House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
1. How many full-time equivalent civil servants were employed in York in May (a) 2010 and (b) 2012.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The number of full-time equivalent civil servants employed in York on 31 March 2010 was 2,390 and on 31 March 2012 it had reduced to 1,980.
Hugh Bayley
With electronic communications improving all the time, it is hard to justify having so many civil servants in London and so few in other parts of the country, such as my constituency, where rents and overheads are so much cheaper. Will the Cabinet Office carry out a strategic review of the number of civil service posts in London that could be relocated to cities such as York?
Mr Maude
There have been endless such studies, including under the last Conservative Government and the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member. The truth is that the number of civil servants in central London is much higher than it needs to be, and it is already falling. We are concentrating the numbers into the central London freehold estate, which is significantly reducing our costs, but there is further to go.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the country’s huge deficit, it is only right that the civil service should contribute to savings, and that it is important that we ensure the creation of more private sector jobs, which are, indeed, being created across York and the wider region?
Mr Maude
The civil service certainly must reduce in size, and it is doing so: it is at its smallest since the second world war. Private sector jobs are being created at quite a rate, and in the two years after the formation of the coalition Government 11,000 jobs were created in the private sector in York, while 4,400 were lost in the public sector.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Consensual civil service relocation to cities such as York is good, cost-effective one-nation politics, as it can help to overcome chronic regional economic disparities, but if the right hon. Gentleman insists on regionalising public sector pay such relocations will simply further retrench existing regional disparities. People in York doing exactly the same job as their colleagues elsewhere in the country will be paid less. The Cabinet is reportedly divided on the subject. In this festive season, may I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to say goodbye to his inner Scrooge and abandon the ill-conceived regional public pay proposals he has been hawking around Government?
Mr Maude
My inner Scrooge is the taxpayer’s outer friend, and I should, perhaps, point out to the hon. Gentleman that in only one part of the civil service—Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—have regional pay scales been abandoned and the move to regional or local market-facing pay been made, and the Government of whom he was a member introduced that.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the implementation of the Government’s procurement reforms.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
As a result of this Government’s procurement reforms, we have made the way we do business more competitive, more transparent, better value and far simpler than ever before.
Nick Smith
Procurement reform is essential from the Government who brought us aircraft carriers without any aircraft and German trains. Last February the Prime Minister pledged that small and medium-sized enterprises would get 25% of Government contracts. What proportion of contracts is currently awarded to SMEs?
Miss Smith
The short answer is: a lot more than under the Government of the hon. Gentleman’s party. Direct spend on SMEs across Government continues to increase quarter by quarter, and we are planning, Department by Department, to reach that 25% target, and in doing so achieve far more than he and the last Labour Government ever did.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer, but may I suggest that at the top of the list of items for renegotiation with the EU—or near the top—should be a reversal of the previous Government’s absurd decision to extend European procurement rules to a large part of our defence programme?
Miss Smith
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support. The Government agree that EU procurement rules must be fundamentally reformed, and we are making strong progress on that. I am delighted to say that most of the UK’s specific requests in this year of negotiations have been included in the latest work and that that work continues.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
3. What plans he has to promote volunteering opportunities for recently retired people to work with young people.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
Through the innovation fund and the social action fund we are supporting a range of opportunities for retired people to share their skills and experience in their communities, including with young people.
Tim Loughton
I wish you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister the compliments of the season.
Are we not missing a trick, with a vast army of recently retired people, particularly men, who are not yet ready for their cocoa and slippers and have a lot to offer through volunteering, particularly to young teenage boys in “dadless” households? Will he agree to meet me and a number and businesses and youth charities to see how we can scale up some of the best practice?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Retired people can work and volunteer with young people in many projects in my constituency, including the intergenerational project in Newtownards in Strangford. One regular problem is the cost of insurance. What help can the Minister give towards insurance costs for those projects?
Mr Hurd
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are actively looking at the burden of regulation on volunteers. I am sure he will join me in welcoming the reform of the Criminal Records Bureau process to reduce the number of people who need checks and to make checks more portable. We are actively working with the insurance industry to see what we can do to reduce the liabilities and insurance requirements on volunteers.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
4. What progress he has made on his plans for the National Citizen Service.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
10. What progress he has made on his plans for the National Citizen Service.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Our ambition is to make National Citizen Service a rite of passage available to every 16 or 17-year-old. In 2011, more than 8,400 young people took part in it. This year we made the programmes available to a much larger number of people. The programmes finished recently and we await final data on the numbers. In 2014, we will ensure that 90,000 places are on offer.
Richard Graham
All those involved in the NCS programme in 2012 in my constituency of Gloucester will welcome the Minister’s news of expansion in 2013. Excellent local partner, Gloucestershire college, has suggested to me that if it was possible for the organisations that pledge support to provide more detail it could provide even more opportunities to young people in my constituency and across the county. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more could be done from the Cabinet Office to facilitate that?
Mr Maude
I know that my hon. Friend has taken a very close interest in the NCS, which is fast-growing and immensely popular with those who take part. Satisfaction is expressed by more than 90% of its participants. I hear what my hon. Friend says and will discuss further with him how we can take that forward.
Amber Rudd
The NCS designated Catch22, the provider of this programme in the south-east, with more than 2,500 places for 16 to 17-year-olds in the summer of 2012, but only 30 places were allocated to the young people of East Sussex. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that more places will be available in 2013, particularly for the young people of Hastings and Rye?
Mr Maude
I am very sympathetic to that indeed. Of course, the first two years were pilot years in which the programme was not available throughout England. We are now rolling it out on a much wider scale and the whole country will be covered by the NCS in 2013 and 2014. I am confident that there will be significantly more places available in East Sussex, and I shall look particularly at the position in Hastings and Rye.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
12. The NCS is the Prime Minister’s flagship policy for volunteering and the big society. Is it not therefore a bit ironic that it is primarily being run by Serco, a private company?
Mr Maude
The hon. Lady is quite simply wrong. Serco has had no involvement whatsoever. It will be involved in some of the regions in the forthcoming—[Interruption.] There seems to be a certain amount of interest in this. Serco is in a partnership with voluntary organisations and it is the lead organisation in a minority. Most of the regions are being led by voluntary and community sector organisations, two of them by consortia of further education colleges. I hope the hon. Lady will welcome that.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
5. What his policy is on streamlining the procurement process to enable more small and medium-sized enterprises to secure Government contracts.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
It is this Government’s policy to dismantle the barriers facing small companies, charities and voluntary organisations to ensure they can compete for contracts on a level playing field. This helps to deliver economic growth through public procurement. As I have mentioned before, it is an ongoing process to reach our aspiration in this Parliament of 25% of central Government procurement spend being with SMEs.
Nick de Bois
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. If bad practice continues, will she explain how my constituent SMEs can complain, and will her office undertake to ensure that investigation follows if bad practice exists?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the need for organisations to make complaints about poor procurement practice. That is why we have provided a right to challenge such practice through the mystery shopper service and I confirm that today we are publishing the next batch of its results, which I think my hon. Friend will find very interesting indeed, and we shall continue doing so.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Federation of Small Businesses told me yesterday that most of its members had given up trying to do business with Departments. According to the Government’s figures, public sector procurement from small businesses has fallen in most Departments since the election. Why has that happened?
Miss Smith
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is rather mixed up. As I mentioned in my answer, spend with SMEs is rising and we are on track for that 25% target. I am also conscious that the chairman of the FSB said this year that
“central government has raised its game…But more must be done”.
The question is: why did the previous Government do so little?
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
ONE3ONE Solutions, a recent start-up, is the commercial arm of prison industries. In the interests of us all, the business needs to grow to get prisoners working effectively. What progress is the Minister making to put the organisation on the preferred supplier list for Government contracts, for which it has suitable products and services?
Miss Smith
As Members would expect, our prime objective in procurement is value for money for the taxpayer, but I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend articulates and I will be happy to discuss it further with him and appropriate colleagues.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
6. What steps he is taking to support smaller charities.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
We are cutting red tape. We are investing in giving and making it easier to claim gift aid. We are investing in supporting volunteering and social investment, and we are gradually making it easier for charities to help us deliver better public services.
Andy McDonald
An analysis by the Charities Aid Foundation found that small and medium-sized charities reported deficits of more than £300 million in 2011, and that the situation had markedly deteriorated since 2010. Does the Minister agree that the finances of the voluntary sector, like the economy as a whole, have indeed markedly deteriorated since 2010?
Mr Hurd
Official figures from the Charity Commission show that over the last three years the number of charities has grown, and the income for the sector has grown to more than £50 billion, but we all know from our constituencies that there is intense pressure on charities at the moment, particularly small charities, which requires a whole-society response. The Government are doing their bit, as I described in my first answer.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I am delighted to hear of the Government’s moves to support smaller charities. One charity that really needs the Government’s support is the Plymouth Brethren, who do so much good and who are facing a despicable attack on their charitable status. What can the Minister say in support for the Plymouth Brethren and their legitimate claims to retain their charitable status?
Mr Hurd
I know that feelings run strongly on the issue across the House. The bottom line is that charitable status is decided by the Charity Commission and by the courts in the event of an appeal, which is what is happening in this case. I am sure my hon. Friend supports me in wishing for the process to be resolved as quickly as possible.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/ Co-op)
14. In Luton, the local authority’s budget is being cut by approximately half over the period of the comprehensive spending review. In turn, funding is being cut for many local charities, such as LAMP—the Luton accommodation and move-on project—a brilliant charity based in my constituency that works with youth homelessness. Is that not the reality of the big society?
Mr Hurd
The reality of the big society is that the public are enormously supportive of charities. Seventy-five per cent. of charities receive no funding at all from the state. Where they do, it is incumbent on us all—Members on both sides of the House—to send a very clear message to local authorities, as the Prime Minister has done, that we do not expect to see disproportionate cuts to the sector, and that we need to see the process being delivered in accordance with the compact.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
One excellent way to support smaller charities is via the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and strongly supported by the Government. Will the Minister update the House on progress with implementation of that radical change in procurement?
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
With one in six charities fearing that they will face closure next year, after huge cuts in Government funding, and after the promised bonanza of new income from Whitehall contracts failed to materialise, how does the Minister hope that his performance will improve next year?
Mr Hurd
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that just as Labour Members talked down the economy for three years, now they are talking down the voluntary sector, which has grown over the past three years. I set him a test of seriousness: will he send a stronger message to Labour local authorities, as the Prime Minister has done, about the need to avoid disproportionate cuts on the sector, starting with Derby?
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
7. What recent progress he has made on the Government’s cyber-security strategy and establishing a centre for global cyber-security capacity building.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office recently informed the House, we have made real progress on improving the UK’s cyber-security capability.
In October, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced plans to establish a new global cyber-security capacity building centre. We expect to make a further announcement on that next year.
Eric Ollerenshaw
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Lancaster university is a centre for excellence on cyber-security in the excellent county of Lancashire, which of course she is very welcome to visit. I wonder whether she recently saw a report that the university produced on the impact of cybercrime on small businesses; does she agree that that issue is no longer just for Government and big business, but now concerns every business?
Miss Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for his reminder. I am aware of the excellent work that Lancaster does. I will gladly look into an opportunity to visit. I fully agree that cyber-security is an issue that affects everybody in society—businesses large and small. We are increasing our work with small and medium-sized enterprises to raise awareness of cyber-threats and what we can all do to protect ourselves.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Nelson)
The hon. Lady is right that cyber-security affects everyone in society. Will she therefore put her support behind the annual PICTFOR—the Parliamentary Internet Communications Technology Forum—competition, “Make it Happy”, which is targeted at primary schools and in 2013 will be focused on cyber-security, building on the forthcoming programme for secondary schools?
Miss Smith
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s scheme, and I welcome PICTFOR’s support. I look forward to working with him on the scheme because it is important that we get that message out, even to children at a young age, and I am sure that we can all have a happy new year with that scheme.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the merits of establishing an independent body to investigate complaints against charities.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
The Charity Commission investigates complaints where serious mismanagement or maladministration puts the charity’s assets or beneficiaries at significant risk.
Complaints about the services a charity provides should be directed to the charity itself. Lord Hodgson concluded in his review of the Charities Act 2006 that a new body would be inappropriate and unaffordable. I agree with his assessment.
Graham Jones
Agapao International, a charity in Haslingden in my constituency, took control of a property that was gifted to it by the community in 1999 through various charitable grants. It is now attempting to sell the property for its own financial gain in order to put right financial mismanagement, and there have been dozens of complaints against the charity. The Charity Commission does not seem to have the powers to investigate. Will the Minister meet me to see what can be done to resolve the issue?
Mr Hurd
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that the Charity Commission has engaged with the charity, and the bottom line is that its role is to deal with serious misconduct or mismanagement, not to deal with complaints where people are just unhappy with decisions that are taken within the law and within the governance arrangements of the charity.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
My responsibilities are for the public sector efficiency and reform group, civil service issues, industrial relations, strategy in the public sector, government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.
Dan Rogerson
I welcome the fact that the Government are increasing the range of services that they provide online to our constituents. However, digital by default is a cause for concern as some constituents who do not have access to broadband or for whatever reason choose to use a paper option are worried that that may not continue. Will the Minister reassure the House that that option will remain for all those constituents who do not wish to use the computer option?
Mr Maude
Transacting with the Government online costs about one twentieth of the cost of doing so by phone, one thirtieth of doing it by post, and one fiftieth, on average, of doing it face to face, so there are massive savings as well as increased convenience from moving public services online. But we recognise that there are of course people who cannot access services online and we will make sure that proper provision is made for them. We will publish our assisted digital strategy before the end of the year.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In July 2010 the Minister for the Cabinet Office said that
“it is essential that we take radical steps to increase efficiency and reduce energy use. . .This Government is determined to tackle waste wherever it exists, and that includes energy”,
yet according to figures updated last week on data.gov.uk, energy use in the Minister’s own Department at 70 Whitehall has increased by 9% this year compared with last year. Why is the Minister not practising what he preaches?
Mr Maude
The Government are more than meeting their target to cut energy. It would be very good to hear the hon. Gentleman supporting our energy for growth project, which will mean cheaper energy for government and will unlock blocked renewable energy projects throughout the country. It would be very good to hear him supporting that.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
T3. I am encouraged to see that the Government are firmly committed to reducing the extent of their bloated property portfolio. Will my right hon. Friend please update the House on progress that has been made in this area this year?
Mr Maude
We have hugely reduced the amount of property that the Government occupy. The overall size of the central estate in 2011 alone fell by nearly 6%; the number of our property holdings fell by 11%; and we sold Admiralty Arch, which is an unsatisfactory office building but will be a very good hotel building. We are making enormous savings. We have achieved total savings of £360 million in annual running costs. If this had started when the Leader of the Opposition had my job, the country would not have been in the mess that we inherited in 2010. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. As a result, Members are not attending to the answers that are being given by Minister Maude, and that is unsatisfactory.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
T2. May I encourage Ministers to work across parties to achieve a strong and robust register of lobbyists, rather than proceed with the proposal which the chair of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has described as so weak that it is not worth joining?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are continuing to analyse the responses received from the consultation on that matter.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
T4. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has already raised the plight of the Plymouth Brethren, who are subject to a disgraceful attack by the Charity Commission on their charitable status. During the passage of the Charities Act 2011 through the House, the current Leader of the Opposition gave undertakings that no religious body would lose its charitable status. If the Plymouth Brethren lose the litigation, will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the law will be changed?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
I am sure we all want to see the Plymouth Brethren issue resolved as quickly and cheaply as possible by the Charity Commission and the tribunal. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that we are reviewing all charity law in co-operation with Lord Hodgson, including whether we should revisit a statutory definition of public benefit.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T6. Nottingham community and voluntary service’s state of the sector report found that although demand for services is increasing, 69% of voluntary groups are facing reduced income, 52% have been forced to cut staff this year, 76% say they may have to close a service and 36% may close altogether. Is this not a terrible indictment of this Government’s support for the voluntary sector?
Mr Hurd
The Labour party has been predicting the collapse of the voluntary sector for three years. In fact it has grown, but it is under huge pressure, which is why we are doing so much to cut red tape, invest in giving, invest in social investment, support volunteering and make it easier for charities to help us to deliver better public services.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
T5. With the festive season upon us, will my hon. Friend join me in thanking all those at the Erewash council for voluntary service and other voluntary organisations in my constituency who do so much at this time of year to give those in need and those on their own the extra support they need?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for giving us all the opportunity to thank the volunteers in our constituencies who do so much to keep things going, who bring people together and make things happen that otherwise would not happen. They deserve all our support and thanks, which is what this Government give.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
T7. Does the Minister think that abolishing the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances in the morning and establishing the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee in the afternoon was a sensible use of taxpayers’ money and time?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 December.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our best wishes for Christmas to our brave armed forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere. To their families, who will be missing them, and to the servicemen and women around the world, you are always in our thoughts, we owe you a deep debt of gratitude, and we send our heartfelt thanks at Christmas time.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Oliver Colvile
I thank my right hon. Friend for wishing a merry Christmas to our servicemen and women on deployment and to their families. Will he tell us what progress Sir John Holmes has made in his review of medals, especially for those who served on the Arctic convoys with bravery and endeavour?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about our troops. On the issue of medals, which has gone on for a very long time, I am delighted to be able to tell the House that we have reached a resolution. I asked Sir John to conduct a review not just of medals in general but specifically of one of the most important cases. He has completed his work and I thank him for what he has done. More details will come from the Ministry of Defence in the new year, including how veterans can apply, but I am very pleased to tell the House the following. On the Arctic convoys, Sir John has recommended, and I fully agree, that there should be an Arctic Convoy Star medal. I am very pleased that some of the brave men of the Arctic convoys will get the recognition they so richly deserve for the very dangerous work they did.
On Bomber Command, Sir John concluded that they had been treated inconsistently with those who served in Fighter Command and has therefore recommended, and I agree, that the heroic aircrews of Bomber Command should be awarded a Bomber Command clasp. I know that these announcements will be widely welcomed across the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and Members on both sides of the House who have campaigned hard on these issues. I am glad that we have reached a resolution, and one that is popular and right.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our troops in Afghanistan, who continue to show such huge courage and bravery. It is particularly important at this time of year to remember them and their families, many of whom will be separated from them. Their families, too, are in all our thoughts.
I also welcome the Government’s expected announcement today on reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan during 2013; we await the Defence Secretary’s statement. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many British troops and civilian staff will be left in Afghanistan after the 2014 deadline, and can he confirm whether they will be there under Afghan-led command?
The Prime Minister
I join the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming what our troops do. Specifically on Afghanistan, we have two decisions to make. The first is about the draw-down of troops between now and the end of 2014. The Defence Secretary will announce that because of the success of our forces and Afghan national security forces and the fact that we are moving from mentoring at battalion level to mentoring at brigade level by the end of 2013, we will be able to see troops come home in two relatively even steps—2013 and 2014—probably leaving around 5,200 troops after the end of 2013, compared with the 9,000 we have there now. It is a good moment to pay tribute again to the incredible work they have done, many of them going back for tour after tour, and those I have spoken to recently have been particularly impressed by the capacity of the Afghan national forces.
In terms of post-2014, we have not made final decisions yet. We have said very clearly that no one will be in a combat role and that there will be nothing like the number of troops there are now. We have promised the Afghans that we will provide the officer training academy that they have specifically asked for. We are prepared to look at other issues above and beyond that, but that is the starting baseline.
Edward Miliband
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Given that thousands of British troops are still going to be in harm’s way in Afghanistan, can the Prime Minister update the House and say what specific effort the Government are making, with the international community, to match the continuing military efforts with the greater diplomatic efforts that both he and I think are important? After all, that will leave behind, or give us our best chance of leaving behind, an inclusive and durable political settlement in Afghanistan, which is so important.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. As well as a military track, there has always been a political and diplomatic track.
Let me be clear. After December 2014, some troops will still be involved in returning equipment and dealing with logistics. Exact announcements will be made about that at a later stage. In terms of the work that we will go on doing, because we will not be leaving Afghanistan in terms of our support and help for the Afghans, we will be contributing £70 million a year to help to pay for the Afghan national security forces and we will have an aid programme in excess of £170 million a year for Afghanistan.
In terms of the diplomatic track, the thing that we are most focused on is bringing Afghanistan and Pakistan together. I have personally hosted two meetings between the two Presidents and I hope to host further meetings, including early in the new year. I spoke to President Karzai this morning to encourage him to keep working on that vital relationship, so that Pakistan and Afghanistan can both see that they have a shared interest in a stable future.
Edward Miliband
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer.
I want to turn to another issue. I want to recognise the work of thousands of volunteers who are helping out in our nation’s food banks and the millions of people who are donating food to them. Is the Prime Minister as concerned as I am that there has been a sixfold increase in the last three years in the number of people relying on food banks?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about volunteers and people who work hard in our communities, part of what I call the big society, to help those in need. It is a good time of year to thank our volunteers for what they do, but I do share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about people who are struggling to pay the bills and to deal with their budgets.
Of course, the most important thing is to get on top of inflation, and inflation is coming down. The most important thing is to get more people into work and out of poverty, and we see 600,000 more private sector jobs this year. We are helping those families by freezing the council tax and making sure that we help families with the cost of living.
Edward Miliband
We both pay tribute to the work of the volunteers, but I never thought that the big society was about feeding hungry children in Britain.
The problem is that it is working people who are turning to food banks. One head teacher of a school rated “outstanding” by Ofsted, Vic Goddard, says that even children with a parent or parents in work are often struggling with the choice of heating their homes, buying their children clothes or buying them food. A report last week from the Children’s Society said that two thirds of teachers knew of staff providing pupils with food or money to prevent them from going hungry. Why does the Prime Minister think that is happening, and why does it appear to be getting worse on his watch?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to do more to help the poorest in our country. That is why we have lifted the personal tax allowance and taken 2 million of the lowest paid people out of tax altogether. Let us take someone who is on the minimum wage and works full time—because of the tax changes that we have made, their income tax bill has been cut in half. I would also make this point: because of the decisions that we made in this Government to increase the child tax credit by £390 ahead of inflation, we have helped those families with their bills and we will continue to do more in the future.
Edward Miliband
I am afraid that that answer will have seemed very out of touch with families up and down the country. The problem is that what the Chancellor did not tell us in the autumn statement was that his tax on strivers will be hitting working families who rely on tax credits up and down the country.
The reality is that in the third year of the Prime Minister’s Government, more children are going hungry and more families are relying on food banks. Is it not the clearest indictment of his Government’s values that while lower and middle-income families are being hit, at the same time he is giving an average of a £107,000 tax cut to people earning over £1 million a year?
The Prime Minister
What is out of touch is denying the fact that we had a deficit left by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government that we had to deal with. That is what we have had to do, but we have been able to do it at the same time as cutting taxes for the poorest in our country, increasing child tax credits, and freezing the council tax to help those families. When it comes to the top rate of tax, let me tell him this: the richest in our country will pay more in tax under every year of this Government than any year of his Government. Those are the facts; he may not like them but he cannot deny them.
Edward Miliband
The problem is that nobody believes him any more. We know who this Prime Minister stands up for, because where was he last weekend? Back to his old ways partying with Rebekah Brooks, no doubt both looking forward to the Boxing day hunt. Before he was elected, the Prime Minister said: “Unless you can represent everyone in our country you cannot be a one nation party.” That was then; this is now. Everyone now knows he cannot be a one nation Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
It would not be Christmas without the repeats, and that is all we ever get from the right hon. Gentleman. I will tell him what we have done this year. We said we would take action on jobs; we have 600,000 more private sector jobs. We said we would help with the cost of living; we have frozen the council tax for the third year in a row. We said we would deal with the deficit; we have cut the deficit by a quarter. And what have we heard from him this year? What has he told us about the deficit? Nothing. What has he told us about welfare? Nothing. What has he told us about his education plans? Nothing. The fact is that he has got absolutely nothing to offer except for the same old something-for-nothing culture that got us in this mess in the first place.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Trust in the police is an essential part of a just and democratic society. Will the Prime Minister therefore seek—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but Members must now calm down. Both the questions and the answers must be heard.
Mr Wilson
Will the Prime Minister therefore seek personal assurances from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that no stone will be left unturned in getting to the full truth about allegations that a serving police officer fabricated evidence against a member of the Cabinet?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me say again that at Christmas time it is right to pay tribute to our brave police officers—men and women who look after us round the clock and do an extremely good job. But the point that my hon. Friend has made is important. A police officer posing as a member of the public and sending an e-mail potentially to blacken the name of a Cabinet Minister is a very serious issue, and it does need to be seriously investigated. The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting a thorough and well resourced investigation to get to the truth of this matter as quickly as possible. The Independent Police Complaints Commission will be supervising the investigation, and I think we should allow it to get to the truth.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Q2. Despite what the Prime Minister has just said in response to our leader, the facts on the ground are these: the classic poverty-related diseases of rickets and tuberculosis are on the increase in this country, the number of food banks is increasing, kids are going to school hungry, and we have a stagnant economy. Is the Prime Minister proud that his policies are taking this country back to the 1930s?
The Prime Minister
I would hope that the hon. Gentleman, with the constituency that he represents, would today be celebrating the fact that Nissan has announced another £125 million investment in our country. This is now one of the biggest and most successful car plants anywhere in Britain. Yes, we face tough economic times, but the fact is that we have over 1 million new private sector jobs, and last year and this year saw some of the fastest rates of new business creation. That is what is happening in our country. Yes, there are tough times and tough choices, but our economy is rebalancing and we should recognise that.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Q3. In March we introduced a new local green space designation to protect green spaces not just for great crested newts and landscape painters but for urban and suburban communities such as Leckhampton, Warden Hill and Whaddon in my constituency. Can the Prime Minister reassure local councils that they can and should use this new designation and that it has not been undermined by any recent pronouncements?
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that the national planning policy framework that we have put in place—it was 1,000 pages long, but is now just 50 pages long—is our planning policy and framework. We are giving local authorities greater power and greater ability—and also neighbourhood plans—so that these decisions can be made where they should be: more locally.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Q4. I have in my hand a genuine suicide note from a constituent of mine who, sadly, took his own life after he was informed that he was no longer entitled to employment and support allowance and disability benefits. Across the UK, more than 1,000 people have died only months after being told to find work. This is 2012—we are supposed to be a civilised society. We should be looking after disabled citizens in the UK. Will the Prime Minister listen to the 62,000 people who have signed Pat’s petition and please finally order an assessment of all changes hitting disabled people in this country?
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at the very tragic case that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House. Everyone’s thoughts will go out to that person’s family because of what has happened to them.
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the actual money that we are putting into disability benefits over the coming years is going up, not down. I think that everybody knows and accepts that we need to have a review of disability benefits. Some people have been stuck on these benefits and not been reviewed for year after year after year. That is the view of the disability charities and it is the view of the Government as well.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
As we approach Christmas, will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating the fact that there are more people in employment this Christmas than ever before in this nation’s great history?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. After all, the Leader of the Opposition said back in January that unemployment would go up. That was his prediction—he stood at the Dispatch Box and said that. The fact is that unemployment has come down, employment has gone up and we have seen a record fall in youth unemployment in the last quarter. All of those things are welcome, particularly as we are seeing growth in the private sector, because everyone knows that we have to have a rebalancing of our economy whereby we shed some jobs in the public sector but grow the private sector, and that is what is happening.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Q5. Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]People realise, now, that the Prime Minister has a Dickensian vision for the UK: grandeur for the few, workhouse for the many. Why is he limiting welfare benefits for parents caring for adults with disabilities? Could we have an explanation from Ebenezer?
The Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is probably a case of merry Christmas and happy speaking opportunities in the new year.
