronage will lead to a place in the second Chamber—so much for accountability and the end of patronage! Over the period of a Government, that could accumulate, and result in a fair number of partisan ex-Ministers with full voting rights being members of the legislature for 15-year terms by appointment via patronage. This, again, is against the advice of the Joint Committee.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has discussed the problem with having different types of peers in the new upper House, but nobody has yet discussed the new ministerial Members, who will, of course—[Interruption.] Well, not in terms of numbers. The fact is that the Bill will allow the Prime Minister of the day to impose an unlimited number of ministerial peers who are not appointed by the independent appointments system.
Sadiq Khan
The draft Bill advocated the Prime Minister having the power to appoint Ministers, who would be members of the legislature for as long as they were Ministers. However, the Bill published last week says they can stay for 15 years, which is really quite remarkable.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making public the historic levels of indecision on the Liberal Democrat Benches in respect of House of Lords reform. On the 15-years issue, the Deputy Prime Minister says this House contains career politicians. Surely, a 15-year job is a career.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: 15 years non-renewable hardly leads to accountability.
A key absence from the Bill is that there will be no referendum. The Government have opted to impose their proposals on the public, rather than trust the people with a vote on House of Lords reform. We think that is an error, and it runs contrary to the growing tradition that major constitutional change should be put to the people in a referendum.
It is not only Labour that calls for a referendum. The Joint Committee also unanimously called for a referendum:
“The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change brought forward for an elected House of Lords, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.”
This Bill is much weaker as a result of the Government refusing to include a referendum.
We heard a number of defences of that position from the Deputy Prime Minister. He said a referendum was not needed because proposals to reform the House of Lords were in all three main parties’ manifestos. The manifestos said very different things, however. While Labour and the Lib Dems called for a wholly elected second Chamber—albeit Labour wanted a referendum as well—the Conservatives sought only to find consensus. It is not simply semantics to argue that the Conservatives never actually gave a commitment to reform the House of Lords; they gave a process commitment to seek dialogue to find common ground.
Sadiq Khan
I need to make some progress; I have been speaking for quite a while.
What is the best way to build consensus and to get a second Chamber that has legitimacy and public confidence? One way would be through holding a referendum. That would give consensus, public confidence and greater legitimacy.
Even if all three manifesto commitments had been identical, we would still push for a referendum. First, we would do so because it is in our manifesto. Secondly, as has been highlighted by a number of eminent commentators and colleagues from both sides of the Chamber, we would do so because someone who was opposed to reform of the House of Lords had no way of expressing that opinion at the last election. A referendum would allow a full and frank airing of views and allow voters the option to support, or oppose, the position.
Sadiq Khan
I want to make some progress.
The fact is that, under these proposals, by 2015, let alone 2025, the way in which the Members of the other Chamber are elected and appointed will be totally different from how it is now. That is a radical change; it is not simply tinkering. If it were just tinkering, I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister would not be quite so keen to champion the proposals as he is now.
Moreover, Parliament has got into the habit—some would call it a convention, and a good one at that—of holding referendums on major constitutional change. When in government, Labour did so in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on devolution proposals, and in London on the creation of the mayoralty and the assembly. We also did so on giving further powers to the Welsh Assembly. We gave the people of the north-east of England a referendum to vote on regional government —a proposal they rejected. Even this Government have held a referendum on changing the voting system. People will not unreasonably think that the Deputy Prime Minister fears that his latest set of proposals will suffer the same fate as his electoral reform ideas. Referendums were also held in towns and cities up and down the country on proposals for elected mayors less than eight weeks ago. So if a referendum is good enough for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, London, the north-east, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Wakefield, and for the alternative vote system, it is certainly good enough for Lords reform—an issue of national significance.
Time prevents me from dealing with the other areas where this Bill needs improvement, which include the length of the terms; whether those terms should be renewable; the cost of the second Chamber; the transitional arrangements; and the system of elections. There are more such issues, but time is running away.
We have made it clear that we will be voting to give the Bill a Second Reading; we support the principle of reform of the House of Lords. As the Government have decided to introduce this Bill, our job is to respond. We will oppose where we think things are not right and we will support them when we think they are the right thing to do. As I have said, on this occasion we will be supporting the progress of this Bill, but the Committee stage will offer the opportunity for the House to shape the Bill into something much better.
It is absolutely crucial—[Interruption.] I will answer the question that Ministers on the Treasury Bench have been chuntering about. It is crucial that the Bill is given sufficient time to be debated in detail. I know that the Chief Whip has now left, but attempts to shorten or stifle debate by the Government would be unhelpful. A fixed period of time for the Committee stage will not allow proper discussion of all 60 clauses and 11 schedules, and consideration of new clauses. Filibustering could render a full and frank debate impossible, which would be an utter travesty for a Bill of this importance. Let us consider the following:
“when there are really important matters before the House…a big Bill when Members want to say what they need on behalf of their constituents, they are unable to do so because of some ridiculous programme motion that does not take into account the gravity or importance of the measure.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2009; Vol. 487, c. 638.]
They are not my words; they are the words of the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman has not stinted from personal criticism of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, so why is he declining to tell the House of Commons how many days he thinks are necessary for this Bill? If he and his party are so committed to the reform of the House of Lords, why is it, if they oppose the programme motion, that they will find themselves in the same Lobby as those opposed, root and branch, to any reform at all?
Sadiq Khan
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about his coalition partners. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Liberal Democrat Members should not be yelling at the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) intervened and the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is replying. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is an aspiring statesman—
Mr Speaker
Well, perhaps he thinks he is a statesman already, and he should behave accordingly. Let us hear Mr Sadiq Khan.
Sadiq Khan
I have already told the House what the Deputy Leader of the House thought a few months before he had the burdens of high office. Only two months before he became part of the Government and part of the Executive, he said that programme motions are
“imposed by the Executive to prevent debate”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2010; Vol. 506, c. 819.]
Sadiq Khan
Let me refer to the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood and won in 2010. In a section on the House of Commons entitled
“Strengthen the House of Commons to increase accountability”,
it stated that Parliament would be given
“control over its own agenda so that all bills leaving the Commons have been fully debated.”
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. One problem is that when we debate important pieces of legislation, we sometimes expect them to be corrected in the House of Lords and choose not to have votes in this Chamber as they take 15 minutes, losing us time for debate. Is it not therefore all the more important, particularly on clause 1, which contains nearly all the issues of composition, that we have as much time as it takes to get it absolutely right and to have as many votes as we need to get it right? Otherwise, there will be no prospect of the Bill ever coming into law because we will be unable to Parliament Act it.
Sadiq Khan
On a number of occasions, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have said that they will use the Parliament Act to get the Bill through, which means that the second Chamber’s ability to revise and improve will have gone and the Bill must leave this Chamber in the best state possible. If debate is guillotined, that will not be possible.
Margaret Beckett
My right hon. Friend has made a point in his effective speech of referring to the previous Government’s record on reforming and improving the House of Lords and of the Liberal Democrats’ failure to support us. Let me remind him that when we introduced the House of Lords Act 1999, if I recall correctly, we allowed four full days of debate on the Floor of the House on the five-clause Bill and we did not programme that discussion in any way because it was a constitutional matter.
Sadiq Khan
I apologise for correcting my right hon. Friend, but in fact there were nine days of debate, not four, on the Floor of the House. She is absolutely right in all other respects.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend understand that if he is not prepared to say how long a programme motion should specify for debate, even in his wildest dreams, while saying that he wants reform of the second Chamber, people outside this Chamber might well feel that his position is contradictory? Will he therefore consider entering into proper negotiations should the programme motion fail tomorrow night, so that we ensure that everyone outside this place knows that the Labour party is still a party of reform of the second Chamber?
Sadiq Khan
I thank the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for his helpful words. It is important for us to ensure that we do that so that the public can see that we are genuine and because we believe in House of Lords reform. We do not want the Bill to get stuck in the House of Commons so we will enter into discussions, but the Government must talk to us. The Deputy Prime Minister has failed to talk to us on the substance of the Bill and what is really important is that the usual channels operate—
Sadiq Khan
I have already allowed the hon. Gentleman and others to intervene—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Of course I will give way.
Mr Heath
Let me make it absolutely plain: we have tried to speak to the Opposition at all times during the development of the Bill to find out how they long they want for the programming of it. They have declined to tell us and the right hon. Gentleman is declining to tell us today. That is why we cannot reach consensus; the Opposition do not want to tell us how long they want for the Bill, but simply want to vote against the programme motion.
Sadiq Khan
It will be for others to draw what conclusions they want to from those crocodile tears.
As the Leader of the House has returned to the Chamber, it is worth reminding ourselves of what the Conservatives believe about programme motions. He has said that
“today I can announce that we will abolish the practice of automatically guillotining Government Bills and give Parliament back the time it needs to make real improvements to the law.”
The manifesto on which he stood—the Conservative manifesto, not the Liberal Democrats one—stated that they would allow
“MPs the time to scrutinise law effectively”.
That is the point that we have been trying to make. Both coalition parties are clearly on the same page as Labour. The Bill before us today should be allowed to be fully debated and there should be no guillotining of debate by the Government.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is indeed the case that since 2010 we have tried to develop a consensual approach to the programming of legislation and on many constitutional Bills against which his party has voted on Second Reading, they have agreed to the programme motion. That has happened because we have had a sensible dialogue. I very much regret that, on this Bill, it has not been possible to have that dialogue and reach agreement.
Sadiq Khan
As somebody who was involved in the boundary changes Bill, I can say that that was not the case.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 made a substantial parliamentary change in Wales. Due to the approach of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the coalition, there was no discussion on the Floor of the House on the reduction from 40 seats to 30 for Wales. That is exactly what will happen if we have a programme motion for this Bill—we will be prevented from speaking out.
Sadiq Khan
It is worth reminding the House what happened: MPs from Wales did not get a chance to discuss their seats, and nor did MPs from Devon and Cornwall, but the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) got his chance to discuss his seat.
The Government are not only trying to deprive the public of their say in the matter by not giving them a referendum, but seeking to deprive the people’s representatives of the chance properly to scrutinise the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made quite clear: we want House of Lords reform and we do not want the Bill stuck in the Commons, but we need the opportunity properly to scrutinise, amend and improve it. Accordingly, we will vote against the programme motion tomorrow night, and hope that Members on both sides of the House join us.
Mrs Laing
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this is not just any Bill? The Bill brings about fundamental change to Parliament. It is a serious constitutional measure and, by convention, the House does not usually put a timetable—a limit—on a Bill of such constitutional significance.
Sadiq Khan
I heard Lib Dem Members chuntering while the hon. Lady, who sits on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, sat on the Joint Committee and spoke for the Conservatives in opposition, made her important point.
The next two days offer an opportunity for views from all sides to be expressed. On previous occasions when the Chamber has debated House of Lords reform, there has been no shortage of opinions from across the full spectrum, all sincerely held and all genuine. I am certain that this occasion will be no different. I understand that more than 115 MPs have already indicated that they want to speak in the debate over the next two days. I know that there are siren voices of concern in all parts of the Chamber. There are those who favour reform, but have concerns about the Bill, and those who favour the status quo.
Let me end by saying that we can all agree that no one, except the Deputy Prime Minister, thinks that this is a perfect Bill. We will help the Government to give the Bill a Second Reading tomorrow night, but Government Back Benchers should vote with us on the programme motion so that we can all work together to achieve a better Bill.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
In the modern history of parliamentary reform, there have been a number of noble milestones: the extension of the franchise in the 19th century, and to women voters in the 20th; the Parliament Act 1911, which gave primacy to this Chamber; and the expulsion of hereditary Members from the House of Lords. Those were all radical measures, and they were welcome and serious. I very much regret to say that the Bill that the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced does not come into that category.
The Bill is a puny measure. It is unwelcome and it will do far more harm than good to our constitutional structures and to the good government of this country. I say that because, essentially, two things will happen. First, the Bill will lead to the departure—the expulsion—of the vast majority of Cross Bencher and specialist Members of the upper House. We have been extremely well served by several hundred of our most distinguished citizens—industrialists, trade unionists, academics, diplomats, churchmen of many faiths, leading members of the armed forces—all of whom have carried out the task of revision, and only a small fraction of them can remain under these provisions. What are we to replace them by? Essentially, it will be a sham democratic Chamber, consisting overwhelmingly of Members who would rather be in this Chamber and who will be elected under a party list system that is an insult to the electorate.
I believe that this Bill needs to be opposed. I do not normally oppose measures introduced by the Government of whom I am one of the strongest supporters, but this Bill has to be opposed, because, essentially, what it is designed to do will damage the fabric of our government. I say that both to my hon. Friends who, like me, are perhaps willing to go along with an appointed House of Lords, and to other hon. Members who want a genuinely elected system that will continue to attract the brightest and the best to serve in the upper House.
I was not impressed when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that Lesotho provided the only example of a House appointed like our own. He must be aware that, for example, Canada has an entirely appointed senate, and that the Federal Republic of Germany has an upper House which is not elected by the people but appointed by the states—
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
There are no hereditaries in Germany.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
By all means, let us get rid of the hereditaries. That can be done extremely easily, by a very small Bill that would hardly be opposed by anyone.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Is not the reason the Bill fails so miserably that it reflects an obsession with the form rather than the function of the other place?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
My hon. Friend is right and he brings me to my next point, which is that if the Deputy Prime Minister really believes in a democratic upper House, why is he not providing for one in the Bill? What he is providing is form, not substance. The very name of the revised Chamber will continue to be “the House of Lords”. Not a senate, it will be the House of Lords, even though every Lord will have been expelled from it over a period of years.
When it comes to the proposed powers, the Deputy Prime Minister spends his time trying to reassure this House that the powers of the new elected, democratic Chamber will be—will have to be—exactly the same as those the appointed House has now. What possible justification is there for that, if he believes in an elected, democratic upper House? He is a Liberal Democrat; does he not remember the history of his own party? Does he not remember that the Parliament Act 1911 was passed because, until then, apart from on taxation matters, there was an equal right of veto in both Houses, and Asquith and his colleagues argued correctly that an unelected House could not have a veto on the business of Parliament? If the second Chamber is now to be elected, on what ground does he seek to justify his proposals—other than a desire to be all things to all people?
That is the sad problem with the Liberal Democrats: they always wish to be all things to all people—to go for the middle way. I am reminded of a remark I once heard, which I thought was rather good: if Christopher Columbus had been a Liberal Democrat, he probably would have been content with discovering the mid-Atlantic. [Laughter.]
What public interest will be served by the Bill in its current form? Does my right hon. Friend really believe that, compared with all these distinguished men and women from all over the country who serve in the House of Lords now, most of whom will not be able to continue to serve, a party list of candidates will result in more cerebral debate, more enlightened debate and more able contributions to the revision of legislation? Does he actually believe that and does he seriously want us to accept that, or does he recognise that that cannot, in fact, be the case?
Jesse Norman
I am greatly appreciating, as, I am sure, are all Members, the brilliance of my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech. Does he share my view that, as for Members of the European Parliament, Assembly Members in Wales and Members of the Scottish Parliament, the process of election can only empower this group, so that they start to throw their weight around even more?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Yes, but what worries me is the prospect of ending up with a party list system which, as we know from the experience of the European Parliament, has no legitimacy with the electorate, is not regarded as a way of electing people to represent their interests, and has been entirely discredited, regardless of the view one takes of the European Union as a whole. For that system of all systems to be chosen for the purpose of deciding membership of the upper House is totally incomprehensible to me, never mind entirely regrettable.
I say specifically to the Deputy Prime Minister, because clearly it is his party that is behind the Bill, and perhaps the only party that would care much if the Bill never saw the light of day, that if he wants to eliminate the defect he rightly referred to of the continuing presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, that can be done very easily by means of a simple legislative measure. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get rid of the extraordinary nonsense that we have almost 1,000 peers, that can be done by a compulsory retirement age. If he wants an opportunity to deal with the other anomalies in the House of Lords, he does not need to go down this road. The only argument for going down this road is if he believes in a democratic upper House which, by its very nature, will then share primacy with this House of Commons. Let him, if he wants that, admit that, rather than try to conceal that fact behind words that do not carry conviction.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I take no pleasure in not being able to support the Government and the coalition, in which I am a very strong believer, but it would be unworthy of anyone to argue that a constitutional measure which will have a profound impact on the well-being of this country and of our political system should in any way be influenced by its impact, if it were to be defeated, on other legislative proposals.
I have not voted against my party on a three-line Whip for a very long time. I last did so in the 1970s. I do not know what effect it will have this time on my future ministerial career. All I can say is that the last time I did it, in the 1970s, two years later Margaret Thatcher appointed me to her Government. So my right hon. and hon. Friends should be of good heart and vote as they believe, and that means voting against the Bill and against the programme motion.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
I regret to have to differ in this matter from my Front-Bench colleague, for whom I have the utmost respect, but in my years in the House I have never supported the establishment of a second House to second-guess this Chamber. I have voted for and would prefer the outright abolition of the second Chamber, if that is what it comes down to, but I have not voted and will not vote for an elected House. I have made that clear to my electorate on the rare occasions when they have shown any interest in the matter whenever I have stood for election—that whatever was said in my party’s manifesto, I would not be voting either for a change to the electoral system or for an elected upper House—and I have made that clear, I should add for the avoidance of doubt, in government as well as out, to a succession of Chief Whips.
Margaret Beckett
I am very short of time.
I completely agree that further reform is both necessary and desirable. It is time, for example, to terminate the arrangement for the remaining hereditary peers which was the price in 1999 for ending their complete control of the upper House, and I share the approval of Lord Steel’s recent Bill, which makes many sensible suggestions. I entirely understand why, looking at an upper House whose Members had their place on the basis of being the eldest in their families—not even the best qualified or most interested—people should conclude that reform was necessary and that election was the only way.
However, that original hereditary House has been changing and evolving over many years, ever since the Conservative Government of the past introduced life peers. Nearly all those in today’s House are Members because of the contribution that they themselves have made in a variety of ways to the nation’s life, not because of the contribution, dubious or otherwise, of their ancestors. So gradually and with some reluctance, I have over the years come to recognise that there is some merit in an advisory and a revising Chamber with a membership of variety and experience, but my view that we do not want and we do not need a competitive Chamber remains unchanged.
I recognise the argument that is put that we can somehow prevent that Chamber from being a competitor, but I do not believe a word of it. Not only is that my own long-standing view, but it was powerfully reinforced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) expressed dismay that the Government did not give the Joint Committee the services of the Attorney-General. A former Attorney-General, as I think he was, the late Gareth Williams, a brilliant and distinguished lawyer, told us that if the second House were elected, it would be entitled to compete for power with this Chamber. He said, “You cannot confine, for example, decision making on finance or discussion of the Budget to the House of Commons if you have an elected upper House.”
Two other matters lead me strongly to oppose the Bill. The first is the specific proposal for the elections. The Deputy Prime Minister has waxed lyrical about the fact that Members of the existing upper Chamber are there by reason of patronage, but that is also what a party list system is—everyone in this House knows that that is the reality—so he proposes replacing one patronage system with another. He also claims that the elections he proposes would convey accountability. As has already been said in the debate, people who are elected for a 15-year, non-renewable term do not need to be, and will not be, accountable to anyone.
That brings me to my other major concern. The Liberal Democrats have been particularly vocal about the need for constitutional change, on behalf—they always say—of the people of this country, but they have shown a marked reluctance actually to consult the people of this country. In the coalition negotiations that preceded the formation of the Government, they tried to blackmail each of the major parties into giving them a change in the electoral system without a referendum, and now they are trying to get us to change this whole Parliament without giving the people a chance to express their view. I know that in opinion polling people will say, “Surely it is better to elect the upper House.” As we all know, it all depends on the question that is asked. If people were asked, “Do you want to set up a second Chamber of politicians with all the facilities that would be required, certainly at a cost of tens of millions of pounds, if not substantially more?” I suspect we might get a different answer.
The Bill seeks to reshape this entire Parliament and, into the bargain, introduce a different electoral system for the upper House, and all without consulting the people. I shall not vote for it, and trying to force it through without a referendum is the most undemocratic thing about it.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In 1970 I had the privilege of sitting on the steps of the throne in the other place to listen to my father’s maiden speech. In 1995, following what I thought was his untimely death, I had the opportunity to go there myself to make my own speech. In the intervening period I often sat on the steps of the throne, largely because doing so was free and, as a trainee in the Savoy company, I was able to spend afternoons on split shifts there. I listened, watched and learned a great deal about the House of Lords. I remember many great noble Lords making many great speeches, but I came to the view that, however wonderful it was, it was no way to run a legislature. When I arrived in this place, in my maiden speech I made it clear, as I had done in speeches in the other place, that I would seek to work for reform of the Lords and would not rest until it was an elected House.
Therefore, I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill. When I made my maiden speech in this House, what I said on Lords reform was said more in hope than expectation, but let me tell him now that the expectation is high, because this is the right reform, at the right time and in the right context. I believe that for two fundamental reasons. First, in my view the House of Lords is broke. It does not actually work. An hon. Friend referred earlier to the number of Government amendments that the Lords voted against in the last Parliament, but the crucial point is the number that survived scrutiny afterwards in this place. As we all know, when an amendment that is made in the other place arrives here we are told that the Lords have asked us to think again but, as they are not legitimate or elected, let us, the legitimate and elected House, strike it down. That is the critical fix that we need to make.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
If I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument correctly, he is now saying that, because Members of the House of Lords are to be elected, when they turn something down and it comes to this House we will be more likely to give way to their views. If that is the case, surely he accepts that we are in fact giving up part of our powers?
John Thurso
Let me come to that point in a moment, because it is a critical part of the argument.
The second fundamental reason I believe that the House of Lords should be reformed is that for the past 50 years the Executive have gradually been pruning the powers of Parliament. For 50 years the ability in this House, and in Parliament as a whole, to hold the Government to account has been diminishing. For me, the Bill is primarily about the primacy of Parliament as a whole. It is not a zero-sum game. Increasing the legitimacy of the Lords will increase the legitimacy of Parliament as a whole.
Rory Stewart
The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting speech, but some people who support the Bill say that it will make the upper House stronger, some say that it will leave it the same, some say that the House of Lords is not broken, and the hon. Gentleman says that it is broken. Does he not agree that real constitutional reform requires a consistent vision of the problems—and of the objectives that one is trying to achieve?
John Thurso
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. For my own part, I have been consistent in my views ever since I started to think through the matter seriously, and for me the key part is legitimacy, for so long as the other place—
John Thurso
No, I have given way twice, and that is it, so for the avoidance of doubt I will do so no more.
The critical point is that the other place is not regarded as legitimate by us, by the media or by the public at large. If we had an appointed upper House that was regarded as legitimate, as indeed Canada does, that would be worth considering, but we do not. As long as there is no election, the upper House will not be considered legitimate, so we have to move towards election.
We need to observe four key principles. First, we need to look at the role of the other place. It does its job up until the point at which what it has done leaves the other place and comes here, so I want the other place to be a place that continues to scrutinise and to advise.
Secondly, we need to take the best of what exists. For example, the reason the House of Lords works well is that the Whip is lighter—some would even say, “consensual” —up to a certain point, because one cannot be thrown out. By seeking, therefore, to replicate that with long terms and no re-election, that same flavour will come through. Further to that point, and absolutely fundamentally, there should be no competing constituency interests. That is why PR and large constituencies are so important—so that those who are elected cannot claim to represent a county, a division or a town. That is absolutely vital.
Thirdly, reform should be gradual: it should be brought in over a period to allow the customs and mores of the other place to survive the transition. The fourth point, which is also of prime importance, is that the upper House should not compete with the House of Commons as the place to form the Government.
So I look to what is in the other place now, but the one thing that none of us should be able to support is the status quo. It clearly cannot be right in the 21st century to have half our legislature composed of the rump of the aristocracy, together with the great and the good who have benefited from whatever their parties might have chosen to prefer them with.
It is extremely important that we look to an upper House that has legitimacy, has elections and replicates the good parts, but that does not replicate, or seek to replicate, the bad parts. I happily left the other place in 1999 to take my retirement from it, but when I did so I made a prediction to the colleagues whom I left behind, saying that the next stage of reform would not be nearly so easy. I did not for a moment believe that those who had kicked, screamed and gouged their way to party preferment, and had arrived in the other place after all that hard work, would be as happy as I was to leave. That, indeed, seems to be exactly where we are.
I have friends in all parts of this House, not perhaps political friends but none the less friends, and I know how many of them would like to see the other place reformed, so I say to all reformers in this House: we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity; for God’s sake, let us take it.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who has some experience of these things.
This morning, Mr Speaker, I heard on the radio one of your most distinguished predecessors suggesting that this Bill was the end of civilisation as we know it. To me, it is a very small step on the road to a better civilisation that we might arrive at if we could get through some of the very tribal differences that we are expressing today. There are three questions to ask in this debate: first, should we reform the Lords; secondly, if we should reform the Lords, what should be the nature of the reform; and thirdly, should that reform be subject to a referendum of the British people?
I came into this House in 1997 on the back of a very important Labour manifesto. We had been out of power for 18 years, and so important was that manifesto that we took the unprecedented step of putting it to every individual member of our party in a programme called “The Road to the Manifesto”. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) was in charge of that process. As well as saying that we would get rid of hereditary peers, we said that that would be the beginning of
“a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.”
Ever since I have been in this place we have, very slowly but very surely, inched towards a consensus on this. That has happened because the quality of our parliamentary democracy must be diminished by a second Chamber that is wholly dependent on privilege or patronage for its membership. Only two countries in the world have a bigger second chamber than first chamber—Burkina Faso and Kazakhstan. Incidentally, I doubt whether they can match the fact that in our House of Lords 54% of Members come from London and the south-east, only a fifth are women, and there are more Members aged over 90 than under 40, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) once said that it is a model of how to care for the elderly.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the House of Lords as it currently stands is representative given that two thirds of its Members come from public schools?
Alan Johnson
It is a shame that that was said by a Government Member, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental point about why Labour Members have sought reform—originally abolition, but then reform—of the other place. To me, I am afraid, it represents institutionalised snobbery.
I do not agree with Walter Bagehot’s comment that the cure for admiring the House of Lords is to go and look at it, but neither do I agree with the constant stream of self-regard that comes from those on the other side of Central Lobby about how it is the greatest, most expert revising chamber ever to be devised in the world. They have certainly been very expert at preserving the status quo. I am quite prepared to listen to and debate the very strong arguments for the status quo made by Members who, despite manifesto commitments, are perfectly entitled to come here and make that case. Incidentally, that is not the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who believes in a unicameral system. However, the consensus that we have been inching towards says that the status quo is indefensible in a modern, 21st century democracy, and that view is reflected in the proposals in the Bill.
Mr MacNeil
Does the right hon. Gentleman ever feel that some of those voices arguing for the status quo are perhaps looking to their own jobs at some time in the future?
Alan Johnson
The hon. Gentleman tried to intervene on the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), and now he has got his intervention on the record.
The first question is, “Do we need to reform the House of Lords?”, and the answer is, “Of course we do.” The second question is, “Are these the right reforms?” I think that they broadly are. I say that not because they are Clegg’s reforms, but because they are Cook’s reforms. One of my great heroes is the late, great Robin Cook. There was no greater parliamentarian and no greater defender of this place. As Leader of the House, he sent us through the voting Lobbies seven times. We voted against every option, from a fully elected to a fully appointed House of Lords. The option that nearly got through—it failed by only three votes—was an 80-20 split. Incidentally, the other place voted almost unanimously for a wholly appointed second Chamber.
After that, Robin Cook worked with the current Foreign Secretary, the current Leader of the House, the current Lord Chancellor and another great Labour parliamentarian, Tony Wright, the former Member for Cannock Chase, to develop the argument with the “Breaking the Deadlock” proposals of 2005. Those proposals are very similar to this Bill, and to various other attempts, such as that of the Public Accounts Committee and the White Paper published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in 2008. The Labour Cabinet agreed to that paper, which incidentally involved a 50-50 split between elected and appointed Members.
In the end, Labour proposed a 100% elected House in the 2010 manifesto. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) knows, because he was a member of the Cabinet at the time, we knew that we might have to concede an 80-20 split because anyone who is serious about pursuing House of Lords reform does not want to take on the disestablishment of the Church of England at the same time, because that is a recipe for permanent procrastination.
“Breaking the Deadlock” said that there should be single terms covering three election periods, as did the royal commission under Wakeham in the late ’90s and as have various other documents. It said that Members would be elected by proportional representation, as did our election manifesto in 2010. The reason for that is to keep the primacy of the Commons. When a large proportion of the second Chamber is elected, we need to ensure that they do not seek ministerial office, that they are not after a career and that they will not be difficult with elected local MPs and seek to replace them. That is why everybody who has looked at this matter in any depth has come to the conclusion that there should be long, single terms with no further right to stand again.
All of the current proposals are right. I should probably say that they are nearly right before I get into trouble with the Whips—there are obviously some improvements that can be made in Committee. However, to get a consensus and to take advantage of what is an unprecedented opportunity to do something about this issue, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, I believe that a referendum of the British people is needed. I ask those on the Treasury Bench to consider that. To have legitimacy, the proposals have to be approved by the public. We can then ensure that they are implemented in full.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). Although I disagree with a lot of what he says, I have respect for the way in which he says it. I certainly agree with his last point about a referendum.
There is wide agreement in this House and in the other place that we want reform of the second Chamber. Sadly, the Bill before us is standing in the way of measured, necessary reform. If only we had a small Bill that proposed to do what we all know needs to be done, we could get on with it. But we cannot, because the Bill is fundamentally flawed. It undermines democracy in three specific ways: first, it damages accountability; secondly, it has not been subject to proper consultation; and thirdly, it ignores the will of the people.
First, a person who is elected for a 15-year, non-renewable term of office is accountable to nobody.
Duncan Hames
How would the accountability of the Members of the House of Lords be achieved under the proposals that the hon. Lady would support?
Mrs Laing
I do not know what proposals I would support for the House of Lords, because we have not had proper consultation or proper consideration of what ought to be done. I believe that we ought to have a constitutional convention to consider the reform of Parliament as a whole. Once we have done that properly, I will be happy to give the hon. Gentleman my answer.
Worse still on the matter of accountability, a body of people who, having been elected, claim to have a democratic mandate, will behave as though they had one. There will be no stopping them. They will flex their democratic muscles and challenge this House of Commons. No matter what any Bill or any convention says, they will challenge the primacy of this House.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
When these people are elected to the House of Lords, or the House of senators, or the second Chamber, they will be elected by millions. They will therefore say, “Millions of our people have put me here, so I have a better democratic right than MPs to speak for them.” That will mean a challenge to this Chamber.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenge will be not just here in the Chamber but in every marginal constituency? That is what happens in Australia, where they have the system in question. The equivalent of a Liberal Democrat Senator in a Conservative seat becomes that area’s parliamentary representative, and so it is in every marginal constituency.
Mrs Laing
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Joint Committee took evidence from the Australian Parliament, and Members ought to look at that evidence and pay heed to Australia before giving away our primacy.
The most worrying thing of all is that as the primacy of the House of Commons is challenged, the unique link of accountability between the elector and his or her representative in Parliament—their Member of this House —will be undermined, so Parliament’s very accountability will be undermined as well.
Quite apart from the fact that there is no reasonable question to which the right answer is 450 extra elected politicians, having a second House of Commons at the other end of the corridor will not increase the chances of holding the Government to account. It will do exactly the opposite. A clash between the two Houses and a squabble over when and whether the Parliament Acts could be used will lead to a challenge in the courts, and I for one do not want vital political issues to be decided not by Parliament but by the judiciary. Our electors expect us to take responsibility, and they expect the buck to stop with us, their MPs. We ought to fight to preserve that.
I turn to the matter of consultation. The subject of Lords reform may have been talked about for 100 years, but we are not considering it in a proper, wider context. Reform of one part of Parliament is reform of Parliament as a whole, but we have been able to consider only the narrow proposals that the Deputy Prime Minister has put forward. I sat on the Joint Committee for eight months, and we recommended a constitutional convention so that the subject could be properly examined in context. The Government have ignored that recommendation, and now we face the possibility that we might not even be able to examine the Bill fully here in the House of Commons because of a narrow programme motion. At the same time, the Government are afraid of a referendum. They are afraid to ask the people. No constitutional convention, no referendum, no proper scrutiny in the House of Commons—that is not democracy.
Mr MacNeil
May I do a cursory self-interest check? Will the hon. Lady rule herself out now of ever taking a seat in an unreformed second Chamber?
Mrs Laing
No, I will not rule that out—not that I ever expect to be offered a seat, and certainly not by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I am probably not the most popular Smartie in the tube today, but I do not care about that: I am here to do my duty for democracy.
The Bill ignores the will of the people. Only one year ago, we had an expensive nationwide referendum in which the people overwhelmingly rejected a proportional representation voting system. The Deputy Prime Minister now ignores the will of the people. PR for this House was rejected, so he says, “Let’s introduce it for the other place.” What contempt! What duplicity! Why does he do it? The answer to that non-rhetorical question is that a proportional election system will give the Liberal Democrats a permanent hold on the balance of power in the second Chamber. That is not democracy; it is blatant party political advantage. It is short term and small-minded, and I certainly cannot vote for it.
There is very much more to say on this subject, and I hope the House votes to give all the time necessary for proper scrutiny of such fundamental parliamentary reform.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind hon. Members not to approach the Chair to find out when they will speak, as Mr Speaker has indicated. We will try to get in as many hon. Members as we can.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
The most fundamental principle of any democracy is that those who exercise political power over us must be elected by us, yet everywhere in the UK it is evident that the long march to extend the franchise has a long way to go. The most powerful and influential in our society are not directly elected—the media, the bankers and the civil service. Even the chief executive of our Government is not directly elected. We are still one of the few western democracies in which the people are not trusted to elect directly their Prime Minister—the top politician in the land. Our problem is not too much democracy, but not enough democracy.
Elections are almost a guarantee of powerlessness. Anyone contaminated by contact with the ballot box is edged around by regulation, oversight and rules that dull our enterprise and inhibit our leadership. For example, locally elected councillors are bound by 1,500 Acts of Parliament, which render them as little more than agents of the centre. Elected Members of Parliament have a fleeting existence as an electoral college on general election night, but thereafter are laughably alleged to hold to account the very Executive that whips them to vote for them several times a day, every day, every week.
Mr Allen
I very much hope that Government Members exercise their independence in pursuit of parliamentary sovereignty and a wider democracy rather than in pursuit of any special interest—I am sure that will happen.
In all those areas, reform is a relatively simple matter, but the most centralised state of all western democracies is blocking the way—the sclerotic relic of an empire, with England as the last country to throw off its yoke. The regime is so suffocating and so clueless about the alternatives that some of our blood relatives in the nations of our kingdom feel driven to break free of it.
There is an alternative, as there always has been, and as the best elements of the philosophies of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties have always known and for which they have always fought: the ballot box. No one, and above all hon. Members, needs to be afraid of the ballot box or of spreading electoral possibility. The ballot box is the weapon feared most not by those outside the House, but by Executive power, whether in the House or elsewhere. The vote can deliver devo-max not just for the nations of the UK, but for this Parliament and for locally elected councils, and above all for individuals in our country.
Today, we will see whether this elected House, this poor, whipped, dwarf of a legislator, can reconnect with its historic mission to extend the franchise, or whether we decide to pull up the drawbridge so that none can share our meagre status. Can we outgrow this fairytale of parliamentary sovereignty and our self-delusion about the primacy of the first Chamber? The cold, harsh reality is that we have Executive sovereignty and the primacy of Government. That is what dominates British politics, not some fairyland where Members of Parliament dominate the political scenario.
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend makes his point, but anyone looking objectively at this House would see two competing teams, one for the Government, the other against, and it is rare that there is rebellion or independence of mind, as he well knows.
We should not fear the liberty and the improvement of the second Chamber. It might actually be the making of the freedom of the first Chamber. It might be one step on the road to having a free and independent legislature that would challenge the power of the Executive.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Mr Allen
My right hon. Friend, having been a strong member of a past Executive, knows where he is most powerful. Is he most powerful sitting on the Back Benches here, or was he most powerful when in Whitehall and commanding a Government Department? We could discuss how effective the scrutiny was that he went through.
To have an un-elected Chamber with a say in passing laws over our citizens is a democratic abomination. It is not a deficit, an anachronism or a quaint ceremonial corner; it is an insult to every elector in the land. It is hobbling and repressive. It says to our citizens, “You are not capable or worthy of deciding your own future, of deciding who should run your country.” It says that this country is about deference and patronage, about a lack of self-confidence and belief, and about insiders and those who know better. It is about our past, not our future. It is an open wound in the body of our democracy and it must be healed.
That wound can be healed only by introducing the elective principle to the second Chamber. That is what this generation of parliamentarians in both Houses can achieve over the next year, and it can be done without beheading those whose service in the second Chamber deserves our respect, not our abuse. For those of us who for 25 years or more have worked for reform, standing on the shoulders of a century of giants before us, these proposals are the most serious attempt yet to bring about a change in our democracy and bring it into the modern era. Their courage and ambition mock the flaccid indecision of recent years.
Are the proposals perfect? No, of course not. Only the 650 different plans in the minds of each hon. Member are perfect, but that is why, theoretically at least, we have a parliamentary process. There is a—
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I am delighted to follow the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I share much of his analysis but arrive at the opposite conclusion.
The Deputy Prime Minister builds his case on three broad themes. First, there is his claim about the manifesto commitments. It is clear, however, that the Conservative manifesto contained no commitment to legislate—the Prime Minister famously described it as a third-term issue. Regardless, however, I would urge my hon. Friends to think carefully about their responsibilities as Members of this House. We are not delegates sent here to nod through whatever our parties ask, but representatives sent here to exercise our judgment in the public interest.
I would also like to reflect on the case for a referendum. If it were true, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that all the major parties promised the Bill at the general election, then contrary to the assertions of the Ministers, the public were presented with no choice at the general election, so the case for a referendum on such major constitutional change is compelling.
Alison Seabeck
The hon. Gentleman is giving a thoughtful speech, as have other Members. If it is possible to have a referendum in a local authority—for instance, on something to do with council tax—surely it is absolutely right, on an issue as significant as this, that the British public should be offered the same choice.
Mr Brady
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The case is compelling. Ministers really cannot have it both ways.
Much of what has been said about the Bill, however, concerns not party commitments but calculations of party advantage. We spend too much time here pursuing party advantage. To do so in changing our constitution would be not just wrong but contemptible.
Let me turn to the other parts of the Deputy Prime Minister’s case—the points of principle on which I hope the House will judge any proposal to effect a massive change in our constitutional arrangements. These are whether reform is needed and the argument that there is an absolute principle that those who legislate for the people should be chosen by the people. There has been an effort to paint opposition to the Bill as reactionary opposition to any change. Nothing could be further from the truth. Few on either side of this House or in the other House would dispute the need for reform. The Lords is too big and it needs a route to retirement. It also needs a means of removing those found guilty of serious crimes. All this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, could be enacted with little dissent here or in the other place. However, desirable as reforming the Lords may be, I would contend that reforming the Lords without reforming this House would be to miss the point.
The public are not stupid: they know where power is located in our Parliament. They know that it is in this House and not the other. People certainly dislike politicians who break promises or who seem interested more in seeking or holding on to office than in serving the public good, but this is seen as a failing in the House of Commons far more than in the House of Lords. People notice that this House is poor at holding the Government to account. They see that we make only a desultory effort at scrutinising legislation—although I trust that this Bill will be an exception. People see the damaging effects of patronage—against which Lord Ashdown railed in the weekend press—but they know that patronage is a greater impediment to the freedom of this House than it is to that of the Lords. We are agreed that the House of Lords needs reforming, but reforming the Lords while flunking the far more important task of strengthening the Commons would be profoundly mistaken.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman will know that the coalition agreement is clear that we need to work to reform the effectiveness of this place, but is he clear that he appears to be proposing that we should end up with a second legislative Chamber that is slightly altered, but all of whose Members are appointed? Is that really justifiable in 2012?
Mr Brady
The right hon. Gentleman should be patient.
Let me turn to the most important pillar of the Deputy Prime Minister’s case: that those who legislate for the people should be chosen by the people. Many of the opponents of the Bill, on both sides of the House, reject that. They rightly point to the expertise of the upper House. They highlight the obvious truth that an elected or part-elected upper House would be more inclined to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. I accept both assertions, but unlike many of my hon. Friends, I would support an elected upper House in spite of them. However, that is not what the Bill delivers. We do not have time today to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the United States constitution. There can certainly be gridlock between the Houses in the United States, but the legislation it produces is at least as effective as ours, and Congress is certainly far better able to hold the Executive to account than we are. However, is the Bill before us today one that would excite Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine? Is it a great clarion call for government of the people, by the people? It is not.
Mr Brady
No, I cannot give way again.
Let us look at the reality of the Bill and some of the reasons why it should be rejected by any true advocate of reform. Even if the Bill were enacted unamended and even if all the electoral cycles it envisages were allowed to take place and the reformed House foreshadowed by the Bill were implemented in full, we would have a bizarre and opaque arrangement—a House of indeterminate size, with an unknown number of Members appointed as Ministers by prime ministerial patronage; an appointments commission for the unelected Members responsible for vetting appointees for propriety, but not if they were appointed as Ministers; and a number of bishops, as has already been said.
Instead of a simple, transparent democratic process, the Bill proposes an absurdly complex hybrid assembly: elections by not one but two different systems of proportional representation; and party lists to help to maintain the central powers of the political parties over who will sit in the newly constituted Chamber. Far from the high principle of an elected Chamber, we have a ridiculous fudge, justified by the Deputy Prime Minister as a gradual move towards a wholly elected Senate, although he, like the Prime Minister on previous occasions, has suggested with a nod and a wink that the second and third cycles may never happen, and that that will be open to this House or indeed to the public in a referendum to decide.
As an advocate both of reforming the Lords and of introducing more democracy to our institutions, I shall oppose this appalling Bill because if those are its aims, I believe it will fail utterly to achieve them. The Bill fails to address the real problem in our democracy—a Commons that is so greatly dominated by the Government that it fails to perform its core functions of holding Ministers to account and of scrutinising legislation effectively. I urge the House to vote against a Bill that is complex where it should be simple, that preserves patronage instead of providing real democracy, and that yet again allows this House to avoid confronting the truth about its own shortcomings.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Despite his eloquence, I disagree with most of what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) said. There are two issues that I wish to address from the outset. The first is the charge that now is not the right time. It never is the right time to introduce constitutional reform. That is the dreary, weary excuse that anti-reformers use over and over again. It was used about devolution and almost every other constitutional reform brought in by the last Labour Government whom I was proud to serve. What if great reformers over the years had decided that it was not the right time? What if Aneurin Bevan had said, “I have this really good idea for a national health service, but the country is broke and we are probably going to lose the next election, so it is not the right time”? What if the suffragettes had said, “We’d really like the right to vote, but there is so much else going on at the moment; let’s leave it to the men for a few more years”?
Secondly, if any of us had been starting from scratch and designing a second Chamber for a new, modern democracy, it is inconceivable that any of us would have come up with the House of Lords in its present incarnation. Of course we would not have done so; the very idea is risible. The truth is the House of Lords is an anachronism, and we all know it. Yes, it performs a valuable scrutinising and revising role. Yes, it demonstrates a diligence often superior to that of the Commons. When I was a Minister appearing before a Lords Parliamentary Committee, the standard of questioning was often more stringent and, I regret to say, its members often better informed than those in the Commons. There is, however, absolutely no reason why that standard of performance could not be maintained, possibly even exceeded, by a democratic second Chamber with new blood and new expertise. This is not about a personnel change; it is about accountability and democracy.
In any case, the fact that the House of Lords performs a valuable role is no reason to maintain it in its current constitutional form. It is a democratic farce, an arbitrary mixture of a majority deriving their place from patronage and a minority deriving it from titles inherited from a liaison with a royal, centuries ago. It is a hangover from pre-democracy days, a constitutional dinosaur.
Labour has a proud record, going back to our first Labour leader, Keir Hardie, of demanding a democratic second Chamber. If we do not take this opportunity now, through this Bill, to ensure that we have a democratically constituted second Chamber, we will be throwing away that opportunity—if not for ever, certainly for this generation. It is a “now or maybe never” decision.
We will try to amend the Bill. For instance, I am a supporter of the reformed democratic second Chamber having a “secondary” not a “primary” mandate. That principle, eloquently enunciated by Billy Bragg, will help to address the crucial issue of the primacy of the Commons. I am not in favour of electors having two votes—one for MPs, one for Lords—as there should be just one vote: for MPs. This House should continue to have the primary representative mandate from our constituents. Parliament should consist of MPs with legislative primacy by virtue of their primary mandate, with peers discharging their important revising, scrutinising role by virtue of their democratic but secondary mandate. That is an issue for Committee; for now, we have a duty to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Oliver Heald
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Joint Committee, which examined at the draft Bill, suggested that the Government should have another look at forms of indirect election that preserve the supremacy of this House while still giving a democratic legitimacy to the other place? Does he agree that looking again at some of those ideas would be well worth while?
Mr Hain
I do if the hon. Gentleman means by that the secondary mandate.
I remind the House that the last time the Commons voted on a very similar proposition to that put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister—the one put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in March 2007—it voted decisively for an elected Chamber. A 100% elected Chamber was favoured by 337 votes to 224, and an 80% elected one by 305 votes to 267. Surely this House of Commons, with hundreds of younger MPs of a new generation, is not going to backtrack on that vote? With new MPs of a new generation, we should be increasing the majority for reform.
One of our greatest parliamentarians, Robin Cook, told the House on 4 Feb 2003 that there was a real possibility of House of Lords reform becoming a parliamentary equivalent of “Waiting for Godot”:
“it never arrives and some have become rather doubtful whether it even exists, but we sit around talking about it year after year.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 152.]
For the very first time, all three parties have a manifesto mandate for Lords reform. To betray that mandate would be to betray trust even more. This House has a once in a political lifetime opportunity to bring down the curtain on what must rank as the longest political gridlock in the history of parliamentary democracy. It is high time we resolved this once and for all, and brought our democracy fully into the 21st century by an historic decision for a democratic second Chamber.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
In response to an earlier intervention, my right hon. Friend referred to indirect elections. Would it not be sensible, and would it not have been sensible over the last 10 years, to have seriously considered the alternative approach, as in India, of having an indirectly elected second Chamber with a small composition to reflect the regions and nations of this country rather than bring in a party-list PR model of regional election?
Mr Hain
I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. What I favour is different proportions of party votes given to MPs then going into a regional pool, as the Bill envisages in its proposal for second votes to determine the numbers of party representatives in the second Chamber, subject to the specified transitional arrangements. This closed list mechanism is not one used in European, Welsh or Scottish elections, which quite properly have open lists, but it is not appropriate, in my view, for elections in which voters elect primary legislators in Europe, Wales and Scotland. However, a new democratic second Chamber would be unique among our institutions because a direct mandate from voters would compromise the primacy of the Commons. That is my view. If I win that argument in Committee, so be it. I hope to do so, but I will still vote for the Bill because it is vital to get it out of the House of Commons in good order so that it goes to the House of Lords. That is essential.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I think the right hon. Gentleman has talked a lot of sense, but does he not accept that if Opposition Members vote against the programme motion, it would seriously jeopardise Lords reform and our ability to get it through?
Mr Hain
No, I do not. I am glad I took that intervention. I am a former business manager, as I used to be Leader of the House, and I say that if a Government with this majority want to get this Bill through, they will get it through—with or without a programme motion. When we were in government, and we introduced the system of programme motions, I cannot recall off hand—there might be examples, but they would have to be searched for—either Liberal Democrats or Conservatives ever voting for them. They consistently voted against our programme motions—for honourable Opposition reasons —and I when I was Leader of the House the current Leader consistently opposed my arguments for programme motions when we were introducing new Bills. It is the duty of the Opposition to seek proper scrutiny of the Bill, which the programme motion does not allow. It is not our duty to provide extra time for the right-wing Bills that occupied the rest of the Queen’s Speech.
I shall vote enthusiastically for the Bill’s Second Reading, and will follow that up by supporting the Bill in principle at the end of its parliamentary stages. It is vital for it to leave the House of Commons and go to the House of Lords—and let battle then commence.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
At the time when the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) was Leader of the House, I was the shadow Leader who opposed all the motions that he tabled. I do not remember agreeing with him very often, but I think that he said something important today when he talked of the secondary mandate system, the vital need to ensure that this place retains primacy, and the need for effective government.
My concerns about the proposals in the Bill relate to the central provision allowing the election of senators, or representatives, for the regions. In future, instead of the simple constituency link that we have at present, with one parliamentary representative being elected for each area, there will be a number of senators. In marginal seats a parliamentary representative for the Conservatives may be elected to this House, and a parliamentary representative for the Liberal Democrats may be elected to the senate. I see that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is looking at me. In a three-way marginal such as the seat that he represents, there will be three surgeries every week.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as he chose to name me. Let me say that I am not sure it is a three-way marginal, although I suspect that my constituents would be delighted to hear more.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he has described is very similar to what happens now? There are extra representatives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in the European Parliament and on councils. Giving the people a say in the composition of the other House merely means that they will be able to exercise some direct influence, which does not happen when Members are appointed through patronage.
Oliver Heald
What is happening is the creation of a culture of the multi-Member constituency. An individual constituent will be able to choose whether to go to the Liberal Democrat, the Conservative or the Labour representative in Parliament, and I do not believe that that is good for our country. I believe that it is important for a Member of Parliament to represent all his constituents, and for the constituents to know where to go when they need help or want to raise an issue. That is good for them, and it is good for us.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Although I support the Bill, as a Member representing one of the most marginal seats in the House—my majority is 389—I think that my hon. Friend is making an extremely important point which must be considered. I can imagine how, had I been elected under the proposed system in the last election, my Labour or Liberal Democrat opponent would have sought to undermine my position by claiming that he or she had a mandate equal to mine.
Oliver Heald
My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about that.
The Joint Committee took evidence from Australian senators. The Australian system is similar to that proposed in the Bill. Senator Ursula Stephens from the governing Labour party told us:
“I am allocated a number of seats that are not held by the Government in the lower House in my state. I look after those constituents who do not have a government representative. Those people might come to me about issues and legislation.”
Senator Lee Rhiannon from the Australian Greens said:
“we have nine Senators and only one Member in the House of Representatives. The issue of working with constituents is very important for us and it takes up quite a bit of time.”
Senator Michael Ronaldson of the Opposition Liberal Party said:
“I do not think that you can make the assumption that you will not be engaged in constituency-type work, particularly if the elected Lords in an area—as Senator Stephens said—come from the other party. If you are a Member of the non-ruling party, the Lords might find that they have more people knocking on their doors than they might otherwise have anticipated.”
When the Clerk of the House gave evidence, he spoke of the danger of “constituency case tourism”. We must try to avoid such constituency conflicts.
Simon Hughes
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. That is a real issue, and I think it will have to be addressed if we proceed with the Bill. There are ways in which it could be dealt with: for example, it could be agreed that Ministers would deal only with Members of the House of Commons when it came to constituency casework.
Oliver Heald
That issue is not addressed in the Bill.
I mentioned the Clerk of the House a moment ago, and he has appeared on cue!
The power of the people is in this House, not at the other end of the building. That is why, when we are arguing with the Lords about a Bill, they always give way eventually. When I was a Whip, I went down there and had discussions with them, as many other Members will have done. In the end, they say, “You are the elected House; you have your way.” I recall hardly any occasions during my time here when, in the end, they have not caved in, because we are the elected House.
I believe in efficient and effective government. I think that it is something the Conservative party has stood for over the years. We have given this country more than 250 years of good government—or, at least, we have given a lot of it during that period. [Laughter.] I remember the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) saying “It must be healed.” I agree: it must be Heald.
Following the proposed changes, we will struggle to have effective government. The Parliament Acts cannot be used on every occasion. It is a nuclear option. We rely on the Lords’ giving way, but the fact is that without conventions and arrangements between the Houses —some means of ensuring that we always prevail in the end—it will be more difficult to ensure that we have effective government in this country. When a party makes promises in its manifesto, it will not be able to deliver on them. When we experience a crisis, as we have recently, it will be difficult to introduce urgent measures with the necessary speed.
Let me make a suggestion. It is in the Joint Committee report, the alternative report and in my pamphlet, which can be read on the website of the Society of Conservative Lawyers. Let us see whether we can avoid regional elections which provide a geographical power base, which would mean the people at the other end of the building representing a group of constituents from an area. Let us consider indirect election. There are various different models. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) mentioned the German model, and the right hon. Member for Neath mentioned the secondary mandate model. There are ways of doing this.
I support reform and I think that we should do it, but I do not agree with the Bill, and I believe that it needs to be looked at again.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I was in two minds about applying to speak in the debate, and I remain deeply conflicted. That is partly because I honestly believe that taking an immense amount of time to debate the Bill is a distraction from some of the very real problems that face the country. With a million young people out of work, with families struggling to make ends meet and with one of the worst recessions that we have ever known, I feel that we would use the House’s time better not just in debating those subjects, but in debating action to tackle them.
It also worries me, although I understand the reasons for it, that we have spent the last six months talking about Leveson and the public inquiry into the press—we have had six months of politicians talking about journalists —and now we are to have a further nine months of politicians talking about politicians. If anything is a bigger turn-off for the people of this country, I do not know what it is.
Hazel Blears
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when I said that I was in two minds about the Bill, I meant that while one part of me says that it is a distraction, the other part says that it is one of the most cynical deceptions to be inflicted on the people of this country, for deeply partisan reasons.
The people who are promoting this Bill, supposedly in the name of democracy, are using the language of high moral purpose, but, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, the Bill is really motivated by partisan low politics designed for party advantage. I have therefore decided to vote against the programme motion, in order to give the Bill as much scrutiny as possible. I am sick and tired of the people promoting this Bill painting those of us who have genuine objections to it as reactionary—diehards, dinosaurs, opposed to reform. I say to them that nothing could be further from the truth. I am utterly opposed to privilege. The last time we voted on these issues I voted to abolish the House of Lords. If I had that option now, I would vote for it again. I believe we could have a unicameral system with much more pre-legislative scrutiny and experts involved. The primacy of this elected House of Commons to our constituents is the top priority for me.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Liberal Democrats currently hold the balance of power in this Chamber, and it has been suggested that if the programme motion is not passed tomorrow and if the Bill does not pass, Liberal Democrat Members will vote against the boundary changes. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear them saying that that is the case. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that illustrates what they would do if they were to hold the balance of power in the upper House? They would hold Parliament to ransom over every issue that suited them.
Hazel Blears
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a point that goes to the heart of this debate. I have included comments in my speech about squalid partisan back-room deals.
I have the utmost respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and he made an excellent speech today. If he were still present in the Chamber, however, I would ask him this question: he is a proponent of democracy, but what is democratic about a 15-year term? The Chartists have a very proud history in my constituency of Salford, with 250,000 people demonstrating for universal suffrage. They wanted annual Parliaments. They have never achieved that, but 15-year terms are the antithesis of anything that could be called democratic.
What is democratic about regional party lists, too? There has been a lot of talk today about patronage, which is how people find their way into the House of Lords at present. Patronage under regional party lists would be many times worse than that. We should consider the situation in other countries. Some 90% of the Members of Parliament in Spain live within 50 miles of Madrid because they know their position is dependent on the patronage of a central party. Our Parliament is already too London-centric, but that would be exacerbated.
Hazel Blears
I do not have time to give way.
I believe that one of the biggest problems facing this country and our democracy is the growth of a political elite—a political class—and the consequent disaffection of voters. This year’s Hansard Society annual audit of political engagement makes very sad reading. It says:
“The growing sense of indifference to politics highlighted in the last Audit report appears to have hardened into something more serious this year: the trends in indicators such as interest, knowledge, certainty to vote and satisfaction with the system of governing are downward, dramatically so in some instances”.
We have a problem in this House. In 1970, only 3% of MPs said they had come into Parliament through a political adviser or special adviser route. At the last election, that figure had risen to 25%. That constitutes a political elite.
We must not for one moment think that if we have an elected second Chamber, we will get an influx of young, vibrant, democratic people from all walks of life. Some 40% of the Members of the US Senate are former politicians. Some 76% of Members of the Australian Senate have previously worked for political parties. They are staffers—they are people on the inside. How are we going to combat the problem of having a political elite if there is no place for independents?
Hazel Blears
I am sorry, but I have given way twice and I shall now press on.
If we accept this dreadful proposal before us, may I make a couple of practical pleas? First, we must require candidates to live in the areas they represent—not to have an address of convenience there so that they can live in London and travel up every so often. We have done that with police commissioners, and we can do it with the second Chamber. Secondly, I want the second Chamber to take its work out across the country. If we simply have a replica of our Chamber, we will have no chance of combating political disaffection. The second Chamber could go out, take evidence, and have sessions out in the country. My noble Friend Lord Adonis has suggested that it be based at Salford quays. I am not necessarily making a plea for that today, but this is a serious point. If we have a second Chamber, we must change the way in which it works. We must make sure that, by analysing the functions, not the form, we end up with a Chamber that will not challenge the primacy of this House of Commons.
I want to say a word about the politics. I believe the proposals in this Bill are a deceit. They are expressed in the language of high moral purpose, but they are really about pretty low politics. I believe they are a Trojan horse for the Liberal Democrats to sustain power and influence, and permanently hold the balance of power in the second Chamber. The Liberal Democrat party cannot win enough first votes, so it relies on back-room secretive squalid deals to get its own way: the Liberal Democrats get proportional representation on closed lists, and the Conservative party gets boundary changes with the windfall of possibly 20 extra seats.
The alternative vote referendum showed what the British people really want. They want to elect a Government on a clear manifesto with clear policies, and for that Government to get on with governing the country. They do not want a party who got fewer MPs at the last election to end up having Cabinet Ministers who have no mandate to hold their post.
I believe that what we have here is people posturing as democrats and masquerading as champions of the people. They say one thing, but they do another; that sounds familiar to me. This is about self-interest, and what is being done is untrustworthy and unworthy of this country. I certainly will not vote for this Bill as it stands.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). I found that I could agree with much of her speech—although certainly not all of it. That is also my view of this Bill: it is not a perfect Bill, but neither do I think the House of Lords is perfect. That is why I am more than happy to vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but I would not be prepared to support it in its current form on Third Reading.
I have mulled over the idea of a Committee of the whole House having 10 days to amend the Bill. Given all the other important work this Government also have to do, that may well be enough time for us to find consensus. Indeed, I am hearing a lot of agreement on some points. I think there is consensus that we must reduce the size of the second Chamber, for instance.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend has obviously read the timetable motion as carefully as I have. Does she realise that it gives only two hours for Third Reading? As any votes will eat into that time, there may well not be a Third Reading vote on a Bill that is of such great constitutional importance.
Harriett Baldwin
We could oppose Third Reading, therefore, if we felt we had not achieved consensus in this House.
There is also consensus in this House that anyone who has been convicted of a serious crime should be kicked out. The cost of the second Chamber must be reduced, too. I am not convinced on this point; I will need quite a lot of convincing in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister’s earlier assertion that this proposal would be cost-neutral.
Jesse Norman
The cost figures have reached their current level only by the entirely illegitimate manoeuvre of including costs—such as costs of the Commons associated with the Lords—that have not yet been recognised in legislation, let alone achieved, as well as by ignoring the £85.7 million cost of five-yearly elections.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend makes some wise points, but it is unlikely that an elected Member of the second Chamber would be able to get by with only one member of staff, which is an assumption made in the costings. There are a number of questions about that issue, and I think we would all want the cost to be at least lower than it is now.
Let me deal with the contentious areas, where there might be more disagreement across the Floor of the House. I am strongly in favour of the bishops continuing their constitutional role in the second Chamber. They play a valuable and important role, and reflect the fact that we have an official Church of England role in our constitution.
Harriett Baldwin
I have given way twice, so unfortunately I do not have time to do so again.
On the question of what voting system we use, I am aware that the coalition agreement said that we would use proportional representation and that it has some attractions. Some of the things we like about the second Chamber at the moment, such as the fact that some distinguished former Members of this House have been appointed to it, could be continued were we to carry on with that voting system. I would fight for Baroness Thatcher to be top of any list that the Conservative party would field, so from that point of view there are some merits in the PR system. However, it is clear that in many countries where PR has been used it is an extremely unsatisfactory system. Israel elects its “Commons” on the basis of PR, which often ends up giving the balance of power to undesirable elements. I would have a significant concern about that.
I think we all agree that Cross Benchers play an extremely important role, and if I were to move in any direction from what is proposed, it would be to give an increased weight to them. However, I now wish to discuss something that has not been mentioned—the geographical problems of what is being proposed—and relate it to my private Member’s Bill in the last Session on the West Lothian question. In its current form, the Bill would clearly exacerbate problems with the West Lothian question. We have yet to see the report from the West Lothian commission, but I anticipate it in this Session of Parliament. A further look at how the upper House worked would clearly need to be taken because of the West Lothian question, so I throw out a proposal to colleagues: rather than have the much larger geographical constituencies proposed in the Bill, let us do away with the geographical link altogether and have national proportional weighting in the allocations in the upper House. Such an approach would completely sever the geographical link, which I know a lot of colleagues have expressed concerns about, and would solve the West Lothian question.
Harriett Baldwin
I have taken two interventions and have only a couple of minutes left. I want to allow many colleagues to contribute, so unfortunately I will not give way.
I wish to conclude by saying that I hope we can use the 10 days available to move forward constructively with the things the House agrees on. I hope that in this Session our proposals will carry the majority of the House, so that we can look back on this opportunity to reform the House of Lords and say that we did not fall into the temptation to filibuster and talk out the Bill, but were able to leave behind, for future Parliaments, a more reformed second Chamber.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I think that this afternoon we have established that the calumny that if someone is against this Bill they are against reform and modernisation has been laid to rest. It is absolutely clear that someone can be in favour of a very different second Chamber based on a very different franchise and be vehemently against what the Government propose in this Bill.
Secondly, I think that we have established that we genuinely need as much time as possible to debate this Bill. That has been shown by the variety of views expressed, including by those who are in favour of the Bill and will vote, at least in principle, for it tomorrow night. The views expressed this afternoon about the future of our constitution, the nature of our government, and the relationship between this Chamber and the second Chamber are so numerous that they demonstrate, if ever it needed demonstrating, that we need not only time to scrutinise the Bill properly, but the constitutional convention advocated by at least half the Joint Committee.
We need that constitutional convention for this reason: this afternoon we have had demonstrated a number of substantial constitutional changes introduced over the past 15 years, many of which have proved to be successful, but the idea of one fundamental constitutional change taken in isolation demonstrates that we do not have joined-up thinking in this country about where our constitution is going. We have, as the Deputy Prime Minister himself demonstrated this afternoon, the real danger of the break-up of the United Kingdom and the vote on the future of Scotland. We have the McKay commission on existing devolution. We have propositions on a written Bill of Rights. We have, undoubtedly, in the future a new relationship between the United Kingdom, in whatever guise, and the European Union and the eurozone. We also have a range of minor constitutional changes that have already happened. In those circumstances, taking the future of the second Chamber out of the equation and dealing with it separately does not make sense. Furthermore, and fundamentally, we have also had demonstrated this afternoon the fact that certain individuals on both sides of this House—those on my side and among Liberal Democrats—do see our constitution in different terms.
I have also learned this afternoon, although I really already knew this, that quite a lot of people do not understand the constitutions of other countries. I can only presume that those who have spoken—good Labour friends of mine—do understand what they are proposing when they suggest a system that would actually have the Executive outside Parliament rather than in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) suggested that, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) came close to suggesting it. The Liberal Democrats—through the development of proportional representation; through the break with the single-Member constituency; through the advocacy, as is in this Bill, of being able to appoint Ministers who are not from or within Parliament, but who are from outside it and then do not have to be part of the Parliament; and through the criticism of the way in which the Government within Parliament do not allow for scrutiny—are demanding a debate, and it is one that we should have, about whether we should fundamentally change our constitution for the future. I am against that change; I believe that we should elect a Government. A clear mandate from the people for a Government is something people in this country have valued. We can do that only by the single-Member constituency, the electoral system we have and the Parliament to which we give primacy.
Hazel Blears
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of single terms of 15 years goes right to the heart of accountability and democracy?
Mr Blunkett
That is at the heart of the criticism of this Bill. Once legitimacy is given to elected politicians without the accountability of their having to seek re-election and be re-elected, the very fundamentals of democracy are undermined. That is because, as I am on the record saying on the morning after the election, democracy is not simply about electing people; it is about being able to get rid of them. The admirable speech made at the Magna Carta lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury on 15 June demonstrated that par excellence.
Simon Hughes
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that nothing in this Bill suggests that Governments would not be formed on the simple principle of needing to command a majority in the House of Commons? That is as it has been and as it is, and there is no proposal that it should not continue in that way. If that is the case, the threat, and the suggestion he makes, that electing people to the other place would change that is entirely unsupported by anything in the Bill.
Mr Blunkett
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman read the Bill, because it suggests, for the first time in our history, that Ministers can be appointed outwith the second Chamber but report to it. We have always had to appoint people to that Chamber, who have worked within it and have continued to be a part of it, if they were to be Ministers.
The fundamental rub I foresee is that we will create mistrust in the electorate. We will say that we are going to replace people who are unaccountable and not legitimate, but then we will put up regional party lists—in the case of Yorkshire, the region covers 5 million people—and simply tell electors to tick the box on the list. People will turn on us, because that is a delusion. That is why we should vote against the Bill and against the programme motion.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), and to hear his views. Many interesting views have been expressed; clearly the House is well divided.
A former colleague in this House, the right hon. Tony Benn, would remind us of the story of when Mr Gandhi came to England and was asked by British reporters what he thought of democracy in England and he replied that he thought it would be a jolly good idea. That shows our conceit about ourselves and elsewhere, as we are not entirely democratic. Tony Benn also used to point out that the Crown resides not at the end of the Mall, but in Downing street. This House is an appointed House, in one way. The occupant of the Chair might not be directly chosen by Her Majesty, but is approved by her.
We have all sort of tangles in an ancient constitution and they are often difficult to reconcile, but my whole parliamentary career—although “career” is a rather grand word that might imply some sort of distinction—has been based on the quest for us to become a democratic nation in which everyone elected here speaks on behalf of someone. That is what causes me the difficulty with the Bill, and the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer my concern. I do not think that he feels democracy, and my disappointment is that, over the years, the Liberal Democrats have stood for democratic issues and have stood against guillotines—in fact, I voted many times with them—but since they went into coalition, that has all been tipped out. That is at the heart of my disillusionment about the intent of fine men who stand up and make bold promises.