We have not restricted disability benefits; what we have done is put more money into disability benefits. That is what this Government are doing. We have taken difficult decisions to increase tax credits by 1%, to increase public sector pay by 1% and to increase out-of-work benefits by 1%. Those were tough decisions that needed to be taken.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Q6. Last week, the published census figures revealed that the previous Government presided over the largest wave of immigration our country has ever seen, yet next Christmas our borders will be flung open even wider to potentially limitless immigration from among the 29 million people who live in Romania and Bulgaria. Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at triggering the national interest clauses buried deep in the EU free movement directive in order to stem this new flow, especially for those with criminal records and those who seek access to our welfare benefits system?
The Prime Minister
First, let me echo the first half of my hon. Friend’s question. The last Government allowed a completely uncontrolled system of migration, under which we saw net immigration of 200,000 people a year and 2 million people across a decade—that is two cities the size of Birmingham staying in our country every year. There has been not one word of apology for the mess that the last Government left.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the transitional controls coming off the accession countries. I will look carefully at what he says. We have rules to try to restrict access to benefit. We will go on working to make those as robust as possible. I mentioned the national interest clauses in the statement on Europe on Monday. I think that those can be triggered only if there are emergency conditions, but I will look carefully at what he says.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Q7. A month ago, the Prime Minister told the House that universal credit will put in place work incentives for people at all levels of income. Why then does the Department for Work and Pensions now say that universal credit will mean that working women will consider giving up work?
The Prime Minister
That is not the case at all. By bringing different benefits together, universal credit means that people will always be better off in work and will always be better off by working extra hours. That is what we are doing. Labour had 13 years to sort out these poverty traps and it completely failed.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
My constituent, Yogi Papi Depass, is currently stuck in Cuba, despite having a British passport. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could encourage the Cuban authorities to look at this matter with compassion and speed to get Yogi back home for Christmas with his family.
The Prime Minister
I quite understand why my hon. Friend raises that case. Yoandry Depass was born in Cuba. He entered the UK and obtained a British passport in 1997. We are in regular contact with the Cuban authorities, and they have advised Mr Depass that he should expect to receive his Cuban passport this week, which will enable him to travel. Ultimately, the decision rests with the Cuban authorities, but British embassy consular officials will continue to assist him and we will keep in touch with my hon. Friend.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Q8. In April, the Prime Minister stated that energy efficiency would be placed at the heart of Government policy. On Monday this week, the Government’s fuel poverty advisory group warned that there could be more than 9 million households in fuel poverty. That would include 25% of all households in Stoke-on-Trent. Will the Prime Minister tell us why, from next year, expenditure on heating insulation programmes for low-income households will be half that of 2010-11?
The Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Lady takes a deep interest in these matters. The green deal that is being brought in is a bigger and better programme. Labour promised to abolish fuel poverty altogether in its 2005 manifesto, and yet fuel poverty went up. We are investing in the Warm Front scheme, we have maintained the winter fuel payment, we have increased the cold weather payment, we are making money available under the Warm Homes Healthy People fund, and the green deal and the energy company obligation are some of the biggest schemes ever introduced in this country.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Q9. Does the Prime Minister agree with the shadow Health Secretary that any increase in the expenditure of the NHS would be “irresponsible”?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some people in the House might have missed this. In a recent health debate, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary asked the shadow Health Secretary:
“does he stand by his comment that it is irresponsible to increase NHS spending?”—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 332.]
What did the shadow Health Secretary reply? He said, “Yes, I do.” It may be Christmas time, but the shadow Health Secretary is the gift that keeps on giving.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Last week, 100 young homeless people came to this House for the first ever young homeless people’s parliament. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for being present, to the House authorities for their support, and to the Ministers who came to engage with those young people. They were excellent young people who gave powerful, personal testimony about why they had become homeless. They set out in no uncertain terms what they expect from us in this House. Above all, they want their voice to be heard. They agreed that they would seek a meeting with the Prime Minister. Will he receive a delegation of those young, homeless people?
The Prime Minister
I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the fact that those young people came to Parliament to make those points, and I will listen carefully to what they have to say. The truth is that in our country we have seen housing benefit increase by something like 50% over recent years, and even under our plans it will continue to increase. What we in Britain need to do is build more homes in the private sector and the social rented sector. That is the vital task ahead of us, and I give credit to planning Ministers and others who will help to make that happen.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Q10. The closure two months ago of the originally state-sponsored lifeline helicopter service to the Isles of Scilly has presented significant challenges to islanders, medical services and the economy, although local people and other stakeholders are working together to find solutions. Is the Prime Minister prepared to meet me and a small delegation of islanders to explore what encouragement and assistance the Government can provide to the islands in this their hour of desperate need?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point; clearly proper transport links to the Isles of Scilly are absolutely vital. I understand that other providers are looking to fill the gaps left by the helicopter service. That would provide the most long-term and sustainable option, rather than Government subsidy, but obviously we have to look at all options, because that part of our country needs to be connected to the mainland. If it is necessary to have a meeting, then of course I will.
Mr Crausby
When the great train robbers stole £2.5 million from Royal Mail, they were sentenced to as many as 30 years in prison. When our bankers get caught fraudulently taking billions of pounds from poor people throughout the world, they just pay large corporate fines and walk away with fat pensions. How can we ever be in anything together as long as we tolerate powerful villains who are too privileged to be put behind bars?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is why the Wheatley review into the LIBOR scandal recommends a series of changes, including criminal sanctions. I think that when people have broken the law they should face the full force of the criminal law. What punishment we should design for the people who sold our gold at half price, on the other hand, is another matter altogether.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Dementia is a terrible condition that destroys lives. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in commending Warwickshire county council and local health care partners for developing the excellent Coventry and Warwickshire dementia portal that provides an excellent service to dementia sufferers and their carers?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his county council. We need to do far more as a country to tackle dementia. There are three important parts to that. First, we must recognise that dementia is a disease and not just a natural part of ageing, and we need to increase the research that goes into dementia. We need to improve the care that people get in hospitals and in care homes, and make sure that there is far more dignity. Frankly, all communities have to come together and make more dementia-friendly communities. That is where local government can help lead the way by bringing organisations together, as it has obviously done in Warwickshire.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Q12. It is interesting that the Prime Minister says that those who break the law should feel the full force of the law, as his local Heythrop hunt has pleaded guilty to four charges of illegally hunting foxes with dogs. Will he remind the House how many times he has ridden with the hunt and say whether he used his own horse or borrowed one from a friend?
The Prime Minister
I can happily put on record that I have never broken the law in this regard.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
May I reassure my right hon. Friend that those of my constituents who are most strongly in favour of reforming benefits—focusing them more on those who need them and taking them away from those who do not—are people who live on council estates and are fed up with working long hours to subsidise the lifestyles of those who do not want to work?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have made three difficult decisions. We set a 1% pay freeze on the public sector, a 1% increase on working benefits and a 1% freeze on tax credits. Labour Members support the 1% freeze on public sector pay, which is progress, but they do not support the 1% increase on welfare benefits. They think the income of people who are out of work should go up faster than the income of people who are in work. That is why they are so profoundly out of touch with the nation, and why they do not deserve to be in government.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
With the Prime Minister’s neighbours in trouble over phone hacking and, as we have heard, his local hunt in disgrace, he might find himself stuck at home a bit over Christmas watching films on TV. I have had a quick scan of the Radio Times. Which of these films would he fancy: “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas”, starring the Chancellor of the Exchequer; “The Muppet Christmas Carol”, starring the Lib Dem members of the Cabinet; or “It’s Not a Wonderful Life for the Poor”, starring himself?
The Prime Minister
The Labour party will have to swap “Wallace and Gromit” and have “The Muppet Christmas Carol” instead. I have one suggestion—full of Christmas cheer. Everybody knows that the shadow Chancellor does a brilliant job playing Santa at the Christmas party every year—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] He does an excellent job. Why not give everyone an early Christmas present, make the arrangement permanent and give him the sack?
The Prime Minister
The Government have looked at this carefully. We commissioned the Vickers report, which came up with the idea of ring-fencing, which was right. The key is that we want to ensure that, if a bank fails, it can fail safely, without taxpayers having to stump up the money to sort it out. That would be a major advance, and something the whole country would support.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be aware of the welcome news this morning that the Attorney-General’s application to quash the Hillsborough verdicts was upheld by the High Court. He will understand that that will involve the Hillsborough families in a great deal of legal costs to ensure that they are properly represented. Will he agree to waive the VAT on the CD “He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother”, the proceeds from which will go directly to the Hillsborough families to support their legal case?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the decision made today. The Hillsborough families have long wanted this new inquest, and it is very good that the system has moved relatively rapidly since the Hillsborough statement and the Hillsborough debate in the House to help bring the decision about. I have received representations on the Hillsborough families’ single. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is currently on the other side of the Atlantic, but as the First Lord of the Treasury, I think I can confidently predict that there will be a decision that will go down well on Merseyside.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
As this is the season of good will and humbug, will the Prime Minister confirm that, for the greater part of the period of the Labour Government, the top rate of tax was 40p; the gap between rich and poor widened; and they left nearly 4 million children living below the poverty line?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He could have added that the Labour Government left a record deficit, saw youth unemployment double, made a complete mess of the economy, and had an open-door immigration system. They have never apologised for any of it.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Many people watching our proceedings will be interested in the issue of fuel poverty, but they might be a little confused by the Prime Minister’s reply a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley). Will he confirm—let us be transparent—that, as one body has advised, approaching 9 million households suffer from fuel poverty, which is the highest since records began? Will he explain to the House and our constituents, as we approach Christmas, what the Government are prepared to do about the horrible scandal of fuel poverty?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right that fuel poverty is a scandal and that it needs to be dealt with, but I do not believe the figures he gives are correct. The figures I have show that, in 2012, it is expected that 3.9 million households will be in fuel poverty. However, as I have said, we are committed to tackling fuel poverty. That is why we have maintained the winter fuel payments; why we have increased the cold weather payments and kept the increase permanent; and why we are investing in the Warm Front scheme and the warm home discount. The green deal will make a real difference—[Interruption.] I hear chuntering from Opposition Front Benchers. They promised to abolish fuel poverty, but they put it up.
Afghanistan
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Afghanistan.
Let me once again pay tribute to the brave men and women of our armed forces serving in Afghanistan. Theirs is a difficult and dangerous job; they operate in the most demanding of environments, displaying courage and heroism on a daily basis. Since operations began in 2001, 438 members of our armed forces have made the ultimate sacrifice; 11 since my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary made the last quarterly statement on Afghanistan on 13 September.
In the face of such sacrifice, we should be in no doubt about why we are operating in Afghanistan. It is for one overriding reason: to protect our national security. Atrocities on the scale of 11 September 2001 must never be allowed to happen again. We seek an Afghanistan able to effectively manage its own security and prevent its territory from being used as a safe haven by international terrorists to plan and launch attacks against the UK and our allies.
That is an objective shared by our coalition partners in the international security assistance force and by the Afghan Government. We in NATO fully support the ambition of the Afghan Government for them to have full security responsibility across Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Our strategies are firmly aligned. The phased process of transition of security responsibility, agreed at the Lisbon summit, is well advanced and on track. In accordance with ISAF planning, by the end of 2013 we expect that UK forces will no longer need to routinely mentor the Afghan national army below brigade level. This is a move up from our current battalion level mentoring, a reflection of rapidly improving Afghan capacity and capability and in line with the Chicago milestone.
As the Prime Minister has just announced, a progressive move to brigade level mentoring will also allow us to make further reductions to our force levels from the 9,000 we will have at the end of this year. Our current planning envisages a reduction to approximately 5,200 by the end of next year. That number is based on current UK military advice and is in line with the NATO strategy agreed at Lisbon and the emerging ISAF planning. It also reflects the real progress being made in Helmand. We will keep this number under review as the ISAF plan firms up and other allies make draw-down decisions in the new year. Let me be clear: this reduction is possible because of the success of the Afghan national security forces in assuming a leading role.
Across many parts of Afghanistan, security is already delivered by the Afghan national security forces. Today, the ANSF has lead security responsibility in areas that are home to three quarters of the population, including each of the 34 provincial capitals and all three districts that make up the UK’s area of operations. Across Afghanistan, the ANSF now leads on more than 80% of conventional operations and carries out 90% of its own training. It sets its own priorities, leads its own planning and conducts and sustains its own operations. By the middle of next year—marking a moment of huge significance for the Afghan people—we expect the ANSF to have lead security responsibility for the whole country.
This national picture is replicated in Helmand. The ANSF is now firmly in charge in the populated areas of central Helmand, increasingly with the ability and confidence to operate independently, and, as the ANA’s confidence in its own ability grows, it is showing an appetite to conduct Afghan intelligence-led raids, and we are focusing our advisory effort accordingly.
The focus of our assistance to the ANSF in Helmand is increasingly switching from company-level activities to mentoring at battalion level. Kandaks from the ANA’s 3/215 Brigade in Nad Ali and Nahr Saraj have already moved to the new model, working alongside the UK-led brigade advisory group, and further kandak advisory teams will be in place shortly. The reaction of the leaders and commanders at all levels in 3/215 Brigade has been one of pride based on self-confidence. Furthermore, this phased transition has allowed the UK-led Task Force Helmand to reduce its footprint significantly, and, since April, nearly 50 permanent British base locations—more than 60% of the pre-April total—have been closed or handed over to the ANSF.
Although progress on security has been real and meaningful, partnering is not without risk, and the attacks on our forces, including the so-called insider attacks perpetrated by rogue members of the ANSF, remind us how difficult the mission is. We are working at every level to suppress this threat and will do everything that we can to thwart it. We are clear that we will not allow these cowardly attacks to derail our strategy or commitment to the Afghan people.
The insurgents remain committed to conducting a campaign of violence in Afghanistan and continue to represent a threat to the future stability of the country. The ANSF, supported by ISAF where necessary, is taking the fight to the insurgents and pushing them away from the towns, markets, key transport routes and intensively farmed areas towards the rural fringe. As a result, the Afghan-led security plan is increasingly able to focus on disrupting the insurgency in its safe havens.
Although we cannot be complacent, the picture as a whole is of an insurgency weakened. The number of enemy-initiated attacks has fallen by an average of more than 10% in areas that have entered the transition process, so demonstrating that the Afghans are managing their own security. More importantly, the geographical pattern of enemy-initiated attacks shows a significant reduction in impact on the local population. Although our combat mission will be ending in 2014, our clear message to the Afghan people remains one of firm and ongoing commitment.
On the security front, at the Chicago summit in May, the international community agreed to provide funding to support the continued development of the Afghan national security forces in the years after 2014. NATO has agreed the establishment of a new, non-combat mission after transition completes. The UK will support this, including through our role as the lead coalition partner at the new Afghan national army officer academy. That is our baseline commitment, and, as the Prime Minister said earlier, we will consider other options for additional engagement after 2014.
On supporting the Afghan Government as a whole, the Kabul conference in June sent a clear message of regional engagement, and, at the Tokyo conference in July, $4 billion per year was pledged to meet Afghanistan’s essential development needs. The UK’s combined ongoing funding commitments from Chicago and Tokyo are almost £250 million a year. For the value of this support from the international community to be fully realised, however, the Afghan Government will need to address the corruption that remains rampant and could become a very real threat to the long-term stability of Afghanistan. The Afghan Government now need to deliver on their commitments through the Tokyo mutual accountability framework to establish a legal framework for fighting corruption, improve economic and financial management and implement key economic and governance reforms, including on elections.
Democracy is taking hold in Afghanistan—not, of course, in the same shape that we have here in Britain, but Afghan voters can look forward to a future of their choosing, rather than one that is imposed upon them. Afghan women enjoy a level of participation in their society and their politics that few could have dreamed of even half a decade ago. The Department for International Development will continue to provide funding and support to advance this important agenda further. In Helmand, the process of local representation has seen marked improvements. Voter participation in 2012 for district community council elections in the traditionally challenging districts of Sangin, Nahr Saraj and Garmsir has been impressive by comparison with levels in previous presidential and parliamentary elections in the same areas. October’s announcement of the 2014 presidential elections is another important milestone in Afghanistan’s history. Many challenges remain, but an inclusive and transparent electoral process will be a sign of real progress.
Ultimately, the best opportunity for a stable and secure Afghanistan for the long term lies in a political settlement—one that draws in those opponents of the Afghan Government willing to renounce the insurgency and participate in peaceful politics. Any political process will, in the end, require the Afghan Government, the Taliban and other Afghan groups to come together to talk and to compromise. We appreciate how difficult that is for the respective parties, so we are working with our international allies to help to bring all sides together. In particular, the engagement of Pakistan in the process is hugely important. Our aim is to generate confidence and dialogue. Our message to the Taliban is that reconciliation is not surrender; it is an opportunity for all Afghans to sit down together and help to shape their country’s future. Common ground can be found, focused on the need for a strong, independent, economically viable Afghanistan.
The future of Afghanistan can be seen in the increased level of economic activity across the country. Bazaars that had been deserted are re-opening and commercial investment is evident in the towns. Basic public services are available to increasing percentages of the population. Nevertheless, Afghanistan, although rich in culture and natural resources, remains one of the poorest countries in the world—a legacy of 30 years of conflict. Its people are proud and hospitable, yet they have suffered unimaginable brutality and deprivation.
Over the last 11 years, we have been helping to ensure that Afghanistan’s past is not inevitably its future. As we move towards full transition at the end of 2014, it is clear that there remain huge challenges ahead for the Afghan people. Our combat mission is drawing to a close, but our commitment to them is long term. Progress is clear and measurable, and our determination to complete our mission and help Afghanistan to secure its future remains undiminished. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his quarterly statement. On each occasion when we meet to discuss Afghanistan, we rightly pay tribute to our service personnel and their families. That is even more poignant as we approach Christmas. As we prepare to celebrate Christmas with our families, we remember those in Afghanistan, separated from theirs, and those who have been lost, never to return to their loved ones. They are in the thoughts of us all and in the prayers of many of us.
The commitment to success in Afghanistan runs deep on both sides of the House. Although we on the Opposition Benches will scrutinise Government decisions, we will support the intentions with which they are made. Afghanistan has seen significant, but not irreversible progress. Al-Qaeda has been dispersed; we have overseen elections; the army and police forces are being trained; and a rule of law is developing. However, none of those tasks can be said to be complete. There are immense challenges to overcome. Facilitating free and fair presidential elections, tackling green-on-blue attacks, improving the representativeness of the police and the army, developing an education system and, above all, helping to deliver political reconciliation are all issues that necessitate our commitment up to and beyond 2014.
We all want to see our troops home as soon as possible, and we welcome today’s announcement. However, can the Secretary of State say when he will be able to tell us which units will leave and from which parts of Helmand? We are all concerned about the continuing risk to UK personnel who will remain. Can he tell us whether any force protection capabilities will be drawn down as a consequence of his announcement?
The Secretary of State spoke in general terms. Can he be more specific about how the capacity of those who are departing can be sufficiently replaced by Afghan forces? Can he give the House more details about the capability of Afghan forces specifically? What capacity do they have in providing an airbridge, aerial surveillance and intelligence?
The Secretary of State told us that 3,800 of our forces would leave by the end of next year. Does he currently envisage most of them remaining until the end of the fighting season, and does he expect the UK forces who remain after 2013 to be withdrawn throughout 2014 or to remain until the end of combat operations?
The co-ordination of the military coalition is essential. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether today’s announcement is part of a synchronised international set of announcements? Can he also say whether all those who return from Afghanistan, whether in 2013 or in 2014, will be exempt from any future tranche of compulsory Army redundancies?
Although the focus is rightly on withdrawal, it is also necessary to consider the post-2014 military settlement. The Chief of the General Staff is right to say that our commitment to Afghan institutions must be long-term, but we need more clarity about the nature of that commitment. Will the Secretary of State be more specific about the role of non-combat personnel? Is it his current thinking that our trainers will be embedded with the ANSF, and, if so, who will be responsible for force protection?
The Prime Minister rightly alluded to this earlier, but it is still unclear how many UK forces will remain post-2014 and from which services they will be drawn. When will the Secretary of State be in a position to give us more details abut that, as well as the UK’s equipment legacy to Afghanistan?
We all know that a long-term settlement for Afghanistan will be achieved through politics, not just through military might. There have been reports recently of a road map to peace from Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, outlining plans for talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban early next year. How confident is the Secretary of State that such talks may indeed take place, and does he believe that talks between the Taliban and US officials will recommence in Qatar in the new year? Will he also comment on the significance of Pakistan’s release of 18 Afghan prisoners? Does he feel that it marks a potentially significant shift in the Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship?
One of the main measures by which we will judge progress in Afghanistan is the progress of women. Sadly, a recent detailed UN report showed that Afghan women remain frequent victims of abuse. What efforts are the UK Government making to ensure that women’s safety does not deteriorate once ISAF forces have left? In particular, beyond DFID’s efforts, what are the Government doing to sustain the progress that has been made for women in relation to the political process, the police and the judiciary?
As we enter the 12th and penultimate year of UK combat operations in this bloody but unavoidable conflict, there will rightly be lessons and consequences from Afghanistan. The time will also come for us to reflect, as a nation and free from party politics, on how we can mark in a lasting way our commemoration of those who have fallen and those who have been injured. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State how NATO can achieve withdrawal while maintaining the stability for which so many Britons have fought so fiercely. We need to get this right. This is our fourth conflict in Afghanistan, and we have no intention of there ever being a fifth.
Mr Hammond
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the tone in which he made them. I know that he expressed the views of Members in all parts of the House in sending best wishes for Christmas to the members of our service personnel who will be in theatre over the Christmas period. I am grateful for his continued support and for that of the whole Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to emphasise the scale of the challenge ahead, and the reversibility of the achievements that have been won. It is for precisely that reason that we are engaged in the ongoing process of building the Afghan national security forces and the institutions of the Afghan state for the long term, and it is for precisely that reason that we have gone out of our way to emphasise the nature of our ongoing commitment to the Afghan people way beyond the end of our combat operations in 2014.
The right hon. Gentleman understandably asked some questions about the draw-down of our forces during 2013. He asked which units would leave and from which parts of Helmand. Owing to our six-monthly rotational pattern in which units are deployed to theatre routinely around March-April and September-October each year, it is less a question of which units will leave than a question of deploying fewer units to replace those that are coming out of theatre at each successive turn of the handle. I expect that there will be some draw-down of numbers next April, a period during the fighting season in which numbers remain constant, and a further draw-down in September-October, towards the end of next year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about force protection measures. Ours is an integrated force. The 5,200 figure was arrived at through a bottom-up process of military logic and military planning that took account of the shape and scale of the force that will be required to deliver the tasks that we expect to be delivering by the end of 2013.
As for the capabilities of the Afghan national security forces who will increasingly fill the gap as we reduce our numbers, the message is clear. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard it: I know that he has heard the back-to-office reports of returning commanders from Afghanistan. The Prime Minister mentioned it earlier, and I have heard it myself. Everyone talks of the Afghan forces’ increasing confidence, increasing competence and increasing willingness to engage. There has been a step change in the level of what they are able to do.
However, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, at present Afghan forces still depend on ISAF allies for some key enablers: air cover, air support, indirect fire support—they are building a capability of their own in that respect, but it is as yet immature—and, crucially, medical evacuation, which gives the Afghan army high levels of confidence on the battlefield. Over the next two years, we will focus on developing Afghan indigenous capabilities so that they can replace those enablers at the end of our combat involvement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the international dimension of draw-down. There is an emerging ISAF plan, which is being discussed among the ISAF nations, and today’s announcement is entirely consistent with that plan. Other allies, including the United States of America, will make specific announcements in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the rules on redundancy. Announcements about future tranches of Army redundancy will be made in the new year, and the rules will be set out to be as fair as possible. That means ensuring that the field of redundancy is as wide as possible, while ensuring that those who are about to be deployed on operations, those who are currently deployed and those who have just returned from operations remain exempt. The more widely we set the field, the fairer the process of redundancy selection will be.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the post-2014 non-combat commitment and about embedded training. Those matters have not been decided, beyond the commitment that we have given to take the lead role in running the Afghan national officer training academy. There are a number of things that we could consider doing beyond that, but we have decided that it does not make sense to make firm commitments earlier than we need to, before we see how the situation develops on the ground and before we see what other allies intend to do. We will make announcements to the House in due course, during 2013, as those decisions are made.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban and between US officials and the Taliban. The Government are working very hard and very diligently. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is routinely engaged in encouraging the process of dialogue, as is the Prime Minister. We know from our own experience over many years that conflicts of this kind invariably have to be settled by means of dialogue and compromise. At the heart of that dialogue and compromise will be a renewed shared understanding of the need for future dialogue and co-operation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I am pleased to say the UK has played a significant role in enhancing that and in ensuring there is genuine engagement with Pakistan in these discussions.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. My question is about force protection. As all the ISAF countries begin to draw down, they will have concerns about force protection, including how to protect increasingly isolated units. What is being done to reduce the isolation of ISAF units and to share possible force protection measures across ISAF countries and the Afghan national security forces?
Mr Hammond
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that question, as the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) also did. As we draw down, force protection will be one of the key determinants of the shape of the force and the scale of draw-down that is possible. As my right hon. Friend suggests, there will be co-ordination across ISAF, including sharing force protection arrangements as the force gets smaller. I should also draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to what I said earlier about the reduction of the UK footprint in Helmand. That is significant and has significant implications for force protection. We are now servicing 32 UK locations in Helmand province, as opposed to more than 80 UK locations just nine months ago. That has led to a significant reduction in both the logistics challenge and the force protection challenge.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
When military action was first taken in Afghanistan some 11 years ago, the purpose was rightly to remove, after 9/11, al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, and that was accomplished fairly quickly. I welcome the troop reduction, but does the Secretary of State accept that a military victory of any kind over the Taliban is totally out of the question—it has not come about so far, and it is not going to come about in the next two years—and that the future of Afghanistan will have to be decided by Afghans, even including some Taliban members, who are totally opposed to that obnoxious organisation?
Mr Hammond
To my surprise, I largely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right that the initial challenge was to defeat al-Qaeda and deny it the space to organise in Afghanistan, and that has been achieved. He is also right that military means alone will not solve the problem in Afghanistan, and I do not think anyone in this Government or the previous Administration has suggested that. In the end there has to be compromise and dialogue, and a process that draws into civil society what we might call the soft part of the insurgency, which is willing to renounce insurgent activity and engage in political dialogue. Our experience in the United Kingdom and around the world clearly suggests that that is the way sustainably to end these kinds of enduring conflict. If we want an enduring peace in Afghanistan, it will need to involve all sections of Afghan society and all strands of political opinion.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
May I also express my admiration for, and gratitude to, those who have served and who are serving in Afghanistan? Like other Members, I was reassured by what my right hon. Friend said about force protection, as it is axiomatic that land forces are at their most vulnerable at the time of withdrawal, but a further area of protection needs to be addressed. Will there be proper protection of equipment, to minimise opportunities for it to be used by insurgents or others with malign intentions towards the Government of Afghanistan?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. I should have said in relation to force protection that the transition from company-level to battalion-level and then to brigade-level mentoring and advising will make the force protection challenge much easier by reducing the daily footprint of contact with Afghan forces and the Afghan population. We intend to recuperate to the UK large amounts of equipment, as we are planning to use much of it in the construction of our future Army plans, Future Force 2020, but we will, of course, ensure that any equipment that is not required back in the UK is either properly and formally gifted to the Afghan national security forces or the militaries of friendly neighbouring countries, or is appropriately destroyed.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Out of which budget will the cost of repatriating and reintegrating equipment come? Will it come out of the £160-billion core equipment budget?
Mr Hammond
That is a good question. Our arrangements with the Treasury are that equipment that has been purchased as urgent operational requirements from the special reserve may be repatriated into core without any charge to the defence budget, but the cost of physically recuperating that equipment will be met from the core defence budget. In respect of armoured vehicles that have been purchased as UORs, therefore, the Army will have to decide whether it is cost-effective to bring that equipment back and overhaul and re-equip it for future service, or whether it is more appropriate to abandon it and devote the money saved to purchase new equipment.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister both rightly referred to the importance of maintaining a post-2014 commitment in Afghanistan. One of the ways that we might most appropriately manifest that is by maintaining Camp Bastion, which has been specially built for its purpose. Indeed, a huge amount of money has been invested in it. That would not only send a signal to the Afghan population and Government; it would also provide a useful strategic asset in what is an important and turbulent area of the world.
Mr Hammond
The United States is currently considering where to retain strategic bases in Afghanistan beyond 2014, and my understanding is that it is highly likely—although not yet absolutely certain—that it will choose to continue to occupy Camp Bastion.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
A few weeks ago in the House of Commons there was the first ever meeting of the UK’s Hazara community. As the Secretary of State knows, the Hazaras are a Shi’a minority who have suffered considerable oppression in Afghanistan, going back at least as far as the first British war there, but in particular under the Taliban regime. The Secretary of State has rightly talked about the need for a political solution, but may I urge him and his fellow Ministers from other Departments to ensure that the interests of the minority Hazara community are not lost in the rush to achieve a political settlement?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question, and I will ensure that his concerns about the Hazara community are drawn to the Foreign Secretary’s attention. There is a significant number of minority communities in Afghanistan—it is a fragmented society—and one of the challenges will be to design a future solution that is coherent and promotes having a strong central Government but also respects the many different minority communities in the country.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
What does my right hon. Friend mean when he refers to mentoring at kandak or battalion level? Does that mean our soldiers and officers will not venture out on patrol, but will remain with the headquarters element and therefore will not be as exposed as in the past?
Mr Hammond
Not necessarily: some of the kandak-level advisory activity may well involve moving with the battalion headquarters element, and if the battalion commanders are moving outside their bases, on some occasions the advisory team may move with them. This is a flexible construct, however, and things will depend on how individual commanders prefer to work and how their kandak advisory teams find it most constructive to work with them. There is a large degree of discretion.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Although of course it is right to press ahead with dialogue with the Taliban, it is also prudent to keep an eye on what they are doing as regards the ongoing conflict. What are our military doing to build the intelligence gathering capacity of the ANSF in advance of withdrawal?
Mr Hammond
That is a very good question. It is probably fair to characterise ISAF as having had rather poor human intelligence capability and having relied on very sophisticated electronic and other technological intelligence gathering. We will not be able to replicate in the ANSF a similar level of high-tech intelligence gathering, but I am pretty confident that what the ANSF will lack in that regard will be more than made up for by its human intelligence capability. Members of the ANSF have an intuitive understanding of what is going on in local communities that gives them a touch and feel for the local area that ISAF troops, however long they stay there, will never have.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Given what my right hon. Friend has said about the inherent risks of reversibility in the security situation, what plans are in place if there is a significant change in what is anticipated over the next couple of years so that, if there is not the training and leadership capability among the Afghan population, we have the flexibility to implement different plans and that our hard-won gains are not lost by the end of 2014?
Mr Hammond
Of course, we retain flexibility in our plans, but I would not wish to mislead my hon. Friend: our clear intention is to end our combat operations by the end of 2014, along with the rest of our ISAF partners. By setting that clear target, we have set the Afghans a target and all the evidence is that they are stepping up to the plate with alacrity and delivering on—indeed, exceeding—our expectations of their ability to respond to that challenge.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
As Pakistan has a key role to play in any peaceful solution for Afghanistan and the Secretary of State has mentioned increased engagement, what evidence does he have of reduced involvement from certain sources in Pakistan, particularly the security services, in helping and sheltering insurgents and the Taliban?
Mr Hammond
As the hon. Gentleman knows and as we have discussed in this House before, the situation in Pakistan, particularly in the federally administered tribal areas, is extremely complex, as is the engagement of the Pakistani intelligence agency in activities there. We are seeing a clear political direction from the Pakistani civilian Government towards engagement and constructive working with the international community and Afghan partners, but we are also seeing a clear indication that the military are now thinking hard about where Pakistan’s long-term interests lie. They know that there are only two years left of ISAF combat presence in which to sort this out and they are engaging with international partners and the Afghans in a much more constructive way than we have seen for many years.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State quite rightly says that the relationship between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban will be central to any peace, which we all hope will include respect for the rights of girls such as Malala Yousafzai, who is surely one of the bravest teenagers in the world. Does the Secretary of State detect any lasting shift in Pakistani public and political opinion and in attitudes towards the Taliban following on from her extraordinary example?
Mr Hammond
I think that the answer to that must be yes, that has had an impact on Pakistani public opinion. There is also evidence that the Taliban is moderating some of its more extreme views because it recognises that they are costing it popularity with the population.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I was in Afghanistan three weeks ago as president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I concur that the Afghan national army is capable, well led and well equipped. It is essential that it remains under political control, however, and as President Karzai will step down early in 2014 and a new president will be elected, will the Secretary of State reassure me that our Government and those of our ISAF allies will give as much attention to the political transition as to the security transition?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Clearly, maintaining political control of the Afghan national army is crucial. I see little sign that it is becoming politicised and it operates effectively as a military force, but the Afghan Ministry of Defence is a weak institution. One area that we are considering for UK engagement beyond 2014 is the provision of support at senior level to the Afghan Ministry of Defence.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State assure me that he will not listen to the requests from the Opposition to provide yet further details about our tactical deployments and tactical draw-down? Our enemies already know too much about when we are withdrawing, how many troops we are withdrawing and in what numbers. Giving units, equipments and other important details would, I suggest, help our enemies and not hinder them.
Mr Hammond
As I have already said, I cannot at the moment give the details of which units will be in theatre in future. We make no secret about units being deployed—we make routine announcements on which units will be deployed to theatre—but I completely agree with my hon. Friend that a public discussion about which capabilities we will retain and withdraw and about when we will do that would not be helpful.
Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I, too, was able to visit Afghanistan with colleagues from the Defence Committee, as the Secretary of State will know, and we saw much of the progress he has described. However, we identified one particular issue on which I would like him to make an observation: the detention of prisoners at Bastion and the difficulties in transferring them into the Afghan justice system. I understand that two of them are charged with the murder of British troops. Will he comment on how that process is progressing?
Mr Hammond
I am happy to update the House on the detention situation, which is an important aspect of our operations. We suspended transfers into the Afghan justice system earlier this year because of concerns about the potential for the mistreatment of prisoners in National Directorate of Security facilities. Over a period of months, a significant number of steps were taken to increase our oversight of what happens to transferred prisoners. We were hoping to recommence transfers in the autumn, but two things happened. First, in a case that is being heard in the High Court in London, an injunction was granted against us, preventing further transfers into the Afghan system without the permission of the High Court. Secondly, new and classified information came to my attention that led me to make a decision to continue as a matter of policy to suspend transfers into the Afghan system. That means that we are holding significant numbers of detainees who are to be charged in the Afghan judicial system but cannot, for reasons of policy and legal impediment, be transferred into the Afghan system at present. We are improving and increasing the size of the detention facility at Bastion to reflect the fact that those people will be held in larger numbers and for longer periods.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
People across Wiltshire, to where many of these soldiers will return, will strongly welcome the announcement about what is effectively the beginning of the end of our combat involvement in Afghanistan. It is very welcome indeed. Does the Secretary of State agree that the success of our withdrawal will be judged by two kinds of Afghan confidence? First, they must be confident that they can do the job, which increasingly seems to be the case, and secondly they must be confident that we will not cut and run—that we are not leaving them to it, but that we will keep an eye on what happens and stand ready, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said, to intervene again should that become necessary in the years to come.
Mr Hammond
As the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear and I have emphasised again today, although our combat mission will be coming to an end, our commitment to the Afghan people will be enduring and is underpinned by a firm commitment of more than £250 million a year of military aid support and development aid.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Mohammed Hottak is a former Afghani interpreter who lives in Leicester. It took him years to get his asylum case processed, and his wife and children have still not joined him. He and other interpreters risk their lives to support our country. Why are the Afghani interpreters being treated differently from those who helped us in Iraq?
Mr Hammond
Locally employed civilians include interpreters, but the question goes much wider than interpreters. We are currently looking very carefully at how we are going to make appropriate provision to support locally employed civilians as we draw down and eventually end our combat mission. We have a clear commitment to treat them fairly and appropriately, and to ensure their safety and security beyond the term of their employment with Her Majesty’s Government. I cannot comment on an individual’s specific case, but I am confident that as we get nearer to the end of our combat involvement in Afghanistan, further statements will be made about our detailed policy towards locally employed civilians; I believe we currently have about 3,500 of them.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
A few moments ago, the Secretary of State gave a very important answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), when he confirmed, for, I think, the first time by a British Minister, that our American allies are thinking of retaining at least one strategic base in the region. Given that we face the threat of the return of al-Qaeda to Afghanistan and the destabilisation of Pakistan by the Pakistani Taliban—with their nuclear arsenal to be borne in mind—is it not extremely important that somebody has a fallback plan, based on the use of strategic bases, even if it is not us?
Mr Hammond
When any of my colleagues stands up and says that I have said something that no Minister has said before, my heart sinks, but I think on this occasion I am okay.
I would not be so presumptuous as to speak for the United States, but my current understanding is that US planning very likely envisages the retention of Camp Bastion. Of course, any remaining footprint in Afghanistan—strategic base or otherwise—depends on the agreement of the Afghan Government, and as my hon. Friend knows, negotiations are under way between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan about a long-term strategic partnership agreement.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly how much money has been spent by the UK in the Afghan operation over the past 11 years—[Interruption.] It is not a joke. Can he also tell us what the comparative figures are for poverty among the ordinary people of Afghanistan now and 11 years ago?
Mr Hammond
On the first part of the question, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off the top of my head what the total expenditure has been since the beginning of the operation in 2001, but I am happy to write to him to give him those numbers. I think they have been published, but I am very happy to write to him and place a copy in the Library.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point about poverty, Afghanistan is still a very poor country, but its economy has been growing, and although it is of course relative, there is a strong sense in Afghanistan of growing prosperity. People are able to get their goods to market; if they farm their produce, they can actually sell it. There is investment in towns and cities, and the economy has been growing at 9% a year for the last few years. Those are positive signs for ordinary Afghan people, and the progress that has been made in moving the combat—the insurgency—out of the populated centres is crucial in restoring confidence in the local economy and allowing it to thrive and prosper.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Defence Equipment and Support is based in my constituency. Will he join me in paying tribute to DES for all the work it has done over the entire deployment, making sure that we have the right kit and the right people in the right place at the right time? Will he give us an assurance that DES will have all the resources it needs as the draw-down begins to take place, so that equipment and personnel can be brought back efficiently and on time?
Mr Hammond
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Defence Equipment and Support, and in particular to draw attention to the extremely efficient way in which the UOR process has worked throughout both this conflict and the Iraq conflict before it. Resources will of course be available for the recovery of our personnel and equipment, and a huge logistic operation is beginning to get under way—reopening the reverse lines of communication both through the northern stans and Pakistan—to bring that vast amount of equipment out of theatre.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the news that more troops are to be swiftly withdrawn, but I want to go back to the question put by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about Afghan interpreters. They are worried that they will be sent back to Afghanistan and killed, and interpreters still serving UK troops in Afghanistan fear for their lives as more British troops leave. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will let us know as soon as he can whether a scheme similar to that in Iraq will be properly extended to Afghanistan? Legal proceedings are about to be mounted on behalf of those people, who fear that their lives are at risk.
Mr Hammond
As the hon. Lady says, legal proceedings are about to be instigated—we understand—so obviously it would be improper for me to say anything about them. This is a big and complicated issue. A large number of people are involved and not all of them are interpreters, who usually are quite highly educated. There are also large numbers of locally employed staff in other capacities. As I said, we are very much focused on the problem and we must have a properly thought-through and coherent approach. I give the hon. Lady an undertaking on behalf of the Government that once we have a clear plan we will announce it to the House.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
This is a landmark statement, which signals the beginning of a long draw-down in a very difficult war. Difficult questions will need to be answered as to why it has taken us so long to get to where we are today. Peace is by no means guaranteed. Does the Secretary of State agree that the welcome advances in security must be matched by improvements to governance and economic development if Najibullah is not to be repeated?
Mr Hammond
Yes, I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. In particular, progress has to be made on the endemic corruption that still exists in Afghan society and throughout the Afghan economy, if the progress already made is to be built on.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to tell the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that I have become aware—by magic—that the net additional cost of military operations since 2001 is estimated as £17.4 billion to date.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The murder in Pakistan of six aid workers delivering vital polio treatment shocked us all. Can he assure the House that there will be military protection for medical aid workers in Afghanistan to ensure that the polio inoculations and medical treatment that are so important for children and adults can be maintained?
Mr Hammond
The responsibility for protecting Afghan local health services will be primarily for the Afghan police and military, but I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we were all shocked by the reminder of the primitiveness of some of the Taliban doctrine, and that they would attack people for providing vaccination against life-threatening diseases. That is the scale of the challenge we are dealing with.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I welcome the statement, but as the Secretary of State knows, some Members of the House have long held the view that we were fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong country, as we strayed from the original mission. Will he confirm that ISAF is now conducting non-conditional talks with the Taliban? Until fairly recently, the American position was that they would only talk to the Taliban if the Taliban laid down their arms and accepted the constitution. The Americans were living in never-never land. Has the position on those talks changed?
Mr Hammond
I think it would be wrong to characterise the discussions as ISAF discussions. There are discussions that the Afghan Government have indicated a willingness to enter into, which are conditional on an acceptance of the Afghan constitution. That is the position of the Afghan Government. There are also discussions, which have been widely reported, between US officials and Taliban representatives, which do not have the same preconditions attached to them.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
This year, Corby lost one of its sons, Grenadier Guard James Ashworth, who died in a grenade attack in Helmand. In paying tribute to James and all the soldiers from Corby who served in the past and will serve in the future in Afghanistan, may I ask the Secretary of State to say what assessment he has made of the increased risks to the 5,500 servicemen and women who will be in Helmand in 2014?
Mr Hammond
Our current estimate of the opening number in 2014 is 5,200. We do not think there will be an increased risk to them. There are balancing factors to consider. On the one hand, we will be mentoring and advising at a higher level of command; that will imply a lower footprint, fewer bases and fewer patrols going outside the wire. On the other hand, we will be drawing down, and drawing down and evacuating equipment is by its nature a complex and risk-based business. But I think overall we would not expect the total amount of risk to increase during the draw-down, taking those two factors together.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
On our recent Defence Committee visit to Afghanistan it was impossible not to be deeply impressed with the progress made, and my right hon. Friend’s statement is extremely welcome. May I put it to him that pivotal to our successful operation in Malaya and also, arguably, Northern Ireland was the offer of a genuine amnesty to those who laid down their arms, and that the current amnesty on offer, which does not even extend to drug-dealing activities, is not really the right route to get the softer element of the Taliban to negotiate?
Mr Hammond
I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that reintegration of people who have been opposed to the regime and, indeed, active supporters of the insurgency is an essential part of a stable future for Afghanistan. A substantial reintegration programme is under way, as he knows. Thousands of low-level Taliban fighters who have abandoned the insurgency have been reintegrated into Afghan society and that process will need to continue if we are to deliver stability in the future.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Having visited Helmand two years ago, I want to add my own tribute to the fantastic work of our armed forces, having seen that at first hand. I recently spoke to personnel serving in Afghanistan who fear leaving the forces, fear looking for a job, and fear the cuts to support to people on low incomes. Increasing numbers of veterans who have served in Afghanistan are turning to the Royal British Legion and other forces’ charities for advice and often emergency support. What is the Secretary of State doing to support those charities to serve our very brave veterans in their lives after they leave the forces?
Mr Hammond
Of course we support the service charities; they are a very important part of the overall service family. But the hon. Gentleman does not do our armed forces and the people who serve in them any service by painting that very bleak picture of their prospects after service. The truth is that over 90% of people leaving the armed forces who are looking for work have found work within three months and over 95% within six months. That is a good result. We can continue to do better; we can continue to deliver additional support, and the recent appointment of a transition tsar by the Prime Minister to support service people leaving the forces and to help them in the process of getting into work and establishing a new home is a very important contribution to that. It is basically a good news story, not a bad news story.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I join other Members in congratulating the Secretary of State on making a very difficult, very courageous, correct decision to draw down troops so rapidly. May I ask him to remain open to the possibility that, depending on US decisions in January, we look at this as being only the minimum amount we withdraw, and to remain open to the possibility of withdrawing significantly more?
Mr Hammond
I have announced that our current planning sees numbers going down to about 5,200 by the end of 2013. That planning is of course based on certain assumptions about what the rest of our ISAF partners are doing, and about what the ANSF will be doing. We believe that those assumptions are robust, but if it turns out during the course of 2013 that things turn out differently, of course we retain the flexibility to look again at our plans.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Given that combat missions will continue to 2014, as the Defence Secretary has said, will he ensure, in the light of green-on-blue attacks and other reasons, that all soldiers are equipped with sidearms for force and individual protection? Like many, I have constituents in Afghanistan, and some who are going there, and they and their families would be slightly less tense if all soldiers were equipped with sidearms, which would also act as a deterrent.
Mr Hammond
Without getting into the technicalities, I do not think I can give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that all soldiers will be equipped with sidearms, but I can tell him that current orders require all soldiers to carry a weapon at all times when they are anywhere in contact with Afghans, and if they are in a circumstance where they cannot carry a weapon, a so-called guardian angel system is in place where armed troops overwatch them during any period where they are necessarily unarmed, such as during sports activities.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
One of the legacies we can give to those who have paid so much in sacrifice for our mission in Afghanistan is the long-term stability of the nation. In its economic stability, are we doing everything we can to make sure that the wealth of natural resources that my right hon. Friend mentioned is exploited to the best benefit of the people of Afghanistan, not those from outside?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the long-term stability of Afghanistan depends on its economic development and a key part of its economic development will be the successful exploitation of its mineral wealth. Mineral wealth cannot be taken offshore to Dubai; it sits in the ground, and as long as the wealth of Afghanistan is in Afghanistan, local people will invest in Afghanistan and the future of the country. There are all sorts of international efforts, including many supported by the UK’s DFID funding, to ensure the development and exploitation of that mineral wealth for the benefit of the people of Afghanistan.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The withdrawal is of course very welcome, but why has the Secretary of State disregarded the alarming fact that in the past 12 months, $900 million has been stolen from the bank of Afghanistan by Government corruption, and that £4.5 billion has been smuggled out of that country, much of it to Dubai, to tart up the boltholes that the politicians have prepared to flee to in 2015? Does he think that the Afghan army will give their allegiance to a corrupt Government, to the Northern Alliance or to the Taliban?
Mr Hammond
I am not ignoring those facts. I have acknowledged that the Afghan Government will have to do much more about corruption if Afghanistan is to have a viable future. All our activity, through DFID and other channels, is to secure sustainable development in Afghanistan, which will encourage people to retain their wealth in Afghanistan, but I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there is wholesale corruption and that significant amounts of money have been illegally expatriated from the country. He is of course right.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan fuels much of the illegal hard drug trade on the streets of Britain. What progress is being made, and will be made, to reduce the reliance of the Afghan economy on poppy cultivation, while also ensuring that the livelihood of many poor farmers is not endangered?
Mr Hammond
This is a perennial challenge in any country where narcotics cultivation is a core part of the economy—to develop sustainable alternative forms of economic activity that provide a livelihood for peasant farmers which can compete with the returns available from narcotics. That is a big challenge for the Afghan Government. We are putting a lot of investment into helping them with that challenge and counter-narcotics will be a continuing strand of our involvement with Afghanistan well beyond the end of our combat operations in 2014.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May I press the Secretary of State to say whether Afghanistan campaign returners will be subject to compulsory redundancy?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman asks the question in the abstract—[Interruption.] It is not a yes or no question at all. At the time when redundancy decisions are made, a defined group of people will be excluded from consideration. That will be people deployed on operations, people preparing to deploy on operations, and people recovering on leave after operations, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman, as the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) asked me to do, that anyone who is now or at any time in the future deployed in Afghanistan will not be eligible for redundancy. That would reduce the field eligible for selection to a tiny number and would be most unfair.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the ongoing United Kingdom commitment to give £250 million a year for development in Afghanistan. This represents about 10% of the pledged total. Does my right hon. Friend have confidence that the remaining 90% will be found and that the United Kingdom will not be left to pick up the difference?
Mr Hammond
I think my hon. Friend might be confusing two things. There are, rather unhelpfully, two separate 4 billions here. There is £4 billion of development aid that was pledged at Tokyo, and there is $4 billion a year of support for the ANSF, of which the United Kingdom has committed about $100 million—around £70 million. We are confident that these sums will be found and that they will be available to the Afghans on an ongoing basis. We have set out our commitment and we do not intend to change from that position.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many hon. Members in the Chamber, I represent several families who have lost their loved ones in Afghanistan over the past decade. That felt like a very optimistic statement from the Secretary of State on the progress we have made. I am a little more sceptical about what it has cost us in human life and treasure for the progress we have made. We would all agree that a political solution is necessary to resolve the conflict, but what assurances can the Secretary of State give us that when we reach that political solution with our draw-down forces, we will be able to maintain the safety of all those Afghans who have been our allies over the past decade, and we will not leave them to the mercy of the elements of the Taliban that we wish to draw into the future government of Afghanistan?
Mr Hammond
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has visited Afghanistan, but many of his colleagues have. It is not a perfect democracy and it never will be. It will not be the case that the Afghan Government will control every inch of their territory after 2014. There will be messy compromises in some parts of the country. Some will not be under the control of the central Government, and some of the behaviours will not be behaviours of the type that we would put up with here or in any European country, but any of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues who have been there will tell him that the lives of ordinary Afghans are immeasurably better today than they were five or six years ago, and that is the standard by which we should measure our involvement.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Secretary of State said that the civilian Government in Pakistan are fully committed to engagement and a stable Afghanistan. He will know that there are general elections in Pakistan in March—that is, three months away. Have there been discussions with other political parties to see whether they are committed to the same process of engagement and a stable Afghanistan?
Mr Hammond
To be honest, I cannot answer my hon. Friend’s question. It would be usual for our local post to have some degree of contact with non-Government parties, but as he has asked the question, I am happy to interrogate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this and to write to him and put a copy of my letter in the Library.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Recent events have given rise to fears that some of the advances that have been achieved for women and girls in the region, particularly in education, might be lost. One of the ways to protect women and girls is to embed attitudes towards education for women in those who will be serving in the security forces. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that is being done and is being given priority?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question because she highlights a dilemma: how do we at one and the same time say that the Afghans must be responsible for determining their future, and that we want their future to look, in this respect, like this—with women and girls remaining engaged in society? She is absolutely right that embedding a change in culture is the way to do it. That is one reason why the Prime Minister has, from the outset, been so determined that a significant part of our commitment post-2014 will be in the form of taking the lead in the Afghan national officer training academy, which will allow us to shape the cultural awareness training that officer cadets receive and that will filter down through the Afghan forces. The hon. Lady is right. DFID will go on investing in this agenda and the military commitment that we have made to the Afghan military will allow us to ensure that we are able to influence cultural attitudes within the security forces.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I associate myself with the tributes that have been paid already, and I want to mention specifically 16 Air Assault Brigade, many of whose members have been deployed four times. The Secretary of State’s statement says: “Although our combat mission will be ending in 2014, our clear message to the Afghan people remains one of firm and ongoing commitment.” Without giving specific numbers, can he state whether there will be a significant British troop presence in Afghanistan in May 2015?
Mr Hammond
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have made two firm commitments. We will support the ongoing non-combat NATO mission and we will support the Afghan national officer academy. Together those commitments will amount to a small number of hundreds of personnel. Beyond that, we are considering the options available to us. We do not need to make firm decisions yet and the National Security Council is clearly of the view that we should not make firm decisions before we need to do so. I can tell him that in May 2015 there will almost certainly still be a small number of logisticians dismantling the last of our equipment and returning it to the UK.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
During the years of British involvement in combat in Afghanistan, a huge number of young men and women have lost their lives or been seriously injured, including very many Welsh young men and women. There can be no greater tribute or memorial to all those people and their families than a lasting, secure, stable Afghanistan. Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that he will be as committed to securing that stable, peaceful Afghanistan after 2014 as the British Government have been to combat up until that date?
Mr Hammond
I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. We are committed to sticking with the Afghan people beyond 2014 because it is the right thing to do by them, because it is the right way to protect our national security, and because it is the right way to honour the memory of all those who have given their lives and made such enormous sacrifice over the past 11 years.
Local Government Finance
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
With permission, I should like to make a statement on finance for English local authorities for 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The autumn statement sets out how the coalition Government are putting our public finances back on track after the catastrophic deficit left to us by the Labour Government. Local government has shown great skill in reducing its budgets. Committed local authorities have protected front-line services. Little wonder that at a time of retrenchment, satisfaction in council services has gone up.
This year’s settlement will see council expenditure fall in a controlled way. English local government accounts for £1 of every £4 spent on public services. It spends £114 billion. That is twice the defence budget and more than our spending on the national health service. It marks a new settlement for local government based on self-determination and financial independence, a move from the begging bowl to pride in locality. It begins the greatest shake-up of local finance in a generation. We are shifting power from Whitehall directly to the town hall and the county hall.
From April, local authorities will directly retain nearly £11 billion of business rates instead of returning them to the Treasury. Striving councils will benefit from doing the right thing for their communities. If they bring in jobs and business, they will be rewarded. Similarly, the new homes bonus remunerates councils for building more homes. Next year the bonus will be worth more than £650 million, and even more in 2014-15. Under our reforms, an estimated 70% of local authority income will be raised locally, compared with a little over half under the current formula grant system. That is a giant step for localism.
The start-up funding, which replaces the formula grant and gives each council a share, as was confirmed in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, will see £26 billion shared between councils across the country, with the smallest reductions for councils most reliant on Government funding.
We consulted local authorities on our proposals over the summer and have listened to what they told us. They said that less money should be held back from the settlement, so we have reduced the amount we are setting aside for the new homes bonus, the safety net and academies funding. I can announce that, in total, that means an additional £1.9 billion for local authorities up front in 2013-14.
Local authorities also told us that they wanted a stronger growth incentive, and we are happy to respond. We have made the scheme more generous, ensuring that at least 25p in every pound of business rate growth will be retained locally. The settlement leaves councils with considerable total spending power. I can announce today that the overall reduction in spending power next year will be just 1.7%. That represents a bargain to local authorities.
A small number of authorities will require larger savings to be made, but no council will face a loss of more than 8.8% in their spending power thanks to a new efficiency support grant. As the name implies, to qualify for the grant councils will have to improve services. It is unfair on the rest of local government to expect it to subsidise other councils’ failure to embrace modernity. However, the settlement is not about what councils can take; it is about what they can make.
Meanwhile, the settlement continues to protect fire and rescue as a blue-light emergency service. Today we can announce £140 million in capital grant money to fire authorities. Predictably, the doom-mongers have been consulting their Mayan calendars and issuing dire warnings about the end of the world as we know it on Friday and a £1 billion black hole in local budgets. Some have shamefully predicted riots on the streets. But Nostradamus need not worry, because all those predictions have come to nothing.