I genuinely believe that people should just read the Bill. It is unconscionable to say that someone must stand for election, an idea on which the Deputy Prime Minister has based his Bill, but can never be accountable. We are reverting to the aristocracy of the 19th century, who were all Members of the House of Lords but could conduct their business from the south of France. Indeed, as I look towards my own possible retirement, I think I probably should go to the Lords. I do not know whether I have 15 years left—[Hon. Members: “Of course you have.”] No, I am not sure about that; we may be running out of time. It is an unconscionable idea, but how agreeable. Perhaps our bankers should all become Members of the House of Lords. They would not have to be here at all.
There are many flaws in the Bill. However much I might believe in the necessity of the affirmation and consent, rather than the casually given acquiescence, of the people, I cannot support it. As for the very idea that we can put everything to a referendum, I tried and struggled to get a referendum on Maastricht, which was absolutely impossible, but we can have referendums on whether I tie my laces or on whether to have an elected mayor for wherever. That is the contradiction in this whole farrago.
I say to my Liberal Democrat colleagues, those good souls sitting on the Benches in front of me who have been led to contradicting everything that they have stood for as long as I have been in this House, that they do not want elections to be held after people have been effectively shoo’d into the House of Lords. I cannot go for that. The constituencies are bigger than countries, so we will have 11 Members of Parliament, but who will they be representing? I do not know, and I do not think that it will work.
The Liberal Democrats cannot trust the Government or the people on this one and they want to introduce a voting system that is alien to the British people and that has been repudiated comprehensively. This process makes the House look ridiculous. We have crises facing us and this guillotine motion—we are back to them, despite the Leader of the House’s attestation otherwise—must be defeated. I urge Members, however they feel, to allow the proposals to be debated properly.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd). I shall be in the Lobby with him to vote against the programme motion and against the Bill, as it is a bad Bill.
I am not one of those people who has great admiration for the House of Lords. I agree with Bagehot, who was quoted earlier, that one need only go along the corridor and look at it more often. It is not such a wonderful place, even though there are some excellent and extraordinarily capable people there.
I believe in democracy and in improving our constitution, but the proposals do not do that at all. They diminish democracy in this country by setting up a counter-Chamber at the other end of the corridor. The problem, which has been mentioned in many excellent speeches, is that we have an over-mighty Executive and that this House has not kept as many powers as it should have done to itself over the years. I have not heard one speech from the people in favour of the proposal that told us how they would prevent power from being taken away from this Chamber if the Bill were passed.
The Bill will not improve the accountability of the Executive but will set them free to do more of what they want to do while being less accountable. So, the first argument in favour of it, which is that it improves democracy, falls. The second supportive reason given by the Deputy Prime Minister was that all the other countries he could think of had an elected second Chamber, which, as right hon. and hon. Members have corrected him, turns out not to be 100% true. Even if it were true, virtually all the countries that have such a second Chamber have a written constitution to deal with precisely the matter covered by clause 2, which is primacy. With no written constitution and elections to the second House, we will lose the primacy of this House.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend not also accept that right now one could argue that areas of this country, particularly Scotland, are over-governed as regards democracy?
Graham Stringer
I want to increase democracy where it is effective so that people feel that they are changing things, not being left behind and lost by politicians. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, the idea behind the genesis of the Bill is not the improvement of democracy but the improvement of the prospects of the Liberal Democrats, who are frightened of the prospect of democracy and the electorate at the next general election. What they are trying to secure in the Bill is proportional representation in the other place so that they can be in government for ever, but I do not see my job as coming to this House to put the Lib Dems in government for ever. To achieve that, they obviously have to introduce a system of PR, but just over 12 months ago the electorate said quite clearly that they did not want to move from first past the post, even though it was not PR that was put to them.
I must ask those who say that clause 2 will protect and provide security for the primacy of this House: how? There is only one legal basis for that primacy, and that is the Parliament Act, but we are not going to Parliament Act every Bill that comes through. All the other details such as the Salisbury convention and the convention on statutory instruments are just that—conventions. If I were elected to the other place, I would say, “The Salisbury convention no longer exists, because the basis of it was the fact that some people were elected and some were not.” If people in the other place are elected, they will have the right to say, “My electorate are as important as your electorate, and a great deal bigger, and I have been elected by millions of votes, so I will vote against what you in the House of Commons believe.”
It will be impossible to prevent freely elected people from doing that, particularly when they will never be accountable for anything because they will never go back to the electorate, and I see nothing apart from the Parliament Acts to prevent the other House from challenging the primacy of this House. That takes us back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that the proposals will not affect the Government. Ministers may be appointed, but by blocking legislation they could do exactly what the Lib Dems are doing in this debate: blackmail whatever Government are in office so as to get their own way and get posts in the Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman begins his intervention, I counsel him that those who persistently intervene may get dropped down the list. I hope that the House understands what will happen if there are continual interventions from the same Members.
Simon Hughes
I hope that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) accepts that, at the moment, at the other end of the building there is clearly no party with an overall majority. Indeed, everybody is in a minority. He is worried about having one period only for election and no need for re-election, but what would his alternative be that would end patronage and heredity in the second Chamber, if it is not something like this Bill?
Graham Stringer
That is the easiest question I have ever been asked in this Chamber: I would abolish the other House, for the simple reason that, in the constitutional position that we are in, it is difficult to improve and democratise it without diminishing ourselves or having a written constitution.
Policies and manifestos have been mentioned a number of times. On the day after the general election, it was my view that all the parties had lost. The advantage of our system is that the core parts of manifestos are voted for. If a party becomes the Government, it gets the rest of its manifesto because it put that manifesto before people, but when none of the parties has won and there are three differing commitments on House of Lords reform—incidentally, none of those commitments is embodied in the Bill before us—it is difficult to understand how my Front Benchers or Front Benchers from other parties could say, “This Bill is legitimate to put before people and we have the will of the people behind us.” We simply do not have the will of the people behind us on those manifestos and the only answer—again, the Lib Dems are particularly frightened of the electorate—is to put the proposal to a referendum.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
It is with a heavy heart that I speak to the Bill before the House. I am a reformer and I would welcome a well-crafted Lords reform Bill without election that reduced the size of the upper House, removed those who have committed serious criminal offences, improved the scrutiny of legislation, strengthened the appointments process, reduced political patronage, converted the hereditary peers to life peers, and separated the peerage as such from the legislature. Those measures would constitute a great reforming Bill and would, I suspect, pass through this House on a free vote. This Bill, however, is a hopeless mess.
Members of the House can properly differ on the merits of the underlying issues. What they cannot differ on are the flaws in the Bill itself. It is deeply confused and, indeed, dangerous legislation. It will prevent real reform. It will reduce diversity and deep expertise in our political system. It would be a catastrophe for this country if the Bill were ever enacted.
David Lloyd George famously referred to the House of Lords as Mr Balfour’s poodle, but if the Bill goes through we will have Mr Clegg’s lapdog—a Chamber full of elected party politicians.
There has also been an important failure of due process. The Government originally worked hard to establish a consensus on the Bill, but without success. The Joint Committee sat for longer than any in recent memory. Because of its internal disagreements, it was forced to put more issues to the vote than any recent Committee. It even produced an unprecedented minority report, signed by six Privy Counsellors, but the views of the Joint Committee have barely been heeded by the Government. Its key recommendations were that an issue of this constitutional magnitude required a referendum and that the crucial clause governing the relationship between Lords and Commons should be entirely rethought.
Those recommendations have been ignored or brushed aside. The result is that important matters have been introduced without any pre-legislative scrutiny. Those include a revised clause 2 on the relations between the Houses, and a party list voting system. Instead, the Government have treated the votes of a highly divided Committee as a consensus when they were nothing of the kind. The Government refused to allow the Committee to publish the costs of the draft Bill, and refused to schedule a debate on its report, as is normal practice. They have rushed to get the Bill into Parliament before the summer.
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend makes a shrewd point very quickly and elegantly.
The Bill is being pushed through the Commons by the Government—before the summer, on a whipped vote and with a guillotined debate—but the central question concerns the likely constitutional crisis that will arise from the Bill, which will transform the Lords into a Chamber competing with the Commons. The result will be gridlock, cronyism and a rise in special-interest politics.
The US offers a useful cautionary tale. The American political system is manifestly struggling: beset by gridlock; vulnerable to powerful special interests, from the gun lobby to the American Association of Retired Persons; and its politicians elected by corporate lobbyists through political action committees, recently liberated by the Supreme Court from any spending constraints under the first amendment. The two Houses have repeatedly found it impossible to achieve consensus on important legislation. Pork-barrel has been replaced by stand-off. President Obama’s health care Bill is a classic example and it ended up in the Supreme Court.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is not my hon. Friend adverting to the fundamental conundrum at the heart of the Government’s presentation of the Bill? On the one hand, they are arguing for a more legitimate House; on the other, they are arguing that there will be no change in the relationship between the two Houses. It does not add up.
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is exactly right. As my noble Friend Lord Forsyth put it, what would be the point of electing these people if not to give them more power? Exactly the same thing as has happened in the US will happen here. I refer my colleagues and Members across the House to Lord Pannick’s brilliant memorandum on the issue, which has been published this afternoon. Lord Pannick is widely regarded as one of the most excellent lawyers and advocates of his generation, and is specifically expert in the Parliament Acts. He is also precisely the kind of person who would never be willing to stand for election to a new Senate. In his words:
“The Bill does not adequately address the central issue of constitutional concern: the fact that a House of Lords most of whose members will be elected will almost certainly be much more assertive than the unelected House of Lords and reluctant to give way.”
Lord Pannick states that the Parliament Acts
“only relate to the end of the legislative process, and not the day-to-day conventions which (at present) result in the Lords giving way to the Commons. Indeed, the Parliament Acts do not apply at all to Bills introduced in the House of Lords or to subordinate legislation.
The crucial question is this: should the Bill seek to regulate all these matters, or leave them to convention? If it leaves them to convention, then the result will be disputes between the two competing chambers. If it regulates these issues, then the result will be that relations between the chambers become justiciable in law, as they did over the Hunting Act, which went all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the Minister for stating that he wishes to be impaled on the first horn of the dilemma: in the absence of regulation that would render the actions of the Houses justiciable, he wishes to impale himself on the horn of constant gridlock and competition between the two sides.
Lord Pannick concludes that
“the Government have, hitherto, failed to recognise the difficulty”—
failed to recognise the difficulty—
“and the importance of the constitutional issue arising from a decision to elect 80% of the House of Lords.”
Members of the House of Commons, Lord Pannick is no partisan, no party politician. His is quiet but devastating criticism. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us about what external advice the Government took when they reformulated clause 2. We now know which of the two options he proposes to take, so I need not ask him. He proposes not to allow the judges in, but to leave future disputes between the two Houses to the conventions —and a thoroughly unsatisfactory compromise that is.
In politics, as in all else, timing is everything. That applies in particular to voting against one’s own Government for the first time, which is not something to be wasted on a small measure. Luckily, however, this Bill makes it very easy. There is a fundamental issue of constitutional principle at stake; the Bill is a hopeless mess; it is in no sense a piece of Conservative legislation; it lacks any genuine manifesto commitment; it proposes a new upper Chamber that will be less expert, less diverse and more expensive than the present one, let alone one after sensible reforms; and the issue is absolutely irrelevant to the overwhelming need to put out the fire in the economic engine room. I shall be voting against it and I would venture to suggest that the Bill is such that all MPs, Conservative or not, have a constitutional obligation to vote against it. Only thus can we rid our country of—
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who, if the proposals are passed, would end up being represented by the same regional list of senators as myself in Dudley—although how anyone could represent effectively both a rural community such as Hereford and a former industrial centre such as the black country is something we might ponder during the course of this debate.
I have always believed that the House of Lords should be reformed. It is clearly too big; it is indefensible that hereditary peers remain; and it is completely wrong that Members can fail to turn up for years and retain their membership, when they would be booted off a local authority if they failed to attend for six months. That said, however, there are major problems with the Government’s proposals.
First, the lesson of Scottish and Welsh devolution is that constitutional reform cannot be undertaken piecemeal. Those changes, which I supported, resulted in imbalances between Scotland and Wales and England and its regions, which have still not been resolved. The lesson is that a comprehensive and coherent view is needed of the relationship between the individual and the state, and of what powers should be exercised at national, regional and community level, before constitutional reform is undertaken.
Mr MacNeil
Are not the hysterics we are hearing in the House today reminiscent of the hysterics heard in 1979 about a Scottish Assembly, and in 1997 about a Scottish Parliament? There are hysterics only within these four walls, but when these things actually happen, the sky does not fall in.
Ian Austin
As I said, I supported the proposals for devolution, but I think the previous Government made a mistake in not undertaking them as part of a far-reaching, comprehensive and coherent view about the arrangements for governing Britain as a whole. Reform of the House of Lords needs to be properly thought through as part of a wider package of constitutional reforms to deal with the regional and national imbalances that are the result of stalled devolution.
For example, a renewed approach to regional government is needed. It is ironic that the Bill proposes that Members be elected from the English regions, which the Government have been doing all they can to abolish in all other respects. They claimed that the regions did not exist when they abolished the regional development agencies, regional spatial planning and all the rest. We have regional government in this country in the NHS, the police, planning, transport policy, housing and regeneration, but they are run by faceless civil servants in England, and by politicians in London, Scotland and Wales. I would prefer to have proper regional government and proper regional accountability for those powers and then to establish a revising second Chamber drawn from the regional assemblies.
The Government are proposing far-reaching reforms, which have huge implications for the way the country is run, and are doing so without a referendum. We had to have referendums for voting systems, for Scottish and Welsh devolution, for a regional assembly in the north-east and for directly elected mayors in some quite small cities, but the people of Britain will have no say in huge changes to their Parliament.
The central question is whether the House of Lords should be elected. I do not think it is possible to defend, as a point of principle, appointments and patronage. I am a democrat and I am in favour of devolving power to the people. That is one of the reasons I became interested in politics and got involved: I wanted to ensure that ordinary people have as much power as possible over the way the decisions that affect them in their daily lives are taken. Clearly, the current system is one of appointment, not election, but what we have to decide is whether the changes that the Government propose are appropriate and will do the job.
First, whatever the Government say, having an elected House of Lords will inevitably change the relationship between the two Houses. That is bound to happen. The Bill promises that this House will retain primacy, but simply asserting that and ensuring that it happens in practice are very different. It is not credible to say that nothing will change, when it is inevitable that people who have been elected will claim a democratic mandate and assert their authority. Secondly, there is no question but that elected Members of the second House will claim democratic legitimacy in our constituencies. That is bound to happen. In this debate and during the detailed scrutiny of the Bill that follows it, I want to see how the Government and this House will deal with those huge questions.
There are other issues we have to deal with. It is pretty clear that 400 new senators will bring huge additional costs. They will immediately demand the same level of resources, staff and offices and all the rest as we have, even though they will have no real constituency. Of those 400, the west midlands will have about 35 representatives elected from a regional list. Voters will have very little idea who they are voting for. I spent the weekend asking people in Dudley if they could name their MEPs. Michael Cashman and the other six west midlands MEPs do a good job, but the current system ensures that almost no one knows who their MEPs are. I take more than a passing interest in politics and I struggle to name all seven of them off the top of my head.
What I do know is that the introduction of a regional list system for those elections has resulted, to our great shame, in Britain being represented in the European Parliament, for the first time, by people standing for a racist and fascist party. It is pretty clear to me that if we go ahead with a similar system for a second Chamber, all sorts of cranks and extremists will get elected.
The idea of people being elected for a 15-year non-renewable term is appalling. One of the reasons that politicians work hard, particularly in marginal constituencies, is that we have to answer for our views and actions at the ballot box. The proposed system, which prevents people from being held to account for their actions by seeking re-election, appears to be based on the most appalling elitist view that listening to the public and taking their views into account is a bad thing.
Although I am in favour of democracy and elections, I shall be following this debate and the subsequent scrutiny of the Bill and amendments with great interest, to see whether the concerns I have expressed today can be dealt with.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, although regretfully it is to express my opposition to the Bill. It is a pleasure to follow many of my hon. Friends who, despite their considerable loyalty to the Government, feel compelled to reject this piece of political vandalism. They have eloquently outlined the numerous faults in this ill-conceived Bill and I shall add briefly to their arguments.
The Bill contains rushed, illogical and poorly constructed proposals which bring no discernible benefit to Parliament or to the nation. I am struck by the arrogance of the Bill’s proponents who, neglecting the relative brevity of their place in the long history of Parliament, seek to force through a Bill with unknown consequences for the future governance of this country. Constitutional change stands apart from other legislative Acts, and to seek to limit the time spent debating such significant and irreversible change is an insult to this Parliament, and could be seen as an attempt by the Bill’s proponents to force through what they must know to be at best unjustified, and at worst indefensible, change.
Surely the supporters of the Bill have recognised the weaknesses of the arguments that they advance. They must acknowledge, for instance, as already mentioned on many occasions today, the fallacy of suggesting that senators elected for a single 15-year term, with no chance of re-election and no chance of entry to the Commons or of deselection, will be accountable to the electorate. Even hon. Members who passionately support the creation of a fully elected House of Lords must see that for the half-baked illogical muddle that it is, creating powerful and in reality unaccountable senators cloaked by the illusion of accountability.
In the light of the Bill’s multiple flaws, one has to wonder what motivates support for this reform. It would be of little credit to hon. Members, for instance, if a Bill of such scale and magnitude were to pass simply as some grubby trade-off for boundary reform. I hope Members across the House will act not on short-term interests, but with a mind to the enduring consequences of reform, for I strongly doubt that in years to come the creation of an expensive, unaccountable and constitutionally unbalanced House of senators will be seen as much of a legacy for this Parliament, and it is certainly one with which I would not wish to have my name associated.
I want to talk about what I believe would be lost if the Bill succeeds. I remember that one of the first events that I hosted in Parliament was as the newly elected Chair of the Navy group of the all-party group for the armed forces. Coming from a Navy family and a Navy constituency, I thought I was quite safe in my knowledge of the subject, until I realised that at that dinner I would be joined by three former Secretaries of State for Defence, two past Chiefs of the Defence Staff and a former First Sea Lord. I believe that 17 Lords previously held one or more of these roles and bring an incomparable level of knowledge and experience of our armed forces to the upper House.
That pattern is replicated throughout the Lords, with experts from medicine, law, diplomacy, MI5 and MI6, charities, business, the arts and many other fields. They bring an unparalleled wealth of expertise and experience, and as the Mayor of London said, despite what might be described as their more mature exterior, they bring a depth of wisdom that allows them to see even the most minor flaws in the legislation which it is, after all, their job to scrutinise line by line.
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point about the difference between this place and the other place—that in the other place, in order to win the vote, one has to win the argument. That is not always the case in this Chamber.
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. After speaking to many Members of the House of Lords, I know that most would not dream of putting themselves forward for election. After, in many cases, a lifetime of experience, working their way to reach the very top of their chosen field, why would they submit themselves to what is, in effect, a popularity contest? They will not, and their experience and knowledge will be irrevocably lost.
It is a great sadness to me that there seems to be a generation of MPs who have never worked in anything other than politics, yet who now presume to sweep aside people with decades of hard-earned experience in their chosen field, to replace them with party political favourites. As a Conservative and as a reformer, I acknowledge that the House of Lords is in need of change to cut down the size, to weed out the cheats and criminals, and to introduce a more independent process of selection, but all that can be done without recourse to this ill-conceived, unwelcome and damaging reform Bill. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I urge hon. Members to vote against the Government and to reject the Bill.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage). I am in the rather curious position of supporting the coalition Bill, in contrast to the hon. Lady. I am in favour of reform of the House of Lords. The tide of time—[Interruption.] No, I am in favour of it now, which is why I will vote for its Second Reading. The tide of time is in favour of democracy and we need to accept that.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, considering the interest that all three of us have, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has told his father about his view?
Tristram Hunt
I should declare an interest. My father sits in the House of Lords, as do the fathers of other Labour Members of Parliament. He, too, is in favour of reform of the House of Lords, and in favour of democracy in relation to it.
The tide of time is in favour of democracy. Many in the Chamber might find that an uncomfortable reality, but we cannot go around the world preaching democracy to developing and other nations without having that in the second Chamber. I entirely accept that legislative wisdom comes in many forms, and I acknowledge the expertise in the unelected second Chamber, as the hon. Member for Gosport suggested. That is why I am in favour of an 80% elected, 20% appointed upper House. My perfect model would be 75% elected, 25% appointed because when one drills down into the absolute expertise in the upper House, one would probably get to about 25%.
Rory Stewart
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that before it goes round preaching about democracy to the rest of the world, Britain should take the example of the rest of the world by not introducing major constitutional change without either a two-thirds vote or a referendum?
Tristram Hunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I wholly agree; I shall come on to that. I am in favour of the referendum, as the Labour party rightly proposes, on this major piece of constitutional change.
I served on the Joint Committee, and a number of points emerged from our investigation. This is a serious, problematic reform, as the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) suggested, throwing up detailed problems about the interrelationship between the Houses, the fundamental change to Parliament, the role of bishops and the established Church, and the dual mandate between the other place and this place. That is why we need proper, detailed investigation of the Bill. The programme motion will not allow for that. If the change is to last down the centuries, does it matter if we have another five, seven, eight, 10 or 15 days to look at it? If the Government are serious about major constitutional reform, they should allow us the time and space to consider it.
There is also, as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) suggested, the need for a referendum. We are beginning to move towards different forms of democracy, and whether we like it or not in this place, referendums play an increasingly powerful part in that. So if, as has been noted, we have had referendums on city Mayors and on voting systems, and we are having the farce of elections for police commissioners in the depths of November, why do we not have a referendum on a major piece of legislative change which will affect the governance of the entire country? It is right that the people have a say on that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) suggested.
The Bill contains numerous problems. The 15-year term is very difficult to accept as a democrat. Personally, I am in favour of two 10-year terms, but that throws up equal problems in terms of electioneering.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
Could the hon. Gentleman point to the occasion on which there was a referendum on removing the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, which one might concede was a big constitutional change?
Tristram Hunt
I think that removing the hereditary peers was so obvious a change that we did not need a referendum, but this is not an obvious change. There are major complexities, as we have just teased out, with regard to justiciability between the two Houses and composition. All sorts of questions need to be answered.
I also agree with the change from 300 to 450 Members, because I think that the initial proposal for a wholly professionalised and salaried body of 300 was incorrect. However, if Ministers think that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will simply allow them to decide who is paid what, it is clear that they have not looked at the evidence its representatives gave to the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill. I think that Ministers will find that IPSA will take a great deal more control of what happens to Members of the other place than they believe. I am in favour of keeping the bishops and the established Church, and the appointment of Ministers seems exactly right.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is deliberately provoking me. Only this afternoon the Church of England decided that it cannot even decide when it will decide on whether to have women bishops. Surely we should at least say that the bishops are allowed to remain in the House of Lords only if there are to be women bishops.
Tristram Hunt
That might be a successful way through the current difficulties in the Synod, so my hon. Friend should put that forward.
There are of course an awful lot of reservations about the Bill. We have touched on the issue of justiciability between the Commons and the Lords, a point to which the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire also referred, and convention versus statute. It also seems to me that there is no reason why a democratically elected second Chamber will not intervene on Finance Bills. If they are elected by taxpayers, why should they not have their say on Finance Bills? We do not seem to have sorted out the conflict resolution procedures that will be needed between the Houses.
The bigger problem relates to what happens in Scotland. If there is a vote in favour of an independent Scotland, the entire premise of this Bill will be undone, because the role of the House of Lords will have to take on a far more federal nature with regard to the interrelationship between the kingdoms of the Crown under the Crown in Parliament in the House of Lords, but perhaps the timeline will allow for all that.
On a broader point, when there is major constitutional reform there is always fear of the unknown. The Second Reform Act was described as a leap in the dark, and Thomas Carlyle wrote lurid pamphlets about its consequences. Actually, it resulted in a strengthening of Parliament and of the democratic process. Britain did not fall apart, and the same was true of the Third Reform Act and votes for women. It comes down to whether we believe in the purifying effects of democracy. Do Members believe in what we on the Labour side used to call “the good old cause”, which goes right back to Lilburne, Rainsborough, Paine and all the rest? The Bill has many problems but, ultimately, if we believe in democracy we have to support it.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon—I listened dutifully and did not intervene. He seems to have become the Andy Murray of this House; he has gone from being a set up and at break point two years ago to being in deep trouble in the fourth set this afternoon. I suggest that part of the reason is that his arguments seem to centre on the point that we do not want to spend a huge amount of Government time on the Bill and just need to get on with it and get it through—we basically just need to agree with Nick. However, from what I have heard over the last few hours, very few of the Members who have spoken so far seem to agree with Nick, but there is still time and, of course, there is tomorrow.
Many Members have said that the Government should not be spending time on this issue right now and that no one cares about Lords reform, but I do not entirely agree. Governments multi-task all the time, so the Bill takes its place alongside many others, and that is the choice of Ministers this time. I also do not think that it is fair to say that no one cares about Lords reform. The truth is that those who care about it do so passionately. I suspect that they come predominantly from one political tradition, but that does not make their views any less valid, and I certainly do not dismiss them. I have received a huge number of e-mails from constituents over the past few weeks putting both sides of the argument, and I do not dismiss any of their points.
I agree with what so many Members have said today, but let me also state from the outset that I believe in the reform of Parliament, including the House of Lords. I stand by the manifesto commitment I stood on two years ago to work to build a consensus and deeply regret that we have been unable to do so.
Steve Brine
Although it is tempting to agree with my hon. Friend, there is quite a long way to go on Second Reading, but I certainly feel that there are straws in the wind.
I think that there is plenty we can do to reform the other place. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) touched on a number of things we could do without abolishing the House of Lords or jamming up Parliament for months, if not years, with a clumsy Bill that seems to get worse the more times I read it.
To be blunt, I think that we are approaching the whole business the wrong way round. Reform of Parliament should start with a simple question: what do we want this House and the other place to do? I think that we want a second Chamber that acts as a revising Chamber, largely free from the politics of the first Chamber and, ultimately, always subservient to it. In other words, purely with regard to the roles performed and the way we make the laws of this land, I think that we have it about right in the United Kingdom. We can argue until the cows come home, and no doubt until they go out again, about who should sit in this bicameral Parliament but, when it come to the system of checks and balances on the Government of the day, I think that most of the sensible people I represent would say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Let me turn to who sits in the upper House. What is proposed in the Bill is a host of senators—let us call them that for now—who would sit for an unrepeatable term of 15 years. From what I have heard so far this afternoon, that seems to be at the heart of the concerns right across this House. The record will show that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister in this House on 20 March whether he thought that
“a 15-year senator who is unable to stand for re-election is more or less accountable than a current Member of the other place”.—[Official Report, 20 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 639.]
I have to say that the answer I received was hardly convincing. The current Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, helped greatly when he told the BBC recently:
“They’re not accountable… there will be no power of de-selection. Once they’re there, they’re there for 15 years.”
I accept that it is absolutely the case that under current rules, without the power of recall, Members of this House could leave the election night count, jump in a cab and go to Heathrow, take a flight direct to Barbados, sit on a deckchair on a white sandy beach for five years and that decision would catch up with them only if ultimately they sought re-election to this place at the next general election. I take that seriously. The point is that I am accountable to the people of Winchester only if or when I seek re-election to this place. A guaranteed job on £300 a day, with zero accountability—why on earth are we even considering creating such a gravy train? If it were not so serious, it would be funny.
Ian Austin
Can the hon. Gentleman think of any job in Britain that is guaranteed for the next 15 years, because I cannot?
Steve Brine
No, I cannot, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Many of the constituents that he and I represent, in the public and private sectors, would give their eye teeth for a job with a 15-year guaranteed salary.
I wonder what the public would think if they actually saw the other place in action and were exposed to its debates in the same way they are to debates in this House, at Prime Minister’s questions for instance. I think that they would be genuinely shocked to find the level of debate that their lordships pursue and the much reduced partisan nature of their proceedings. Bagehot has been quoted a few times today, but clearly he has not been in the House of Lords lately.
The Bill, from my reading of it, would take all the worst element of this House, magnify them tenfold and place them at the other end of the building. The insane proposal to elect these senators to nine regions of the country by proportional representation would simply introduce a new breed of political animal to Parliament, one that owes everything to the party list that put them there. Of course they will act accordingly, and we would not blame them for doing so. Do right hon. and hon. Members really want to create a whole new raft of expensive, partisan and regionally roaming politicians?
I read in the weekend papers—there was a lot in them—the comments of one Liberal Democrat peer, who said that his party has had to swallow some bitter pills, such as student fees and the NHS Bill, strangely, as a result of coalition, and that it was time the Conservatives did the same.
That is one of the worst aspects of coalition, and I am a supporter of this coalition Government—and very much on the record as saying so. The horse-trading—the “you get, we get” mentality—that coalition fosters is a woeful way to carry on in any policy area, but when it comes to the constitution of our country it is just plain wrong and plain dangerous.
That is what is very wrong with this debate. The Bill is a reckless piece of proposed legislation that Baroness Boothroyd, who has far more experience of this House and the other than I do, described on the radio as “an abuse of Parliament.” I do not think that she would use that term lightly.
The Bill does not hang together intellectually. It is in part about coalition politics and, much more, about the internal politics of the Liberal Democrat party—and that is no reason to take a bulldozer to our constitution. In my bones I know that it is wrong, and the saddest thing of all is that it will probably set back sensible reform of the Lords for many years.
I urge the Government to step back, even at this late hour, and the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to look each other in the eye over the Cabinet table this evening and simply to ask themselves whether these proposals will leave our Parliament a better place if they go through. I suspect that in their hearts both know the answer to that question, and I ask them to ask it.
I have never before voted against the coalition Government on a Government Bill, but with a very heavy heart, as others have said, I will do so tomorrow night.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I was a member of the royal commission on the House of Lords, an all-party commission that, after many months of consideration and consulting a large number of witnesses throughout the United Kingdom, decided unanimously that
“we could not recommend: a wholly or largely directly elected second chamber”.
In the years since then I have come upon no evidence to dissuade me from that view. This Bill is a botched mess that seems to have been drafted on the back of an envelope, and it is based not on principle, but on a series of deals between the two parties that comprise the Government.
The principle, if one can grace it with such an epithet, behind the Bill is not how to secure the better governance of this great democracy, but how to gratify the whims of the Liberal Democrat party, which has been determined to distort our parliamentary system, first, through the alternative vote and, now, with this rubbish in an effort to wangle more Liberal Democrat Members of either House or both Houses.
Significantly, what concerns the Liberal Democrats, to the extent of their threatening the stability of the Government, is not what concerns our constituents, such as jobs, the health service, schools, pensions, law and order, housing, but their own party self-interest.
One issue that has always troubled me about even a part-elected second Chamber is the conflict between Members of such a Chamber and the rights of the House of Commons and its Members. This Bill is imprecise to the point of vacuity on the relationship between the House of Commons and the new Chamber that it seeks to create. What is clear, however, is the certainty of conflict and collision between Members of the House of Commons and Members of the second Chamber in the areas where their membership coincides.
If a Member of the House of Commons and a Member of the revised second Chamber both take up the same individual case, or take up a position on the same issue, chaos could result, and the rights of the elected Member of the House of Commons could be eroded or undermined, particularly given the different lengths of membership of each body and the fact that Members of the second Chamber will be unaccountable because they cannot be re-elected.
I was not thrilled with the proposals for a second Chamber in the 2010 Labour party election manifesto, but at least they started with a referendum to legitimise any subsequent action. That difference being so strong, I am bewildered by the decision of Labour Front Benchers to support the Bill’s Second Reading. In 42 years in this House I have voted only once against the Labour Whip, but I shall certainly disregard it tomorrow evening. Perhaps it will set a precedent. I shall vote against both the Second Reading and the programme motion.
On whipping, let me say this to hon. Members in the Conservative party, although from what I have heard in this debate so far I do not believe that they need to be told it. I have a considerable personal regard for the Government Chief Whip, but on this issue he is not McLoughlin but Machiavelli. His job is to manipulate to get the result that he needs to deliver.
If one picks up a newspaper or turns on the television, one encounters all kinds of lurid warnings and threats: “boundary changes may be in danger”; “the very future of the coalition may be at stake”. Boundary changes crop up every few years and will continue to do so. I have survived four sets so far, and perhaps I will survive the next as well. Governments come and Governments go, but the new Chamber proposed in this Bill will be irreversible. Once we have it, we will not be able to get rid of it.
This nation’s parliamentary system of government has evolved over nine centuries to make the United Kingdom, for which under this Bill there will be different electoral systems in different countries, the greatest and most stable democracy in the world. There has been change, but it has been evolutionary change. A Liberal Government asserted the primacy of the House of Commons under the Parliament Acts more than a century ago; a Conservative Government created life peers and introduced women peers; and a Labour Government began the end of the hereditary system in the House of Lords.
We, unlike other democracies, do not have a constitution, and that is because we do not need a constitution. The Queen in Parliament is all we need. Let us uphold British democracy tomorrow night. Let us vote no in both Divisions and be done with this pernicious threat to what has made the United Kingdom a great democracy.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I regret that I will not be in the same Lobby tomorrow night as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), even though I agreed with much that he had to say today. I think that the primacy problem in this place has nothing whatever to do with the House of Lords or even the House of Commons. The real issue that lies at the heart of UK constitutional politics is the corrosive effect of the overweening primacy of the Executive.
Anything, but anything that provides an effective counterweight to the oft unchallenged power of the Executive is, in my view, a good thing. I remain to this day staggered by the sheer gutlessness of this place, including of many Members who will vote against this Bill’s Second Reading and programme motion tomorrow night, because we waved through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, and it was a terrible bit of legislation.
That legislation cravenly supported a reduction in the size of this House, and it was promoted by the Deputy Prime Minister on the basis of a fatuous saving to the public purse of £10 million a year, which even in his own words has been overwhelmed by the additional amount of money that will be required for the new House of Lords. At the same time, we failed either to nail down any commensurate shrinking of the size or cost of the House of Lords, or to address the constitutional iniquity surrounding the absurdly inflated Scottish Parliament and Northern Irish and Welsh Assemblies.
But I am a democrat, and since my maiden speech in this House I have supported, and will continue to support, a fully elected House of Lords. The case for the preservation of the “ancient traditions”, as many hon. Friends have assured me, of the upper House was conclusively lost in 1999. Once the vast bulk of the hereditaries had been removed, so too should all appointed Members have followed. Instead, today we have a bloated House of Lords, of which the Lords Winstons and Puttnams are assuredly the exception rather than the rule.
Over the past 13 years the ranks of the upper House have been swelled by literally hundreds of party hacks and large-scale political donors, along with dubious-quality legislators given the nod on politically correct grounds. In the charming words of my Liberal Democrat opponent at the last election, ironically herself also the daughter of a life peer, I was too “male, pale and stale”. That may well be the case, but I was also elected, and in a democracy that matters.
While I am happy to support the principle of electing the House of Lords both on Second Reading and in the vote on the programme motion, I believe that in many of its particulars the Bill is shoddy and poorly drafted.
Mark Field
I will come to that at the end of my remarks, if I may.
The Bill misses the opportunity to propose an elegant solution that might have resolved effectively the four main domestic constitutional uncertainties that have plagued our whole political arena for the past three decades. I hope that when it is in Committee and in the other place we might be able to make some progress in that regard. With a federal UK parliament and four elected national parliaments, we could have not only maintained the monarchy, strengthened the Union, and resolved questions over the legitimacy of an unreformed House of Lords, but given independent and equal representation to citizens in England as well as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As many Members have said, the British constitution has been one of the success stories of modern politics. It has kept this country together, united under a common Crown and a common Parliament, for over 300 years—not for us the coups, revolutions and counter-revolutions that have plagued many of our European partners over that period. So successful has it been that we Britons had perhaps stopped thinking about some of its great successes. Until 15 years ago, nobody in this House or beyond gave much thought to constitutional issues; we knew instinctively that we had a British constitution that worked well for the whole of these islands. I am afraid that that was destroyed in 1999 when we got rid of the traditional House of Lords, removing much of the genuinely independent hereditary element and created hundreds of new life peers. Shamefully, this process has continued even under the coalition Government, with some 120 new life peers being created. That is unacceptable.
David Tredinnick
I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but surely he must recognise that a lot of those who are made peers are experts in their own fields; it is not just a case of Lord Winston and one other.
Mark Field
They are the exception that proves the rule. Just look at the 120 who were made peers; we could mention particular names. It is an entirely misjudged view that the House of Lords is full of expertise. Clearly there is expertise—I do not dispute that for one minute—but it is very much the exception rather than the rule.
Mark Field
No. I want to make a little progress because others wish to speak.
I think we all accept that the UK constitution has traditionally been full of anomalies. However, we also like the idea of fair play. As an MP for a seat in London, which is the capital of England and of the whole United Kingdom, I call on the Government to offer all the British people—English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish—a new settlement through this Bill that will be demonstrably equitable for everyone. I believe that we should move in the direction of creating an entirely new federal parliament so that we have four full national parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together with all the existing powers of the House of Commons. The federal UK parliament would deal with defence and foreign affairs, make treaties, and administer a cohesion fund for the poorer parts of the UK. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) says that it would be expensive. In fact, it would be anything but, because it would mean that there were fewer politicians as all English Members would be members of both the English and the UK parliaments. It would reduce the number of elected politicians, which would be a much better approach. In a sense, it would be a unicameral system. I was the only Conservative who voted for a unicameral system when we had that option. To me, what we have at the moment is the most undesirable outcome of all. I would sooner abolish that, put nothing in its place, have a unicameral system, and make the positive reforms that I hope we are going to make. Abolishing the House of Lords would mean that Parliament was unicameral, but that has not proved to be a problem in Edinburgh or in Cardiff over the past 12 years.
All this and much more needs to be addressed in Committee, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) said, voting down the programme motion would be tantamount to trying to wreck the Bill as a whole. As a believer in a democratised House of Lords, that is something that I am not prepared to do.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I nearly fell off my chair earlier today because I had an e-mail from a constituent on Lords reform. I think that that is the first one that I have had in all my years, despite the fact that I have held forth about the subject on many occasions. Fortunately, I agreed with her, so 100% of my constituents are in agreement with me.
I say to hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill that the current House of Lords is unsustainable. It has more than 800 Members, and the coalition agreement says that more should be appointed. At the rate that we are going, every member of the Liberal Democrat party will end up as a Member of the House of Lords. There are enormous problems with the numbers that we have at the moment, because appointment as the defining way of getting into the House of Lords leads to a heavy over-subscription of people from London and the south-east. Two hundred and seventy-three Members of the House of Lords come from London and the south-east, but just 38 come from the midlands and 74 from the north. It cannot possibly claim to be the representative House that it claimed to be seven centuries ago, when it had all the tenants-in-chief of the land available to advise the king.
Jesse Norman
Any reduction in the size of the upper House can be achieved without election. The hon. Gentleman is arguing not for election, but for a reduction in the size of the House.
Chris Bryant
I have only just started, to be fair. I wanted to start by saying that there are too many Members and, on top of that, too many who come from London and the south-east and too few who come from everywhere else. With a system of appointment, the people who do the appointing end up choosing people they already know, and that is why there is a heavy preponderance of people from London and the south-east. We also still have crooks, perjurers and arsonists up at the other end of the corridor. The hon. Gentleman will say, “Ah yes, but we can change all this through David Steel’s Bill,” but then we end up with a House of Lords that is solely appointed, and that is a House of patronage and power given to too few people, not to the people of the land.
We have the ludicrous situation of by-elections for hereditary peers. I say to all those who are opposed to the alternative vote system that we already have that system; it is used to elect people to the House of Lords. It is ironic that the last person who was elected in July last year, in a by-election that was not much commented on in the national media, was Lord Ashton of Hyde. I have never met that gentleman, and I suspect that few of us in this House have, but he got to stand as a hereditary peer only because of his original predecessor who was made a peer. That Lord Ashton of Hyde had been a Member of this House. He tried to get elected for Hyde several times and never managed to do so; but none the less, when he went to the Lords, he called himself Lord Ashton of Hyde. He went there because he had vacated his seat in the Commons two months before the vote on the Parliament Act 1911 to try to make sure that it could get through down at the other end of the building.
The system of having elected hereditaries in the Lords is completely bizarre, but it is even more bizarre to have the bishops of the Church of England there. There was an argument for that when we also had the bishops of Wales and Ireland, and some representation from Scotland, but it makes no sense for only one denomination representing one geographical area to be appointed to the House of Lords. I would move an amendment to get rid of all the bishops.
To those who argue in favour of the House of Lords on the basis of expertise, I would say that sometimes expertise is also a vested interest. Just take the case of two members of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, which is considering a very sensitive issue in politics. One of them is Lord Gold. Most Members have probably never heard of him, but he happens to be a Conservative peer. He also happens to be a lawyer who specialises in litigation. Some people might say, “That’s great—he has expertise,” but I would say that he has a commercial interest in the legislation that he is advising on. Similarly, Lord Black of Brentwood, as the executive director of the Telegraph Group, has a direct financial and commercial interest in the legislation that is going through. That is why I say that, all too often, the commercial interests of people down at that end of the building turn it into a corrupt House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are in danger of questioning the nature and duties of Members of the other House and of going over the line in doing so, and I am sure that we would not want to do that.
Laura Sandys
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not just about financial interests but could be about vested interests such as those of the British Medical Association, the National Union of Teachers or other organisations? Might people who are in the other House as a result of the status quo and have vested interests in the status quo therefore resist more radical change that might be proposed by this House?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s point, because it was a very good one. A large number of those who spoke in the House of Lords in the debates on the Health and Social Care Bill had a personal, commercial, financial interest in supporting it. I am not questioning any individual, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the system of having expertise in the other House that many people advocate. Often, someone arrives in the other House with a degree of expertise and ends up staying there for another 30 years, which means that their expertise becomes extremely out of date. Furthermore, someone may have phenomenal expertise in medicine, but absolutely no understanding of the armed forces, or vice versa. Appointing people to the House of Lords on the basis of expertise is, I believe, a mistake.
I say to those who say that we need evolution, not revolution, that we have had two revolutions—one of them glorious and one of them perhaps inglorious. It was on the basis of those revolutions that many of the advances that we have had came about. We have had elected peers before. The 16 Scottish representative peers from 1707 to 1963 were elected at every general election. Similarly, the Irish peers were elected for life. We have had a mixed and evolving system. We introduced life peers. In 1963, we allowed women who had a peerage in their own right, suo jure, to sit in the House of Lords. I do not believe that this is the dramatic change that people claim; it is part of the evolution, not a revolution.
There are problems with the Bill, the most important of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who intervened on me but has now left the Chamber. It is the question of powers. I do not believe that the original version or the present version of clause 2 on the respective powers of the two Houses will meet the day. There is a third way. I do not want the courts to be able to decide on a row between this House and the other House. The best way to proceed would be to have a concordat between the two Houses that forms part of our Standing Orders, which requires that there can be no change in our House without the agreement of the House of Lords and no change in the House of Lords without the agreement of the House of Commons. Perhaps, as one hon. Member suggested earlier, that should rely on a two-thirds majority.
I think that a 15-year term is far too long. Six or nine years might be better, but we can debate that. I will also support 100% election. I say to my Liberal Democrat—I hate to say this word—friends, that I have long campaigned on this matter and I think that there is more likelihood of getting the reform if we have a referendum and if we ensure that the Bill is debated properly, because we are going to have to use the Parliament Act.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
I will not follow immediately on from the tempting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because I want to direct the bulk of my remarks to the parliamentary Labour party.
I should begin by making my position clear because, as colleagues in my ranks and across the Floor of the House know, I have something of a reputation in this Parliament as a coalition sceptic, having not supported its formation. It is therefore with all the more enthusiasm that I am speaking strongly in favour of the coalition proposals, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon.
One of the things that has driven me in politics over the decades is that when one comes into the British House of Commons in a third-party position—I have been part of the Social Democratic party, the Alliance and the Lib Dems—there is an overwhelming sense, which we are seeing in this debate, that the forces of small c conservatism within both the principal parties are ranged against one. Today, colleagues on both sides of the House have said, “Of course I am in favour of the principle of House of Lords reform.” To listen to their rhetoric or to read it in Hansard, one would think that they had been lying awake at night for years fretting about this issue. They go on to say, “But not this reform,” “Not at this time,” “Not in this way,” “Not for these reasons,” “Not because of that political context,” and so on.
This debate is reminiscent of one of the first cross-party debates that took place when I was first elected in 1983, which was about televising the House of Commons. When I look at those, particularly from the House of Lords, who have been in the public prints over the weekend warning of the pestilence, plague and Niagara falls of misfortune that will descend upon our nation if we try to reform the House of Lords as outlined in today’s proposals, I recall, funnily enough, that many of the same voices, many of the same names and an awful lot of the same arguments were raised against the pernicious effect that televising the House of Commons would have. Had they lived in a different generation, those people would have had the same instincts and the same conservative gut reactions against votes for women. It goes on and on. That is why I make my plea to the Labour party in particular.
I listened to the Labour leader on BBC Radio 4’s “World at One” at lunchtime today, speaking no doubt with sincerity. When he says that Labour will oppose the programme motion, while supporting the principle of reform, in the best-case scenario he is being breathtakingly naive in parliamentary terms and in the worst-case scenario he is displaying abject party political cynicism. I hope that it is not the latter, because I think a lot more of him than that.
I say that because of my experience, some 20 years ago, of the Maastricht treaty. That is what this occasion reminds me of more than anything else. Labour held themselves together in opposition brilliantly under John Smith’s leadership. He had the rallying cry of the absence of the social chapter, which united Eurosceptics and Euro-enthusiasts in the Labour ranks. That kept the Labour party together and kept the heat on John Major’s Government. We found ourselves having to vote on many an occasion, in circumstances that were bitter, controversial and politically damaging in the short term, to enable the Maastricht business to proceed, because Labour was seeking to thwart it. We are in a similar position here.
Mr Kennedy
I will give way in a moment, of course, because the hon. Gentleman is a fellow survivor of that era.
The votes on Maastricht were a bad experience for the Conservative party because of its rebels. I fear that its rebels on this issue will find that they are stoking up an awful lot of trouble within their own parliamentary ranks later in this Parliament. The other message of that experience was that, no matter how much one tries to feed and placate the sceptics, they come back for more. They want more and more red meat, and eventually they end up devouring you. That will be the danger if the programme motion is not passed.
Mr Jenkin
I am in danger of agreeing with one or two things that the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The Maastricht debates were a disaster for Parliament because of the way in which they were conducted. The solution then would have been to have a referendum, and the solution now is to have a referendum to avoid the kind of disaster that he is talking about.
Mr Kennedy
We will see, assuming that we have the parliamentary progress that is required, what happens on that issue. I was a European spokesman for my party at the time of Maastricht and voted in favour of a referendum. Folk of my generation voted for a referendum, while people of David Steel’s generation voted against. If we have a vote on a referendum in the course of our proceedings, which I dare say we will, it will be interesting to see what happens. It might yet become a way of breaking the logjam—who knows? I am not going to declare on the issue yet because I want to get through 10 o’clock tomorrow night first. We will take it one step at a time.
I was deeply disappointed by the opening contribution from the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on behalf of the Labour party. If that represents the Front-Bench apotheosis of Labour enthusiasm for Lords reform, then God help us, whether we are debating the matter for 10 days and nights on the Floor of this House or for a longer period if the programme motion is defeated tomorrow evening. I can only assume—I am being charitable to him—that his speech on this occasion had to be a non-committal holding operation, while Labour weighs up the advantage, sees what happens tomorrow night and decides where to go from there. He showed studied ambiguity about what the Opposition would do if they were successful in thwarting the programme motion tomorrow night, and how much time they would insist upon for debate on the Floor of the House. The repeated delphic absence of a response to those questions spoke volumes. I plead with the Labour party: do not just play the Bill for narrow party advantage, play it for the historic opportunity that it is.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy). I am sure he will accept that I do not agree with the entirety of his speech, but he made it in his usual moderate and thoughtful way.
The right hon. Gentleman leads me to my first point. It is often said that the House of Commons is at its best when it is discussing huge constitutional issues. I tend to differ with that view. I believe that we are at our very worst, because we look inwards on ourselves and talk about the effect of a change on this or that party or on us as a political class, instead of facing outwards and considering what the wider public care about.
I should start by stating my own position. Like the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and several others, I am a unicameralist. There are examples both in the UK and abroad that show us how a unicameral legislative system can work effectively and efficiently.
The upper Chamber, the House of Lords, is historically anachronistic. Several Members have gone into great detail about that, but we need only to read primitive children’s history books to understand why it is the case. Even in its current state, there is an anomaly: it contains hereditary peers alongside those who are appointed. That is not a satisfactory way to structure a legislature.
I accept that, as has been said, there are Members of the House of Lords who bring to bear their knowledge and experience, which is often reflected in the quality of the debates that take place there. That in itself is not sufficient for it to continue in its present form, but it has to be said that that is the case.
I have to accept that there is not a majority in this House that agrees with me about the abolition of the House of Lords. On the basis that turkeys never vote for Christmas, there most certainly would not be such a majority in the other place. Nevertheless, reform runs logically counter to the views of anybody who, like me, believes in abolition.
It has been said repeatedly, not least by the Deputy Prime Minister, that all three parties—the two in the coalition and my own party—referred to reform of the House of Lords in their manifestos. That is true, but I doubt whether many right hon. and hon. Members put it in their election addresses. I can say with absolute certainty that it was not an issue that was discussed in Knowsley at the last general election, or any other. Nevertheless, it was in all three parties’ manifestos, and I believe that we need to make some progress on it. However, this Bill is not the way to do that.
I will not go into great detail about all that is wrong with the Bill, because time forbids. However, the 15-year term offends any sense of accountability whatever. It is beyond my wildest imagination how anybody who is elected for a 15-year term, with a rule that they cannot stand again, can in any way be considered accountable.
As we know from the European elections, the partly closed, partly open regional list system hardly sets the world on fire. The turnout that those elections manage to attract is pitiful, and in my region, the north-west, there is the unintended consequence that members of the British National party end up getting elected.
I return to where I started. On such issues, we need not to look in on ourselves but to look out at what the wider public think. The only way that we can do justice to that aspiration, which I hope others share, is to have a referendum on the subject. If we are to change the second Chamber, we should do so on the basis that we have public support, not just the support of the political classes. I hope that at some point in the proceedings, if the Bill gets that far, we will have an opportunity to vote for an amendment stating that there should be a referendum on it.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).
The two Members who have excited me the most in this debate are my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). We need true, bicameral reform. Both parts of this Parliament need to look at themselves and ensure that we have a dynamic, active and reformed Parliament—one Parliament, two Chambers, which in my view should both be elected. I appreciate that the Bill is merely one step on the way and is not the answer to the big parliamentary deficit from which we suffer, but we have an opportunity to consider a new settlement between the public, Parliament and, most importantly, the Executive.
Although many people might have heard a lot of conflict in the debate and a lot of difference between the Government’s position and that of other Members, over the past 10 months the process of public debate, the proceedings of the Joint Committee, on which I served, and other discussions have delivered, in a strange way, a significant amount of consensus. There is consensus about a reduction in numbers in the Lords, the end of patronage and the decoupling of titles. Those are all fundamental points about the anomaly at the heart of our constitution, and I think we can agree on them. The sticking point is whether we have a second Chamber that is elected or selected.
In many people’s minds, the case for selection is that people without political bias would be appointed. Does that mean that membership of any political party would preclude someone from being put forward? What criteria would be used for the selection? As we have discussed before, we must consider whether people would represent vested interests and embed the status quo rather than offer a Parliament that can provide reform and take things forward. Are those people not a group of professionals who have benefited from the status quo and are part of the elite?
Mr Gray
Does my hon. Friend agree that the most passionate and powerful opponents of what the Government are doing with regard to, for example, the reductions in the armed forces are the field marshals, generals and others in the House of Lords? They are the passionate opponents of the Government, not their supporters.
Laura Sandys
Yes, but they have no vote on this matter, because it is one of financial restructuring. They can discuss it, but to be frank they do so more in the media than in Parliament. Formers members of the military, or of any institution, have every right to discuss Government proposals, but I am not sure they need the House of Lords to do that.
We have an example of how selection can be negative. One of the previous chairmen of the House of Lords Appointments Commission said, “We don’t want hairdressers in the House of Lords.” I am very proud that we have a hairdresser in our House. Any selection process will not choose people who have not been to the right dinner party. Those who do not know the right people, or who have not networked and become well connected, or those who do not come from the south-east, will not be selected.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
How many hairdressers will be selected on a party list?
Laura Sandys
Hon. Members come from many different backgrounds. Party associations select people from the parts of the country they are to represent. Our parties should not be demeaned—we should not say that they should not have that responsibility. In my case, the party has made an excellent choice.
We have a fundamental problem. We have one Parliament, but two Chambers as important as each other. Our hybrid system—one elected Chamber and one appointed —makes a mockery of our democracy and hobbles Parliament’s overall legitimacy. In addition, it creates a problem for those resisting reform. If the House of Lords is only a revising, advisory, “think again” Chamber, it is very expensive. If it is a proper part of a bicameral legislature, as I believe it should be, it must be elected if we are to sustain a self-respecting democracy.
Louise Mensch
Does my hon. Friend recognise that we recently had a referendum on changing the voting system for the Westminster Parliament, which the public overwhelmingly rejected? Is not the Bill an attempt to introduce that through the back door?
Laura Sandys
I disagree. We will have two Chambers and two electoral systems, and two different outcomes. As a result, there will be strengths in both Chambers. They will complement each other and create much greater rigour when it comes to scrutiny and the legislative process.
Back Benchers of all parties constantly complain about the diminishing power of Parliament. Many claim the Executive is too strong. How can the concentration of powers in the hands of three party leaders, who appoint hundreds of legislators to the Chamber next door, be anything other than extreme patronage gone out of control? It is unprecedented anywhere in the democratic world.
Laura Sandys
I am afraid I will not—I am so sorry.
Opponents of reform seem very concerned that the poor old Government will struggle to get their legislation through Parliament if there are two elected, functioning Houses, but the House of Commons is not the Government —it is separate. I would hope that two elected Houses of Parliament would not defeat any Government any more than they do in other bicameral systems in the world. However, it is no bad thing if a stronger Parliament deters the Government from passing ill-considered legislation. I am a good Conservative, and, in that way, the objective of getting the Government to do less better would also be achieved.
We cannot blame our coalition partners for some of the philosophy behind the Bill. Localism and elected police commissioners are Conservative policies, not policies conjured up by the coalition. Trusting the public with decision making on schools and other public services is part of the Conservative DNA, so why should we deny the public the choice to vote for 50% of our Parliament? It is absolutely crucial that we Conservatives are seen to be giving power to the many and taking it away from the few.
Perhaps not every aspect of the Bill is perfect—some of us might be looking for more radical reform—but it is a crucial step forward. It is an opportunity to say that we trust the people, and that we are taking away the appointments system from the Prime Minister and giving it to the electorate.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). I agree that reform and an elected House of Lords are essential. It is a basic principle of democracy that those who legislate for everybody else are voted for by the other citizens of the country.
Whatever their positions on the Bill, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the House of Lords should complement and not duplicate the House of Commons in both its function and its make-up. Unfortunately, the Bill is weak on both counts. Clause 2 is inadequate in setting out the functions of the reformed House. I agree with the letter written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) to the Deputy Prime Minister. We must see a new draft of clause 2 early in the passage of the Bill. We cannot be expected to agree to a measure if we do not know what the functions will be until some distant time in future, after the Bill has been to the Lords.
Furthermore, the Bill reveals one of the weaknesses of our unwritten constitution. It would be helpful if Ministers considered not only how to preserve the primacy of the Commons but what special responsibilities the other House should have. At one point, giving the other House special responsibility for human rights was considered.
On the make-up of the second House, many noble Lords are going around saying that the Lords is more reflective of the population than the Commons. That is not true. Only a fifth of Members of both Houses are women and 5% or fewer are from ethnic minorities. However, more than 96% of Members of the other House are over 50. The Government’s proposals in the Bill are extremely weak on that. The proposed 15-year terms are weak not just on accountability; they will add to that age bias.
The objective is surely to widen involvement in our political institutions—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. You have made your speech, Ms Sandys. Turning round and having a private conversation, along with many other Members, is not fair and does not show due respect to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). Given the importance that hon. Members have attached to this Bill, perhaps they can ensure they listen to the debate on it.
Helen Goodman
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am obviously so boring that other hon. Members cannot be bothered to listen—[Hon. Members: “No!”]
Our politics and our democracy are not exactly in a crisis, but confidence in them is beginning to look rather tattered round the edges. If we are to restore that confidence, we need both institutional reform and higher levels of participation. Today is an opportunity to discuss the institutional reform—we can talk about participation on another occasion.
For many, the heyday of our popular democracy was the early 1950s, when voting participation under universal suffrage was at its highest, and when the two-party system seemed to provide a reasonable reflection of the choices for the country. However, in 1997, at the end of 20 years of Tory rule, the overwhelming sense one had was of anachronistic institutions that were completely unrepresentative of who we are and what we expect from our democracy. Institutional reforms redressed the balance between citizens and the state. They were significant and welcome, but they did not address some of the key failings. Why are so few Members of Parliament in either House women? Why is it right that the second Chamber should reserve places for Anglican bishops but none for other denominations and religions? Those are failings of the institutional arrangements, but they reflect a deeper failure: a failure to make sense of our new British identity.
To tackle that malaise, we need institutions that provide equal rights within their arrangements. This is an extremely unusual country, because it is both a multinational state built over more than 500 years from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and a multi-ethnic country, which in the past 50 years has had a huge change in its constitution. Such significant cultural diversity can make the task of building inclusive citizenship seem huge, and we do it against a background of growing globalisation, which seems to be reducing the importance of the nation state. It is vital, however, if we are to get the levels of participation that we need.
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Lady makes some important statements about the need to ensure that the Chambers are representative, but does she not accept that the other place has the same representation of women, and a higher representation of disabled people and ethnic minorities?
Helen Goodman
The differences between the numbers of ethnic minorities and people with disabilities are tiny compared with the great distortion of age.
This Chamber represents people according to the communities in which they live. Once upon a time, the differences between living in Sheffield, which was a steel town, and Nottingham, where there were lots of lace factories, were significant, but increasingly the idea of communities based on economic differences defines only a part of people’s lives. With House of Lords reform, we have the opportunity to consider the other aspects of identity and the issues arising from them, which are often just as important—for some people, more important—as the communities in which they live. I propose that we look at House of Lords reform in an attempt to redress that imbalance. It is obviously a deep and complex problem requiring a lot of consideration. Tomorrow evening I will vote for Second Reading, so that we have a democratic second Chamber, but against the programme motion, so that we can unpick some of these very significant matters.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was magnificent, so she should not give any consideration to her concerns.
I wholly support the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who captured the whole sense of what is wrong with the Bill. When one considers the great historical events that have shaped our British constitutional and political history—Magna Carta, the Reformation, the civil war, the Glorious Revolution, the Great Reform Act—it is easy to understand why a former distinguished Speaker, the great Baroness Boothroyd, on a programme on the wireless this morning, described the Bill as a constitutional outrage.
On the same programme, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), in an impertinent assertion—I am sorry he is not here to take his medicine—assured the world that Churchill would have voted for this proposal. First, that is not for him to say, given that he has absolutely no idea whether it would have been the case and, secondly, most historians would agree that it is highly unlikely that Churchill would ever have voted for an elected second Chamber, which he would rightly have perceived as a serious challenge to the House of Commons.
Most people looking in on our proceedings would think it extraordinary that in a country where so few things work—I think of the Government’s dismal inability even to fix the immigration controls at Heathrow—we should be setting about wasting an inordinate amount of valuable Government time on proposals that are ill thought out and falsely conceived, as part of a deal to conciliate our coalition partners.
The country faces global challenges. These are not peaceful, fertile times with the space to consider and reform at leisure one of the greatest and most important institutions of the land. Like all my colleagues, however, I accept that there are useful and important reforms that should be made to their lordships’ House without upsetting the constitutional applecart. I say to my own Front-Bench team that by pushing ahead with this foolish enterprise, they are diminishing the Government’s sense of urgency and purpose to put our country back in a better place. They are throwing away the chance to build on the British public’s clear and—in my lifetime—unique understanding that we live in an era of great austerity, that there are difficult and important decisions to take and that the Government should get on and take them, rather than worrying about undermining our constitution.
The essential argument is that the creation of an elected second Chamber would inevitably transform relations between the two Chambers and would produce a House that would increasingly be in competition with the House of Commons. The evidence of the Clerk of the House in this regard should be studied most carefully by all those who intend to vote on these profoundly disappointing proposals. The House is going to vote potentially to enshrine in our national political life the recipe for a permanent constitutional crisis.
Of course, the House of Lords needs reforming—it is too big and there are sensible measures that we could take—but I profoundly believe that an appointed House has very real merit. It can deliberately reflect the diversity of our country in a way that the House of Commons simply cannot. The present House of Lords has the same gender balance as us, an honourable and long-standing tradition of ethnic diversity and, incidentally, a considerable number of disabled Members. Most importantly, however, it contains a vast reservoir of talent and experience that complements a more youthful and aggressive House of Commons without ever being able to threaten it.
The Bill will inevitably lead to the greater politicisation of the House of Lords, blur the harmonious and distinctive differences between the two Houses and remove the correctly unambiguous democratic mandate that the House of Commons rightly enjoys. The Bill will pile a constitutional crisis on top of an economic crisis that we all know will last for a long time. The Conservative party has honoured the obligation in our manifesto; that commitment has been discharged. It is now the duty of every Member to consider their position carefully before knowingly doing something to unpick that which we know works, however imperfectly. We should wait for better hours and better days, when we have the space and the time really to think this through.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames).
I want to speak against both Second Reading and the timetable motion for the following reasons. We who are elected to this legislature have developed the habit of thinking that politics is about passing legislation—I am as guilty a party to that sin as anyone else—and although we all approach legislation with a good spirit and wishing to improve the public good, we often do not make a very good job of it. Prime Ministers and parties in government change, however, so we have a chance to undo the silliness of a previous House of Commons. We are talking about a different form of legislation, however, when we talk about changing the constitution.
My time in the House has often been spent undoing the silliness of other politicians, but we cannot point to any example of a constitutional measure, passed by this House and—under threats—by the House of Lords, that has actually been changed. We will be changing the constitution for ever—there will be no going back—so it is beholden on us to be satisfied with the Bill on Second Reading and not to be beguiled by the Whips. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), whom I respect, said, “If I don’t like it on Third Reading, I’ll strike it down.” It never works like that. Let me tell her that simple fact.
We also need to lay charge against the Government because of what this Bill is about. The Deputy Prime Minister has an extraordinary view of democracy. He views democracy as being about voting. There are many nations in this world that vote, but which we would not regard as democracies. In this country we have crafted two great constitutional ideas through which we channel our ideas about political freedom. We value the idea that our institutions should be representative and that they should be responsible. The charge I make against the Government this evening when they reply to this debate—or when they care to reply—is this. To what extent does this reform strengthen representative government, and to what extent does it strengthen responsible government? Let me take the responsible side first.
The idea that we will get more responsible government by electing people for 15 years without them ever having to stand to account again is a most extraordinary view. We are responsible in the sense that we stand on a mandate of our party—sometimes rather loosely, but we stand on it—and if we wish to continue our careers, we know that we have to face our electorate. The idea that electing people for 15 years will somehow strengthen the responsible side of our constitution is idiotic.
Now let us face the other issue: whether our system will be more representative. The idea that a list system—prefaced by the word “open”—will give us a different composition from that of the House of Commons, as well as a better one, is equally naive. Those concerned will be people who the Whips have decided are safe. Constituency parties will elect huge lists of people without knowing who the hell they are and they will have little chance of imposing their views, as they try to when they select for single-Member seats.
The reason I am going to vote against the timetable motion is that there are many other ideas that we could put forward to make the House of Lords both responsible and more representative. Since Nolan, we have swallowed the extraordinary view that we should not represent interests. It is totally novel and totally foreign to our constitution. The one place where we should have a view of representation coming forward is the Lords. I want days, if necessary, to discuss how we could make that Chamber—after it has, necessarily, the elements of Government and Opposition—a representative Chamber of the great interests: the great regions of this country; the different interests of men and women; the different interests of both sides of industry; different cultural and industrial interests; and even, perhaps, the interests of political parties.
The idea is that, under a timetabled motion, we will be able to open up the debate where the Joint Committee left it and seriously consider, first, whether the Bill makes our constitution more responsible and, secondly, whether it makes it more representative. Anybody who thinks that the Bill will deliver either of those two simply because we will have an election system—one that will have even lower turnouts than for the European Parliament—needs their head tested.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Britain has had a long tradition of gradually changing its constitutional arrangements, rather than going for an overnight revolution. It is a tradition that reflects the strength of our political establishment, but it is also a tradition that means that change generally happens slowly. It has taken us 101 years to reach this point in the House of Lords debate, but we now have a Bill before Parliament that is supported by the Government, along with commitments in the manifestos of the three main parties, to conclude the work that our predecessors began, with the Parliament Act 1911, in reforming the House of Lords.
I appreciate that I am probably in a very small minority on the Government Benches; nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. I acknowledge and accept that it is a compromise, but in many respects that is inevitable. There are probably 650 views of what a reformed House of Lords should look like, but at some point we just have to allow for compromise. The Bill therefore reflects the many attempts over the last 20 years to reform the House of Lords—both from this place and the other place—and it addresses what are, for me, the two key issues of reform: the principle of democratic legitimacy and the issue of practicality. As a simple matter of principle, I believe it right and proper to reform the House of Lords. The present arrangements are, in my view, indefensible. Lords membership at present is based on piety, patronage and privilege. A country that calls itself a democracy in the 21st century should not have a key part of its political system based on such criteria.
Jake Berry
I agree with my hon. Friend: his point about democracy is absolutely key to this debate. Does he agree that if we say that we are a democratic country, democracy cannot be partial? We have to reflect it through all our parliamentary institutions, including the House of Lords.
John Stevenson
I agree with my hon. Friend. We elect parish councillors, local councillors, county councillors, mayors, MPs, MEPs, MSPs and Welsh Assembly Members, and in November we will elect our first police commissioners, but somehow we do not think it necessary to elect Members of the House of Lords.
Angie Bray
But do we elect our judges or our generals? There are plenty of people in public life who are not elected, because the principle cannot be applied unilaterally across everything.
John Stevenson
We are talking about our institutions where there is representation and where laws are made.