Concerns that the poorest councils or those in the north would suffer disproportionately are well wide of the mark. The spending power for places in the north compares well with those in the south. For example, Newcastle has a spending power per household of £2,522, which is well over £700 more than the £1,814 per household in Wokingham. We have also maintained the system of “damping”, whereby the Government set a floor that council funding will not fall below. This year’s average grant reduction for the most dependent upper-tier authorities will be less than 3%, compared with 8.7% for the wealthiest. That is more support and protection than last year.
I can also confirm today that local authorities will be able to use the receipts from asset sales raised from 2012-13 to fund outstanding equal pay claims. In addition to what I have announced today, the Secretary of State for Health will in due course confirm public health funding for local authorities.
In his autumn statement, the Chancellor recognised that local authorities have risen to the challenge. That is why local government, unlike most of central Government, will be exempted from the 1% top slice next year, which is worth approximately £240 million to councils. However, as it looks to 2014 and beyond, local government needs to continue finding better and more efficient ways of doing things. There remains scope for sensible savings. With the exception of a handful of authorities, nobody has got to grips with procurement. More can also be done to share offices and services, cut fraud and provide more for less.
I have also asked the outgoing chief fire and rescue adviser, Sir Ken Knight, to pinpoint practical ways to help fire and rescue authorities save money and protect the quality and breadth of front-line fire services. It is disappointing that the shadow fire Minister has signalled his opposition to that move—it is sad on so many levels.
Today I am returning to my ethnic roots by publishing 50 ways to save, setting out practical ways for councils to save money, big and small, but it all adds up. If councils merged their back offices, like the tri-borough initiative in London, they would save £2 billion. Procurement fraud costs taxpayers almost £1 billion a year. Councils are sitting on a record £16 billion of reserves—[Interruption.] Of course they are, and it is a record sum. Councils are not collecting over £2 billion-worth of council tax. Better property management could save £7 billion a year. We have also announced today that further savings will be made by the abolition of pensions for councillors. Councillors should be champions of the people, not the salaried staff of the town hall. Today’s guide gives more power to the elbow of the public to challenge crude cuts and champion sensible savings.
Next year’s exemptions will give local authorities time to put their house in order, but let us remind ourselves what this is all about: safeguarding vital public services, protecting families and pensioners, and ending the “something for nothing” culture. That is why, despite financial pressures, we will continue supporting, for the third year running, those who insulate residents from a further tax hike. We have set aside £550 million for local authorities to support council tax: £450 million over the next two years for the freeze and an additional £100 million for council tax support available in the new year. All councils have a moral duty to freeze council tax. It doubled under Labour and became unsustainable. We have cut it in real terms.
Just to be absolutely clear, this year’s freeze grant goes into the base for the spending review period and has the same status as every other item in that base. Those who would prefer to carry on with increases and see residents miss out should be ready to answer to their local taxpayers and not dodge them by setting the increase just below the threshold. For next year, we have set the referendum threshold at 2%.
I will also introduce a flexibility to support small district, police and fire authorities that have kept council tax low for years. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), the local government Minister, has set out the details in a written ministerial statement today.
This is democracy in action: those who want to hike taxes should put it to the people. I contrast the action that we have taken to freeze council tax with the new housing tax being introduced in the Republic of Ireland. Tackling the deficit helps keep taxes down. If we deny the deficit, taxes on everyday families will rise.
To those who want to play the politics of division, let me say this. This is a fair settlement—fair to north and south, fair to rural and urban areas and fair to shires and mets. But it is also a watershed moment. For the first time in a generation, striving councils now have licence to go full steam ahead and grab a share of the wealth for their local areas and to stand tall and seize the opportunities of enterprise, growth and prosperity. I commend this statement to the House.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and advance sight of it. We will, of course, study the announcement in detail and I look forward to debating it in the new year.
The House listened carefully to the Secretary of State, and it is clear that he is living in a world of his own. He simply does not understand the impact that his decisions on funding are having on services and the local people who use and rely on them. This is what his colleagues on the front line say about him. Baroness Eaton, the former Tory chair of the Local Government Association, described the right hon. Gentleman’s understanding of the effect of local government cuts as
“detached from the reality councils are dealing with”.
Sir Merrick Cockell, her successor, has called the cuts “unsustainable” and the Tory leader of Kent says that his county “can’t cope” with further reductions and “is running on empty”.
The Secretary of State carries on regardless, ignoring what is happening on his watch. Last week, he told the Communities and Local Government Committee that the cuts were “modest” and that the LGA’s fears for the future were “utterly ludicrous”. He did not mention this, but this week his top tip for cash-strapped councils was that they should loan out their artworks in return for cash. What planet is he living on? Meanwhile, local authorities have made big efficiency savings, cut costs and laid off 230,000 staff—but still, it is services that are going.
Let us be clear about what is being lost due to the right hon. Gentleman’s unfair cuts—libraries, sports centres, Sure Start centres and places at women’s refuges. Birmingham city council says that because of the cuts and spending pressures, its controllable budget will reduce by half in the next six years. In one case, a council has already been pushed to the brink. Earlier this year, Tory-led West Somerset council was declared to be “not viable” in the longer term—not by Nostradamus, but by the Local Government Association.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that local authorities are facing a 28% reduction in Government funding over this spending review period—the biggest cut in the public sector—even though local government is
“the most efficient part of the public sector”?
Those are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister. On top of that, the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement that a further £445 million would be cut in 2014-15. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is unfairly hitting the poorest areas hardest? The Audit Commission has found that
“the most deprived areas have seen substantially greater reductions in government funding as a share of revenue expenditure than councils in less deprived areas.”
Why are the 10 most deprived local authorities having their spending power reduced by eight times as much per head of population as the 10 least deprived authorities in England? Why will today’s announcement mean that Liverpool will see a 6.2% fall, of £35 million, in its spending power in 2014-15 compared with the previous year, when Mole Valley will see an increase of 0.6%? How on earth can the Secretary of State justify that? Does he have any idea how local councils’ efforts to grow their local economies, encourage apprenticeships and build more homes are being undermined every single day by the Chancellor’s disastrous economic policy, which simply is not working?
Yesterday, the leaders of the core cities wrote to the Secretary of State in blunt terms about the LGA’s graph of doom. They warned that if current plans are not changed,
“there will be no money for anything but social care and waste collection”
later this decade. [Interruption.] That is what the core cities say.
The sad truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is in denial. He has failed to stand up for local communities and he is trying to wash his hands of the consequences. Will he confirm that millions of people on low incomes will now face a council tax increase next April as a result of “poll tax mark 2”—not my words, but those of the man who invented poll tax mark 1, the noble Lord Jenkin?
Councils should, of course, do everything that they can—and they will—to keep the council tax down in these difficult times for families, but the Secretary of State is being disingenuous when he talks about a moral duty not to increase the council tax. By cutting council tax benefit, he has decided that one group in the country will definitely see its council tax go up next year—people on low incomes; that is why they get council tax benefit in the first place. They will see their bills go up in the very same month when people on the very highest incomes will get a cut in their tax bills.
On business rate retention, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no council will be worse off from the change to the new system? Is it not the case that areas with less of an opportunity to attract new businesses will fall further behind as Government grant reduces? What impact does he expect appeals against business rate valuations will have on local authority income? What is the size of the adjustment he has made to the forecasts for this and for total business rate yield?
The Secretary of State did not mention the early intervention grant, but can he confirm whether the whole of the £150 million that has been held back will be allocated to local authorities and can he assure the House that that is being done on the basis of need? Local authorities want to know where they stand. Can he give us the figure for the amount that the Government will now be holding back from the settlement for the in-year safety net?
What provision is the right hon. Gentleman making for capitalisation and does that include the assistance that local authorities that face huge backdated claims arising from equal pay court judgments will clearly need? He mentioned asset sales, so can he tell us how much he estimates local authorities will raise in asset sales in respect of the councils affected? By how much has the Secretary of State reduced the hold-back for the funding of academies?
On public health, although the Secretary of State said that an announcement is yet to be made, will he tell the House what factors have been taken into account in distributing funding for public health? What changes have been made to the proposals for weighting, including for deprivation, that were part of the original Department of Health consultation? On the fire service settlement, why are the metropolitan fire authorities facing such a big percentage reduction in their spending power? How many firefighters does he expect to go as a result of what he has announced today and how will fire prevention services be affected?
Finally, on the local government pension scheme, why should a full-time council leader in a big city not be entitled to be a member of the scheme—the Secretary of State did not mention this—while mayors will be so entitled? Can he confirm to the House that continued membership of the pension scheme will be open to his friend the Mayor of London?
This is a bad day for local communities and the people they elect to look after their interests. They would have liked to hear from the Secretary of State a commitment to fair funding and a settlement that would help them through tough times, and they wish that he would understand the difficulties they are going through. Instead, they have a continuation of the profoundly unfair way in which funding has been distributed from a Secretary of State who simply refuses to recognise what is actually going on around him.
Mr Pickles
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is entirely typical of him—perhaps he is not a very quick reader—that of the 50 tips he ignored the ones that are going to save billions of pounds, because apparently that is not terribly important. He was part of a Government who promised to deliver £52 billion of cuts. He stands at the Dispatch Box and pretends to local government that it would have faced no cuts under his Government. He knows as well as every single Member of this House that he would have been proposing similar cuts, and that remains the absolute truth. I remind hon. Members that the former Chancellor said in the Labour Budget of March 2010 that there would be £300 million of cuts to regional development agency regeneration, to the working neighbourhood fund—by the way, we picked up the tab for that—to the local enterprise growth initiative, and to the housing and planning delivery grant. On top of that there were £185 million of back-of-a-fag packet cuts to time-limited community programmes and rationalisations of others.
The right hon. Gentleman’s response might best be described as the Jo Moore memorial lecture, because the bad news that she sought to bury on 9/11 was about councillors’ pensions. Just to be clear, the contributions of those who have contributed will be protected, but from the middle of next year they will no longer be able to make a contribution. That will save £7 million, but £7 million probably means absolutely nothing to the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about Birmingham. Which local authority got itself into the most appalling mess over equal pay when the rest of local government was putting aside sensible savings? Birmingham, which now faces a potential bill of over £700 million. Who is getting Birmingham out of the mess? We are. We will be prepared to allow Birmingham to pay off this sum, which other councils dealt with sensibly over the past 20 years by the sale of assets. Birmingham should be grateful for that. I can further tell the House that out of the departmental expenditure limits—the money from Eland house not relating to local government—we have stumped up £100 million to help Birmingham in this process, because we recognise that it will take some time to deliver the results. Birmingham, and the right hon. Gentleman, would be in a right old mess were it not for us, and I look forward to receiving an apology from him.
The right hon. Gentleman asks why some authorities are actually increasing their spending power and says that it is an outrage. There is just one reason—the new homes bonus. [Interruption.] Oh, yes it is. It is exactly the reason, as the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) will see if he cares to look at the figures. In that lies the clue to this settlement, which ensures that local authorities now have greater control. That is due not only to the new homes bonus but to the retention of the business rate, which is how local authorities can make a big difference.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about academies. The figure is £150 million and the hold-back is £24 million.
One set of councils is seeking to tax the poor in the way that it is seeking to tax pensioners, widows and single mothers living at home—Labour councils. You will not catch a Tory authority trying to ensure that poor people have to pay 30% of the council tax. That is why we introduced the £100 million—to protect the people who have the misfortune to be represented by a Labour authority.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I welcome the localisation measures that the Secretary of State has announced, but he also referred to damping. In previous decades, authorities such as mine have suffered from their distance from the target figures to which the Department says they are entitled. Is there some hope in this for Cornwall? Are we moving away from a damping mechanism that means we will continue to get less money than we should?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and he deserves a serious answer. We looked at whether we would be able to do that. We took advice from local government, which said that it is keen to have some degree of stability through the introduction of the new system. We certainly hope that the people of Cornwall, who are renowned for their enterprise and for living in a wonderful place to visit, will rise to the new funding arrangements. The further away we move from the old formula, the more places such as Cornwall will be able to triumph.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The removal of pensions from councillors will do nothing to encourage younger people in employment to come forward and stand for public service. Will he reflect on what he said at the Select Committee last week, and listen to his colleagues in local government? He dismissed the graph of doom then, but might he now start to think that this is not simply a fantasy, as he has claimed, but a reality of his own making, which has come into effect more quickly and more harshly with the withdrawal and destruction of public services in the poorest communities in our country?
Mr Pickles
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted that the spending power per household in his constituency is £2,421, which is much higher than in many Government Members’ local authorities, and that the drop in spending power represents only 2.7%. I have some faith in the entrepreneurial spirit of the people of Sheffield; the hon. Gentleman seems to want to keep them in chains. His point about pensions is frankly not worthy of him. A relatively small number of councillors have taken this up. It costs £7 million a year. It is perfectly acceptable to me, and I think that they will probably get a better deal, if they use part of the sums they receive out of the public purse to make their own arrangements.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement, which is about realism in the financial situation that the country faces. I declare an interest in that my husband is the leader of South Derbyshire district council, the most forward-looking council in the midlands and probably in the whole country. It is interesting that where councils see that they have a future when they look at the new homes bonus, the new businesses that are coming in, and the retention of business rates, they are entrepreneurial in going out there and getting business. That is the future for councils, not “The state will provide.”
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend, who speaks with enormous experience of local government matters, is right. Opposition Members seem to think that we are seeking to impose a strange alien world on local government, but this is how things operate in just about every local authority in the world. We have developed this strange world of resource equalisations, where the worse-off and the least enterprising get more, but if they show some gumption and a bit of enthusiasm, the Government will reward them by cutting the grant. Poor authorities around the world have been able to look after their population and ensure buoyancy in their funds by adopting these precise measures.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of Secretary will be aware that the Local Government Association has warned that if growing demand for social care and waste services is met over the next few years, other local authorities’ services—parks, leisure centres and libraries—will face cash cuts of 66% by the end of the decade. When will the Secretary of State accept responsibility for this situation instead of blaming council leaders of all political persuasions for a mess of his own making?
Mr Pickles
That certainly cannot be happening in the hon. Lady’s constituency, because it gets £3,236 per household and the reduction in its spending power is well below the average—it is only 1.4%. People need to show some gumption. Of course, all those things will happen if people just stand around doing nothing, but libraries need to show some entrepreneurial spirit. The hon. Lady need only travel to Hammersmith and Fulham to see thriving libraries where people go through the door and want to use them. Rather than paying homage to the 1950s, she should produce libraries that people actually want to go to by bringing in coffee shops and finding ways to use them better. Rather than continually standing there with her hand out, why does she not show some leadership in her community and get things going?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The need for growth is accepted throughout the House. Is not the best way to encourage local growth, to enable local authorities to retain and spend locally more of the additional business rate from new developments, exactly as the Secretary of State has set out today?
Mr Pickles
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Frankly, I could not have put it better myself. [Interruption.] On the Opposition Benches we see leaders of their communities, people who mock enterprise but who would have delivered cuts and said, “I’m very sorry, it’s not my fault,” and looked the other way. We on the Government Benches are different. We have been prepared to offer serious advice—50 ways to save. We are on the side of, and working alongside, those authorities, whether they be Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, that want to work with their community to bring in prosperity.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State were leader of Sefton council—[Interruption.] Heaven forbid, but if he were leader of Sefton council, would he cut services to vulnerable, elderly and disabled people, or would he close libraries? Sefton faces a cut of at least 40% in its budget and it cannot save both, whatever smoke-and-mirror act the Secretary of State tries to pull—that is the reality.
Mr Pickles
I cannot understand why that is happening, because the hon. Gentleman’s constituency has experienced a drop of just 2.2% in its spending power and it receives £2,265 per household, which is well above what local authorities represented by Government parties face. If I was the leader of Sefton council, I would obviously consider giving the hon. Gentleman the freedom of the borough. I would also look to make those libraries income-generating and apply that money to help the most vulnerable. After all, this settlement sees considerable, important amounts of money going from the national health service directly to local authorities to deal with precisely that issue. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go back to his constituency and be an apostle for change, he has my backing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. A lot of Members want to ask questions to the Secretary of State and not make speeches, but at this rate not everybody will be able to participate, because we have urgent business. I would appreciate short, direct questions and short, direct answers, at which I know the Secretary of State is an expert.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
While the Secretary of State is dispensing advice, what advice would he give to council tax payers in Halesowen, who are seeing Dudley council spending thousands of pounds on a consultation exercise that calls for council tax rises of up to 4.6%?
Mr Pickles
I will watch the council’s progress with interest and our thoughts will be with the council tax payers at the ballot.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Death and danger from fire do not discriminate, but the Secretary of State did in his first funding settlement by giving six southern fire authorities a rise in funding and the six metropolitan areas a deep cut. Why has he not done what he has done with the police and what MPs from all parties have urged him to do and given a flat, fair, across-the-board cut for all fire authorities in this settlement? Why is he continuing to hit the north harder than the south?
Mr Pickles
The mets benefit considerably from this settlement. The right hon. Gentleman is a serious Member of this House and deserves a serious answer. He will recall that the reduction in police funding was front-loaded and that that for firefighters and emergency services was back-loaded. One of the reasons why we have set up the Knight review is to arrive at that equilibrium and to offer fire authorities some help in that process.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement. Local authorities all over the country have no excuse whatsoever for increasing council tax. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this settlement has sufficient funding to ensure that every council tax payer can look forward to a freeze this year and that local authorities should seek to maximise their resources for the benefit of their residents?
Mr Pickles
That is certainly the case. We are talking about a 2% trigger for a referendum. Local authorities can go for whatever figure they want, but they will have to face the people. We are offering 1% to local authorities, if they can get it down to that. Essentially, for those that want to increase council tax below 2%, we are talking about less than 1%. That seems to be a very dubious case, given that we are making it absolutely clear that this money is in the base.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Liverpool is the most deprived area in the country. Liverpool city council works closely with local businesses to support investment, but the cuts announced today are an added blow to a city already reeling from cuts in local public services as a consequence of Government decisions. Indeed, people in Liverpool have already suffered cuts of £252 per head, compared with an average of £61 per head in England as a whole. Why does the Secretary of State show such contempt for the people of Liverpool?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady makes an extraordinary point. Let us be absolutely clear: Liverpool receives the enormous amount of £2,836 per household and its cut is on the average. The hon. Lady has made a point that I have often heard in this Chamber, namely: why are other parts of the country not receiving a bigger cut? Let us put this in context. I have the figures for Liverpool. In terms of the old formula grant—the start-up funding allocation—Liverpool receives £386 million, Manchester £391 million, Birmingham £783 million. Windsor and Maidenhead, however, receives £28 million, Wokingham £31 million and West Oxfordshire £5 million. Essentially, the hon. Lady is asking those authorities, which already contribute to the national pool, to increase their council tax by somewhere in the region of 60%. That does not seem like a sensible thing to do.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend, in due course, give the House further details of the efficiency support grant, which is a very welcome element of the statement? Will he confirm that it is a new initiative that, for the first time, will reward authorities that get on and do things, rather than subsidise those who sit back, carry on with the old ways and expect to be bailed out by central Government?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend will recall that that grant comes from the working neighbourhoods fund. When he and I were looking at that a couple of years ago, we found that the departing Labour Government had left no money to pay for it. We thought that that was completely unacceptable, so we created a transitional grant to help with the process. I am delighted to say that we are now down to about seven authorities that need such help. We are saying to those authorities, “You can’t expect the rest of local government to pay for you not doing the right thing. Provided that you give an undertaking that you will look towards better corporate government, joint working and getting your base down, we will give you the money next year, but if you haven’t made progress by the end of the year, you won’t get anything the following year.” It is completely unfair for local government to subsidise people who are being inefficient.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
If what the Secretary of State is doing is about being fair, why has Halton borough council, which covers the second most deprived area in the country, had a cut per head of twice that in the affluent Tory council in Cheshire East? Is this not about transferring money away from Labour councils and towards Tory councils?
Mr Pickles
No, that has not happened. There has been a significant shift away from Conservative authorities and towards Labour authorities. I note that the loss of spending power in the hon. Gentleman’s area is 1.8%, which is not materially greater than the national average, and that it is getting £2,416 per household. That does not suggest that a significant amount of money has gone away from his authority.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
In the past, local government settlements have underestimated the population of many authorities, including mine. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the figures that he has announced reflect need, deprivation and the real number of people in each council?
Mr Pickles
We use the best available statistics. It is amazing that Opposition Members are suggesting that they are not, because they are based on the old system. The extra money that is available relates to the old system. As we move further away from that system, we will ensure that poorer authorities are safeguarded, but we will also ensure—because these are relative changes—that they will benefit when they start to bring in new jobs and enthusiasm.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me at this point to address a question that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked, but which I neglected to answer. There are always two things in these equations that one needs to be certain about: the population numbers and the income that is likely to be generated through business rates. In the bundle of documents, there will be an assessment of that, which I think offers good news for local authorities.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Secretary of State, I know that you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of this subject, but we would be grateful if you did not share all of it with us this afternoon. May we have slightly shorter answers please, otherwise Members who want to put a question to you will be disappointed?
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
May I remind the Secretary of State that Birmingham’s finances became a mess under a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and that it is a Labour administration that, since May, has been trying to put that right? However, Birmingham is facing some of the biggest cuts in local government history, with a reduction in income of £149 per person, which is more than double the national average. Will he meet me and a delegation of Members of Parliament from Birmingham to discuss the pressures that Birmingham is facing and to see whether we can find a way to mitigate the situation?
Mr Pickles
It is always a pleasure to see the hon. Lady under any circumstances. However, I politely remind her that the decisions on equal pay were taken 20-odd years ago under a Labour Administration. I am delighted to see that Birmingham has increased its balances by £24 million.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State comment on the flexibility that he is introducing to support small, efficient district police and fire authorities that have kept council tax low for years, but that have little room for manoeuvre? There are many such examples in the south.
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady can read the written ministerial statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). Essentially, small authorities have in the past been capped at very small sums of money, so we will be introducing a de minimis sum of £5.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
When the Secretary of State reads out the spending capacity for my area, will he include the spending capacity of the 14,800 people who will become eligible to pay council tax next year under what has become known as the Pickles poll tax? What thought has he given to those people in the announcement that he has made today?
Mr Pickles
I am delighted to say that in order to protect those good folk from the excesses of a Labour council, we have found £10 million to ensure that nobody has to pay more than 8.5%. Perhaps I should give notice that if councils persist in charging the poor—it is only Labour councils that are doing so—I may take the necessary powers to prevent them from doing so. I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman, because he wants it to be read out, that his area receives £3,222 per household and has a loss of less than 0.9%.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The leader of Sheffield city council has said that the Government’s cuts will mean the end of local government as we know it. As we have heard, the Local Government Association has declared that Tory-led West Somerset council is “not viable” over the longer term. Does the Secretary of State anticipate any other councils becoming no longer viable as a result of the Government’s huge cuts?
Mr Pickles
That is not what the leader of the council was saying when we were doling out all the extra money by way of the city deals. He was telling us how he was going to progress things.
Mr Pickles
I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. The light was not very good.
We are telling local authorities to work together and join services together. If they stay in the kind of dump or great fug that Opposition Members seem to want, in which they do not co-operate with one another, that prediction will come true, but if they co-operate, things will be better.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
As a member of Conservative-controlled Kettering borough council, I commend to the Secretary of State its triple-zero policy: zero cuts to front-line services, zero cuts to voluntary sector grants and zero increase in the council tax over a five-year period. Is it not true that the best councils do not moan and groan about their financial settlement, but get on with cutting waste and inefficiency?
Mr Pickles
I am so happy with Kettering borough council that I am thinking of taking a weekend break there to enjoy its good services.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
The previous Government extended the period until a referendum may be held to get rid of an elected mayor. I am thankful for the grant settlement for my area, which looks more generous than that for most other areas of Devon. However, we could go a lot further if we could get rid of our elected mayor and his unaffordable glory projects. Will the Secretary of State overturn the decision of the last Government and allow people to have a referendum before the end of the current mayor’s term of office?
Mr Pickles
I was rather hoping that, in the spirit of Christmas love and understanding, I might be able to bridge a rapprochement between the hon. Gentleman and the mayor. They are both wonderful people and it is a matter of some regret that they seem not to get on.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
My constituents in Brighton have been singled out for the harshest cuts in the south-east. Will the Secretary of State explain to them why he is pursuing savage cuts that are not only socially devastating but economically illiterate? His Government’s plans to get local councils to drive economic recovery will never happen if he makes them cut so deep and so fast.
Mr Pickles
I do not know where the hon. Lady looks for her facts. Her council will receive £2,034 per household, which is a cut of 2.8%—slightly above average. To suggest, however, that people in the south-east have been picked out for the most savage cuts is utter bunkum.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
My council will warmly welcome the localisation of business rates, but my question is about the distribution systems that the Secretary of State inherited from the previous Government. Ten out of 12 inner-London councils charge less than £1,000 at band D, and 18 of the 20 outer-London councils charge more than £1,000. Does the Secretary of State think that is due to the efficiency of those councils, or the fairness of the distribution system?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend and I have had many discussions on that issue, and as I said when replying to another colleague earlier, to a degree some of the inequalities and possible bias towards Labour authorities had to stay within the system because I wanted to deliver stability. I can promise, however, that as we move further away from the old settlement, the more efficiency we will see. Given its entrepreneurial feelings, I have little doubt that Croydon will benefit greatly from the system.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I sometimes wonder what colour the sky is in the right hon. Gentleman’s world. When comparing Newcastle with Wokingham he cleverly uses statistics for spending per head. Does he agree, however, that Newcastle and other similar councils have larger demands on their services? Unemployment figures for central Newcastle are 1,280 compared with 175 in Wokingham. Even if the council were to implement each of the Secretary of State’s 50 recommendations, including No. 37 about not funding sock puppets, it would not be able to match the funding gap presented to it.
Mr Pickles
I commend the hon. Gentleman for thoroughly reading that document, although I trust he did not start from the back and work his way forward. The hon. Gentleman represents Durham—[Interruption.] Well, I would be superhuman if I remembered every single figure in my head. Per household, his council receives £2,228, and the reduction in its spending power is less than the national average. The hon. Gentleman should be thanking me rather than talking about sock puppets.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
In his statement, the Secretary of State said that next year the new homes bonus will be worth more than £650 million, and even more in 2014-15. He later said, “We’ve reduced the amounts that we are setting aside for new homes bonus.” Will he clarify whether there will be a cut in the new homes bonus?
Mr Pickles
Very easily. We had discussions with local authorities, and we were going to hold back by way of the top slice a particular sum in order to pay for the new homes bonus. Local authorities put to us a number of reasonable points about how the new homes bonus and—for want of a better word—the cash flow will be paid. We thought they made a reasonable point and decided that we were not taking much of a risk by keeping close to what local authorities were saying.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talked about £150 million of additional spending on academies. Is that part of or in addition to the existing £1 billion overspend on academies and free schools in the budget of the Department for Education?
Mr Pickles
I am grateful, because a scribbled note has arrived from the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), and the figure is not £150 million but £180 million. Those announcements will be made by the Secretary of State for Education.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
East Northamptonshire district council and Wellingborough council have embraced the Secretary of State’s reforms. They have a wonderful new leisure park, a retail park plan, 2,000 new jobs and the project is ready to go. The only thing stopping the project is the Secretary of State’s Department. Will he speed up the process and approve it?
Mr Pickles
One looks at these matters in a quasi-judicial way, and despite my hon. Friend’s obvious charm, not even an invitation for a cup of tea with his delightful wife will persuade me to do anything other than observe proper process.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
During the Secretary of State’s tirades about Birmingham, would he care to get his facts right? As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) observed, Birmingham was run by a Tory-led coalition from 2004 until last May. The Labour administration before that set aside money for dealing with equal pay claims, but that money was spent by the Tory administration. How can the Secretary of State justify a reduction in spending power of twice the national average? Is it not time that Birmingham got a fair deal at last?
Mr Pickles
I recall that I was a councillor when all that started. However, even in a year when the council is claiming poverty it managed to increase its reserves by £25 million. As a Birmingham MP, the hon. Gentleman must know that the council stands no chance of being able to deal with the enormous burden—just short of three quarters of a billion pounds—without the generosity of those on the Government Benches who are prepared to help Birmingham. They do so happily because we cannot allow our second city to go under.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that when councils look to make savings, council tax payers should not be expected to pay the salaries of council employees who spend their time working for trade unions that then pay millions of pounds to the Labour party?
Mr Pickles
I am a very strong supporter of the trade union movement; it does absolutely marvellous work. In times of financial stringency, however, I am sure that the trade union movement will be embarrassed to receive money from the public purse. I will shortly issue best practice guidance to local authorities to find ways in which local trade unions can give money back to local government.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to a “moral duty”. Where is the morality in cuts that are directed at the poorest areas and those least well equipped to generate extra business revenue? Why has Hull had a cut so far of £163 per head compared with £2.70 per head in West Dorset?
Mr Pickles
Of course, West Dorset receives considerably less money than Hull. The hon. Lady’s council will receive per household a figure well above the national average at £2,371, and a drop in spending power of less than the national average at 1.4%. She should show some leadership.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
When Labour took control of Birmingham earlier this year, the council immediately put up costs by what will be £10 million a year by increasing wages for some staff by as much as 70%. It is now aiming to charge the poor council tax at 24%. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should protect the poor and not put up costs in a time of financial problems?
Mr Pickles
Birmingham. The council put 16-year-olds on the same wages as adults. It made a mistake and it was foolish to do so—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen, because he is probably not used to dealing with poor people—[Interruption.] No, no—a toff has an opportunity occasionally to meet the odd poor person. What was really bad about Birmingham involves the second part of the question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and how the council is seeking to get 23% council tax from poor people. As a committed socialist the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak should be on the phone now telling the leadership of Birmingham to look after the poor, not to tax them.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Audit Commission has made it absolutely clear that the biggest cuts are hitting the poorest communities and boroughs. What is the public to believe: his fiddled figures or the Audit Commission?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman is being very selective in his reporting, but it is absolutely clear that the poorest authorities are receiving a smaller cut than the more wealthy authorities. The protection that we have offered the former in this settlement is better than the protection offered under the Labour Government.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State not realise that local authorities such as Bolton, which faces £100 million of cuts, are already doing all they can to support business growth, make efficiencies, share procurement and protect services? When will he admit that his actions are slashing services and hurting the most vulnerable?
Mr Pickles
What came out from the letter and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who apparently meets the odd poor person at some of his surgeries, is that most of those authorities have done the odd thing on joint working or procurement, but I am talking about a much more fundamental realignment of local government services. I am looking not just at the back office, but at the front office. There have been far too many instances in the north-west of really good deals being turned down because people were concerned about the badge on the side of the van. I am therefore looking to the hon. Lady to show some leadership.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State share with the House his estimate of the value of the business rate retention in Durham and its value in Westminster?
Mr Pickles
Westminster will make a considerable contribution to the levy so that money goes directly to Durham. Money from Westminster will go directly to Durham, so if Westminster does very well—as it will—Durham will benefit.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
My local authority, Enfield, faces a triple whammy under the Government. First, the rapid demographic change of which the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) spoke is happening but is not recognised. Secondly, the Audit Commission reallocation from poor to richer authorities affects my area. Thirdly, the damping formula, which will be engaged for an extra two years, will affect my local authority. Can the Secretary of State give my constituents any reassurance that the Government recognise the problems of London boroughs?
Mr Pickles
Yes. I can helpfully tell the hon. Gentleman that, per household, he will receive £3,015, which is well above the national average. I am delighted to say that spending power goes down by just 0.6%, which is significantly less than other reductions. He is therefore sitting pretty.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has said that seven authorities will require larger savings to be made, but that no councils face a loss of more than 8.8% in their spending power, thanks to the new efficiency support grant, which replaces the transitional relief grant. Is that not a conditional, ring-fenced grant, and town hall to Whitehall, and therefore anything but localism? My local authority does joint services, and back-office and shared services, but how will it benefit from the Secretary of State’s statement?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. His authority is Hyndburn. I remind him that he would be receiving nothing additional had it been up to the Labour Government, who left no provision for the transitional grant. The transitional grant was wholly devised to help him, but his council must show some gumption. Who is paying for it? The rest of us are. He must ensure that Hyndburn starts to have joint services and better procurement—
Mr Pickles
No it is not—or not enough. I remember the hon. Gentleman’s Adjournment debate, and what he says is certainly not the case.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The people of Birmingham will be delighted to hear how kindly disposed the Secretary of State is towards them. Along with his list of 50 simple savings, will he agree to publish the recommended savings in cuts that his officials say can safely be made in Birmingham, so that I can share that with the Birmingham public?
Mr Pickles
I will e-mail that to the hon. Gentleman. Why should I not like Birmingham? It is a beautiful city and the second city in England. Anybody who wants to set up enterprise will find a welcoming hand there. I wish Birmingham nothing but success, but I must tell him—I have some familiarity with the finance—that the top few suggestions would help Birmingham out. I hope Birmingham takes that line. If it does, it will produce better services and have a much more secure future. I wish it well.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), may I remind the Secretary of State that Liverpool is the most deprived city in the UK? Will he tell the House why he is yet again disproportionately hitting both the Merseyside fire and rescue service budget and our council budget?
Mr Pickles
May I remind the hon. Lady that she has £2,740 per household, plus the amount for the fire authority? Metropolitan fire authorities are receiving a much higher level of settlement than other parts of the country. We have offered Liverpool a fantastic deal. The mayor of Liverpool had my complete confidence up to the point when he suggested that there will be riots on the streets—he was one of the first to offer reassurance during last year’s riots. I hope again to be able to work with Joe to the betterment of Liverpool.
Point of Order
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have very helpfully held more than an hour’s discussion and questions to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the local government settlement. However, today’s Order Paper notifies us of only a written statement from the Home Office on the policing settlement. Compounding the fact that hon. Members cannot question Home Office Ministers on the important matters of police cuts, reductions in police officers and other matters, the statement from the Home Office is not released until the end of the statement from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
I know that these matters are outside your gift, Madam Deputy Speaker, but is it possible for you to examine with the Government whether they can have parity in their treatment of statements, so that we can question the Home Office on serious and damaging police cuts across the country?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
The right hon. Gentleman in fact answered his own point of order when he pointed out that it was outside the gift of the Chair to force the Government to make oral statements. As he will know, it is entirely a matter for the Government how they present information to the House, whether by written or oral statement. He has his point on the record, but I do not think that I can help him any further.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Before we proceed, I need to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:
Civil Aviation Act 2012
Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012
Financial Services Act 2012
Police (Complaints and Conduct) Act 2012
Small Charitable Donations Act 2012
Church of England Marriage (Amendment) Measure 2012
Charities Act 2011 (Amendment)
15:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Charities Act 2011 to treat all religious institutions as charities; and for connected purposes.
On Monday this week, I delivered a letter to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. It was signed by 113 right hon. and hon. Members, drawn from many different political parties. It urges the Government to restore the presumption of charitable status to all religious institutions. The Charity Commission has recently ruled against a Plymouth Brethren church, stating that it is not of public benefit and can therefore no longer be seen as having charitable status. The repercussions of such a ruling could have a disastrous effect on religious institutions and the excellent work they do in the charitable sector.
The Charities Act 2006, which was consolidated into the Charities Act 2011, removed the presumption that religious institutions have charitable status. That has led to the unintended consequence of the state being able to interfere, through the Charity Commission, with religious institutions. Simply put, this is state interference in religious institutions through the back door. The 2006 Act removed the presumption that religious institutions were given charitable status—indeed, religious institutions now have to give tangible proof to demonstrate that they are a public benefit to be classed as charities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) led Her Majesty’s official Opposition on the Charities Bill in 2006. On Second Reading, he expertly pointed out the problem of religious institutions having to demonstrate their public benefit. Using the example of prayer, my hon. Friend asked the question:
“how can it be demonstrated that prayer is of a public benefit?”—[Official Report, 25 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 1583.]
He later explained that religious institutions would find it hard to prove the benefit of prayer to a sceptical and secular group such as the Charity Commission. In that debate, the former Member for Maidstone, Ann Widdecombe, spoke on this subject. Deftly describing the situation regarding the previous legal presumption for religious institutions, she said:
“‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’”—[Official Report, 25 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 1589.]
As usual, I wholeheartedly agree with what Ann said. I believe that the presumption for religious institutions should be returned to the Charities Act 2011. The 2011 Act clearly states in section 3(1)(c) that the advancement of religion should be considered a charitable purpose. Surely, if the advancement of religion is considered to be a charitable purpose, the presumption to grant religious institutions charitable status is the logical action to be taken by the Charity Commission, but the current commissioners are determined to misinterpret the law.
The advancement of religion is not the only category of public benefit that religious institutions bring to society. For example, the Salvation Army, a Christian organisation for more than 200 years, has provided help to the elderly, the young, offenders, drug addicts and disabled people. It provides food and shelter for the homeless, and it operates food distribution centres. From my own experience, as the chair of the all-party group on human trafficking, I know that the Salvation Army has helped the victims of human trafficking, by providing them with support and accommodation. Its efforts have been recognised by the Government and it has been awarded almost £2 million to support such victims. In future, if the religious practices of the Salvation Army are deemed not to be for the public benefit by the Charity Commission, will the Salvation Army lose its charitable status?
The commission’s ruling on the Plymouth Brethren makes the most extraordinary statement:
“There is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England”.
There we have it: not even the Church of England is safe. Does this mean that the Plymouth Brethren are but the first to feel the wrath of the secular, biased Charity Commission? Will Judaism, the Catholic Church or indeed the Church of England itself come under pressure by the commission to prove their public benefit? The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) recently told the Public Administration Committee about the Plymouth Brethren and said that the commission
“are committed to the suppression of religion and you are the little guys being picked on to start off a whole series of other churches who will follow you there.”
I am reminded of the poem “First they came”, describing the persecution of different groups, in darker times. Today, it could be amended to read, “First they came for the Plymouth Brethren and I did not speak out because I was not a Brethren. Then they came for the Evangelical Church and I did not speak out because I was not an Evangelical. Then they came for the Catholic Church and I did not speak out because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
I fear that if the presumption for religious institutions to have charitable status is not reinstated in the Charities Act, we will bring about consequences that will not only be detrimental to the charity sector, but to the very fabric of our society. In fact, the removal of the presumption in the Charities Act 2006 was never intended by the previous Government to penalise charitable religious institutions. In Committee, the then Under-Secretary for the Cabinet Office and now Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) stated that
“religious organisations need to be given reassurance and confidence that those that have charitable status will continue to enjoy it and that the Bill does not affect their status. We can give them that assurance in broad terms.”––[Official Report, Charities Public Bill Committee, 4 July 2006; c. 66.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to reiterate that religious institutions providing access to worship and the advancement of religion are “clearly a public benefit”. How can it be that the 2006 Act, championed by the current Leader of the Opposition through Parliament, who gave clear guarantees to protect religious institutions of their charitable status, can be used and abused by the Charity Commission in a clear misinterpretation of the public benefit requirement? For more than 400 years, since the Charitable Uses Act 1601, the advancement of religion has been considered a charitable purpose.
Recently, the Charity Commission ruled that the Plymouth Brethren did not fulfil the public benefit requirement as a charity. How can a group active in the role of advancing religion that contains more 16,000 members of the British public not be considered a public benefit? If the advancement of religion on its own as a charitable purpose cannot be seen as an identifiable benefit to the public, I will provide one of many examples of the selfless work of the Plymouth Brethren.
During the recent flooding, in the Bicknacre and Danbury areas, members of the Plymouth Brethren church helped local residents by sandbagging their properties, assisting in moving residents and their belongings from the flooded St Giles home for the mentally disabled, and using their 4x4 vehicles to remove vehicles from flood water—I am sure at some personal risk to themselves. If those acts cannot be described as selfless and charitable, then I do not know what can.
There is clearly an almighty mess. When I find such a situation, I have two default positions. First, it must have been caused entirely by the Liberal Democrats. Now, that just is not the case here. Many Liberal Democrat Members support the Bill and one is a sponsor, so that is clearly not the reason. I therefore move on to my second default position, which is that in nearly all cases the cause of all problems is the European Union. I have gone through every EU directive, but I cannot find one that imposes this restriction. What is happening is creeping secularism in society. With just a few days before we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, and in recognition of religious freedom, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support my ten-minute rule Bill.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday in my Adjournment debate on high-carbon investment, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) said that
“the Committee on Climate Change has recognised in its recent progress report…that we are on track to meet our first three carbon budgets”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 828.]
That did not sound right to me, so I returned to the report to check the details to which he had referred and sought clarification from the committee directly. I can confirm that the committee’s report states clearly that the current rate of progress is
“sufficient to meet the first and second…budgets, but not the third and fourth budgets,”
and that the
“rate of underlying progress is only a quarter of that required to meet future carbon budgets.”
Given this afternoon’s debate on the Energy Bill and the crucial matter of decarbonisation, I wonder whether you might invite the Minister to correct the record on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
The content of speeches in this House, whether by Back Benchers, Ministers or shadow Ministers, is thankfully not the responsibility of the Chair. The contributions made as a matter of debate in this House are the responsibility of the Member who makes those observations, so it is not a point of order for the Chair. The Minister is here; I am sure he took note of the hon. Lady’s comments and will want to engage again in debate on those facts.
Energy Bill
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 206 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Before I call the Secretary of State to move Second Reading, may I say to all hon. Members that there is a very long list of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak in this debate? Even with a tight time limit, it will not be possible in the time we have left to call every Member. I regret, therefore, that some Members will be disappointed and will not be able to participate in this afternoon’s debate. May I also inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Edward Miliband?
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We need to pass this Energy Bill if Britain is to have a credible and ambitious energy and climate change policy. The Bill represents both a practical and a radical approach to reforming our electricity market. It is essential if we are to deliver on our three objectives for energy and climate change policy—namely, secure energy that is affordable and clean—yet I believe the Bill offers the country much more than a better energy policy. With our current economic difficulties, as we along with many other nations strive to ignite sustainable growth, this Bill offers a significant opportunity to stimulate the sort of infrastructure investment that our country desperately needs, for both the short and long term. We estimate that an enormous £110 billion of energy infrastructure investment is needed between now and the end of the decade in low-carbon energy generation and the grid network.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
What hope, assurances or promise can the Secretary of State give to those wishing to engage in renewable energy generation in the Hebrides that the infrastructure will reach the Hebrides? Will the interconnector come?
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman knows that I set up a group to look at this issue, which has got together with the councils from the various islands, officials from my Department and others. We must await its work. I know he welcomed it at the time and I am sure that he, too, will await its work with patience.
This is not just an energy Bill; it is a growth Bill. I believe it can lead to new jobs in every region and nation of our country. If right hon. and hon. Members vote for this Energy Bill, they will be voting to give the British economy the long-term boost it needs.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene at this early stage, but is not the very best boost we could give our industry in this country, particularly the renewables sector, to have the decarbonisation target for 2030 on the face of the Bill, as recommended by the Committee on Climate Change, as argued for by 1,500 companies and the CBI, and as apparently endorsed by the Prime Minister just two years ago?
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to ensure the investment that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) described, it is crucial that we get this Bill through, with its contracts for difference and its market reform? To do that, the Bill has to receive a Second Reading, so the best thing that hon. Members on both sides of the House can do is reject the reasoned amendment, which would delay any movement towards getting this new Bill through.
Mr Davey
I shall make some progress first, and then I shall take some more interventions.
I pay tribute to the many people who have contributed to producing a Bill which, let’s face it, could not be described as having been rushed. Even before the pre-legislative scrutiny so ably undertaken by the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change—I thank it for its work—it was long, long in the consultation. Some have even argued that the fingerprints of the Leader of the Opposition can be found on the first designs for it, but in the event of a paternity test, I think that the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) would probably end up on the birth certificate. Its careful nurturing owes much to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). Indeed, Members in all parts of the House have played a role in its production, and it is a better Bill for that level of cross-party development and scrutiny.
The reason why members of all parties recognise the need for a major change is easy to explain. First, about a fifth of Britain’s existing power plants are scheduled to close during this decade, which will reduce supply. Secondly, even if we are heroically successful in terms of energy efficiency and reducing energy waste, overall demand for electricity is set to rise—partly because of population growth, but also because our transport system is likely to be more electrified over the next two decades, as are our heating systems. What with supply falling and demand increasing, we would have a real energy problem if we sat back and did nothing. Energy security—keeping the lights on—is a critical rationale for the Bill.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the key reason for the energy crisis is the fact that a vast amount of coal-fired generation is being forced to close down, not because of carbon dioxide emissions but because of emissions of sulphur dioxide, which, if anything, counters carbon dioxide. That is due to the European Union and its large combustion plant directive.
Huw Irranca-Davies
May I make a point about the reasoned amendment? It is because of the go-ahead for licences for a new fleet of combined cycle gas turbine power stations, the potential for shale gas, and the current absence of the development of carbon capture and storage technology in this country that it is necessary to top up with a 2030 decarbonisation target. I think the Secretary of State is more than sympathetic to that idea, and that he would implement it if he were not encumbered by Cabinet colleagues.
Mr Davey
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He has merely convinced me more that this will be a hot topic of debate. However, I can confirm to him and the House that one of the purposes of the Bill is to decarbonise our electricity supply. That is a critical purpose. We need to move from coal to gas, from fossil fuels to low carbon. We need a more diversified energy mix, with renewables, carbon capture and storage, and new nuclear all playing their part in enhancing the security of our electricity supplies. Low-carbon energy security will help to insulate consumers from fossil fuel price spikes and will help us to meet our climate obligations, including our emissions and renewables target.
The key challenge that prompted the Bill was the need to attract tens of billions of pounds of investment, including investment in low carbon, while keeping energy bills affordable. Given that global gas prices had almost doubled since 2007, which was already putting huge upward pressure on bills, the need to stimulate that essential energy investment as cheaply as possible became a central consideration. Whatever the many debates in which we will rightly engage today and during the Bill’s passage, let no one lose sight of the three core challenges that it was designed to meet: attracting more than £100 billion of investment, creating the world’s first ever market in low-carbon energy, and helping people and businesses around our country who were struggling in the face of rising world energy prices. I think that those aims are widely shared across the House.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I agree with the Secretary of State about the importance of reducing fuel bills, but if that is important, why does the Bill enshrine a dash for gas? Organisations from the CBI to the International Energy Agency say that that will not reduce fuel bills, whereas much greater investment in renewables and efficiency certainly would.
Mr Davey
I reject the notion that our policy supports a dash for gas, and I absolutely reject the suggestion that the Bill is designed to do any such thing. On the contrary, it is designed to reform our electricity market. It favours not fossil fuels but low-carbon sources, and I should have thought that the hon. Lady and, indeed, all Members would support it for that reason.
You will understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, why I am genuinely disappointed that the Opposition decided to withhold their full support for the Bill in their reasoned amendment. They say that they want our economy to grow, they say that they support low-carbon energy, and they say that they want a better deal for consumers and business, but if they vote against the Bill, they will be opposing growth, opposing decarbonisation and opposing help for people who are struggling with high energy bills. Just a few years ago all the major parties worked together to deliver the Climate Change Act 2008. Why is a party led by the architect of that landmark Act refusing to support the practical reforms that will help to deliver its lofty objectives?
I predict that we will have many debates and exchanges about a decarbonisation target for the power sector—an issue that features prominently in the Opposition’s reasoned amendment—yet it should be noted that this Government will legislate so that the next Government can set a decarbonisation target alongside a fifth carbon budget, even though at the last election the manifesto of no party argued for such a power sector decarbonisation target. We will no doubt hear that industry would benefit from such a target, and I strongly sympathise with that argument, yet industry would be seriously damaged if we were not to take forward our wider reforms of the electricity market.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has the power to send a much stronger signal to energy investors in the UK even than setting a 2030 decarbonisation target. Almost every investment in energy is a long-term investment lasting far longer than any Parliament, and investors therefore worry about political risk. They worry about what happens if the governing party or coalition is replaced, and they therefore listen to what the Opposition say.
I presume that the right hon. Lady will press her amendment to a Division. If it is defeated, however, will she and her party colleagues support the Bill on Second Reading? I am happy to give way to her if she wants to answer that question—I am afraid she has not been tempted to respond. We shall, therefore, all await her speech with even greater anticipation, to discover whether she intends to vote against the Bill on Second Reading.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
My right hon. Friend’s support for such a target has been well documented, so I suppose the current position is one of the practical realities of coalition Government, but what will be the effect of setting a target in 2016 rather than 2012, and what impact will that have on our reaching the target in 2030?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. National Grid will have the job of setting the first stage of the electricity market reform delivery plan, and I will give it guidelines, as agreed with the Chancellor, on how it should set that plan. We will make it clear that it must consider power sector decarbonisation even ahead of the target that will be set in 2016.
It is worth reminding the House that the renewables energy target for 2020 was set in 2008, some 12 years ahead of the target date. If we set a decarbonisation target for 2030 in 2016, that will be a full 14 years ahead of its target date. It is therefore clear that we are planning for the longer term and that we have logic on our side. It would have been great if the Opposition could say that they had argued for this before, but they did not. I am glad they are joining us now.
The Bill’s central objective is to achieve electricity market reform, with a new investment mechanism at its core: the feed-in tariff with contracts for difference. Contracts for difference will provide long-term electricity price stability, and therefore revenue certainty, to developers and investors in technologies such as carbon capture and storage, renewables and nuclear.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Bill’s measures will provide clarity and certainty for investors wishing to develop infrastructure. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is imperative in delivering the model he is talking about?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend has great expertise in this area, and I entirely agree with what he says. Revenue certainty will reduce investment risk, and it should therefore also reduce the cost of financing—the cost of capital. That is far more important for low-carbon technologies than for fossil fuels, because so much of the cost of renewables and nuclear is the set-up capital cost. Our electricity market reform is, essentially, shaping a new low-carbon market, in order to stimulate the energy investment Britain needs.
Mr Donohoe
Does the Secretary of State agree that one way to overcome the problem of the deficit in energy generation would be if the nationalists were to allow new nuclear stations to be built north of the border? Does he agree with that as a way forward?
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman notes that the energy debate is an important part of the debate on independence for Scotland, but I would not want to cloud that debate by suggesting that there should be new nuclear power plants there. He will know that our new nuclear build proposals include three consortiums, none of which is proposing new nuclear build in Scotland. We have a long way to go before that question arises.
Mr Weir
I was not looking for a right of reply, but I thank the Secretary of State for giving way anyway. Many are concerned that the contract for difference will not be introduced until later on and there is a real danger of a hiatus in investment because of uncertainty if the renewables obligation is closed in 2017. Will he consider extending that deadline if there are real challenges in obtaining that investment?
Mr Davey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have certainly spoken to people in the industry who make that argument, but our response has been to note that we have the final investment decision enabling contracts for difference, which will prevent a hiatus in investment in the immediate future. We are running contracts for difference side by side with the renewable obligations certificate to help people get more familiar with them before 2017. Some of the problems people had raised are now being answered and I hope that I will be able to persuade the hon. Gentleman that he need not have those concerns.
Mike Crockart
I am merely astounded by the nationalists’ interest in the renewables obligation for 2017, given that they hope that Scotland will be independent by that point.
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Perhaps the nationalists have given up before the referendum has even started.
It has been pointed out to me that my constituency neighbour and good friend, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), wishes to intervene, and, given his knowledge on this subject, I would like to take his intervention.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Energy efficiency is by far the easiest, quickest and cheapest method of reducing bills and emissions. I know that the Government are consulting on measures to reduce electricity demand, but can he reassure the House that time will be made available for genuine scrutiny of the amendments when they eventually arrive and that they will be radical enough to ensure that efficiency is a core part of our energy programme?
Mr Davey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that we are consulting on electricity demand reduction. I am passionately keen to see that taken forward, but I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation. There are a number of ways of taking forward that policy measure. It might require amendments to the Bill and if so, we have time to introduce them, but there might be other ways to make progress on that policy objective.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davey
No, I am going to make some progress, I am afraid.
Some have argued that CFDs are somehow complex, but I disagree. Generators will receive the market price for their electricity plus a top-up to an agreed level known as the strike price. When the market price is above the strike price, the generator will pay back the difference, ensuring value for money and greater price stability for consumers.
CFDs are also a major improvement on the current system of renewable obligation certificates, because they keep the cost of energy to the consumer lower. During the scrutiny of the draft Energy Bill, one issue dominated the debate about CFDs, and the Energy and Climate Change Committee spent some time considering it. It was, in essence, the payment system and how generators would get their money in a CFD. The Select Committee recommended that the Government change the draft Bill in that respect and appoint a single counterparty to these contracts for difference so it was easier for investors to know who would pay them. We have accepted that proposal. There will now be a new Government company that will sign and manage the contracts over their lifetime and collect money from suppliers to meet the payments due to generators.
Electricity market reform will stimulate investment in new low-carbon energy, but low-carbon energy sources have different generating features from fossil fuels, so our market reforms must take account of them. For example, wind and solar are intermittent, and may need either storage technologies and/or back-up generation. Both nuclear and renewables tend to have low margin running costs and are likely to mean that fossil fuel power stations run at lower load capacities than in the past. If we do not consider the implications of such things, there might in the future be a danger of insufficient investment in the flexible generating capacity needed at certain times, especially at the peak, for example on less windy days.
Moreover, given that new nuclear reactors will take some time to come online, and that new renewables may not fill the energy gap created by the closure of old coal and nuclear quickly enough in the next few years, there is the challenge of ensuring energy security over the next decade or more. Alongside CFDs we will introduce a capacity market to ensure that sufficient reliable generating capacity is available to meet electricity demand as it increases over the next decade. The capacity market will provide an up-front payment for capacity, reducing the risk of investing in flexible generation. The capacity market will provide an insurance policy against the possibility of future black-outs—for example, during periods of low wind and high demand.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I want to take the Secretary of State back to the rates retention scheme and community benefit, which both this Government and the previous Government have talked about. The scheme is not in the Bill, but can he confirm that it will help local investment and local communities, and that above all it will ease the pain of very large infrastructure projects for local communities?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend has campaigned on the issue and he initiated a recent Adjournment debate on it. Whether it is new nuclear, onshore wind or other energy infrastructure, we need to consider how local communities can benefit, and we will do that. I give him that assurance again today.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that according to his impact assessment, a market-wide capacity payment system would cost the customer 11 times more on their fuel bill than a strategic reserve system of capacity arrangements? Does he intend to take that into account as the Bill progresses?
Mr Davey
I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the impact assessment a little more carefully. The bit he draws to the attention of the House assumes a perfectly operating electricity market. One reason why capacity payments will be a lot less than indicated in the part of the impact assessment he quotes is that without a capacity market, peak-demand electricity prices could go very high. One of the benefits of a capacity market is that it will smooth out the price of energy, so consumers will not have to pay high prices at the peak. That will offset the payment, and he needs to take that into account. The impact on the consumer will be far more beneficial than he suggests.