To any rational person, the current arrangement is absurd. We live in a democracy and we, the British people, should be allowed to elect those who make our laws and govern us. Equally importantly, we should also be allowed the opportunity to put ourselves forward for such a role. As things stand, I have to be able to explain to my constituents that, when it comes to the House of Lords, although they live in a democracy and we can vote for and be councillors, MPs, mayors and so on, they cannot vote for some of the people who pass laws over them, nor do they have the opportunity to hold such offices themselves. That cannot be right.
John Stevenson
I do not believe that the monarchy is part of our constitution where effective—[Hon. Members: “What?”] No, it is not involved in our effective day-to-day constitution, in terms of the laws that are passed, so when my hon. Friend talks about the monarchy as such, he is talking about a different concept.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend explain to the House the difference between the day-to-day constitution and the bigger constitution that he is talking about?
John Stevenson
It is an accepted part of our constitution that the monarch does not actually veto any of the laws passed by Parliament.
As a Conservative, I believe that all those who make the law should be elected and that those who have the right to vote should also have the right to seek election, with the opportunity to make laws or govern.
Louise Mensch
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way again. If he believes that people should be elected and should be accountable to the electorate, will he not reject a system whereby people are elected for a 15-year term, but never have to face the electorate ever again?
John Stevenson
The most important part is that there is democratic legitimacy, whereby the people who make laws in this country are elected.
I am aware of the arguments for the present arrangement that the other place is more varied in background and that it is a place of greater expertise. I do not accept this. The average age in the other place is 70. There are more in their 90s than there are under-40s, and around 44% have a political or local authority background. Undoubtedly, there is expertise in the other place, but it is not reactive to, or representative of, the electorate.
As for the make-up of the other place, it is overwhelmingly geared towards the south of England. Where is the representation of Scotland, Wales or the north of England? Representative it is not. We need to ensure proper regional representation so that the views of all parts of the country are heard in the second Chamber. As to the principles of a functioning Parliament, let us not delude ourselves that the present arrangements are satisfactory for us in this place. Arguably, because of the current arrangements for the House of Lords, we have weakened our own Chamber as an instrument of legislature.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being astonishingly generous with his time. I am following his arguments closely, but would he say that because we do not elect our second Chamber, this country is not a fully functioning democracy?
John Stevenson
I would accept that argument, as I believe all parts of our constitution should be elected.
I ask how many amendments the Government accept from Opposition Front-Bench or Back-Bench Members, or even from Government Back-Bench Members. In the other place, amendments are often considered and accepted even when they are similar to those proposed and rejected in this place. It is time that this Chamber asserted itself more, and I believe that House of Lords reform will help to achieve that. There are concerns that this Chamber would be diminished as a result of reform and that a more assertive House of Lords with an electoral mandate would threaten this place. My view is that Parliament as a whole would be more assertive as a result of these reforms, and it is the Executive who should be concerned about an empowered legislature. In a country that is overly centralised and dominated by a powerful Executive, that would be no bad thing.
On the issue of practicality, as I alluded to earlier, the Bill is one of compromise. Specific aspects of it will undoubtedly be debated in great detail and there will be further opportunities in Committee to do that and to amend the Bill. This Second Reading is very much about the general thrust of the Bill, however, so I would like to touch on a few points.
The powers of the House of Lords will largely remain unchanged. The Lords will still have the power to introduce and amend legislation; what will undoubtedly change will be the conventions of Parliament. The conventions have been changing continually for decades, however, and will continue to do so. As I said at the outset, constitutional change develops slowly in this country. Even if this Bill becomes an Act, it will be another 12 to 15 years before it is implemented fully.
There is no doubt that, over time, the other place will become more assertive towards the Executive and, indeed, this Chamber, but that is not necessarily a bad thing for our democracy. I believe we will end up with less but better legislation. The terms of the Lords would be limited to 15 years, elected in thirds at the same time as the general election. This means a peerage will no longer be a lifetime gift, but the terms will be lengthy enough to ensure that a long-term view is taken. I believe that that is correct—and certainly better than the average 26-year tenure of a present peer. The fact remains that the House of Lords is over-filled, under-representative and under-mandated. This Bill will provide a 100-year overview solution to these problems.
Let us strengthen Parliament, not the Executive. Let us improve, not weaken our democracy. Let us pass this Bill, ending 100 years of debate and, in 2025, on the conclusion of these reforms, we will be able to reflect on a more vibrant, assertive Parliament of which our country can be proud.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I shall break with the traditions of this Chamber by being brief and by trying not to repeat what others have already said. One of the earliest speakers supporting the Bill today said something like, “If you are a democrat, you have to vote for this Bill”. That embodies the attitude and the arrogance of some of those who are seeking to advance this Bill. I believe that it is possible to be a democrat and disagree with people. That is entirely the nature and essence of this Chamber and everything it stands for. It says on the cover that this is the House of Lords Reform Bill, but I prefer to call it “a horse designed by a Committee that failed to produce a camel Bill”. It has been cobbled together for a variety of different and often conflicting reasons and then presented before us as a fait accompli.
I take the oldest of old Labour positions on the House of Lords. My party believed for the overwhelming majority of the 20th century that the place should be abolished. However, I understand that we cannot do that on our own. A similar Bill was tested in the previous Parliament and there was no majority then; I suggest that the majority has subsequently decreased still further in this Parliament. This reform has to be coupled with the whole question of Parliament and its purposes. We cannot take one part of our democratic institutions and take it in isolation. That is why so many attempts to reform the House of Lords have run into the sand—because we have taken just one element of Parliament and tried to pursue reforming it on its own.
Let us consider some of the changes introduced over the last 15 years or so that have had significant effects. Devolution to what we call the nations—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—is one example. That has happened, but I still think the English question has not been resolved and will need to be addressed in some detail in the not-too-distant future. To be perfectly frank—I do not wish to be parochial—I think that doing that would be a far better use of this House’s time now than would pursuing this pipedream that has been put before us.
We have seen the advent of draft Bills and we have seen the development of programme motions, about which I shall say more in a moment. Of course, at the time of their introduction by a Labour Government, the Conservatives and Liberals fought it tooth and nail, telling us how awful and what a denial of democracy it was, but we knew—I was in the Government Whips Office then—that as soon as they had the chance to use them, they would use them, and use them mercilessly. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) seems shocked by such a proposition. I realise that he is one of the few members of the Liberal Democratic party who occasionally tell the truth, although normally by accident rather than design, but I assure him that that was what happened.
I hear from the Leader of the House that public reading stages of Bills are likely to be introduced, whatever they may be. A wide range of change is taking place, and we need to deal with the elements of it together. Trying to isolate one part, whether it be the House of Lords or anything else, will virtually ensure that progress cannot be made.
The other bit of arrogance on the part of the proponents of the Bill is their saying, “We have been arguing about this for 100 years, and therefore you must accept this answer. You cannot question it. If you are genuine about reform, you must agree with me.” That is not the way in which a democracy works. I say, “If you are genuine about reform, you must convince me, and convince me without the use of a programme motion.”
That attitude demonstrates the hubris with which the Bill is being pushed by its advocates, and the disdain that they have both for this place and for the people. Having had their fingers burnt to a crisp over the AV referendum, they have adopted another strategy: “As we cannot trust the people to give us the right answer, we are not going to bloody ask them. We are going to tell them what is good for them. That is how we will rebuild trust in Parliament.” I do not think it is.
Jim Dowd
So I should hope. It woke you up, anyway.
To say what the proponents of the Bill are saying is rather like saying, “We are all in favour of improving public health, so when some charlatan comes up with a quack remedy involving blood-letting and leeches, we should all go along with it.” Well, I am not going to go along with it, and I am not going to go along with my Front-Bench team on this occasion. Under the Labour Government, I voted against them just once. I do not offer that as any particular threat—certainly not the silly threat that some so-called Liberal adviser came up with, equating the issue of boundaries with the Bill—but I will tell Opposition Front Benchers this. I voted against the last Labour Government once, on the Bill that became the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and on the one occasion when I voted against them, they lost.
This is a serious matter. We should not just tolerate the lowest common denominator; we should reform Parliament—reform all of it. That is how we will regain the trust of the British people.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I much enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd). I too am a party loyalist, but there is one small difference between us: in my 25 years in the House, I have never voted against my party’s main business. I am proud of that record, and to illustrate the importance of loyalty, I should like to share with the House an exchange of letters between the person whom I used to call “my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley”—in other words, Mrs Thatcher, as she then was—and my party association chairman, who had the temerity to write to her, on 5 April 1990, complaining about the community charge. On 18 April she wrote back, very commendably, saying:
“I entirely agree with you that splits within the Party only damage ourselves. It is essential that all”—
the word “all” is underlined—
“members of the Party should direct their fire at the real enemy: the Socialists. To do otherwise is… to assist our opponents.”
This is not just a Government Bill; it is a fundamental constitutional Bill. I have underlined the first three words in the next sentence of my speech three times: “I am against an elected Lords.” We have not heard much in this debate about the great history of building up the House of Commons through the 1832 and 1869 Great Reform Bills, although the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) did talk about that. We cannot have it both ways. We either have an appointed other place over which the Commons has influence, or we have an elected other place, which will, in the end, compete with us. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), who served in the Army as I did, knows about mission creep. We are going to have Lords creep. The new versions of the Lords will come a-leaping. They will want more power. That is very worrying.
The list system is the worst possible system. How can any of us stand up and talk with a straight face about getting rid of patronage and bringing in a list system? Opposition Members have spoken eloquently about the evils of that, but when we couple it with the absurd proposition of an elected House with 15-year terms, we see that this entire proposal presents an opportunity to get elected and then go and live in the south of France. Those elected would never need to come back, because they will never stand for election again. This is a recipe for lazy peers. Why should anybody want to turn up for that length of time? There is no accountability either.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The average term of office in the current House of Lords is 26 years.
David Tredinnick
Well, I am grateful for that intervention.
There is another Bill that solves about half of these problems. I mentioned it in an earlier intervention. It is Lord Steel’s Bill. He is a Liberal Lord, and his Bill give peers the opportunity to retire if they want, which will reduce the numbers. If they do not turn up, they get disqualified. On the criminals issue, the bad guys would be disqualified, too. That Bill therefore deals with at least a third of the problems with this Bill.
I say to those who are dissatisfied with the way in which we get our peers that I personally do not object to former senior politicians going to the Lords, as I think they make an important contribution. If the regional balance is wrong, we do not have to turn the Lords upside down; we could have regional commissions, perhaps, or a debate about allocating peers.
As for the insulting notion that the experts in the Lords are not important, anyone who has attended a debate on health issues in which peers such as Lord Winston or Lord Walton participated will have listened in awe—and the same applies to those with military experience, as has been said. Listening to a Lords debate can be an awesome experience.
We are being told that because Lords reform was in the parties’ manifestos, this Bill has to go through, but we barely touched on the issue in our manifesto. It merely said that we must find some form of consensus. The Steel Bill presents the ideal way to achieve consensus, and therefore to get us out of this corner.
Many years ago, I served on the Anglo-Irish parliamentary forum. I remember talking, in County Tipperary or somewhere else, to Irish Members who suffered two-Member constituencies. Did they like it? They hated it, because they were always campaigning against each other through the whole term. Nothing got done and constituency interests were not paramount.
Let me say a few words about the veiled threat from my new-found Liberal hon. Friends, who occupy what used to be our other Front Bench before it was taken over by them. I forget after which election that happened, but perhaps we will get that Bench back at some point in the future. I say to them, “Please don’t threaten us over the boundary changes that we need. We gave you the AV referendum and it was a straight fight.”
Finally, we must think about the new constituencies—with seven Members and larger than a country, as a colleague put it. Do we really want to superimpose that in our areas? I do not think so. We already have MEPs covering similarly vast areas.
As a party loyalist, I hate doing this—I really do—but I cannot support this Bill. I do not think it is in our national interest or Parliament’s interests, and it is certainly not in my party’s interests.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
I have listened with great interest to the number of speeches in which we have been told about the expertise in the other place, how wonderful their lordships are and so on. I wonder why, then, when the results of their deliberations in the other place come down here, we rarely accept anything that they say. I think of the most recent example of the Welfare Reform Bill. There was a great deal of expertise over there and nobody in this House, or very few—certainly among those on the Government Benches—listened to them.
I would have thought that the Liberal Democrats would have been able to come up with a better Bill than this; after all, they have been thinking about it for 101 years. I feel as though I am at a seminar about the Parliament Act. We are talking about an increase in accountability, but in order, apparently, to assuage criticism from those who would argue that the House of Lords should be a forum for the expertise that I have mentioned, which we rarely actually accept in this House, we have before us a proposal to appoint 20% of the new Chamber. This morning, I received the document I am holding, “Lords reform: a guide for MPs”, to which some distinguished colleagues have contributed. As well as a hybrid Chamber and a new electoral system—many other colleagues have mentioned this—we have before us, in this supporting document, the statement that
“members elected in large, multi-member regional constituencies would be able to take a more strategic view of the needs of a whole part of the country. They would not be expected or resourced to take up a litany of individual cases on behalf of constituents”.
I come from Scotland, where we have regional MSPs. I can see my colleagues from Wales nodding in agreement with what they anticipate I am about to say. The reality is that if a politician is shown an electorate, they will react like a politician. They will not say, “Sorry, I cannot deal with that, because I have been elected for 15 years and I am not going to be re-elected.” Of course they will be politicians, and that is what they will do.
I have been in this place for 15 years, which is a long, long time in politics. Many of the people who came in with me are no longer here. I say to those Government Members who think they will still be here in 15 years: in your dreams. I am not talking about your dreams, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that you do not dream about the Government Benches.
The Deputy Prime Minister made great play of the new House of Lords, new Senate, or whatever on earth we are going to call it, having greater regional and national representation. He obviously has not looked at or seen the implications of what Lord Strathclyde has said about the way in which it is expected these that new Senators or Members of the House of Lords will operate; as the Joint Committee also said, the new situation should allow individuals to “maintain relevant professional expertise”. The Government have also said that the
“appointed members and elected members should be able to vary their level of participation…so that they can maintain outside occupations”.
So I say to the House: how on earth is an elected Member of the House of Lords from Newcastle, from Scotland or from north of the inner circle of London going to be able to maintain another job and still attend the House of Lords? It is utter nonsense.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Lady share my concern, and that of many in this House, that the number of representatives from Northern Ireland is to total three in each period of the legislative change? Does she agree that the history and culture of Northern Ireland, and the sense of self that its people have, is not represented totally in the reform put forward by the coalition?
Mrs McGuire
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I do not think that the current House of Lords accurately reflects the diversity of the United Kingdom. Although we think that there are Scots everywhere, there are probably fewer Scots in the House of Lords than there ought to be given the percentage of the population—[Interruption.] That is probably so in the House of Lords.
Let me make one or two points which I do not think have been adequately covered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) makes a very valid point about bishops in the House of Lords. The issue is controversial but, frankly, I do not agree that removing bishops from the House of Lords means that we are automatically talking about the disestablishment of the Church of England. If the establishment of the Church of England depends on 12 bishops sitting in the House of Lords, it is in a worse state than the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks that it is.
There has been a bit of a myth put around for most of the day that the Labour party has always been interested in changing the House of Lords. It has been highlighted that many of our policies related more to abolition than to reform, but the reality is that we have always been more interested in the powers of the House of Lords than in its composition. We have not had any discussion about the powers today. If we change the form of election to the other Chamber, we will change unalterably the balance of the relationship between this House and a second Chamber. We cannot move away from that and no matter how often the Government mention the Parliament Act, it just will not wash. We cannot have a modern constitution for the 21st century based on the relationships in the 1911 Act and we must be far more realistic about the implications of the proposals.
I will vote in favour of Second Reading tomorrow, because I believe in the reform of the House of Lords and this is the only game in town at the moment, but I will also vote against the programme motion on the grounds that perhaps, as the discussion and conversation goes on this House, the Government will have the time to reflect and will knock some sense into the head of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) on a terrific speech. It is an honour to follow her.
I had rather hoped this day would not come, as this is the first time that a Government Bill has presented me with a dilemma. House of Lords reform is not a dilemma for my constituents and, in fact, it simply is not of any interest to them whatsoever, judging by the number of communications I have received. There are far more pressing issues facing my constituents during these difficult times and I very much get the impression that they think we should be focusing on those rather than what they see as a distant and rather arcane constitutional matter. House of Lords reform has not been raised with me on the doorsteps in Ealing and Acton either before or since the election two years ago, but the Government have chosen to make it a priority and we must therefore spend time on it. It needs thorough consideration, however, because its impact would have major consequences.
The first of those consequences is cost. The proposal for an elected House of Lords would not only impose yet another tier of elected politicians, creating a sixth elected tier in London, but be an added cost for which taxpayers will have to pay. As night follows day and as with all elected politicians, the costs will soon start to escalate. I should know. As one of the first Greater London authority members, I remember how Londoners were promised that the new GLA would cost them just a few pence a week, but by the time we had employed personal assistants and researchers for every member, as well as a chief of staff and a press officer for each group, with an expanding secretariat to serve them, up, up, up went the cost. We all know that the costs for the proposed elected House of Lords are already expected to be considerably more than the current costs over each five-year period.
The second consequence would be on accountability. Does the Bill provide for a more accountable and less remote second Chamber? Does it indeed provide for an elected second Chamber that ticks all the boxes for those who want an elected second Chamber? My answer to both questions is no. It proposes a party list system for candidate selection attached to large regional areas. That, to me at least, is appointment by another name. Those who are favourites with the party bosses will go higher on the list—we all know that—and representing a huge nominal region will hardly bring them closer to us either.
Then there is the bizarre idea that Members of the House of Lords should serve a 15-year term, and no returns. That means that they could not be rejected at the ballot box for doing a lousy 15-year job, which is surely a measure for mediocrity. Meanwhile, we will be losing a huge range of expertise covering so many different fields—law, medicine, military matters, health, charities, education. I could easily go on. Many of those experts are not natural politicians and they would not wish to seek election.
Mr Frank Field
If we had the time, we could discuss alternatives such as the big interests being represented. Let us consider those interests. All the organisations that the hon. Lady has mentioned had the franchise and elected their leadership long before we had universal franchise for parliamentary elections.
Angie Bray
That is an extremely interesting point, but all those things need much more consultation than they are getting at the moment.
I want to comment finally on the future governance of this country. That may not seem to be a big issue right now, but one day it will be—when a newly elected House of Lords decides that primacy should no longer be hogged by this House. After all, Members of the Lords would be elected too and should be given their due recognition. At that point lies gridlock, when the two Houses come to different views on legislation, just as happens on occasion in the United States.
At that point, too, lies a terrible car crash. The House of Lords would no longer be a revising Chamber with a clear view of its role in the parliamentary process; it would be a House ready to assert its newly acquired status as an alternative elected House and would demand an equal role. As things are, people know that they vote for their Government via electing their MPs. Instead of clarity, the proposed changes would simply create confusion.
I am not against any reform. Every institution needs to be refreshed and reformed from time to time, as does the House of Lords. Even now, there are entirely sensible, reasonable and practical reforms on the table, thanks to the Liberal Democrat Lord Steel, which would reduce numbers, enforce proper attendance and ensure that those who fell foul of the law were excluded. They would answer many of the problems that we all agree exist in the House of Lords, so why are we intent on taking the place completely apart, even as the constitutional arrangements continue to work?
This is very difficult for me. I have always supported the Government, on every vote, and I continue to be proud of their many achievements. I also want to put on record my admiration for the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who is doing brilliant work in the Cabinet Office on behalf of the taxpayer. I have very much enjoyed being part of his team. It is very disappointing that the other half of the Cabinet Office is in charge of this legislation.
The Bill has the feel of back-of-the-fag-packet legislation, got up in a hurry to meet a timetable. I cannot stop myself thinking that we are being asked to support the dismantling of a crucial part of our constitution for a short-term political fix. I simply cannot do that.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. I note the number of Members who are still seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and who will no doubt be seeking to do so tomorrow. A six-minute limit underlines the importance that many of us attach to the Bill and the fact that there is genuine concern about the time that we will be able to spend discussing some of these important issues.
As it happens, my views are probably not as strong as some of those expressed today by eminent and experienced Members on both sides of the House, and on both sides of the debate on the other side of the House. I perhaps find myself slightly in sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), wondering how much the Bill is a distraction from more important issues. It is certainly not something that has been raised particularly by my constituents at surgeries or on the doorstep in recent times.
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me, though, from his experience on the doorstep, that a lot of people are disaffected and cynical about politics, and does he not think that one of the reasons for that is that we have an unelected House of Lords?
Tom Greatrex
I think there are many more fundamental reasons why people are disappointed in politics.
Before coming to the Chamber this afternoon—I have been here since the debate started—I checked and found that two constituents have contacted me about House of Lords reform and implored me to support it. At the end of the letter—they are identical—it says:
“All I ask is for you to do one simple thing; keep to your manifesto commitment and vote in favour of reforming the House of Lords.”
I do not know whether other hon. Members have received that letter. One was sent to me by a Liberal Democrat councillor—well, he was a Liberal Democrat councillor; he lost his seat in my ward earlier this year and was replaced by the excellent Labour candidate—and I presume that the other was from the other Liberal Democrat in Cambuslang. So we know that there are some people for whom this is a big issue.
In view of the lack of time, I shall not draw the House’s attention too much to the idea of being urged to keep one’s manifesto commitments by Liberal Democrats, given their recent past. However, the lack of demonstrable public interest does not mean that House of Lords reform is not important. It is important, and the consequences of the Bill and their impact on the governance of the country as a whole are such that it is important that we ensure that two things happen: first, that the Bill is properly scrutinised and, secondly, that public support is tested in a referendum, just as many significant constitutional changes have been in recent years. Given that Bill will have an impact on the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, that referendum is fundamentally important.
A range of concerns about the Bill need to be properly discussed in Committee. Many hon. Members have expressed real concern about the 15-year term, the list system and, in particular, the inadequacy of clause 2, which deals with the relationship between the two Houses. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) was admirably naive to suggest that there would not be some sort of mission creep from the Lords. As others who have experience of regional list MSPs will know, it does not matter what is set out in the code; behaviour is something quite different.
I wish to air two issues that have not been touched on much so far. The first is regional representation. The proponents of the Bill have made much of the idea that it will enable real and effective regional representation within the second Chamber. Those who spend a lot more time considering these matters than I do know that that is a widely accepted role for second Chambers in other countries. Schedule 2 to the Bill sets out the formula for the allocation of the elected peers: in each of the three elections, Scotland gets 10, Wales gets six, Northern Ireland three, and England 101. Thus, after the first set of elections, the combined strength of Scotland and Northern Ireland plus four of the Welsh representatives would be needed to outweigh the south-east of England.
That formula is based on population share and, in that sense, it is perfectly understandable, but it does not mean that the reformed House will represent the regional balance, as some have suggested. In the United States, California gets no more senators than Wyoming, even though its population is 66 times larger—that is pure regionalism. Germany has a different structure, with a minimum number of sets and then an additional number, according to population share, up to a maximum. As the constitution unit notes, Germany is one of the few countries without pressure to change its second chamber. If the proposals in the Bill are to be held up as a model of regional representation, those issues need to be looked at.
Secondly, part 4 of the Bill contains the clauses dealing with the number of bishops in the second Chamber. Over time, their number will be reduced. I think the bishops in the House of Lords bring a different perspective. I am a great admirer of the Archbishop of York, whose experience in Uganda brings something different to debates. It seems that the remaining bishops are to be among the 20% of Members of the new House who are appointed. Why, though, do we not get rid of all the bishops, as some have advocated, or if they are to be appointed Members, why do we not ensure representation from other faiths? There are Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, members of the Free Church and many others, and those are just Christians. Should we not ensure that Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and others are properly reflected among the Members appointed to the new Chamber? Could we not make space for a Catholic Cardinal or the Chief Rabbi?
I raise those two issues because they are issues that many people will not see as being of primary importance as the debate goes forward, but they are two important aspects of the composition of the second Chamber that could be the casualty of the programme motion.
Tom Greatrex
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The point that I am making is that these are issues that people will seek to discuss during the Committee stage that are not of primary importance. They may be secondary to other issues that have been raised during the debate today and it is imperative that there is proper time to consider all those issues. One of my frustrations since entering the House is that on a much smaller constitutional Bill that was taken on the Floor of the House, the Scotland Bill, there were a number of issues that we never discussed because we ran out of time. We cannot allow that to happen with this Bill so it is imperative that we have enough time. People will ask how many days that means. It means that it takes as long as it takes to deal with all the issues to get the Bill in the best possible form before it proceeds to the Lords.
Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), the Government would do well to stop using the line that we have been talking about the subject for 100 years. We have not been talking about this Bill for 100 years. There are big issues in the Bill that we need to get right. We need enough time to get them right if the Bill is to have any chance of taking us forward.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience and generosity. I had to sprint across to St Thomas’s, where my wife is having a scan. We are expecting our third child.
The supporters of the Bill would have the country believe that those who are opposed to it are opponents of democracy itself. Today I stand to refute that ugly caricature. No one in the House is more committed to British democracy than I. My family emigrated to Britain from an Iraq where democracy was spoken of only behind closed doors, late at night, among trusted friends. Compared to the brutal realities of Saddam’s rule, democracy was an abstract dream. Yet here in Britain there was a constitutional order which made democracy real, concrete, embedded in the very fabric of our national life.
Here was a judiciary—unelected, I grant you—which interpreted the law in the interests of the public, not of the ruling party. Here was a Queen—again, unelected—whose impregnable position as Head of State made sure that no politician could ever wield supreme power. And here also was the oldest and greatest of Parliaments, an elected House of Commons to embody the will of the people, and an appointed House of Lords to stand as a check against the tyranny of the majority.
Jesse Norman
Does my hon. Friend share my view that it is in the balance of these extraordinary institutions and in their distinctive history that so much of the genius of our history has been located?
Nadhim Zahawi
That is exactly right. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. This is exactly the constitution that I believe in and this is the constitution that I will defend. This is not, as my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform has said, some “silly game”.
If recent events in the Arab world have shown us anything, it is that democracy is not just about holding elections. It is also about building institutions which ensure that the whole of society is represented, regardless of who is in power. The question that we should ask ourselves today is whether British society will be better represented by 360 more career politicians accountable to no one but their party.
I am not complacent about the state of our democracy. I know that Parliament currently faces a crisis of legitimacy in the eyes of the country, but the cause of that crisis is not the other place. No. It is that deeply damaging sense that politicians here, in this House, are out of touch.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that reforming the other place will not solve the problems of reforming this place? This House needs to be more effective in holding the Executive to account. Making changes down the road, with who knows what outcome, is not the answer. We must reform this House and ensure that the other House serves by revising our legislation, rather than undermining the democratic supremacy of this House.
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why we in this place are perceived to be out of touch is that people feel that we put the interests of party before those of our country, that we care more about securing a party political legacy than about growth capital for our businesses or good local schools for our children. The public want a Parliament that legislates well and in the national interest, and they want MPs who are on their side and up to the job. They do not want to see, and certainly do not want to pay for, more politicians and more party patronage.
I have conducted new scientific polling that shows that 60% of the public are opposed to spending more money on politicians and elections, yet that is what the Bill offers them. If we are really to fix Parliament, we must give it the tools to legislate better. Let us strengthen the role of Select Committees and give more time for Back-Bench business. Let us not solve the problem of a broken legislature by making it harder to legislate. Let us not inflame the deep mistrust of party politics by bringing in a system that hands more power over to the party machine.
I am a loyal critic of the other place. The White Paper states that it performs its role of scrutiny and revision with “distinction”, yet I know that there is much that we could do to improve it. We could reduce the number of peers, abolish prime ministerial patronage, remove the final hereditary peers and increase the professional expertise that already makes such a great contribution to the quality of parliamentary debate. I have argued, and will continue to argue, for all this and more, but subverting the primacy of the Commons is not the answer to reform.
The Government know that it would be impossible to write into law the conventions governing the relationship between the Lords and Commons. As a result, the only protection against legislative gridlock between the two Houses would be the good faith of the new senators. We would have to require 360 career politicians to promise not to use their new democratic mandate to oppose the will of the Commons. If one day in the future this House is legislating on military action or an emergency Budget, for example—situations in which time is of the essence—we would run the risk of a costly delay as our new senators discover the power and publicity that this mandate conferred. Of course, we could always use the Parliament Acts to ram a Bill through this new House of senators, but that hardly seems to signify a new era of democratic accountability to me. Indeed, how ironic that the supporters of a Bill for reforming our democracy are refusing to take their argument to the country.
The claim that the choice was put to the public at the general election does not hold up either. Where was the choice when all the main parties offered it in their manifestos? The polling overwhelmingly shows that an elected House of Lords is not a priority. Does it stretch belief that voting intentions may have been dictated largely by what our parties were promising to do on the economy and public services, rather than on constitutional reform? A referendum would ensure that the public have all the facts before making their choice known. In the same polling I quoted earlier, even Liberal Democrat support for these proposals fell to just 29% once the costs of elections were factored in.
I know that many colleagues will have been urged to express their concerns on Third Reading, but those suggesting that approach are being disingenuous at best. Unless a referendum clause is added now, there is no guarantee that it will be added later and, with a combination of the Parliament Acts being used and Opposition Members saying that they will support the Bill on Second and Third Reading, there is little chance that a Back-Bench amendment would be successful. The only way that the views of hon. Members would be heard and debated properly is if we vote against the programme motion and, in the absence of a referendum clause, vote against the Bill’s Second Reading. Anything else is merely a protest vote, not one that will make a difference.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The House of Lords has more than 800 Members, and that is far too many; it has Members who are there simply because of who their fathers were; and in this Parliament it has had so many Liberal Democrats from Wales appointed to it that it sometimes seems there is none left to populate the Assembly. The House of Lords therefore needs reform, and for that reason I will vote to support the Bill’s Second Reading tomorrow. If there is no reform with this Bill, there will be no reform in this Parliament.
I will vote against the Government’s programme motion, however, because the time that it allocates is wholly inadequate. This Bill is so important to all aspects of our parliamentary system that it must be considered in its entirety, and all Members who have views that they want to express should be permitted to do so.
I specifically asked the Whips to maintain strong opposition to any programme motion for this Bill primarily because of the Government’s appalling behaviour in respect of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. By their deeds shall ye know them. I spent a great deal of time in this Chamber waiting to speak on the aspects of that legislation which affected our constitution, and on the relationship between Wales and the United Kingdom, but, in the words of the great Diana Ross, “I’m still waiting”, and I have no doubt that if this programme motion is passed I will have no opportunity to make my views known on the profound inadequacies of this Bill.
My fundamental view is that it makes no sense to undertake such a profound review of the second Chamber without taking into account the massive constitutional change of devolution. It is high time that we approached constitutional reform in a holistic way. Every change to a part of our constitution affects the whole, and we currently have more inquiries and commissions on different aspects of our constitution than I can ever recall. We should scrap the lot and undertake a single constitutional review, looking at the procedures of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the devolved authorities, with the aim of arriving at a single, settled constitution.
If there is one lesson to be learned from devolution, it is that it opens a Pandora’s box of proposals to change the powers of the body it has created: the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the London Assembly all pressed to change their powers immediately upon being provided with them. I have no doubt that any change to the second Chamber will lead to exactly the same process, unless it is accompanied by a constitution defining its powers. That is a massive flaw in the Bill.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman says that the Scottish Parliament looked for a change of powers immediately upon its creation, but that is not true. In its first eight years it was run by an unambitious Labour-Liberal Democrat Government and did not look for any change to its powers. It is only now, with an ambitious Scottish National party Government looking for further powers, that that is happening.
Ian Lucas
That statement is simply untrue. There was further devolution to the Scottish Parliament and to the National Assembly for Wales, and it happened throughout the course of devolution’s development in the United Kingdom.
There are further flaws in the Bill which we need to discuss. Creating separate types of Member of the second Chamber is wrong: having elected Members, appointed Members and bishops will create confusion and undermine the democratic principle. Having bishops as Members is wrong, too. Giving precedence to Church of England clerics is an extraordinary thing to do, and it is even more inexplicable on this very day, when the Church of England has decided not to appoint women bishops. Is not having such a clause in the Bill a breach of the European convention on human rights? Will the Minister give a specific response on that point?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) said, little consideration has been given to the proportion of elected Members allocated to each part of the United Kingdom. It appears to have been done on a purely mathematical basis that takes no account of the different nations within the UK. That point was well made by Dr Paul Behrens of the university of Leicester, who refers to the very different approaches taken in the United States and German constitutions.
The use of the 15-year term that many Members have mentioned is appalling, and I am amazed that it has survived from the draft Bill. I have not spoken to anyone who supports it, and I was astonished to hear one or two Members do so even though they are in a tiny minority. It is a recipe for the creation of isolated, narcissistic Members of a second Chamber who will have no connection whatever to the real world.
Those are just a few of my concerns on the specifics of the Bill; I have many more and I am sure that more will occur to me as we discuss the matter. I have no doubt that further issues will arise when the Bill is considered in detail, because it is a bad, bad Bill—badly drafted, badly drawn and based on a compromise that is not working. My concern is that proper consideration will not take place because of the inadequacy of the time that is allocated. The result will be a very bad Bill going to the Lords, where it will no doubt be scrutinised at greater length, and the reputation of the House of Commons will be diminished still further.
Sir Alan Beith
I was here for the earlier part of the debate as well.
The hon. Gentleman has declared that he is in favour of reform. He cannot be so naive as not to realise that if there is no timetable, those whose objective is not to have any reform along these lines will talk and talk to try to drive the Bill out. Is he going to suggest a better timetable to those on his Front Bench?
Ian Lucas
It is quite something to be patronised by the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the position on parliamentary procedure. I also understand that the Liberal Democrats suppressed my right to have my say about my constituency on behalf of my constituents when the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and denied the people of Wales the opportunity to discuss a fundamental constitutional reform. I therefore know that I cannot rely on him or his colleagues to allow me to speak on behalf of my constituents. The only way I will secure enough time so to do is to vote against the programme motion, as I certainly will on the basis of the appalling behaviour of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to speak in a debate of such fundamental importance. We have heard some truly fascinating speeches from Members on both sides of the House. I personally take the view that the weight of argument is firmly on the side of those who do not support the Bill, but we have heard some interesting speeches across the board. It is a particular honour to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who made what must have been a particularly difficult speech.
The economy is struggling, the eurozone is tanking, the banks are in crisis, and Syria is burning. Our constituents must be blinking in bewilderment at the time, effort and political energy being expended—
Mr MacNeil
Has the hon. Gentleman made many speeches in this House on those subjects, or is he just here to talk about House of Lords reform?
Dan Byles
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am here today to speak about this extremely important issue, but I speak regularly in this Chamber about key events and intervene in others. I am not one of those Members who chalks up short speeches on TheyWorkForYou and then judges themselves by the number of speeches they have made rather than their quality.
As I said, our constituents are blinking in bewilderment at the amount of time we are spending discussing this issue, but discuss it we must—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Mr MacNeil, I have had enough. You keep interrupting everybody. This debate has been going on all day. I ask you to sit there quietly and stop trying to disrupt other people’s speeches.
Dan Byles
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Discuss this issue we must. Most Conservative Members are of the view that we would rather not, but if we have to it must be discussed fully and properly. This is a fundamental and irreversible constitutional change. It is not normal Government business. The idea that such a change should be rammed through with the routine whipping and programming is unthinkable.
The Bill is not about democracy. Too many people who support it seem to think that simply using the word “democracy” shuts down the debate. That is not the case. I was a soldier for nine years. I took the Queen’s commission and served Her Majesty. I was taught at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the Royal Military College at Shrivenham to uphold and preserve democracy and the rule of law, which I do. I challenge anybody in this Chamber to tell me that I do not support democracy. That I support it does not mean that I must support the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) described eloquently our complex and ancient constitution. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made a passionate speech on the nature of the upper House and its specific and unique role in our constitution, which does not automatically require that its Members be elected. I was rather hoping that I would be called to speak immediately after him, because I would have been tempted to say, “What he said,” and sit down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) ran through a list of other parts of our system that are elected. Interestingly, I have the same list in my speech in order to make the opposite point. My constituents already have the opportunity to elect every level of government. They elect parish councillors, borough councillors, county councillors, Members of Parliament and MEPs. They elect their Government when they elect their MP. That is our system. If we move, in an ill-thought-out way, to a system in which they also elect, in a manner of speaking—I am not a fan of this system of proportional representation—Members of the other place, which House will form the Government? That system will result in confusion and chaos.
This change is being imposed. There is no suggestion that it will go to the people in a referendum, unlike the question of whether the people of Coventry want an elected mayor, as numerous colleagues have pointed out. Apparently, this fundamental change to the constitution of our country is not suitable for a referendum. The people who want to impose this fundamental change should at least come to the House to explain what the upper Chamber is supposed to do, what it is about the current system that is failing to achieve that end and how the proposals will achieve that end better.
It seems to me that the Bill fails in what it sets out to achieve. It will not make the upper House more accountable. I will not repeat the arguments involving the party list system and the 15-year terms, but the new Members will not be accountable. The Bill will not end the Prime Minister’s right of patronage. Ministerial Members will be appointed by the Prime Minister, not by an independent appointments commission, and he will be able to appoint as many of them as he wants. As long as fewer than eight of them are serving as Ministers at the time, he can appoint more. He can appoint eight on day one. If they all resign on day two, he can appoint eight more. He can do that every day. The power of parliamentary patronage is therefore still there. That means that it will not be an 80% elected Chamber. If each Prime Minister appoints only eight ministerial Members in each Parliament and they stay for three Parliaments, it will be a 74% elected Chamber. Let us call it what it is. And that is ignoring the Lords Spiritual.
Jesse Norman
Has my hon. Friend raised that topic with the Ministers who are responsible for constitutional affairs? I would be very interested to hear what the answer was.
Dan Byles
My hon. Friend is being naughty, because he knows that I have. He knows that there was some confusion in the Ministers’ office about how many times the Prime Minister could appoint eight ministerial Members. At one point, it was suggested that they could appoint only eight per Parliament. However, a constitutional expert in the upper House, whom I shall not name because I have not asked his permission, assures me that as the Bill is written, there is no limit on the number of ministerial Members who can be appointed.
The scope for constitutional deadlock that the Bill will bring about has been described at great length and with eloquence. Those who want us to give the other place what they see as more democratic legitimacy cannot run away from the fact that it will want to use and exert that legitimacy.
I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister is back in his place, because I would like to pick up on one of his points, if he is listening. He is not. He was naughty in his opening speech when he discussed the potential costs of the reform, because he included the costs of reducing the size of this place. The House will know that that was in entirely separate legislation that will be on the statute book regardless of whether this Bill is accepted. That reduction should form the baseline from which the costs of the Bill are judged.
I stood on a manifesto commitment to seek consensus on House of Lords reform. It is quite clear that that consensus has not been reached. When the Joint Committee, in an unprecedented move, issued a minority report signed by almost half its members urging that a constitutional convention be set up, because this matter was too important to be left to grubby political horse-trading, people should have sat up and taken notice. That is why I cannot support the Bill and certainly cannot support the programme motion.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Today’s debate has been passionate and knowledgeable, and it will stand as a fine example of the House at its best. We have heard numerous excellent contributions from right hon. and hon. Members, and we have heard a range of differing views from all parts of the House—some were in favour of the Bill and some against, but most speakers acknowledged that in the name of parliamentary democracy the proposals in it needed to feel the heat of Members’ thorough scrutiny.
Labour Members can be proud of an unmatched record on reform, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) made clear at the beginning of the debate. We have introduced many of the changes in the relationship between this House and the House of Lords, and we are proud to be the party of reform. The House of Lords Act 1999 finally removed the hereditary principle from membership of the second Chamber. Interestingly, the decision elicited this response from the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Foreign Secretary,
“let me make it clear…that we believe it is wrong to embark on fundamental change to the Parliament of this country without any idea where that will lead.”—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 876.]
It would be interesting to know whether the Foreign Secretary feels the same about the Deputy Prime Minister’s desire to curb parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. My feeling is that he just might.
The result of the 1999 Act was that, overnight, the size of the other place was reduced from more than 1,300 to just 669. In 2006 we created the post of elected Lord Speaker, separated the judiciary from the Lords by establishing the Supreme Court and created people’s peers—all steps that strengthened our democracy.
It is also important to remember that in 2003 and 2007 Labour initiated votes on whether there should be a fully or partly elected second Chamber. Although the 2003 votes were inconclusive, the 2007 votes favoured a 100% elected second Chamber. The Opposition recognise that vote and believe that the job of Lords reform will not be complete until we have a 100% elected second Chamber. We committed to that in our last manifesto, and we stand by that commitment.
The Deputy Prime Minister agreed with that policy just over a year ago, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said earlier. I wonder what made him abandon yet another apparently strong belief. Page 88 of the Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto stated that they would:
“Replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber with considerably fewer members than the current House.”
Despite all that, the Deputy Prime Minister has made proposals for only an 80% elected House—then again, we all know how much the Deputy Prime Minister’s manifesto promises are worth. Leaving that to one side, it should be clear to all Members that the Bill deserves the fullest possible scrutiny, precisely because of issues such as I have mentioned. The Joint Committee was split, and it is clear that a rigorous debate is required before the issue is settled in statute. The House’s task, therefore, is to ensure that the Bill is fit for the long term, fit to endure in our democracy and fit to last a great deal longer than the legacy of its main architect.
Many hon. Members have referred to the primacy of the Commons, including, to mention just a few, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). It is now 101 years since the Parliament Act 1911, a measure that the House laid before Parliament to curb the powers of the other place. We should consider how emboldened an elected second Chamber might be if it disagrees with the Commons. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said, clause 2 reasserts the powers of the Parliament Acts, but it is silent on the future power and roles of a reformed Chamber, and relies on the evolution of conventions for the maintenance of Commons primacy. An elected second Chamber could evolve to challenge the conventions. Rigorous debate informed by constitutional expertise is required on Commons primacy. As the Foreign Secretary has said in the past, it is important to know and to try to establish where such measures lead.
The Opposition believe that such a major constitutional change should be put before the British people in a referendum—another hot topic in the debate. The idea was supported by numerous Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for Dudley North (Ian Austin), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). The last of those made it clear to the House, in his usual straightforward and blunt style, that he is a strong supporter of the reforms, but he also made it very clear that he supports a referendum. If cities can have referendums to decide whether they want a mayor, surely it is right to trust the British people on such a major change to our democracy.
One must be careful that referendums do not undermine the representative nature of our democracy, but there is a strong case for the mechanism when major constitutional change is proposed.
Duncan Hames
The hon. Lady is keen to tell us that the Labour party supports Lords reform and wants a referendum. Will it therefore campaign for a yes vote to deliver House of Lords reform in such a referendum?
Angela Smith
That depends entirely on what the Bill looks like when it is presented to the British people. Hon. Members who have sat through the past seven hours of the debate will realise that the vast majority of Members of the House want the Bill debated thoroughly and amended to make it fit to put before the British people. The Joint Committee agreed unanimously on that point. It remains a mystery to Opposition Members that the party that was so keen to hold a referendum on the alternative vote system is so shy of supporting a referendum to determine the essence of our democracy and our parliamentary institutions. What on earth are they afraid of?
Angela Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
The Bill clearly needs improvement if it is to work effectively to strengthen our democracy and our law-making processes. It needs to be informed by rigorous debate and further consideration of constitutional expertise. It needs scrutinising not only in relation to the issues I have already referred to, but in relation to the size of the proposed Chamber, which was mentioned by a large proportion of the Members who contributed to the debate; the proposed length of terms of representation; the transition period; and the voting system for the election of its Members. The Bill currently recommends a semi-open list system, as opposed to the single transferable vote proposed in the draft Bill. Today, however, we have witnessed a lack of clarity about what the numerous variations of proportional representation mean, so once again the need for thorough debate has been firmly underlined.
The Bill proposes the biggest constitutional change our country has seen since the Parliament Act 1911, which is why we need to take care over its progress—we need to get it right. It would damage our democracy if the House were to force through the Bill without adequate debate and scrutiny—an argument that has asserted itself at every twist and turn of this debate. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett)—to mention just a few.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough pointed out that a range of views are present in this debate. The fact of those views absolutely makes the case for a period of thorough scrutiny. I would particularly mention the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who pointed out rightly that Members need to read carefully the comments of the Clerk of the House about the reforms, particularly in relation to Commons primacy. That is a really important point. Members need to acquaint themselves with those comments and concerns before making up their minds about the Bill on Third Reading. Moreover, it would help the Bill if the Commons arrived at a consensus on the way forward by hammering out agreed positions via a process of debate and amendment.
The Opposition welcome reform of the House of Lords, and want to secure its progress and conduct the process constructively. My concluding words are therefore directed at the Deputy Prime Minister, who was asked in a letter sent to him last week by a Member of the other place to show a little more respect for our ermine-clad colleagues:
“If the future of one of the key parts of our British Constitution is to be debated in a responsible way, it is surely important that deliberate factual errors and insulting insinuations should not be part of the debate.”
The House is familiar with the cavalier manner that the Deputy Prime Minister deploys when making his arguments, and we are well accustomed to his tendency to exaggerate to make an argument, but today’s debate has underlined the point made by the other place. For the most part, this debate has been good humoured and civilised. He should respond by curbing his excesses and working with colleagues, not against them.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was brilliantly opaque in his view of Labour’s plans for timetabling. Will the hon. Lady be a littler clearer about Labour’s plans for Third Reading? Does she propose to support Third Reading, oppose it or abstain?
Angela Smith
The House needs to decide what are the important principles in the Bill. It needs proper discussion, and we have made it clear that we will work with the Government to ensure that progress is made, but we do not believe it appropriate to pre-programme the timetable. We have been absolutely clear on that.
Many colleagues today have had to curtail their comments because of the time pressures, and it is clear that the appetite for further debate is strong. We support the Second Reading of this far-from-perfect Bill but believe that today’s debate has put it firmly on the record that the House does not wish to give the Bill a swift passage into law, as the Deputy Prime Minister suggested earlier. Rather, it wants thoroughly to scrutinise and improve the Bill and make it fit for presentation to the electorate in a referendum. I, with the rest of the House, look forward to tomorrow’s debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I do not think that any self-imposed injunction on personal and disparaging comments could have been breached quite so promptly as it was by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) just then, with her reference to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Nevertheless, this has been a good debate, in which 36 Back Benchers have had the opportunity to speak so far—and of course, it is only half-time.
There has been good support for the Bill—some qualified and some wholehearted—and it has been expressed by many. We have heard good speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), and the hon. Members for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Carlisle (John Stevenson). Let me single out for special comment the exceptional speech by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who made the important point that what we have before us builds on what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) started and what Robin Cook produced in conversation with other parties, which is the bedrock of the consensus—which I hope we can still reach—on reform of the House of Lords.
There have also been speeches against the Bill. I am afraid that some have erected straw men so as to knock them down, mentioning things that have simply never been suggested by the Government, but which hon. Members nevertheless felt the need to speak against. However, some speeches were well argued. I would like to single out the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who I know will have had difficulty making the comments she did today. We can disagree with people but still respect the arguments they put forward. Of course I do not agree with them in opposing the legislation, but I respect the way they put their arguments.
Some Members are simply against an elected House. I respect that, although of course I do not agree with them. It is not what their respective parties put before the electorate—it is not what they said in their manifestos—but it is frankly a pointless endeavour trying to bash round the head someone who is committed to unicameralism, such as the right hon. Members for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) or for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), or the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) or for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd). Someone who believes that there should be no second House will not support proposals for reform. I understand that: it is a perfectly proper argument.
Many others appear to think—this is a view shared by many appointed peers—that any system that appointed such exemplars of legislative acuity and perfection as themselves must be an exceedingly good system indeed. I do not necessarily share that view. I have great respect for the quality of much of the work of the present House of Lords—and, indeed, for the quality of many individual peers. However, that is not a sufficient argument for a system that, I believe, is simply not sustainable.
Many Members—particularly, I have to say, those sitting on the Government Benches—are those who I remember railing against the prospect of a House of cronies when we last debated this subject, but they seem content with the idea of a fully appointed House. It is not a view I share.
Mr Jenkin
I remember the hon. Gentleman railing against Governments who impose timetables and guillotines when he was in opposition, so how can he now come to this House and guillotine a constitutional measure—which would have been unthinkable under Winston Churchill, incidentally—which is not going to be subject to a referendum and may be Parliament Acted, so that when it is being scrutinised by the other place, he will have no option but to propose that the same damaged and inadequate Bill go back to the other House, as he tries to force it through?
Mr Heath
I will return to the issue of the programme motion in just a moment, but let me deal first with the rather familiar arguments that have been marshalled.
There are those who say that they are for reform, but not yet. They say it is too precipitate and that there has been insufficient scrutiny. This process has been about as precipitate as the reckless progress of a particularly arthritic slug. We have had what I would describe as pre-legislative scrutiny on this for 101 years. This is not a quick process.
Mr Graham Stuart
Following up the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), will the hon. Gentleman please answer on the issue of the guillotine? Why, when he was always against it in principle before, is he now in favour of it?
Mr Heath
The right hon. Gentleman says “Do it now.” I asked him dozens of times how long he had waited for this Bill, and he never replied. Not once, so he can pipe down!
Others argue that they want reform, but not now, as there are and always will be other priorities. They are absolutely right that economic issues must be pre-eminent. That is the reason for this coalition Government, but it does not stop the House doing other things, and it never has. It did not prevent this House from passing one of the most important pieces of legislation on social policy we have ever had—the Education Act 1944—in the middle of a world war. I simply do not believe that this House cannot address more than one issue at a time.
A variety of Members said that they want reform, but not this reform. Some have argued that it is a mixture of proposals and not the unadulterated product of a single party’s programme. That is true, but these are the same people who also argue that we have failed to listen to others and that we have failed to reach consensus. We have tried to find common ground between the parties, and that is what is before us today.
Mr George Howarth
Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us when, during the course of that 101 years that he mentioned, the notion of a 15-year term first came about?
Mr Heath
I will give way to the hon. Lady in a few moments.
We also heard the proposals, from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and others, that we should be going for Lord Steel’s Bill. Lord Steel has put forward some small and valuable proposals, but if anyone honestly believes that those small incremental changes that would put right the legislative incapacity of the previous Government actually address the fundamental constitutional issues about the House of Lords, I have to say that they are fundamentally wrong.
Mr Heath
It might be because we were anticipating 14 days of debate on this measure. The fact that the Government acceded to the majority of the recommendations of the Joint Committee shows that the Government have been prepared to listen.
Some have criticised the voting system, particularly this semi-open list. I made the point in an earlier intervention that that was something that the Labour party asked for. Of course, it asks for something and then it votes against it later, but that is par for the course; we expect that. To those who believe that a list with a voting constituency of millions is not better than a closed list with a voting capacity of one—the Prime Minister of the day, putting forward his or her nominations to the upper House—I have to say that I simply do not accept that argument.
Hazel Blears
Can the Deputy Leader of the House honestly say from the Dispatch Box today that this Bill is genuinely about increasing democracy rather than simply a device to sustain his party as the one holding the balance of power in a second Chamber?
Mr Heath
The right hon. Lady will have to make up her mind. Either the right hon. Lady believes that we are not going to win any seats in the next election, in which case we will not have any seats in the House of Lords under this system—although we would under an appointment system—or the reverse. She cannot have it both ways. I am afraid that there is a slight logical inconsistency in her argument.
The issue of ministerial appointments was raised, and I am happy for us to examine that in Committee. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) inveighed against the practice of bringing people in from outside, giving them ministerial posts and putting them in the upper House. I wonder whether he ever had that conversation with Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, or with any of the other GOATs who were brought in by the last Government.
Mr Blunkett
The point that I was attempting to make—obviously not successfully—was that those Ministers were brought in as, and remained, Members of Parliament. The Government’s proposals do not allow that. They impose a system which will mean that, for the first time in our constitutional history, Ministers will not be part of and embedded in our Parliament.
Mr Heath
The right hon. Gentleman may not have studied the Bill assiduously enough. It is true that those Ministers will not be there for life: the right hon. Gentleman is right about that. Under the present system they are there for life even when they have clearly outlived their ministerial usefulness.
We heard arguments in favour of secondary election, and I think that that is a perfectly valid debate for us to have in Committee. We also heard arguments about primacy. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made what I considered to be a very sensible suggestion about the possibility of a concordat. I thank him for that: it is something that we need to debate.
The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) asked which legal expert the Government had consulted on clause 2. It was Lord Pannick, who I believe the hon. Gentleman thinks is a very good lawyer indeed.
Jesse Norman
In that case, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the same Lord Pannick has been so devastating in his criticisms that were published this afternoon?
Mr Heath
I do not believe that he has, but that is an argument to which we can return in Committee.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) compared the Deputy Prime Minister with Andy Murray. I think that, if anything, he is more like Jonny Marray, in that he is a champion doubles partner, and on that basis the coalition has been succeeding.
Let me now deal with what I think is one of the most important issues on which we shall have to reach a conclusion tomorrow. There are those, predominantly in the official Opposition, who will vote for the end but not for the means, namely the programme motion. I have long argued, as has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that programme motions should, wherever possible, be arranged by agreement. They should be for the convenience of the House: they should enable debate, not restrict it. That is the way in which we have managed things in this Parliament so far.
I repeatedly asked the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) how much more time he wanted. He has 10 days for the Committee stage in addition to the two days for Second Reading and the two days for Report, 14 days in all. I asked him repeatedly how many more days he wanted, but answer came there none. The Opposition cannot say how many days they want, because they decided to vote against the programme motion before it had been published or even suggested. I believe that 14 days out of a total of 88—only 88 days are available to the Government for legislative business during a whole year—are sufficient. If the right hon. Gentleman has a proposal, let him come up with it; but if, as I suspect, he has no proposal whatsoever other than a determination to oppose, he is doing his own argument a great disservice.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman just said that his fundamental principle was that a programme motion should be allowed only when it was for the convenience of the House. If he has not learned from today’s debate that this programme motion is not for the convenience of the House, should he not withdraw it?
Mr Heath
I think that that remains to be seen, but if we are still on clause 1 after 12 days, the House will not have done the Bill justice in its scrutiny.
I have no doubt that the tomorrow’s debate will be argued just as keenly as today’s. I think, and the Government think, that this measure is long overdue, and the polls show that the British public want it. It puts into effect the modest proposition that those who make our laws should be elected by our people, and I commend it to the House.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that we are very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House. I was sorry that he ended his remarks. We were enjoying them and thinking that they would continue until 10 pm, but they did not.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James Duddridge.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Business of the House (11 July)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
As Mr Chope was speaking when the debate was adjourned, I feel sure he will want to continue his sentence where he left it off.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Listening to the Deputy Leader of the House took me back some 24 years to the time when I was on the Front Bench having to do a similar job—winding up the first day of a two-day debate—although in my case it was on the community charge legislation. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is turning around, because he was a participant in that debate, and was very much against the community charge. I remember how difficult it was to argue from the Front Bench, given the atmosphere in the House. A lot of Government Members, including my right hon. Friend, were against the community charge, as well as Opposition Members of course. I therefore sympathise enormously with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) has had to do in the last few minutes. He should take the message that I should have taken on that occasion: when he can see that everything is loaded against him, it is better to call it a day now and abandon the Bill rather than persist with it.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the lesson that we all learned at that time was that the Government should sometimes listen carefully to the advice of their close friends?
Mr Chope
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. His speech today made the case that the Government should think again, withdraw the Bill and make a fresh start.
The business before us relates to our discussions on Wednesday, and I want to make sure that Members who might wish to debate Wednesday’s business on the sitting hours of the House recognise that if they support this motion, they will be limiting the time for discussion to two hours. If they want to do that, that is fine, but I think it is right and proper that Members should have the opportunity to consider whether they wish to limit that debate to two hours.
My other point is that it has been a long-standing tradition and convention in this House that a specific period of time is set aside for the consideration of private business: three hours, between 4 pm and 7 pm on a Wednesday or between 7 pm and 10 pm on a Tuesday. Nowadays, however, the Government almost invariably seek to introduce a motion undermining that principle. The consequence is that Members are left in doubt as to what the order of business will be and, if they are concerned about private business, whether they will have their special three-hour slot allocated to them, or whether it will be interfered with by the business managers. There are some important principles at stake, therefore.
What I am saying is: when it comes to discussing these issues on Wednesday why can we not say that between 4 pm and 7 pm, if it takes that long, we should be able to discuss the private business, as set down under Standing Order No. 20? Why do we need to say that the business of the House starting with the September sittings motion and followed by the debate on VAT on ambulance services should be able to force the private business much later on in the agenda, perhaps until 11 pm or later?
The consequence of that is that some hon. Members will stay behind because they are told that, although it is private business, it is very important and the Government want them to be here. They feel that they have to hang on in there late because the Government have told them to do so. The Government then blame me or somebody else; they say, “The reason you are staying late is that the hon. Member for Christchurch has required that you should stay late by talking this business long.” All I am saying is that we have a three-hour slot on Wednesday, so can we not keep that for private business?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being very unfair to the Government. The suggestion that this Government would try to whip private business is absolutely outrageous; they would not require Members to stay behind.
Mr Chope
Of course my hon. Friend is right to say that ultimately it is for hon. Members to decide whether they are willing to be whipped by the Government into supporting or opposing private business and whether we should allow some things in this House—private business—to be decided by Members on an individual basis, using their own judgment. So be it.
I can recall strongly opposing a private Bill that would have resulted in a substantial destruction of the amenities and environment in Southampton. I was grateful that a lot of then Government Members, including the then Home Secretary, supported me in the Lobby against the Bill; he wondered afterwards what he had been voting for, but I explained that it was in a really good cause.
I admit that there are precedents, but why should we want to oppose having a proper discussion of why we should be carrying on with certain private legislation that has been hanging around in this House for not just one or two years, but for two Sessions or more—for two Parliaments or more? I believe that one of the motions we will be debating on Wednesday goes back to 2007, when it was first introduced in the House.
I need elaborate my remarks no further. All I need to say is that, having raised this debate, it is right and proper that the Deputy Leader of the House should try to make a better job of responding to this debate than he did to the previous one.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I cannot imagine why any right hon. or hon. Member of this House should ever have formed the impression that they were here beyond 10 pm purely because the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) wanted to speak. That is an outrageous suggestion and I would certainly not put it from this Dispatch Box.
This business motion is before us purely at the request of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and the Chair of the Procedure Committee. They asked the Government whether we could arrange business, none of which is Government business, to accommodate the House’s wish to have the opportunity to debate very important matters, given the change in the arrangements that was made to accommodate the debate on the inquiry into bankers last week.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee did indeed make strong representations to the Government about the Back-Bench business that was lost last Thursday because of the Government’s business on the inquiry into banking, and asked them to ensure that that business was reinstated. Having heard what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said about the sittings motions and the private business, I would like clarification that the air ambulance debate selected by the Backbench Business Committee, which has support from many Members on both sides of the House, will get the two hours that the Government intended.
Mr Heath
The answer, very simply, is that it will if the motion is agreed to. The motion provides for the Procedure Committee’s reports to be debated properly; for the hon. Gentleman’s motion, which I know is of interest to many Members and those outside this House, to be debated properly; and for three hours to be given over to opposed private business. There is no detriment to the House whatsoever in acceding to the requests made to us and I am happy to assist.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),
Education
That the draft Further Education Institutions and 16 to 19 Academies (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 24 May, be approved.
Children and Young Persons
That the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 14 May, be approved.
That the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled Activity and Prescribed Criteria) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 14 May, be approved.
Coast Protection
That the draft Designation of Features (Appeals) (England) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
Question agreed to.
regulatory reform
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 18(1)(A)),
Children and Young Persons
That the draft Legislative Reform (Annual Review of Local Authorities) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 10 May, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
Question agreed to.
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Local Government
That the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
Question agreed to.
European union Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11),
Home Affairs Funds for 2014-20
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 17289/11, relating to a draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund, No. 17287/11, relating to a draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management and No. 17285/11, a draft Regulation laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management; and supports the Government’s aim of encouraging flexibility and reducing waste and bureaucracy in the management of these Funds.—(James Duddridge.)
Question agreed to.
Dangerous Driving
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns about the lack of current road traffic measures to address the incidence of fatalities and serious injuries caused by foreign drivers driving on the wrong side of the road in the UK. The UK, as we all know, is one of the few remaining areas within the EU and internationally whose drivers drive on the left-hand side of the road. The sparse statistics available on such road traffic accidents would suggest that more attention needs to be paid to such tragic accidents and that steps need to be taken to reduce or even prevent them.
On 11 September 2010, Andrew Alexander McLean, a 22-year-old, was returning home from his work in the Scottish borders when a car driven by a French driver approached him on the wrong side of the road at the crest of a hill. Andrew saw the oncoming vehicle and steered for the verge, but, sadly, as the French driver was on the wrong side of the road he too steered for the verge straight into Andrew, who was killed instantly. Although, as we can imagine, this is still a very sensitive matter for Andrew’s family, they have asked me to raise the matter through this debate in the hope that it will be given more prominence.
The French driver, a 23-year-old schoolteacher, was driving in the UK for the first time in his left-hand drive Peugeot 307 when the accident happened, and the subsequent court case in Selkirk heard that the accident was caused
“by a moment’s inattention resulting from the accused’s inexperience of driving in the UK”.
The accused’s defence lawyer claimed there were no aggravating factors in the build-up to the accident such as speeding or lack of rest. He momentarily suffered a lapse in concentration and responded by acting instinctively, moving to the right-hand side of the road, which was the right side for him but was sadly the wrong side of the road in Scotland. Even given those mitigating circumstances, Andrew’s family feels that the court’s sentence was lenient, although I appreciate that that is not an issue for tonight’s discussion.
Such accidents are a tragedy for the victim and in many cases the perpetrator. Often forgotten are the families of the victim, and I was initially alerted to this case by Andrew’s grandmother, Mrs Billett, who is a constituent living in Stirling. I have been specifically asked to highlight the case by Andrew’s family, including his father, as they wish to see the Government take steps to investigate ways to prevent foreign drivers from driving on the wrong side of the road.
I want to put a series of points to the Minister, perhaps with a view to investigating such road deaths and helping to reduce their number. I am aware, as he will be, that the Scottish Government have some devolved responsibility for road issues, such as accidents on Scottish roads, and I understand that they have published a policy framework, “Go Safe on Scotland’s Roads it’s Everyone’s Responsibility”, which covers the period up to 2020. Chapter 7 of that document refers to a Scottish Government report of 2001, stating that although
“tourist activity does not significantly boost road accident numbers in the rural… areas of Scotland”
such accidents do occur and most often
“involved driving on the wrong side, turning, and crossing the centre line”,
while 20% of collisions caused by cross-border drivers occurred when the driver was on the wrong side of the road.
As far as I can ascertain, the policy of the Scottish Government in relation to foreign drivers on Scottish roads is the publication of a tourist information guide for foreign drivers, which includes a “keep left” sticker available in four languages. I am not sure whether a similar minimum warning is given at ports in other parts of the UK. In certain areas, there are warning signs to “keep left”.
An issue allied to the circumstances surrounding Andrew’s death is the number of foreign truck drivers involved in road accidents in the UK. A press report of February 2012 suggested that one in every 31 motorway accidents in the UK was the fault of lorry drivers from abroad. It was also alleged that on the M25 the figure could be as high as one accident in three. While that might not be directly the result of foreign truck drivers driving on the wrong side of the road, I believe that there is little information held by the Department for Transport either to rebut or to substantiate such assertions.
I recently met the Association of British Insurers, which produced a report, “European Drivers: Crossing Borders Safely”, in November 2007. The report stated that drivers from elsewhere in Europe were involved in more than 18,000 recorded accidents in the UK. In 2005, UK drivers caused more than 5,000 reported collisions on continental European roads. The ABI believes that the UK Government are underestimating the risks that cross-border drivers pose and that they
“should establish an accurate and consistent picture of crossborder driving in the UK, in order to measure the risk that this represents and therefore take proportionate action”.
In addition, the ABI proposes a series of easy measures that could be implemented in the interim.
In November 2011, in a written parliamentary question to the Department for Transport, I asked:
“how many fatal vehicle accidents have occurred where a visitor to the UK driving on the wrong side of the road was a contributory factor in the last 10 years.”
The Minister kindly provided me with a written response, which detailed in a table the
“reported fatal road accidents which had ‘inexperience of driving on the left’ as a contributory factor, in Great Britain for the period 2005-10. However, it is not known how many drivers involved in such accidents were visitors to Great Britain, or if they were driving on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident.”
The table for that five-year period stated that there had been 55 such fatal accidents—a figure that I suspect grossly underestimates the scale of the problem if full reporting were in place and non-fatal serious accident statistics were included.
However, the Minister also advised that while
“contributory factors to road accidents has been collected since 1 January 2005”
such contributory factors
“are reported only for injury road accidents where a police officer attended the scene and reported at least one contributory factor. These factors are largely subjective, reflecting the attending officer’s opinion at the time of reporting. It is recognised that subsequent enquires could lead to the reporting officer changing his/her opinion.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 892W.]
It would appear, therefore, that full statistics are not available for foreign drivers driving on the wrong side of the road and being involved in fatal or serious accidents.
Since his tragic death, Andrew McLean’s family have been campaigning for Government measures that would reduce or prevent similar fatalities in the future. They have spent considerable time researching possible options, and they have advised me that some devices could be fitted to foreign cars being driven on UK roads. One such device, Lanesafe, is produced by a Scottish company, although I understand that other types of equipment are available. The manufacturers of Lanesafe have suggested that annually 8 million vehicles travel between the UK and Europe and vice versa, and more than 80% of drivers admit to momentarily, at some point, driving on the wrong side of the road. I am not sure whether those figures can be substantiated, but if they are accurate, I would contend that this subject requires much greater consideration by the Minister and his Department.
Andrew’s father strongly believes that devices such as Lanesafe, which would alert drivers when they are driving on the wrong side of the road, ought to be made compulsory for all foreign drivers. He is also totally convinced that, if such a device had been fitted to the car that caused his son’s death, his son would be alive today. Despite all the representations that he and the family have made, they feel frustrated that they cannot get anyone in the Government to listen to their suggestions on the implementation, fitting, checking and policing of the devices that he has identified. I am therefore delighted to have had the opportunity to discuss them this evening. Andrew’s family realise that his death is but one of numerous accidents involving young drivers, and they are keen to ensure that the wider issue is given greater prominence. The family have been energetic fundraisers for Brake, the national road safety charity.
I hope that the Minister recognises that there is a problem involving foreign drivers driving on the wrong side of UK roads. Without accurate and up-to-date statistics, the Government cannot say with certainty that the problem is not serious. I ask him to begin the process of ascertaining the facts, so that we can make a judgment on what action is needed. Andrew Alexander McLean’s family have made the case for action, and in Andrew’s memory as well as that of others killed and seriously injured on our roads by drivers driving on the wrong side of the road, I trust that the Government will look seriously at the options available. I certainly hope that they take into account the fact that, both in Europe and in the UK, many young people now drive cars that are not fitted to drive on the “right” side of the road in that country.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he will give some comfort to Andrew McLean’s family by assuring me that he will consider anything that will enhance safety on our roads, not least for our young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is an honour and a privilege to respond on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government to the debate introduced by the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) on such a serious subject.
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady knows this, but in a previous incarnation I was a firefighter. All too often, I was called to road traffic incidents—they were called something slightly different in those days, but I am more politically correct now. It is heartbreaking for families to lose a loved one, and my thoughts and prayers are with Andrew’s family.
Let me say at the outset that I hope that we can arrange a meeting with the family, because our time this evening is quite short and what we can discuss is limited. I passionately believe that, in many cases, what families bring to the road safety debate is a lot more than the “professionals” bring. It is important that families feel involved. I think it is a shame that we have not debated the matter before. I fully respect the right hon. Lady’s point about how limited the statistics are; I am all too aware of that. When I answered her parliamentary question, I tried desperately to open it up as much as possible. She will recall how long that answer was. I was disappointed that the statistics that I gave did not tell the whole story. For instance, the deaths per year figure could have included a driver from another country in Europe or anywhere in the world, inexperienced at driving on the left, who was driving a right-hand drive hire vehicle on UK roads. We are looking into whether we can make the statistics clearer. As the right hon. Lady suggested, the police have to form an opinion on whether that was a contributing factor. In Andrew’s case it obviously was. I feel for the family when a court makes a decision that does not feel to them or to us like natural justice. I know that we are not allowed to go into the court’s decision, although we have powers as Members of Parliament to appeal against leniency in some cases, and very good lawyers sometimes get results from the courts. We need to make sure that the legislation on the statute book fits the circumstances.
The title of the debate covers a broad spectrum, but as we were preparing for it I guessed that the right hon. Lady would raise a very serious issue. I thank her for the fact that her office contacted mine earlier today to give us an indication of what she would be speaking about this evening.
On dangerous driving offences, we are tightening up. In a serious case resulting in death, such as the one the right hon. Lady spoke about, there is in my opinion only one charge that could have been brought, but that is entirely up to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in England or the Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing the matter to the House today. I spoke to the Minister earlier. With reference to the information and the statistics that the right hon. Lady asked for, will that include the relationship that Northern Ireland has with the Republic of Ireland and the relevant statistics? When it come to pursuing those who were involved in accidents and who flee the country, how will the Government deal with that?
Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He indicated to me earlier that he would intervene. There are reciprocal agreements between the Republic and not only Northern Ireland but the rest of the United Kingdom. Interestingly, the Commission is looking at those reciprocal agreements to see whether they are fit and proper. I think the agreements work well between the Republic and the Province and the rest of the UK. We have very good relationships so prosecutions do take place. In the case of an offence as serious as the one described, it would not matter where the driver came from. They would be arrested on the spot if the police thought that they were responsible for committing an offence, and they would be prosecuted through the courts, as is right and proper.
I accept that there is an issue with minor offences, though not so much with commercial vehicles because of the system whereby we hold a deposit. If the vehicle is overweight or the driver has worked more hours than he should, we take a deposit so that they do not pay the fine. There is much more of a problem with cars. We have to be slightly careful that we do not damage our tourism industry. We want people to come to this country, drive responsibly and enjoy the wonderful countryside of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. I have seen what the devolved Parliament in Scotland has put out.
The difficulty arises at port. We cannot in any way delay someone at port under the existing agreements. In the case of some of the heavy goods vehicles that come into our ports, which we know have a track record of not being as roadworthy as they should be, I would like to detain them before they get on to UK roads. We are working with the Commission on the problem, but at present we have to let the vehicles get on to the road before we can stop them, which seems a somewhat perverse way of dealing with the problem.
There are things that we can do. The right hon. Lady referred to Lanesafe. Technology is moving on enormously. I recently drove a mid-range vehicle at the manufacturer’s test track—I must not advertise the company, but it is well known in the UK. It had lane awareness, so as I started to drift from the lane it pulled me back, although it is possible to override that. It had distance awareness, in case I got too close to the vehicle in front. More frighteningly, for those of us with daughters who drive, it had independent parking, so I was able to take my hands off the steering wheel and the car parked itself. I am not being sexist about my daughters’ driving abilities, but both my girls have had great difficulty with lateral parking—they will not mind my saying that. That is not one of the most expensive cars, a dream car or a concept car; it is a mid-range vehicle available in showrooms today.
That sort of technology is becoming available and car manufacturers are producing products such as Lanesafe, which the right hon. Lady mentioned. We would have to be very careful, because the Commission would come down on me like a ton of bricks if I in any way discriminated against another member of the European economic area who has a free right of travel here. In other words, I would have to make that available across the board, so the compulsion part would be quite difficult.
The right hon. Lady said that she had had a meeting with the Association of British Insurers. I have many such meetings. I must be honest and admit that this was not at the top of its list when it raised the matter with me. There are many other things it is concerned about, particularly the cost of insurance for young people and how we can make that transparent, but we must ensure that any ideas out there are listened to and that we work on an evidence base and ensure that our roads, which are some of the safest in the world, continue to be so.
We are very conscious of the concerns that the right hon. Lady raised about HGVs and overseas drivers, not least because they come here with their belly tanks full of diesel and compete with our hauliers. Even with the existing cabotage rules it is difficult for our hauliers to compete, so we are going to introduce lorry road user charging in this Parliament so that there is a better balance in the legislation and our truckers can compete with foreign hauliers.
However, the figures on actual incidents are very interesting. Only about 5% of the whole haulage industry is affected by overseas hauliers, and that is at the top end of the range, with the larger 44-tonners. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that they are disproportionately represented in accidents, but not necessarily the most serious ones, which is the point I think she was making. The word “incident” is there for everyone to see. Some are reported and some are not. We are trying to ensure that foreign haulage vehicles are as rigidly maintained and as safe as our vehicles.
The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency does an excellent job of enforcement in this regard. Only recently I was on a motorway with VOSA staff when a foreign-registered 45-tonne truck went under a bridge that we had a monitor on. The electronic monitor showed that two of its axels were overweight, so the technology is simply outstanding. We pulled the vehicle over and got it to follow us back on to the weigh bridge. We identified that it was not only over its cabotage but over its hours, so we tend to pick up other things as well. What we must ensure is that exactly the same rules apply to our hauliers as apply to others.
The right hon. Lady touched on a really important point about gathering evidence. We gather unbelievable amounts of data from the police, VOSA, DVLA, ports, the Highways Agency and the courts, but do we make sure that we gather the data that we really need and are not just form-filling for the sake of it? Do we focus on exactly what we require so that, for instance, we can get a better answer to the parliamentary question she asked me? The answer is that we try. I think I am right in saying that the police fill in more than enough forms—I was on patrol with the police in my constituency on Friday night, and the amount of form-filling was mind-boggling—so we do not want them to fill in more forms; we want the forms to be as accurate as possible to give the information we require but not to be too opinionated. The evidence is absolutely crucial. The right hon. Lady says that the figures are often skewed because the police officer may think, at the time of the incident, that something was a contributory factor, but later, after looking at the evidence, that it probably was not.
We are trying to take the issue very seriously. The right hon. Lady was part of, and had a ministerial role in, the previous Administration, and such work is difficult, but that does not mean we should not do it. I am conscious that we need to do everything that we can to ensure that our roads continue to be some of the safest in the world, and that when we have visitors to this country, whether for pleasure or for business, we give them as much assistance as possible to ensure that they know what their obligations are on our roads.
We have reciprocal agreements with some countries, and I think we could develop that much more to ensure that prosecutions take place. In the case of serious offences, prosecutions do take place because the person is arrested there and then and often their bail conditions make it difficult for them to leave the country before they return to court.
The one thing that we must do, however, is to listen to the families—both the families who want, for understandable reasons, to walk away when a loved one has been lost or seriously injured, and the families who want to campaign and to make things better so that such incidents do not happen to others. I have done that with many families, by bringing them in to work with the Department, and we have actually funded some of their campaigns, rather than just those of larger organisations.
If we can do that, we can make our roads much safer, we can have fewer terrible incidents such as the one involving Andrew, and we can protect our tourism industry and allow, as we have to under EU rules, free movement, which is what we would all expect.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oil and Gas Taxation
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
At Budget 2012, the Government announced a package of measures on oil and gas taxation to support investment. This package included the introduction of legislation in 2013 giving the Government statutory authority to sign contracts with companies operating in the UK and UK continental shelf (UKCS), to provide assurance on the tax relief they will receive when decommissioning assets.
The Government recognise that, at present, a lack of certainty over how much tax relief companies expect to be able to claim in respect of their future decommissioning costs is making it difficult for oil and gas assets to change hands, limiting the funds available for new ventures and deterring incremental investment.
HM Treasury is today publishing the following document: “Decommissioning Relief Deeds: Increasing tax certainty for oil and gas investment in the UK continental shelf”.
This consultation document seeks views on the Government’s proposals to provide certainty on decommissioning relief through decommissioning relief deeds.
It is proposed that these deeds will provide eligible companies with certainty that, if they do not achieve a specified level of relief under the tax code when they decommission their assets, they will (subject to certain conditions) be entitled to claim a shortfall payment from the Government.
This contractual approach is intended to facilitate further investment and production in the UKCS and is therefore expected to have a positive impact on the Exchequer.
The initial consultation period will last for 12 weeks, closing on 1 October 2012.
A copy of the consultation will be made available from the HM Treasury website: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.
ECOFIN
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 10 July 2012. Ministers will discuss the following items:
Economic governance—two pack
Ministers will hold an orientation debate on the “two pack” of economic governance proposals, to discuss the European Parliament’s position. This will inform the first working-level trialogue meeting with the European Parliament on 11 July.
The first proposal concerns strengthening surveillance of budgetary policies in euro area member states. It would require euro area countries to present their draft budgets at the same time each year and give the Commission the right to assess and, if necessary, issue an opinion on them. The second proposal concerns strengthening economic and fiscal surveillance of euro area countries facing or threatened with serious financial instability. It aims to ensure that the surveillance of member states under a financial assistance programme, or facing a serious threat of financial instability, is robust, follows clear procedures and is embedded in EU law.
The UK broadly welcomes these proposals, which will be an important part of governance reforms. The proposals will help improve fiscal stability in the euro area, which is in the UK’s national interest. The euro area must put in place governance arrangements to create confidence for the future and ensure fiscal responsibility.
(possible agenda item.) Revised capital requirements rules (CRD4)
The presidency may update Ministers on the latest trialogue negotiations, following the general approach agreed by Ministers at 15 May ECOFIN. The UK continues to support the full implementation of Basel III and for member states to have sufficient flexibility to increase minimum standards in order to protect financial stability in their jurisdiction.
Proposal for Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive
This item was deferred from the 22 June ECOFIN. The Commission will present its new proposals for a directive, following which Ministers may then have an initial exchange of views. The directive will require member states to ensure that their national supervisory and resolution authorities have a set of common tools and powers which will enable them to avert, and where necessary manage, the failure of a financial institution. The proposal seeks to prevent the systemic damage caused by the disorderly failure of such institutions, limiting public sector exposure and preventing wider economic damage.
Presentation of the Cyprus Presidency Work Programme
The new presidency will set out their work programme for the next six months. Ministers will have an exchange of views on Cyprus’ work programme.
Follow-up to the European Council on 28-29 June 2012
Ministers will discuss the follow-up to the European Council, which considered a paper by the four presidents (of the Council, Eurogroup, ECB and Commission), “Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union” and agreed a “Compact for Growth and Jobs”.
Contributions to the European Council Meeting on 28/29 June 2012—European Semester
The presidency will ask Ministers to adopt Council recommendations on national reform programmes and stability or convergence programmes. The recommendations were endorsed at June European Council. The UK supports the European semester process and the country specific recommendations.
Children's Commissioner for England
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
Following John Dunford’s independent review of the role of the Children’s Commissioner, I informed the House that the Government had accepted in principle all of his recommendations and said that we would consult on the legislative changes needed to implement them. Having taken account of the responses to the consultation, I am today laying draft legislation before the House for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government aim to make the UK the most child-friendly country in Europe. Children are generally more vulnerable than adults and do not have the same opportunities to make their views known or to raise concerns about the impact of new policies or legislation. It is therefore important that they have a strong advocate to represent their interests, particularly when they are in vulnerable situations.
John Dunford’s independent review concluded that there was a continuing need for a Children’s Commissioner, who could act as a champion for children and young people—ensuring that their voices were heard and that new policies and legislation were designed in a way that took account of their rights. However, he said that the current legislative framework had prevented the Commissioner from fulfilling that role effectively, and that changes were needed to ensure that the Commissioner would, in future, have greater impact on children and young people’s lives.
The draft legislation laid before the House today would create a new role for the Children’s Commissioner, focused on promoting and protecting the rights of children, in line with the articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the Government are a committed signatory. In order to carry out the role effectively, the Children’s Commissioner would have powers to:
carry out investigations;
carry out assessments of the impact of new policies and legislation on children’s rights;
undertake research;
monitor the effectiveness of complaints and advocacy services for children and young people;
access places where children are cared for or accommodated away from home, so that their concerns can be heard;
request the information needed to carry out full and robust investigations;
require those to whom recommendations are made to set out how they intend to respond.
The draft legislation would make the Children’s Commissioner more independent from Government and more directly accountable to Parliament, in particular through an annual report to Parliament that will allow for more effective scrutiny of the impact that the Children’s Commissioner’s activities have had on the promotion and protection of children’s rights. The draft legislation also includes measures designed to make the Commissioner’s business planning processes more transparent, by making it a requirement for the Commissioner to consult on his or her future priorities and to appoint an advisory board.
In line with John Dunford’s recommendations, the draft legislation would also result in the functions of the children’s rights director in Ofsted being incorporated within the remit of the Children’s Commissioner, but with safeguards to ensure that the current levels of support provided to this vulnerable group of children were not diluted.
Under the draft legislation, the Children’s Commissioner for England would retain responsibility for non-devolved matters, but would be able to delegate his or her powers of investigation to the Children’s Commissioners in the devolved Administrations. The Children’s Commissioner for England would also be required to consult the Children’s Commissioners in the devolved Administrations before conducting an investigation on a non-devolved matter within their jurisdictions or across the UK.
Copies of the draft legislation will be placed in the House Libraries.
Flooding
(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)
Following my written ministerial statement to the House on 3 July 2012, Official Report, column 48WS concerning the flooding events in the midlands and north-east of England on 28 June, I would like to provide a further update on the significant flooding events that have taken place over this weekend on 6 to 8 July in England following further periods of extremely high rainfall.
I would also like to acknowledge the tragic events which have taken place in the Krasnodar region of Russia over the weekend and to express our sympathies for the communities and individuals involved.
During Friday and Saturday there was heavy and persistent rainfall across England and Wales, which on top of the already saturated ground has caused serious flooding in some areas and disruption to many more. There were widespread local impacts including to property, transport networks, sporting and cultural events, and agricultural land.
I can confirm that on the latest count a total of 391 properties were flooded across England from rivers and surface water flooding. One hundred and forty-seven properties flooded in the south-west; two-thirds of which were flooded due to rivers overflowing their banks and the rest from surface water. Eighty properties were flooded in the midlands and a further 86 in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and the north.
Nationally it is estimated that about 3,000 properties have been protected from flooding over this weekend as a result of flood defences in place. The Met Office and the Environment Agency have been providing flood and weather warnings and over 200 flood warnings and alerts were sent to communities at risk of flooding across the country, including three warnings of severe river flooding.
Following the wettest June since records began across England and Wales, the rainfall in July falling in East Devon was over 100 mm—three times the rain normally expected for the whole of July—and across the south Pennines over 60 mm of rain fell which is 75% of the rain expected for the whole month. These rainfall figures demonstrate how severe and unusual the conditions have been but despite this we are determined to carry on improving our resilience to deal with this type of weather in the future.
On Sunday I visited the town of Ottery St Mary in the south-west and saw for myself the damage and disruption to people’s lives that this flooding has caused. I would like to thank the local authorities and other agencies in the area for their efforts to protect lives and properties in Ottery and other affected communities and now to help them begin to clear up.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is activating the Bellwin scheme of emergency financial assistance to help local authorities with their immediate costs associated with protecting life and property in their areas. Exceptionally, the scheme will reimburse local authorities for 100% of their eligible costs above threshold. This is in recognition of the particular circumstances around these floods and will give the affected local authorities assurance that such costs will be reimbursed. Government officials will also be discussing the recovery arrangements with local authorities in the areas affected.
The Government recognise the importance which flood insurance plays in these circumstances and are working closely with the insurance industry to secure the future availability and affordability of flood insurance following the expiry of the statement of principles next year.
I am pleased to be able to report that the situation in the south-west and other parts of England worst hit by the floods continues to slowly improve. There are no longer any severe flood warnings in force. I would like once again to take the opportunity to praise the excellent response from our front-line emergency services, local authorities and the diligent work by Met Office and Environment Agency staff in the Flood Forecasting Centre. With the forecast indicating continuing unsettled weather, we will all need to remain alert to the risk of further flooding in the coming weeks.
It is my intention to hold a technical briefing for flood affected constituencies in the early part of next week to enable MPs to be made aware of the full range of tools at their disposal to help their constituents.
P5 Conference of Nuclear Disarmament
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I would like to update the House on the outcomes of the Washington conference of the five nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) recognised nuclear weapon states (P5) on nuclear disarmament, which took place 27-29 June.
This was the third such conference at senior official level. It followed conferences in the UK (September 2009) and Paris (June 2011), which brought together policy officials, military staff and nuclear scientists from all five nuclear weapons states.
The conference was an important part of the international dialogue on nuclear disarmament demonstrating a shared determination to make progress on the commitments set out in the 2010 NPT action plan.
The P5 issued the following statement after the meeting:
“The five nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) nuclear-weapon states, or “P5”, met in Washington on June 27-29, 2012, in the wake of the 2009 London and 2011 Paris P5 conferences to review progress towards fulfilling the commitments made at the 2010 NPT review conference, and to continue discussions on issues related to all three pillars of the NPT—non-proliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and disarmament, including confidence-building, transparency, and verification experiences.
The P5 reaffirmed their commitment to the shared goal of nuclear disarmament and emphasized the importance of working together in implementing the 2010 NPT review conference action plan. The P5 reviewed significant developments in the context of the NPT since the 2011 Paris P5 conference. In particular, the P5 reviewed the outcome of the 2012 preparatory committee for the 2015 NPT review conference, continued their discussion of how to report on their relevant activities, and shared views, across all three pillars of the NPT, on objectives for the 2013 preparatory committee and the intersessional period. The 2012 PrepCom outcome included issuance of a P5 statement comprehensively addressing issues in all three pillars (NPT/CONF.2015/PC.I/12).
The P5 continued their previous discussions on the issues of transparency, mutual confidence, and verification, and considered proposals for a standard reporting form. The P5 recognise the importance of establishing a firm foundation for mutual confidence and further disarmament efforts, and the P5 will continue their discussions in multiple ways within the P5, with a view to reporting to the 2014 PrepCom, consistent with their commitments under actions 5, 20, and 21 of the 2010 RevCon final document.
Participants received a briefing from the United States on US activities at the Nevada National Security Site. This was offered with a view to demonstrate ideas for additional approaches to transparency.
Another unilateral measure was a tour of the US Nuclear Risk Reduction Center located at the US Department of State, where the P5 representatives have observed how the United States maintains a communications center to simultaneously implement notification regimes, including under the new strategic arms reduction treaty (New START), Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC), and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Vienna document.
The P5 agreed on the work plan for a P5 working group led by China, assigned to develop a glossary of definitions for key nuclear terms that will increase P5 mutual understanding and facilitate further P5 discussions on nuclear matters.
The P5 again shared information on their respective bilateral and multilateral experiences in verification, including information on the P5 expert level meeting hosted by the UK in April, at which the UK shared the outcomes and lessons from the UK/Norway Initiative disarmament verification research project. The P5 heard presentations on lessons learned from New START treaty implementation, were given an overview of US/UK verification work, and agreed to consider attending a follow-up P5 briefing on this work to be hosted by the United States.
As a further follow-up to the 2010 NPT review conference, the P5 shared their views on how to discourage abuse of the NPT withdrawal provision (Article X), and how to respond to notifications made consistent with the provisions of that article. The discussion included modalities under which NPT states party could respond collectively and individually to a notification of withdrawal, including through arrangements regarding the disposition of equipment and materials acquired or derived under safeguards during NPT membership. The P5 agreed that states remain responsible under international law for violations of the treaty committed prior to withdrawal.
The P5 underlined the fundamental importance of an effective International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards system in preventing nuclear proliferation and facilitating co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The P5 discussed concrete proposals for strengthening IAEA safeguards, including through promoting the universal adoption of the additional protocol; and the reinforcement of the IAEA’s resources and capabilities for effective safeguards implementation, including verification of declarations by states.
The P5 reiterated their commitment to promote and ensure the swift entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and its universalisation. The P5 reviewed progress in developing the CTBT’s verification regime in all its aspects and efforts towards entry into force. Ways to enhance the momentum for completing the verification regime, including the on-site inspection component, were explored. The P5 called upon all states to uphold their national moratoria on nuclear weapons test explosions or any other nuclear explosion, and to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty pending its entry into force. The moratoria, though important, are not substitutes for legally binding obligations under the CTBT.
The P5 discussed ways to advance a mutual goal of achieving a legally binding, verifiable international ban on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. The P5 reiterated their support for the immediate start of negotiations on a treaty encompassing such a ban in the conference on disarmament (CD), building on CD/1864, and exchanged perspectives on ways to break the current impasse in the CD, including by continuing their efforts with other relevant partners to promote such negotiations within the CD.
The P5 remain concerned about serious challenges to the non-proliferation regime and in this connection, recalled their joint statement of May 3 at the preparatory committee of the NPT.
An exchange of views on how to support a successful conference in 2012 on a middle east zone free of weapons of mass destruction was continued.
The P5 agreed to continue to meet at all appropriate levels on nuclear issues to further promote dialogue and mutual confidence. The P5 will follow on their discussions and hold a fourth P5 conference in the context of the next NPT preparatory committee”.
Access to Elected Office for Disabled People
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)
The Government are today launching a £2.6 million fund to support disabled people who wish to stand for elected office. This proposal forms part of the Government’s strategy to provide support for disabled people—the access to elected office strategy. Following public consultation, the strategy has been developed by the Home Office, working with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions.
Disabled people are under-represented in public life, as the Speaker’s conference report and the parliamentary debate on 12 January recognised. Following public consultation, the Government last year published proposals to provide extra support for disabled people who wish to stand for elected office.
The fund we are launching today will support disabled people with some of the additional costs that a disabled person may face in standing for elections, compared to a non-disabled person.
This will not, however, replace existing obligations for parties, which is why I have published guidance for political parties on their legal responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, particularly on the reasonable adjustments they should make for disabled people.
The fund will be open until March 2014 and will be available to support disabled people seeking elected positions in the following polls, including byelections: Police and Crime Commissioners; English local and English mayoral; Greater London Authority; and UK Parliament. The impact of the fund and the strategy overall will be evaluated to inform any decision about any further support beyond the current spending period. We will also continue to work with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to share our learning from this strategy.
The fund will be complemented by an introductory online training course on standing for elections, launched today. It will be of interest to anyone without previous experience who wishes to stand for elections but is aimed particularly at disabled people. It includes contributions from disabled politicians and others to encourage disabled people to stand for elected office.
As I have already announced to the Speaker in my letter of 16 March, I am also pleased to say that, as part of the access to elected office’s commitment to provide support to disabled people, I am funding up to three additional placements specifically for disabled people as part of the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme.
Further details of all these initiatives can be found on the Home Office website at: http://homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/equality-public-political/.
Student Visas
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in the immigration rules. The changes support the introduction of a new targeted interview programme by the UK Border Agency, to ensure students seeking to abuse the immigration system are identified and refused a visa for the UK. The UK Border Agency plans to interview between 10,000 and 14,000 student visa applicants over the coming year.
The first change makes provision for an entry clearance officer to be satisfied that an applicant is a genuine student before granting entry clearance under tier 4 of the points-based system. The second change makes provision for an entry clearance officer to refuse to issue entry clearance where the applicant fails to attend an interview without providing a reasonable explanation. Both changes will be effective from 30 July 2012.
From December 2011 to the end of February 2012 the UK Border Agency ran an interviewing pilot. The pilot assessed the effectiveness of interviewing more student visa applicants. It also considered the requirement for and potential impact of a new power to refuse entry clearance on grounds of genuineness. Over 2,300 visa applicants from 47 countries were interviewed. Seventeen per cent of those interviewed were refused a visa under existing powers. Entry clearance officers indicated they could have refused up to 32% of the remainder on grounds of genuineness. The full evaluation report of the pilot is being published today, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
Since 2011 the Government have overhauled the student visa system to tackle abuse while continuing to attract and retain the brightest and best students who will help drive growth in the economy. It has introduced a range of measures to tighten controls on institutions sponsoring international students, remove the entitlements that provided false incentives to those motivated by work not study, and ensure only those with the most to offer remain in the UK at the end of their course. Over 450 colleges have now lost their right to bring international students to the UK, and the number of student visas issued in the year to March 2012 fell by 21%.
While these changes have significantly strengthened the student visa regime, the pilot study identified some residual abuse. The findings indicate that targeted overseas interviews, supported by new powers of refusal, are useful additional tools to support entry clearance officers to identify and tackle it. These risk-based controls will be used alongside the wide range of other checks already operated by the UK Border Agency.
These measures do not alter the duty on tier 4 sponsors to satisfy themselves that an applicant is able and intends to follow the course of study. They are designed to protect reputable providers that have made offers to students in good faith, and would otherwise risk UK Border Agency compliance action. Providers often undertake recruitment activity remotely, through agents.
Interviewing will provide an additional layer of scrutiny, where needed, to help safeguard institutions. Interviews also will provide applicants with every opportunity to demonstrate how they meet the genuine student rule. Students from low-risk countries who already benefit from a streamlined visa application process will be exempt from the genuineness test.
Further details on the application of these provisions will be set out in UK Border Agency guidance.
Justice and Security Bill
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Today I have laid before Parliament the Government’s response to the House of Lords Select Committee on the constitution’s report on the Justice and Security Bill, which was published on 15 June. We have sought to respond promptly in order to help inform the upcoming debates on the Bill.
Personal Independence Payment and Blue Badge Eligibility
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I am today publishing a consultation document on personal independence payment and eligibility for a blue badge. The consultation period closes on Tuesday 2 October 2012.
The coalition Government are taking forward important reforms to the welfare system. One of these reforms will involve changes to disability living allowance and will affect eligibility for a disabled person’s parking permit or blue badge. About a third of all badges are currently issued to people who receive the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance. My Department is therefore consulting on the options we have for dealing with the impact of the changes. The consultation covers arrangements for England only.
I am committed to ensuring that the blue badge scheme continues to be focused on those people who will benefit most from the parking concessions that it offers, and that it is sustainable in the future. The Government have identified three main options for responding to the implementation of personal independence payments. The three main options are:
Option 1—no legislative link between eligibility for a blue badge and eligibility to personal independence payment;
Option 2—establishing a legislative link between blue badge eligibility and the enhanced mobility component of personal independence payment;
Option 3—establishing a legislative link between blue badge eligibility and those who score eight points or more within the “Moving Around” activity within personal independence payment. This assesses a person’s physical ability to get around.
The Government’s preferred option is option 3 as it would mean that eligibility for a blue badge would be most similar to the current scheme and the potential impacts of this option are minimal. We will, however, consider this in light of views and comments sent in as part of the consultation. The Government are also asking for other suggestions for other practical and sustainable solutions.
The consultation concludes on 2 October 2012. Personal independence payments will be introduced for new claimants aged between 16 and 64 from April 2013 onwards. It will begin to replace disability living allowance for existing recipients aged between 16 and 64 from October 2013 onwards. Any consequential changes to the blue badge scheme will also be phased in and will affect existing badge holders when an existing badge expires and they need to apply for a new one.
A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library of the House.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Civil Aviation Bill
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to stop the Bill from apparently removing the Treasury’s oversight on non-executive pay at the Civil Aviation Authority, which was provided for in the 1982 Act that established the CAA. Under the Bill’s proposals, decisions on pay, allowances, pensions or gratuities will be determined solely by the Secretary of State for Transport.
Following recent failures to take action over excessive pay until forced into it by political and public pressure, as with RBS and Network Rail where the Secretary of State for Transport initially denied that she could do anything about the level of bonus payments to top executives, there should not be any weakening of oversight on remuneration payments. At this time of increased and justified public concern about levels of pay and bonuses, it is hardly appropriate for the Government to be seeking to remove a layer of checks and balances on the setting of CAA non-executive board members’ pay.
The CAA non-executive members were paid varying amounts up to some £77,000 in 2010-11. Non-executive board members are not there simply to make up the numbers or to add a veneer of outside independence and challenge. They are there as critical friends to challenge and question the senior executives on both the policies that they are pursuing and the policies that they are not, including accounting and financial policies, and to ensure that appropriate corporate governance arrangements are not only in place but are being properly implemented and applied.
Under the Bill, the CAA non-executive members will also determine the terms and conditions on which the chief executive is to be employed and who should be appointed. Other executive members are to be appointed by the chief executive with the approval of the chair and at least one other non-executive member who also will have to approve the terms and conditions under which other executives are employed. The role and importance of the CAA non-executive members is further enhanced not just by the more influential role that the CAA will have but also by the fact that the Secretary of State and the chief executive must exercise their powers to secure that, as far as practicable, the number of non-executive members exceeds the number of executive members.
So at a time when there is increasing concern about remuneration packages and bonuses; at a time when CAA non-executives will be involved in the major senior executive appointments and their terms and conditions; at the same time as the role of the Civil Aviation Authority is being increased; and at the same time as the importance of non-executives is being increased by there being a requirement in this Bill for the number of non-executives to exceed the number of executive members, the Government decide that this is the appropriate time to remove the oversight that the Treasury has on non-executive pay at the CAA. The Treasury can provide a degree of impartiality over decisions on the remuneration of Department for Transport appointees, as well as having knowledge of what remuneration levels are for non-executive members appointed through other departments of state. The Government’s logic does not add up. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I hope that I can clarify the Government’s position on these probing amendments. In the current political environment and with the public interest in these matters, I can quite understand why the noble Lord has tabled them.
There are several reasons why I cannot support all these amendments, to which I will come shortly. By way of background, the changes introduced by the Bill that these amendments seek to overturn complete a series of governance reforms recommended by Sir Joseph Pilling following his 2008 strategic review of the Civil Aviation Authority. Sir Joseph’s conclusion was that the involvement of two government departments in remuneration decisions was unnecessary. He said:
“In evidence to the review the Treasury explained that the CAA was the only regulator it looked at in this way … The statutory requirement for the Treasury to approve the Civil Aviation’s members’ remuneration and pensions is an anomaly. I recommend that the Department for Transport seek to amend the legislation so that the responsibility lies solely with the Secretary of State”.
He also asked the Department for Transport to consider the approach of some other UK regulatory bodies where the board appoints executive directors without ministerial involvement. The previous Government accepted those recommendations and consulted on the proposals reflected in the Bill. The Government agree with Sir Joseph’s conclusions that the oversight of the Treasury is an anomaly that adds no value. The Committee should note that there is no equivalent requirement for any comparable regulatory body, so Clause 96 implements an important aspect of the Pilling report. It would remove Treasury involvement in approving the remuneration of non-executive members. Removing Treasury oversight will also remove unnecessary government duplication; there is no need for two government departments to be concerned with CAA board remuneration. It will also reduce unnecessary delays in the appointment of non-executive members of the CAA.
There is nothing so special and different about the CAA board appointments that they alone of all regulatory appointments require the approval of two government departments. The Secretary of State will continue to be responsible for appointing non-executive directors and determining their remuneration. They are part-time posts that currently pay under £25,000 with some small additions, where applicable, for extra work. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggested that some were paid £75,000. They are not in a CAA pension or bonus scheme. It is therefore quite unnecessary for the Treasury to undertake the administrative burden of checking the decisions of the Secretary of State. I hope that that provides the Committee with the reassurance required and that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Rosser
Obviously, it is my intention to withdraw the amendment, but before doing so perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether he said that the posts would receive less than £25,000. Is he saying that that was the case in the financial year 2010-11 for which we appear to have the figures?
Earl Attlee
The non-executive directors are currently paid between £22,000 and £25,000 and are not eligible for pensions or bonuses, although they can receive extra payments for extra days of work. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Rosser
I note with interest the Minister’s response. Either the figures that I have are incorrect or an awful lot of extra work is undertaken, but obviously I can look at that. The key part of the Minister’s argument is that no other regulatory bodies have Treasury and appropriate department involvement. The Minister has been clear on that. I shall certainly want to reflect on his response, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Accounts and audit
(1) Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (accounts and audit) is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (1), for paragraph (c) substitute—“(c) to send copies of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the November following the accounting year to which the statement relates.”;(b) in subsection (2), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) the National Audit Office shall examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received under subsection (1) and shall lay copies of the statement of accounts and of its report thereon before each House of Parliament.”(2) In the National Audit Act 1983, Schedule 4 (Nationalised Industries and Other Public Authorities) Part 1, leave out “Civil Aviation Authority.””
Lord Rosser
The amendments in this group provide, first, for a new clause that would give the National Audit Office oversight of the Civil Aviation Authority’s accounts. It would also place on the Civil Aviation Authority a general duty of efficiency in the use of its financial resources. It is not clear why the Government have not already included those provisions in the Bill. There are significant changes in the role of the Civil Aviation Authority under the Bill in relation to aviation security functions transferred from the Department for Transport and the economic regulation of airports. The Civil Aviation Authority is likely to become a more influential and important body as a result.
Other regulatory bodies, including economic regulators which are also industry funded, are subject to National Audit Office oversight. They include Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom. The Office of Rail Regulation is also subject to National Audit Office oversight, and the ORR is likewise funded from within the industry. As we know, the Civil Aviation Authority is funded from the aviation industry and also receives a limited amount of money from the taxpayer. It is not, however, subject to National Audit Office oversight, although it is generally recognised that the Comptroller and Auditor-General and his staff at the National Audit Office do a highly effective job.
The activities of the regulators to which I have just referred and which are subject to NAO oversight do not involve significant public funds, but they lead to costs being incurred by the providers of essential or strategic services which are likely to be passed to consumers, which justifies NAO involvement. That is particularly the case where the need for active economic regulation has arisen from the process of privatisation, and it is therefore only right that there should likewise be National Audit Office oversight of the Civil Aviation Authority’s accounts, as provided for in the amendment. The House of Commons Transport Select Committee in its report also called on the Government to explain why the Civil Aviation Authority is apparently unique among industry regulators in being outside the remit of the National Audit Office.
The second amendment gives the Civil Aviation Authority a general duty of efficiency in the use of its financial resources. A number of those giving evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee suggested that the CAA did not always operate in the most efficient way possible. For example, in its written evidence, British Airways stated that no measures to encourage efficiency had been included in the Bill and that it considered that the Civil Aviation Authority had scope to make significant improvements in efficiency in certain areas. It argued that the CAA should have a duty to operate efficiently.
In order to keep costs for airlines and passengers, as well as the taxpayer, as low as possible, it is essential that the CAA adopts efficient ways of working and modern technology where appropriate, as higher costs for airlines arising from CAA charges and any inefficient use of its financial resources have the potential to damage major UK airports’ competitiveness with alternative competing hubs. The Transport Select Committee, having taken evidence, recommended that an explicit efficiency duty for the Civil Aviation Authority should be inserted in the Bill. It is clear that it was unimpressed with arguments that other parts in the Bill already provided that explicit efficiency duty for the CAA.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic and helpful response to the amendments and I beg to move Amendment 67.
Lord Soley
I share the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Rosser about leaving the CAA out of National Audit Office oversight. I have never understood the argument for that. It is very unusual, if not unique, for such an organisation to be left outside the remit of the NAO, and the case for its inclusion is strong. At the very least, I would like the Government to explain why; I do not understand it. The argument about efficiency follows from that, but the one that worries me most is raised by Amendment 67, which I support. I have not yet heard any argument why the CAA should be outside the remit of the NAO, because almost any other body of this type would be included. I should like an explanation for that.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, makes an interesting case for Amendment 67, I am somewhat neutral on the matter, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I must say that I am a good deal less enthusiastic about Amendment 68; general, somewhat ill defined duties such as those contained in that amendment are best left out of legislation, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I fully agree with noble Lords on the need for the CAA to be efficient in carrying out its functions. Identical amendments to the ones now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, were also tabled in the Commons both in Committee and on Report, and were defeated in Divisions.
I shall speak first to Amendment 67 on introducing a role for the National Audit Office. In Commons Committee the Minister announced a strengthening, outside the Bill, of the scrutiny to which the CAA is subject. Having considered this issue further myself, I remain unconvinced that there are compelling reasons to believe that NAO scrutiny of the CAA would deliver a different result from the current and new mechanisms by which the CAA’s functions are already audited and scrutinised. Moreover, the CAA is overwhelmingly funded by the aviation industry. Parliament recognised this in removing the NAO’s role from the CAA and certain other bodies in 1984. The issue was considered by Sir Joseph Pilling, in his 2008 strategic review of the CAA, who concluded that there was no need for NAO involvement. The recommendation was subsequently accepted by Ministers under the previous Government, and I have yet to be convinced that they were wrong.
It is true that other industry-funded regulators come under the scrutiny of the NAO but, unlike the CAA, they are generally either non-ministerial government departments or rely on government funding for a significant proportion of their income. The CAA’s situation is very different from regulators such as the Office of Rail Regulation. Although the ORR is funded by industry licences, it is distinct because of the high level of public funding that the rail industry receives.
I reiterate the strength of the scrutiny mechanisms already in place with the CAA. As was said on Report, the Secretary of State appoints the CAA’s external auditors. She presents the CAA’s accounts to Parliament by placing the annual report statement in the Library of the House of Commons; she is involved in the development of the corporate plan; with the Treasury’s consent, she approves the CAA’s borrowing and sets its required rate on return on capital; and she will continue to approve the remuneration of the chair and non-executive members of the CAA board. In addition, the CAA consults on its charges and fees. Clause 100 makes such consultation an explicit requirement. I therefore currently see no reasons why the NAO should audit the CAA, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment.
On Amendment 68, regarding efficiency, in practice the CAA is already subject to conditions and obligations that ensure that it is efficient. As announced by the Minister in the Commons, from 2013 onwards the Government will include in their annual accounts direction a requirement for the CAA to include an efficiency statement in its annual report. This would be subject to validation by the CAA’s external auditors, and the Secretary of State for Transport will approve the terms of reference for that work. The efficiency statement is likely to include a summary of value-for-money audits and post-project completion reviews, developments in processes and technology and a report on the remuneration and deployment of staff. The external auditors’ published statement in the annual report would contain a summary of their findings on the efficiency statement in the interests of transparency. Industry representatives on the CAA’s finance advisory group would be given an opportunity to discuss the statement before and after the external auditors had completed their activity. This establishes an annual process of scrutiny, with transparency to the industry and to Parliament, to which the Secretary of State will continue to present the CAA’s accounts.
During the past nine years, the CAA has reduced its workforce by 15%. It employed 1,057 full-time equivalents in 2003 and had reduced that number to 870 in March 2012. The CAA’s strategic plan contains the objective:
“To ensure that the CAA is an efficient and effective organisation which meets Better Regulation principles and gives value for money”.
Clause 1(3) and (4) and Clauses 83 and 84 already build in proportionality safeguards. The CAA is also required to follow the good regulation principles in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the statutory regulator’s compliance code requires that regulators,
“should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities, while remaining independent in the decisions they take”.
I am aware that this is very important to airlines represented by the British Air Transport Association.
I will continue to reflect on the matter and consider what further reassurances can be given to your Lordships on Report. In light of that, I hope that, at the appropriate point, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Soley
Amendment 67 is still puzzling me, because the Minister’s argument seems to be that, because the airlines fund the CAA so heavily, there is a relatively small contribution from the taxpayer and, for that reason, the NAO need not be involved. I do not have the figures with me, but I do not think that the contribution from the taxpayer is so small as to be really insignificant. If we are saying that a public body such as this can be excluded from the NAO audit simply because it receives a fairly small amount of public money, that logic could be extended to almost any other public body of this type.
To use the Minister’s argument, if in time the railway industry was able to pay rather more for the Office of Rail Regulation, as one would hope, one would no longer need to have that looked at by the National Audit Office. The Minister seems to saying that this is purely a ministerial discretion issue; that is, “We will simply look at it. If the amount of taxpayers’ money is small enough, we won’t bother to put it under the NAO”—I do not use “won’t bother” in a dismissive sense; I mean that the Government will not bother to have the NAO look at it. However, there will come a point when we want the NAO to look it. Can the Government indicate what the trigger would be? Are we talking about £1 million or £5 million? What amount would suddenly trigger the Government saying that the CAA would be put under the National Audit Office? Alternatively, to use my example of the Office of Rail Regulation, if the railway industry suddenly started paying for most of it, would we say, “Well, they’ve reached this point. Therefore, we will no longer put it under the National Audit Office.”? I am not quite clear about what the policy is.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, noble Lords have advanced various arguments as to why the CAA should be audited by the NAO, but the Committee has not convinced me that the CAA would become any more efficient if we went down that route. If noble Lords want to make any progress with their argument, they will have to convince me that it would give a better outcome.
The noble Lord’s implied question was how much of the CAA’s budget comes from public funds. It is only 6%.
Lord Soley
Six per cent of how much? Six per cent of a large amount can be a large amount, too.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord on the CAA’s budget. As ever, I will give Members of the Committee a comprehensive answer to any of their more technical questions.
Lord Rosser
In writing that letter, can the Minister also give the relevant comparable figures for the other regulatory bodies to which we have referred—Ofgem, Ofwat, Ofcom and the ORR—and which are also funded in part by their industries? If the Minister’s argument on this issue is that the figure for the Civil Aviation Authority is particularly low in either percentage or actual terms when compared with other regulators, which are also partly funded from within their own industries, perhaps in sending that letter he could provide the comparable figures so that we can have a look at them.
I would comment only that while the Minister says that it is up to us to show the case for why a current arrangement should continue, there is to be a changed Civil Aviation Authority under the Bill. We are not talking about that authority as it is now but about one with enhanced powers and influence. I would have thought that the onus lay with the Minister to show us why the arrangements for the CAA should be different from those for other regulators, rather than the context in which he put it: of seeking to say that we have to make the case. It is the Minister who has failed to make the case, frankly, but I will leave it until we receive the letter from him with the information that he has said he will provide.
I am still not clear which clauses the Minister is saying provide the general duty of efficiency. I see a reference in Clause 1(3), to which I think the Minister referred, to the CAA having,
“regard to … the need to promote economy and efficiency on the part of each holder of a licence”,
for example, but that does not relate to the CAA’s efficiency. I can find references, which I think the Minister used, to activities being,
“transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent”,
but those do not necessarily refer to being efficient or efficiency so I do not know what the noble Earl’s argument is. Which clauses is he saying cover the general duty of efficiency? My understanding is that this is not some unique clause that we are proposing to put in, as one can find examples of it applying elsewhere. Once again, why is the Minister saying that it should not apply to the CAA when, from what I have heard from him and from my understanding of the Bill, I cannot see such a clear reference as he can to a general duty of efficiency in any other clauses at present? I wonder if he can assist with that.
Earl Attlee
On Amendment 68, the noble Lord’s points are well made. I said that I will continue to reflect on the matter and consider what further reassurances can be given at Report. My reason for saying that is that the noble Lord has put his point very well.
Lord Rosser
I am grateful to the Minister. I heard him say that the first time round, but I am grateful to him for having reconfirmed that he is looking at this matter. I appreciate that he has not given any commitments. While I would not want to suggest that when the noble Earl says he is looking at a matter he is not doing it seriously, if I say that he is looking at it seriously I hope he does not take that in the wrong spirit and infer that I think he sometimes does not. However, in view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“Duty to promote innovation
In carrying out its functions, the CAA must, where possible and appropriate, have regard to the need to promote innovation in the civil aviation industry.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, this is a probing amendment with a proposed new clause because we could not think where else to put it in the Bill. It raises a very important topic, to which I hope the Minister will respond in his customary constructive fashion by assuring the Committee that the Government have thought through this issue and, in so far as the Bill can assist in tackling it, are already doing so—unless by some remarkable occurrence, and in the unlikely expectation, the Minister accepts my proposed new clause.
We have proposed this new clause in Amendment 69A in order to probe the Government and to have a debate about one of the most significant challenges facing the aviation industry in the future and the need for the CAA to play its part. It is clear that the whole concept of the Bill is to establish a new position for the CAA and to update the provisions governing it, but one of the great challenges for the aviation industry is obvious, and that is that the British Government have subscribed to very significant and challenging carbon targets for the years leading up to 2050. We believe that aviation emissions must be included in these targets. Aviation emissions are already subject to carbon caps as a result of being included in the EU emissions trading directive, but I want to broaden the debate to consider the obligations of the industry against the whole background of carbon emissions.
In order to reduce emissions in the industry and to serve the needs of businesses and members of the public who wish to fly it is clear that there needs to be innovation in the construction of aircraft, so that we can meet what we all appreciate is a very significant demand for air travel, which no Member of the Committee expects to reduce significantly in the future. We all know the hopes that are expressed about developments such as high-speed rail—that they will lead to a reduction in short-haul flying—but that may not do much more than mitigate the increase that is likely to occur as people, in due course, want to spend their income on travel.
As for the industry, even if high-speed rail plays a part in replacing short-haul flights, nothing can take the place of long and medium-range flights. Only aircraft can provide that kind of travel in the timescale needed. We are all aware that the vast majority of vessels that carry passengers do so without regard to time: they are predominately cruise ships used for leisure, so the time constraint is not so acute. It must be several decades since the last passenger went on a vessel over a long distance to conduct business, except for those exceptional people who will never fly. The way to get about over long distances, clearly, is by air and not by sea.
Of course, the aviation industry has a major future. Another great innovation which I am sure others will bring to the Minister’s attention, if I do not, is the increase in global communications, the sophistication of conference facilities and so on. It leads to the potential obviation of people having to travel for business if they can conduct it just as well through effective long-range communication. I have to say that I participated in one of the first such ventures, which consisted of a link between the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. Whenever Japan could hear the United States it could not hear Britain; and whenever Britain could hear Japan it could not hear the United States. The United States did not succeed in hearing anybody. It was a difficult exercise but I am talking about several decades ago. We all know how sophisticated human communication can be now. One dimension of the financial anxieties that we all have is the extraordinary speed within which very complex, staggeringly high-value financial communications are effected in fractions of a second. But conferencing of that kind will always have its limitations and people will still need to travel for face-to-face meetings.
There is a challenge to the industry. If the demand is there and the industry is the only way of meeting that demand, it has to have severe targets to reduce carbon emissions, which must mean that new aircraft engine designs and fuels will play an increasingly important part. This might seem a long way from the CAA but it sits on the European Aviation Safety Agency and has a role to play in implementing UK policy on the performance of aircraft. I would not decry the innovations that are already being introduced. Thomsons Airways, for example, operated passenger flights using a B757 aircraft that was filled with a 50% blend of EASA-specification bio-derived jet fuel. It went from Birmingham to Lanzarotte in the Canary Isles and was satisfactory. The bio component was derived from waste cooking oil. Owing to differences in the manufacture and supply process of these fuels compared with normal refining production, care was required to ensure that the fuel delivered to the aircraft was traceable and fit for use. That was ensured in this trial. Further use of biofuel is planned by this airline as wider availability of bio-derived jet fuel permits. That flight was overseen by the CAA’s flight operations inspectorate.
Biofuels are only one option. There are also likely to be developments in the use of fuel cells and hybrid electric engines. The motorcar may have blazed an interesting trail—a reduced carbon trail, I hasten to add. The car industry has done that and aircraft engines may follow. On this important issue of the development of aircraft engines, I want the Minister to say that the Bill will ensure that the CAA will play its full role in innovation. We know the great emphasis that has been placed on quiet aircraft and are aware that heavier and bigger aircraft are quieter than lighter and smaller aircraft were in the past. This is an issue beyond quietness; it is about the whole future of the development of carbon emissions.
The CAA is also the economic regulator of NATS. It has already been proven that significant improvements can be made by air traffic control to increase the efficiency of the aviation sector. Innovations in technology can allow much more efficient flight paths to be taken and other improvements such as continuous rather than stepped descents. If we can use our airspace more intelligently through technological developments so that aircraft have continuous descent approaches, therefore using a much smoother glide path and much less fuel than with the traditional stepped approach, that will be of great benefit in reducing aircraft emissions. NATS has its role to play as well.
The Minister was kind enough, before we began the Bill, to give us the opportunity to meet several informed individuals, specialists, to tell us what possibilities exist in the area. I just want the Minister to confirm that the Bill guarantees that the CAA and NATS can play their full part in technological improvements so that we can still meet the demand for aviation and ensure that the industry has a thriving future while meeting the necessary carbon targets which the Minister has embraced. I beg to move.
Lord Rotherwick
I am rather seduced by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which produces a duty to promote innovation. I very much welcome the brief from the director of airspace policy, Mark Swan, on innovation, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on continuous climb, and so on. Of course, that falls far short of innovation in general and business aviation. You have only to compare the UK to the US to see that we are lagging far behind. We are only a small aviation sector in general and business aviation compared to America and we need a champion to push such things.
For example, we have very few global positioning satellite approaches. They rely on a satellite, not ground-based, last century technical devices that cost a lot to administer. The answer that we are given at the moment is that it is up to the airports to ask for them, but the truth is that it is very expensive to implement. America has a GPS approach for every airport. They are wonderful. You can have dog legs on them, which means that you can fly around communities, lowering the noise, and do all sorts of things. You can have an instrument approach from both ends of your airport, not just the published plate for an NDB on one end.
More than that, the technology is now available to have WAAS approaches—wide area augmentation systems. These are ground-based devices—I believe that there are two or three in America—that up the accuracy of the GPS signal and allow the approach to be made to the accuracy that we are used to with an ILS—an instrument landing system. Again, it does away with expensive ground-based technology. They are very important. Imagine when you fly into a third world country and rely on maintenance by that country of its instrument landing systems, you are sitting in your seat wondering whether that third world country can carry that out. There is no worry if you are using a satellite-based system run by the US.
I am seduced by the duty to promote innovation but at the same time, if this is implemented or written into the Bill, it should come with a caution: “with due regard to the cost to general and business aviation”. The example is the mode S transponder that was brought in recently, for which the lower end of the industry had great difficulty grasping the need. I believe that it was necessary; there were good examples like being able to fly abroad or into certain air spaces. The industry is now beginning to grasp that and take it on. The transponder was needed but was badly sold to the industry, and it cost each and every plane owner quite a lot of money to implement the new equipment. Once again, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment; I think it is a good one.
Lord Soley
I do not wish to delay the Committee for very long because my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, have covered a number of the points that I would otherwise have made.
We sometimes think, as the noble Lord has indicated, that this must always involve a cost of some sort to the airlines or other people on the sites. In fact, in the car industry there are some recent examples that might benefit the aviation industry. For example, we have a lower car tax rate, and indeed lower insurance policies, for cars that are fuel-efficient. That policy was brought in by the previous Government but is fully supported by this one. I am not sure that we could not have a policy, or that the CAA could not at least encourage one, where our modern, quieter and more fuel-efficient aircraft could have a different landing charge. Maybe that can already be done, I am not sure.
There are other examples of that type such as the ground operations that are carried out. A number of airports have now got around to doing things like bringing in more environmentally friendly ground operations generally, particularly regarding vehicles. They were a bit slow on the uptake but now they are doing that quite fast. There ought to be awareness of encouraging that—possibly even financially, as I have indicated. I am not talking about government subsidy per se but a recognition that there may be a benefit to bringing in a more efficient system. The examples that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, has just given of being able to fly around the community might be enormously beneficial.
We ought to be quite creative in trying to find ways of encouraging the people who are operating from an airport to carry out their operations in a more environmentally friendly way. That is possible and we ought to look creatively not just at methods that might increase costs but at methods that might also decrease them for some of the operators.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, being 110 years old, naturally I am resistant to innovation of all kinds, although I hope not in all branches of aviation. None the less, one needs to take care with imposing duties of this kind upon the CAA in this particular area. For example, if it were to be pressed to incorporate a new kind of material in an engine, perhaps to make it quieter, the cost of certifying a new innovation of that kind can be substantial. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick refers to the desirability of introducing GPS approaches in more airports. One has to remember that GPS systems are outside the control of the CAA, the operators and NATS, and in the past have been subject to interference from hostile agencies, which is much to be regretted. I remember an occasion some years ago when the GPS system in the UK collapsed for a couple of days because there was some technical difficulty about which the CAA and NATS knew nothing.
One needs to take a little care about these things. The ground approach facilities, for example, to which my noble friend referred, are under the maintenance and control of the airport authority and therefore, you may say, more reliable, at least when the shortcomings are more readily known. That said, I do not want to stand in the way of these worthwhile innovations, and the advantages of GPS approaches to which my noble friend referred are very real and important, but one needs to take care. The CAA has taken a careful—if that is the right word—approach to the approval of GPS systems. That was right. It is being slowly convinced of their merit, which is right, too, but it did not jump in their direction as hastily as perhaps some others did. I am not standing in the way of innovation, but I ask the Minister to explain how the costs of all this will be met. Some of them may fall on the operators—to their advantage, no doubt, so that is a good thing—but we should take a little care.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for introducing this interesting, probing amendment, because it gives me the opportunity to say something about how innovative the aviation sector in this country already is and the CAA’s role as the regulator. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick spoke about innovation in navigational aids. I look forward to debating his Amendment 73, which will deal with these issues, but his comments were valuable nevertheless. He indirectly illustrated why the CAA should concentrate on regulation.
My view is that market forces should be allowed to drive innovation in industry and the regulator should be responsive to it. This is how things have worked so far between the aviation sector and the CAA. Indeed, just how innovative our aviation sector is is a measure of how well this arrangement has worked.
Let us consider one aspect of the aviation sector, the aerospace industry. Our aerospace industry is the world’s largest outside the USA, with a 17% share of the global market. Its annual turnover is more than £20 billion, and it directly employs more than 100,000 people, supporting a total of 230,000 jobs across the UK economy. Its workforce is highly skilled: 36% of its employees have university degrees or equivalent.
The aviation travel industry is equally innovative. In my opening speech at Second Reading, I paid tribute to this fact, saying:
“In 2010 … UK airports served nearly 400 international destinations. That level of activity is possible because over the past 30 years the aviation industry has changed to meet the needs of the customer. The emergence of low-cost carriers is one example of how the industry has innovated and diversified. There has also been an increase in the number of people travelling by air in this country, from 59 million passengers in 1982 to 211 million in 2010”.—[Official Report, 13/6/12; col. 1364.]
The CAA has its own international consultancy, Civil Aviation Authority International, or CAAi, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CAA. It is a leading, globally recognised aviation consultancy company that delivers and promotes best practice in aviation governance and education. CAAi provides technical advisory services across a range of aviation-related activities, environmental consulting, professional training, aviation examination services and certification against internationally recognised quality management standards. CAAi’s work contributes to enhancing safety standards worldwide.
The CAA is also quick to respond to innovation in the aviation industry. I have come across two examples in the past few days. The noble Lord, Lord Sugar, has raised with me the issue of PDAs in the cockpit. The CAA is assisting many UK commercial air transport operators to gain approval for the use of electronic flight bags. An electronic flight bag approval will allow an operator to replace many of its cockpit paper-based processes with an electronic solution such as a laptop or tablet device or with an aircraft manufacturer’s own certificated system. The CAA is working with EASA and ICAO to standardise and simplify the requirements for operational approval of electronic flight bags.
The second example is the CAA’s work on its future airspace strategy, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. As the noble Lord reminded the Committee, I offered some aviation briefing sessions to Peers shortly before Second Reading. As part of those, the CAA’s Director of Airspace Policy, Mark Swan, gave a presentation on its future airspace strategy. Through the strategy the CAA is modernising how we use our airspace in this country with the aim of achieving a,
“safe, efficient airspace, that has the capacity to meet reasonable demand, balances the needs of all users and mitigates the impact of aviation on the environment”.
Mark Swan explained that this aim depends on the ability to take advantage of technological developments. For example, new communications, navigation and surveillance improve situational awareness of users and controllers; increased navigational accuracy enables closer-spaced routes; and the amount of noise experienced by communities will be reduced as aircraft fly their routes more accurately and consistently. Operators will be able to free route in the upper airspace along the most fuel-efficient track. This is important. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, touched on emissions and the need to tackle them with technology and innovation. The future airspace strategy is an example of how the CAA can facilitate innovation in the civil aviation industry without the need for a new duty.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, spoke previously about using advanced biofuels in the aviation sector, as did the noble Lord, Lord Davies, today. Today the noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about quieter aircraft. He will recall that the quota system of regulating noise at Heathrow airport strongly encourages quieter aircraft. Indeed, under the quota system some aircraft cannot fly at all at night. While there are some obvious barriers, the Government believe that sustainable biofuels have a role to play in reducing carbon emissions from transport, particularly in sectors where there are limited alternatives to fossil fuels, such as aviation. The Committee on Climate Change has carried out studies on the potential for biofuels to reduce emissions from UK aviation in the long term. Its latest estimate is that biofuels could supply 10% of jet fuel demand by 2050, suggesting the impact that future innovation might have.
I said that it is my view that market forces, rather than regulators, drive innovation. I believe that the examples I have provided together show that the industry and the CAA have got the balance right.
The Countess of Mar
Does the noble Earl agree that in some cases market forces can have a derogatory effect on the industry? For example, it can lead to cutting corners. I think particularly of my own interest, the cutting of corners in reporting incidents on aeroplanes. Because an aeroplane has to be grounded, it means time out of action and competition within the airline industry is so great that it leads to reluctance on the part of employees to report incidents when they should. This leads to a backwards step as far as innovation is concerned, because, if they did report these things, maybe innovation would lead to improvements in facilities. I hope that the noble Earl sees what I mean.
Earl Attlee
I entirely agree with the noble Countess that market forces can have an undesirable effect. That is why we need a highly skilled and competent regulator, such as the CAA, to ensure that those undesirable effects of market forces are eliminated as far as possible.
I would like to quote from the Government publication Principles For Economic Regulation:
“The Government will not seek to add objectives, responsibilities or duties to regulators’ remits without detailed consideration of the impact of the addition on the overall framework, and consideration of cross-sector impacts and even then only when it is clear that the addition is the optimal way to achieve the outcome sought”.
I am not convinced that the addition of an innovation duty is,
“the optimal way to achieve the outcome sought”.
For the reasons I have identified, I believe that we are already in a good place with regard to innovation in the aviation industry. There is a risk that giving the CAA an innovation duty would oblige the CAA to meddle in the market and may even restrict the way in which the aviation industry would be able to innovate. This has been an interesting short debate. I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has tabled his amendment, but I hope that he will withdraw it at the appropriate point.
Lord Davies of Oldham
There is no appropriate time like the present, so I will withdraw the amendment after I have given a few words of thanks, first, to those Members of the Committee who support the clear need for innovation. I also think that we needed reassurance from the Minister that the Bill provides sufficient powers and incentives to ensure that the limited part that the CAA can play in its role with regard to the industry is played as fully as possible against the very challenging objectives that we all need to meet through change, particularly those in aircraft engine design. However, I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for indicating that there are other aspects of technology that could be of great significance to the industry, to which the Minister also paid due regard.
I accept entirely what my noble friend Lord Soley said about government incentives for the development of new technologies in motor cars, and the licence system is a very effective weapon in those terms. But, as I understand it, neither the vehicles that airports use for towing things around nor their emissions are in any way subject to licence. Therefore, no incentive can be placed on the industry as regards those traction engines for a fresh, new design through the way in which they are licensed. I hope that the Minister has taken on board that we need some imaginative strategies. In fact, he has taken it on board because he is going to tell me about it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord has suggested that ground vehicles at airports are not subject to regulations. I expect that I will be writing to him to point out that even non-road vehicles have limits on their emissions. There are complex and quite tough regulations to ensure that any ground vehicle reduces its emissions as much as possible. Even a vehicle that is not an on-road vehicle is still subject to regulations on emissions. I think that my letter will go into that.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I am grateful for that reassurance but it raises an obvious question. Some airports have taken this issue very seriously already but others have not. I therefore ask the Minister not to tell me how these machines can be improved but rather what is the incentive, compulsion or challenge given to those airports which are not improving to ensure that they do so in the future. That is the nub of this issue with regard to emissions on the ground and at airports.
Without any doubt, the biggest challenge is to the aircraft manufacturing industry. As the Minister indicated in his response, we are not negligible players in these terms and already have had one or two interesting innovations in which we have shown ourselves to be world beating. With this amendment, I was merely seeking to get reassurance from the Minister that he took these issues seriously and that the Bill empowers people sufficiently to give their spur to this development in any way that they can, while always bearing in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that all new technology is more expensive than that which it replaces if it is going to do a more challenging job unless we have real breakthroughs in terms of design, which from time to time in certain areas occur. In the past, the aviation industry has not failed us in that respect, but the challenges ahead are obviously very intensive. With the Minister’s largely constructive reply, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, as this is a timely moment to do so.
Lord Rotherwick
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my past declared interests. Clause 102 amends the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It amends Schedule 5 to that Act to add the CAA to the list of 27 designated regulators, and amends Schedule 7 to that same Act to add to the list of 45 regulatory provisions contained therein a 46th line regarding Sections 7, 61, 71, 71A and 86 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The effect of this is to bring each of those provisions of the Civil Aviation Act within the scope of the order-making powers of the Secretary of State, and the Welsh Ministers in Wales, under Section 36 of RESA. These are subordinated legislation-making powers. It must be assumed that the Government would not take the time of Parliament to vest powers in the Secretary of State that he had no immediate intention of exercising. However, the Bill gives us no clues as to what the effect of these powers may be, so what is it that lurks behind these powers?
Perhaps the Government’s Explanatory Notes to the Bill will lighten the darkness. Yet they do not. In respect of Clause 102, the notes merely say:
“Clause 102 amends Part 3 of RESA 2008 … to add the CAA to the list of designated regulators in Schedule 5 to that Act. This enables an order to be made so as to give the CAA access to a range of civil sanctions provided for by Part 3 of RESA 2008, which could be used in relation to the enforcement of breaches of civil aviation law. These sanctions would sit alongside the existing sanctions available to the CAA and would provide it with an alternative to relying on criminal prosecutions”.
All we have learnt so far is that these would be new sanctions and would sit alongside existing sanctions. If we infer that existing sanctions are inadequate, we must therefore assume that once these new sanctions are in place they will be used to secure some policy objective, presumably an improvement in compliance that cannot be secured through existing powers.
The exercise of new powers will clearly have an impact on those on whom they are exercised and will, presumably, bring a benefit that will exceed the cost of exercising those new powers. Let us look to the Government’s analysis of costs and benefits for this policy, identified in the impact assessment as “Policy Option 2b”. No luck there; it tells us that no monetised benefits have been quantified because they would flow from the implementation of the regulations, so the cost-benefit analysis will be done in support of the regulations. As to non-monetised benefits, page 88 of the document says that the main one,
“is the potential for increased compliance with certain areas of aviation regulation and therefore better protection of passengers and a more level playing field for businesses”.
It says nothing about general and business aviation, and one wonders what the implication will be on that. So we remain in the dark about what these powers are intended to achieve, the market or compliance failings that they are intended to address, the cost of introducing and exercising them and the impact that they might have on those to whom they will be applied. I refer explicitly to the GBA.
Again, we are left unenlightened. It is all very well for the cost-benefit analysis to hide behind the excuse that all will be made clear when regulations are brought forward—I am sure it will all be made clear when the person finds themselves in the dock, but there we are—but that is not good enough. If the powers are to be taken, there must be a reason; and if there is a reason, it should be made clear now so that Parliament can decide whether the powers are needed. No doubt others will scrutinise the impact of the extensions of the powers to include Sections 7, 71, 71A and 86 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
My concern, and that of the GBA sector, is about the effect on Section 61 of the Civil Aviation Act. Section 61 is a headline provision covering the Air Navigation Order, which is a huge and complex document of some 500 pages, detailing the thousands of legal requirements for technical and operational matters such as aircraft airworthiness, equipment to be carried, pilot and aircraft licensing, rules of the air and so on. When the Secretary of State exercises his powers under this clause, he will empower the CAA to issue fixed-penalty notices for the alleged breach of the ANO, in the same way as the DVLA does for alleged vehicle offences.
At present UK aviation, especially the GBA sector, operates in what is described as an open reporting safety culture. The vast majority of pilots, aircraft operators and engineers take their legal responsibilities for flight safety and airworthiness very seriously. For example, it is not uncommon to hear pilots telephoning the traffic control tower of an airport to confess and apologise where they believe they may have inadvertently infringed controlled airspace. We have a successful scheme for reporting a near miss, and another for voluntarily reporting general safety occurrences. This valuable safety culture might well be undone under the proposed regime, where it will be possible for the CAA to automatically issue fixed penalties in such cases, where at present it uses its powers of prosecution selectively to achieve a strategic safety outcome.
If the penalties were to be imposed as an administrative commonplace, without a full legal process, that would fundamentally change the relationship between the CAA and pilots, operators and service providers such as engineers, who would fear bias and the use of penalties as a revenue-raising exercise. Moreover, the introduction of fixed-penalty procedures, as against the present prosecution powers, would shift the burden of proof. The recipient of an unexpected penalty notice would be faced with the alternative of paying up, presumably at a reduced charge, which may be provided under Clause 102 if the CAA follows the parking-ticket process, or of challenging the ticket in the courts. By including Section 61 in Clause 102 of the Bill, we run the risk that our open reporting culture might be fatally damaged. This would work against the interests of increased flight safety.