Mr Davey
No, I will not give way.
The two new instruments I have just outlined—CFDs and the capacity market—will be underpinned by a robust and transparent institutional framework that will provide certainty for industry and investors. Government will retain responsibility for both instruments, and will make decisions on strike prices for CFDs, taking into consideration our objectives for the electricity sector, and wider economic and sustainability impacts as appropriate. The system operator, National Grid, will administer and deliver both the CFDs and the capacity market, and Ofgem will regulate the system operator.
The Select Committee argued that there is a risk of conflicts of interest arising between National Grid’s existing role, including owning the transmission infrastructure, and the new role, so to reassure investors, we are working jointly with Ofgem to assess that risk, mindful of the very good reasons why the system operator should take the role. The Bill provides the Government with powers to manage any conflicts of interest if necessary, and ultimately to confer the functions on an alternative delivery body.
Industry and investors have urged us to press on with our reforms to the electricity market, but it would be damaging and costly if in anticipation of an improved investment environment, they postponed final investment decisions on existing, shovel-ready projects in the meantime. I want to ensure that those decisions can be taken with confidence, even before our reforms come into effect. Therefore, as a transitional measure, the Bill will enable the Government to give effect to early CFDs, referred to as investment contracts, on a case-by-case basis at an early stage, in advance of the CFD regime. Our intention is that any investment contracts will be transferred to the single counterparty once it has been established.
I am determined that the Bill will increase competition in all aspects of our energy markets, whether retail or wholesale, and I am particularly concerned about the lack of liquidity in the wholesale power market, and especially in the forward markets, which can deter investment by independent suppliers—so important for effective competition. By improving liquidity we would improve competition, promote long-term security of supply, reduce barriers to entry and increase the robustness of the reference price for CFDs. Ofgem is currently working on proposals to improve liquidity, but in the absence of significant improvements, Government intervention may be necessary. The Bill therefore provides for such intervention. It also provides for powers to intervene to support investment by improving access to long-term contracts for the sale of electricity. This is a key concern for independent renewable developers. While the CFD will significantly reduce risk for these developers, it is important to be able to act if necessary. I therefore refute the Opposition’s assertion that the Bill does not address liquidity and competition; it clearly does.
There are a range of measures in the Bill that deserve more attention than I can give them: the emissions performance standard, which will act as a regulatory backstop on the amount of carbon emissions that new fossil fuel plants are allowed to emit; the reform of Ofgem, with the introduction of a statutory strategy and policy statement, setting out the Government’s strategic priorities and intended outcomes with respect to energy policy, helping to align better the work of Government and the work of the regulators; and a new enforcement power for Ofgem, so where energy companies have breached regulatory requirements but are unwilling to provide redress voluntarily to affected consumers, Ofgem will be able to require them to do so, with fines going to the consumers affected, which will ensure fairer outcomes for consumers. There is also a key measure to support investment in offshore transmission systems, which is so vital to Britain’s offshore wind industry, specifically with an amendment to the Electricity Act 1989 which will provide confidence to offshore generators that for a time-limited period they can lawfully commission any transmission assets that they build. We also expect to introduce measures on tariff reform during the Bill’s passage, so that we can ensure consumers get the best deal; and after we have consulted on electricity demand reduction, we will consider amendments to the Bill to support this radical approach to saving electricity, at the appropriate time.
Yet there are two parts of the Bill that are substantial reforms but have received little attention to date, so I want to dwell a little more on those before concluding. The first is on the issue of nuclear regulation. Nuclear power has an important part to play in the low-carbon energy mix of the future, and the sector requires an appropriately resourced and responsive regulator. In April 2011 we set up the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and the Bill will place what is already a world-class regulator on a statutory footing. The ONR will build on its current strengths as a modern, independent regulator working to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality, targeting and consistency. Its five key areas of responsibility are nuclear safety, nuclear security, nuclear safeguards, the transport of radioactive material, and health and safety on nuclear sites. The ONR will have the financial and organisational flexibility required to meet its business needs on a sustainable basis. The Bill also contains an amendment to the nuclear waste and decommissioning cost recovery mechanisms, which contributes to the coalition’s commitment that new nuclear power stations should receive no public subsidy.
The final reform that I wanted to highlight is to the Government pipeline and storage system. This network was originally built for defence purposes, but is now predominantly used commercially, especially for civil aviation—it delivers around 40% of aviation fuel in the UK. Following a review, we have concluded that there is no need for this asset to be owned by the Government, and that its sale could encourage private investment in the system, potentially bringing wider economic benefits as well as reducing Government debt. We are confident that any continuing military requirements could be met through contractual arrangements with a purchaser, and that a sale would have no adverse effect on safety or security. A final decision on any sale will depend on striking the right deal with the private sector, with value for money a key consideration. The earliest date for a sale would be during 2014.
The House will see that the Bill is an ambitious one. It contains radical reforms, above all to secure the energy supply that Britain needs for our homes and businesses into the 21st century, boosting economic growth at the same time. The Bill will keep the lights on, it will help keep people’s energy bills down, and it will decarbonise Britain’s electricity system. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Many Members wish to get in. I remind the House that there is a six-minute limit after the Front-Bench speeches. We may have to reduce the limit further, but if Members can be generous and try to shave some time off their speeches, they will be helpful to each other.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House, whilst affirming its support for measures included in the Bill to reform the electricity market to deliver secure, clean and affordable electricity, declines to give a Second Reading to the Energy Bill because it fails to include a clear target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030, and because it fails to include direct measures to increase transparency, competition or liquidity or ensure that the energy market is properly regulated and works in the interests of consumers.
I am conscious of time so let me say at the outset that I will take very few interventions, as I welcome the positive way in which Members in all parts of the House have applied to speak this afternoon.
The challenge facing the Government is to produce a Bill that provides fairness for consumers today, security for consumers tomorrow and a sustainable energy supply for the future of our economy, our nation and our planet. These are the tests on which we will hold the Government to account during the passage of the Bill. As a responsible Opposition, we will support measures that balance the interests of the whole nation. On the broad objectives of the Bill, we have no disagreement.
We will support proposals that genuinely reform the electricity market to deliver secure, clean and affordable electricity. In part 2 of the Bill, we will support the establishment of the Office for Nuclear Regulation on a statutory footing—work begun under the previous Government, which the Bill will complete. In part 3, we support proposals on the Government pipeline and storage system, provided they are consistent with our national security and safeguard the resilience of our fuel supply. We will support the provisions on offshore transmission systems. They are a sensible modification enabling offshore wind generators to connect to the grid during the commissioning period. That is the good news.
As to whether the Bill as a whole will meet its objectives, we remain to be convinced—hence, the reasoned amendment before the House today. At this early stage of the Bill, permit me to set out how it could be improved to genuinely reform the electricity market to ensure that Britain has a secure, clean and affordable power supply for the future. Let me start with security. As the Secretary of State has said today and in the past, in the next decade a quarter of the UK’s generating capacity will be shutting down as old coal and nuclear power stations close. To rebuild our energy infrastructure will require an unprecedented level of investment, not just in new generation, but in energy transportation.
To provide the incentives to attract the investment that we need, the Government have proposed three main mechanisms. I will deal with each in turn—first, the introduction of contracts for difference. Since the draft Bill, the Government have provided greater clarity on where the liability for CFDs will lie, which is welcome. In principle, if CFDs are executed correctly, they should provide investors with long-term certainty, but ultimately the success of CFDs will depend on the details. Many details, such as the length of contracts, how contracts will be allocated or paid for, what the balance will be between renewable, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, and the process for setting the reference and strike prices, are still to be worked out.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to act now in a co-ordinated fashion, and not just talk about it? That has been the problem of previous Governments, both Labour and Conservative. We tend to have reviews but do not take the necessary action.
Caroline Flint
I agree. As has been said, the Climate Change Act 2008, led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, was a world first. It put us in a position, with cross-party support, with a few honourable—or maybe not honourable—exceptions, in the forefront of change.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Is she allowed to say we are not honourable?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make a point, he must stand up and do so to the Chair, not from a sedentary position. He should know better after so long in the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am telling the right hon. Gentleman. When he says “she”, that is not acceptable language either. It is Christmas; we ought to give a little more humble time to each other, and certainly we do not want the debate to deteriorate. I hope we will have no further interventions from either side in that manner.
Caroline Flint
The second mechanism is the introduction of a capacity market designed to address possible shortfalls in generation. Again, in principle a capacity market could work, but whether it does will depend on important details, such as whether a capacity market will actually be introduced, the format of the auction, how the amount of capacity needed will be decided, what should be the balance between supply and demand reduction measures and how the capacity payments will be funded. All that still needs to be worked out.
The third mechanism is the creation of an emissions performance standard that sits alongside the Government’s gas strategy. Gas will have a role in our future energy mix, especially as we move away from coal-fired power stations, but setting the emissions performance standard at 450g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour, which allows unabated gas and planning to build as many as 40 new gas-fired power stations, would blow a hole through our carbon budgets. It would leave consumers vulnerable to price shocks and rising bills. It would put investment in clean energy and the jobs and opportunities that come with it at risk. It would leave us, as a country, exposed to a wide range of risks over which we would have little or no control. A second dash for gas is not the basis for a secure energy policy for the future.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?
Caroline Flint
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Instead, we must shift our economy away from its dependence on fossil fuels and build a new low-carbon economy. But the hard truth is that the UK is now falling behind with green growth. Research by Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that investment in renewable energy was half in 2011 what it was in 2009. Unless there is a remarkable upturn in the final quarter, investment will be lower this year than last year. The respected Pew Environment Group agrees. According to it, when Labour left office the UK was ranked third in the world for investment in clean energy, but today we are seventh. Figures published only last month from Ernst and Young paint the same picture. Its research on attractiveness for investment in renewable energy suggests that we have now fallen to sixth place, slipping below France, a country that generates nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear.
The challenge for this Bill was obvious: to provide a clear policy framework to encourage investment in new, clean sources of energy. We know—this is very positive—that there is money out there to be invested in renewable energy, but unlocking it requires clear signals about the long-term direction of public policy. What the Bill needed was a commitment to decarbonise the power sector by 2030, because that is not only the most cost-effective way to meet our climate obligations, but the best way to protect our economy and consumers from volatile international gas prices and to attract long-term investment in new jobs and industries.
Of course, we have the levy control framework and the EU renewable energy target, which are already in place, but both will come to an end in 2020. For firms such as Vestas, Siemens and Areva—major energy and engineering businesses with operations all over the world—investment horizons extend well beyond 2020. For a business considering opening a new plant or factory, to justify the costs and the lead-in time they need to know what the order book will look like in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time.
So why have the Government failed to include in the Bill a commitment to decarbonise the power sector? Three reasons have been provided, so let me deal with each in turn before taking another intervention. First, the Secretary of State claimed that he did, in fact, want to set a target next year but was blocked from doing so by the Conservatives. Last month he told the Guardian:
“I wanted to set the decarbonisation target in 2013-14. The Conservatives wanted to wait”.
But the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), told the House last week that there is
“a unanimous view among DECC Ministers”—[Official Report, 13 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 437]—
on the Government’s decarbonisation policy. Both statements cannot be true.
The second reason that has been given is that it would not make sense to set a target until 2016 because that is when the fifth carbon budget, which covers 2030, is set. That is a smokescreen. The view of the Committee on Climate Change is absolutely clear: decarbonisation of the power sector by 2030 is not only crucial to the 2050 economy-wide emissions target, but the most cost-effective way of achieving it. That was its view in 2008 and that is its view today. The suggestion that for some as yet unknown reason that will not be its recommendation in 2016 is not only wrong, but disingenuous. It is disingenuous because we all know the real reason why the decision has been put off—because the coalition wants to have it both ways. The Liberal Democrats want to insist that a target is just around the corner, and the Tories do not want to have to admit that, if they were ever elected on their own, they would have no intention of setting a target to clean up Britain’s power sector by 2030.
As I said in the House last week, if I am wrong and if there are good reasons for waiting until 2016 before setting a target for 2030, there is nothing to stop the Government setting an interim target before then. The third and fourth carbon budgets have already been agreed and they run until 2027. Why not set a target for 2027, 2025 or even 2022? There is simply no good reason for putting the decision off for another four years. Ministers have to understand that any delay in setting a target does not just fail to reflect the urgency of the situation that we face, but will make it more difficult and expensive to achieve.
The third excuse that we have been given is that we already have too many targets, but the exact opposite is true. Between 2020 and 2050, there are no more targets for cleaning up our power sector—no benchmarks or staging points along the way. For investors, there is no certainty about what contribution the Government expect renewables to provide for the overall energy mix beyond 2020. If there is no certainty, why would firms choose to invest here when plenty of other countries are competing for investment?
Mark Reckless
Under the Government’s proposals, one thing that is pretty certain is that, on average, electricity bills will go up by about another £100. Will the right hon. Lady explain how much more electricity would go up by if she tried to ensure that electricity was produced without any carbon at all?
Caroline Flint
I could not have had a better intervention; I am just moving on to how we can reform the market to get fairer prices.
At a time when we are asking consumers to underwrite tens, if not hundreds, of billions of pounds to pay for the investment that we need, we must have an energy market that delivers fair prices. For the first time ever, the average annual energy bill has now hit £1,400—up by nearly £300 since the last election. Just this week, the Government’s own advisers on fuel poverty warned that unless Ministers change course, another 300,000 households will fall into fuel poverty this winter and up to 9 million people could be in fuel poverty by 2016.
From what the Secretary of State has said today and in the past, I think there is agreement across the House that Britain’s energy market needs to be more transparent, competitive and liquid if it is to work in the public interest. Having identified the problem, however, the Bill fails to do anything about it. As far as I can see, there is no provision to increase transparency; of 126 clauses, only one—clause 34—even addresses the issue of liquidity in the energy market, and even that clause does not propose concrete action. All it provides is a back-stop power, a measure of last resort, with no information about how or when the Government would actually use it to encourage market participation or improve liquidity.
The Bill could have scrapped the old model of unaccountable markets and secret deals and created a new, open, competitive market for energy by introducing a pool. I know that the Secretary of State has been hostile to the idea of a pool, simply because it did not work in the past, but the market has changed. When the pool was last in operation, there were effectively just two generators and the pool was one-sided with only generators placing bids. Today there are many more generators, so the issues we saw with the dominance of National Power and PowerGen in price setting would be much less of a problem—particularly if the pool were two-sided and both buyers and sellers could bid into it, as happens with the Nord Pool in northern Europe.
A pool would have three clear advantages over the current market arrangements. First, it would increase transparency. At the moment, no one really knows the true cost of energy because most of it is bought and sold through bilateral trades that are never made public. If all energy had to be traded through an open pool, those secret over-the-counter deals would end, companies would no longer be allowed to self-supply and we could establish a robust market reference price. If energy companies tried to blame wholesale costs for putting up bills, we would be able to see for ourselves whether that was true. When setting strike prices and reference prices for contracts for difference, as proposed in part 1, we would be in a much stronger position to set the right price, which will be vital to ensure that consumers get a fair deal.
The second advantage of a pool is that it would increase competition. If energy companies had to sell all their generation and buy all their supply through an open pool, anyone could compete on price to generate power or sell it to the public. This would encourage new entrants to enter the market, provide fairer access for independent generators and community and co-operative energy schemes, increase competition and put a downward pressure on prices.
Thirdly, a pool would increase liquidity. We hear a lot about liquidity, but all it really means is whether the market is providing the things that people want to buy. While there have been some improvements in liquidity on the day-ahead market, one of the biggest barriers to effective competition is the lack of liquidity in the forward market. In order to compete, firms need to be able to buy energy a week ahead, a month ahead, a year ahead, or even further, to ensure that they are not over-exposed to sudden changes in the price of energy. However, many smaller suppliers struggle to get access to these longer-term contracts. The big vertically integrated companies are in a better position because they can, in effect, hedge their supply against their own generation. By introducing a pool, we would effectively ban self-supply, whereby energy companies can generate energy and sell it to themselves. If any company wanted a longer-term deal, it would have to secure it through the open market. What better way is there to improve liquidity than to insist that everything is sold in an open marketplace?
Alongside reform to the energy market itself, we must put in place a regulatory system that protects consumers. The views of the Opposition on the existing regulator, Ofgem, are well known. In our view, it has failed to use the powers that it already has to enforce its own rules. It has turned down new powers—on trading, for example—and time after time it has ducked the opportunity to get tough with the energy companies. Today I reiterate our policy: the next Labour Government will abolish Ofgem and create a tough new watchdog with the teeth to protect the public.
I recognise that that is not, unfortunately, the policy of this Government. Let me contrast their proposals on Ofgem with ours. Clause 117 will enable fines levied by Ofgem to be paid directly to consumers rather than going to the Treasury, as happens now. In itself, this is a perfectly reasonable change to make. Consumers who have been mistreated, not the Treasury, should receive redress. Over the past 10 years, the Treasury has received just over £30 million in fines from Ofgem. Evenly spread across all households, that works out at about 10p per household per year. However, according to research by the independent price comparison website, energyhelpline.com, the mismatch between the prices that energy companies pay for the energy they buy and what they charge their customers for it means that last year alone consumers could have missed out on savings of over £1 billion pounds—more than £50 per household.
The real issue is not about a redress framework for when companies get caught out misleading their customers or putting people on the wrong tariff but about creating a fair market in the first place. The first solution is to make the market more competitive and transparent, which our proposal for a pool would do. Given the dominance of the big six energy companies, their huge regional market shares, and the low numbers of people switching supplier, the second solution must be to create a regulator with the power to correct the existing market failure and force the energy companies to pass on savings to consumers when wholesale costs fall.
This Bill must provide a pathway to the world we hope to pass on to future generations. It must put the consumer first, providing the fair prices and fair dealing that they have demanded for too long, with a guard dog for a regulator, not a poodle. It must stand up to the energy giants, providing the means and the will to make the energy producers the servants of our nation, not its masters. It cannot be a fudge to hold together disparate factions of the coalition until an election; it must be a roadmap for our nation’s destiny beyond our own lifetimes. I urge this House not to pass a law that is forgotten in a few years but to pass the legislation that we need and of which future generations will be proud—legislation for one nation, but for many generations ahead. I commend our amendment to the House.
Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In this context, I point out that my passionate conviction that more urgent action is needed to address climate change and to cut greenhouse gas emissions from both the energy and transport industries was formed in 1993, when I had ministerial responsibility for these issues, and that the financial interests listed in the register were all acquired more than a decade later, after I left my party’s Front Bench.
I welcome the Bill, although its introduction is overdue. To keep the lights on, Britain needs huge new investment in generation and transmission capacity. To make energy costs affordable, we need a step change in energy efficiency and improved competition in both the wholesale and retail markets. To achieve our carbon emissions reduction commitments, we need the right incentives for low-carbon energy.
I welcome the Government’s acceptance of some of the recommendations made by my Committee—the Energy and Climate Change Committee—particularly the inclusion in the Bill of the aims of electricity market reform and the change to the counterparty arrangements for contracts for difference. I regret, however, that the Bill still needs Government amendments, particularly in relation to energy efficiency, which should be right at the heart of energy policy, not an afterthought tacked on under pressure from outsiders.
Obviously, I cannot deal with the whole Bill in the space of six minutes, so I will stick to a few headlines. To secure investment at the lowest cost to consumers, absolute clarity of policy is needed. That clarity does not exist if different Government Departments put out different messages or, even worse, if different messages emerge from within the Department of Energy and Climate Change itself. Mixed messages create uncertainty.
Investors seek higher returns to compensate for the extra risk of investing in long-term assets in a country where energy policy appears to be subject to short-term changes. That is one of the reasons we need a carbon-intensity target in legislation. The need for that target is supported by my Committee, by the Government’s statutory adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, and by a large number of companies. It is even accepted by the Government themselves, but they will not decide what that target should be until 2016.
Delaying that decision for four years leaves investors wondering whether energy policy will be based on the gas strategy, which envisages a possible increase in the fourth carbon budget and the construction of 37 GW-worth of new gas-fired power stations, or on the energy mix rightly favoured by the Department. Running 37 GW of unabated gas at more than a third of its potential would end any hope of cutting carbon intensity from electricity generation to even 100 grams per kWh, let alone the 50 grams per kWh advocated by the Committee on Climate Change.
Dame Joan Ruddock
Does the hon. Gentleman agree, like me, with the finding by the Committee on Climate Change that, largely as a result of the rising price of gas, a virtually carbon-free sector by 2030 would cost consumers £23 billion less than relying predominantly on gas in the 2020s? It is, therefore, of huge benefit to consumers, as well as to companies that want to invest.
Mr Yeo
I noted the views of the Committee on Climate Change with great interest. I also note that, up to now, both Government parties have accepted its recommendations without alteration.
Deciding the intensity target now, or even in 2014, when the fourth carbon budget will be reviewed, would helpfully clarify the position. Alternatively, emissions performance standards could be amended to curtail the operation of unabated gas plants after 2030, instead of allowing grandfather rights for those power stations until 2045.
I stress that my Committee was one of the first to call for Britain’s shale gas reserves to be exploited, but basing energy policy on the assumption that Britain has decades’ worth of cheap, recoverable shale gas reserves before a single flow test has been completed in this country would be reckless. Shale gas is a game changer in America, but there is no certainty that similar benefits in the UK would be so dramatic. Therefore, particularly as a result of high transport costs, the price of gas in both Europe and Asia may be significantly different and possibly higher than that in America for decades to come. Gas will and must play an important part in our energy mix, but we need low-carbon technologies as well. Carbon capture and storage has huge potential benefits, but there is no guarantee that it will be available at an economic price.
The model in DECC’s “Pathways to 2050” helpfully shows how hard it will be to achieve emissions reductions without new nuclear power stations. To bring new nuclear and other low-carbon technologies forward, we need clarity on strike prices. I accept that, initially, strike prices must be set centrally, but I hope that we can move to an auction system before too long. Auctioning would allow the benefit of cost reductions in the more mature low-carbon technologies to be captured for the benefit of consumers much more quickly than if strike prices are decided centrally in perpetuity.
Turning to energy efficiency and the demand side, we must be hard-headed about value for money. I commend the success in energy-rich Texas where, on some days, 30% of the electricity is generated by wind power without any subsidy at all. As has been shown in Texas, demand-side measures can reduce the need for capacity market payments, even if they do not eliminate that need entirely. Better incentives for electricity storage or a bigger strategic reserve are other ways of addressing problems of capacity and peak demand. I hope that the Government amendments will reflect the most cost-effective way of tackling those issues.
We also need more clarity about how the incentives for energy efficiency will be funded. If the cost of capacity market payments will be met from outside the LCF total—I am sorry, but I am trying to do this in six minutes—surely the cost of energy efficiency payments could come from the same pool. The LCF is the levy control framework.
I firmly believe that countries that decarbonise their energy and transport industries and their built environment will enjoy a huge competitive economic advantage in the long term. Some low-carbon technology involves a small upfront cost compared with fossil fuel-based alternatives, but even those costs will fall significantly as economies of scale are achieved. As concerns about climate change become more acute, as I believe they will in the next 15 years, and the carbon price rises, driven either by emissions trading or carbon taxes, investment in low-carbon electricity will prove to be not only right environmentally, but beneficial economically.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chairman of my Select Committee, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), on his contribution. I believe that our Select Committee has been more than diligent in calling the Government to account. Unfortunately, the Government have not exactly been forthcoming in giving us the information that we require. We deliberated on the Bill some time ago and had five weeks of pre-legislative scrutiny. That is roughly seven weeks shorter than the time in which anybody else has ever been asked to do pre-legislative scrutiny. As such, it put us under a great deal of pressure.
We are told that the Government will table a number of amendments to the Bill. I appreciate that this is a very technical Bill and that the Government are not sharp enough to fill in the details. The Minister was right that the Bill was long in the making. We expected to get it some time last year for our scrutiny. The Government have had plenty of time to put together what they require, but—here we go again—they are going to table a load of amendments that Members in this Chamber will not be able to scrutinise or talk about. That is not good enough. I believe that, as the elected Chamber, we should be able to scrutinise, ask questions and get answers. I do not believe that we are getting the answers.
We have to look at the Bill in general terms. In the short time that I have, I want to talk about my pet subject: the consumer—the person who has to pay the bill—and what we are going to do to help them. I do not believe that the consumer is getting a good deal in this day and age. In fact, they are getting a deplorable deal. The Government are part of the problem because in Ofgem they do not have a body that helps them by setting out where they can call the companies to account.
Will the Secretary of State consider whether some form of windfall tax could be written into the Bill? The Labour party would be happy to table an amendment for such a tax, based on excessive profits. I believe that at a time of austerity, energy companies—particularly the big six—should not be making excessive profits or receiving billions of pounds from the Government to develop other forms of energy without providing a return for that money. The Bill should therefore include a measure that would, perhaps, allow those companies only to make profits that are in line with inflation at this point in time. We could then look at the issue again in a few years’ time. Those companies must be held to account, and the only way to do that is by hitting them in the pocket.
Sir Robert Smith
There is a real frustration with the prices people pay and we must ensure that we have the best market possible. We also need huge investment, but that must make a return on its capital. Otherwise, it will go to another country. Does the hon. Gentleman think that his proposal could drive away that investment?
John Robertson
I agree to a certain extent with my hon. Friend—I will call him that because we both sit on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which on this matter is non-party political and we support each other—but energy companies owe it to their customers to try to keep prices down as much as possible at this time. My hon. Friend may remember that the Committee wanted to consider—or, rather, could not consider—the companies’ accounts. Who knows what they make? In many cases they refused to give us information because they did not want their competitors to know what was going on. I am sorry but we need an open and honest industry.
I chair the all-party group on nuclear energy, and I tried to create an industry that was open and honest although it did not have a reputation for that. Energy companies must show their books and let people see what they are doing. The Secretary of State could not tell me what the companies’ profits really are. The companies tell us what they think their profits are, but we can be sure that the information will not be correct and that they will be earning a lot more money than they admit. Multinational companies in other areas do not even pay tax in this country. Are the energy companies paying what they should?
David Mowat
I am excited at being given way to, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. My point is similar to that of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). What return on capital employed would the hon. Gentleman consider reasonable for such an organisation? Does he believe that anything in those companies’ accounts demonstrates that the return on the capital employed that they have been making is unreasonable? What is a reasonable figure?
John Robertson
That would be a good question if I knew the turnover of those companies. They say that their turnover is roughly 2%, but I do not think that is correct. We must look in depth at what their profits really are and how much money they actually spend. The money that energy companies receive from the Government to invest in other forms of energy never appears in their accounts; it does not seem to be part of the equation. That money comes not from shareholders or the companies themselves but from a third party: the Government. I want to know exactly what that money is for and what we have had as a return. I have not seen a very good return, and in particular I do not believe that money given to the renewables onshore wind industry provided value for money. It has even been a drawback, because we should have been spending money on experimentation and research and development in other areas. If we had done that, we might be in a better place today.
However, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) is right and it is imperative that we get investment. We must show that our industry not only does a good job but can be trusted and is reliable. I do not think the word “trust” can currently be attributed to the big six energy companies and we must look at that.
Ofgem needs to be beefed up, and if it needs to be replaced, we should do that; I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) would like that. I am not against the idea, but those jobs in Glasgow are important to my constituency and others in the area and I would like to keep them. I would also like to give Ofgem staff the power to do something—to get out there and threaten those companies—but they cannot currently push people about.
The companies have put prices up three times in the past two years, which is ridiculous, and they want to put them up further. The main debates in Committee will be on how much the strike price will be and what contracts for difference will mean to companies, but the dearer things get, the more they will cost the general public. We do not do enough for the customer, and, as the Secretary of State knows, I believe we do not do an awful lot for the people who cannot help themselves—those who do not have access to computers and cheque accounts. We must see how we can help them.
In my short speech, I have covered a lot of matters. I will support the Bill and look forward to being in opposition again with the Secretary of State.
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)
At the outset, may I put on record my new role as a visiting professor at the university of Edinburgh, which does outstanding work on the energy sector? My mantra as a Minister was that the fundamental building block of energy policy is energy security. My view was that the Minister would probably stay in post if the cost of energy went up by slightly more than anticipated or if we missed a few of our carbon targets, but that he would be sacked if the lights went out. He would probably be sacked by John Humphrys on the “Today” programme and gone by lunchtime, but nobody would know because their radios would not be working. I had not taken account in that thinking of the fact that the Minister could be sacked in any case.
I want to put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister for the privilege of having the role that I had for seven years in opposition and in government and for the chance to work with two outstanding Secretaries of State and world-class civil servants. It was an immense privilege and the most rewarding part of my political and adult life.
The Bill is an extremely good one—I would say that, because I was deeply involved in many of its elements. It deals with critical issues such as affordability and nuclear regulation, but at its heart is investment. As we have heard, we know pretty clearly when much of our power plant—coal and nuclear—will close down. We now face a race to get the new investment in place. If we do not, at around the second half of this decade, we will face a critical energy challenge. That does not necessarily mean that the lights will go out, but prices will spike, particularly for heavy energy users. Therefore, the package of measures proposed in the Bill is essential to long-term energy security. It will enable us to bring forward new investment, recognising that the companies concerned have a choice about where they invest in the world, and therefore that we need to make this a more attractive place.
With a combination of the Bill, the gas strategy and the autumn statement, I hope that we can begin to get the debate back to a sensible place. It is profoundly damaging to investors to have an absurd debate in which people can be pro-renewables only if they are anti-gas, and pro-gas only if they are anti-renewables. That is damaging to investors, and introduces the new problem of political risk. One of my goals as a Minister was to try to take energy policy out of politics. The investment decisions are expected to last for 30, 40 or 50 years and more, and people want as much long-term clarity as possible. Therefore, cross-party agreement, including agreement within the coalition, and as much agreement as possible with the devolved Governments are integral to delivering that long-term strategy.
Political risk has a cost. It puts up the cost of borrowing. If we need £100 billion-plus of new investment, an increase in the cost of capital of just 1% will cost the consumers of this country an extra £1 billion a year on their bills. Ministers are therefore beholden to find ways in which we can try to ensure that we bring down those costs. The reality is that there is a broad consensus across the House. Most of us, though not everyone, want nuclear as part of the mix. Thanks to the work of Lord Hutton, the current leader of the Labour party, the two Secretaries of State and a broad coalition, this is now one of the most exciting and positive places in the world for new nuclear investment.
It makes sense, of course, for us to harness our own resources and take forward renewable development. If it is right for most of the oil and gas-rich countries in the world—Norway, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia—to look at how to harness their own renewables, it has to be right for us. If it is right in China—almost half the onshore wind turbines installed in the world last year were installed in China, and they would not have done so without an economic case—we, too, have to look at the economic benefits.
Carbon capture and storage gives a new opportunity for coal to be a critical part of the mix. Our coal industry has an extraordinary heritage, and I am personally extremely attached to it. I think, however, that we also recognise that much of that investment cannot happen before the end of the decade and that we therefore need to have new gas in the mix and policies that will encourage new investment in that sector.
David Mowat
I agree with my hon. Friend on the need for consensus. Was he therefore as surprised as I was to hear the shadow Secretary of State attack the 450 gram limit for gas, which by implication means that the position of shadow Front Benchers appears to be that we should build no unabated gas stations? If that is their position, it is an extraordinary one.
Charles Hendry
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I well remember debating a previous Energy Bill while in opposition and trying to persuade the then Minister of the case for an emissions performance standard, and her saying robustly that it was not part of the process at all. I am glad that we have made some progress, but the key issue is for the emissions performance standard to be a driver of investment, not a barrier. By providing long-term clarity, that is part of what it does in this process.
If we are to build new gas plants, it would, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change says, be a mistake automatically to assume that they will all be powered by our own shale gas. We have to recognise that more gas may mean more imported gas. I would like further consideration of what that will do for gas storage. What do we need to do to enhance our gas storage? I hope that the Public Bill Committee will address that when it goes into the detail.
There are a couple of other issues. I agree that there needs to be clarity in relation to energy efficiency. That should be at the heart of the Bill. We need finally to address the issue of a long-term decommissioning target. I will not vote for the Labour amendment, but that does not mean that there is not a significant amount of industry support for it. Right across the sector—in nuclear, renewables and even the hydrocarbon sector—people want long-term clarity. It is therefore right that this is debated and we try to find consensus.
It is often said that ministerial careers all end in tears and sadness; mine did not. The Bill is critically important to our long-term energy infrastructure, and I am very proud to have had the chance to be a part of that process.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the wise words of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry).
The Bill, as its long title states, is intended to reform the energy market by encouraging low-carbon electricity generation. Essentially, the Bill should ensure that we have the mechanisms and regulations at our disposal not just to keep the market working well, with a secure electricity supply and reasonable prices for customers, but that that is done over the next 20 years within a framework of decreasing carbon emissions from all energy-producing plants that makes every drop of energy go as far as possible through efficiencies, good management in the system and, just as importantly, by removing from the system as much demand as possible, so that emissions are avoided by not producing additional energy in the first place.
The present energy market arrangements—the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements system—have served us well in some ways. They have ensured that a capacity margin has been constantly available to guarantee supplies and at some stages of its existence has applied downward pressure on prices. However, the world has changed radically since the present market arrangements were first introduced more than a decade ago. Prices are going up, not down, massive amounts of plant are being retired from the system in the next few years and their replacements will need to be far lower carbon than the retiring plants. Most importantly, the trading arrangements of the market are carbon blind and do not, in themselves, advantage low carbon over high carbon; it is left to other devices, such as the renewable energy obligation, and subsequent work with the market to do that.
If the ambition of the Bill is to be realised, three things will be central. First, we cannot in the end use the devices of the past market reliably to achieve the goals set out in the Bill for the future market, yet, remarkably, the Bill claims to reform the energy market without reforming its mechanisms. Real reform, such as the introduction of a pool system to make the wholesale selling and purchasing of energy for retail fully transparent and accessible for all, is wholly absent.
Secondly, we need a sense of where we are supposed to go with the encouragement of low-carbon electricity. What does that phrase mean in practice? Is it just a warm aspiration that can be set aside when the going gets a bit tough? If it is not, it seems essential that a target level of emissions should be included in the Bill, but there is no such target. The Secretary of State favours a target, but I am afraid that we have a bit of a problem with what we might call Liberal Democrat capture and storage. [Interruption.] A glass of water for the Secretary of State, please. During the passage of the Bill, I hope that a coalition of people who believe that there should be a target can get together to rectify that, regardless of party stances.
Thirdly, even if there were a target in the Bill, measures elsewhere in it will still take us in precisely the opposite direction and make its aspiration redundant. They need removing or replacing. I strongly believe that the Bill needs to do what it sets out to do in the long title. We need a robust framework that can guide the next stage of deployment of renewable and sustainable energy and that can establish effective mechanisms for those plants, once deployed, to bring their energy to market. We need a market that can deal with new and existing producers fairly and consistently, so that the goal of a well-balanced marketplace encouraging new entrants, rewarding and supporting the best management of energy and celebrating the removal of demand from the system as the ultimate way to decarbonise it can be achieved.
The Bill does some of those things, but, overall, in its present state and with its manifest large gaps, it is not fit for the purpose that it has to advance. These shortcomings simply have to be remedied, because we need the stability and certainty of a coherent and fair market system to encourage and sustain the unprecedented investment in our plant, our networks and our neighbourhoods that will be necessary for an enduring low-carbon energy environment. The regime needs to instil confidence and last for perhaps twice as long as a central system as its predecessor did. The measures in the Bill, many of which I accept are complex and difficult to get right, fail that test at present.
The Bill needs extensive surgery, and in the limited time available perhaps I can list one or two of the major operations that need to be rostered. Are the arrangements for securing a counterparty to contract for difference deals really right? Is there a potential conflict of interest in the body that the Bill selects to be both the system operator and the delivery body for CFDs? Is the proposed transition period between the end of the renewable obligation and the emergence of CFDs workable? Should there be a longer period of changeover and a better opportunity for next stage renewable developers to work with renewable obligation certificates?
Does the ending of an obligation for renewable power purchase and the disappearance of power purchase agreements not place potentially insuperable obstacles in the way of independent generators of low-carbon energy bringing their output to market? Are the administrative arrangements for the setting of a strike price in the Bill not so weighted as to give an advantage to new nuclear that they risk undermining the veracity of other strike price arrangements and the possibility of meaningful auctions in the future? Is a market-wide capacity payment system not just a recipe for paying too much bill payer money to produce overcapacity, when better, cheaper arrangements such as strategic reserve arrangements exist?
Why are there no demand-side reduction measures in the Bill and why will any measures as yet undetermined by the Government appear only at the very end of the legislative process? Why does the level at which energy performance standards are set effectively exempt all gas throughout its operational life?
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I welcome this Energy Bill and will speak about the provisions dealing with carbon capture and storage. I pleased to see this exciting new technology incorporated in the Bill, but clause 41, entitled “Interpretation of Chapter 8”, defines CCS technology as
“technology for…capturing carbon dioxide…that has been produced by, or in connection with, generation of electricity on a commercial scale…transporting such carbon dioxide”
and
“disposing of such carbon dioxide…by way of permanent storage”.
I am concerned that this definition is too narrow to cover the benefits deliverable from emerging CCS projects. There is the obvious one—where all or part of the energy is delivered as heat rather than electricity—but I am more concerned to ensure that industrial carbon capture and storage is covered too. I know that the Bill is targeted at generation and the market, but I do not expect that there will be another Bill to cover wider aspects of energy and CCS, so I feel that the relevant clauses must be properly structured.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that the Government have made a savage 80% cut in investment in CCS?
Ian Swales
As far as I am aware, the £1 billion that was promised for CCS is still on the table. I am not sure where that 80% figure comes from, although I would be disappointed if what the hon. Lady said was true. [Interruption.] I hope the Minister will respond to that later.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)
Let me be quite clear: the £1 billion competition is entirely as my hon. Friend described it—it is in place and on target.
Ian Swales
I thank the Minister for that clarification; that was my understanding too.
I raise this issue because of the importance of the proposed Teesside carbon capture and storage network to my constituency, the local economy and, I truly believe, to the national economy. I was delighted by the recent announcement that placed the project in the UK shortlist of two for the European competition and the shortlist of four for the UK competition. I am obviously disappointed that it seems that the UK projects will not be supported in round 1 of the European competition. It was notable that the UK announcements—and, indeed, the European ones—simply listed the technology and electrical output of each project, whereas the Teesside project included the potential to bring back International Power’s mothballed 1.8 GW power station at Wilton. However, power is not the main driver of the project. Teesside has 18 of the top 30 carbon emitters in the country, excluding power stations.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to my Teesside neighbour for giving way. He talks about carbon capture. Does he share my concern about the lack of detail in the Bill on which companies will be exempt from the cost of contracts for difference? For example, it would appear that the Sahaviriya Steel Industries works in his constituency were not operating throughout the 2005 to 2011 period to quality for an exemption. What will happen to them? Will we need amendments to protect the steel works on Teesside?
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There are issues about how some of the calculations have been made, given that companies were coming and going through the reference period, and he raises an obvious example.
The SSI steel works in Redcar alone account for around 1% of the UK’s carbon emissions. Supporting the Teesside project with an oversized network will therefore not only be good for decarbonising energy generation, but have the potential to decarbonise energy-intensive industry. In doing so, the project will protect existing industry—that includes steel, fertilisers and petrochemicals—and make it more competitive, and also make the area a magnet for future investment in both energy generation and industry. May I therefore gently remind Ministers that their Department is responsible not just for energy, but—the clue is in the name—for climate change? I also ask that the definition of CCS be reworded to ensure that it covers the wider opportunities that the technology represents. Meeting our carbon reduction goals requires action on all major emissions.
The Energy Bill and the move to a low-carbon economy are welcome on Teesside. In fact, the area is already something of a Disneyland for green technology. We have Ensus running Europe’s largest bioethanol plant, a £60 million anaerobic digestion power-generation unit run by Northumbrian Water, SembCorp’s Wilton biomass power station, SITA’s waste-to-energy plants, the pyrolysis of waste plants being constructed by Air Products, and 27 wind turbines being constructed just off Redcar by EDF, which I can see from my bedroom window.
The Energi Coast consortium in the north-east, consisting of more than 20 companies, has already invested £400 million, and is ready to exploit the offshore wind and marine energy sectors. I should also mention Redcar and Cleveland college, one of the first colleges in the country to be accredited for the provision of green deal training. Future plans include a biomass power station at Teesport, which has attracted Korean investment; a new community power station based on aeroplane engines; a plant for the pyrolysis of tyres, generating energy and fuel oil; more anaerobic digestion plants, one of which received money from round 3 of the regional growth fund; and sub-stations to deal with half the output of the proposed giant offshore wind farm at Dogger Bank, which are likely to be in my constituency.
I am pleased that we appear to have reached the end of the consultation period, and that there seems to have been an outbreak of agreement between DECC and the Treasury, because it is important for us to move quickly. There are many opportunities for business growth and technical leadership, but the rest of the world is not standing still. It is time to be bold and clear, and to get going. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will note my comments on the clauses relating to carbon capture and storage.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me begin by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which relates to my involvement—on an unpaid basis—with the Edinburgh community and energy co-operative.
I strongly support the call in Labour’s amendment for a commitment to the 2030 decarbonisation target to be included in the Bill. Before the Secretary of State leaves the Chamber, let me say that although he felt obliged to attack our amendment, he clearly supports that call. Indeed, he presented some good arguments for the inclusion of the target. For instance, he told us that discussions and negotiations with National Grid would shortly be under way, and suggested that the fact that there would be a decision in 2016 will strengthen his case in the negotiations, but his negotiating hand would be even stronger if National Grid knew now that the target was included in the Bill. I hope that he will work wonders with his colleagues in the coalition. If our reasoned amendment is not passed, an amendment could no doubt be tabled at a later stage.
There are other reasons for including the decarbonisation target in the Bill. As has already been mentioned, there is still considerable uncertainty in the industry about the direction of Government policy. That uncertainty has been caused primarily by the different messages coming from the Government, as even Conservative Members have pointed out. It does not relate only to renewables, although the impact has been particularly obvious in that instance. Many people work in the renewables industry in my constituency, and what they say leaves me in no doubt that uncertainty about the direction of Government policy is having an effect on future investment programmes. Anything that the Government can do to emphasise that certainty and clarity exist in their policy would be extremely important.
There have been some positive steps, such as the recent launch of the green investment bank and its initial programme, but much more needs to be done to provide clarity, not just for the purpose of encouraging future investment but in many other areas. A lack of certainty and clarity in Government policy will have an impact on what the Bill is trying to do as a whole. The proposals for a capacity mechanism are one example. The more uncertainty there is and the greater the consequent lack of long-term investment, the more need there is likely to be for increased capacity to deal with ups and downs in supply and demand; and the greater the need, the more that capacity is likely to cost the consumer at the end of the day. Uncertainty about policy will also affect the ability of the Government—or, if Members prefer the term, the counterparty—to negotiate the arrangements for contract for difference, and, again, it is consumers who will ultimately suffer as a result when prices rise.
Let us hope that the Government soon provide some clarity and consistency, and one way of doing that would be to accept our proposal for the decarbonisation target to be included in the Bill at some stage.
I also want to talk about the effect of these measures on Scotland. That is, of course, important to me and other MPs representing Scottish constituencies, but it is also important for the UK as a whole. England and Scotland benefit in different ways from the current situation; Scotland has greater renewables resources, and Scottish energy producers have access to the larger market in England.
There is uncertainty because the renewables obligation in Scotland is devolved and, unsurprisingly, the Scottish Government have not said how they intend to proceed as they do not yet know what will happen across the UK as a whole. I urge the Government to expedite their discussions with the Scottish Government about the arrangements for Scotland after 2017. The renewables sector is particularly important for the Scottish economy, and both the Scottish and UK Governments must ensure that renewables are supported across the UK. Already, some 11,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on the renewables industry, and there is the potential for many more such jobs to be created, but lack of certainty and confidence will threaten that. I hope that, either today or later, Ministers can give an indication of the state of play in these negotiations with the Scottish Government and the possible implications of the Bill’s measures for Scotland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. So as to accommodate all Members who wish to speak, the time limit for contributions is now reduced to five minutes.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I support the Bill and applaud the momentum that has been built up towards achieving a secure and stable low-carbon electricity supply to see us through the coming decades. I also want to pay tribute to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who spoke earlier. He contributed an immense amount to this Bill, and I know that there is immense respect for him in the industry.
In Eggborough and Drax, I have two of the country’s largest coal-fired power stations, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Both of those stations were built to the highest standards by the Central Electricity Generating Board and are therefore still operating effectively well beyond their planned life. Indeed, it is a measure of our country’s past engineering skills that these plants are in their fourth and fifth decade and are still playing such an important role for the country.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that energy mix plays a vital role in energy security, and Drax and Eggborough contribute to that both for our region and across the country?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Drax, Eggborough, and Ferrybridge on our border, play an important part in making sure the lights are kept on.
Fossil fuel stations such as Eggborough can be converted from coal to sustainable biomass, which is an accepted form of renewable energy. Indeed, Drax is already being converted. That is being done in response to policy demands and is a move fully supported by DECC. It will also be helped by the Bill’s proposed transitional arrangements. Such a move will not only help ensure that the UK meets its 2020 carbon reduction targets, but will act as a vital bridge during the country’s transition to a lower carbon future, one in which I can envisage a new generation of more efficient—and, ideally, combined heat and power—plants being designed and built. They might be similar to those already in existence in Scandinavia, and they will benefit from what by then will be a more mature, sustainable global biomass supply chain.
Independent power generators such as Eggborough and Drax provide the country with flexible, dispatchable generation and, as a result of the measures in this Bill, I trust that that will continue. Such generation is essential not only to balance the intermittency and inefficiency of large-scale wind generation, which, in my view—perhaps controversially—is blighting countryside areas such as mine in Selby and Ainsty, but to keep the country’s lights on. I refer to the recent Ofgem report, which estimates that the capacity margin in UK generation will fall to 4% in 2015. That is equivalent to the full output of Eggborough or half that of Drax.
In support of such biomass conversion and to pre-empt any detractors, after much inquiry I am convinced not only that large quantities of biomass can be sourced sustainably—admittedly from overseas, like most of our present coal supply—but that by revitalising redundant plantations in, for example, the south-east USA, we will increase the carbon uptake across the forest landscape. By providing a commercial use for the vast area of beetle-killed boreal forest in Canada, an area the size of England, which is growing year on year, we can help to turn this emitter of harmful greenhouse gases into a new carbon sink through clearance and replanting.
It can be argued that by converting our coal-fired stations to burn sustainable biomass the UK would be part of a global regeneration programme for the lungs of the world. However, perhaps I had better move on from our possible global contribution to something more immediate and, for me, more local. The two coal-fired stations in my constituency currently employ thousands of people across the region. Those jobs are essential and they must be safeguarded.
I am delighted to see that Drax has commenced its initial conversion programme and am pleased to report that Eggborough is now shovel ready. Those conversion programmes are creating and will continue to create essential employment opportunities in the hard-pressed construction industry and will also provide long-term infrastructure improvements to our ports and railways, a legacy that will last long beyond the time those conversions are life-expired. I am heartened by elements of the Bill and by DECC’s stated support for full conversion programmes such as those at Eggborough and Drax, but I am aware—and so is the Minister—that some important issues about the funding of such projects remain outstanding.
We must not lose the opportunity to use our proven generation assets, which are already connected to the grid—assets that we as taxpayers originally paid for—to maintain a stable electricity supply and bridge the capacity squeeze we now so clearly face. Additionally, we must not squander the immediate potential to commence large-scale civil engineering projects in the UK. The combined value of the Eggborough and Drax projects is more than £1 billion and such investments will secure thousands of existing jobs and create many more in Selby and Ainsty and across the north.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State that the Bill certainly has not been rushed, but although I support its main thrust—I have been arguing for it for many years—it is underdeveloped and needs to be developed further.
Electricity market reform would have been carried out by any Government who had won the election. It is the natural next step and a lot of work has been done in the past to establish a low-carbon economy. The Climate Change Act 2008—a very important piece of legislation—and other Acts in the previous Parliament and the one before it, paved the way for this Bill, so I shall support its main thrust, even though it is under development. I agree with the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), that we need to build consensus on these big energy issues. Indeed, he extended many of the issues on which the previous Government moved forward.
There has been a hiatus and a very public disagreement between the Treasury and DECC, which has been too obvious and has caused uncertainty. When I speak to a number of groups, including non-governmental organisations and industrialists, they all say that they want that political certainty in the future. It is incumbent on us all to build it so that we have a safe and secure energy supply for the future that meets low-carbon targets, which are set at all levels of government. I welcome the provisions from that perspective.
Hon. Members know that I am pro-nuclear, pro-renewables and pro-energy efficiency. I see no contradiction in holding those three views, because we need to move forward. We need the base load electricity that nuclear, clean coal and gas can provide, if the capture and storage systems are in place, along with renewables.
I have a few questions for Ministers. I cite the CBI, which has lobbied us heavily and joined a broad coalition. Not even the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) could call the CBI left-wing academics—there may be one or two, but the CBI is very much the voice of business, and business is asking for decarbonisation targets. It is a mistake for the Government not to put a clear message about decarbonisation in the Bill and not to honour the Climate Change Act in full. Having a target of 2030—[Interruption.] The other Minister, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) asks which Act. The Climate Change Act was probably the biggest piece of legislation on these things and the Bill should have signposts to secure—[Interruption.] Business is telling me this. The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. Perhaps he does not want to listen to business, but if he wants to make an intervention, I should be pleased to take one. The business sector is worried about uncertainty.
I have some specific questions. Businesses, particularly the independents, are expressing concerns to me about access to the marketplace in the future. They are concerned about lack of feed-in tariffs for smaller companies; in particular, those below 50 MW. If we decentralise the grid, we shall need a support mechanism as well as a grid for big industry. I do not think that subsidy is a dirty word; we need support mechanisms in the interests of the country so that we can produce the energy we need for business to survive. Will the Minister reconsider the position on feed-in tariffs for smaller businesses? The Select Committee looked at the issue, and the evidence that they are needed is overwhelming.
Will the DECC team look again the renewable obligations transition period? There is a danger of losing investment if we do not have continuity. The contracts for difference could play a big part. I welcome the £7.6 billion that has been set aside under the levy.
I welcome the basis for the Bill, but the lack of decarbonisation targets is a weakness. I think we should have them. The Secretary of State wanted them, as did industry. That is why we tabled the reasoned amendment. I want a pro-nuclear, low-carbon economy to be the future, and I want the Bill to be the mechanism that takes it forward.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
It is hard to overstate the importance of the Bill, but sometimes we need to pause and get back to basics, and remind ourselves what drives the tensions at the heart of strategic UK energy policy.
Traditionally, DECC has had two priorities: to keep the lights on and to do so at an affordable price. In recent years, a third priority has been shoehorned into the mix—decarbonising the sector. It is fair to say that at times the decarbonisation agenda butts up against the energy security and affordability issue. Much of the current debate is about how we manage that conflict. I am of the view that decarbonisation is vital, but that it cannot be considered in isolation. We cannot say at any point that there will be decarbonisation at any price. Indeed, when the Secretary of State came to the Select Committee last week he conceded that point.
Another problem in the UK is investment, which has already been mentioned by various Members. A fifth of our capacity will be gone by 2020; 12 GW of oil and old coal generation will be offline by 2015, and most of the remaining coal and older gas plant that stays online after 2015 will not be able to run at full capacity for various reasons. Nuclear power plants are coming offline without life extension; all bar one will be gone by 2023. I am pleased to see those life extensions coming forward, but the long and short of it is that we have an oft-quoted £110 billion investment challenge by 2020. That is a huge investment challenge.
Ofgem threw a hand-grenade into the debate in October, when it reported that we face a very real risk of power shortages in just four years’ time, when our capacity—our overhead—goes from 14% to 4%. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) put that in context by saying that 4% is just Eggborough power station coming offline, which I find quite frightening. That is why the Bill is vital, and that is why it needs to be passed, and passed quickly. I am disappointed that the Opposition, who apparently support the Bill, have managed to word their reasoned amendment in such a way that they could end up voting against Second Reading.
Dan Byles
A reasonable amendment, is it?
There are investors out there who want to invest in the UK. Members of the Energy and Climate Change Committee have spoken to them. I have personally spoken to numerous private equity companies and pension funds. There are billions of pounds sitting, burning holes in investors’ pockets, but they are holding back because they need to see the detail in the Bill. There are a number of issues that we kicked around in pre-legislative scrutiny on the Select Committee, around the counterparty and the detail of the contracts for difference. I am very pleased that DECC has moved considerably on the counterparty, and I think has taken on board many of industry’s concerns, but some still remain about exactly how the contracts for difference will work, where in the investment cycle those contracts will be awarded and the route to market for small generators.
Nigel Adams
Does my hon. Friend agree that the contracts for difference must be absolutely defined and clear to allow such investment to go ahead?
Dan Byles
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point very precisely. In fact, most of the arguments about the counterparty were prompted by exactly that. The contracts need to be bankable. They need a robust and clear counterparty who, to be blunt, may be sued if necessary, and has deep enough pockets; and at the end of the day, that really means the Government. We know that the counterparty will be Government-owned. It is still not entirely clear whether it will be underwritten entirely by the Government, but those are some of the details that we shall be teasing out in the Public Bill Committee. These are the issues that investors are looking at.
There has been much discussion of the 2030 target. We discussed it at length in the Select Committee. Some investors out there are calling for it. We also had investors who came before the Committee who—even though some supported it—said, “For God’s sake, do not delay the Energy Bill by arguing about it, because in the short to medium term the 2030 decarbonisation target is not the key issue that investors are looking at as a driver for investment. The key issues are the details of electricity reform, the contract for difference, the counterparty and so on.”
Before I finish, I want to speak briefly about costs. I mentioned at the start that I do not believe that we can decarbonise at any cost, and to be fair I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would argue that we could. It is important that the decarbonisation agenda—a very important agenda, which I support—proceeds at a sustainable pace. I sometimes get concerned when, as a member of the Select Committee, sitting around the table with representatives of Government, industry and academia, I find myself thinking that there is an empty chair at that table—that of the consumer. We are not having enough of a conversation with Mrs Jones in Acacia avenue about what we are doing in this place, and the impact that will have on her electricity bills. Because let us face it: structurally higher energy bills not only have a wider cost to the economy, but every pound that Mrs Jones spends on her electricity bills, she is not spending in Comet—and look what happened to Comet. Higher energy bills have a dynamic impact on the economy, and we need to ensure that the decisions we make here do not unnecessarily add to those bills.