The CAA has adequate penalties and powers of prosecution at its disposal, which it uses wisely and sparingly. No case has been made to the GBA community, and no consultation undertaken, where the evidence to back this change has been laid out. Indeed, we have not heard that the CAA has asked for these powers. Perhaps the Minister could say something about that.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. Might the Minister be a little clearer on what the process will be for the fixed penalty notices? I am ashamed to tell your Lordships that I am a veteran of the fixed penalty notice system as applied by Transport for London in relation to the congestion charge. I have on a couple of occasions had to appeal against an alleged violation only for my appeals to be dismissed instantly—no doubt, rightly. I discovered that if you insist on appealing and taking your lawyer with you to the tribunal in relation to your Transport for London penalty notice for alleged non-payment of the congestion charge, you are 90% likely to get off, but if you do not take your lawyer with you, you are not. It struck me as a rather shocking revelation. I do not suggest that there is anything wrong in the process, but amateurs who go on their own to appeal or simply send in a letter of appeal to Transport for London are likely to be dismissed out of hand. However, if you turn up on the day with your lawyer, you are likely to have your appeal allowed. I hope that there will be no such vagaries in the system to be employed by the Civil Aviation Authority. Who will hear appeals from fixed penalty notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority? What will be the expertise of those who hear them? Can I be assured that the system will be a lot better than Transport for London’s?
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I have only one brief comment to make, one which I never thought I would make in Parliament or elsewhere. Oh the joys of Opposition for the Minister to reply.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, before turning to the detail of the points made, I must emphasise the importance of the clause that the amendment would alter. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne mentioned the congestion charge. I have been caught by it but I never dared to appeal. I just paid up. That might be because I knew that I was wrong.
The noble Lord talked about the higher success rate if you bring your lawyer. It may be that the appellant brings his lawyer because he is certain that he is right, so not surprisingly he wins his case. The noble Lord also asked about the appeal process. If someone who has been issued a fixed penalty notice is unhappy about that, he can take it to court in exactly the same way as a motorist can take a matter to court—like the McCaffrey case.
Lord Trefgarne
I confess that my memory is perhaps slightly hazy but my recollection is that one cannot take Transport for London to court. If one loses the appeal, that is that.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the offender will be able to take the matter to an independent appeal tribunal. I will write to the noble Lord with full details of how that system will work.
Clause 102 amends Part 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 to enable the CAA to make use of civil sanctions where it currently relies almost exclusively on criminal prosecutions, which are not always appropriate for technical infringements. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State by order to give the CAA access to a range of civil sanctions provided under Part 3 of the 2008 Act as an alternative to prosecution. We believe that criminal sanctions are disproportionate in relation to some offences, such as minor breaches or offences of an administrative nature.
I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Rotherwick when he suggests that the CAA will be encouraged to issue fixed penalties. The fines will go to the Consolidated Fund, as accepted by my noble friend. I think that he goes a little too far when he suggests that the CAA would abuse its powers and I totally refute the suggestion that these are revenue-raising powers. I was asked for examples. When the commander of an aircraft fails to produce licences for his or her flight crew in a reasonable time when requested to do so by an authorised person, he or she is guilty of a criminal offence and liable to summary conviction and a fine not exceeding level 3 on a standard scale. Should an offender fail to comply with such rules, a fine or civil penalty for breach may be a more appropriate enforcement action than a criminal prosecution, thus ensuring better compliance. I should point out that offenders will not find themselves in the dock because it is a civil penalty. I can assure my noble friends that secondary legislation will be required to grant the CAA these powers. It will be subject to full consultation and impact assessment. Any order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick asked about the expected scope of compliance changes. The appropriate time to consider costs and benefits of the power is at secondary legislation stage. It would not be good use of public resources to calculate extensive options for what may not be the impact until Parliament has agreed the powers. In particular, Clause 102 inserts certain provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to the list of enactments in Schedule 7 to the 2008 Act. That enables the Secretary of State by order to give the CAA access to a range of civil sanctions in relation to offences contained in secondary legislation made under the 1982 Act. The provisions of that Act include Section 61 which enables the Secretary of State to make provision for offences to secure compliance with Air Navigation Orders. Such orders are key to the regulation of air navigation in the UK. I am sure that all noble Lords in the Committee would agree with that. They set wide-ranging rules that the CAA largely polices.
Turning to the amendment, as described by my noble friend, it would exclude Section 61 from Schedule 7 to the 2008 Act and thereby deprive the CAA of the use of a range of civil sanctions in relation to offences contained in the Air Navigation Order. This would dilute the intended purpose of Clause 102.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick asked what the provisions will achieve. The inclusion of Section 61 of the 1982 Act in Schedule 7 to the 2008 Act is important, as it could give the CAA flexibility to use civil sanctions to enforce the provisions of the Air Navigation Order. That would be done only in appropriate cases where the application of criminal penalties was not a proportionate response to the offence which had been committed, particularly in the case of minor administrative breaches. The CAA will not automatically impose fixed monetary policies for breaches of the Air Navigation Order; the CAA will have available a range of civil sanctions under RESA, including fixed monetary penalties, variable monetary penalties, compliance notice and acceptance of enforcement undertakings for imposition. The CAA must publish guidance on the use of such sanctions under a duty to act proportionately under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.
In evidence to the Public Bill Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill in another place, a risk was raised that the inappropriate use of new civil enforcement powers could damage the open flow of information between the industry and the CAA. A recommendation was made that the CAA be required to consult on a formal policy before exercising the new powers. I hope that that will give my noble friend some comfort. I do not agree with any suggestion that the CAA would use the new enforcement powers disproportionately. That is because the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 requires regulators to carry out their regulatory functions transparently, accountably, proportionately, consistently, and target them only where action is needed. That includes the CAA, and we are confident that the CAA will abide by those requirements. The Department for Transport intends to consult fully on any secondary legislation which will make civil sanctions available to the CAA in respect of relevant offences and to develop a full impact assessment—a point that I know concerned my noble friend.
For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, is my noble friend willing to write to me with more detail about the intended appeal processes for the fixed penalty notices? I recognise, as he says, that secondary legislation is likely to be required before these processes come into place, but this is a subject of considerable concern, at least for me. As I explained, the present processes for dealing with appeals against, for example, fixed penalty notices from Transport for London, are unsatisfactory and I hope that they can be improved in respect of whatever the CAA is empowered to do.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I will be delighted to write to all Members of the Committee explaining the Government’s intent on that issue.
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply. He went a long way to try to answer all my questions. He still did not answer the question about whether the CAA asked for this.
Lord Rotherwick
That helps a lot: I now know who to hold responsible. I must point out that within the limited scope of the Bill, which pays hardly even any lip service to general and business aviation, in the one area where we are mentioned, we find ourselves caught on the stick, the discipline area; there are no carrots around. I know that my noble friend is a very generous Minister and I hope that there will be some carrots, having had the stick first.
I am grateful that he will write to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne about the consultation. In past consultations, general and business aviation has not always been represented. I would be most grateful if my noble friend feels able to go as far as to say that that will be the case this time: that there will be general and business aviation members of the consultation and, most importantly, that we are not treated like commercial pilots. We do not earn our living from our licence, we are private pilots who do our best to abide by the rules.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the GBA community will be included in any consultation.
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister bending over backwards on all my questions. I will read everything with consideration and I hope that we might have the letter before Report stage, which, after all, will be at the end of the summer, in order to make a decision as to whether to come back to this issue again. In the light of that, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I must confess that when I read this provision originally it seemed to be a rather extraordinary provision to be included in the Bill. I therefore took the occasion to make some inquiries. First, I declare an interest. For a number of years, I held an aviation medical certificate, which has now lapsed owing to my great age. Throughout the 40-odd years that I held a civil aviation licence, I was dealt with with the utmost consideration and skill by the CAA, and previously by the Ministry of Aviation’s medical authorities, including on two occasions having my licence suspended for medical reasons, entirely correctly and properly, by the then authorities.
My concern is confidentiality. I am and always have been very anxious that medical information held by public authorities, whether it is the CAA or anyone else, should remain properly confidential. I accept that there are provisions in these arrangements to keep confidential the information that is to be released to others, but the civil aviation community, the number of those who hold civil licences and air traffic control licences, is comparatively small. There is a risk that, if the information for some unusual medical conditions is published, it will be possible to identify the persons concerned. If the information on, say, half a dozen or so cases of a particularly obscure medical condition is made available to research agencies, it will be obvious who is the holder of that medical information.
I hope that my noble friend can explain in a little more detail than appears in the Explanatory Memorandum why it is necessary to have this new power. Can he give me the necessary assurances with regard to the absolute confidentiality of the information to be provided?
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I am pleased to see this clause in the Bill. Some years ago, research was conducted on airline pilots who had been exposed to organophosphates. I am sorry but I have a problem with my voice. It was impossible for the CAA to give any details whatever to the researchers and it caused huge difficulties. This will relieve that difficulty, so I am very pleased to see it.
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne’s opposition to the clause. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say because I think that my noble friend’s concerns are those of many similar pilots.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I would oppose my noble friend Lord Trefgarne’s intention. I believe that Clause 104 should remain part of the Bill. My noble friend said that his pilot’s licence was properly suspended for medical conditions. I currently have the same problem with my HGV licence because my blood pressure is too high—but the Summer Recess is coming soon.
My noble friend was concerned that it might be possible to identify a pilot’s condition because of those small cohorts. It is more likely that medical research would be into large cohorts, such as all pilots with condition X or all class 1 medical certificate holders. Should a smaller cohort be of interest, the data controller would normally look to seek consent first.
There are several reasons to keep the clause part of the Bill, by no means the least of which is that the Government are seeking to enact this change because it was recommended by your Lordships’ Select Committee on Science and Technology in 2007 and this is the first legislative opportunity that successive Governments have had to give effect to your Lordships’ recommendation.
I shall turn to the specific points raised by my noble friend so that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. First, he has suggested to me—certainly in private; I cannot remember whether he has said this publicly—that the CAA may sell on medical records. I make it very clear that this is not the intention of the legislation and that the CAA has no plans to do this. There is also perhaps the prospect of the CAA requiring even more medical data from pilots and flight crew, because it might be useful for the purposes of later medical research. The CAA cannot ask for more medical information than it needs to consider an application for a medical certificate. The CAA has no intention or wish to ask for extra medical information and no mechanism under which to do so without obtaining individual informed consent. The CAA abides by the data protection principle of keeping the minimal data required for the purpose of medical fitness assessments. If an applicant were asked to provide medical information that appeared to have no relevance to their licence application, it could be expected that they would challenge the need for it.
Clause 104 does not provide the CAA with any further powers to collect medical information. Those powers are already there as part of the CAA’s licensing obligation under the Air Navigation Order. The CAA has no intention to expand the scope of the medical information that it requires of applicants, and this provision would not allow for that. The clause is there solely to permit the CAA to disclose the medical information that it already collects for medical research purposes, subject to the strict safeguards contained in Clause 104(3).
The Committee will note that the CAA does not set out to collect medical data but acquires such data from people wishing to be licensed as pilots, navigators and so on because it has to make a judgment on whether those people are medically fit enough to be licensed. We also think that making this change is a good thing to do. The Civil Aviation Authority receives medical information relating to flight crew and air traffic controllers in the course of its licensing functions. Clause 104 provides for the CAA to be able to disclose this medical information to medical researchers by amending Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, subject to the strict safeguards included in the Bill. This information could be used for important medical research into the major functional and incapacitation risks to those individuals—for example, the risks of heart problems. We believe that an increased understanding of the main health risks may in turn lead to an improved understanding of the risk to public safety, which is vital in the aviation industry.
The types of important research envisaged here include the analysis of the electrocardiogram tracings of pilots over an extended period to determine whether small anomalies—that is, differences—seen in the tracings translate to heart problems later in their careers. Given the important benefits of this research, we consider that the provision represents a proportionate response to the legitimate aims pursued. I also remind the Committee that this proposal was supported in public consultation on the Bill, where the vast majority of respondents agreed with making anonymised medical data available for ethically approved research. It is of course vital that in doing this we include strong and effective safeguards to protect individuals’ privacy. The Government are committed to ensuring that medical research will not compromise the rights of individuals to have their confidential medical information protected. I have already answered one of my noble friend’s very good questions, which was about small cohorts.
Individuals’ rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 and Article 8 of the ECHR will be fully respected. The CAA will act as the data controller at all times. We have included strong safeguards in the clause to protect those individuals. First, medical information must be anonymised by the CAA before it is released to medical researchers. Secondly, the disclosure must be for medical research purposes approved by a research ethics committee. Thirdly, the CAA must consider that the research is likely to improve the understanding of health risks to those individuals required to provide medical information to them. Fourthly, the CAA must consider that it would be difficult or expensive to take the steps required by existing legislation to enable disclosure of all the information that is to be disclosed—for example, where the research cohort is particularly large. As the information disclosed by the CAA would be anonymised, any published research would also be in anonymous form. These cumulative safeguards will ensure the appropriate balance between enabling important medical research and protecting privacy rights. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am very much persuaded by the arguments that the Minister has put forward. It is important that this information is kept confidential.
I have just one other question to which I suspect my noble friend will not have answer off the cuff, but if he could write to me on it, I would be grateful. Am I not right in thinking that the CAA has access also to medical information on pilots held by the Ministry of Defence? It is important that that information, too, should be kept confidential, but it is also important that the information is available for the researchers if it can be done in a proper way and with proper safeguards. My noble friend may not have that information at his fingertips, but if he could write to me about the MoD position in this matter, I would be greatly obliged.
Earl Attlee
I can undertake to give what information I can. However, we both know a little bit about the Ministry of Defence and I am not entirely confident that it would have the data that the CAA would have.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, again, this is a very small point on which I would be grateful for assistance. Am I not right in thinking that, if we move in some respects from prosecutions under the 1982 Act or some other Act to prosecutions under the Air Navigation Order—we have already talked about fixed penalty notices—the penalties under the ANO are less than those under the civil aviation Acts, including the 1982 Act? Is that one of the intentions of this provision?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I shall resist my noble friend Lord Trefgarne’s intention to oppose this clause and I urge that it should remain part of the Bill, with which I am sure my noble friend will agree. Clause 105 repeals Section 81 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which creates an offence of dangerous flying where an aircraft is flown in such a manner as to cause unnecessary danger to any person or property. In practice, prosecutions for dangerous flying have invariably been brought by the CAA under successive Air Navigation Orders, currently the Air Navigation Order 2009, rather than under Section 81 of the 1982 Act. I understand that my noble friend’s concern is about the relative penalties under the Act and the order, and I shall come to that matter in a moment.
The 2009 order is used because it sets out what needs to be proved for an offence to have been committed, including recklessness or negligence, more clearly than does Section 81 of the 1982 Act. Any prosecutions of dangerous flying would be carried out under one of the two articles in the Air Navigation Order. The first is Article 137, which provides that:
“A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft”.
The second is Article 138, which provides that:
“A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property”.
Lord Berkeley
Could the Minister explain what Clause 105(5) means in practice? It refers to,
“power to apply certain provisions to Crown aircraft”.
The Minister will know that we debated transport to the Scilly Isles a week or two ago. I heard that Prince Charles visited there last week with great success. However, there was thick fog and the only plane that was allowed to fly was his. I hope that it was safe— I am sure that it was—but in terms of safety of navigation it is odd that only one plane was allowed to fly. Was everybody else banned or did they not have the right equipment? Maybe this is irrelevant to the clause but what is special about “Crown aircraft”?
Lord Rotherwick
It may help if I jump in. I suspect that planes landing in the Scilly Isles were under CAT—Civil Air Transport. In certain situations, a private plane can be landed under VFR when a public plane cannot under IFR. I only suggest that that might be the case
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if the aircraft was being operated under the terms of the Civil Aviation Act, it is a matter for the CAA to regulate and investigate. It is not a matter for me to comment on. If it was an aircraft of the Ministry of Defence, it is not covered by the Civil Aviation Act.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining all the penalties. Were I still authorised to fly, I should be very careful not to fly dangerously and fall foul of all the penalties he described.
The Countess of Mar
“Public interest disclosure
(1) The Civil Aviation Act 1982 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (ha) of section 60(3) (functions with respect to health) insert—
“( ) for ensuring that all airline pilots and crew are aware of and are protected by the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.””
The Countess of Mar
My Lords first, I apologise if my voice runs out; I have a problem in that direction. In moving Amendment 71, I shall speak to Amendment 72. I suspect that most noble Lords will be aware of my long-held interest in organophosphates—OPs—and, more particularly, those whose health has been damaged by exposure to OPs. This interest stems from my personal experience.
At Second Reading I spoke of the method by which the air that pilots, airline crew and passengers breathe is drawn in over the very hot engines of an aeroplane on to which oil may have leaked. This oil, manufactured by one company, ExxonMobil, contains an OP—tricresylphosphate, or TCP. This becomes aerosolised when heated to high temperatures, such as when it drips on to a hot engine. I detailed the chemical stages during Committee on the CAA Act 2006, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will remember, so I will not do it again.
I know that the Minister will rely on the much criticised Cranfield study which looked at a sample of just 100 flights and found no so-called fume events. What it did find was the presence of TCP in 23% of flights and there were 38 reports of fumes of which the majority were described as “oil” or “oily type” smells. A mandatory occurrence report or defect report was not triggered for a single flight, despite this being a requirement of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 859/2008, which amended No. 3922/91. An “occurrence” is defined in directive 2003/42/EC as,
“an operational interruption, defect, fault or other irregular circumstance that has or may have influenced flight safety and that has not resulted in an accident or serious incident”.
The directive is worth reading because it details occurrences such as fume events. I wonder why these occurrences were so studiously ignored by the Cranfield researchers.
Toyber’s dictum states:
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
There are two problems with occurrence reporting. The first is that pilots and crew know that if they report a fume event, their aircraft will have to be grounded at considerable cost to their employer and that, to put it mildly, is likely to be frowned upon. The second problem is that of credibility. Fume events are, by their nature, transient. They can be minor or major, and I know that the Minister has seen film of a major event when you could hardly see down the cabin because of the smoke. There is no standard equipment on board an aircraft to collect or measure toxic fumes, and the human nose is the only available detection system. Engineering tests, unless they very precisely replicate the conditions under which a reported event took place, are very unlikely to produce a fume event. In either case, the reporting officer will be afraid at least to be made to look a fool or at worst to be sacked.
The CAA Act 2006 placed on the Secretary of State and the CAA duties in connection with,
“the health of persons on board aircraft”.
The EU legislation listed in my Amendment 72 also places duties on the competent authority in relation to the health and safety of pilots, crew and passengers on board aircraft. Other EU and international legislation defines the safety of the aircraft, its engines, other mechanical equipment and even the quality of the engine oil to be used. Much of the health and safety legislation that applies to everyone in the UK workplace is defined in health and safety Acts and regulations. The Minister, in a letter to me dated 18 June this year, stated that:
“The operation of aircraft in and over Great Britain is subject to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Consequently, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) 2002 (as amended) do apply to aircraft in flight in airspace above Great Britain. However, the Civil Aviation Authority (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (as amended), also impose a duty on employers to ensure adequate health and safety protection of aircraft crew on British-registered aircraft at all times. These regulations cover aircraft in flight and are enforced by the CAA”.
The memorandum of understanding between the CAA and the Health and Safety Executive, which the Minister mentions in his letter, states at paragraph 1.5.3:
“The CAA is responsible for regulating the occupational health and safety of crew members whilst they are on board an aircraft from the time when they board the aircraft, preparatory to flight, to the time they leave the aircraft on completion of the flight. For the purposes of the occupational health and safety reporting and regulatory consideration, the CAA will monitor events occurring in aircraft whilst in operation outside the UK”.
That all sounds very good. However, when the CAA was challenged for failing to enforce the COSHH regulations, Mr Tim Williams, then the CAA health, safety and environmental adviser, wrote on 13 April 2007:
“The CAA’s health and safety enforcement powers are derived from the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004”—
which the Minister has told me—
“in particular Regulation 6 that requires adequate health and safety protection to be provided to crew members. These Regulations neither replicate nor replace those made under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 … are derived from the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and”—
I hope that the Minister will listen to this—
“the CAA has no authority to enforce these Regulations, with enforcement duties falling to the HSE. It is therefore inappropriate for the CAA to investigate any alleged breaches of the COSHH Regulations. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the HSE and the CAA, and in particular Annex 8, provides further details on the divisions of health and safety responsibilities in aviation. The MOU also sets out how the CAA and HSE will interact to avoid duplication of regulatory effect”.
They might also interact to avoid any regulation in this case.
Mr Williams goes on to say that the CAA is always prepared to investigate where the health and safety of crew members may have been compromised, but states that there is a lack of evidence. Of course, if you do not look, you will not find. There is plenty of evidence going back to the 1950s. If the Minister looks at the PhD thesis of Susan Michaelis, called Health and Flight Safety from Exposure to Contaminated Air in Aircraft, which I gave him last year, he will see in the annexe page upon page of contaminated air reports from May 1985 to August 2006. He will see pages of data which confirm cabin air quality problems in BAe 146s, just one of the aircraft types known to have this problem, and yet no one in government or the CAA seems to have shown any interest in what effect these events have on pilots, aircrew and passengers. I wonder, and am frequently asked, why, after a reported incident, medicals, including blood tests, are not conducted immediately on those likely to have been affected. This would at least establish whether there has been exposure to TCP.
As I said at Second Reading, a small study in Nebraska showed that 50% of passengers on one flight tested positive to TOCP, and a recent survey found that 32% of UK pilots experienced medium to long-term ill health. Forty-four per cent reported short-term effects and 13% were grounded because of fume events.
Researchers at Cranfield and the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh express an opinion that the levels of TCP found in aircraft are acceptable, but I do not think that it needs much imagination to realise that levels of absorption and inhalation of toxic chemicals in a normal working environment such as a factory are very different from those in the enclosed, pressurised atmosphere of an aeroplane cabin or cockpit. No safe levels have been established in this case. In any event, there are no acceptable daily exposure levels laid down for the more toxic breakdown products of TCP or for the chemical cocktails produced by heated oil. Incredibly, a CAA investigation into cabin air quality suggested that the average man can safely,
“ingest 7 metric tonnes of pyrolised oil per day for 74 days without effect”.
I wonder on what sound scientific evidence that statement was based.
A long-standing former British Airways cabin crew member, concerned about the health effects that she was seeing among her colleagues, surveyed more than 1,000 crew. Among other things, she identified cancer occurring at 10 times the UK national average. She advised BA management and medical personnel of her findings. Instead of thanking her for her efforts and agreeing to take matters further, they sacked her. Although my Amendment 71 may not be perfectly worded, I hope that the Minister will accept its spirit and either assure me that airline pilots and crew will be supported and encouraged to report events that may have adverse health effects or assist me with wording an acceptable amendment to this effect.
The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, may recall my efforts during the passage of the Civil Aviation Act 2006 to provide a truly independent health and safety and medical facility for pilots and crew. I was concerned that because the CAA was dependent on the aviation industry to fund this provision, there might be some reluctance to put pressure on the airlines to improve working conditions and health and safety grounds.
The ability to enforce COSHH regulations is fundamental to ensuring that cabin air is not contaminated, but on its own admission the CAA has no enforcement powers. This is totally unacceptable. The cockpits and cabins of airplanes are workplaces for pilots and crew. I can think of no other workplace in the UK where employees are so unprotected. I understand that an Air Navigation Order would be necessary to give the CAA this power. I hope that the Minister will agree to Amendment 72 when I move it. In the mean time, I beg to move Amendment 71.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support Amendment 71, as moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and I support her in regard to Amendment 72. I pay tribute to the phenomenal work that she has undertaken over an extended period on conditions associated with organophosphates. I regret that I cannot bring to this Committee the direct experience of flying that other noble colleagues have but, during my incarnation in another place, I have certainly had far too much experience of exposure to organophosphates in other walks of life. Some noble Lords may be aware of the work undertaken by Mrs Enfys Chapman, who was for a time a constituent of mine and had the need to dig into the tragic consequences of OP dips. I had constituents who were chronically affected by organophosphates: two sheep farmers who were almost certainly crippled by the effects of OP sheep dip. A relative of my wife was also afflicted.
For those reasons, I have no doubt whatever that those open to ill health caused by such substances in the course of their work must be protected by law. It is surely our responsibility to ensure that the law is stringent enough, and properly applied, that there is: adequate identification of these cases when they arise; that there is clarity with regard to who has the responsibility for following up; that a statistical analysis is undertaken; and that, where necessary, regulations are tightened to ensure that people in cabins and passengers in aircraft are not put in danger because of the effects of these substances.
I draw to the Committee’s attention some statistics that are relevant to air crew contamination. The noble Countess has referred to Susan Michaelis who, in a PhD thesis, undertook an extensive health survey of 146 UK BAE pilots. That snapshot showed that: 88% were aware of cabin air contamination; 63% reported symptoms consistent with cabin air contamination, some immediate and some long term; 44% reported immediate short-term effects consistent with cabin air contamination, representing flight safety hazards; and 32% reported medium to long-term effects, again consistent with air cabin contamination and representing a flight safety hazard. Thirteen per cent were chronically impaired and no longer able to fly, which was in fact higher than pilot medical statistics for disqualification globally for all reasons, not just those consistent with air cabin contamination. There is a strong temporal relationship between the adverse effects reported and the contaminated air environment. Those data are the most authoritative that we have and surely should be considered.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments but, at the very least, is he willing to accept those figures? If he does not accept them, is he in a position to gainsay the argument? If other figures exist, they should surely come to light. I hope that he can tell the Committee that his department has rigorously examined the evidence put forward by Susan Michaelis in her PhD thesis. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will set up some independent investigation into the reporting system of events that may have adverse health effects on those in aircraft cabins, and clarify who is responsible for applying the regulations. Will he undertake to review the statistical information available, from all sources, to ensure that this issue is most assuredly not swept under the carpet?
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on tabling the amendment. It is most important, and the compelling evidence that we have heard is evidence I have heard about for a long time and, indeed, read in books. If I am right, the aircraft referred to is the one that the royal flight uses and is mainly used for Ministers. If someone said to me that a Minister has faded or gone bonkers, the next question should be: how many times have they flown on the royal flight? We all get into the commercial aeroplanes that we are talking about, so this is something that affects us. Of the Cranfield test, it was suggested—alleged—to me that it was suspect because the aircraft that they had on test were ones given to them by the airlines, not picked at random but, it was alleged, safe aircraft given for tests. One of the unofficial research teams referred to in some books found that, of its swab tests on a range of aircraft, the majority had contamination when the swab tests came off seats.
We have all had the awareness when we come off a plane that we frequently travel on: “Gosh, I was tired on that flight. I’m not normally that tired”. That is a real problem. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, my only advice for noble Lords about planes that take their cabin air, their bleed air, off the engines, off the compressor, is to fly on a Boeing 787, the Dreamliner. It is the first aircraft that does not use the ghastly system that causes the problem; it uses a specialist air system totally independent of the engine.
I hope that the Government will come forward to address this elephant in the room; it affects us all when we go on aircraft.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I do not know whether the amendments before us will be the right vehicle, but they draw attention to a problem that definitely exists. As someone with a family member who is a commercial airline pilot, I am very conscious of the risks involved. It is often pointed out that pilots and air crew are at greater risk of receiving higher levels of radiation because they fly without any protection at very high levels for prolonged periods—indeed, throughout their working lives—and that that makes a difference. Here, there is undoubtedly a problem but the solution is not as immediately obvious. For instance, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, about the Dreamliner and its new system, many of the huge fleets of existing aircraft have the basic bleed air system so this is not easy to resolve. Mention has been made of the BAe 146, which is a very nice aircraft to fly in and, in particular, to land in, but there have been incidents where aircraft have suffered a large ingress of vapour to the cabin, visible to the passengers. This is not a figment of someone’s imagination; it actually happens. Although it is true to say that pilots on flight decks generally have an independent air supply from that of the people in the main cabin, it is sourced from the same place.
The question is: do we need international action? Let us face it, there are a very small number of aircraft manufacturers in the world and probably an even smaller number of aircraft engine manufacturers. Basically, there needs to be international action by Governments to deal with this issue, whether through an action in this Bill, through action by the Government taken via international organisations or through discussions with the industry. As the Minister pointed out, we are still number two in the world on aerospace, which is a very important industry to this country. I would think that adequate information is bound to be available within the United Kingdom from the manufacturers of engines and aircraft or parts of aircraft generally, and I cannot see any reason why we cannot pursue this issue through that route.
We are in a worldwide competitive market, and no individual airline will be in a position to put its head above the parapet without putting itself out of business. Therefore, we need not only national or European action but international action to deal with this. I guess that we all fly in aircraft that are differently flagged. We could be in an American aircraft, a British aircraft or an aircraft from Abu Dhabi. This is an international issue that needs international action. I do not think that we will resolve it simply by domestic means alone, albeit that we can set an example, and I have no doubt that that is the purpose behind the amendments. I think that the proposers would accept, though, that this needs an international response.
I hope that the Minister will allude to that and say whether he would be prepared to undertake on behalf of the Government to contact our European partners and some of our major manufacturers. We have medical expertise in this country that should be able to identify the significance of the problem. I think that the noble Countess said that you will not find if you do not look, which is a very telling point. Yes, I do not want to see our industry crippled competitively against others but, at the same time, if long-term damage is done to pilots and other air crew as a result of this contamination, that is a matter where we as a Parliament have a duty of care to people in the community who work in that environment, just as the noble Countess identified those people who worked in our agricultural sector and were exposed to vast quantities of contamination.
I recall the time years ago when people said that Sellafield was not a threat in the Irish Sea. We were told that the levels of contamination were perfectly safe. The levels of what people think is safe are now about one-thousandth of what they were 30 years ago. We are all in territory where we know that something is not right but we are not necessarily sure of the solution. There are many examples where substances entering our systems can do long-term damage if people are exposed to them for long periods of time.
I have an open mind on whether this is the right route but I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, at least will address the fundamental and underlying point behind the amendments.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I shall contribute briefly because I cannot do justice to this issue. However, I hope that the Minister will do so. I pay tribute to the enormous work of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in this area. I had the privilege of knowing Nancy Tait who happened to be a constituent when I represented Enfield and first came into the House. For a number of years her concerns about asbestosis were brushed aside on the grounds that the evidence did not match the allegations being made and anxieties being expressed. Everyone else knew that huge potential costs were involved if asbestos had to be stripped out of buildings that were already constructed, to say nothing about not being used again for building. She was right and the doubts of the authorities were eventually overcome. The evidence was produced and we are all healthier because of that, not least our schoolchildren because one of the great uses of asbestos was in schools.
I do not know whether this issue is as significant as that but when the noble Countess, Lady Mar, came to see me when I had responsibility for the department in this House a few years ago, I asked for all the investigations and evidence that the department could make on these issues. I know that a significant amount of work was done. The one thing that I was not prepared to do was to stand before the House on behalf of the Government and reject the noble Countess’s amendments without an assurance that we had explored every dimension.
There was an element in that about which I have not heard any more. I wonder whether the noble Countess can enlighten the Committee. One of the issues was that the airline pilots, through BALPA, did not regard themselves as being excessively threatened by this problem. We all know that they have to protect their livelihoods and they have a vested interest, but equally no one goes to work thinking that they may be engaging in something that will seriously affect their health in the future or even make them dangerous if they fall ill while they are working. That was an important dimension. I do not know whether BALPA’s attitude has changed. There has been no reference to it but it would be germane to the debate.
The Countess of Mar
I think that the noble Lord might agree that being an airline pilot is quite a macho job and you do not admit that you are feeling ill until you have to. We have two pilots here. Some of the people with whom I have contact are ex-BALPA pilots and are now seriously ill—some very seriously ill. While they were members of BALPA and working they did not complain. I mentioned at Second Reading the fear that they have of reporting because of losing their jobs.
Lord Davies of Oldham
We all understand that point. The noble Countess referred to macho jobs. There are lots of tasks that are extremely dangerous and people are prepared to take them on, but a risk to their health of what is involved is a long-running dimension that this manifestation represents.
My point is obvious enough: I was assured several years ago that there was not sufficient substance in the position as established at that stage for action to be taken. The action, of course, will be dramatic. Reference has been made to the fact that the Dreamliner does not use this air system. The Dreamliner is rather an expensive aircraft to produce, as we all know, and it is in open competition with the A380, which uses the old system. We are talking about massive resources being involved. There is no easy switch. If anyone had thought at any stage that everyone’s health could have been safeguarded just with an easy technological change, that would have been done, but we are talking about something so much bigger.
Lord Empey
Does the noble Lord accept that maintenance is an issue here? The 146’s oil seals were partly responsible when they corroded, largely due to the chemicals to which they were exposed. Maintenance may not be the solution but it is certainly an issue.
Lord Davies of Oldham
It certainly is; the 146 illustrated that in graphic terms and that is why changes were made. I hope that the Minister is able today to build on experience. After all, the issue has been before the department, thanks to the work of the noble Countess, over a number of years now. I hope that he is able to give the Committee reassurances about this question of health and how it is being monitored. I do not have the slightest doubt that if we are wrong, we would all feel dreadfully culpable because significant warning signals have been sent out, and that is why the issue has to be treated with the utmost seriousness.
Lord Wigley
Does the noble Lord agree that the first step must be to get authoritative independent evidence, facts and figures on which to base decisions, and that that needs to be looked at rigorously? That is something we could all support because out of that we can then reach reasonable conclusions.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Of course. That is a major exercise and a costly one, and would have to be done with the greatest thoroughness. The department and indeed the Government would have to be convinced that the anxieties were such that they could be allayed only by that approach. It is for the Minister to indicate to us whether he thinks that we are at that stage now; we certainly were not a few years ago.
The Countess of Mar
I have no intention of expecting the airline industry to scrap all its planes immediately and replace them with the Dreamliner. I recognise that that would be hugely expensive. It is just the same story as with asbestos and, in a more minor way, with sheep dip, although the latter problem has been resolved. I am concerned that people are not reporting ill health because they are frightened—frightened of losing their jobs, in one case, or of retribution. If the CAA had the power to enforce COSHH, doing so would make the airline owners maintain their aeroplanes properly— I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his intervention there—and take notice when there was a complaint. Until we know how many complaints there are, we are not going to be able to solve the problem.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I hear what the noble Countess says, and I heard that case deployed at the time when we met previously on this issue. Overall, though, my experience is that, whatever risks to livelihood, people have the greatest concern about threats to their long-term health and it is therefore not the case that they conceal these issues. The issue with the asbestos problem was not that people were concealing the impact; what was not being substantiated sufficiently was cause and effect, which is exactly the issue here.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. On the first amendment tabled by the noble Countess, airline pilots and crew members are already protected in this area by Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was inserted by Sections 1 to 2 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, both as workers who can make a protected disclosure to their employer and as individuals who can make one to the CAA. The CAA is a prescribed person for the purposes of that Act, which means that it can receive “protected disclosures” or whistleblowing from the civil aviation industry.
As for awareness of these rights, the CAA has a published statement on its website in relation to its whistleblowing policy which makes it clear that it will investigate all complaints in an appropriate manner, endeavouring to maintain confidentiality at all times.
I add for the sake of completeness that, as well as the protection afforded by the Act, the CAA has long established processes in place for incident-reporting and to safeguard confidentiality. The chief of these is the mandatory occurrence reporting scheme established in 1976. Consequently, the noble Countess’s amendment refers to protections already in place and is unnecessary.
The second amendment proposed by the noble Countess is also unnecessary. However, it also has an important and possibly unintended consequence which makes it unacceptable. The amendment would substitute the existing provision in Section 60 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 with the wording that it proposes. This would be a backward step because it would cause the removal of the power which enables an Air Navigation Order to contain provisions,
“for safeguarding the health of persons on board aircraft”.
That power has already been used.
The duty on the Secretary of State of,
“organising, carrying out and encouraging measures for safeguarding the health of persons on board aircraft”,
now in Section 1(1A) of the 1982 Act, as inserted by Section 8(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 2006, was a widely welcomed reform. The existing Section 60 power is part of delivering that general duty. We do not want to lose that. I suspect that the noble Countess does not want to lose that either, but the effect, perhaps unintentional, of this amendment would be to remove the relevant subsection of Section 60. That is why I regard it as a backward step and why it is opposed by the Government.
There is also a second objection to this amendment. The matters listed in it are a mixture of UK legislation, European legislation and European Aviation Safety Agency technical specifications. They are already enforced by the appropriate regulators in relation to the protections that they give, including safety, technical integrity of aircraft and working conditions for those in the aviation industry.
The principal enforcement agencies are the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive, and there is a memorandum of understanding, referred to by the noble Countess, between these two bodies setting out their respective responsibilities for enforcing occupational health and safety in relation to public transport aircraft while on the ground and in the air. It was drawn up by the two organisations with the aim of avoiding duplication of effort in the areas of overlapping mutual interest. There is therefore no need specifically to provide for the enforcement of these in an ANO.
The noble Countess suggested that the CAA was complacent. This is far from being the case. Successive UK Governments have investigated the matter thoroughly. The UK has an excellent safety record in aviation which we would not wish to lose by being complacent. Allegations of ill-health caused by cabin air have not been upheld by research. The main research study, published by Cranfield University in May last year, found no evidence of pollutants occurring in cabin air at levels exceeding available health and safety standards and guidelines.
However, I am well aware that the noble Countess has very strong views about the standards and guidelines. Levels observed in the flights that formed part of the study were comparable to those typically experienced in domestic settings. The department has now formally referred the published research studies to the Committee on Toxicity, the independent adviser to the Government on matters concerning the toxicity of chemicals, for it to consider the matter.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, that is precisely what they are doing. The people I have contact with are ex-BALPA pilots and they are now complaining. If the Minister was to go to a meeting of the GCAQE, he would see a lot of ex-BALPA pilots.
Earl Attlee
What I find odd is that the noble Countess has been raising the issue for some time, but no pilot or any member of cabin crew apart from a very few who are in contact with her has ever approached me on the issue. I have received nothing about it.
The noble Countess also asked me about medical data. The swab test research undertaken by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh found concentrations of organophosphate compounds consistent with previous measurements. I remind the Committee that the main research study published by Cranfield University in May last year found no evidence of pollutants occurring in cabin air at levels exceeding available health and safety standards and guidelines. Levels observed in flights that formed part of the study were comparable to those.
The Countess of Mar
I remind the noble Earl that in none of those aircraft was there a fume event, but they still found TCP in the aircraft.
Earl Attlee
The noble Countess has made that point before. As a mere parliamentarian, I have to rely on the academic research being conducted in an appropriate manner and subject to peer review. All the published research studies have now been formally referred to the Committee on Toxicity which is, as I said, the independent adviser to the Government. When I first came into the House in 1992, I was rapidly aware of the noble Countess’s work regarding organophosphates and sheep dips.
In answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I am sure that the law is being properly applied. The noble Lord asked: how frequent are fume events? Incidence of fume events is extremely low. The most recent figures show that in 2010, there were 207 contaminated air events reported to the CAA mandatory reporting scheme out of 1.12 million passenger and cargo flights by UK carriers. That is 0.018% or less than 1 in 5,000.
The Countess of Mar
Does the noble Earl agree that the Science and Technology Committee found severe underreporting of fume events?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not sure what would drive underreporting of fume events.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about his role in this matter and his discussions with the noble Countess some time ago. As I said, the UK has undertaken research where no other country has done so.
The Countess of Mar
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but Australia and the United States have done so.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am afraid we will have to have a difference of opinion on that matter. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Countess will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Countess of Mar
Will the Minister kindly address my question about the ability of the CAA to regulate through COSHH? I repeat: the CAA has no authority to enforce the COSHH regulations—this is from the CAA—and it is therefore inappropriate for the CAA to investigate any breaches of the COSHH regulations.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in my answer I explained to the Committee that I am certain there is no gap in responsibilities between the HSE and the CAA.
The Countess of Mar
But the HSE has the ability to enforce COSHH regulations. The CAA has no ability to enforce COSHH regulations, on its own admission, and it is important that it should be able to.
Earl Attlee
Yes, my Lords, but as I explained to the Committee there is a memorandum of understanding, which the noble Countess referred to, to ensure that there is no gap between enforcement by the CAA and the HSE.
The Countess of Mar
I thank the Minister for his response but I find that really inadequate. The facts are there: the Health and Safety Executive has the ability to apply COSHH but the CAA, on its own admission, has not that ability. It is important because engine oils and their effects would come under COSHH. I thank the Minister for addressing my other points and I am also very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Rotherwick, Lord Empey and Lord Davies of Oldham, for their contributions and kind comments, which I found quite embarrassing.
This is an important subject. I highlighted problems with sheep dip and I was told at first that it was perfectly safe. I was proved right on that occasion and I hope that noble Lords will listen to me because there are serious effects. What concerns me perhaps as much as anything is that passengers are never told when there has been a fume event. You might get a lady who is newly pregnant—perhaps she does not know that she is— and whose baby, when it arrives, has either a cognitive problem or a deformity. We know that foetal exposure to tiny amounts of organophosphates can be quite serious.
We really need to be looking at this more thoroughly. I know that when the Cranfield work was done, it was agreed that pilots would not be looked at until it could be established whether these toxic chemicals were in fact arising in airplanes. That work has been done and there has been a lot of criticism of it. I am not too happy about it, personally, because I have seen how such research can be twisted in order to provide the answer required and I mentioned intellectual corruption at Second Reading. I am not going to let go of this. I shall pursue it even beyond this Bill. I realise that it is difficult but the noble Earl will hear more of it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rotherwick
“Automatic direction finding equipment
In paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Air Navigation Order 2009, paragraph (a) of Scale F is repealed.”
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, as an instrument-rated private pilot I have been aware for some time that the carriage of an obsolete radio navigation system is still mandated by the Air Navigation Order. Technology moves on: automatic direction-finding, or ADF, equipment was developed in the middle of the last century and in the last two decades has been overtaken by more modern satellite-based and computer-controlled systems, such as GPS. Indeed, it is possible to purchase wristwatches with better navigational functions than those provided by ADF.
I have to revalidate my IR rating once a year, and to do this I fly in a plane with steam-driven instruments. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, whose plane had nothing but steam-driven instruments. Once a year, using this equipment I have to do an NDB.
The one thing that is interesting about an NDB, apart from the fact that it points roughly in the direction of the beacon that you are trying to track, is that in a thunderstorm it can be reliably trusted to point toward the thunderstorm and not the airport. It can do many other things. One will notice that at Oxford when landing on a one line procedure, as the plane crosses a railway track prior to landing, the needle of the NDB will deviate towards the train running across the track if one is so lucky as to fly over it. In short, it is not a particularly reliable instrument but it has served well over many years. However, there are better systems now.
Ground-based non-directional beacons, NDBs, are rapidly disappearing in the United States. About 100 a year go out and there are virtually none left. The associated automatic direction finding, ADF, equipment, mounted in an aircraft remains a legal requirement for instrument flight in controlled airspace, although some limited exemptions are in place. That absurdity makes some flights in modern aircraft that are not fitted with ADF of dubious legality. It is a grey area, despite having absolutely no implications for the safe and expeditious conduct of those flights, or indeed finding the solution for the navigation.
Noble Lords will be as fearful as many owners and operators of light aircraft that when the Government’s Clause 102 comes in, the CAA may be issuing fixed penalty notices like confetti to those who breach the ANO requirement. I am therefore proposing a simple new clause to repeal the relevant requirement in the Air Navigation Order 2009. I have put this point to the Government in the past and while accepting their suggestions and issuing guidance suggesting alternative navigational aids that might be acceptable as alternatives, the legal requirement remains. I understand that primary legislation is required to bring about the change and put the question beyond doubt. Indeed, that was the real reason I am told that nothing has come forward to date. They have been waiting for primary legislation.
This is the first suitable legislative vehicle to present itself, so I move my new clause confident that it will find favour with my noble friend the Minister. I accept that my drafting may not be up to the requirements of parliamentary counsel and am very happy to take advice from my noble friend who may wish to table a more elegantly drafted new clause on Report. In the mean time, I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have some sympathy with my noble friend. He knows that very well. On the other hand, the regulations to which he refers and which he seeks to amend by virtue of this amendment are devised and overseen by considerable experts in this area. It would be a mistake to impose a requirement on the CAA by means of this amendment at this time. These matters should be left to the experts who are within the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Services. They are not all dinosaurs; they are very senior, distinguished, respectable and intelligent people. I am happy to leave it to them and I hope that my noble friend will feel so persuaded.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for putting forward this amendment. I can appreciate his desire to remove where possible unnecessary regulation and requirements on the aviation industry, which accords with the Government’s intentions on the red tape challenge. My noble friend has rightly drawn the Committee’s attention to whether there continues to be a compelling need for the mandatory carriage of automatic direction finding, ADF, equipment on some aircraft. I did a little research myself: I looked up ADF and it appeared to be Amsterdam Density Functional, which is,
“a Fortran program for calculations on atoms and molecules”.
I thought that that had got nothing to do with aviation and that I had therefore better stick to my notes.
My noble friend has a passion for ensuring that regulation is appropriate and that we take into account technical developments which can often make regulations out of date. The Civil Aviation Authority has advised that it agrees with my noble friend that the existing arrangements are no longer appropriate, given the recent progress in navigational equipment. I am therefore pleased to learn that the industry now benefits from some alleviation in a general exemption issued by the CAA.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Rotherwick that this matter is worthy of further investigation. It is of course an important safety issue and I am sure that the Committee will agree that it needs a proper and thorough safety assessment before we could remove this requirement. A meeting between my noble friend and the Civil Aviation Authority may be the first step to considering how best to proceed, including an assessment of if and when it might be possible to amend the Air Navigation Order. That would be a more suitable approach than through this Bill, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. If my noble friend agrees, I would be happy to make the necessary arrangements. I note that my diary is already littered with protected dates for such a meeting with my noble friend. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment at the appropriate point.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, just before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may point out that automatic direction finding equipment operating on the medium wave is very useful when it is not being used for navigational purposes—for example, for listening to the test match. The noble Lord may or may not use that in consideration.
Lord Rotherwick
I am very grateful for the kind words of my noble friend the Minister and for his offer, which of course I should like to take up. I do not think that there is more to be said than that. I also thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne who seems to be a little concerned about my amendment. I hope that his noble Dove, which is now out at grass, and its wonderful array of steam driven instruments were being used for the right reason and that he was not listening to the test match as he was making an instrument approach. I know that he has not been in a cockpit for some time but if he would like to come and see a new cockpit, I would be delighted to take him along, although it might come as a shock. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, on 5 July. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Environment: Leafleting
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the impact of restrictions on leafleting under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 on cultural and community events.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was amended in 2005 to enable local authorities to control litter from free literature. If a litter problem exists, authorities may introduce controls in designated areas to make it an offence to distribute material without consent. Exemptions exist for political, charitable or religious purposes. Defra has no plans to amend this legislation. Authorities should work with the community and local businesses to minimise litter problems before imposing restrictions.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, over a third of councils now restrict leafleting and some charge exorbitant amounts for a licence. The Minister will be aware that many local theatres and clubs have been very badly affected by these restrictions, with dramatic reductions in their audiences. Should this traditional civic freedom not be protected? Will the Government consider introducing a new exemption for cultural and creative activities, and not treat these leaflets as no more important than a crisp packet or burger wrapper?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I understand the noble Lord’s interest in seeking to preserve community arts and activities but I emphasise that this is a discretionary power that I would expect local authorities to apply in any way they wish, even within a particular zone. Local authorities can give their consent to any group or any event at any time.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, will the Minister accept that even in this age of social networking, as the evidence suggests, there is no substitute for person-to-person contact with the public that leafleting affords for neighbourhood arts and community events, and that the need to obtain a licence is simply too costly for many venues and small organisations, as well as being ludicrous red tape?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot agree with the noble Earl. This is up to local communities to decide. They can determine the balance between propagandising events and social activities and their own interest in trying to prevent litter and, to some extent, being bothered by people handing out leaflets.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, has the Minister seen the increase of small posters advertising functions dotting our roadside, which many of us regard as litter, and has he had any consultations with the police as to the road safety aspects of these many small posters?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, I have not but fly-posting is a problem dealt with by the Localism Act that we passed last year. The noble Lord makes an interesting point, but election posters spring to mind as being the most obvious things that one sees on lamp posts.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, while I imagine the House has sympathy with my noble friend’s overall answer, nevertheless, the last review was 2009. Since then a great deal has happened locally on the ground, and in some parts of the country there are substantial restrictions. Maybe the time is coming for another review.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think my noble friend has to come to terms with the localism issue. In the end this is up to local authorities to determine. I believe in localism and local decision-making. Local communities elect their local authorities to take care of such matters. It is not for central government or Parliament to determine.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It might be stretching it just a little to call it a cultural and community event, but there was a very important event in south-west London yesterday and I know that all the litter has been cleared up since then. I wondered whether it would be appropriate for the Minister to take this opportunity to congratulate Andy Murray on a tremendous effort—an effort of which everyone in the United Kingdom, not just Scotland, should be really proud—and to wish him one better next time round.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am delighted to be able to join in the noble Lord’s congratulations to Andy Murray. I was in the air during this particular tournament on the way back from a ministerial conference—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
So I am afraid I missed all the excitement and only shared the disappointment that the whole House felt at the result.
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication of the costs to local authorities of clearing up litter?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I can give a clue in that street cleaning in the years 2010-11 cost £863 million.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the irony towards which he is leading us whereby local authorities will be castigated as being philistine because they intervene on cultural leaflets when recent archaeology demonstrates that the philistines were actually very civilised people?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure that they were, and far be it from me to suggest that any behaviour by a local authority is philistine.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, can the Minister give us any update on dissolvable chewing gum, which I gather has been invented, as chewing gum is the most horrendous litter problem on our streets?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am pleased to say to my noble friend that I am having a meeting with Wrigley this afternoon. If I had had it last week, I could give my noble friend an answer to his question—none the less, I hope that he is reassured that this matter is under control and I will stick to the solution.
Passports
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their intentions regarding the future of passport personal interview offices.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the interview forms part of the identity authentication process for first-time adult passport applicants and provides a deterrent against fraud. There are no current plans to alter the existing network of passport personal interview offices.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that, when we have had 1.5 million interviews in the past five or six years and only 12 rejections, there is something wrong with this legislation? Does he also agree that it might be an opportunity for those involved with personal passport interviews and the UK Border Agency to talk together, and that some of the personnel and resources in the personal passport interview process could be deployed to strengthen the work of the UK Border Agency?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I cannot confirm the precise figure that the noble Lord cites, but I can confirm that there are something of the order of a quarter of a million interviews a year. The noble Lord is right to say that very few are declined, but it is interesting to find that possibly about 1,000 people a year decide not to come to an interview when asked to do so. That might imply that their application was not quite as straightforward as it might have been. We think that these interviews are an important part of the authentication process, as did the previous Government, who brought this process in in 2006. As I said, we have no plans to change matters.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will have read in the press over the weekend speculation about the Prime Minister’s views on student visas. Can the Minister give us any insight into how thinking is developing in this area?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I fail to see what that has to do with the Question on the Order Paper, which, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition will know, is about passport personal interview offices. I recommend that she does not believe everything that she reads in the press.
Lord Storey
The Minister will be aware that when you apply for a passport you have to have it countersigned by “a professional”. In my 30 years as a head, I have probably done 100 of these. No one has ever checked whether I am the person I am supposed to be. Can the Minister tell us how many people who countersign those passports are checked up on?
Lord Henley
I cannot give my noble friend a precise answer, but I will certainly make sure that the appropriate checks are made on him before he signs any future applications to ensure that he is the noble Lord he purports to be.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I return to the Question. What has been the cost of these 1.5 million interviews? Is it true that it has been in the nature of a third of £1 billion? Is it not time that we looked at this situation?
Lord Henley
My Lords, there is a cost. That is why we made changes to the number of interview offices. As a result of that restructuring, we are achieving a saving of some £7.81 million a year. As I said in answer to the original Question, they are a very important part of the authentication process.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
In view of some of the comments that have been made, can the Minister confirm that one of the fastest-growing crimes in this country is based on identity theft and that, in the midst of identity theft, one of the largest areas is the theft of people’s passports as an entry to identity, which then leads to further crimes, running from intervention in personal details through to bank accounts and right up to terrorism? While we are reminding ourselves of the costs of this, let us remind ourselves of its benefits as well.
Lord Henley
The noble Lord makes a very valid point, and I suspect that he was Home Secretary at the time these changes were made in 2006. We support those changes, we stick by them and we have no plans to make any further changes.
Eurozone
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they next intend to discuss the plans for a full fiscal, monetary and banking union for the eurozone at forthcoming meetings of the European Union Economic and Financial Affairs Council and the General Affairs Council.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the June European Council discussed a report by the four presidents on strengthening economic and monetary union. They will conduct further work and report back to the European Council in December with an interim report in October. There is likely to be discussion on aspects of these issues in a number of different fora before and after the December report.
Lord Dykes
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on their strong official support for the eurozone summit agreement success, in stark contrast to the negative carping of some Tory MPs and MEPs and of a few voices in the Christian Social Union in Bavaria.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming the success of the recent European Council, a Council which confirmed among other things that the single market had to be considered in the context of fiscal union, which brought important parts of the new EU patent court to London, and which considered a raft of other growth-related matters.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government keep pushing the eurozone countries to go in for more fiscal and monetary union and yet do not seem to accept that that cannot take place unless there is a sovereign union in the way that there is in the United States of America or a country such as India? Why do the Government not accept that, and why do they keep encouraging the eurozone countries to pursue more and more fiscal and monetary integration?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am pleased to say that no encouragement is now needed from the UK. The paper by the four presidents—the presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup—set out what they believed to be appropriate in relation to fiscal and monetary union. That work will continue and the UK is participating in the discussions in and around those reports. We are being fully supportive of those efforts.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, would it not be wise to ask the people of Germany and the other eurozone donor nations whether they agree to be burdened with the debts of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and others, which even the Germans and the other countries cannot afford for long?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I thought I might have been asked a question about a UK referendum, instead of which I get a question about whether the German people will be consulted. I think I will leave that to German politicians to answer.
Lord Flight
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a crucial ingredient in a successful fiscal and monetary union is transfer payments between the more prosperous to the less prosperous, as occurs within the US and even within the UK?
Lord Sassoon
Indeed, that is part of the remorseless logic of what an economic and fiscal union normally brings with it.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, does the LIBOR scandal and other financial scandals strengthen or weaken Her Majesty’s Government’s plans for exceptional treatment in Brussels? Do we not have a common interest in a properly regulated single market? Would not Her Majesty’s Government, particularly the Prime Minister, be better involved in discussing these matters rather than sulking on the sidelines?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the UK is very much involved in the discussions in Brussels. That is why, as I have already said, we secured important parts of the EU patent court coming to London. That is why we recently secured a new British head for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We are at the table and that is where we intend to stay.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, with the leave of the House and as there are some minutes on the clock, instead of going along with this madcap, dangerous scheme of European financial integration, why do the Government not encourage the eurozone countries to abandon the incurable euro and go back to their own currencies, each with their own interest rate and exchange rate? Would that not be less painful and expensive than to go on trying to save the wretched thing?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, as we have discussed many times, 40% of our exports go to the eurozone. It is our most important trading bloc. The priority has to be to strengthen the eurozone countries. That is what they want to do and that is what we want to see them do and we must help them to achieve that.
Lord Harrison
The United Kingdom often blames the eurozone for the problems with the economy as it is being run by Her Majesty’s Government here. Why do we not do more to help? Does the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, agree with Mr David Lidington, who stated in replying to the Select Committee’s interrogation last week that he welcomed more Europe if it meant the implementation of the full ambit of the single European market?
Lord Sassoon
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, about the cause of the weaker growth in this country, the Office for Budget Responsibility and other commentators have identified the eurozone as a major source of threat to our growth and of weakness. Significant parts of the eurozone are plainly now in recession. I agree with my right honourable friend David Lidington about the need for more Europe in many areas including, particularly, more completion of the single market. That is why it is important that the four-presidency proposal referred to in the Council conclusions at the end of June will include,
“concrete proposals on preserving the … integrity of the Single Market”.
That is critical, as are the many growth initiatives included in those conclusions.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, we all wish to see a successful European economy, but is my noble friend not aware that the so-called success of the European Council a fortnight ago has already disappeared, the financial markets have put the interest rate on Spanish sovereign debt back to where it was before, nothing was achieved, nothing can be achieved in this way and the sooner that it is realised that this project, however well intentioned, is a terrible mistake, the better?
Lord Sassoon
I certainly agree with my noble friend that we delude ourselves if we think that words coming out of one meeting of European leaders are going to solve all the problems. Part of the problem seems to have been a belief that the crisis can somehow be dealt with by fine words. I believe that in the underlying work— whether on the two pack, the six pack, or the intergovernmental treaty—there is the beginning of a construct of great significance to underpin the eurozone.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to share with us his prepared text on whether there should be an in/out referendum on our membership of the EU? If the Government are holding out the prospect of a referendum in relation to Europe, can he tell me why the Government refuse to have a referendum on the future of your Lordships’ House?
Lord Sassoon
I realise that I walked straight into this one. Now is not the time for an in/out referendum on Europe. Once Europe has settled all the matters that we have talked about, we can look at our relationship with Europe in the round. As for referenda on other matters, the legislation is starting in another place today and, no doubt, it will get here in due course.
Lord Teverson
Given that the eurozone is very likely to survive in a position very similar to its position at the minute and that it will probably move forward to a banking union and closer economic and fiscal union, what strategic preparations are the Government making in the longer term to make sure that Britain is not marginalised once we get through the existing crisis, however long it takes?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I think the most important thing is that we continue to be, as we are, constructively at the heart of all the discussions on these matters. As I have already said, there have been some significant achievements, as evidenced in the conclusions of the June Council, and that is the basis on which we have to continue our discussions. I would not think about it in the contingency planning terms that my noble friend portrays. We are there at the heart of the discussions and are continuing to focus our partners on growth and the completion of the single market.
EU: Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they expect to be in compliance with European Council directive 2010/64/EU, on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, by the agreed implementation date of 27 October 2013.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government will take the steps necessary to ensure that the UK is compliant with the EU directive in good time for its implementation date.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I understand that the company that the Government have, under the framework agreement, contracted to provide services to courts and the police is supplying performance data to the Government which suggest that it is doing a good job. However, these figures come without any independent verification or audit and tell a very different story from the complaints we hear daily from judges and others about the failure to supply interpreters, or the sending of unqualified people with no experience of simultaneous interpreting and some people who were simply incompetent—in one case not understanding the difference between murder and manslaughter. Does the Minister agree that the UK is at risk of expensive legal action over non-compliance with the directive, particularly Article 5 about the quality of the service, and that we should therefore review the framework agreement now?
Lord McNally
No, my Lords, I do not think we are in danger of non-compliance. As I said in my Answer and, as the noble Baroness indicated, there are some months to go before the directive comes into play. In the mean time, the Ministry of Justice has a massive interest in making sure that Applied Language Solutions provides the quality and service for which it is contracted. We are making every effort to make sure that that happens.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Is the Minister aware of the extent of disruption and delay to criminal trials as a result of the serious inadequacies in court interpreting? Not only does it lead to considerable cost but concerns have been raised by judges across the country, particularly in London, Birmingham and Leeds.
Lord McNally
My Lords, there have been individual complaints about performance and there was undoubtedly a very poor start to this contract. However, there have been improvements and we are talking about a system with some 800 requests a day for such interpretation. In the first quarter of its operation there were 26,000 requests in 142 languages. One has to get complaints and performance into perspective, although there is no doubt that a lot was left to be desired in the performance of the contract in its early stages.
Lord Harrison
Has the Minister revised the original estimate of a £12 million saving as a result of implementing the framework agreement because of all these additional costs? Have we not arrived at a situation that is no longer just succumbing to teething problems but is wholly poorly structured in the first place?
Lord McNally
I do not agree with that. As I said, there were problems at the beginning of this contract but the performance has improved dramatically. I presume that the original estimate of a £12 million saving in this first year will probably not be achieved. That is common sense but this is not a solution for just this year. It is a long-term solution that we hope will, once it is bedded down, give the service and quality required.
Baroness Sharples
Can my noble friend say how many languages each interpreter is expected to speak?
Lord McNally
No. However, there are a number of interpreters who speak more than one language. At the moment, there are about 1,500 interpreters under contract and they are equivalent to about 3,000 interpreter persons, which means that many of them speak two or more languages.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether the nature, number and extent of complaints from the courts has gone up or down since the change was implemented? If it has, as we believe, gone up, what do the Government intend to do about it?
Lord McNally
Has it gone up since the scheme was implemented? Yes, it has, because the scheme implements a single supplier that will pay interpreters less than they were being paid on an ad hoc basis. That combination of greater discipline in where and when interpreters are hired and at what fee is not likely to be welcome to the interpreting community. That I understand. But it was the previous Administration who initiated an inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of the old interpreter system. We have readily acknowledged that this new system has had teething problems, but there is no ministerial interest or MoJ interest in having questions such as this time and again about performance. The supplier has contracted to a high-quality performance, and we intend to keep it to that.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
How is the performance of that supplier adequately monitored? Is there an independent monitoring system?
Lord McNally
There is not an independent monitoring system—there is a client. We are the client, and we do not intend to pay good money for a shoddy service. As I have just said, as the client we brought this in because we intended to try to make substantial savings for the taxpayer on a system that we believed was slipshod and expensive in its running. When the new system gets bedded down, we hope that it will give high quality. The monitoring is done by the department concerned, the MoJ, and we intend to carry out our responsibilities to make sure that the taxpayer gets value for money.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, I understand my noble friend’s difficulties, about which he has been telling the House, with so many languages having to be covered. Will he tell us how many cases have had to be rescheduled because the right interpreters were not there, and whether that is being monitored by his department?
Lord McNally
There has always been the problem of interpreters not being there, or the wrong interpreters being there. This is not something that has happened in the past 12 months. Indeed, one reason for bringing in a single supplier on a new contract with very precise contractual obligations was to try to remove that. I repeat that providing around 100,000 interpreters in 142 different languages is something of which our justice system should be rather proud. However, once you operate on that scale across that range of expertise, there will be mistakes, hiccups, wrong directions and wrong turn-ups. On the whole, we expect the contract to produce at least 98% performance success, and we intend to keep the contractor to that.
Designation of Features (Appeals) (England) Regulations 2012
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft regulations and orders be referred to a Grand Committee.
Legislative Reform (Annual Review of Local Authorities) Order 2012
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That the draft order be referred to a Grand Committee.
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 2. These two amendments are in my name and that of my noble colleague on the Intelligence and Security Committee, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I can introduce the amendments quite briefly, and I hope that we are pushing at an open door. It is, I think, common ground with the Government that the Intelligence and Security Committee will serve Parliament and the public better if it is made clear that it is indeed a committee of Parliament and not a creature of the Government. Since its creation in 1994 the committee has played an independent part, but because the committee is appointed by the Government, it has often been difficult to convince outside observers of its independence. I again pay tribute to the committee, as I did in my Second Reading speech to earlier members of the committee. It is now common ground that it has behaved in such a way that it has come of age and its independence and duty to Parliament can be made clear by adding the words that it is indeed a committee of Parliament. I hope that that is agreed with the Government.
Amendment 2 would have the effect that the Intelligence and Security Committee would enjoy the same rights and privileges as a departmental Select Committee in respect of having parliamentary privilege. Perhaps I may just explain that. Because the Intelligence and Security Committee is created by statute and is not a Select Committee of Parliament, it does not automatically receive the same rights and privileges as, for example, a departmental Select Committee. That is the purpose of writing in the Bill that it should have parliamentary privilege. This issue is important, because the committee’s work has to be conducted in confidence and those who give evidence to it, including not only the intelligence agencies but also others, must have confidence that the security of their evidence will be protected. This is necessary not only for future evidence but for past evidence, because in this litigious age there needs to be assurance that evidence previously given cannot be sought to be disclosed as evidence in any proceedings. To make that clear, this amendment proposes that privilege should apply to the proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee as it does to Select Committees of Parliament.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is there a precedent for this form of committee anywhere within the constitution?
Lord Butler of Brockwell
There are indeed committees that are set up by statute. I can give the noble Lord three examples: the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, the Public Accounts Commission and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Those are all similar committees which have been set up by statute but are not Select Committees.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, on both amendments, to which my name is also attached. I do so because I am also a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I was first appointed to the committee in 2006 and therefore have some years of experience of it.
In looking at the first amendment I feel very strongly that we need to make it clear that this is more than just a committee. The problem that we have faced in terms of credibility until now, as the noble Lord said, is that we were a committee created by statute but appointed by the Prime Minister and reporting to the Prime Minister—who could report to Parliament in due course. Although we exercised what we thought was the maximum independence possible, the public perception was that we were actually a creation of, and therefore a tool of, the Executive. In that regard, less confidence was put in the reports that we produced. My belief has been that if this committee is to work properly—which is what I believe the Bill is about now—we need to make it clear that this is not just a committee hanging in the ether but a committee of Parliament: it is composed of parliamentarians, exercises its oversight of the intelligence agencies on behalf of Parliament and reports to Parliament, although the Prime Minister will ultimately have a veto over appointments and also have access to the reports that we produce. I believe that the simple addition of the words “of Parliament” will make it clear that what I am looking for can be achieved.
I have been told in the past that there may be difficulties about the words “Committee of Parliament”. I am a simple Scottish lawyer, and I have worked very hard to understand what these possible difficulties can be given that, as I said at Second Reading, a committee of Parliament is what we are effectively becoming. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept that, because I think that the committee’s credibility in exercising parliamentary oversight of the intelligence agencies is an important part of our developing constitution.
I turn briefly to the second amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I have very little to add to what he said other than this. He talked about the need for those who give evidence to the Committee to be able to do so in the knowledge that their evidence will not suddenly be made public. That is a very important part of the way in which the Intelligence and Security Committee works. It is particularly important in one respect. When the intelligence agencies give evidence to us they will naturally take account of how secure their evidence will be. If they feel that that evidence is not secure then they quite simply will not give us that evidence. We rely on their confidence in us to ensure that they give us the maximum amount of information upon which we can exercise our oversight. Unless we have the protection which is the purpose of the second amendment I believe that that confidence will not be there. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept both amendments.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I have reservations which I will deal with when I speak to my amendment arguing the case for a Select Committee to take on these responsibilities. Parliament is being required to approve wording which suggests that this committee is controlled by Parliament, but without recognising what the Justice and Security Green Paper of October 2011 says at paragraph 3.19. It states:
“However, under such arrangements”—
that is, the arrangements of a Select Committee—
“the Government would clearly have no veto on publication of sensitive material”.
I repeat:
“no veto on publication of sensitive material”.
In other words, the provision is being introduced as a way for the Government to secure control outside of Parliament, through this half-measure of a committee, over the publication of sensitive material. My view is very simple. If they want to do that, let it be done through a full Select Committee structure. That is the substance of my amendment which will come later.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, if I may intervene in this discussion, I seek to bring to it the “veneer of experience”—to quote the Deputy Prime Minister, as the noble Baroness on the Front Bench did on Second Reading—that this House can contribute on these matters. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is an excellent member of the committee that I had the privilege to chair for a number of years. In listening to this debate I am absolutely sure that we have reached the time to move forwards. However, I am torn between Amendment 1, the significance of which I have to admit I do not fully understand, and Amendment 3, which proposes moving to Select Committee status. Early in our committee’s discussions we considered the role of a Select Committee, and—if I can stop the noble Lord mucking up my papers—I shall find a quote from a report that our committee produced in 1998 or 1999. We said:
“There are arguments for and against such a status, and we have not as yet formed a view on the issue … Even if thought desirable, however, such changes would take time to introduce, and could alter significantly the structure of relationships between the Committee and the intelligence community”.
I think that, as time has moved on, we have established that sort of relationship.
It is important to remember where we have come from. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, rightly points out that the agencies were not resistant to the establishment of a committee—that certainly matches my own impression, and she knows the situation much better than I do—many serving in the agencies wanted not only an Intelligence and Security Committee but, in their own interest, for that committee to be as thorough and active as possible so that it could carry credibility. As one of the big problems facing the agencies was false allegation and rumour, an independent and credible body would be seen to address and deal effectively with those issues—in secrecy if necessary, and without disclosure of operational information or other evidence, some of which might come from other countries.
My feeling at that time was that it was critical that we should establish credibility, because although many of the agencies were in favour of the committee, others were nervous about whether parliamentarians could be trusted, whether information would be secure or whether it would be leaked—all the problems that one might advance. There was a lot of hostility. I recall that, way back in the early 1980s, Jonathan Aitken was an original proposer of an intelligence and security committee, and he was interrupted by an old colleague, Ray Whitney—a distinguished former member of the foreign service, and a Member of Parliament at the time—who said that whatever one says about the Senate intelligence committee, there is general agreement that it has destroyed the American intelligence capability. That was an exaggeration of the sort of strong feeling common at the time. Having had the privilege of serving under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who was not the first outspoken advocate of this particular approach, I can attest that there was a lot of resistance to it.
When our committee started out it was very important to establish its credibility. I felt at that time—and members of the committee shared this view; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was a keen advocate of it—that it was more important to establish the trust of the agencies, to make sure that they were forthcoming with information, because they could switch us off at any time. After all, we were into the “don’t-know don’t knows”, so establishing that trust was important. I believe that that trust, confidence and relationship have been established now—more than established, I hope, given the passage of time. I am therefore very torn between these amendments, Amendment 1 or 2, which propose setting up a Committee of Parliament, or whether there is not an argument for going straight to a Select Committee. I have learnt something today from the noble Lord, Lord Butler. After spending a brief period of 30 years in the House of Commons, I had not understood that the PAC was set up under a different arrangement. One learns something every day. It sounds attractive for the IC to be on the same wavelength.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
It is confusing but what is set up under statute is the Public Accounts Commission, not the Public Accounts Committee.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I have now unlearnt something which I thought I had learnt, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I certainly think that when we come to Amendment 3 there are strong arguments for moving in that direction, provided that the arrangements can be established to ensure security of intelligence. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was with us when we went to Washington. One is struck by the number of Senate committees there. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is held in a totally secure room, and there are badges for all 19 government agencies that the committee oversees as part of its various responsibilities. It is a completely different facility. If, as I understand it, the proposal is that the facilities will now be provided by Parliament, as opposed to the separate facilities that existed in the Cabinet Office, it will be necessary to think about what sort of facilities will match up to the requirement for total security and the proper safeguarding of intelligence.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, one thing that the debate has shown so far—and this will also apply to the debate on the next amendment—is that the Government have not yet done enough to satisfy your Lordships that the arrangements for independence for the committee are adequate. This debate has been interesting. I think I understood the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, correctly when he said that he was quoting me quoting the Deputy Prime Minister on the “veneer of expertise”. I in no way associate myself with that comment, nor with the one that I am told the Liberal Democrat spokesperson from the House of Lords made on TV today—that we are a House full of dead-beats and has-beens. I think that this debate will prove how wrong both those comments are.
The arrest just last week of alleged Olympic terror plot suspects was a clear reminder of the vital and largely hidden work that the intelligence and security services undertake. Part of the discussion that we are having now is based on the fact that the strength and health of our democracy in the UK depends on a very fine balance between the Government, who are empowered to protect our national security, and the strength, credibility and authority of the institutions that have oversight of that power.
I suspect that during the course of Committee the majority of debate will understandably be reserved for the changes proposed to the judicial element of that oversight. However—and I make this point very strongly—our system of democracy is, unlike that of the USA, based on the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. That means that Parliament, as representative of the public, is the ultimate check over other government institutions—not the Prime Minister or the Government. A powerful security service demands equally powerful and independent parliamentary oversight, and the Intelligence and Security Committee is a very important plank in this oversight mechanism. However, it is widely recognised that, while the committee has in some ways developed its remit in response to the changing nature of government intelligence and counterterrorism activities, the law has not kept pace with that change.
The committee was set up in 1994. We saw in its 2009-10 annual report that the committee itself recognised that reform was necessary to maintain public confidence in its oversight function. It asserted that corporate knowledge of the committee’s procedure within government had been lost over time and that in some cases this had led—this is a serious point—to misunderstandings about the statutory independence of the committee and its work and about the nature of the relationship between the committee and the Prime Minister. The committee has suggested a number of reforms which I think we will hear more about and discuss today.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I think that the final point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the Bill of Rights is posed to the movers of the amendment, and I will leave them to respond to it when the noble Lord, Lord Butler, winds up the debate.
My noble friend Lord King said that he had been described as having a veneer of experience in these matters. All four speakers before the noble Baroness and me had far more than a veneer of experience in these matters. All four have served on this Committee or have been chairman, like my noble friend, and we are very grateful that they bring their expertise to this because it is a matter that requires a great deal of discussion and consideration by us.
I start by setting out what changes the Bill proposes to make to the ISC’s status. The new ISC will be appointed by Parliament and will report to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister. In parallel with the Bill, the Government intend that the ISC will be funded by Parliament and accommodated on the Parliamentary Estate, and that its staff will have the status of parliamentary staff.
As both my noble friend Lord King and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, have implied, the current ISC has been criticised for being a creature of the Executive—I think that was the word that the noble Baroness used. The intention of this measure is that the ISC should be brought much closer to Parliament. It will be a committee of Parliament created by statute in the same way as other bodies are, as listed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said there were three examples. The Speaker’s committee for IPSA, created under Section 1 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, is another. Like those other statutory committees of Parliament, the ISC will not have all the attributes of a departmental Select Committee. The question of whether such a committee would be the appropriate route to go down is another matter. We will deal with it when we debate Amendment 3, which the noble Lord will speak to immediately after this group.
The two amendments that we are considering concern the status of the ISC. The first would change the name of the Intelligence and Security Committee to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Some noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary has written to the chairman of the ISC, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, stating that in principle the Government support such a change, or one that would have a like effect of making clear in the Bill the parliamentary character of the ISC. However, before we could accept the amendment that noble Lords proposed and which the Opposition support, we would need to be very clear that it would be the best means to achieve this end and what all the implications of such a change would likely be, including the very tricky issue of parliamentary privilege. Any change that has the possible impact of increasing the risk of unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information should be very carefully thought through.
My noble friend Lord Lothian described himself as a simple Scottish lawyer. I always get rather worried when noble friends describe themselves as simple, Scottish or a lawyer, and when all three come together I am even more alarmed. However, the amendment could affect the ISC’s status for other purposes. For example, it could bring the ISC within the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by making it part of the House of Commons and the House of Lords for the purposes of the Act. It may also change the ISC’s status under the Data Protection Act 1998, as Section 63A of the Act may become relevant, making the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords the relevant data controllers for the ISC’s data-processing activities. I put it to my noble friend—the simple Scottish lawyer—that those consequential effects need to be examined in some detail.
It has been very helpful to debate the issues raised by the amendment. I hope I have gone some way to explaining why I am not in a position at this stage to say anything more. Certainly I can say that the ISC chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, has responded to my right honourable friend’s letter, and that the Government would welcome further discussion with the ISC on this important issue.
The second amendment in the group deals with the very significant issue of parliamentary privilege and takes us back to the Bill of Rights. This is a matter that the House has considered on a number of occasions in recent years. The Government’s most recent consideration of the issue came in the Green Paper that was published in April this year. Noble Lords will be aware of the importance that privilege can play in the functioning of this House and of another place. Parliamentary privilege includes such fundamental concepts as the freedom of speech of Members of this House and of another place, and the prohibition on courts questioning proceedings in Parliament. Both Houses and their Select Committees benefit from that privilege. Freedom of speech in the context of the Bill of Rights is just one aspect of parliamentary privilege.
At present the Intelligence and Security Committee is a statutory committee of parliamentarians. However, it does not at present benefit from that parliamentary privilege. The amendment would provide that the proceedings of the ISC would be proceedings in Parliament for the purposes of Article 9. That would ensure that the committee’s proceedings were covered by parliamentary privilege. The question posed by the amendment is about the consequences of privilege attaching to the proceedings of the ISC, which would be that criminal or civil proceedings could not be brought in respect of statements made by ISC members, or witnesses before the ISC, in the course of ISC proceedings.
Noble Lords may say that this makes very little difference because the ISC members are all parliamentarians and can benefit from privilege when participating in parliamentary proceedings. However, it would be different for a witness, who at present would not benefit from privilege. Other consequences would be that disciplinary proceedings against witnesses, based on statements made in ISC proceedings, would be barred as such proceedings would constitute a contempt of Parliament.
Noble Lords will understand from what I have said that there is a degree of sympathy for both amendments, and particularly the first, but more work needs to be done. I should be grateful if noble Lords accepted that and that it would probably be best at this stage to withdraw the amendments and to have further discussions, particularly in the light of the fact that my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has written to Sir Malcolm Rifkind about this and said that he is broadly content with the idea. However, as I have explained, we believe that more work is necessary. With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and to the other Members who have taken part in the debate. Two clear points have come out of the debate that are agreed on all sides. First, the ISC should be able to fulfil its duties to Parliament as strongly as possible. It should be clear that it is a servant of Parliament and not of the Executive. That was the purpose of the first amendment.
We will debate in a moment the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, proposing that the ISC becomes a Select Committee, but, as I understand it, special safeguards are required for it, both in relation to appointments and in the nature of its reports: namely, that things that are genuinely secret should not accidentally be released in its reports. I think I am right in saying—this will no doubt come out in our next debate—that there will need to be a statute for that reason, so the statute will be necessary anyway. It would be difficult to apply those restrictions to a Select Committee of Parliament, but that will no doubt also come out in our next debate.
The purpose of the clauses in the Bill and of the amendments is exactly the same as the purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is pursuing. I am very strongly in favour of Parliament’s effective control over the Executive. I have become more strongly in favour of that since I became a Member of Parliament rather than a member of the Executive. I believe in it very strongly, and I believe that of all the parts of the Executive, the security agencies need to be effectively controlled by people who are in a position to see and be trusted with information about what they are doing. So I do not think there is any difference about the ends.
The second thing is that witnesses to the ISC should have confidence in the security of the evidence they give. Again, I do not think there is any difference between us on that subject. As the Minister said, members of the ISC, as Members of Parliament, may be secure in that respect, but witnesses may not necessarily be so secure. If a situation arose in which the courts could question the proceedings in the ISC and enforce the revelation of evidence, the ISC would simply not be able to operate effectively. That is the purpose of seeking to apply in the statute that the ISC should have the benefit of parliamentary privilege as if it were a Select Committee of Parliament.
Again, it is clear from the Minister’s reply that the question here is about means rather than ends, and I entirely accept that those need to be carefully looked into and that the implications of the proposed amendments need to be carefully examined by those who are sufficiently expert to do so.
In the belief that our objectives in this are the same, that we are talking about means and not ends, and that the Government will now look at ways of achieving those ends, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
“( ) The ISC shall be a Select Committee of Parliament.”
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I welcome this debate on an issue that I have pursued now for 14 years since 1998. As I foresaw the response that the Minister has given today—that he was unable to give undertakings on privilege—I asked for my amendment to be taken separately. He will now understand why I had it moved from the group containing Amendment 1.
I corresponded with and made direct representations to Prime Minister Blair and others in Downing Street over a number of years. I was supported in doing so by the overwhelming majority of Labour Members of the other House and members of other political parties, with whom I had conversations in the late 1990s. There was overwhelming support for the principle of a Select Committee. I do not believe that oversight is fully credible while the committee remains a creature of the Executive or some halfway house that lacks parliamentary privilege. Privilege is the central issue in this debate—this was raised in the debate on the previous amendment—and that is why I am driven down the Select Committee route.
The problem at the moment is that the committee considers its relationship with the Prime Minister more important to its operations than its relationship with Parliament. The Government’s proposal seeks to address that but, in reality, it will make little difference to the nature of the relationship. I strongly dissent from the view that this relationship with the Prime Minister is more important than the relationship with Parliament, and that is why I favour Select Committee status.
We live on the threshold of an era in which civil liberties and freedoms will be subjected to increasing pressure. In such conditions, one has to beef up systems of regulation, safeguard and oversight. Those systems need to command public support, confidence and trust. I do not believe that, despite the good intentions of its membership and the witnesses who come before it, the ISC, as a creature of the Executive, can possibly meet those tests. What is proposed will in reality make little difference.
The committee needs new and increased powers to call persons and papers and to communicate with other committees. There are times when the information that comes before the committee should, in certain circumstances, be referred to other Select Committees. I shall deal with that in later amendments. This would enable it to carry out its inquiries. It does not mean that security will be in any way breached because mechanisms could be introduced to ensure that that does not happen with the release of material.
It is already acknowledged that the committee needs the power to report directly to Parliament and the argument has been well rehearsed over the years. The ISC needs the power to take evidence under oath: Select Committees have that power. It would not be that it took all evidence under oath but it should have the power to do so. As I say, Select Committees have that power but the ISC does not.
Without going into any details, there are times when the committee might receive assurances on issues where, if those assurances were given under oath, the committee might have the confidence, with the approval of the Prime Minister, to make statements that would be extremely helpful during the course of public debate and in the exercise of reassuring public opinion.
The ISC needs the power to take evidence under privilege. Technically, if a person appeared before the committee today, he could libel another person because he would not be protected by privilege. The committee has none of the powers that are afforded to witnesses giving evidence to parliamentary Select Committees. Above all, the committee should have the power to hold witnesses in contempt if they deliberately mislead the committee, which is what happens in the Commons. If Parliament knew that the committee had the ability to take evidence under oath and to hold witnesses in contempt in the event that they were deliberately to mislead, it would substantially increase the credibility of any reassuring statement that the committee makes.
The arguments are not new. They have been rehearsed at length on a number of occasions in the past, most notably during the passage of the 1989 and 1994 legislation—we go back a long way in this discussion. Those supporting Select Committee status included the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, then speaking from the Labour Front Bench, the future Secretary of State for Trade, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and the future Minister at the Cabinet Office, now the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling. All made positive speeches in favour of Select Committee status. In 1989, the entire Labour shadow cabinet, including the shadow Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary voted for full Select Committee status and not a halfway house. I have a copy of the Division List and the entire Labour membership in the House of Lords at the time voted for Select Committee status. We are not arguing new principles today.
Some say that legislation is required if the decision is taken to accord Select Committee status, but that is not altogether clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, was saying. It is argued by many that, although some tinkering with the law might be necessary, resolutions establishing the committee—effectively a Joint Committee—carried in both Houses with simple resolutions could cover all the functions of the committee.
I recognise that there is some opposition to the whole proposal. Some argue that the fact that the committee reports directly to the Prime Minister gives individual members of it additional clout, kudos, weight or importance in the political world. That was the view of some on the committee when I was a member. I strongly reject that view. Others argue that no way can be found to restructure the practices and the procedure of the Select Committee so as to ensure executive influence for reasons of national security over material that it may seek to publish. That is simply untrue. A resolution of both Houses could require that the committee sought the approval of the appropriate agency before reporting to the House. The resolutions could further provide that, in the event of a dispute arising between the agency and the committee over the publication of information or evidence in a report to the House, the matter at dispute could be referred to the Prime Minister for his decision and the committee could be required to comply with the decision of the Prime Minister. That is what I referred to during my Second Reading speech as the override.
If in unforeseen circumstances, the committee, or any member of it, were to threaten to breach the committee’s rules and procedure, as agreed by the House in these resolutions, it would always be open to the Leader of the House, on the instructions of the Prime Minister, to dissolve the entire committee or to remove any member of it on a resolution tabled on one day which took effect on the next. There are adequate provisions, although I shall argue on a later amendment that this power would need to be exercised with great caution.
I believe that Parliament could carry resolutions that make the committee as hermetically sealed as any structure that currently exists. We are told that such a committee could not be prevented from taking evidence in public session, if that were the wish of the committee. In response, I argue that a resolution of the House could introduce a general prohibition on the Select Committee taking evidence in public session—resolutions of the Commons can be carried to deal with the issue. It could further place a requirement on the committee to seek the permission of the appropriate agencies and the Prime Minister in conditions of dispute, if it wished to take evidence in public in particular circumstances. It is argued that although a Select Committee is neither more nor less likely than the ISC to leak, as a Select Committee it would have the right to publish reports in a way that could prove prejudicial to the interests of national security. A resolution of the House could introduce a general prohibition on the Select Committee publishing reports without approval. It could further place a requirement on the committee to seek the permission of the appropriate agency and the Prime Minister in conditions of dispute, if it wished to publish a report. Safeguards would be available for every eventuality in the event that it were to be created a full Select Committee of Parliament.
As prime ministerial appointees, members are currently responsible for reporting collectively to the Prime Minister. It is argued that such limited powers to report would not be possible if the committee were appointed by the legislature. There is no reason why the resolution of the House should not stipulate the procedure to be used in the publication of reports. It could require the committee to publish its reports subject to sidelining by the Prime Minister for reasons of national security, as currently happens.
It is also argued that a move to a parliamentary arrangement could lead to greater pressures on Ministers to be accountable as witnesses, with less emphasis on agency heads giving evidence. That argument is not supported by an examination of practices in some of the House’s other committees. In my 11 years on the Public Accounts Committee, Ministers never attended as witnesses. I am not advocating a prohibition on Ministers attending the ISC, but Ministers would be no more likely to attend a House Intelligence Committee than the ISC. With hearings being held in private, there will be no additional pressure on Ministers to attend. I believe that with the right membership, a parliamentary committee is as secure as the ISC. I reject the statement in the Green Paper as I said in an earlier intervention; if the right people are selected there will not be a problem.
I remind the Committee that this is the first real open debate we have had in Parliament on this issue in 14 years. I welcome this debate. We need now to grasp the mettle and not muck around with some interim or secondary arrangement. There is an expectation among colleagues that the system should work. We must be satisfied that the structure we create is going to work so that we have a system that is credible with the public.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, I have long been an admirer of the persistence of the noble Lord, both in this House and in the other place. Certainly, in regard to his amendment, that is no exception. I wish to correct him on one point he made at the end. There is no prohibition on relevant Ministers attending the ISC and they have done so on a number of occasions. That is simply a matter of fact.
Over the years that I have been a member of the ISC, I was one of those who thought very carefully about the future of the committee and whether it should be a Select Committee. Although I understand many of the points made by the noble Lord, particularly in relation to privilege, I shall say why ultimately I do not agree with him on making this committee a full Select Committee of Parliament.
Over a long—probably overlong—if broken career in the other place, I served on two Select Committees. Their purpose—I refer to the Select Committee on Energy and the Public Accounts Committee—was to openly take evidence that was available to the public on matters of relevance in terms of energy and of public accounting. The culture of a Select Committee is based on being able to take open evidence. There is no compunction on witnesses at a Select Committee to give full answers; there is no evidence given on oath. But normally a Select Committee is not dealing with confidential information that cannot be disclosed in that forum.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I wonder whether we are missing a major point in all this, which is why my instinct is strongly to support my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I refer to public confidence in the work of MI5 and MI6 and what we know about them.
There is a sort of closed shop mentality at the moment, as I see it, what some people call the “secret state”. People have the right to write their books and put titles on them, but when I want to find out how many of the e-mails that I write could possibly be hacked by one of the agencies, there is no way of knowing, obviously. But should there be some way of knowing the categories of e-mails that can be hacked? Is it part of national defence and security that we do not know an awful lot about what is going on? This has a tangential bearing on whether it is a parliamentary committee or whether it is the committee that we have at the moment. Incidentally, as I understand it—I will be corrected if I am wrong—there is no Labour Member of the Lords on this committee at present. Is that correct?
Lord Butler of Brockwell
There are Labour members, but not Labour Members of the House of Lords. There are two Members from the Lords, my noble friend and a Cross-Bencher, but there are Labour Members from the House of Commons.
Lord Lea of Crondall
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, is correcting something that I did not say. I said Labour Members of the Lords. There are no Labour Members of the Lords on this committee.
The information flow should be the subject of a much more substantive statement by the Minister when he responds than is normal on these occasions. I was interested in the remark made as an aside by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours on the fact that this question en principe has never been discussed in the past 14 years. I rather suspect that if we were setting up a constitution for a new member of the United Nations, we would be a little worried if that were the case. Although I am not saying that this amendment is the right thing, I will support it because I believe that it opens up a very important question. We know that the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, is a typical, reputable, outstanding and well respected member of the circle in which this sort of activity takes place. It used to be called the Establishment. I do not know whether that was a compliment or an insult; it was half way between. However, we do not need to be so scared of the idea that we are always playing into the hands of enemies of the country, whether it is al-Qaeda or anybody else, if we have a more adult approach to these matters. Political balance is needed by those who have been involved in the agencies—I see a couple on the Front Bench—where people find it perhaps difficult to understand the world where other people come from. It would be much better if the normal rules of political balance and openness were observed.
Finally, as regards the remark of the previous speaker, we had the example last week of members of the Treasury Select Committee not covering themselves in glory when asking questions about LIBOR because they did not really understand what they were talking about. I can see the objection that ordinary souls on a committee like this would be of no use because they would not know what they were talking about. Obviously, by definition, they would not know what they were talking about as they would not have been serving in one of the agencies or been on this intelligence committee for a number of years or been Secretary of State for Defence or whatever. I wonder whether that is going to inspire public confidence.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I intervene as somebody who has not been a member of this committee. I have now managed to get papers from the noble Lord who sits next to me. Unusually I find myself wishing to ask my noble friend to listen carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for the following reason. The issue is the confidence of the public in this committee. I have a difficulty of inventing a committee of a particular kind in order to meet that confidence requirement because it seems to start from a grave disadvantage of looking as if you have an artefact here. People complain about the fact that nobody seems to know too much about what goes on, so let us invent something that seems to meet their requirements. That is what it will look like if we make the alterations suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, although I am entirely in favour of them.
The advantage of a Select Committee is primarily that it is something that people know and it has, over the years, established a position, as a concept, of independence. It clearly is not the creature of the Prime Minister or of the political parties. It is manifestly, and increasingly, with the election of its chairman, an independent form of investigation. Therefore, prima facie, it would be much more sensible to use that mechanism and to make such changes as are necessary for the particularities of such a Select Committee so that at least when it is referred to as a Select Committee people immediately catch on—in so far as they know about anything in Parliament—that this is an independent, non-party parliamentary committee that is treated by its members as a place where they work in the national interest and not in their party-political interest.
I think there is an important advantage in using the Select Committee structure. My worry is that my noble friend will be led by all sorts of officials—I have been in this position and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, will excuse me when I try to describe it—of the “better not Minister”, “it would be safer to do something slightly different”, “you never know what might happen” kind. That attitude is endemic in the giving of advice because advisers would prefer not to have given advice that turned out not to be quite right, so it is better to give the most negative advice.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to say that we can create a construct that is a Select Committee and sits naturally in the parliamentary structure but is specifically designed to deal with security matters and will be what everyone outside will recognise is different from a Select Committee on the environment or a Select Committee concerned with trade and industry. Is it not better to use the strength of the Select Committee process and procedure and, above all, of public understanding rather than to try to create something special?
I very much respect my noble friend Lord Lothian and I understand his fear that the Select Committee will be expected to have public hearings. I agree that a public hearing in which every answer is, “I am afraid I can’t answer that” will be an embarrassment and not helpful, but it seems to me not impossible that, before any such hearings are started, this Select Committee should publicly be said to be a Select Committee that does not have public hearings, except in unusual circumstances. You start off as you mean to go on. No one would misunderstand that. Indeed, I think if it were stated like that, it would be much easier for the committee to proceed, and I would like to see it. But to say that because it is different from other Select Committees in that sense, it ought to be set up in an entirely different way is a mistake because it is more similar to a Select Committee in every other manner. What people want to know is that it is independent and all-party, that its members take things seriously as parliamentarians and that its secrecy is only the secrecy that is necessary because of the nature of the things that it discusses.
I hope my noble friend will not be led astray by the siren voices of those for whom this is a step too far. We have been a long time discussing this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, reminded us of how long and there was time before even he came on the scene in which this discussion was taking place. I hope we will not step back now. We ought to do the thing properly and set down the terms of the Select Committee in advance.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this amendment, mainly because I always listen with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. His knowledge of parliamentary procedure is second to none and he is probably the most skilful of anyone I have observed in what one might call the parliamentary maze. However, I disagree with his proposal that there should be a Select Committee for the following and other reasons.
First, intelligence is not created in a vacuum but for a reason. Sometimes it is found to be created for a reason that proves to be suspect but not necessarily to be followed. It is not completely free of scrutiny; far from it. A little later in the Bill there are references to the Intelligence Services Commissioner. I am bound to say—I said this before when I was independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—that the Government and the security services could give a more coherent and fuller narrative of what they do. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. She started the process in a convincing way of giving at least some narrative that enabled not only the public but, perhaps more importantly, parliamentarians in the first instance to understand why certain things were being done and certain actions taken. It is subject to oversight and it is necessarily subject to confidentiality. Accountability is very important but we have to face up to the fact that full transparency can never be achieved, and indeed should never be achieved for it runs the risk of exposing those who do very difficult tasks for our intelligence service to risks to which we would not wish them to be exposed.
Furthermore, a Select Committee of either the other place or both Houses involves the normal Select Committee procedures. It is very difficult to limit those procedures because Parliament makes its own rules. Those of us such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, a number of others present and me—derided as we are by some for having been in the House of Commons before coming here—know something that possibly not everyone else knows, which is that Erskine May is not like a legal textbook. The rules of parliamentary procedure are often made up as you go along and one cannot anticipate clearly what they will be. Sometimes the mood of the nation changes those rules. Think back to what happened in London on 7 July 2005 to see the emotion that followed those events and how easy it would have been for parliamentary procedure to have been changed, either to make a Select Committee much more secretive in its approach— inappropriately so perhaps—or to go the other way and open up everything to public scrutiny.
If Members of this House or another place are appointed to Select Committees by the normal route, it exposes much of what is given to them to their staff. The Government should be entitled to look at the ability of the proposed members of a committee to retain and hold to confidential material and the reliability of their staff. The one thing one cannot afford in this area is inadvertent leaks or the innocently meant, but foolish, acts of the unwise.
What the Government propose in this Bill is, in my judgment, appropriate. We have a committee that is accountable but not wholly transparent for perfectly good reasons. It has the capacity to look at secrets in detail but within an appropriate context—as limited, for example, by Clause 2(3), which means that the Prime Minister and the ISC must be satisfied as to the part that anything that might be inquired into plays in any ongoing national security operation.
My judgment, for what it is worth, is that what the Government propose in this Bill creates a prudent and carefully thought-out structure for the proper and rigorous scrutiny of how secret material is dealt with by Her Majesty’s Government. There is a danger that we play into the hands of those who believe that because something is secret there is some kind of ghastly Executive conspiracy going on. That is completely untrue. Of course, mistakes are made; there are people in the secret services who have to delve into the most difficult things that face our society, and they are bound to make mistakes. I hope that occasionally they do make the odd mistake in the protection of the public, because overcaution is not a bad thing if it saves lives—sometimes large numbers of lives. But the menu provided in this Bill allows the proper balance, and I shall, if necessary, not support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord King of Bridgwater
The noble Lord has great experience in these areas, and I take it from the tenor of his argument that he is not advocating a Select Committee approach. He said that he was in favour of what the Government have in the Bill, but since then the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, have produced amendments. What is his view on those?
Lord Carlile of Berriew
At the moment I am dealing with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I listened with great care to my noble friend Lord Henley from the Front Bench, and I am very content with the approach that he has taken. We should wait and see what the Government come up with in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who has great wisdom and experience in these things—I am completely open-minded about that. But I am not happy with the idea that we should have a conventional Select Committee or, even worse, a Select Committee whose rules have been fiddled with for this purpose.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, like many Members I have been greatly impressed by the contribution made by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Carlile. Both have the gift of being able to articulate their views with awesome clarity and very great force. If one had to, I should find it somewhat difficult to decide which one is correct in this matter. However, in respect of this debate and the earlier Amendments 1 and 2, it seems that everybody’s objectives point very much in the same direction.
In the first instance is the desire for sovereignty and independence for this particular body. By sovereignty one means that it is an organ, extension and delegation of Parliament, to such a degree that, as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, it would be unchallengeable in the courts. I think that we are all agreed on that matter. At the same time, it has to be independent of the Executive and Prime Minister, which means that it should be, to use a canine expression, the watchdog of Parliament rather than the poodle of the Prime Minister. It is much easier to enunciate that principle than to work it out exactly because, by definition, the Prime Minister and to a large extent the Home Secretary has a constant flow of intelligence information, which will simply not be disseminated generally.
My other point relates to Select Committees. I listened carefully to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and believe that the concept of a Select Committee is sufficiently broad and flexible to allow a great deal to be done of the nature suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I would have thought that a Select Committee could always decide whether to sit in public or not and, if so, on exactly what terms. A Select Committee can decide whether a single word of its report is to be published or whether there is to be general publication, subject to sidelining. Sidelining, of course, can be a severe sanction. I will never forget the day, in about 1967, when I was a Member of the House of Commons and that flamboyant and splendid Member of Parliament Tam Dalyell was hauled before the House to answer a serious charge of contempt. It related to a Select Committee that was looking into the affairs of Porton Down, a most delicate situation as we all appreciate. There was an awesome hush; it was almost like a public flogging. There was the miscreant standing ashen-faced at the Bar of the House. It taught me a lesson about the tremendous and terrible jurisdiction that the House of Commons has, if it wishes to use it in a situation like that.
Where do we arrive? First, at a body that is not appointed by the Prime Minister; secondly, a body that is unchallengeable in the courts; and thirdly, a body—possibly a Select Committee—that is able to do its work with the confidence of the public, and yet able to maintain an absolute confidentiality which is so important to its very function.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord that—as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said—there is no argument about the ends. We need to establish public confidence in a very important committee which has a very important role in overseeing the intelligence agencies and which clearly has to be regarded as being in a different world from the other areas of responsibility that Select Committees deal with. This is a difficult issue and a number of interesting points have come up during this debate which I had not anticipated. One point, made by my noble friend Lord Lothian, was the implication that this must involve, as I understood it, a majority of public hearings. My understanding is that the Defence Select Committee, particularly when discussing our nuclear deterrent, goes into secret session and there has never been any problem with that. I am not aware of any leaks from any of those proceedings. However, it is a challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, might remember that when we tried to meet totally in secret, as we did, I tried to see whether there was some way that we might at least have a public hearing. I certainly saw the risk, exactly as posed by my noble friend Lord Lothian, that if you were not careful you would end up with prepared questions and prepared answers—all planted—and it would be just a stage show, which would not carry much credibility.
As for the challenge about how we achieve this balance, I reflected on a bit of history. When Sir Anthony Blunt had to be outed at the beginning of the 1979 Administration of the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, there were considerable debates about whether it was time to have some sort of committee. Jonathan Aitken got quite a bit of publicity for being in this particular session when he stood up and said that,
“one debate and one Written Answer do not add up to adequate and continuing scrutiny of the Security Service”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/79; col. 446.]
I think we would all agree with that. He said the Government should take the initiative and if they did not move to establish a “senior and more cautious” committee of privy counsellors, then in a different Parliament—perhaps one dominated by left-wing Back-Benchers—a more intrusive, less sympathetic Commons Select Committee might be set up.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, like other Members of the Committee I am a bit puzzled about how polarised the debate became a few minutes ago. It seems to have swung back now. I do not see all the distinctions that have been drawn, and I certainly do not see the distinction between the committee being there to ask questions in public or as something different to get to the bottom of an issue.
I agree, of course, that the committee must have the confidence of the agencies and that it must have public confidence. I would add, perhaps as a subsection of that second point rather than as a third category, that it must also have the confidence of those affected by events. When I was a member of the London Assembly, I was involved in some work following the events of 7/7, and one of the benefits of our being able to undertake some work was that it fulfilled the need of some who had been affected to tell their story and to have their story listened to. I am not suggesting that this is a pattern or even relevant to the majority of the ISC’s work, but I would not want it to be forgotten.
I think that this debate is leading us towards there being a Select Committee and that badging it as such is important because of what that says about the focus of Parliament’s responsibility to the public. I do not think it would require the rules to be fiddled with, but it would require them to be made fit for purpose. Perhaps it is naive and untraditional of me, but I do not see why the rules of a Select Committee cannot be made fit for purpose. It might require a lot of work, but I think it ought to be done.
I have some very non-technical and rather inelegant amendments later, but the point that they are intended to raise is that the default should be that the committee works for the public and in public, not as a stage show—absolutely not, because to take up one of the points that has just been made, I for one think that the most important questions that tend to be asked are the supplemental ones. I am glad that we are having this debate because I think that it is taking us in an important direction.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
My Lords, I declare what I hope is an obvious interest—my membership of the Security Service for 33 years—although I should warn the Committee that I retired five years ago and so am out of date.
I should like to reiterate a couple of points. I listened with great interest to the points made by both former members of the ISC, current members and others with a close interest in this matter. It is certainly the case—and I do not think that I am out of date in saying this—that it is in the interests of the security and intelligence community to have either a Select Committee or the present committee as it stands seeking to give reassurance to Parliament and the public that these agencies are properly run, obeying the law and doing a reasonable job. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, they will make mistakes—it would be a delusion to suggest that any organisation was free from making mistakes—but certainly when I was reporting to the ISC I hoped to own up to and discuss those mistakes.
The support of members of the public is necessary not only in terms of general support for the organ of government but because, to do their work, the agencies require that support every day of the week. They need the public to join them as recruits—they want to attract high-quality recruits—they need them as sources of information, and they need them to help in whatever way possible. Someone might be asked, “Can I come and sit in your bedroom with a camera?”. I might say no but people say yes to the officers of the Security Service daily. Therefore, when we talk about public opinion, the services require the help of the public to do their job and, in my experience, they get it.
When we talk about whether to go for a Select Committee—a proposal with which I have a lot of sympathy—or an improvement on, or development of, the last one, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, that we will get there at some stage, although whether we will do so at the speed at which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, would like, I do not know.
I am sorry but I feel that I must take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lea of Crondall, about the amount of information on the services that is available in the public domain. For certain, my service took its heart in its hands and commissioned a centenary history of the Security Service. We made the professor of contemporary history at Cambridge a temporary member of the service and allowed him into our records. We said, “You can make any judgment you like. We won’t seek to query it. There will be a few things that you can’t publish for national security reasons but we will keep those to a minimum”. If you look at our website—I must stop saying “our”; I left the organisation. If you look at the Security Service’s website, you will see quite extensive amounts of information.
Why do these organisations exist? They exist to try to protect the United Kingdom and its citizens, and it is in their interests that as far as possible the confidence in them is well founded and, as far as it can be, widely and publicly known. To that extent, I should like to say how much I welcome the arrival of the ISC and how much I look forward to its continuing evolution.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I wish to make a brief point. In doing so, I know that I risk being regarded by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as the siren voice of cautious officialdom—or, in my case, cautious former officialdom. However, I want to raise a question on what the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Deben, said.
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was that the badging of the security committee would be improved if it were called a Select Committee. I can see the case for that. I think we all agree that the ultimate purpose is that the public should have confidence in the committee’s scrutiny of the intelligence services. However, it was clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that if this were to be a Select Committee, it would have to be hedged around by a very large number of parliamentary resolutions, and that would have the same effect as the constraints that are written into the Bill. The question is: would that make it more convincing if it were a Select Committee when it was a Select Committee unlike any other because it would be so inhibited by those restraints?
They say that something which looks like a duck and quacks like a duck can be regarded as being a duck, but this would not look like or quack like a Select Committee; it would be something completely separate. I suspect that this might reduce, rather than increase, public confidence in it because people would see that it was a Select Committee that did not operate like any other Select Committee and could not really be regarded as a Select Committee in the true sense in which the public understand it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Could I draw attention again to the noble Lord’s own argument over privilege? The issue of privilege will not arise in the event that it is a full Select Committee because by definition it has everything that the noble Lord proposes in his amendments.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
I accept that, and we will be coming to some other amendments where I will be arguing that we should have our cake and eat it. We are entitled, however, to have our cake and eat it. For the reasons I have been arguing, I do not think that it is advantageous to have this as a Select Committee because I do not think it can be like any other Select Committee. I do think, however, that it requires special arrangements to give it the privileges of a Select Committee, and I do not withdraw that argument.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has done this Committee a service in degrouping his amendments. It is a broader and deeper debate than the one we had on the first two amendments. It has been extremely helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, hit the nail on the head when he described it as a useful debate with a lot of consensus. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said this was a polarised debate. I am not convinced that it is. This is less about what we expect the ISC to do and how we expect to do it than the structure that can best achieve those objectives. There seems to be a fair amount of agreement on the kind of objectives we are seeking. I wrote down a couple. The idea of a veneer of expertise has now been firmly laid to rest. I hope that we will not hear that expression again either in your Lordships’ House or outside. I was intrigued when the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned to the Minister the comments from civil servants. I felt the ghost of “Yes Minister” creeping into our debates. Civil Service Ministers sometimes have to make a decision and challenge civil servants on some issues.
The areas of broad agreement were the independence from the Executive and the issue of parliamentary privilege. I thought the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the power to take evidence under oath was a powerful one. Security of information caused considerable concern for those who are not keen on having a Select Committee structure but who also, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, want to protect security of information if there is any question on that. There is the same point even if the structures are different.
The issue of public hearings came up. I am not sure how relevant that is in terms of structure in that amendments have been tabled about the kind of public hearings there could be and what form they could take. My own view is that they are valuable. They certainly should never be automatic but we have that debate coming up. I am unclear whether a Select Committee would have to have public sessions unless the Committee wanted to have it. It is the best structure for achieving that.
We have also heard from a number of noble Lords about ensuring public confidence in whatever structure the Government decide to go ahead with. It was helpful that in the last debate the Minister, if I understood his words correctly, said he wanted to look at the best means of achieving these ends and consider all implications. I hope he can say that in the context of this debate as well. It has been a broader debate in that noble Lords have been thinking carefully about powers, independence and structure, and I hope the Minister finds that debate and those comments and views helpful.
Public confidence is an issue to take into account. It can be well served by public hearings or it can be badly served by public hearings, and we will debate that further today. Public confidence does have an impact on how sensitive or highly confidential information that is relevant to national security is dealt with. So I am interested in what the Minister has to say. I hope that he will take on board all the comments made in the last debate and in this debate. I hope that he is smiling because he agrees with me rather than because he is amused by what I said. I hope that he will say—as I hope I would say if I were sitting in his seat—that he will take this away and take into account not only the comments that were made in the previous debate but the wide range of views expressed in this debate. They are moving in the same direction and seek that, whatever structure the Government want to proceed with, the comments of the House should be taken into account to ensure that the Government get it right, protect national security, safeguard sensitive information and also secure parliamentary independence and public confidence.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I was smiling at the noble Baroness only because I thought that she was trying to write my speech, which was not necessarily her job at this stage. I agree with her about several things. It has been a very useful debate. The 11 speakers—12 including myself—expressed a range of views. As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, we are all heading in the same direction and all trying to ensure, as a number of speakers put it, that there will be an appropriate degree of public confidence in whatever we set up.
I was very interested in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He talked about the position of many colleagues in his party in 1989. Many of them are now distinguished members of his party. He stressed that all of them, to a man and woman, were in favour of Select Committee status for what became the ISC in 1994 under the chairmanship of my noble friend, and what is now being developed by the Bill. I was looking forward to hearing the official view of the Opposition on whether Select Committee status was the appropriate road to go down, but I heard no answer on this from the noble Baroness later in the debate, nor on what the collective view of the party was. It might be that there are now different views, because 1989 is a considerable time ago.
Lord King of Bridgwater
The view about a Select Committee is rather easier to hold if you are in opposition than if you are in government. The history of this was that the entire shadow Cabinet in 1989 voted in favour of it. When the prospect of office loomed, Jack Straw, who was then I think shadow Home Secretary, was asked the same question and was much more cautious about the whole matter. Of course, when they came into government there were no moves to introduce a Select Committee. However, times have moved on and I hope that there will be moves in that direction.
Lord Henley
My Lords, obviously my noble friend is right to say that times have moved on. All of us can remember as far back as 1989. Things have obviously changed since then. I was merely trying to tease out the official view of the Opposition at this stage, but it does not matter because as we all know, and as a very distinguished Cross-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made clear, we are all heading in the same direction and at least trying to make sure that we achieve the right thing—a committee that has the appropriate degree of public confidence.
I do not want to re-emphasise what I said earlier about the ISC being appointed by Parliament rather than the Prime Minister, and about its members being free to choose their own chair. That will be debated later, in the context of another amendment tabled by the noble Lord. In parallel with these statutory changes, it is the Government’s intention that the ISC will be funded and accommodated by Parliament. The amendment sets up the ISC as a Select Committee of Parliament. The noble Lord could have achieved that by the simpler means of leaving out the whole of Part 1 and making sure that the appropriate authorities in another place created the Select Committee—but he went down a different route and we are having this debate for the very good reasons that all speakers in the debate made clear.
I will explain why we believe that the ISC should be created by statute. It is to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect against the disclosure of sensitive information. Therefore, the Government do not consider it appropriate for that body to be a full Joint Committee established merely under the Standing Orders of each House, as other Select Committees are.
I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I expand on those reasons. First, in that scenario, the Government would not have a statutory ability to prevent the publication of sensitive material. There are two main problems with this. The risk of disclosure of information that might damage national security could be increased. This might lead to a situation where agency heads find it hard to reconcile their duty to protect information with their duty to facilitate oversight. This could lead to a sharing of less sensitive information and therefore a corresponding reduction in the effectiveness and credibility of oversight.
Secondly, it would not be possible for the most sensitive information to be withheld from the Committee. It is important that safeguards exist so there is adequate provision for those exceptional circumstances where the disclosure of information, even to the Chairman of the Committee, would be damaging to national security and/or would jeopardise vital agency operations or sources of information. The equivalent grounds on which information can be withheld from the Committee under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, have been used very rarely, as those former or current members of the Committee will know. We would expect the similar powers in the Bill also to be used sparingly—only in exceptional circumstances.
Thirdly, there is the appointments process. Again we will deal with that in greater detail later on. Here the Prime Minister has a role, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in a later amendment proposes a much stronger role for him. That role is important. The ISC is unique in that members of the Committee have access to very important and extremely sensitive information, and it is important that the appointments process has sufficient safeguards to ensure there is as little risk as possible of unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information and the consequences that could do significant damage to national security.
The effect of the noble Lord’s amendment to create a Select Committee is not clear to me. He says it could take evidence under oath. In the Bill, even if we were to accept all the noble Lord’s amendments, the ISC would still be created by statute and safeguards would still exist to protect national security in those three areas I have listed, although admittedly altered to some degree. Unless the noble Lord pursues this suggested alternative policy of deleting the whole of Part 1, his amendment would not create a full Joint Committee because that can be done only by the Standing Orders of each House. It would create an entirely novel body, a Select Committee established by statute.
To what extent would such a body share the characteristics of the other Select Committees? The Bill makes it clear that, even were it amended in other respects according to noble Lords’ wishes, the ISC is different from other Select Committees in fundamental respects—for instance, in relation to appointments and reporting. That being so, I believe it is unclear whether or to what extent changing the ISC in this way would give it the other characteristic of a Select Committee. Indeed, I believe the risk is that describing the ISC as a Select Committee when it has characteristics not shared by other such committees could positively mislead as to the ISC’s true character.
I hope that that explanation is sufficient for the noble Lord. I wait to see what he says. This has been a useful debate and there will no doubt be further discussions on this matter, but I believe that it is appropriate for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in winding up the debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that I recognise the wording I have used could not be put in the Bill. My amendment is simply my attempt to ensure that there is a debate. I recognise perfectly well that if we were to go down this route, while there would be, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, a requirement for something in statute, the body of the change would be incorporated into parliamentary resolutions.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
“( ) Financial support shall be available to members of the ISC who are members of the House of Commons as if they were members of a Select Committee of that House; and to those who are members of the House of Lords as if they were members of a Select Committee of that House.”
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 9.
It is right and customary to declare an interest in these amendments. I certainly do so in this case because I have a direct financial interest in Amendment 4. The purpose of the amendments is that the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee should be treated in the same way as the chairmen of Select Committees in terms of remuneration. The purpose of Amendment 4 is that the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee should, similarly, be treated in the same way as members of Select Committees.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that Amendment 9 is not tabled at the behest of the current chairman of the ISC, the right honourable Malcolm Rifkind, who does a great deal of work for the committee on an entirely voluntary basis. I think that my colleague the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, will agree that this committee chairman certainly does not do less work than the chairman of a Select Committee. He works many more days of the week than the days on which the ISC meets. For financial purposes—and leaving aside the particular individual, Sir Malcolm Rifkind—the chairman of the ISC should, as a matter of justice, be treated similarly to the chairmen of Select Committees and receive remuneration accordingly. I think I can say that that is the view of the other members of the ISC, who are similarly grateful for and deeply impressed by the work that our chairman does.
As regards Amendment 4, the House of Lords is kind enough to provide that attendance at meetings of the Intelligence and Security Committee should qualify for half the daily allowance—£150—but only on the days when this House is sitting. There seems to be no logic in that. We do exactly the same amount of work regardless of whether this House happens to be sitting at the same time. If one day should qualify for the £150 allowance then it seems that the other day should. This point arises because, these days, and as we will see in the next couple of weeks, the sittings of the House of Commons and the House of Lords do not always coincide with each other. I regret that. It may happen in September that the House of Commons will sit and the House of Lords will not. If there is a meeting of the ISC on those days, my noble colleague and I will not be eligible for the daily allowance. There is a greater injustice as a result of the unevenness of the sittings of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
I have, as I say, a personal interest in this perfectly simple point of equity, which ought to be put right. It can easily be put right in the rules on the financial support of the House. In order to draw attention to it and try to ensure that it is put right, I have put down Amendment 4.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, in both of his amendments, to which I have attached my name. Like him, I declare an interest in Amendment 4—on which I shall say no more than he has said. He has argued the case with great eloquence and I hope that the Government will listen to his argument.
In general terms, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that these amendments are slightly ironic, given what I was saying in answer to his previous amendment. We are asking to be treated like a Select Committee and, once more, this underlines the fact that the argument on that is not polarised. It is not about the theory of a Select Committee but about the practice of one. We may well return to this matter in the future.
I strongly endorse the proposal in Amendment 9 that the chair of the committee should be remunerated in line with the chair of departmental Select Committees. I have served under four Intelligence and Security Committee chairmen, I think, and in each case I have been amazed at the amount of work they are required to do compared with the ordinary members of the committee. The ordinary members do preparation behind closed doors in secure surroundings for an afternoon and then we have the meeting the next day, but the chairman is in almost every day, going through issues, deciding whether they should be brought to the committee. The chairman has a major piece of work. It is therefore only fair that the chairman should be properly remunerated, as he would be if he were a chairman of a Select Committee.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the amendment. My parting speech in the House of Commons in 2001 was on the very issue of the payment of chairmen of Select Committees. I wanted to see the development of what you might call a separate career structure in the legislature as opposed to the Executive. When I was a member, the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, did excellent work. When I think of the amount of work that he took on, it is inconceivable that we should now push through legislation without taking full account of that work and the need to ensure that it is remunerated.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I intervene very briefly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for his comments and for those that he made at Second Reading, for which I am grateful. I am not sure whether this amendment can be made retrospective, but it seems an excellent idea. I do support it—it seems logical if a Select Committee chairman in the House of Commons now has it. I understand my noble friend Lord Lamont made the point. The point the noble Lord, Lord Butler, raised is pretty fundamental because it applies to every Select Committee of this House. If the House is not sitting, people do not get any allowance even if those committees are working. The issue goes a bit broader than just changing it for the ISC.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
If I may correct the noble Lord, it is worse than that. Under the arrangements for other Select Committees of this House, the members qualify even if the House is not sitting. The noble Lord shakes his head but if he looks up the rules he will find—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, agrees with me—that for Select Committees the allowance is available on days when the House is not sitting, but for the ISC it is not.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has cheered up the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, quite considerably if that is right because he was telling me of the committee session he must attend in the Recess. I simply say that I support this. I do not know quite what the first part of the amendment means or whether the Minister will explain it. I am not clear what the financial benefits are for Members of the House of Commons when they are on Select Committees. We asked for equivalent arrangements for the ISC. Perhaps somebody will clarify that point.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the names of my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Beecham are associated with Amendment 9 and we support the proposal that the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee should be remunerated in line with chairs of departmental Select Committees of the House of Commons. As has already been said clearly, the commitment required by future occupants of this post is likely to be extensive, bearing in mind that the whole purpose of the Bill is to strengthen oversight of the intelligence and security activities of the Government by extending the statutory remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The committee, as we know, will be drawn from Members of the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House. It would seem appropriate to determine remuneration as part of the Bill, and to relate it to a not dissimilar position in one of the Houses of Parliament from which the membership of the committee is to be drawn.
A departmental Select Committee in the House of Commons has a different but not widely dissimilar role to that of the Intelligence and Security Committee under the Bill. The chair of a departmental Select Committee in the House of Commons also takes on a considerable additional level of commitment and responsibility. There are a number of such posts and they are not held by Ministers of the Crown. The officeholders, like the Select Committees themselves, are drawn from Back-Benchers, as would be the case with the Intelligence and Security Committee and the chair of that committee. It would therefore seem that the chair of a departmental Select Committee in the House of Commons is the appropriate benchmark, as provided for in Amendment 9, which we support.
Lord Henley
My Lords, we can deal with these amendments fairly briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, described them as a simple point of equity. On that basis, I hope the debate has been—or will be—listened to in due course by IPSA in the case of the Commons and, in the case of Members of this House, the House Committee, because in the end decisions have to be made by those appropriate committees. It is not really a matter for legislation.
To underline that, I remind the Committee that Commons Members’ pay is entirely a matter for IPSA and it makes decisions in accordance with resolutions of the House. The relevant resolutions make no provision for additional financial support for ordinary members of Select Committees so it would be a matter only for the chairmen of committees. I will get to the question about the chairman of this committee later. IPSA may determine that MPs who hold a position or office specified in a resolution of the House of Commons should receive a higher salary than ordinary Members. IPSA will have no say as to which positions are on the list—that is obviously a matter for Parliament; once it has decided on that list, it will be for IPSA to set the rate. Again, it is for IPSA to listen to this debate.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response and to other Members of the House for their comments. I just want to make clear to the noble Lord that it is not a question of feeling adequately or inadequately remunerated. There may be different views in the House about whether payment of £150 for a day’s work on the committee is adequate or inadequate, but that is not my point. My point is that there is an obvious inequity between the treatment of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the members of Select Committees, and that is what I would like to see put right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
“( ) If the House of Parliament from which a member of the ISC is to be drawn declines to appoint a person nominated by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister shall nominate an alternative person.”
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, Amendment 5 is an amendment to Clause 1(4). It seeks simply to fill out an obvious point that is not currently covered by the Bill.
Under the arrangements proposed in the Bill, the Prime Minister will propose members of the committee but it will be for Parliament to agree to the appointment or not. Therefore, we need to provide for the situation in which Parliament does not agree to an appointment. At the moment the Bill says nothing about that. The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that in those circumstances, if either the House of Commons or the House of Lords does not agree to the nomination of a Member of that House to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Prime Minister would have to nominate somebody else for the appointment for the approval of the respective House. I think that is obvious and that is what would happen. It is not provided for in the Bill and this amendment is therefore just to fill that gap.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, once again I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, on this amendment, to which my name is also attached. I will not add much to what he said. I think that the real purpose here is to remind the House that the committee has nine members. That is written in to the statute. It is one of the smaller committees involved in the sort of work that this committee is doing and it is very important, in my view, that we retain that number at least. In the absence of this amendment it is theoretically possible that this House might decide that it did not want the two nominations from this House made by the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister might decide to leave it at that—have a committee of seven in total from the House of Commons and nobody from this House. This amendment would make sure that that cannot happen by ensuring that, were this House or, indeed, the other House to say no to nominations by the Prime Minister to this committee from those Houses, the Prime Minister would be required to make another nomination.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 6 in this group. My amendment deals with the wording in Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which states:
“Before deciding whether to nominate a person for membership, the Prime Minister must consult the Leader of the Opposition”.
I have great reservations about this, and I will explain why. I think that this is the product of muddled thinking. This is an appointment of trust. The appointment requires the Prime Minister’s knowledge of opposition politicians. I think that Ministers very often do not understand what motivates opposition politicians.
As an example I take my own appointment. It is utterly inconceivable that the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, would have appointed me to that committee. She would have referred to my record in the 1980s when I was running with the hounds on the issue of Peter Wright and we caused some considerable difficulty, I was informed, in the House of Commons. I had endless arguments with the Table Office over the tabling of Questions. On a number of occasions my Questions, which, it was thought, would have breached national security had they been tabled, were submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons under the appeal procedure. If, in the 1980s, I had applied to be a member of this committee, I feel quite sure that if it had been left to the Prime Minister of the day—I am arguing the converse—the Prime Minister of the day might well have objected to a person like me being a member of that committee.
The problem was that, at the time, people did not know what we were campaigning about. It was about reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and about the need to introduce freedom of information legislation. In both areas we were successful. All I am saying is that, before we go down this route and require the Prime Minister to consult with whomever, we should have in mind that it is possible that people might be blocking appointments in an unfair manner.
Amendment 8 deals with the issue that the chair of the ISC is to be chosen by its members. This is the product of muddled thinking among those who fail to understand the internal dynamics of the committee. It is as if someone has sat down to devise systems of greater accountability that enable them to avoid taking the big question on going for full Select Committee status. In my view, the chairman needs the respect of the agencies, and new members appointed in a new Parliament will have no knowledge of the relationship between the chairman or any member of that committee and the agencies. There is a real danger that the Whips will seek to influence members’ decision about whom to appoint as chairman. It might be that there is an exercise in handing out the jobs going on. I feel that it is wrong that the committee should be placed in a position where it has to choose its chairman at the beginning of a Parliament. New members might be unduly influenced by previous members against their better judgment. As I said at Second Reading, if when I was selected to sit on the committee, I had been asked to vote for the chairman, I would never have voted for the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, because he was not top of my list of popular Secretaries of State, but within a matter of months I realised that he was ideal for the job. You need the experience of being on the committee before you start picking the chairman. What we are doing here is establishing a procedure whereby a chairman will be selected by new members going on to a committee without any knowledge of who they might be appointing.
If a chairman does not fully enjoy the trust of the agencies, there is a danger that that lack of trust may impede the work of the committee by denying access to material that is on the margins of the memorandum of understanding. There will be material on the margins of the memorandum of understanding to which the committee wants access, and it is vital that the chairman is someone who has been picked not by members of the committee but by the Prime Minister.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the Bill is inadequate without Amendment 5 because it is simply a diktat. The fact that the Houses of Parliament vote on the members is not a really democratic position. We hope to see a more acceptable position.
The question I would put to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on Amendment 6 is: when he was active on some of these issues, would he have been appointed or recommended by the leader of the Opposition? He says that there was no way in which Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, would have appointed him. Would the leader of the Opposition have appointed him?
I do not see how else you can do this. It is really down to the calibre, resolution and determination of the leader of the Opposition. In the end, he is in a very powerful position if he says, “These are the people I want. These are the people I think should be from the Opposition”. I do not know—and I do not know whether the noble Lord has any background on this—whether a Prime Minister has refused to accept the recommendation of the leader of the Opposition.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If my noble friend Lord Kinnock had been Prime Minister, he would not have been put off putting me on that committee because he was well aware of the campaign that we were running and its objectives.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comment.
I would like to support opposition Amendment 7. It has not been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but I imagine that he will speak to it. It says that the chairman of the ISC should be “from the Opposition party”. In principle, I support that. One of the ways for the committee to gain credibility is for the chairman to be a member of the opposition party. However, I would not wish to see it written into the statute in this way. I will, if I may, cite my own experience. We started this committee with considerable uncertainty and considerable reservations in a number of quarters—in some of the agencies and other places—as to whether it would be reputable. A great effort was made by both the Prime Minister and the then leader of the Opposition to get a pretty experienced bunch. They were mainly ex-Ministers, and I think almost all were privy counsellors. The desire was to have a really credible, reputable and senior committee. It was certainly the most senior of all the committees, and in calibre and experience outranked the PAC, which would otherwise be seen as a pretty senior committee. That was the right way to start.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I wish to talk about Amendments 5 and 7 in particular. Amendment 5, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, lays down what happens if a person nominated for membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee is not then appointed by the House of Parliament from which they are drawn. The amendment lays down that in this situation,
“the Prime Minister shall nominate an alternative person”.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that the purpose of the procedure in the Bill for nominating and appointing members of the committee,
“is to ensure that the Government retains some control over those eligible to access”,
highly sensitive information.
Many might feel that the use of the words “some control” in the Explanatory Notes rather understates the position from the government perspective. This amendment does at least make it clear that the relevant House of Parliament is not obliged to accept the Prime Minister’s nominee and that the Prime Minister cannot simply keep resubmitting the same name, or do nothing, but has to nominate an alternative person.
Amendment 7, to which the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, has already referred, is, certainly at this stage, rather more a probing amendment in the light of the enhanced role that the committee will have and the need for it to be seen as clearly separate from the Executive. It provides, as has already been said, for the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee to be not only a member of the ISC, chosen by its members, but a member of the ISC from the opposition party. The Public Accounts Committee, for example, is chaired by a senior opposition MP.
It must surely be important that the Intelligence and Security Committee, bearing in mind its strength and oversight of the Government’s intelligence and security activities, and its role in this sensitive and potentially controversial area, is an all-party committee that is not only not open to pressure from government or the intelligence and security agencies in the work it undertakes but perceived as being not open to such pressure.
The Prime Minister has, under the terms of this Bill, considerable influence over the appointments to the committee. He or she is required to consult, not reach agreement with, the leader of the Opposition on nominations, and the two Houses of Parliament can only decline to accept a nomination and cannot appoint someone of their own choosing. Neither does the Intelligence and Security Committee have unchallenged powers to require information from the intelligence and security agencies, even though the members of the committee will all have been nominated through the Prime Minister, as the Secretary of State can veto the giving of information to the committee.
If the chair of the committee were to be not only a nominee of the Prime Minister but from the same party as the Prime Minister and from the same party as the Secretary of State, who could veto the use by the committee in carrying out its statutory oversight remit of the use of its power to require information from the intelligence and security agencies, that might well lead to a perception, no doubt unfairly, that the leadership of the committee and its most influential member was a little too close to the Government of the day, particularly bearing in mind that the objective of the Bill, as explained in paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes is to provide,
“for strengthened oversight of the intelligence and security activities of the Government”.
Lord Henley
My Lords, we have four amendments in front of us, all slightly different but all covering appointments to the committee. I will deal with them in turn. Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that if someone is turned down by Parliament the Prime Minister will have to make another nomination. This is something with which the Government entirely agree. However, the amendment is not necessary as it will be achieved by the current drafting of the Bill. If, under the appointments process in the Bill, the Prime Minister’s nominees are rejected by either House, the Prime Minister will have to make another nomination or nominations after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is clear from the fact that the Bill requires the ISC to consist of nine members so if one is turned down another would have to be found. I hope that deals with the point made by my noble friend Lord Lothian, who asked what would happen in such cases. Where we differ is that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, insists that an alternative person should have to be nominated and we would like to keep the flexibility because there are occasions where it is possible for the Prime Minister to be able to renominate. It might be that one reached some sort of impasse in due course but it should be possible on occasions to renominate and that renomination might be rejected. Whatever happens, as the Bill is drafted, a ninth person would have to be put forward.
Turning to Amendment 6 from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, he suggests that it should no longer be necessary to consult the Prime Minister. He said that he would never have been appointed if it had been left purely to my noble friend Lady Thatcher if she had been in opposition. Obviously, if we accepted the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and removed the necessity to consult the Leader of the Opposition, there would be even less likelihood that he would be appointed, because my noble friend—or Mrs Thatcher, as she then was—would have made the decision entirely by herself, without consulting the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that it will be important in retaining cross-party support, just as it was when the original 1994 Act went through, requiring that the committee should be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. For that reason, the Prime Minister should continue to consult the Leader of the Opposition before he nominates any such person.
Lord Campbell-Savours
This is quite an important issue. The question is very simple. If the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had been Leader of the Opposition, would she have allowed someone like me, with my record at that time, to go on this committee? The answer is no, which is why I believe that this provision is wrong.
Lord Henley
But the noble Lord is also saying that he wants to delete the ability to consult the Leader of the Opposition and leave it entirely to the Prime Minister. I have to say that the Prime Minister probably would not have appointed him either, so the issue does not arise. What we suggest is that, to maintain cross-party support—I suspect that everyone agrees on this except the noble Lord himself—there should be a degree of consultation between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. The simple fact is that consultation did take place and we are all very happy, my noble friend Lord King included, that he was taken on to that committee.
Rather than dealing with the amendments sequentially, I come to Amendment 8 before Amendment 7. It comes from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and relates to the election of the chairman. The noble Lord raises concerns about the Government’s proposals for appointing the chair, arguing that the chair’s appointment should again be made with the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I notice that the effect of the amendment would be for the chair to be appointed by the Prime Minister and that there would be no requirement to consult the Leader of the Opposition. So I suppose that the chances of the noble Lord having got on to the committee or being appointed as chairman would be even more remote, but that is something that he can consider in due course.
As we explained earlier, we believe that the changes that we are making to the ISC status are designed to bring it closer to Parliament and increases public confidence in it. That is why the Government propose that the chairman of the ISC will be appointed by Parliament and will report to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that with a new Parliament, the new Members would not know each other. I suspect that with the experience of the members on that committee, as has happened in the past, it will normally be the case that the committee will know who is the appropriate person as well as anyone. It is quite right, therefore, that those members should make the appointment.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I am trying to remember how many new Members came on to the committee. There was a big upheaval. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for example, was a member of the previous committee; he was whisked off to be a Minister. It was a pretty major change of cast. With great respect to my noble friend, who says that new members of the committee might be expected to know about these things, a number of them might have had no previous experience whatever of the committee.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will look very carefully at the point that my noble friend has made and at the statistics relating to 1997 in particular, which was one of those years in which there would have been a big upheaval, with that particular new Parliament. Off the cuff, I do not know who was on the committee and who came on, although perhaps my noble friend can remember. But in the main, with the relatively experienced parliamentarians who will be on this committee, I think that it is well suited to making the decision itself.
Lord Campbell-Savours
You might, as a Member of Parliament who had been in the House for years but had no contact with intelligence, not understand the vital nature of the relationship between the agencies and the chairman. It is critical to the whole operation. I cannot see how someone who goes newly on to that committee could have any understanding of that relationship. If the relationship is wrong because the wrong person has been appointed, the committee could be denied information. If the objective behind the Bill is to secure more access to more operational material, we are undermining the whole arrangement. Ministers should reconsider this point. It is all right saying that it is more democratic and accountable and that Parliament is more involved—but if it does not work, do not do it.
The Marquess of Lothian
My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater was talking about the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, leaving the committee. Between 2007 and 2009, two chairmen of the committee were promoted to being Ministers and left the committee. I wonder how the committee would have been able to elect successors to those two when we needed someone of sufficient seniority to carry out that task.
Lord Henley
I think that my noble friend possibly means that two members of the committee were promoted to being Ministers, rather than two chairmen.
The Marquess of Lothian
No, they were two chairmen. The first was Paul Murphy and the second was Margaret Beckett.
Lord Henley
Yes, my noble friend is correct in that. I was looking at the wrong dates—he means between 2007 and 2009. I will obviously have to examine this and, as I promised my noble friend Lord King, examine the statistics in relation to the 1997 Parliament, when there would have been the biggest change in the membership, rather than the subsequent Parliaments. In brief, I stick to my position that it would be better for Parliament to make this decision, rather than the Prime Minister, but I note the concerns put forward by colleagues from all sides, or both sides, of the House.
I turn to Amendment 7, which presents the idea that, whatever happened, the chairman of the committee should be drawn from an opposition party. Again, my noble friend Lord King had some sympathy for this amendment, but when one looks at the history of the committee and the distinguished service of my noble friend, who served as chairman when our party was in government, and as chairman in opposition, from 1994 to 2001, it is obvious that one can do it from either side. To make a statutory requirement that a chairman had to come from the opposition party would unnecessarily limit the available candidates for that job. My noble friend rightly pointed to the problems that might have arisen in 1997 when, after a very long period in opposition, all the more senior members of the then opposition party going into government were likely to become Ministers, and there might not have been suitable people around. To curtail who could be chosen would reduce unnecessarily the pool from which the appropriate chairman could be taken.
Having said that I would listen to comments made on Amendment 8, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I hope that the explanations that I have given on the other Amendments 5, 6 and 7, as well as Amendment 8, will be sufficient for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, on the basis of what the Minister has said, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 5.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, grouped with this amendment are Amendments 11 and 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on rather different points from mine. I will confine my remarks to my amendment. Schedule 1 provides that members will hold office for the duration of the Parliament in which they are appointed. I do not read later parts of the paragraph, in particular sub-paragraphs (6) and (7), as applying to membership. This raises two issues, which I shall ask about in what is no more than a probing amendment. One is whether there should be a committee in existence during the period when Parliament is prorogued; the second is about the delay in appointing members after the next Parliament has started to sit. On the latter point, I have heard reports that some Select Committees have taken a very long time to be established—up to six months. I am certainly not arguing that the approach of this amendment is the best way of doing it. If there were to be some amendments, the arrangements would need much more detail, but I am worried that there would be an issue if there were a long lacuna. I do not know whether the Minister can help the Committee regarding the position of the current committee. Are members appointed until the appointment is terminated in a positive fashion, whether or not Parliament has been prorogued? Clearly, if an MP is not re-elected, he would not be expected to retain membership.
The ISC is so important that I would be reluctant not to have some sort of formula for unbroken oversight. It could be argued, of course, that its work is largely retrospective so it would not matter if there was a gap, but I would not accept that argument. It occurs to me that one could deal with continuing membership if enough Members of your Lordships’ House were appointed for there to be a quorum over the period of Prorogation, but that is unlikely to commend itself. There is also the question of the period between Parliaments and any delay in appointment once a new Parliament sits. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 11 and 12, standing in my name. Amendment 11 deals with the words in Schedule 1, paragraph 1(2)(c), which states that,
“a resolution for the person’s removal is passed in the House of Parliament by virtue of which the person is a member of the ISC”.
In other words, there has to be a resolution of Parliament to exclude someone from the ISC. Have those who wrote this Bill thought that through? A resolution in the House of Commons, or even in this House, would mean that the person who is being removed from the ISC, with all the material that they have gained over the years on matters relating to national security and who may well be angry with the chairman and the system, is given free rein to get up on the Floor of the House of Commons and, in their defence on the back of the resolution, say why they should not be removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee. This is a very silly proposal. It is highly dangerous and has clearly been worked up by someone who did not understand the implications of what a resolution of the House of Commons means for public debate. It should be removed.
How could someone be removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee? First, one would go to them privately and explain the reasons why they should resign. I am sure that the Whips and the system have all sorts of ways for removing Members of Parliament without allowing them free rein to get up on the Floor of the House of Commons on the back of the resolution to defend themselves. That is my case for Amendment 11. I seek the exclusion of what I regard as a highly irresponsible proposition.
I now turn to Amendment 12, which deals with sub-paragraph (3), which states:
“A member of the ISC may resign at any time by notice given to … in the case of the member who is the Chair of the ISC, the Speaker of the House of Parliament by virtue of which the person is a member of the ISC”.
Why should the Speaker be informed? This is not a parliamentary committee; the Speaker is not a member of the committee and has no relationship with it. The committee is external to Parliament, however we want to describe it. I cannot see any explanation why, other than the fact that those who devised these sections of the Bill believe that it is necessary to have a model where they have the imprimatur of Parliament on the label. I think it is ludicrous, unnecessary, and again it should be removed from the Bill. It is trying to lead the public to believe that this is truly some committee of Parliament. It is not, because it lacks the privileges and the powers that a parliamentary committee has as a Select Committee. That is my case.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will return to the noble Lord’s amendments in due course, but I will start with Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. This seeks, in effect, to continue the committee’s existence for a period of days after Dissolution until a new Parliament is created. It must be remembered that the absence of the ISC for that short period of Dissolution does not mean that the agencies are unaccountable. There are other mechanisms for agency accountability, not least through their accountability to Ministers, who obviously continue in their role throughout that Dissolution. The absence of the more considered work of the ISC during that relatively short period will not result in some sort of accountability deficit. Naturally, continuity between Parliaments is very important, but it is not necessary to have the old ISC stretch into the next Parliament to achieve this. I assure my noble friend that we do not need legislative provision for a new incarnation of the ISC to inherit the documents, for example, of its predecessor. Under the existing regime this has happened without any difficulty. Furthermore, the provisions in sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 allow the ISC in a new Parliament to pick up work that was ongoing at the time of Dissolution of the previous Parliament.
I turn to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who seems particularly worried about mechanisms for removing individuals from that committee. He seemed to suggest some sort of equivalent to the idea of the Whips giving them a bottle of whisky and a revolver and telling them to sit quietly in a room until they have resolved matters by themselves. I do not know if that was quite what he was suggesting, but we believe that if Parliament appoints, it is plain that Parliament should also have the power to remove. That fits the broad thrust of what we are doing. That is the reason for the provision that the noble Lord seeks to leave out, ensuring that an ISC member can be removed involuntarily from the committee only by virtue of a resolution passed by Parliament. Again, this is an important safeguard to the ISC’s independence and means that the final say on its membership is with Parliament.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the Minister foresee circumstances in which an angry young man or woman who was excluded from the committee on the back of a resolution would, under privilege in the House of Commons, argue a case that might even breach national security? If he, or those who have devised this provision, can foresee such circumstances, does he not think that this provision bears further responsibility, despite what the noble Lord said?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the same could apply to whoever was removing that person. We are saying that Parliament should, in conjunction with the Prime Minister, have the responsibility for appointing, and therefore that Parliament should therefore have the duty to remove. If we accepted the noble Lord’s amendment, can he not see possible occasions where there was no possibility of removing a member of the ISC from office, no matter what they had done, unless they ceased to be a Member of their House of Parliament—this place or another place? I do not therefore accept the noble Lord’s amendment.
As regards his second amendment and the idea that the Speaker of either House has to be notified, I really do not see why notifying the Speaker as a means of resigning from the committee causes any problems at all. Both the Government and the committee are of the view that the chair should no longer be removed by, or required to resign by giving notice to, the Prime Minister. Again, the committee has previously been criticised for being a creature of the Executive. If the committee is to be a creature of, or belong to, Parliament, it seems far more appropriate that a person should have to resign by the means proposed rather than tendering their resignation to the Prime Minister.
I therefore hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment, and I am sure that the noble Lord will not want to move his amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I clearly did not explain my amendment adequately. My noble friend responded on one point, the continuity of the committee, but he has not dealt with my concern about delay in appointing members in a new Parliament. Can he help the Committee on that and give any assurances?
Lord Henley
My Lords, both Houses are normally reasonably speedy about these matters and we will obviously take the issue very seriously. I do not think that there has previously been a delay in appointing the nine members after appropriate discussions, and I cannot see that there would be any dangers of delay in the future, but whoever is in government will obviously have to bear in mind the importance of these matters and ensure that a new committee is created as quickly as possible.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have no idea about the appointment of the ISC but I discussed this matter with a Member of the Commons who has considerable experience of membership of Select Committees. It was from him that I heard that in one case there was a delay of almost six months in appointing the committee. It is that situation that I am seeking to avoid. I do not expect the Minister at this point to say anything other than what he has said, but the issue is serious in my head.
He said that legislation is not needed for the continuity of work of the committee or of the transfer of documents. I was not arguing that point at all. As I said, this is a probing amendment. I am not sure that I have probed quite far enough, but of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, let me say right away that I come to this issue completely as a laywoman because I have never been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I have never been asked to be a member and I do not purport to have the arcane wisdom that is obviously involved in the intelligence committee. I speak simply as a laywoman puzzled about this point.
I find it strange that the quorum is as low as three—that is to say, one-third of a committee of nine. It puzzles me for two reasons. The first is perhaps best summed up by the rather agreeably brusque remarks of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, who explained, when referring to Australia, that an “awkward squad” had decided to take over that country’s intelligence and security committee, and that it would therefore be open to the possibility of a small group effectively influencing the ISC in ways that might be troubling over the long term.
However, I have a rather different thought in mind. Sadly, many Parliaments around us are increasingly polarised, whereby the Government of the day and the opposition find it very hard to work together. The United States is just one example of that. If you have in a polarised parliament or congress a party that decides it will not co-operate with other parties even on such an important committee as an intelligence and security committee, the committee would be nullified by itself and it would be hard to reach overall decisions. Clearly, on a matter of such importance, it is important that a consensus, if one can be found, should be sought.
There is also another objection that I feel strongly about. The decision of a committee as important as the ISC should at least have to depend upon some level of attendance in addition to the three who may represent one party in order to give the committee the kind of credibility that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and many others referred to when they were talking about public attitudes towards the ISC. I should therefore have expected a larger quorum of at least four or five, rather than three, as stated in the Bill.
The main point of the amendment is to persuade the Minister to think about whether that quorum is not a little too small. There is a real danger that a faction could dominate the committee in a way that would be completely destructive of its credibility over a period of time. I therefore ask him to consider this issue, explain why the figure in the Bill is as low as three—for all I know, it always has been three and I do not know if changing it would be a bad precedent—and to say whether we could have a figure more convincing in terms of carrying public opinion with it.
I have no wish to delay the House but I am surprised that no other amendment has been tabled about the size of the quorum. That may be because I am not part of this wise and arcane group, and I am delighted now to see the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, to whom I have just referred in relation to the quorum being as low as three, which makes it possible for an awkward or fanatical club effectively to control the discussions of the ISC. The noble Lord quoted the case of Australia, as regards the danger that the committee, if there were a low quorum, could be dominated by a small faction or extreme group of some kind. I hope that he will not mind that I referred to him. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I start by being faintly flippant. I remind my noble friend that the quorum for this House and this Committee is only three—one to speak, one to listen and one to sit either in the Chair or on the Woolsack. Even with the crowded House that we have at the moment, we represent probably well below a third or even a tenth of the membership of the House. I should also remind my noble friend that my understanding is that it is the practice of most Select Committees to have a quorum of three or a quarter of the committee’s membership. Three is therefore the number that we have picked. Bearing in mind that the ISC is a relatively small committee with a membership of only nine, three represents a third of the membership.
Having said that, one should take my noble friend’s amendment seriously but we have not, as far as I am aware, had any problems with the quorum. A quorum of five might be overly restrictive, particularly if you take the view that the function of a quorum should be to provide protection against the possibility of a small number of persons on a body taking actions or decisions that could be unrepresentative of that body as a whole.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I think it fair to say that this is a Committee that, quite exceptionally, has a remarkably high attendance level, and this is something we are quite proud of and which, I am sure, has continued. I do not ever recall any problem about a quorum. In fact, I recall very few occasions when the whole Committee was not on parade and, as anyone familiar with House of Commons Select Committees will know, that is often far from being the case.
Lord Henley
I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving me that assurance. I remember when, many years ago, I was first put on a Committee—the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, possibly the outer Siberia of committees. I think there were seven Members from each House and a quorum of two from each House. On a committee of that sort it was often quite difficult to reach the quorum of both Houses, but some of us manfully attended week in, week out, to preserve it. I am very grateful to my noble friend for making the more serious point that the Committee does, in the main, have not just a quorum but is normally fully attended by virtually all Members; that really answers the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
With great respect, I do not think that what the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said went very far towards supporting the argument that because there is such good attendance at this extremely important committee there is a case for a very low quorum. On the contrary, it seems to me that Members take their duties so seriously—and rightly so, given the importance of the subject matter—that it would not be disruptive to increase the quorum, at least to some extent, from the present three.
Again with great respect, the fact that around 5% of the possible attendance of the House of Lords is present at this particular discussion is not really the point because, of course, noble Lords attend when they are expert or knowledgeable on a particular subject and do not come when this is not the case. In the case of the Intelligence and Security Committee, one assumes from its very careful appointments process that most members are people with a strong commitment and very considerable knowledge of the fields in which they operate.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I hope my noble friend heard in my opening remarks that I was being faintly flippant when talking about this House. I agree that this is a very important committee. I am very happy that attendance is well above its quorum number—that it is always fully quorate. However, I do not think it is necessary to restrict it in such a manner by bringing in an artificially high quorum, which would be completely unlike all other committees. I think that three out of nine is a perfectly effective number and I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that I shall certainly return to this issue on Report.
Baroness Hamwee
“(a) the ISC shall meet in public save when it determines that members of the public shall be excluded,(b) a determination under paragraph (a) may be made prior to the meeting to which it applies and may apply to more than one meeting.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 15 as well as to Amendment 17, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and has been grouped with my amendments because we cover very similar ground. Indeed, we have covered a fair bit of the ground already during this afternoon’s discussions, including the subjects of open meetings, question times, public hearings and so on. I am, of course, not so naive as to think that the ISC needs to meet only occasionally in closed session, but I do think it a good discipline to ask oneself regarding every meeting whether it needs to be closed. I am therefore proposing that open discussions be the default arrangement. It is also important to justify why a meeting is closed, if it is, and to that extent I think that Amendment 17 asks the right sort of question, although I would have put it differently, saying that “proceedings should be public unless” rather than “private if”. However, I think that these are all probing amendments.
The Marquess of Lothian
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Could she perhaps outline to the House what sort of meetings of this committee should be held in public?
Baroness Hamwee
I am saying that the committee should consider whether there is a reason not to hold a meeting in public. My approach to this would be to say that each move into closed session should be considered quite positively. I look at it the other way round; it is a different philosophy and I accept that.
I have provided in Amendment 14—these are probing amendments—that a determination could be made to apply to more than one meeting. I cannot believe, given the committee’s obligation to the public, that every meeting should be held privately unless there is a good reason to hold it in public. As I say, it is a difference in philosophy. Amendment 14 is, as I say, probing, and I accept that a decision could be taken to cover more than one meeting.
Amendment 15 is rather different. I think that there is a place for something like a public question time. The noble Baroness’s amendment suggests annual hearings with the heads of the agencies and the Secretary of State, and I think that that is a good idea. In both of our amendments, we suggest that the public should have a hand in setting the agenda of the committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 17 and then perhaps say something about Amendment 15. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might have misunderstood our intention in Amendment 17, because I think that our intention differs very much from hers in Amendment 15. Amendment 17 is essentially, as she said, intended to probe the idea of public hearings. This idea has had a mixed response in your Lordships’ House in both today’s debate and earlier debates. What is vitally important is that the public should have confidence in the system of oversight of our intelligence and security services. I think that that has been quite clear in the early amendments to the structure and kind of committee that we are seeking. As has also been previously mentioned, the ISC itself has admitted that reform is needed urgently. One of the areas of reform that it stresses is the need to improve public confidence in its work and in its ability to function as a strong and independent check on the work of the intelligence community. Just as we would say that justice does not just need to be done, it must also be seen to be done, the scrutiny role of independent checks and balances does not just have to be done, it must also be seen to be done in order to create public confidence. I have to say to the Minister that, looking at the legislation before us, I do not think that the Government have given enough thought to the role that visibility can play in building up that kind of public confidence.
We have heard mixed responses to the public hearings held in the United States by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with the heads of the intelligence community. Those hearings in public session—many of them televised—are a significant aspect of this issue and have produced some important public admissions by the agencies’ heads. However, I think that there is a risk of them being seen as stage-managed, as we heard earlier from the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian.
We have to recognise that a large part of the committee’s work involves hearing evidence of a highly sensitive nature that cannot safely be publicly disclosed. However, it is important to move towards a system where public hearings are considered not automatic but more routine. I do not go quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although I think that we are going in the same direction, as I do believe that such hearings should be accepted more and be more routine. Therefore, Amendment 17 would expressly provide for the ISC to hold public hearings where it is judged that there is no significant risk of the disclosure of sensitive information, as defined by the Bill, or information that risks undermining the interests of national security. The noble Lord keeps chastising me for the wording of the amendment but I hope that he understands the theme that we are putting forward here. In effect, the amendment sets the same threshold for judging the risk of the disclosure of information in public hearings as the Bill does for the disclosure of information to the committee.
Perhaps a more appropriate set of conditions could be used here to ensure that public hearings do not lead to the jeopardising of our national security or of the work of the intelligence services. That is something that I would be happy to discuss. However, it is the principle of routine public hearings that we are trying to establish with this amendment. Similarly, annual public hearings with the heads of the intelligence services, as provided for in Amendment 17, would, as they do in the United States, send a very public signal about the accountability of our intelligence community to Parliament through the ISC.
There is perhaps just a slight difference of emphasis in our amendment compared with the noble Baroness’s Amendment 14, in that we do not think that public hearings should be automatic. However, I am slightly curious about Amendment 15 and the suggestion of a public question time. I wonder whether that would change the role of the ISC. It seems to me that its role is very specific—that of oversight of the intelligence community and intelligence agencies—and I am not sure what would be gained by putting its members into the public eye, with them being questioned by the public, as I think is the noble Baroness’s intention. I should have thought that public confidence would be achieved by members of the Intelligence and Security Committee being seen to do their job robustly and ensuring proper scrutiny and oversight of the intelligence community. This seems to be more about oversight and scrutiny of the intelligence committee by the public, although I should have thought that that was a job for Parliament rather than for the public. I should be interested to hear the noble Lord’s comments on the amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I wish to say a tiny word on Amendment 17. I note that it begins:
“The ISC may decide to hold some of its proceedings in public, subject to sub-paragraph (2)”,
and so on. I ask the Minister whether there is anything in the Bill to prevent the ISC meeting in public, should it so wish.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly. Amendment 14 says that,
“the ISC shall meet in public save when it determines that members of the public shall be excluded”.
I think that that would put the fear of God into the agencies and I am afraid it would create a climate of suspicion which the committee does not deserve. I am not saying that it should not meet in public on occasion, as I shall explain in a minute, but putting words such as that into the Bill would be very unpopular within the agency. It needs to have confidence that Parliament is able to handle the material with the necessary safeguards.
Amendment 15 says:
“The ISC shall not less than once in each calendar year hold a public question time for which it shall determine applicable procedures”.
In a curious way, there may be something in that amendment. I remember—and the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, may recall—that we did occasionally meet in public. After the Mitrokhin inquiry, we invited journalists in to ask us questions. Therefore, in a way, the structure is there to do it. The question is: what is on the agenda? I can foresee circumstances in which there may well be an item of some controversy or just a general report where the committee may want to meet in public, and the public—basically, journalists—ask questions. However, Ministers may want to ponder over the exact wording of the amendment.
Finally, Amendment 17 says:
“The ISC may decide to hold some of its proceedings in public, subject to sub-paragraph (2) … The ISC may not hold public hearings under sub-paragraph (1) if it might lead to the disclosure of”.
The problem is that if members of the agencies, or indeed Ministers, are brought in as witnesses to answer questions, their refusal to answer, for perfectly legitimate reasons of national security, might send a hare running in the media which gets completely out of control. Although I accept that there are conditions in which the public or journalists should be able to ask questions, we have to be very careful about witnesses who might be called before the committee in those circumstances but who might feel that they cannot answers the questions in open session. The reason that parliamentary Select Committees meet in private is to avoid those very problems.
Therefore, again, I give qualified support but I think that there would be certain conditions under which it would be quite wrong for the committee to meet in public.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly to say that there is nothing to prevent the ISC in its present form holding public hearings. Indeed, the Prime Minister in the previous Government, Gordon Brown, called on the committee to hold public hearings, and we have been looking very closely at ways in which this can be done. Therefore, there is nothing in Amendment 17 that I find very difficult because, first, there is the principle and, secondly, the restrictions on it which would be required for any public hearing.
However, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has just said, the first point to bear in mind is that a public hearing should not end up as a farce in which, because of the subject matter, every significant question that is asked is answered by the famous phrase, “I can’t answer that question”. The credibility of the committee would suffer very quickly if we went down that road. Secondly, it has to be an honest process. We cannot have a subject which is so anodyne and so completely rehearsed that in the end the public see through it. That, again, would be to the disadvantage of the committee.
We are looking closely, whether under this Bill or even before the Bill goes through, at whether we can identify subjects that are of genuine public interest and where the agencies or the sponsoring Ministers will feel able to answer at least the majority of the questions. We are looking at holding a public hearing in which the members of the committee, in its normal form, ask the questions and the answers are given. I think that that is slightly different from the sort of press conference to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred, which we have also undertaken on a number of occasions. This would be a case of the committee asking questions of the agencies, which is, after all, the true role of the committee.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I shall take together all the amendments that deal with how the ISC can interface more clearly with the public. I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I wondered whether her view on the meetings in public and the hearings that might subsequently be held in public, which is raised in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, is that those would be televised as well. This is an option in Select Committees, and hearings that are held in public will presumably be open to television coverage.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I did not hear what the noble Lord said as he turned away from the microphone. Will the noble Lord repeat what his concern was because we missed it on these Benches? I did not hear what his objection was.
Lord King of Bridgwater
The point was that it may be decided to hold some proceedings in public which presumably would be televised as well. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to a point that I was also going to refer to. The annual appearance of what was previously the ISC was the publication of the annual report. We used to have a press conference after that and it was televised and open to all the journalists. Of course there could be an inquiry of one sort or another that came outside the annual cycle. The classic illustration of that was Mr Mitrokhin and the Mitrokhin report. I have a copy of the press release that we put out on 13 June 2000 on the Mitrokhin report.
It is interesting about pushing back the boundaries. This is pervasive and accepted by the Government in the whole concept of the initial clauses of this Bill on the wider remit that has grown for the ISC. The committee agreed to conduct this inquiry on the understanding that it would have access to all the relevant documents, including advice given to Ministers as well as evidence from key witnesses. We were given this access. This was never included in the original Bill and was an illustration of the way in which the committee gradually covered a wider area and had greater access. The idea that the committee hides away in private and is not prepared to appear in public is not right.
Amendment 17, in the name of the noble Baroness and her colleagues on the opposition Front Bench, states that the committee,
“may decide to hold some of its proceedings in public, subject to sub-paragraph (2)”.
Sub-paragraph (2) states:
“The ISC may not hold public hearings … if it might lead to the disclosure of—
(a) sensitive information”.
That is the whole problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, who has now joined us as a former member of the committee, said, if you have an effective committee with effective questioning, where may it lead? If you are discussing serious issues, you cannot be sure at the start of it. You may have started out with a wonderful public agenda but things may emerge in the evidence that make it thoroughly undesirable at that stage that it is held in public. I was trying to think what the issues are because I was myself in favour of trying to see whether the committee could have the occasional public meeting, not as an obligation and having to explain each time why it was not having it in public, but just to show that there are issues, that it is an effective committee and that it could hold the heads of the agencies to account.
One of the problems when we started was that the heads of the agencies did not always want to appear in public and have their faces too easily recognisable. That situation changed and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, was an exception. She was extremely good at bringing a more public face to the essential activities of MI5. I wondered about the sort of subjects on which we could see the committee in action. One of them might be recruitment for the Security Service: the issue of whether it is recruited from too narrow a sector of society, the efforts that the agency is making to recruit across a wider section of community, the importance of diversity, and the importance of access to a wider range of languages and of being involved with and recruiting from all sections of our multicultural society, which is so important at the present time. That is the sort of issue—I got a small nod as I said this—that I thought could be handled in a public hearing.
I would like to have had a public hearing on the accommodation arrangements of GCHQ and our criticisms of the control of that project. This was one of the biggest scandals that we uncovered during our time in Government, where the estimate for the expenditure on the new facility in Cheltenham, the donut, which is now well photographed, rocketed beyond an initial brave estimate of £20 million and ended up closer to £220 million. Issues of accommodation are perhaps relevant, although you can get bogged down in all sorts of tabloid sensations. One of the accommodation issues was the cost of the trees on the balcony of SIS and who was paying for those. The committee has to be careful not to get bogged down—we always took this view—in chasing the individual tabloid shock-horror story of the week and to concentrate instead on the issues that are of fundamental importance.
There is a real difficulty in trying to say that in principle the hearings should be in public. My noble friend Lord Lothian illustrated to those who were not at the earlier session what happened with the Senate Intelligence Committee and how it was a put-up job with planted questions and planted answers because that was all it felt safe to handle in public. I do not think that helps credibility and it looks as though the committee is just part of the conspiracy.
I do not support the idea that in principle there should be public hearings and that the committee should explain why if they are not, which is the theme of these amendments. Public confidence is best achieved by taking the opportunity where possible for a public hearing and showing the sort of way that the committee operates but not having it as a presumption in every case.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
I am pleased to hear from the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, that the committee is currently thinking of whether there are ways that some things could be held in public because I think it is the case that there are issues—the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, suggested some—that could conceivably be considered in public without any danger to national security. Having said that, I would also say that, whenever I gave evidence to the committee, on practically all occasions I was discussing secret information and very often top secret information. Therefore, the time that you could have an open hearing would be very restricted indeed. On whether this would improve public confidence, it would be narrow so it might or might not. However, if the committee is thinking that way, that is welcome.
Lord Henley
My Lords, we have three amendments in this group, all of which are concerned with the ISC meeting in public and how that should operate. I appreciate the concerns behind the amendments but similarly I have a number of concerns about the idea of creating any formal power and, in the case of annual hearings, a duty to hold public hearings. I am sympathetic to the noises made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, when in relation to Amendment 14 he suggested it might put the fear of God into some of the agencies involved to see such an amendment down.
Perhaps I may go back through the history of these matters to set things in context. In The Governance of Britain Green Paper of 2007, a series of reform proposals were made aimed at bringing the ISC as far as possible in line with other Select Committees. One proposal was for some hearings of the ISC to be structured to allow unclassified evidence to be heard in open session. However, as Members of the Committee will know, those sessions did not happen with any frequency. As my noble friend Lord Lothian pointed out, the committee has the power to have open sessions if it so wishes.
Building on this, the Justice and Security Green Paper stated that while the ISC’s meetings would still as a rule have to take place in private, both the Government and the committee were committed to the concept of public evidence sessions where these could be held without compromising national security or the safety of individuals. The Bill does not need to include a specific provision to enable public evidence sessions. Both the existing ISC, created by the 1994 Act, and the ISC that is provided for in the Bill have the power to determine their own procedures. That is sufficient for these purposes. In this way, there is very little difference between the position in the Bill and that proposed by the noble Baroness, and for that matter by Amendment 17. The crucial difference from Amendment 14 is that we do not start with the default position that sessions must be in public unless certain conditions are met.
There are very significant practical issues that must be addressed before public evidence sessions can take place. As I am sure the Committee will appreciate, introducing public evidence sessions for a committee that will in the vast majority of its work be concerned with very sensitive and highly classified information will be very challenging. The Government are in discussion with the committee and remain committed to making this work in practice—for instance, on issues such as appropriate subject matter, timing and having appropriate safeguards against unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information. I have already argued that the work of the ISC must be done largely in private. As only a very small amount of the evidence that it hears, whether written or oral, is unclassified, the default position suggested in Amendment 14 that it should meet in public is neither appropriate nor practical.
On Amendment 15 there are a number of different models for what could be considered a public question time. In one model, members of the public could ask questions directly to members of the ISC on their oversight role. That format is sometimes used in local government. Naturally it is in everyone’s interests that there is an understanding among members of the public of the ISC and the valuable function that it performs. However, the Government have concerns that a question time of the nature suggested by Amendment 15 would pose significant risks and would be ultimately unworkable. Again we make it clear that the committee has access to extremely sensitive intelligence information, public disclosure of which could cause significant damage to national security. Therefore, the way it operates will inevitably be different from that of departmental Select Committees, and it must not necessarily be conducted in public. I hope that that explanation will satisfy my noble friend Lady Hamwee on her Amendments 14 and 15.
On Amendment 17, I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was probing. The answers that I gave on what we want to do following the 2007 Green Paper and the more recent one indicate that where possible we would like openness in order to allow public confidence in the committee to be maintained and enhanced. However, it is not necessary to go down the route suggested by the noble Baroness in her amendment. As I made clear, it is available to the ISC to do that should it so wish. Of course, we will continue to have discussions with the committee about the most appropriate manner in which to deal with that. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw Amendment 14.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful for that response and for the comments made around the Committee. Of course I accept that there is nothing to prevent public proceedings, and what we have heard about the direction in which the committee is moving is very welcome. However, I felt that it was important to raise the issue in order to indicate what Parliament will expect in future. On the query about televising proceedings, I suppose that it is almost inevitable in this day and age. If proceedings are to be in public, what are the mechanisms for making them so? However, I accept the implicit point that that raises issues.
On the issue of question time, as the Minister said, there are a number of models for questioning the committee or the agencies. I am not entirely sure that there is an absolutely clear demarcation line between the two. One can imagine members of the public asking committee members why they had not asked about something. Perhaps it is a muddy area. The title “question time” can mean different things to different people. I accept that it might raise the wrong expectations. Nevertheless, it is a flavour of where work should be heading.
We have heard examples of possible subjects that might be covered. Some—perhaps not all—financial arrangements of the agencies, along with some aspects of the administration, might also be dealt with in public. The example of recruitment was very interesting. That would be a matter of broad public interest and I hope that it could be pursued. Of course, planted questions and answers are not enough, but are they not sometimes better than nothing? People will have different views on that.
I raise these issues because they are properly covered in debate at this stage of the Bill. I am not sure whether we will take them further. The issue remains very live, but whether it is an issue for legislation is perhaps a different matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) The ISC may consider the proposed appointment of the following including by questioning the prospective appointee at a meeting of the ISC—
(i) the Head of the Security Service;(ii) the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service;(iii) the Head of the Government Communication Headquarters; and(iv) such other persons as the Prime Minister may direct.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, if I have not caused apoplexy so far, I will with this amendment. I have absolutely no expectation that the Government will be minded to accept the notion of confirmatory hearings. However, I tabled the amendment because we do not have to go the way of the United States. There are more and more examples in the UK of confirmatory hearings. They do not necessarily come with a veto—in fact, there are probably no hearings where a veto is granted to the examining committee. However, holding sessions where a nominee for a position can be questioned so that the public know what they are getting in the prospective appointee is part of opening up services to public understanding as well as addressing issues of accountability.
I mentioned the Greater London Authority earlier. I will not draw too many comparisons between the organisations, but confirmatory hearings of mayoral appointments were introduced just after I stood down from the GLA. I watched one of them on what I believe is called a narrowcast on the web and it was absolutely fascinating—not just the questions but the whole experience. One could tell so much from the body language of the person who was being questioned. I thought that it was a very useful session. This is not even in hope, let alone expectation, but I do not want to think that we have to do things exactly as the United States does or discard them because of that experience.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I have a point of clarification. Is the noble Baroness proposing that these hearings should be in public or not?
Baroness Hamwee
I suppose it had been in my mind for the reason that I gave about public understanding. The noble Lord raises a very interesting point as to whether one should look at this as not a public exercise. That would raise different and very interesting issues, and perhaps fruitful ones. I am sorry I did not go there in my comments. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am glad the noble Baroness did not stipulate that the hearings should be in public because that would make it quite impossible for us to carry out this function, which in many ways I have great sympathy with. If we had had the opportunity when I was a member of the committee to interview proposed heads of the agencies prior to them taking over responsibility for the agencies, it would have been helpful to the committee. In so far as it had not been in public, no damage would have been done. Certainly we would have been able to make our concerns or satisfaction known to the agency, and during the questioning of the proposed appointee we could have raised subjects that would have given us, certainly in one case, a little more reassurance than perhaps I felt I had when the particular person was appointed. I think there is merit in this amendment as long as the hearings are in private.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the issues that have been raised are the very ones that I listened to the noble Baroness to hear as she moved her amendment and to try to see what the aim was. Her amendment does not mention public or private, although in her original comments she spoke of public hearings. It was not until the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, intervened that she conceded that there could be private hearings, which have more value than a public hearing would. I am no wiser and very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I assume that he will accept the principle. My favourite bedtime reading, the coalition agreement, includes a specific commitment to strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments. I should have thought that this comes under the remit of a major public appointment. The noble Baroness might have done the House a service to tease out whether the Government intend to honour that part of the coalition agreement.
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness is right: there was that commitment. She also knows that pre-appointment hearings are a relatively new phenomenon. Since 2008, Select Committees have conducted pre-appointment hearings for a number of posts, and there is Cabinet Office guidance on the process and on who should be heard. The important thing to note about the list of pre-appointment posts is that the posts concern public bodies, such as the chair of Ofcom and the chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee. The most recent one that my department had an interest in was Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. There is no suggestion that the pre-appointment process has been used to appoint civil servants. Indeed, the noble Baroness is not suggesting that before appointment each Permanent Secretary should go before the appropriate Select Committee.
The heads of the intelligence and security agencies are Permanent Secretary-level civil servants.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
They are not civil servants; they are Crown servants.
Lord Henley
I stand corrected by the noble Baroness, but it makes little odds; Crown servants are in fact at Permanent Secretary-level, although I accept that rebuke.
The recruitment process is therefore expected to follow the process for the appointment of Crown servants of such seniority. I could go through the details of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, but I can give an assurance that they are exempt from that. They will necessarily follow the spirit of the civil servant recruitment principles, which we consider to be the best process. We do not consider it to be the appropriate mechanism for recruitment to public bodies, whether the process is conducted in public or in private. It might be appropriate for the other posts that I mentioned but not for the public bodies that we are talking about.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I apologise to the Minister for intervening, as he has been extremely co-operative with the Committee in every respect. It seems to me that, on the whole principle of this pre-appointment hearing—we left open the question about public or private hearings—it is an important asset for the person about to be appointed if he has a successful hearing before the committee. It reinforces his position at the start of his work if the principle is accepted elsewhere.
We then have the argument about Crown servants and their exact role, and we go through a range of bodies, including Ofcom. I do not even know what Ofcom’s position is—whether it is in government or outside it—and exactly what its relationship is. However, I think that the principle of holding hearings has merit, and—to use a phrase I have used before—I have a feeling that they will come.
Lord Henley
I am afraid that on this occasion I have to disagree with my noble friend. There it is quite a distinction between Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary or the chair of the Social Security Advisory Service on the one hand and, for that matter, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office or the Permanent Secretary of any other department on the other. We suggest that the heads of the intelligence and security agencies fit in more appropriately with that later group rather than with the former group.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am not clear whether the Minister is saying that they fit in with that group or that they are exempt under the legislation, which he mentioned. Either way, process moves forward. It is not so very long ago that we did not have the Nolan principles, but they are completely accepted now. I, too, think that this may come, although it may not come in the Justice and Security Act 2012. However, we are in Committee, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) arrange for it to be made available to advisers to the ISC who are the subject of specific security clearance who may then advise the ISC with regard to the information including providing written material in redacted form,”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 18, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas, is the first in quite a large group. We have other amendments in the group, as does the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and they are all about access to information.
Amendment 18 would provide for advisers to the ISC with the right security clearance to be able to have access to information. It was suggested to me by someone who was at one point a member of the ISC and who thought that it would make the process a great deal easier if some of the committee’s own advisers had that clearance and could go into the agencies and do the work that was necessary. That goes to the independence of the ISC.
The other amendments are all about accessing information when it is a necessity. If the committee is to carry out its proper role of scrutiny and to deter poor practice effectively, it should see what it wants, not what is given. Obviously others will have different views about that.
Paragraph 3(1)(b) allows the Secretary of State to determine whether information is not to be disclosed on one of the bases set out in paragraph 3(3), one of which is that the information is sensitive as defined in paragraph 4. I simply ask whether it is constitutionally appropriate for the Government to withhold access to documents which the committee considers necessary to hold the Government to account. A much happier situation would be to provide information but to be confident in the appointees and in restrictions on their using it. However, access to information is the point from which I start. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, perhaps I may follow and develop the argument made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee in her final remarks and deal with some of the important features of the Bill.
There is a constitutional principle that the Executive and every agency of government are accountable to Parliament. Parliament is supreme, not the Executive, and it is to Parliament that accountability must be made. If the ISC is to operate effectively and to act as a deterrent against malpractice, it should have the power to examine any document that is held by the security services. As my noble friend said, the ISC members will be nominated by the Prime Minister and approved by Parliament and, presumably, will be security-cleared to the necessary level. If they are to be limited in the documents that they can inspect by reason of the diktat of a Minister, as advised by the security services, there is a breach of constitutional principle. It is not appropriate for there to be legislation to prevent government accountability to Parliament by allowing Ministers to operate in that way.
Under the format of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, the Director-General of the Security Service and others, if asked by the ISC to disclose any information, can arrange for it to be made available. However, they can also inform the ISC that the information cannot be disclosed because the Secretary of State has decided that it should not be disclosed—the decision of the Secretary of State, presumably, being advised by the security services. Amendment 19 seeks to delete sub-paragraph (1)(b).
If the ISC asks a government department or any part of it to disclose information, the relevant Minister of the Crown—who, under sub-paragraph (5), may be any Minister—must arrange for that information to be made available in accordance with the memorandum of understanding or, as the Bill stands, inform the ISC that the information cannot be disclosed because the Minister of the Crown has decided that it should not be disclosed. Therefore Amendment 20 seeks to delete sub-paragraph (2)(b)
Under sub-paragraph (3), the Minister of the Crown can take the decision not to disclose only if he considers that it is sensitive information and information which, in the interests of national security, should not be disclosed to the ISC. So, again, presumably he is acting on the advice of the security services in coming to the conclusion as to whether it is sensitive information or as to what the interests of national security are.
Sub-paragraph (3)(b) of paragraph 3 states:
“it is information of such a nature that, if the Minister were requested to produce it before a Departmental Select Committee of the House of Commons, the Minister would consider (on grounds which were not limited to national security)”.
So, presumably, on the Minister’s say-so and without advice from the security services, it would be proper for that information not to be released.
The Secretary of State or Minister of the Crown can decide, either on the advice of the security services or on their own initiative, that the ISC is not very important and they can just say, “No, it cannot see this, even if it wants to. It will have to come to its conclusions simply on the documentation that I”—the Minister, acting on the advice of the security services—“think it should see”. Is that what the Bill is about? Is that its purpose? Are we debating the functions, procedures and the setting up of the ISC so that a Minister of the Crown, advised by the security services, can withhold information from it? It is constitutionally inappropriate and I firmly urge these amendments upon the Government.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I have great sympathy with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It addresses a fundamental flaw in the Bill.
I shall speak to Amendments 22 and 26. Amendment 22 deals with sub-paragraph (3), which states:
“A Minister of the Crown may decide under sub-paragraph (1)(b) … that information should not be disclosed only if the Minister considers that”—
as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said—
“(b) it is information of such a nature that, if the Minister were requested to produce it before a Departmental Select Committee of the House of Commons, the Minister would consider (on grounds which were not limited to national security) it proper not to do so”.
If I remember rightly, that is currently the position under the present ISC, notwithstanding the statement in the Bill. I have not always understood exactly what such circumstances are. I have often wondered what would be the circumstances in which Ministers would take that action. Perhaps the Minister will give an explanation today.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to decisions being taken on a whim. Now that that provision in paragraph 3(3) is be enshrined in the Bill and subsequently become law, we need something more substantial so that we know exactly what is intended by it.
I turn now to the part of the Bill that really worries me—the phrase,
“relevant Minister of the Crown”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, we are not given an indication of who is to be involved. Are we talking about Parliamentary Under-Secretaries or Ministers of State? The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is, I understand, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
Lord Campbell-Savours
He is a Minister of State. Forgive me. However, the point is that for a long time he was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary and, in my view, if he had been in the House of Commons he would have been in the Cabinet. We are not merely talking about the quality of Ministers that we have here in the House of Lords; we are talking about some of the Ministers that we see at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons. It would be an error of judgment to include in the Bill a provision which would give some of these Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in the House of Commons the power to block information being brought before the ISC. However, that is what I understand the Bill means to do. It means that any Minister, in any department, in any circumstances, could decide that information was not to be made available to the committee.
Why do I have concerns that go up even as far as Secretaries of State? I referred at Second Reading to a particular incident in the committee when the late Robin Cook—I am sorry that he is not here to answer me today—was, in my view, very obstructive before the Intelligence and Security Committee in that he did not want to have certain information brought before that committee. There was quite a discussion in the committee about the fact that he was resisting having that information made available. I quoted the example of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for whom I have great regard. Imagine the mindset of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in the early 1980s when he had it in for CND and all that, and giving him the responsibility or the power to decide, on his personal consideration, that this information, which the ISC wanted, should be denied to the Select Committee. I believe that it is wrong that Ministers should be in that position. Indeed, as I said at Second Reading, I would trust the heads of the agencies more than I trust Ministers.
For a start, many Ministers lack confidence in this area. As they would have very little experience of how the system works and what goes on inside the agencies, their experience of the agencies may be far less that that of even members of the committee, yet they are to be given the right to decide whether information is to be blocked. It might well be that a junior Minister, lacking confidence, would be unwilling to take a decision to provide information, or allow information to be provided, for career considerations. He or she might worry that by providing that information and taking that risk, because they had not had that experience, they might be damaging their own career prospects. They may well simply be unable to quantify the risk on the basis of their very limited experience and, furthermore, some Ministers might simply make a straight political judgment about whether information should be made available to the committee. That is the very area about which I think considerations should not be made.
I have concerns and I do not believe that Ministers should be involved in this process at all. We go back to my very controversial model, which I put to the House at Second Reading—I put it in the same way that I put the argument for Select Committee status in 1998 and 1999. At that time it was simply ruled out of the question, so I recognise that it will probably be regarded as out of the question today, but I put forward the model that I put forward at Second Reading. First, the ISC should have Select Committee status. Secondly, the chair should be decided by the approval of the Prime Minister, not election by the committee. Thirdly, the chairman should be the critical person in this process.
The chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee should have unrestricted access to all operational material within the agency on operations that have taken place. The chairman should be in a privileged position in the committee and it should be for him to decide whether information should be made available to the committee. That is why I do not want election of the chair. I want the Prime Minister to pick the chair, because I believe that the Prime Minister will know exactly who is capable of handling the material and deciding on the circumstances in which the membership of the committee is given access to the information. I would have—I have to be very careful how I phrase this—trusted the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgewater, to take that decision on my behalf, as a member of that committee, long before I would have trusted Labour Ministers, who might not have had the experience that he had gained as chairman of the committee.
It is a very serious area and what we are doing now, by going down this route and letting the politicians decide what information gets through, will create problems for the future which we may well regret. In other words, my answer is very simple: keep the Ministers out of it. Let the agencies influence the chairman of the committee. Let them go to the chairman and say, “Chairman, we do not believe that this information should be made available”. If Ministers want to get involved they can go to the chairman and say, “Chairman, we do not believe that this information should be made available”; but give the chairman the final decision. The committee, in those circumstances, would have far more confidence in the arrangement for scrutiny of the services, et al, than is presently the case, or, indeed, will be the case under the provisions in the Bill.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I am getting very flattered by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I think that there is a real problem in this area and I do not quite understand the amendments tabled here. I certainly do not understand this business in the Bill about what would be before a departmental Select Committee,
“on grounds that were not limited to national security”.
That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made and I hope that the Minister will clarify that point to an extent.
I think that there is a point, though it may seem a bit extreme, in what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said. It may strike fear through all proper government structures that the suggestion should be left to the chairman of the committee. I think it is true that it is not just the chairman of the committee: initially, it is the heads of the agencies: they are the people who decide whether they wish to withhold information, then they have to make their case to the chairman.
This takes us into quite interesting country, because one of the arguments used in the past is, to whom are the heads of the agencies responsible? The answer is that they are responsible to the Prime Minister. That raises the question: how does a busy Prime Minister with a thousand problems on his plate really take direct ministerial involvement? One interesting study we did looked at the proposal—one or two members of the committee got quite interested in it—that there should be an intermediate Minister appointed who would have overall responsibility for the agencies at Minister of State level, answering to the Prime Minister. We thought that this was quite a good idea until we discovered that that was exactly what had happened in Germany. I do not remember the name of the Minister, but he became an intermediate and became carried away with his role in intelligence matters—he became a sort of super-M. At one stage he was flying to Iran and other places by private jet trying to negotiate the release of certain German hostages and other people. It had gone completely to his head and people suddenly realised that nobody had much control. One or two senior members of Her Majesty’s Civil Service pointed out the dangers of this role to the Prime Minister—one or two of them may be sitting here—saying that there were occasions when a previous Prime Minister thought that the intelligence agencies were out of control and trying to undermine him. Was it a good idea to pass this off to a junior Minister? The Prime Minister had better keep overall responsibility for it.
Having said all that, I think that there is an argument, for Ministers who are not—if it is the Prime Minister—entirely dependent on official advice on this, that a properly constituted, effective chairman will bear a heavy responsibility if he overrides the head of an agency and says that this information should be made public and then finds that it subsequently proves to be extremely damaging to national security. That would be enormously damaging not just to him or her personally, but, obviously, to the whole role of the ISC. On those grounds, it would not be an irresponsible chairman in this role; it would be somebody who, because of the involvement he has had already, over a period, with the heads of the agencies, could probably be expected to take a more informed and responsible response to representations made by the heads of the agencies.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I shall be brief, as much of the subject matter has been covered already. I wish to speak to Amendments 21 and 23. The purpose of those two amendments is to ensure that the power to veto disclosure of departmental information can be exercised only by the Secretary of State and not by a Minister of the Crown. Paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 1 requires that only the Secretary of State can decide that information required by the Intelligence and Security Committee can be withheld by the agencies. Moving down to paragraph 3(2)(b), in relation to other government departments, it appears that the Minister of the Crown can make that decision, which would appear to indicate, subject to the Minister’s response, that such a key decision can or would be made at a more junior level than Secretary of State in relation to disclosure of information in respect of a government department. If that is the case, no indication is given about a reason for that decision. Bearing in mind that withholding required information could thwart the Intelligence and Security Committee in its work to meet its statutory remit of strength and oversight of the intelligence and security activities of the Government, such a decision should be taken only at the highest ministerial and accountable level within the department concerned, namely, the Secretary of State. These amendments provide for that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, perhaps I could briefly explain the problem that arises with the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is very important that parliamentary committees are well informed. From time to time, under the previous Government and under the present one, the committee has considered inviting someone from the intelligence and security service to provide it with a proper context when it is considering something such as detention without trial for a long period or, for example, the Justice and Security Bill. Under the previous Government, when we tried, we were told that it would not be possible and, therefore, we were not given the benefit of that material. Therefore, we have not tried in relation to the Justice and Security Bill because we are certain that we would find the same refusal.
It seems to me that it ought to be possible for the intelligence and security service to assist a parliamentary committee, on whatever terms are needed, to protect its own position, whether giving evidence in private or in some other way because it is a real handicap. It means that when we produce reports, for example, on this Bill, we are deprived of information that would be very helpful. It makes us look as though we are looking at problems through one eye instead of both. I do not think that we should be put in blinkers. I mention this because it seems to be something that extends to committees other than the one that we are now considering.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Could I ask the noble Lord to attend the debate on one of my later amendments, which deals precisely with that matter?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is waiting for some later amendments beyond Part 1, so I am sure that he will be here for the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I can advise the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that Amendment 37 is the one that he should stay for.
We have eight amendments in this group, which all deal with the power of Ministers to withhold information from the ISC. It might be helpful if I start by going back to where we are now. Currently, the agency heads can make a decision not to disclose information to the ISC on the basis that it is sensitive information which they consider it would be unsafe to disclose to the ISC. Information which agency heads consider should be withheld on this basis must, none the less, be disclosed if the Secretary of State considers disclosure to be desirable in the public interest. It is a matter for the agency heads, but the Secretary of State can order the disclosure if she thinks it is in the public interest.
The Justice and Security Bill removes the ability not to disclose from the agency heads; this will now rest solely with the appropriate Secretary of State according to specific conditions. Where the information in question is held by a government department, as opposed to the agencies, a Minister of the Crown—rather than a Secretary of State—will be able to withhold information on the same specific grounds applied to agency material. In other words, the Bill makes the decision on withholding information from the ISC one exclusively for democratically accountable representatives.
In passing, I shall deal with the question about Ministers of the Crown, rather than Secretaries of State, being referred to in paragraph 3. This is purely to deal with the question of the Cabinet Office, which noble Lords will be aware does not have a Secretary of State. Therefore, it would be down to one of two Ministers in the Cabinet Office to make that decision. If noble Lords look at paragraph 3(5), they will see that the,
“‘relevant Minister of the Crown’”,
will, in due course, be,
“identified, for the purposes of requests of that description, in a memorandum of understanding under section 2”.
We discussed the memorandum of understanding at Second Reading and noble Lords will be aware that we hope that that, or a draft of it, will be available at a later stage.
I now turn to Amendment 18. It is appropriate to go through the amendments in slightly more detail. This will have the effect that if any of the three heads of the intelligence and security agencies are asked by the ISC to disclose any information then, as to the whole or any part of the information, that person may arrange for it to be made available to a security-cleared adviser to the ISC who may then provide advice to the ISC on the information, including written material in redacted form. It is worth stressing the importance of the provisions in the Bill governing when information may be withheld from the ISC. These powers will be used sparingly only in very exceptional circumstances. It is important that we retain those safeguards. The ISC routinely sees very sensitive information, including that at the highest levels of classification. It would not be able to fulfil its oversight role if it did not. It is not clear from the amendment to whom the noble Baroness intends the term “advisers to the ISC” to apply. Does she have in mind the current staffing of the ISC or perhaps a completely new role? The type of material that a Secretary of State may decide cannot be shared with the ISC—a good example would be the names of agents—is likely to be of such a sensitive nature that, if the Secretary of State has made a judgment that it cannot be shared with the ISC, then it would not be possible to share it with “advisers to the ISC” either.
We should also think about the practical difficulties posed by an amendment of this nature. That is Amendment 18. The amendment is likely to lead to circumstances where an adviser to the ISC has access to information which he or she cannot share with the ISC. This could place the adviser concerned in an impossible position of conflict of interest. When next called on to advise the ISC, that person may know information relevant to the advice that he or she is being asked to give, which, because they cannot share it with the ISC, they have to try to put out of their mind. If harm to national security can be avoided by providing information requested in a redacted form, then the existing provisions of the Bill oblige the agencies to provide it in that form; that is the effect of including the words,
“or any part of the information”,
in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1. I hope that describing the way in which the ISC and its secretariat presently operate assists the Committee and explains why the Government resist Amendment 18. In short, the amendment seems to contemplate an intermediate level between disclosure to the ISC and non-disclosure, which I hope I have shown, in practice, does not usefully exist.
The effect of Amendments 19 and 20 would be that the Government would never be able to withhold information from the ISC, whether it is held by the agencies or a government department. As I have already said, the powers to withhold information in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 have been used very rarely in the past, and we would expect the equivalent powers in the Bill also to be used sparingly, and only in exceptional circumstances. However it is important that those safeguards are retained. In particular, although the ISC will clearly be a body that sees a great deal of very sensitive material, there will be circumstances in which it is not appropriate for even the ISC to see that information on the grounds of national security. For example, there may sometimes be information that is so sensitive that national security demands that it be shared only with a small number of people within the agencies, let alone with the ISC. This is why the sensitive information ground for withholding information is expressed in the Bill in the way it is. It is not enough that the information is sensitive; it must be in the interests of national security for that sensitive information not to be disclosed to the ISC.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister, who has been the subject of the many compliments flowing from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, today, has given us quite a lot of material to think about. He has certainly given me some ideas about better drafting for my Amendment 18. Given the number of noble Lords who are here not to discuss this issue, I will do no more than end with a question. I am not sure that I expect the Minister to respond to it immediately. Under this paragraph, would a decision by the relevant Minister of the Crown—leaving aside the rank or position of that Minister—be judicially reviewable? Clearly it would have to be shown to be unreasonable and how one does that I do not know. Is this an administrative decision that would fall within the ambit of judicial review? The Minister is going to dare to respond.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am not going to dare to respond. I am saying that there are a lot of very noble and learned Lords in this House and a lot of Members who are not necessarily noble and learned but know a great deal of law. I do not know the answer to that. I had better write to the noble Baroness. I am sure she will have a response before Report.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am not a noble and learned Member either, which is perhaps why I can dare to ask the stupid questions. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 18.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, before I resume the House, I will cover a bit of housekeeping relating to the next debate in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I remind noble Lords that, with the exception of the noble Earl and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, all speeches are limited to three minutes because this is a time-limited debate. I remind all noble Lords participating this evening that when the Clock hits three minutes, I am afraid that is a signal that time is up. Those who have a television background should maybe think of their Whip tonight as a floor manager—they will stand between you and the camera if they need to.
Arts and Culture
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have a long-term strategy for the arts and cultural sector; and, if so, what that strategy is.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, the first thing I would like to do is warmly congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, on his new job and wish him all the very best on the Front Benches. I know that this will be a particular treat for him as he takes an interest in both the arts and sport.
The Cultural Olympiad—as the Arts Council points out, the product of sustained investment over the last 20 years—is currently a great opportunity to celebrate in the UK artists and the arts from across the world. But there is considerable concern that, with no end to the cuts in sight, the long-term future for the cultural sector looks increasingly uncertain.
It may be self-evident that the arts are produced by artists, yet there remains the requirement, in the long term, for a more artist-enabling policy including individual artists and companies, such as theatre companies, even if this is not the whole story of the arts and the cultural sector. A distinction does now need to be drawn between artists and the creative industries as defined by last year’s Demos report Risky Business, to which Ed Vaizey wrote an approving introduction, and which I referred to last November in the creative industries debate but is worth reiterating in an arts debate:
“We define the creative industries as businesses that ultimately seek to make a profit through the sale of something that is based on an original creative idea, and the surrounding businesses that enable this”.
The point here is that this is a significantly narrower definition of creative industries than the one which the previous Administration used and which was more encompassing of all artistic production. The arts by motivation are not primarily or ultimately a business, although at times they may have much to do with business; they are not an add-on but an integral part of the way in which society criticises and communicates with itself and other cultures.
Some say the arts need “to get real” in difficult times. But it will be unrealistic in the long run to shoehorn all the arts and creative industries alike into a business model that will not only be ultimately ineffective but inappropriate for much of the arts and the cultural sector.
The assessment of risk and more objective evaluation exercises are some of the strategies which have already been introduced into the arts, but—as the actress Julie Walters recently pointed out, as others have before her—failure and experimentation are part of the very nature of artistic practice, and we tamper with those aspects at our peril. I know from my own experience of local arts centres and services outside London that the network of services for the visual arts, music and theatre is not only already being thinned out but what remains is, out of necessity, becoming more commercialised, with, little by little, less room for innovation.
The great irony is that while the funding of individual artists, companies and organisations inevitably carries risk, the large-scale financial support of the arts sector as a whole is not only risk-free but of massive benefit to society, artistically and economically, and could make a significant contribution to kick-starting growth. However, I believe that this can only properly—that is, most efficiently—be achieved through public funding, because you need to support the grass roots as well as the mainstream, because philanthropy will only ever target the most prestigious organisations, and has a metropolitan bias.
For two years, the arts establishment has been patient and felt that it should wait its turn in the queue. But this is a false situation. The same government policy of ideologically driven public funding cuts is cutting back on state allowances, benefits, libraries, museums and symphony orchestras alike. The most devastating news last week was the prediction by the Local Government Association that a shortfall of £16.5 billion would mean an almost complete eradication of funding at the local level of arts and cultural services, including libraries, by 2020 unless there is a radical change in policy.
I will now turn to some specific issues. I have made the argument that the arts are distinct from the creative industries as now defined in that a financial goal is not the prime objective for the majority of artists and artists’ companies. At the same time central government needs to protect and encourage proper payment for artists in all disciplines, and on all occasions, as for any working person. This is part of the provision of a space in which the artist can operate and work.
There are numerous long-term concerns facing artists with regard to income, royalties and copyright, although a distinction in kind needs to be made between the protection of artists’ work and the obsessive protection of copyrighted logos such as the Olympic rings and London 2012, which has proved to be the most distasteful form of corporate bullying. For authors, among other issues, there is the concern about the public lending right, which ought to extend in practice to audio books and e-books, as provided for in the Digital Economy Act 2010.
There is also the question of proper royalties for visual artists. The upper threshold on which royalties administered by the Design and Artists Copyright Society are based is €11,500 for an artwork, irrespective of the sale price above that, a price set specifically to help the art trade. But there is a concern over a desire in some quarters to raise the current lower sale threshold from €1,000 to €3,000, which would affect many artists whose income is not high. I hope that the Minister can say that the Government will resist this and affirm their support for artists.
In the wider cultural sphere, on libraries, Ed Vaizey has queried the figure of 600 libraries under threat that I gave during Oral Questions last month, saying that this is simply a figure bandied around by the media. The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals produced that figure. If I am at fault, it is in not realising quite how many libraries have already closed recently. Some of the 600 will be among the 122 that have closed in the single financial year 2011-12, according to the Public Libraries News website, which lists every single one of them. This independent website run by librarian Ian Anstice is certainly a much better source of information than the DCMS, which is not keeping a close enough eye on the situation, even though it is the Secretary of State who, under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, has the power to intervene. A library professional tells me that the figure of 600 threatened if the present cuts continue will soon be, in his words, “a gross underestimation”. For Ed Vaizey to say, as he did in his speech on 28 June at the Future of Library Services conference, that the libraries are “thriving” when many now have staff shortages and greatly reduced opening hours, suggests to me a Government in denial about the huge problems that libraries face.
On free admission to the national museums, I am very glad that last week the Evening Standard reversed its position. It now supports free admission and I hope that the Government will continue to maintain a policy that is so successful and popular with the public.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, will devote her speech to the hugely important area of arts education, which at school level should properly include both old and new technologies. I will just say that the EBacc still does not contain an art and design element.
The Cultural Olympiad is a festival of cultural exchange, so important for the long-term development of British art, and a real opportunity for sharing ideas between artists of different countries and cultures. It is good that the UKBA has been working closely with the Cultural Olympiad in facilitating the admission of the many visiting artists. I thank the Government and the UKBA for introducing the permitted paid engagements scheme outside the points-based system, which started in April and goes some way to answering some of the concerns around visiting artists. However, it is not perfect and significant improvements should be made. The one-month maximum time for a visit is too short. That artists should be full-time is simply not realistic; visual artists, poets and concert pianists, for example, have jobs in related or other areas that inform their work as artists and one paid engagement per visit is too limiting. It is also important that the details of the scheme are made more widely known both externally and internally, especially to front-line staff.
It is normally the Home Office that answers questions on this issue, but I wanted to raise what is primarily an arts matter in an arts debate. The DCMS should be taking a lead on these issues, and indeed the current Artists International Development Fund, jointly administered by the Arts Council and the British Council, may be very helpful to British artists’ career development.
Arts administrators are full of ideas about negotiating these difficult times, although public funding that addresses core functions and the day-to-day running of services is what is most urgently required. There is no more unhelpful cliché than that “the arts are resilient, they will survive”. The kind of government we have has a significant effect on the nature of our arts culture. A Government can be either a friend or a foe to the arts. The current reality is that government policy is causing companies to fold and hampering particularly young and emerging artists from carrying out their work effectively. I also believe that we in Parliament and certainly those in government are directing too much attention towards a more powerful centre and big business, when artists and those working in the arts and the cultural sector elsewhere are being neglected. In the long term this must change for the good of a thriving arts culture throughout the UK.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for raising this debate and for his remarkably concise gallop through all the issues that I hope this debate will eventually cover. It is particularly timely because we are in the middle of what must be the biggest cultural festival this country has ever seen. For that, we are of course greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hall, and his colleague Ruth Mackenzie—although if I were in the Minister’s position at this moment, I would be doing my best to claim every bit of credit I could lay my hands on.
I have a couple of points for the Minister to consider, if he would. First, as has already been raised by the noble Earl, what has nourished the energy and creativity that we see now is steady, sustained investment, not just of funds but of political support and recognition. Today, even in sadly depleted economic circumstances, the arts and culture are among our greatest strengths, not least in their contribution to GDP. We should celebrate that strength, and the people who create and support it.
The second lesson is that our success comes not only because we are exceptionally rich in talented artists, which we are, but because those artists are supported by, and in many cases are leading, highly entrepreneurial businesses within which public funds, though absolutely crucial—and I stress that—are by no means the only or even the main source of income. I am sorry if that offends the noble Earl, but I think it is important. The tired old tropes about how the arts need to be more businesslike, which we still hear all too often, are way out of date. These are modern, sophisticated businesses managing substantial risk with great skill and led by people of imagination, commitment, financial acumen and integrity—and I am afraid that I have to mention the noble Lord, Lord Hall, again because he is one of them. Can we say as much for some other, allegedly more businesslike sectors? I think not.
What can government do? I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has just told us. The Government should keep up the investment, because the return is excellent; trust the practitioners; encourage local authorities; maintain a strong Arts Council led by people who know what they are talking about and let them get on with nurturing this highly successful sector from the ground up; and above all, have the courage to speak up unambiguously for the arts, whatever the public mood. Sometimes public taste has to be led, not followed. I hope that the Minister agrees and that he will be sharing with the House at the end of this debate a strategy for the arts and culture that gets behind success and gives it a hearty shove. I can promise him that the political dividend will be worth working for.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, speed-talking. Congratulations on the debate. Declare an interest: Lowry . I will concentrate on skills.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have campaigned long and hard on behalf of the creative industries, so I was particularly pleased about the introduction of tax cuts for video games, animation and high-level television production sectors, but obviously those need people who are skilled. The Next Gen. report drew attention to the fact that the way that ICT is being taught in schools is too narrow. So Michael Gove’s announcement in January that the current programme of study for ICT will be withdrawn in September, and that e-skills UK is creating a brand new GCSE which has computer science at its core, is excellent news. IT is a very male world—only 17% of the workforce is female—so the fact that e-skills UK has recently relaunched Computer Clubs for Girls is a very good thing too.
However central the understanding of technology has become to the creative industries, these industries are still underpinned by creativity itself, and Darren Henley's review of cultural education is another crucial element in tackling the skills deficit. It debunks the pernicious idea that children are wasting their time by studying cultural subjects. I am glad to say that the Henley review has been greeted with enthusiasm by the Secretary of State for Education. In response, the coalition Government have committed to immediately addressing 10 of its recommendations, including setting up a cross-departmental board, a new national youth dance company, national art and design Saturday clubs and working with teaching schools to improve the quality of teacher training in this area—which is very important. What is very disappointing, however, is that the inclusion of culture as a mandatory, sixth strand of the English baccalaureate and design as a STEM subject is not on this list.
I chaired a Westminster Education Forum recently and spoke to a headmaster who said, “I have head teachers who are cutting subjects from their key stage 4 curriculum in order to feed into the EBacc. So now the school is saying that geography is in the EBacc, drama is not. We really recommend that you do geography”.
As a result of another report by Darren Henley, we have the excellent national plan for music education, and I would encourage the Secretary of State to achieve the same in cultural education by embracing the whole report.
Before the noble Baroness interrupts me, I would like to say that I think it is appalling that I have only three minutes to talk on culture when we spend so much time on House of Lords reform.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Earl on securing this debate three weeks into the London 2012 Festival, which is the best chance we have ever had to showcase the world-class nature of arts and culture in this country. I declare an interest as chair of the Cultural Olympiad board and chief executive of the Royal Opera House.
I would like to reflect a little on some of the things that we have learnt so far in respect of the festival. I remind noble Lords that there are 12,000 events featuring more than 25,000 leading artists from all 204 competing Olympic nations—no other country could do that. We wanted to attract the audiences. Some 80% of the audiences at Shakespeare’s Globe for “Globe to Globe” performances were new attendees, and 44% of people who booked for the RSC’s World Shakespeare Festival performances at Stratford-upon-Avon were also new attendees.
We also wanted to enable as many people as possible to experience the festival for free, so we created 10 million free opportunities to take part—3 million of these have already been taken up. We should not underestimate the power of free; some 10,000 people attended the opening concert in Derry/Londonderry, and tens of thousands attended the BBC’s Hackney Weekend. We should reflect on this as we plan for the future: free can work.
In its first three weeks, the festival has inspired the “Today” programme’s “Thought for the Day” twice. I had not thought of that as being a target, but there we are. It is a good indicator, I guess, because both occasions showed off the values and importance of the festival and the Cultural Olympiad. The first “Thought for the Day” was inspired by the first ever visit of the conductor Gustavo Dudamel and his Simon Bolivar Orchestra to the social housing estate of Raploch, near Stirling, where children have been learning orchestral instruments under Sistema Scotland—the same system that produced Dudamel and his extraordinary orchestra. On a really wet night, but a brilliant night, it showed the power of sustained investment in musical education to reach places that other things simply do not reach. That is an essential part of any strategy for the arts going forward, and I very much hope that the Henley review will be committed to it with real resource for many years to come.
The second “Thought for the Day” was inspired by the concert of homeless people at the Royal Opera House, organised by Streetwise Opera. This is the first time that it has ever happened in an Olympic or Paralympic official festival and we were glad to have them there. It was as profoundly moving as the concert in Raploch. Again it sent out a strong message to the world about the values of this country and the importance of the arts to regenerate and inspire communities and individuals, and again it demonstrated the power of creativity to give confidence and to raise self-esteem. Both events illustrate the importance of the London 2012 Festival’s power to generate interest right around the world, as well as in the UK, and to show the world the value we place not just on the importance of art but on the importance of free artistic expression.
Today, for me, the big question is how we ensure that this is not just a once-in-a-lifetime event but that it is sustained in the future so that even more people are given similar opportunities.
Lord Lloyd-Webber
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing this debate, and obviously I must declare my interests. I have spent every day of my working life in the creative sector and have been lucky enough to witness extraordinary home-grown talent across the board, from musicians and designers to actors, logistics specialists and even video providers. Every day I see how the ripples of a successful creative industry are wide-reaching and affect all aspects of our lives. We underestimate this at our peril.
There is a simple truth that should lie at the heart of this debate: Britain still leads the world in the creative industries. However, this leading role is dependent on a complicated and fragile amalgamation of heritage, culture and investment, particularly in education and opportunity—not to mention raw talent and government support for that raw talent. If austerity Britain ignores that fact, we will surely ignore the fact that Britain is a talent hub that creates production and content that resonate around the globe. I cannot help but feel that in this cult of austerity Britain, the Government are turning their back on one of their most promising and extraordinary world-leading sectors. It is a sector that is under fire. Arts funding is under unimaginable strain, creative agencies have been cut, a recent example being the Film Council, and—an obsessional interest of mine—some university music departments are having to close, such as that at the University of East Anglia.
I want to be clear, and if I appear a little nervous, it is because I want to say that our vast creative potential is being strangled without any clear funding strategy for its long-term future. In 1972, when I had seven productions touring the world, I remember being asked by Sir Keith Joseph, then the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whether any British theatre was exportable. I fear that some of that same lack of acknowledgement and awareness still exist today. We have to challenge the mindset of the Government.
Without the private funding and the support of many private individuals and institutions up and down the country, the situation that I describe would be so much worse; in many ways it might be irretrievable. However, it is no good for the Government to think that they can rely on benefactors for ever. So I ask the Government urgently to consider a clear formula for a public-private partnership that ensures that there is a more mutual and solidly funded foundation for the—I hate to use the word “industry”—arts.
If I were the Chancellor of the Exchequer and invited as a guest into the “Dragons’ Den”—obviously I have not been; and if I were him, I would not want to be—and someone brought to me a proposal to invest in nurturing British creative talent across the board, I would invest in it here, now and immediately. It is time that the Government did.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for securing this important debate. I begin with a statistic: 15% of the population, 1% of the funding. Whether you find this as shocking as I do will depend on your attitude to the population group that it refers to, so let me tell you that the 15% refers to children up to the age of 12 and that 1% is their share of public funding for the arts. Perhaps now you find it shocking. This inequality was revealed at a conference held last month by the national charity, Action for Children’s Arts, of which I declare an interest as a patron.
The conference was called “Putting Children First”, and the finding was based on freedom of information requests made by the charity to the national arts funding bodies—the four UK arts councils and the BFI as well as 20 of the UK’s national arts organisations—asking what proportion of their budgets was spent on provision where children were the intended audience. It is our responsibility to make sure that there is enough cultural life to go around and that more than 1% of it is left for children when we have all had our share.
Ethel Merman said: “We spend the first three years of a child’s life teaching them to walk and talk, then spend the next 10 years telling them to sit down and shut up”. We should never forget how important the arts are in forming children’s minds and giving them insight into the world they live in. We adults give them artistic and cultural messages telling them, “This is what life is about”. They soak up that information. It stays with them for ever and in turn will encourage them to become creators themselves. We must get those messages right by giving them the highest-quality cultural stimulation so that they can use their imagination to be creative, which will allow them to live fulfilling lives free from the shackles of mediocrity and will redeem those who have taken the dangerous path to gang crime, drug culture and anti-social behaviour.
The Government’s long-term strategy for the arts and cultural sector must give children a higher priority. There must be incentives through the funding system of our great cultural organisations for them all to take their share of responsibility for our children’s right to culture and the arts. Children are not just the audiences of tomorrow; they are also the audiences of today in their own right and they deserve much more than 1% of the arts budget funding to give them the necessary food for their soul. Can my noble friend assure the House that the Government will encourage arts funding organisations to increase the percentage of funding they give to children’s arts and start putting children first?
Lord Aberdare
My Lords, I have had to cut the congratulations to my noble friend and the welcome to the Minister. I will focus on private support for the arts and on classical music, including music education.
Corporate support for the arts fell to its lowest level for seven years in 2010-11, which was mistakenly designated the “year of corporate giving” to the arts. I am not surprised. I was responsible for IBM’s UK arts sponsorship in the late 1980s when it was already being overtaken by newer forms of advertising and brand promotion. Future corporate support for the arts is likely to be driven either by corporate responsibility goals, when investment in the arts is seen as achieving social or community aims, or by direct business relevance, when the arts help businesses to do better by increasing their creativity or flexibility.
The prospects for individual support are better. The Government were right to recognise, eventually, that donors need to be properly recognised and certainly not treated like potential tax-dodgers. Individual fundraising needs to be spread much more widely outside London, which received 81% of all individual arts giving in the year to March 2011. Arts strategies should include the promotion of good practice in fundraising through, for example, peer-to-peer advice and support among smaller arts organisations.
Other government priorities include broadening audiences and embracing new technologies. The national plan for music education is a welcome approach to the first of these, and I hope that all schools will be encouraged to engage with it. Efforts to promote the use of digital technology in the arts are fine, so long as technology is recognised primarily as an enabler—it has been described to me as the greatest discovery since the invention of the bucket for encouraging donations. I was delighted to learn that “The Space”, a new free “digital pop-up arts channel”—whatever that means—developed by the Arts Council and the BBC, has provided a live streaming of Berlioz’s opera “The Trojans” from Covent Garden, and I declare an interest as a trustee of the Berlioz Society.
Access is important, of course, but aspiration and accomplishment in the arts are even more so. In the current straitened times, the arts should take, and have taken, their share of necessary funding cuts, but care is needed not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The strength of the music scene in the UK owes much to the number of talented musicians who come to study, teach and perform at our world-class conservatoires: the Royal Academy of Music, the Royal College of Music and the Guildhall School of Music and Drama each have over 50 nationalities among their students. Training top-rank musicians, like training scientists or doctors, is expensive, but it helps to create a valuable revenue-earning asset for the UK. A new study by the LSE on behalf of these three conservatoires shows that even during the recession the creative industries continue to act as engines of economic growth and innovation for the UK. The sector is estimated to have generated some £25 billion in 2010, and the presence of institutions such as the conservatoires helps to fuel this through what the LSE calls “agglomeration”.
How do the Government seek to encourage more private support for the arts in the regions outside London? What will they do to encourage all schools to engage with their local music hubs? Will music education be formally included in the key stage 3 and 4 curriculum and in the EBacc? Can the Minister give a reassurance that the UK’s leading conservatoires will continue to receive the funding they need to develop world-class musicians and to attract top musical talent to the UK?
Baroness Hooper
My Lords, as vice-chairman of the All-Party Group for Dance and a former governor of the Royal Ballet and the Royal Academy of Dance, I intend to dwell on dance this evening. The prestige and super standards of the Royal Ballet and English National Ballet attract not only international audiences but international performers from around the world, but there are many other dance companies, in London and in the regions: the Rambert Dance Company, the Birmingham Royal Ballet, the Northern Ballet and the Scottish Ballet, to name but a few. They are equally international and do an enormous amount to bring ballet to the people with their touring companies and outreach programmes. Large numbers of young people who would not have dreamt of it before are now considering ballet as a career—mind you, “Billy Elliot” probably had quite a lot to do with that. All these companies also demonstrate the work of some dynamic young choreographers, who are, after all, our future.
Dance comes into my definition of soft diplomacy and improves multicultural understanding and good will. Only last week, there were two events in Westminster Hall—the Commonwealth Carnival of Music and an Indian dance group performance on Thursday—emphasising the cultural diversity of our country and, indeed, of our Parliament. I feel sure that in your Lordships’ House I do not need to enlarge further on the contribution made by classical ballet in particular and by dance in general to the artistic life of this country. The object of this short debate is to ask what the Government’s long-term strategy is. It is vital. My objective is to plead that dance be recognised as a full and important part of that strategy.
Adequate funding is, of course, important, but there are also other ways of supporting and encouraging this part of the performing arts. Joined-up government is of equal importance to ensure, for example, that dance teachers are not forgotten when teacher training and the school syllabus are under discussion, so both education departments need to be involved. Tax incentives have been mentioned, and that brings the Treasury in. The visa regime also impinges on performing artists and on students coming to train and study in this country, and paying their way to do so, so the Home Office needs to be involved. Health can also be relevant, and I welcome the new National Institute of Dance Medicine and Science, which now operates from within the National Health Service and specialises in dance injuries. The Foreign Office, too, underlines the contribution of soft diplomacy and brings in the British Council, and so it goes on.
It is not just that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has to take the lead; it also has to act as co-ordinator. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for giving us this opportunity.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
I wish to speak about a sector in which the UK leads the world—the television industry, particularly our thriving independent production sector. Figures published last week show that the indie sector now generates revenue of around £2.4 billion. This continued growth is due in great part to the Communications Act 2003, which corrected market failures in commissioning and allowed producers to keep their own intellectual property.
The recession has had an impact—figures produced for the trade association PACT show that primary UK commissions are down and that profit margins have fallen. The only indies showing a growth in profitability are the mid-sized ones, and it is a reminder of the contribution to the SME sector—Channel 4 alone works with more than 420 suppliers.
The big success story is in the independent sector export market, which increased more than 15% last year. The UK is a major exporter of programmes. “Downton Abbey”, for example, has been resold across the globe, while in many countries, inexplicably, Jeremy Clarkson is worshipped as a god. The creativity of the independent sector has made the UK the world leader in formats, so programmes such as “Come Dine with Me”, “Who do You think You Are” and “Strictly Come Dancing” have been turned into local programmes across the globe. Channel 4, commissioning only from the independent sector, has supported films that have won 14 Oscars in the past six years—and who else would televise the Turner Prize?
Markets are well established in Europe and the English-speaking world, but there is huge potential for growth in the emerging markets. In Latin America last year, export sales rose by 16%. PACT is clear that there is much more scope for growth, so can I ask the Minister to use his best endeavours to speed up the co-production treaty with Brazil? The next communications Bill must maintain the strengths of the sector by protecting the copyright regime and focusing the terms of trade on maintaining growth and competition.
A contributor to the vibrancy of the sector has been the independent production quota and the out-of-London quotas, and these must be maintained. You have only to look at the new creative hubs in south Wales and Salford to see the impact that this can have. In Scotland, around 3,000 people are employed in the sector. What is the Government’s view of granting STV Productions independent producer status, which would allow it to grow further and attain critical mass?
As my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter said, tax incentives for specific genres have a proven impact and need to be kept and, where effective, extended.
We can be rightly proud of the variety and quality of UK television and its contribution to our cultural life. Our responsibility in Parliament and in government is to work with the industry to maintain it.
Lord Smith of Finsbury
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as chairman of trustees at the Donmar Warehouse theatre and at the Wordsworth Trust.
A starting point should also be an acknowledgement that the Government have taken some welcome steps in arts policy. They have, I am delighted to say, maintained the policy of free admission to our national museums and galleries. They have sustained the film tax relief, which has been such an important element in sustaining an independent film industry here in the UK. They have revived the Renaissance in the Regions programme for regional museums, and they have given in recent weeks some very welcome boosts to private philanthropy in relation to the arts.
We should also acknowledge that in hard financial times Arts Council England has shown some very considerable skill, under the leadership of Liz Forgan and Alan Davey, in helping the arts sector to weather the economic storms that are now around it. However, those storms are real and there are now severe financial difficulties ahead for the entire arts sector—not just difficulties in government funding but in the catastrophic falls in local authority funding in many parts of the country, coupled with a private and corporate giving sector that is under some considerable strain.
In addition to those financial difficulties, I do not believe there is yet enough clarity from the Government in the long-term strategy for the arts. What ought the key elements of such a strategy to be? It should be based, I believe, on four fundamental pillars: first, excellence—supporting the best possible work, which means including risk and innovation; secondly, access—ensuring that the widest number of people have access to the best possible work; thirdly, education—building on the real success of the Creative Partnerships programme to give pupils in schools up and down the country a real start in being creative and understanding creativity; and, fourthly, supporting the creative economy, which is linked fundamentally with the more traditional arts sector.
We have, over the past 10 or 14 years or so, been living through something of a golden age in the arts in this country. I like to think that the Government, in whom I had a part, played a small part in supporting that golden age. I plead with the Government to dedicate themselves to sustaining it.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Clancarty for securing this debate, particularly since many of the arts and creative practitioners with whom I work are hard put to identify what the coalition wants from the sector, what its expectations are and how it is going to support its growth and develop its resilience. There have been some helpful initiatives, but it is not clear how they constitute the Government’s wider landscape of ambition for the arts and creative sectors.
We are fond of boasting of our creative achievements and success on the global stage. Indeed, the Cultural Olympiad, the cultural festival, is an exemplar of that ambition and that reach, taking it all to a much higher level than previously. Our achievements on the world stage are rightly lauded. We also, through our creative industries and the arts, contribute to the economy and to the social fabric of the country. However, these are somehow consistently undervalued when it comes to funding and public words of support. How else can we explain the lack of attention given to developing a sustainable, appropriately financed strategy that will ensure that the sector continues to thrive?
Our creative successes in film, theatre and so on have come about through a combination of sheer hard work and the creative talent in the sector, and public funds allocated to support those efforts. For the arts ecology to thrive, there is a need for creative diversity, scale, capacity, risk-taking and innovation, which has been described as something collective, but also something uncertain,
“with high failure rates but also high returns, with the state often undertaking the greatest degree of risk and uncertainty. And third, it is cumulative innovation today that builds on innovation yesterday”.
Working with practitioners in the north of England has made me much more aware of how London-centric policy-making in the arts is. Philanthropy is a case in point; for many smaller and regional arts organisations, the debate about tax relief and donations had rather less urgency about it than it did for the London-based national arts organisations. We need a different model to encourage and build on private patronage, and donations, when different relationships exist between benefactor and organisations.
It is vital that the Government look at ways of supporting growth in the sector, particularly in regions where there is strong potential for developing a distinctive cultural offer that taps into areas with a strong sense of regional identity and the creative talent that can articulate such a vision. If we lose the capacity and appetite to invest in risk-taking, we will not hold our place as the home of some of the most creative practitioners in the world for long.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am delighted to add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing this debate, and to add my welcome to my noble friend Lord Younger, as he assumes his ministerial responsibility.
It has been a wide-ranging, although brief, debate at a gallop. I would just say to my noble friend who will respond that we desperately need a coherent strategy for the arts, heritage and cultural affairs in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, was right in giving his list of criteria, and I commend them to my noble friend, but I want to make two points.
In 1974, I helped the late Andrew Faulds to found the All-Party Parliamentary Arts and Heritage Group, which has become over the subsequent 38 years the largest group of its kind in Parliament—and I like to think that we have achieved something. We have lobbied Ministers constantly to try to give two things that those involved in the arts need above all others. First, there is the recognition that a little goes a long way in this field; we are not talking vast sums in the context of the national Budget. The other thing is that arts and heritage organisations need a degree of continuity and to be able to plan with some certainty for the future.
A couple of weeks ago we had an excellent debate, which I was privileged to introduce, on the future of English cathedrals. In that debate I called for an endowment fund for English cathedrals, and I commend that suggestion to my noble friend. In all fields of the built visual arts, that sort of endowment fund would produce returns far in excess of the investment. Tourists and visitors to this country are drawn as by a magnet to our arts and our great historic buildings.
In conclusion, I am privileged to chair an organisation called the William Morris Craft Fellowship. We need to encourage in our young in our schools the belief that to do things with the hands is every bit as worthy as to do other things. Indeed, I would say that a degree in media studies does not begin to compare in importance or satisfaction with the creation of a fine piece of sculpture or repairing a great historic building. We need to encourage more of our young people to take up careers in the crafts. I hope that my noble friend, with his manifold responsibilities, will talk to his colleagues in government and say that that ought to be a priority. If we truly believe in apprenticeships, there are no more worthy ones than craft apprenticeships.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for tabling this Question this evening. In many ways, it is an indictment of this Government that the question at the heart of the debate has to be asked. However, I welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, to his new role. I hope that he has taken note of the very powerful messages from around the Chamber this evening and I look forward to hearing what I hope will be an enlightening and reassuring response.
I do not want to dwell on Jeremy Hunt’s recent misfortune, but the context for this debate is a department that has been struggling with a lack of leadership for some time, so much so that there are persistent rumours that it will be abolished altogether at the reshuffle. The creative industries need a stronger voice in government and a stronger Secretary of State at the Cabinet table, not no voice at all, and they need a champion for a coherent arts and culture strategy across government, working with the Treasury, BIS and the Department for Education, for example, as our party intends to do.
In the short time I have left, let me give some illustrations of what should be included in that strategy. First, on funding, the Government need to identify the role that culture can play in leading us out of recession. The creative industries already account for 8% of our GDP and have the potential to grow at double the rate of any other sector. Philanthropy may have a role, but it should not be expected to plug the gap left by receding public subsidy and it has a limited reach—for example, 81% of private giving goes to organisations in London. As we have heard this evening, arts organisations need financial confidence and certainty to maximise the contribution that they can make to our future prosperity.
Secondly, we need to address the crisis in regional and local funding. On top of 28% cuts so far, the Local Government Association calculates that local authority funding for the arts will have all but disappeared by 2020. This cannot be allowed to happen. Community arts are where our next generation of writers, performers and artists learn their skills, and access should not be the preserve of those living in the metropolitan areas. This is why we need a statutory duty on all local councils to support the arts in their area.
Thirdly, we need an international strategy that recognises that the cultural industries not only attract inward investment but are major exports of this country. We are a major global player in, for example, design, music, animation and film, so next time David Cameron and Vince Cable lead a trade delegation abroad, perhaps they should be accompanied by our cultural rather than our manufacturing leaders.
Finally, we need to address the glaring mismatch between, on the one hand, the Education Secretary’s agenda, in which creativity, art and design, music and the performing arts are all but squeezed out, and, on the other hand, the skills demanded by the cultural leaders and innovators who will be contributing to our economic wealth in the future. These are the sorts of issues that we would like to see highlighted in a long-term strategy. Without it, as this debate has shown, the potential of the arts risks being set back for a generation.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on securing this debate. It gives me particular pleasure to respond this evening on my first occasion at the Dispatch Box, as the noble Earl and I entered this House at about the same time two years ago. As a Member of this House who continues to keep arts and cultural issues on the agenda of this Chamber, he is to be applauded. He may not be surprised to hear that I do not entirely share his views on the current status of the arts. I am pleased to hear that others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, take a slightly more positive view. I also thank other Members for their contributions to our discussion. I particularly appreciate some support from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, but I recognise his highlighting of some strains at a time of austerity, which we are all aware of. I shall endeavour to answer the points raised and I can write to those noble Lords whose points I do not have time to address.
First, arts and culture is a hugely broad topic and the need for support, while very important, has to be prioritised and constantly reviewed. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport covers communications, creative, media, cultural, tourism, sport and leisure economies. It also includes ballet and dance, so importantly raised by my noble friend Lady Hooper. A key resolve is to create the conditions for growth in this sector by removing barriers, providing strategic direction and supporting innovation and creativity. These points have been made succinctly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey. Our overarching strategy is to see a thriving and resilient arts and cultural sector, drawing from a range of funding sources, appealing to a wide range of audiences and delivering high-quality culture. There are three strands to our long-term arts vision: financial stability, philanthropy and attracting new audiences.
First, I shall focus on financial support, where we have to start with some home truths. The first priority of this Government remains to create financial stability across the UK. Regrettably, this means sharing some pain—in some cases considerable pain—across all sectors of society. Of course, I would have preferred no cut to the arts and culture sector at all, but it would be unrealistic for cuts to be made in all other parts of the public sector except the arts. At the time of the 2010 spending review, departmental budgets, other than health and overseas aid, were set to reduce by an average of 19% over four years. However, while Arts Council England overall faces a significantly reduced budget, we have limited the reduction in the budget for regularly funded arts organisations to 15%, offering a little protection for front-line arts. Taking account of lottery as well as government funding, the Arts Council will receive some £2.3 billion over the next four years. This means that, in 2014-15, total arts funding via the Arts Council will have reduced by less than 5% in real terms, set against the comparable figure in 2010-11.
Now let me turn to lottery funding. One of the first decisions that we took in government was to revert the National Lottery to its original aims of supporting the four good causes by restoring the shares for each of the good causes of sport, heritage and the arts to 20%. The fourth good cause is the Big Lottery Fund, representing 40%. Due to continuing strong ticket sales, income projections indicate that there should be more than £1 billion of extra lottery funding for the good causes over the next five years, when compared with September 2010 projections. The arts good cause can expect to receive more than £1.8 billion of lottery money over the life of this Parliament. This is over £200 million more than was projected in September 2010.
Philanthropy was highlighted by some of your Lordships. I begin with a thought from Andrew Carnegie in 1888 that still resonates today. He said that to give money is,
“the noblest possible use of wealth … The man who dies rich dies disgraced”.
We have achieved much with regard to philanthropy in a short space of time. For example, we have launched the Catalyst scheme, whereby £30 million has been given to arts and heritage organisations to encourage match funding, and £55 million has been given to arts and heritage bodies to build up endowments. This was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cormack. The Secretary of State last month commissioned three further reports to look at making legacy giving easier, harnessing digital technology to boost charitable giving to the culture and heritage sectors and looking at ways in which we can boost fundraising outside London, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned. He also mentioned the importance of digital technology. I will need to write to him regarding his question on support for the conservatoires.
Some in the past have suggested that philanthropy is a means to replace public spending. Let me tackle this head on. It is simply untrue. As soon as this Government came to power, we carried out a comprehensive spending review as part of our strategy, whereby arts and cultural bodies such as the Arts Council, English Heritage and our major national museums knew the level of funding that they would receive over the period. We then encouraged the Arts Council to make the bodies that it supports aware of their budgets at the earliest opportunity, a request that it carried out in a speedy and professional manner. This was not an easy time for the sector or the Arts Council. Here, I pay tribute to the chair and chief executive of the Arts Council for the way in which it handled some difficult decisions. It is right not to assume that organisations that have received regular funding in the past should have a right to that funding in the future.
The third part of our strategy is to draw new audiences into the arts by, for example, utilising new technology. Last May, Arts Council England, in partnership with the BBC, launched a new free digital arts service, the Space, which could help to transform the way in which people connect with and experience arts and culture. Last summer, Arts Council England, the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts—known as NESTA—announced a new £500,000 digital research and development fund for arts and culture projects that harness digital technologies to connect with wider audiences and explore new ways of working. Of course, nothing will ever replace the live experience, but if a child in Cumbria can watch a production 300 miles away from the National Theatre or Sadler’s Wells, we can proudly say that our investment in the arts can benefit the whole nation.
We also wish, through Arts Council England, for more people to experience and be inspired by the arts, irrespective of where they live or their social, educational or financial circumstances. To support this strategy, the Creative People and Places Fund will focus investment in places where involvement in the arts is significantly below the national average. A total of £37 million from the arts lottery fund will be available to establish around 15 projects up to 2015.
When considering the wide reach of the arts across social groups, it is worth highlighting a finding from our Taking Part survey. When respondents were asked whether they had been to a museum or gallery on at least one occasion in the past 12 months, two socio-demographic groups had significantly increased their visits between 2005-06 and 2011-12: among black and ethnic minority respondents there was an increase of 10.7 percentage points to 61.4%; and from those in the social rented sector there was an increase of 9.2 percentage points to 55.6%.
I would like to touch briefly on the Wedgwood collection on the grounds that, although the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has not raised it this evening, I know that it is a subject dear to his heart. The collection is designated as being of national importance; it is deemed by UNESCO to be one of the UK’s top 20 cultural assets. The collection holds several separate but nevertheless interrelated collections. It includes not only the most comprehensive accumulation of Wedgwood ceramics in Britain, if not the world, but also a huge range of portrait medallions from the 1780s through to today and some exceptionally rare and important surviving original stonework block moulds. This is why the DCMS Culture Minister is working hard behind the scenes, holding meetings in recent days with other government Ministers.
I turn to the question of libraries. Between 2005 and 2010, there was a steady decrease in the proportion of adults visiting public libraries. However, over the past two years visits have remained stable and it is very encouraging to see that the downward trend has slowed. A figure of 600 library closures is regularly quoted in the media, but this is misleading because it includes libraries where a local authority is merely consulting on a library’s future service and it assumes the worst-case scenario. It also includes libraries that have passed into community management.
Before I conclude, I turn to one or two other comments from your Lordships. I pay tribute to the contribution from my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber, who has given incalculable support to arts and culture not just in the UK but also globally. I do not entirely share his view of the arts in Britain, but I entirely agree that we need to nurture creative talent so that Britain continues to lead the world in this area. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, for the work that he has done towards the Cultural Olympiad, which was also highlighted by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall. I would turn very briefly to Brazil and the Scottish television questions, but I have run out of time.
In conclusion, I have attempted to answer as fully as possible on the specific focus of the debate, namely the Government’s long-term strategy for the arts and culture sector. We take our responsibility to the future of arts and culture very seriously. With our focus on financial stability, philanthropy and new audiences, we shall create the opportunity for everyone to enjoy and participate in artistic and cultural performances and attract foreign visitors for many years to come.
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I should like to refer briefly, for the benefit of all noble Lords, to interventions during the moving of amendments. During the previous session of the Committee earlier this afternoon, there were four occasions when Peers intervened on noble Lords as they were moving amendments and there was a mix of reactions from around the Chamber and indeed the Table. I thought it might be helpful to explain that it is permissible to intervene on a noble Lord when he is moving an amendment, particularly to ask a specific question for clarification. However, it is not customary to do so in this House because once a noble Lord has moved his amendment, it is permissible for noble Lords to intervene as many times as they wish during the debate at Committee stage. I thought noble Lords might find that clarification helpful.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, this is a probing amendment. Before the dinner break, we were discussing the circumstances in which information might be withheld from the Intelligence and Security Committee on grounds of national security. Paragraph 3(3)(b) refers to the withholding of information other than on grounds of national security, and the purpose of the amendment is to inquire of the Minister what sort of other information this sub-paragraph has in mind.
A characteristic of the Intelligence and Security Committee is that the agencies convey to it a good deal of information which would not be confided to a normal Select Committee. The ISC would be dismayed if that practice were to cease because this provision was in the Act. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give an example or examples of the sort of information that this sub-paragraph is included in the Bill in order to protect. If the box were empty, it would be a pity to have it in the Bill—indeed, doing so would make it poor legislation. However, if the Government have in mind information other than security information which should not be confided to the Intelligence and Security Committee, I know that the ISC would be very happy to consider that point.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, I wish to add briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, has said. I am puzzled by this sub-paragraph because it does not say “information other than national security”; it says,
“not limited to national security”.
That suggests that anything that cannot be allowed to go to another Select Committee should not be given to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We debated earlier why the ISC should not be a Select Committee, and one reason is so that it can receive information which cannot be passed to an ordinary Select Committee. It may be that this provision is very well meaning and that it touches on advice given to Ministers or on other matters where I think we would all accept there have to be limitations. However, I wonder whether the draftsman has this slightly wrong. One reason for asking for the sub-paragraph to be deleted is in the hope that the Minister, along with the draftsman, will look at it again and come back with something which meets what I think the sub-paragraph is trying to achieve in meaning but which it does not achieve at the moment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, this concerns precisely the same query as I had during our debate on the previous amendment—that is, I cannot understand what the provision is referring to, although I recognise the wording. The wording comes from the draft of something else that I have read and it must already be known to the agencies. Therefore, some briefing must have been given to the Minister regarding the source and why its inclusion in the Bill is warranted. Perhaps even now at this late stage I can, on a second occasion, ask for the same information. I should like to know the answer. It may be that the provision should simply be redrafted in language which simpletons such as myself can understand. However, at the moment I do not understand what it means.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendment 25 in this group but I had not given much thought to sub-paragraph (b), the subject of Amendment 24, other than to note it in general terms. A question occurs to me, however, as it is being discussed, as to whether it is normal—perhaps I should not say “appropriate” as I do not want to be judgmental—for primary legislation to refer to a procedural matter in this way and incorporate it into primary legislation. I will leave that there.
My Amendment 25 proposes an exclusion if we are to have decisions by Ministers as to what should not be disclosed. My noble friend Lord Thomas put his name to the amendment without realising, as he has just now prompted me, that my drafting is sloppy and it should have started “or (c)” and not just “(c)”. I apologise to the Committee for that. The information which could not be disclosed would be information relating to conduct which might be a,
“breach of UK or international law”.
I refer specifically to,
“the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment”.
The wording is not original to me. It was suggested by Amnesty International. It was a good suggestion. I know that there are other noble Lords in the Chamber who have far more experience of these issues than I do. It occurred to me that the Minister might say that any such breach should not be dealt with in this way and if there was a claim by an individual about a breach that would be a matter for the court. Perhaps this amendment needs further thought. I would be concerned to be sure that the Government did not withhold such information. This at any rate might be a start and we will get the Minister’s comments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I rise as probably the least knowledgeable and competent person to say much about this but I do so because of my experience as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, has raised the issue. I do not expect an answer to my question this evening but it would be helpful if before Report stage what I am about to ask could be answered.
I am mystified about the principles that should apply not to the ISC but to parliamentary Select Committees generally. When we come to consider the Norwich Pharmacal matter, we will be considering the extent to which courts should not be able to order the disclosure of documents that might show serious wrongdoing of the kind indicated in the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hamwee because of the harm to national security or international relations. To that extent, the Executive would be less accountable to the courts than at present. The question then arises of the extent to which the Executive should be accountable to Parliament and especially to parliamentary committees. I understand why the committee we are concerned with should be treated differently from the ordinary parliamentary Select Committee for very good reasons to do with Clause 2 of the Bill. My question is: what ought to be the position with other parliamentary Select Committees? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has tabled an amendment dealing with that general issue.
It would be very desirable if there were a practice direction of some kind, whether in the Ministerial Code or elsewhere, that indicated what needs to be done when a Select Committee seeks evidence of a non-sensitive kind and a security service gives an informed view not about policy but about other matters to the committee. I do not understand whether any practice is laid down on how that should be done and what the limits are when a Select Committee seeks such evidence.
Under the previous Government, when Andrew Dismore was chairman of the committee, we dealt with administrative detention without trial. We tried to get help from the security services. We were helped to some extent by the police service and we took evidence in camera from the police on some matters to do with counterterrorism. However, we were told that we could not do that with the intelligence and security services.
As I said, I do not expect an answer now, but it would be helpful if, between now and Report, we could be informed by letter of what the Government consider to be the general position on those issues. Certainly, if there is wrongdoing of a serious kind involving the sorts of issues covered by the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and if that sort of material is not to be shown either to this or any other parliamentary committee, and is to be barred from, or limited in, legal proceedings, I am troubled by the lack of accountability of the Executive to the judicial branch of government as well as to Parliament itself.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, my question to the Minister is: what is meant by “proper” in paragraph 3(3)(b) of Schedule 1? One has to postulate a situation where a Select Committee, for example on health, asks for disclosure from a Minister, who says, “I would love to give you the information but it would not be proper—it would be contrary to propriety”. What does the word mean? Proper in what sense? Would it be immoral or illegal? What is the word supposed to convey? I simply do not understand and would be grateful if the Minister would help me.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I think that there is unanimity around the House about the questions that need to be addressed in connection with Amendment 24. Our concern is that the Government may have lowered the threshold for proving that information should be withheld. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will decide whether information is too sensitive to disclose or is of such a nature that it would not be proper to disclose it to a departmental Select Committee. However, where the Intelligence Services Act 1994 prevents the Secretary of State vetoing the disclosure of information on grounds of national security alone, now national security is just one of the conditions under which the Secretary of State may use their veto. I support the amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, because I share their curiosity about what a consideration that it is not proper to disclose information to a departmental Select Committee would mean in practice, and why the provision of it not being proper to do so is seen as a necessary alternative to non-disclosure on the grounds that the information is sensitive and affects national security. I would be grateful if the Minister would look at this again.
Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, disallows the use of the ministerial veto on disclosure of information when it refers to conduct that would amount to a breach of international law. I am curious about how that would work in practice. Who would determine whether the conduct to which the information relates could amount to a breach of international law? I find it difficult to understand how a Secretary of State would make that judgment on the actions of her own Government. I understand the principle behind it but I am not clear how it would work in practice. If the Minister would explain what is meant by “proper”, that would be very helpful.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested that this amendment was similar to the previous one. He is right, but we have been allowed to have a one-hour break to have something to eat between that previous amendment and this one. It is similar to that amendment. He also said that he was somewhat confused by it. He is not the simple Scottish lawyer that my noble friend Lord Lothian is, but my noble friend also got it right when he said that it was possible that the draftsman had got it wrong. If that is the case, obviously I will ask the appropriate officials to look at it again to ensure that we have got the drafting right.
Before I come to the substantive part of the amendment, may I also make it clear to my noble friend Lord Lester that we will try to address his points about general aspects of dealing with Select Committees between now and Report? I cannot give any guarantee of that but I certainly hope to do so.
There are a number of very long-standing conventions that have developed in Parliament in the relationship between Select Committees and successive Governments. Those conventions recognise that there are categories of information that may, in certain circumstances, be withheld from Select Committees on grounds of public policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, asked for particular examples. All I can say at this stage is that examples of the type of information are given in the Cabinet Office guide Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees. Some noble Lords may know this guide by its other name, the Osmotherly Rules. I do not know those intimately but I look at the smile on the face of the noble Lord and I suspect that he was probably the one who drafted them some years ago. He shakes his head. But he knows them well. The categories of information set out in that guide include information about matters which are sub judice, information which could only be supplied after carrying out substantial research or at excessive cost, and papers of a previous Administration.
The sub-paragraph of the Bill that the noble Lords propose be left out and which my noble friend asks that we have the draftsmen look at again is a necessary part of the Bill. It provides a basis for withholding these categories of information from the ISC. If the relationship between the ISC and government is to reflect the relationship between a Select Committee and the Government, then it seems to the Government to be essential to have this significant aspect of the relationship.
The provision gives the Minister of the Crown discretion only to withhold material. In exercising that discretion the Minister would, of course, have regard to the provisions that the ISC has for keeping material confidential. For this reason, we would expect these powers to be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. They have only been used sparingly in the past and we expect this to continue. However, it is important that those safeguards are retained.
My noble friend Lord Thomas also asked for the definition of “proper” in paragraph 3(3)(b). That is something I would ask that we look at again in relation to the concerns over the drafting of the Bill. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel it is not necessary to move his Amendment 24.
Amendment 25 would introduce a limitation on, or exception to, the powers of the Secretary of State or a Minister of the Crown to withhold information from the ISC, under paragraphs 3(1)(b) or 3(2)(b) of Schedule 1. The exception would apply wherever the information requested by the ISC relates to conduct which may amount to a breach of UK or international law.
Various noble Lords spoke very strongly about this at Second Reading, and I know there are concerns to ensure that the new ISC can operate as effectively as possible in future. Other amendments would obviously have the effect of removing entirely the powers of the Secretary of State or a Minister of the Crown—we discussed that in an earlier amendment—to withhold information from the ISC. This amendment is an alternative, therefore, to those amendments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I understand all of that in the context of sub-paragraph (3)(a), which is carefully drafted and limited. However, I do not understand how it applies to the sub-paragraph that has been questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, because that does not deal with sensitive information as defined in sub-paragraph (4) but simply states that,
“it is information of such a nature that, if the Minister were requested to produce it before a … Committee … the Minister would consider (on grounds which were not limited to national security) it proper not to do so”.
Unless I am completely wrong, that seems entirely subjective. It certainly would not be subject to judicial review. It is a Humpty Dumpty: when I use a word it means whatever I say it means, nothing more. To use an example from Ring Lardner: “‘Shut up’, he explained”. It is standardless and would cover anything the Minister thought about propriety. Surely that cannot be a proportionate way of having a safeguard.
Lord Henley
I do not think that the noble Lord, dare I say it, listened to what I was saying earlier about this amendment. It may be that we need to look at the drafting. I have given a commitment to the Committee that we will deal with that in due course and look to see whether we have got it right. As I explained—I have to go back into my speech—I think that that is probably the right way to proceed. If the noble Lord is accusing me of taking a Humpty-Dumpty approach, well, Humpty Dumpty was not always that wrong with some of these things; certainty in terms of when one is speaking at the Dispatch Box and defining what words mean. Anyway, if I say it means that, that is what it does mean—that, I think, is what the Humpty-Dumpty approach is.
I do not think that I can add much more to my response to the noble Lord and other noble Lords. I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 25. I appreciate what my noble friend is doing but I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was speaking I wondered whether the word, “proper” is supposed to mean “contrary to convention”. It would be impossible to have a convention across all departments where there are Select Committees so it was conventional in one department to release this information but it might be conventional in another to release more or less. It would be almost impossible to get a standard of disclosure of information across the board which it is proper to disclose. I am very grateful for what the Minister has said on that issue.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will, with counsel, look at the drafting of this again, because it is clear from the contributions that were made to the debate that many of us do not understand entirely what is meant. I do, indeed, remember the Osmotherley Rules very well. I did not draft them myself—not surprisingly they were drafted by an official called Edward Osmotherley—but I do remember invoking them before Select Committees on various occasions and I do recognise as valid categories the categories that the Minister has mentioned. However, I think that the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Thomas, have a good point when they say that, as drafted, this appears to be entirely subjective on the part of the Minister and the Minister, under this power, would be able to withhold anything which in his opinion was not proper. The Osmotherley Rules were instructions from Ministers to officials, but were, I think, generally accepted by Select Committees—not always; they were sometimes challenged—and were certainly the rules by which officials were guided. They were known and became accepted. The way that this is drafted introduces a more subjective element.
On the basis that the Minister has said he will look at the drafting and also that he assured the House that it is intended that the Minister will use this discretion sparingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“(6) In this paragraph “information” includes documents and other material whether held in documentary, electronic or other form.”
Baroness Hamwee
Amendment 27 will not take long —under a minute. The amendment seeks confirmation that in this paragraph in Schedule 1 “information” includes the items listed. I cannot believe that it does not. Perhaps the Minister can even reply within the minute. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
I can be very brief. I can offer an assurance to my noble friend that “information” includes documents and other material whether held in documentary, electronic or other form. I hope that with that reassurance my noble friend will accept that the term “information” in the Bill includes all the matters that she lists.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
My Lords, Clause 2(2) states:
“The ISC may examine or otherwise oversee such other activities of Her Majesty's Government in relation to intelligence or security matters as are set out in a memorandum of understanding”.
This follows Clause 2(1) which states that:
“The ISC may examine or otherwise oversee the expenditure, administration, policy and operations of —
(a) the Security Service,
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, and
(c) the Government Communications Headquarters”.
The issue arises as to what are these,
“other activities of Her Majesty's Government in relation to intelligence or security matters”,
that are so vague that they cannot be set out in the Bill, or what are such unknown other activities of Her Majesty’s Government that not even Her Majesty’s Government know what they are. Rather than declare them now, the Government want to tuck them away in a memorandum of understanding that must be agreed with the Prime Minister and not be subject to prior discussion as part of this Bill or subsequently approved by Parliament. This idea of not providing important details when a Bill is published, or within a Bill itself, is becoming a feature of Home Office legislation. We have seen the same thing with the framework document which is still awaited under the Crime and Courts Bill. It is a most unsatisfactory and lazy approach on the part of the Home Office.
The amendment seeks to define what those other activities are in subsection (2) which, under this amendment, would read:
“The Intelligence and Security Committee may examine or otherwise oversee any part of a government department, or any part of Her Majesty's forces, which is engaged in intelligence or security activities”.
That is in line with the wording in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which defines sensitive information as,
“information which might lead to the identification of, or provide details of, sources of information, other assistance or operational methods available to—
(i) the Security Service,
(ii) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(iii) the Government Communications Headquarters, or
(iv) any part of a government department, or any part of Her Majesty's forces, which are engaged in intelligence or security activities”.
The wording in the amendment makes Clause 2(2) less vague and more specific. If the Minister does not like the amendment, perhaps he could set out what,
“other activities of Her Majesty’s Government in relation to intelligence or security matters”,
are not covered by the amendment and by Clause 2(1). Perhaps he could also say why the Government prefer to spell out some areas of examination or oversight by the ISC in a subsequent memorandum of understanding, rather than spell them out in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, that was a rather savage attack on the Government, which was not entirely justified. I thought there was a general recognition in the House that what the Government are doing in this clause is recognising the situation that has already developed. The ISC started with a fairly limited remit under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Progressively, through such things as the DIS in the Ministry of Defence, JIC and access to JIC assessments, bringing in the Comptroller and Auditor-General to assess the financial operations of the agencies—a whole lot of different ways—the committee expanded its role and activities in a way that was entirely sensible, in which people collaborated, and which was accepted by the agencies and the Government.
I do not know whether there is something frightfully subtle in the amendment that the Opposition have tabled and how far it is significantly different from what the Government have already put in the Bill. The Government are recognising, and it seems quite fair that it is set out in a memorandum of understanding, just what the area and remit of the committee will be. Certainly, in the end—I think it was the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, as well——whatever we sought to look into and in the range over which we sought to expand our activities, I do not recall any area in which we were significantly frustrated.
Lord Henley
My Lords, this is the first of a number of amendments that deal with a memorandum of understanding. I start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who makes attacks on the Home Office for being somewhat remiss in the slowness with which it produces things, particularly in relation to the framework document. As the noble Lord is aware, I have promised that we will have a draft or an outline of that framework document before we get to Report stage of the Crime and Courts Bill. Since that is unlikely to take place in this House before the end of October, we have a certain amount of time.
On the memorandum of understanding, as set out in the Bill, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord King on this. It is right that the memorandum of understanding should spell out the precise remit of the ISC in relation to bodies other than the agencies, because the memorandum of understanding can make provision at a level of detail that is not appropriate for primary legislation. This is particularly important because parts of government departments engaged in intelligence and security activities may well be engaged in other activities besides, which would not properly fall within the remit of the ISC.
Clearly, things change over time. Departments reorganise. The functions done by one department one year may be done by another the following year. The noble Lord will remember when his party was in Government, how frequently they changed the names and the functions of departments. I have completely lost track of the number of changes there were to departments. One of the things we did very firmly when we came back into office was not to change the names or functions of departments, except in the most marginal capacity.
I believe the intelligence world is no different to any other part of government. For example, as with the recent Levene report, we could find that future reorganisations of defence may change organisational boundaries that affect the MoD’s intelligence activities. A memorandum of understanding is a flexible document. It can be changed much more easily than primary legislation. It will enable the intention of the Government that the ISC should have oversight of substantively all of central government’s intelligence and security activities to be realised now and, more importantly, in the future should they change. The amendment seeks to limit that. For that reason I cannot offer any support to the amendment. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for the reply. Of course, my amendment does not refer to any government department by name because it lifts the wording from paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which refers to,
“any part of a government department, or any part of Her Majesty’s forces, which is engaged in intelligence or security activities”.
From what the noble Lord has said, I am still not quite sure how extensive the areas will be that might be included in the memorandum of understanding that would not be included in the definition that I have given in this amendment, when that is also allied to Clause 2(1). So I am not sure I have had a very direct answer to that question.
Nor has the Minister addressed the fact that putting it in a memorandum of understanding means that it will not be subject to prior discussion as part of this Bill. It is a document that the ISC has to agree with the Prime Minister and, as I understand it, it will not have to be approved subsequently by Parliament. The more reliance that is put on that memorandum of understanding and the more information that is put in it, the less opportunity this House has to discuss the issue.
I would have thought that since the wording I used has been lifted from another part of his own Bill, the Minister might at least have accepted that that was worth considering because it would, at the very least, reduce the amount that had to be covered in the memorandum of understanding, and thus reduce the amount that could not be debated as part of this Bill and which would not require the approval of Parliament. There has been no offer from the Minister even to look at this issue from that aspect. It is just a straight dismissal of the terms of this amendment. I express my disappointment at the Minister’s reply—he could have been much more sympathetic and helpful—but I note his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, Amendments 30 and 32, in my name and that of my colleague the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, raise substantial points.
Amendment 30 deals with the point where the Bill cannot mean what it presently says. I will read it out and that will be the best way of making it clear. Clause 2(3) states:
“The ISC may, by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), consider any particular operational matter but only so far as the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that … the matter … is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation, and … is of significant national interest”.
The Intelligence and Security Committee accepts entirely that those are the two categories of operation that the committee should—and does—normally look at. I note that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seeks to remove the ban on looking at any ongoing intelligence operation. The committee agrees that its oversight of operations should be retrospective and on matters “of significant national interest”.
However, the effect of the drafting is that when an operation “of significant national interest” is over, the agencies should have to get clearance from the Prime Minister as well as the ISC before discussing those matters with the committee. That is not only bureaucratically very intensive but a step backwards from what happens now. What happens now is that when an operation involving important matters is over, the intelligence agencies, of their own accord, report on it to the ISC, which looks into it and discusses it with them. The committee has had access to that sort of material for a number of years. In some cases the agencies volunteer it and in other cases the ISC asks to see it. I cannot believe that it is the intention in such cases, which have been routinely going on, that the Bill should require the Prime Minister to be consulted whenever the agencies wish to report such matters to the committee.
That having been said, the ISC is content that its normal purview should be of operations retrospectively where there are significant national interests. Amendment 32 would add a new subsection saying:
“The ISC may, notwithstanding subsection (3), consider any particular operational matter if the relevant Minister of the Crown agrees to the consideration of the matter”.
That is simply to give flexibility. As I said, there is no difference from the Government’s view that the purview should normally be retrospective. However, if it suited the Government that the committee should look at an ongoing security operation—this would be at the discretion of the Government—clearly it would be unfortunate if the Bill ruled that out. This is simply to allow flexibility on a matter where in general the committee and the Government are in agreement.
The Marquess of Lothian
If I may, I will quickly add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said. He talked about this provision creating bureaucracy. In my view it could be worse. It could create an enormous logjam in Downing Street if every single item needed the consent of the Prime Minister. The danger then is that the logjam will continue to grow until you get to a stage where information that should have been looked at either will not be looked at or will be looked at so late in the day that it is not worth looking at.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I have proposed Amendment 31 not because I want to remove completely the intent behind the words,
“is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation”;
but because it needs qualifying further. Under the proposals in this clause, it is possible to block much operational material being brought before the Committee. As I read it, the agencies need only declare that a matter is,
“part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation”,
and they can block it and deny access to the committee. What is the danger in that? It could close the door on a large volume of information.
Let us take as an example operations in Iraq. Because of the merging of operations, one could simply group an operation, which the committee might regard as one that it should be considering, with other operations in Iraq but merge them under a single operation heading and, by taking that action, avoid bringing information about those operations before the committee. Therefore, merged operations may well hide information from the committee to which it should have access. The same would apply to operations in Afghanistan. It could certainly apply to operations relating to drugs in Colombia and, without doubt, it could refer to operations in Northern Ireland. Simply the declaration that they were merged under one operation would mean that the committee could be denied information. I wondered whether the services were aware of this when they were making their submissions during the drawing up of the Bill, so that they were prepared to concede the principle of access to operational information.
That brings me back to my model, because it is only if the chairman of the committee has access to everything that that possible problem can be avoided. The chairman would be in a position to argue with the agency about whether the merging of operations was denying information to the committee.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, as I consider our proceedings in this Committee stage of the Bill, I increasingly think that your Lordships’ House is providing a real service to the other place in the fact that this Bill has started here. It is quite clear that there are some drafting problems. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and, indeed, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, are serious amendments that should be considered. I think that the Minister will be doing a great service to his colleagues in the department and may be able to clear up a number of issues. The drafting is not right. It could be cleared up now and the Bill will be much simpler and much more appropriate by the time it goes to another place.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I regret that I was not able to take part in the Second Reading of this Bill. I support Amendment 32 and suggest that in one very minor respect it may not go quite far enough. There used to be a body known as the Security Commission, on which I served for some years. I succeeded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, as chairman of that body and was in due course succeeded by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Our main function was to investigate and report on cases of espionage—selling secrets to the Russians and things of that kind. We were appointed by the Prime Minister to investigate particular matters and, before we were appointed, we had to have the consent of the leader of the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, will remember those days. I think that it can be said that we did the state some service. Since the end of the Cold War, espionage is no longer the problem that it was, certainly not in the same way. Therefore the Security Commission has not sat for some years.
I suggest that it is possible that such cases might arise again in the future. If they did, surely the new security committee would be the obvious body—the ideal body—to carry out such an investigation. That being so—if it is so—I am concerned that Clause 2, even with the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, might not be quite right to enable that to happen. It might or might not be, strictly speaking, an operational matter of MI6.
My suggestion would be to add a very few words to Clause 2(4). After the word “functions”, one could add, “or the functions formerly performed by the Security Commission”. That would be in line 20. Future historians would no longer have to worry about whatever happened to the Security Commission and we would have given that body what one might call a decent burial. I had drafted an amendment to that effect, but I was too late to put it down this morning. I would be happy to move such an amendment on Report, if it were to find favour.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this certainly seems a very sensible and practical group of amendments. Amendment 30 would remove the Prime Minister’s involvement in the assessment of whether a matter that the ISC wished to consider satisfied the criteria of being of significant national interest and not part of an ongoing operation. I fully support the extension of the ISC’s statutory remit to include particular operational matters; it is a function that the committee, in practice, already performs. We also understand the necessity of constraining this remit. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in speaking to his amendment, made that point, too. It is necessary to ensure that the committee’s work is focused on areas of significant national interest and does not jeopardise ongoing operations. The determination of whether an operation is of significant national interest and whether it is not currently ongoing are objective judgments. One is a decision about what is of interest to the public, which the committee is surely best placed to judge, and the other is a statement of fact, which would simply involve consultation with the relevant government agencies. It is not a process of negotiation with the Prime Minister.
It is unclear to me why this assessment cannot be left to the discretion of the committee without needing the involvement of the Prime Minister. If the key point of the reforms in this legislation is to establish a clearer independence of the committee from the Prime Minister and a closer connection with Parliament, then requiring the ISC to seek the permission and the agreement of the Prime Minister before determining whether a specific operational matter lies in its remit sends a completely wrong signal about the independence of the ISC.
We also give full support to Amendment 32, which would provide important flexibility to the committee’s powers to view specific operational matters. We have consistently argued that the ISC should be given the power to review specific operational matters, such as control orders, while recognising that limitations may apply with respect to ongoing operations where the committee’s work may jeopardise the integrity of those operations. An absolute ban on considering any ongoing operational matters seems to us to be unnecessarily heavy-handed. It is easy to imagine particular cases of significant public interest, perhaps where the majority of the operation has been concluded but there is still some ongoing activity that cannot be reviewed by the committee, even if the Government agree that there is no risk. Amendment 32 would be a highly sensible alternative to the blanket ban by allowing the committee, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, to review certain ongoing operations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, that there seems to be a drafting deficiency. I hope that the Minister can give a more positive response to this group of amendments than he was able to for the last one.
Lord Henley
My Lords, first, if there are any drafting concerns about this Bill, as I hope I made clear at an earlier stage, we will be more than happy to look at them. This is what this House does very well and the debates that we have been having this afternoon are indicative of that. We will take these points on board and the similar drafting points made by my noble friend Lord Lothian.
Secondly, I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, tried to table an amendment earlier today but I think that he missed the boat. I suppose that he could still have put down a manuscript amendment—fortunately, he decided not to—but he will come back to that in greater detail on Report. Certainly we will listen to his remarks in due course about the Security Commission, which he said that he chaired and which was later chaired by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I explain in some detail just what we are trying to do and what we think is wrong with the amendments. I hope that noble Lords will also accept that, as I just said, we are more than happy to look at matters relating to drafting again, because we want to get this right.
The Bill extends the ISC’s statutory remit and makes clear its ability to oversee the operational work of the security and intelligence agencies. This is an important and significant change and will be key to ensuring that the ISC continues to perform an effective oversight role. With this formalisation of its role in oversight of operational matters, we would expect the new ISC to provide such oversight on a more regular basis.
In the Bill, the ISC may consider any particular operational matter, but only so far as the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that the matter is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation and is of significant national interest. The ISC’s oversight in this area must be retrospective and should not involve, for instance, prior knowledge or approval of agency activity. Consideration of the matter must also be consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding. We will discuss that again in due course.
Of course, the ISC is not the only body that oversees the operational activity of the agencies. The Prime Minister has overall responsibility within government for intelligence and security matters and for the agencies. Day-to-day ministerial responsibility for the Security Service lies with the Home Secretary and, for the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, with the Foreign Secretary. The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament, and therefore to the public, for the work of the Security Service; similarly, the Foreign Secretary has his accountability.
The Intelligence Services Commissioner provides oversight of the use of a number of key investigatory techniques employed by the agencies and by members of Her Majesty’s forces and Ministry of Defence personnel outside Northern Ireland. The Interception of Communications Commissioner’s central function is to keep under review the issue of warrants for the interception of communications.
On Amendments 30, 31 and 32, the first amendment would have the effect of leaving it solely to the judgment of the ISC to decide when the criteria for considering a particular operational matter are met. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, is a current member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and, as such, speaks from a position of great knowledge. However, I hope that he would agree that the judgment as to whether an operational matter meets the criteria is one that should be for both the ISC and the Government and not just for one or the other. It is very important that we get this judgment right.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
It may be worth making the point that the amendment does not leave it solely to the judgment of the ISC; it just says, as a matter of fact, that the operation has concluded or is of national significance. So it would not just be the ISC that decided that—it would be the fact. If I may say so, the Minister misunderstands the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Henley
I apologise to that extent if I have misunderstood what the noble Lord was getting at in his amendment and I hope that I did not mislead the House in so doing. The Government’s intention, on that memorandum of understanding, which has to be agreed by the Government and the ISC, is that it will be the appropriate vehicle for agreeing the process to ensure that the information is provided to the committee in an appropriately prompt manner.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, would remove one of the key restrictions on the ISC’s new power to oversee agency operations, namely the requirement that its oversight of operations should be retrospective. The extension in the Bill of the ISC’s statutory remit into the agencies’ operational work is a significant deepening of the committee’s powers. While the ISC has in the past conducted inquiries into operational matters with the agreement of the Prime Minister, such as its inquiries into the London bombings of 7 July 2005 and into rendition, the provisions in the Bill provide a formal remit for the committee in this area. We anticipate that the new ISC will provide such oversight on a more regular basis.
We have worked with the current ISC to develop the new arrangements, and the committee agrees with the Government that its oversight of operations should be retrospective in nature. In other words, the ISC should not oversee operations that are ongoing. There are a number of very good reasons for this.
Lord King of Bridgwater
This is my concern about the drafting: what is an ongoing operation? Is it 7/7 and the follow-up; or is it the jihadist threat that exists and which we think possibly continues to exist at this time, with the Olympics coming up and the heightened security alert that will continue afterwards? What is an “ongoing” security operation?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am not sure that the word “ongoing” has actually been tested in the courts. It is in the Bill, which is why I make this point. We have no judicial interpretation of “ongoing”, but I hope the courts would understand and interpret it as the words appear in the Bill.
Lord Campbell-Savours
This has nothing to do with the courts. This will be a discussion in the committee with the chairman and the agencies, which is where we may well end up having an argument. The agencies may say no, or Ministers may say, “No, you cannot have it because it is part of some ongoing operation”. They will not know the point at which operations have merged into a long extended operation that might go on for a long time. I am quite worried about this section. I am beginning to believe that the agencies might have conceded on this fact because they knew that they would be able to use this issue of merged operations as a way of avoiding giving information to the committee. The Minister is saying nothing here to reassure me. Perhaps he will give us more detail on Report about what constitutes “ongoing” in the way which the noble Lord, Lord King, has suggested.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, on that subject, when the Minister considers the word “ongoing”, will he tell the House whether it covers a longer period than “current”? I think I would have understood “current” investigations.
Baroness Hamwee
Maybe. The Minister says it has not been traditionally considered and is one of those words that only recently has come into normal use. It probably means slightly different things to different people.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
I think the problem is the word “operation”. Certainly in the security and intelligence world, an operation is something finite, with a code name, that will come to an end. I think that is what the legislation is trying to get at. It certainly would not be a merged operation such as a jihadist threat or Iraq, which would not be seen in those terms. That may be the difficulty. If we can make that clear in defining it, that might be helpful to the Minister.
Lord Henley
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her suggestion that “current” might be a better word than “ongoing”. “Ongoing” is not a word that I would necessarily have wanted to use and is not one that I have come across much before in legislation. “Current” might be a better term and might be one of the reasons why we need to look at the drafting of these matters, to make sure that we have got it absolutely right. For that reason, all I can say is that we will look again—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, smiles—at that word “ongoing” and make sure that we have got it right. Again, as a layman and not a simple Scottish lawyer, it seems to me that “ongoing” is something that we can all understand relatively simply, so I hope we can get this right. That is the point of the processes that we are going through in this House. I hope that we can get it right in due course.
Amendment 32 is the third amendment in this group and the second in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord Lothian, and would allow the ISC to oversee an operational matter that does not meet the criteria in Clause 2(3) if the relevant Minister of the Crown agrees to consider the matter. Given that the requirement is that the Government and the ISC both need to agree, it is difficult to see circumstances in which the noble Lords’ amendment would ever need to be used. For example, we cannot presently foresee circumstances in which it would be appropriate to call on the ISC to put its resources towards examination of operational matters that were not of significant national interest.
Nor would it be appropriate for the ISC to have a role in approving future actions or decisions relating to the agencies, or to examine ongoing—again I use that word, but perhaps I ought to say current—operations. Such a role could cut across lines of ministerial accountability and could even have the potential to prejudice those operations. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
I hope that that deals with most of the points. I am sure that it does not, but I have given a commitment that we will look again at the drafting of this part of Clause 2. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has brought to light matters that need to be clarified before Report. I emphasise again—and I apologise for rudely interrupting the Minister—that there is no difference between the ISC and the Government on what the committee’s purview should be. The ISC accepts that its purview should normally be retrospective and that it should be confined to matters of significant national interest. What is new about the way the clause is drafted is the interpolation of the Prime Minister in deciding that that is the case. That is unnecessary, and as my colleague, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said, it would produce the most tremendous logjam and would be a backward step from where we are now. That is the only difference, but I hope that that issue can be looked at again.
If I may say so, the discussion on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, brings out the ambiguity of the word “operations”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said, it is perhaps because it is a term of art in intelligence speak and means something specific rather than an ongoing exercise. If I may do the draftsman’s work and join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it may be that “specific operation” might be more helpful than “current” or “ongoing”. However, that is a matter for consideration.
On Amendment 32, I am fortified by a whispered conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham- Buller. One can imagine a situation in which it might be useful to Parliament and the nation, and to the agencies themselves, if the ISC is asked to look at an ongoing, even specific, operation. Let us imagine that something is going on that has got into the media, is creating great concern, there are great sensitivities to it, but it is urgent that someone should look at the matter and provide a report to Parliament. That is the sort of circumstance in which my proposal might be helpful. It is discretionary and the decision would be with the approval of the Minister, but it seems a pity not to allow for that sort of situation by making provision for it in the Bill.
Those are the considerations that I would urge on the Minister and the Government. With the assurance that he will look at them before Report, I am content to withdraw the amendment and not move Amendment 32. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
“(d) must be approved by Parliament”
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I shall be very brief as the hour is late. I cannot see what the problem is with the Government accepting this amendment, which would simply require that the memorandum of understanding under this clause should be approved by Parliament. It is not as if the memorandum of understanding would include security sensitive information. As I understand it, it is simply about structures. The parliamentary debate would be about the structures that have been established in the detail of the memorandum of understanding. In addition, if Parliament were to give approval during the debate, Members might want to raise issues not covered in the memorandum of understanding. One of these might be regarding the investigator. There was once an investigator to the ISC. If I remember correctly, his name was Mr Morrison, and for reasons I have never understood his employment was terminated. Many Members called for the investigator to be in place and I should have thought this is an example of an area where Members of Parliament might want to question Ministers.
There is also the issue of access to individual officers within the service. When I was on the committee, the arrangement was that it was primarily the directors of the services who gave evidence to the committee, although on occasion it was one or two others. It might be that the memorandum of understanding should be considered by Parliament in the context that there needs to be some flexibility on whether people other than agency directors—perhaps officers from lower down within the ranks—should be called upon to give evidence to the committee. I do not know because this is an area I do not know a lot about. All I am saying is that I think there is room here for a debate in Parliament to consider the detail of the structure, and it is something that we have not debated here today.
My noble friend Lord Rosser dealt in some detail with these issues during the debate on one of his amendments and he sought assurances. I do hope that the Minister can explain today why Parliament will not be approving these matters. I understand that the document will be laid before Parliament, but that there will be no parliamentary debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendment 34 in this group, which uses the formal language of the affirmative procedure but comes to the same thing as the noble Lord’s Amendment 33. I tabled the amendment in part because I wanted to seek more information about the memorandum of understanding. The noble Lord may not have seen it, but the Government have today circulated a long note responding to a number of points raised by noble Lords at Second Reading, for which I thank them. The note includes a paragraph on the memorandum of understanding in response to my question about whether we will be able to see a draft of it, or of a framework, to enable further debate.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Did the noble Baroness say that she had seen a draft document or memorandum of understanding? Perhaps I misheard. Could she clarify what she said? I am sorry I could not hear.
Baroness Hamwee
No, I said a note from the Government responding to points made by noble Lords at Second Reading.
Lord Henley
Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. It was a note sent out by myself and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, which I hope went to all Peers who spoke at Second Reading. If the noble Lord has not received his, he should have done and I can only blame the post.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister should not blame the post; it came to me by e-mail this morning. The post may follow in about three days. I want to put on the record what the note told me and other noble Lords who have seen it about the memorandum of understanding. It states:
“The MoU needs to be agreed between the ISC and the Prime Minister”.
We know that. It continues:
“We are starting this process of drafting and agreeing this document, and will do so in parallel”—
I stress those words—
“with the Bill’s passage ... Once we have an agreed draft … it is our intention that it is published, to help inform debate”.
The thrust of my amendment is that it should be subject to debate. The Ministers who sent the letter then told us:
“The matters covered … may include … The factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a particular operational matter which the ISC might wish to consider is ongoing and/or of significant national interest … A description of the arrangements by which the ISC will request, be provided with and hold information, including the circumstances in which the ISC will be able to access primary source materials … A description of the role of investigative staff in the ISC’s work; and … A description of the process for producing an ISC report”.
As the noble Lord said, the memorandum of understanding will be a public document, so it cannot be so sensitive that that is a reason for it not to be debated. I say to the Committee that today’s debates have shown how much Parliament—and this House in particular—has to contribute to consideration of the criteria that will be applied. We are told in Clause 2(4)(a) that the memorandum of understanding,
“may include other provision … which is not of the kind envisaged in subsection (2) or (3)”.
That is very wide. I realise that “envisaged” is another term that I have not come across in legislation before. I do not know whether it means more than “not within”, “not as described” or “not subject to” subsections (2) and (3). I am beginning to feel like an awful old fogey in raising these points but legislation should be completely clear. I believe that the criteria should be matters for debate and not simply for the draft, although we look forward to it as it will inform debate. Reading this note, it seems to me that the approach is more top-down than I should like to have seen.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, perhaps I may make one brief comment. I have already expressed our views about the memorandum of understanding and I think that in return I was told by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, that I was being savage.
I just wish to pursue the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about other references in Clause 2 to the kind of content that will be included in the memorandum of understanding, which we will not get an opportunity to debate and which does not have to be approved by Parliament. Clause 2(3) says:
“The ISC may, by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), consider any particular operational matter but only so far as the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that … the matter … is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation, and … is of significant national interest, and … the consideration of the matter is consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding”.
One has to bear in mind that this is not a document that we will be able to debate and discuss and it will not need to be approved by Parliament unless the Minister is going to move on this amendment. What are these principles that will be set out in the memorandum of understanding which we are not going to be told about when discussing the Bill and which we are not going to be allowed to discuss?
Lord Henley
My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—who is great on drafting. She has picked out another word—envisaged—which she has not come across in legislation before. We will add that to “ongoing”. I suspect that, like her, I am probably an old fogey on these matters. These matters are new to drafting but develop in the way that they do. We will consult the draftsman on whether he is happy with “envisaged” or whether some other word could do it.
It would probably be helpful if I first explain the purpose of the memorandum. We believe that it will be an important document in the relationship between the ISC and the Government. It will define the precise extent of the ISC’s oversight of parts of the intelligence community other than the agencies. It will set principles or other criteria that must be met before the ISC can consider particular operational matters. It will describe the arrangements by which the agencies and other intelligence bodies will supply information to the ISC. We expect that it will also cover matters such as: the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a particular operational matter which the ISC might wish to consider is ongoing, current—or whatever word we particularly wish to use—and/or of significant national interest; a description of the arrangements by which the ISC will request and hold information, including the circumstances in which the ISC will be able to access primary source materials; a description of the role of investigative staff in the ISC’s work; and a description of the process for producing an ISC report. That is what we intend that it should cover. There will no doubt be other matters that will also need to be covered.
The memorandum of understanding in the Bill must be agreed between the Prime Minister and the ISC and it can be altered or replaced at any time by agreement. It is intended that the first memorandum of understanding will be agreed immediately on the coming into force of the relevant provisions. As I said, however, we hope that we can give some idea of what it is going to look like by the time we reach Report.
As is usual for a memorandum of understanding—this is not an unusual procedure—there is no parliamentary approval procedure. This was looked at by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and it was perfectly happy with this. While the memorandum of understanding itself will be an unclassified document which will be published and laid before Parliament, its precise terms are very likely to be shaped by matters which are sensitive in terms of national security and which therefore cannot be made public. In these circumstances, it is particularly appropriate that the memorandum of understanding can be concluded without the need for parliamentary approval.
Of course the terms of the memorandum of understanding must be agreed with the ISC. The Bill makes that clear—it is agreed between the Government and the ISC. The ISC, we must always remind ourselves, is a committee composed of parliamentarians—nine from both Houses. It could be eight members from this House and one from another, but it might be some other arrangement, as it is at the moment—seven from another place and two from this House. As a result of the changes that the Bill will bring about the committee will be appointed by and accountable to Parliament. In some ways, requiring these parliamentarians to seek the approval of the rest of Parliament is a restriction on the independence of the body. I think that it would be unusual for Parliament to have such control over the detailed way in which what amounts to a Select Committee—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is looking for—has decided to conduct its business.
We have not yet published the memorandum for the simple reason that the memorandum of understanding does not exist. We are starting the process of agreeing this document with the ISC and will do so in parallel with the Bill’s passage through Parliament.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I am a little confused about the memorandum of understanding. We seem to have slipped into an issue that arises in the second part of Clause 2: operational matters. The memorandum also refers to overseeing other activities of Her Majesty’s Government in relation to intelligence and security matters. I understand that that is a reference to the Ministry of Defence, to the CDI—who used to appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee—to the Home Office and to other people who gladly came and gave evidence. Presumably that is part of the memorandum of understanding. There is nothing controversial about this; it merely legitimises and puts into statute a situation that already exists.
If I understand correctly, the Minister is now saying that the memorandum of understanding will not appear before the end of the parliamentary process, and that then it will not be subject to any further parliamentary approval. While I entirely understand that necessarily secure issues in the memorandum may have to be dealt with separately, much of what is in the legislation and the memorandum of understanding are the rules under which the ISC will operate and the access that it will have. The Minister is very nobly taking on the first cut of the Bill, if I may put it like that. The memorandum of understanding will have to be looked at again. If it covers the first part of what I am talking about, certainly it should be available to Parliament. Either it should be under consideration while we debate the Bill or it should come up at a later stage, subject to parliamentary approval if it is subsequent to the passage of the legislation.
Lord Henley
My Lords, again I do not think that my noble friend followed what I said. We will not agree the final memorandum until after the Bill has completed. However, I make it clear that we want to produce a draft of it at an earlier stage as we complete our discussions with the ISC. Once we have an agreed draft, it is our intention to publish it to help inform debate. I hope that this will happen before Report. The Bill is only just starting in this House. It has to go through another place as well. As discussions on this will be ongoing—I must not use the word “ongoing”—as the Bill is considered by Parliament, it would not be appropriate to share the first draft before at least it has been agreed by both parties.
My other point is what I said at the beginning of my remarks: the memorandum of understanding, having been agreed by the Prime Minister and the ISC, can be altered and replaced by agreement at any time. Since it is a working document that can move on and be altered and agreed by the two parties, it would not be appropriate to constantly put it back to both Houses of Parliament for debate and agreement. That is not the position with other memorandums of understanding. Normally there is no parliamentary approval process. That is why I mentioned that this had been to the Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which, as far as I know, is perfectly happy with the process.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I will not delay the Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King, who clearly understands exactly what is being said—namely, that Parliament will be denied the right to approve the memorandum of understanding. I am sorry that I did not see a copy of the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was fortunate to receive. It may have truncated my comments during debate on a number of amendments this evening. However, I suspect that we will have rich pickings in the memorandum and that we will come back to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.