In summary, the Bill is vital. If we want to keep the lights on and attract the huge levels of investments that we need, we cannot be seen to be bickering in a partisan way in this place. We cannot hold up the Energy Bill arguing about a 2030 target. There are other opportunities to talk about that target; it is still a long way off. The Bill has managed to unite the CBI and RenewableUK in its support. That is quite a feat.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who is no longer in his place, by saying that this is not about a choice between renewables and gas. We need a balanced energy policy. We need gas and renewables and nuclear, and we need to decarbonise our electricity sector and, eventually, our entire economy, but at an affordable pace and an affordable rate.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
At the time of the autumn statement the Government’s gas strategy was also published. That perhaps tells us why there is no decarbonisation target—merely the ability in the Bill to set one, which is something entirely different. If we are to build a large number of new gas-fired stations without carbon capture and storage from the outset, there is little chance of meeting a decarbonisation target. Indeed, given the recent report from the Committee on Climate Change, which forecast that household bills would be £600 higher per year in the future if the UK relies increasingly on gas, rather than £100 higher if the country concentrated on renewable power generation, it would seem that the Prime Minister’s promise on energy prices will not be met either.
It is worth noting in passing that Ofgem predicts that spare capacity within the Great Britain system will fall from its current level of 14% to around 4% by the winter of 2015-16. The same methodology, however, shows that Scotland, which is pursuing renewables, will have spare capacity of around 35%.
As the Bill stands, contracts for difference form a large part of the meat of it. The provisions are perhaps not as bad as originally set out, but they are still very complex. If I am fortunate enough to get a place on the Committee that will consider the Bill, I will look forward to many happy hours examining the detail. At this stage, I have two main concerns about the use of contracts for difference. First, I am concerned about whether they provide a sufficiently robust system to allow investors to get planning permission and obtain finance. Investors are very clear about how the current system works but are yet to have sufficient clarity over the new system.
It is worth noting that Scotland has been successful in attracting several new investments in renewables over the past few years, but the level of investment in the UK as a whole has been falling over the same period. Some of that is due to the general economic situation and possibly the general tightening of finance, and it is concerning to say that some investment has dropped off, possibly because of uncertainty about the intentions of the UK Government. If we are to be successful not only in meeting carbon-reduction targets but in creating a green energy future, that needs to be addressed urgently, so if the Government are determined to change from renewables obligation certificates to contracts for difference, they must ensure that the new system is robust and easily understood by investors and delivers what is needed.
At present it is envisaged that the renewables obligation will end in 2017, but it is far from clear to many potential investors that CFDs will be up and running fully by that time. That uncertainty could lead to difficulties with projects which come on line after 2017. I understand that, for example, to get an offshore wind project through the consenting and development stages, developers typically spend between £30 million and £50 million. Such an investment would obviously need high-level approval and may be hard to get if we cannot be assured that the returns are clearly modelled, and the new contract for difference has been shown to work. It is likely that both developers and financiers will require several years to become familiar with the mechanism and how it works in practice. That poses a danger not only to such investments, but to the supply chain.
That risk was highlighted by the pre-legislative scrutiny process. The Committee noted that
“it may be necessary to delay closure of the RO in order to reflect slower progress in finalising the details of EMR”—
that is, electricity market reform. I urge Ministers to take that point on board and consider carefully whether we need to ensure that the renewables obligation continues beyond 2017.
The second concern about the CFD is that it is an instrument for giving a hidden subsidy to nuclear generators. It is interesting to note that the first reaction from nuclear generators was not entirely favourable. The key part of the system is the setting of the strike price, which determines the level of support that is given to each technology. I appreciate that the strike price in the first instance has to be set administratively, but that will give a strong signal to the market. It is rumoured that the strike price for nuclear will be very high and greater than for offshore renewables, which seems ridiculous. I urge Ministers to consider that.
The time available to me means that I cannot go into many of the other aspects that I would have liked to speak about, such as the potential difficulty with the capacity market. Although I have grave concerns about the Bill, I will not support the Labour amendment. We have to move forward and get the system up and running as soon as possible. I hope that a decarbonisation target will be introduced in Committee or on Report and I will certainly support that. We need to get on with this project.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It would be difficult enough to cover this matter in six minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, but in five minutes it is virtually impossible. I will canter through my speech as quickly as I can.
The Energy Bill represents the most complete and complex reform of the energy market to date, reflecting the Government’s ambition to be at the forefront of a green revolution. It sets out a series of steps that will change our energy footprint and our energy future, shaping our energy sources for the foreseeable future.
I never miss an opportunity to mention the green investment bank, and this is one such opportunity. The green investment bank, which opened for business last week, is leading the way in establishing the UK as a leader in low-carbon technologies and positioning us as a nation with a modern, energy-efficient economy capable of attracting investment and creating jobs while reducing emissions and bringing down energy bills. Those are fundamental changes to the way our economy is driven, but we also need to drive a change in the way people view energy and use it.
Energy saving is the quickest and cheapest way to cut carbon emissions and so should be at the heart of electricity market reform. To quote the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s report:
“Demand-side measures… are potentially the cheapest methods of decarbonising our electricity system… reducing overall demand”.
I welcome the Government’s move to consult on measures to reduce demand for electricity but urge that we clarify our ambition in that area, because without a clear target we are immediately on the back foot.
In business it is often said that what gets measured is what gets done. The Government’s analysis shows that demand for electricity could be cut by 40% by 2030, but the current policies will achieve only 15% of that demand reduction potential, and that is based on DECC official figures. The figures also show that, at 119 TWh, the residential sector made the largest contribution to the UK’s overall electricity demand of 328 TWh in 2010, so it is essential that we work with energy providers to maximise the potential for residential demand reduction.
The green deal is a step, or rather a leap, in the right direction. Allowing homeowners and businesses to pay for energy efficiency improvements over time through their electricity bills should see a greater take-up of efficiency measures. I hope that we will soon hear an announcement about green investment bank funds being available to finance the green deal.
As was acknowledged in a written ministerial statement today, smart meters are the best tool we have in energy reduction. They have the potential to give customers accurate, real-time information about how much energy they are using and how much it costs. In my constituency, British Gas has already installed 837 smart meters. With the average home saving 5% through the use of a smart meter, that is a potential saving of £54,405 in one constituency alone. It is essential that smart meters have the capacity for real-time management as well as the ability to record the energy that is fed back into the distribution network from co-generation sources, such as wind turbines and solar panels.
Small businesses could also benefit from that. However, the Federation of Small Businesses has raised concerns that under current proposals small businesses could face paying their energy supplier to access their energy consumption data. As the helpful FSB briefing paper states:
“This will seriously undermine the credibility of the programme as well as limiting its potential economic and environmental benefits.”
I agree. If we add to that the sharp practices of some energy companies in relation to the renewal of small business contracts, it could act as a significant brake on progress in that area.
Measures announced by the Government to ensure that consumers get the best deals on their energy prices reflect our determination to tackle rising energy bills, and I am pleased that we have taken action to help people with the cost of heating their homes. Which? has stated that 82% of consumers list the cost of energy and fuel as a top financial concern. The major way to deal with that, of course, is to open the energy market to more independent providers. At present, it is difficult for small players to enter the sector, so I hope that measures in the Bill will help deal with that.
We have a unique opportunity to reform our energy market and state our ambition, but setting a decarbonisation target is as much about stating our ambition for a green future as it is about delivering the kind of certainty that industry requires. Although targets already exist under different legislation, they are economy-wide. I believe that it would be beneficial to set sector-specific reduction targets, and not just in the energy sector, but in aviation and shipping. I am disappointed that today’s ministerial statement failed to do that and has moved the decision to 2016.
The Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to decarbonise and ensure a more competitive green sector in the future. I hope that the points I have raised today will prove helpful in raising areas in which an already very strong Bill can be improved further.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
In achieving the Bill’s aim to deliver secure, affordable and low-carbon energy, there is no bolder delivery vehicle for a greener Britain than Hafren Power’s Severn barrage. The Severn estuary has the second largest tidal range in the world and the Cardiff-Weston barrage would generate fully 5% of the UK’s electricity need—16.5 TWh a year of low-carbon, predictable and therefore baseload energy.
The barrage will power the UK for more than 120 years, cleanly, securely and sustainably generating as much electricity as three to four nuclear reactors or more than 3,000 wind turbines. It injects more than £25 billion of private investment into the UK economy; no Treasury funding is needed at all. With the multiplier impact on the economy, that is a stimulus of about £70 billion.
The barrage will be a massive boost to the economies of south Wales and the south-west of England, with 80% of the investment being spent in the UK; other forms of renewable energy have to date imported up to 80% of their equipment and services from abroad. Some 50,000 jobs will be created during the nine-year build, also leaving a legacy of industrial, tourism and leisure jobs.
Some 1,026 turbines will be installed in the barrage—new, slow-spin turbine technology capable of being exported from Britain to the rest of the world. Gigantic caissons will be built and assembled and then floated out from its deep-water casting yard at Port Talbot, which will be transformative for south-west Wales. The other benefit is a legacy in Port Talbot of the largest deep-water port in north-west Europe, which will be ideal for the new generation of container ships—ultra-large container ships, or ULCs, which otherwise would have to find a port on the other side of Britain.
However, the barrage will not affect existing shipping to other ports, because special locks will enable ships to pass through without charge. Additionally, because of the more benign sea environment in the giant 570 sq km sea lake behind the barrage, there will be enormous new opportunities for marine leisure and commercial activity currently rendered impossible by the Severn’s fearsome current, bringing extra work to ports in both the south-west and south Wales.
Contrary to what critics have alleged, Bristol port will also benefit in other ways from the barrage. During construction over nine years, millions of tonnes of aggregate will be shipped out from Bristol and other ports including Newport, Cardiff and Barry. Compared with previous barrage projects, this one dramatically reduces the impact on fish and birds by using the latest turbine technology and generating on both the ebb and the flood tides, simulating the natural flow of the Severn estuary. There is already a great deal of engagement with wildlife groups to try to configure the barrage in a way that is as friendly as possible to fish and bird life.
The barrage will produce electricity 50% to 75% cheaper than coal, gas, wind or nuclear beyond the initial consumer support phase that all renewable technology attracts. For more than 90 years, it will be the cheapest electricity source in Britain. The barrage has the lowest levelised cost of any electricity generating source—lower than nuclear, lower than wind, lower than gas.
Hafren Power supports the new contract for difference price support mechanism outlined in the Energy Bill. That enables consumers to share in the upside as wholesale electricity prices rise. The barrage will also offset 7.1 million tonnes of CO2 per year; over its life, that has a value of £2 billion in today’s money. It will defend 90,000 properties and 500 sq km of floodplains from rising sea levels, saving the nation billions in flood damage and defence costs. It will protect Bristol, Cardiff, Newport and Weston from storm surges. A storm surge narrowly missed the Severn estuary in 2010; when it hit France, it caused $1.3 billion in damages. Those flood savings can be netted out against the cost of price support. Construction is 100% privately financed, so the barrage will cost the nation very little indeed.
The barrage is the biggest green energy project by far, enabling us to meet our renewable energy targets, as the Bill seeks. It will create jobs and investment; all in all, it should be a no-brainer for the Government. I ask the Secretary of State and the Government to make a decision in the context of the Bill, supporting the barrage in the first half of next year.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
There are two reasons why it is a huge pleasure for me to speak about this Bill today. First, it is a very important Bill. Secondly, today is a significant personal milestone for me, because precisely 10 years ago, in the afternoon, I was at the Nuffield hospital in Shrewsbury in the throes of a six-hour operation to remove a cancerous tumour from my body. For those who are medically minded, it was a lower bowel perineal resection, which is pretty significant. One would have got very long odds indeed on my speaking in this Chamber 10 years later and representing my constituency of Montgomeryshire, particularly as it was one of the safest Liberal Democrat seats in the country.
I welcome the Bill and its commitment to energy market reform. Its purpose is to keep the lights on at an affordable cost to the country and to control the amounts of harmful gases which, it is said, are leading to global warming. Although I understand that we have not had global warming for 15 years, that is still a laudable aim for us to have. It is a complex and wide-ranging Bill, and we can come at it from a variety of angles. I do not want to repeat what other Members have said, which often happens later on in a debate; I want to put forward considerations that Ministers might take into account when they deal with the element of contracts for difference and put some detail on to that.
I have spoken in this Chamber several times before about my antipathy to onshore wind projects in my area, and it has been difficult for me to do so without becoming very angry because of the unreasonableness of the situation. My constituency has been very supportive of renewable energy for as long as I can remember. It probably has more turbines than any other constituency in England and Wales, and in the middle of it is the Centre for Alternative Technology. It had general support for renewable energy until the two Governments—here in Westminster and in Cardiff—came together to attempt to impose on the constituency the Mid Wales Connection. That project involves between 500 and 700 extra turbines, on top of what is there now, and almost 100 miles of cable, 35 miles of which is on 150 foot-high steel towers. It has transformed the attitudes of the people of mid-Wales because of its sheer unreasonableness.
It is not just me, as one Member in Montgomeryshire, who feels this way. I would point out to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the other two MPs representing mid-Wales constituencies, both of them Liberal Democrats, share my view absolutely. There is a cross-party realisation of the unreasonableness of what is proposed for mid-Wales.
The element of local democracy is important. Governments in London or in Cardiff may feel that mid-Wales can be sacrificed in what might be termed the national interest, but it is not surprising that the people who live in these constituencies take an entirely different view and feel that we want to defend them. The applications by the development companies make no reference at all to the cumulative impact, to the importance of wild spaces and wild land in Britain, or to the scenic impact that the project might have. All these things are devastating to the local community.
A few days ago, the local council—the planning authority—announced that it had set aside £2.8 million to defend itself in the decisions that were going to appeal. There were only five such decisions. Powys county council does not have £2.8 million, and this would be devastating for local services. The council therefore asked the Welsh Government if they would help it to defend its planning judgments. The spokesman for the Welsh Government said that the council knew the costs involved when it turned the applications down. Clearly, the view is that the council should take the costs into account and approve applications because it could not meet them. That is an affront to democracy.
Another constituency issue relates to anaerobic digestion, of which I am a great supporter. Mr Clive Pugh from Mellington is a pioneer in this field, which he moved into before the feed-in tariff legislation went through. He is currently paid 7p or 8p per unit, while all new developments of the same size are paid 14p per unit. He is a pioneer who put himself on the line, and he will be driven out of business. We need to ensure that any new system under contracts for difference takes into account the impact on the pioneers—those who came before.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I first commend Members of all parties for their thoughtful contributions to the debate and associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is no longer in his place. His words represented the type of mature and thoughtful approach that we need to take to energy and climate change and the Bill. We must redouble our efforts, both on renewables and on energy efficiency. Like many of my Opposition colleagues, I am deeply concerned about the failure to include the 2030 decarbonisation target in the Bill.
I want to touch briefly on four areas. The Minister and others have spoken many times about prices for ordinary consumers. I and, indeed, many of my constituents are deeply confused about how the energy markets function and how that affects the prices that we pay in our monthly energy bills. It has been deeply frustrating to hear the Prime Minister give confusing messages on this issue in recent weeks. That has simply added to the chaos and confusion faced by many people. The cheapest deal in an uncompetitive market is not a good deal. I associate myself with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said about abolishing Ofgem and instituting a regulator with real teeth that can fight the consumer’s corner, as that is what is needed.
One of the ways in which I believe we can increase the capacity, security and diversity of our energy supply lies in co-operative and community energy solutions, one of which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). A lot could be done to support such solutions, and I am concerned that the Bill does not mention such support. Will the Minister comment on that and consider the measures that the Government could take to support co-operative and community energy solutions?
It is important that we work on these issues with the devolved Administrations and the European Union. I commend the Welsh Government in particular on their efforts to introduce a sustainable development Bill and on their own measures for energy efficiency, particularly the Arbed scheme, which is making a difference in improving the energy efficiency of many homes throughout Wales, including in my constituency.
Will the Government consider devolving to the Welsh Government responsibility for decisions on energy developments of up to 100 MW? We may be able to discuss that in Committee.
Finally, I recently visited the Celsa Steel UK facility in my constituency. Energy-intensive users, particularly in the steel industry, are concerned about the pressures that they face. The Celsa Steel UK facility is one of the most energy efficient in Europe, using electric arc furnaces. I had the pleasure of going around the facility and seeing those furnaces in operation. The facility uses 100% scrap steel that has been recycled using top-of-the-range energy efficient methods. It is concerned, however, about the prices that it is paying for electricity in UK markets, as opposed to what some of its competitors are paying in other European markets. Will the Minister comment on what is being done to support such energy- intensive users? We need to meet our decarbonisation targets and climate change obligations, while ensuring that those industries that are working efficiently can transition effectively and continue to employ people in my constituency and throughout the UK.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Members will be relieved to learn that I plan to speak only briefly. I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue and of tremendous significance to our constituents. Who can blame them? In the past several years, gas prices have nearly doubled and the number of people trapped in fuel poverty has trebled. Between 2004 and 2010, 2.8 million more people were trapped in fuel poverty. Although the previous Government introduced remedial measures to help those people in crisis and although the current Government have done the same with the warm home discount and the cold weather payment and by freezing council tax, those measures are merely a sticking plaster. They treat the symptom, but they do not provide a cure.
It is sobering to reflect that the previous Government spent £25 billion on measures to combat fuel poverty, but those measures were swamped by the volatility of gas and oil prices. Those are not my words; they are the Library’s words. I will support any measure and any reform that will ensure cheap energy. I will also support any measure and any reform that, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who is professorial, takes politics out of energy policy.
I should like to address two matters specifically: the capacity mechanism, which is in the Bill, and demand management, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), which largely is not.
The capacity mechanism is designed to ensure that we have a secure supply of energy. I believe that it also needs to provide us with an affordable supply of energy. I therefore hope that Ministers will listen to the calls from across the industry. Big six companies such as E.ON, gas storage providers such as Stag Energy, and the Carbon Capture and Storage Association all say that if we have an extremely complex capacity mechanism that places undue risk on generators and suppliers and that comes into effect only in 2018, it could increase their costs by between £3 billion and £13 billion. Those costs would be passed on to the consumer, adding £14 or more to energy bills. I am sure that the Government will agree that we should not introduce a measure that is intended to reduce bills but that has the perverse effect of increasing them, particularly for the poorest and the most vulnerable.
With respect to demand management, if we are serious about reducing the cost of bills and reducing our carbon footprint, we have to be serious about reducing our energy consumption, which has increased by about 75% since 1970. I therefore hope that Ministers will use the Bill to put rocket boosters under the green deal. It is an excellent concept, but it needs to be more effectively communicated. The electorate need to be informed, so that they embrace it and so that the take-up rate meets the Government’s expectations. I want the green deal not just to rely on cavity wall insulation, but to bring the installation of the best and most effective boilers and the use of the most effective smart meters, so that consumers are put front and centre in the driving seat, controlling their own consumption.
The Bill has the potential to deliver transformational change to our energy landscape and to have the biggest effect on it since privatisation a generation ago. I hope that the Secretary of State will use the flexibility that he has given himself through the long parliamentary journey that the Bill has to go on and through the mass of secondary legislation that we await to listen to the causes of consumers, the industry and investors and to deliver a robust Act that has the confidence of those investors, that reduces bills, that ensures that we cut our carbon emissions and that puts the consumer first.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
First, I must register my disappointment that there is no decarbonisation target for 2030 in the Bill. When Labour was in government, it took the lead and brought in the world’s first Climate Change Bill. At that time, the then Opposition Members were only too keen to parade their green credentials and to ask for demanding decarbonisation targets. It is therefore very disappointing to see yet another broken promise and the Government ignoring the clear advice of their advisers in the Committee on Climate Change who have consistently recommended a target for 2030 of 50 grams of carbon per kilowatt-hour. A sector-specific target for 2030 would give investors a clear signal about the direction of energy policy after 2020 and encourage greater investment in the UK-based supply chains. I hope that that can be remedied in Committee.
I am also concerned about the lack of emphasis on energy saving and reducing demand. Such measures by no means take away from the urgent need to increase generating capacity, but they have a significant role to play. Reducing demand and improving energy efficiency reduce the overall generating capacity that is required. It also reduces bills for consumers when their homes or businesses are made more energy efficient.
The Government’s decision to end the Warm Front programme is short-sighted. It contrasts sharply with the Welsh Government’s commitment to energy efficiency. Following on from their Arbed 1 programme, which put £68 million of investment into energy efficiency, using mainly local installers, they have now embarked on Arbed 2, which will make energy efficiency improvements to 4,800 homes, with a minimum reduction of 2.54 kilotonnes of carbon.
The Welsh Government must be commended on their commitment to renewables. It would be nice if they had the opportunity to take charge of renewables up to 100 MW, but perhaps that, too, will be discussed in Committee.
No one denies that we need to rely on gas for electricity generation in the interim, but it is a mistake to see gas as a quick and easy solution at the expense of renewables. First, there is a problem of the security of supply. Relying on gas makes us dependent on supplies from abroad, but we cannot be sure that supply countries will always want to supply us or that they will not increase prices significantly. The domestic consumer may find that they have all their eggs in one basket because, if gas prices rise, the price of electricity that is produced from gas will also rise, which will be a double whammy. We seem to be wasting the opportunity to use gas for its versatility—it can be transported as gas and used as such, rather than used for electricity generation—and we must look carefully at that balance in the Bill.
As secretary of the all-party group for the steel and metal related industry, let me move on to energy-intensive industries. It is vital that appropriate help is given to those industries, many of which are making significant investments in upgrading their equipment and reducing their energy demand, which is clearly in their interest. At Port Talbot, for example, Tata Steel has spent more than £60 million on the waste gas recovery scheme, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 240,000 tonnes per annum, and its new blast furnace will be 10% more efficient than previous models.
If we are to keep heavy industry in the UK and stop carbon leakage—allowing our steel to be replaced by imports from countries that are less strict on emissions—we must get things right for energy-intensive industries. As the Bill goes through Committee, it is essential that the Government stick to their pledge to give sufficient consideration to protection against the rising cost of energy from electricity market reform. Tata Steel paid £13.9 million in 2011 in renewables obligations and feed-in tariffs, which will rise to £26.4 million in 2013. That risks making steel in the UK uncompetitive compared with other European countries.
What measures—if any—are the Government considering to compensate for the impact on energy-intensive industries of existing pre-EMR renewables subsidies, the renewables obligation and small-scale FITs? What analysis has been made of the impact of the proposed capacity mechanism and increased balancing costs on industrial electricity prices, and how will energy- intensive industries be compensated for that?
David Mowat
The hon. Lady makes a number of interesting points on energy-intensive industries, most of which I agree with. Does she agree that, although the Government may be doing some things to help energy-intensive industries, energy use is a continuum and any energy that is differentially expensive compared with our competitors will hurt our economy? It is not only the intensive industries that we have to sort out.
Nia Griffith
It is important to be aware of the effect of our provisions on all industry and business.
In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) on his support for the Severn barrage, and I hope that such support will be found more generally. It disappoints me significantly that the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has taken to opposing the barrage and whipping up opposition, rather than engaging constructively and looking at ways to make it a valuable project. I congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on his contribution to the debate, and I emphasise his point that we must remove barriers to independent and community generators to allow them to take part and contribute to energy sources in this country.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
To my mind this is the most important Bill to come before the House in this Parliament, and if we get it right the rewards are significant. We will develop a secure energy supply for a generation—a supply that is home-grown, made in Britain and clean, and that means we are less vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of oil and gas on global markets. The move to low-carbon energy production could be the catalyst that ignites the green economy and provides the growth that we all want to get the country moving.
I see that potential in my own backyard, in East Anglia and my Waveney constituency. Last month, EDF launched its consultation for the construction of Sizewell C in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). This week, ScottishPower and Vattenfall have submitted their planning application for the East Anglia ONE offshore wind farm, the first of six potential projects in the East Anglia zone.
Low-carbon energy supply is the foundation stone on which a green economy can be built. It will enable us to rebalance the economy away from a reliance on the service sector, and provides the opportunity to regenerate parts of the country—often coastal communities—that we have left out in the cold for too long. The New Anglia local enterprise partnership recognised that opportunity in its green economy pathfinder manifesto, which outlines the significant growth potential that Norfolk and Suffolk possess. It is important that the Government provide the framework within which that growth can be unleashed.
The Bill sets about providing the framework and achieves the right balance of transforming our electricity market and minimising cost and consumer bill increases. It shifts our energy supply from largely fossil-fuelled power stations to a balanced mix of nuclear and renewables, and makes the electricity market more attractive to smaller, independent generators and suppliers. I welcome the investment and commitment shown by companies such as EDF, ScottishPower, Vattenfall and SSE, but it is important that we ensure the market is open to smaller community providers.
The Bill is a welcome move forward and provides the country with a great opportunity, but this is a complicated subject and the devil is in the detail. The Energy and Climate Change Committee pre-scrutinised the Bill and made recommendations, some of which the Government have taken on board. It is important that that spirit of co-operation continues in the Public Bill Committee. Issues such as whether there should be a decarbonisation target need to be considered carefully. I will not vote for the reasoned amendment, because the Bill points firmly in the right direction, but I ask the Minister for an assurance that that target will be considered fully in Committee and in the necessary evidence sessions. There is a view that setting a decarbonisation target now will help to develop the supply chains of businesses—this country’s businesses—that can and should build and install wind turbines and construct nuclear power stations. Suffolk is on the cusp of being home to two of the largest construction projects in the world. I want local businesses and local people to benefit. We need to provide every encouragement, and to nurture that local supply chain.
Last year, the Aldersgate Group, of which I am a member, produced a pamphlet, “Greening the Economy: A strategy for growth, jobs and success”, which expressed the view that the Government must provide long-term policy frameworks with a different combination of market-pull and supply-push interventions. That approach has helped to drive Germany’s renewable sector, made silicon valley a centre of technological innovation, and built South Korea’s high-tech manufacturing virtually from scratch. A great deal of work remains to be done, but the Bill has the potential to be a similar catalyst in this country. Let’s get on with it.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The need for reform of the energy market could hardly be more pressing, with rocketing prices from the big six. They have a stranglehold over the market, and yet are content to make billions in profits between them while millions of people cannot afford to heat their homes. The Bill rightly tries to deal with the lofty issues of investment contracts, capacity agreements, barriers to market, access for new investors, low-carbon generation, and countless rules and regulations, but not one of them will mean much to consumers if they do not provide an answer to the crisis that has plunged millions of people back into fuel poverty, leaving many with the decision of whether to eat or heat.
The prices crisis extends to industry, and particularly to energy-intensive industries, of which I have many in my Stockton North constituency. We need to build confidence in our country’s energy policy and reverse the coalition Government’s failure to grow our economy. We know the UK renewable energy market has suffered under the weight of mixed and inconsistent messages from the Government. While we have dilly-dallied in Britain, other countries have simply got on with it. The EU contribution of renewables to total energy is around 13.4%, but we are third bottom of the EU renewable energy league table, and our renewables contribution is just 3.3%.
Other countries have built the capacity for manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels, so much so that Germany and Holland in particular are picking up billion-pound contracts for British offshore wind farms while British companies are excluded by the foreign-owned energy generators. That is very bad news for constituencies such as mine, where many of us saw the wind and solar industries as the future for thousands of jobs and as major manufacturing activities that could prove to be the saviour for our faltering economy. If the Government will not listen to industry, maybe they will take note of Roseberry primary school in Billingham in my constituency. It is engaged in the solar schools project because it recognises the environmental and financial benefits of solar power, and it is raising funds to install it.
The consensus among campaign groups seems to be that the Bill will not do enough for consumers. Which? recommends that rather than placing customers on the lowest tariff, the new regulations should ensure that all tariffs are structured with a simple, consistent unit price that allows people to compare and immediately identify cheaper alternatives, as they do with petrol prices. When even the lowest price in an uncompetitive market is too high, the Government must make it work better for ordinary people. Requiring generators to pool their power to create a genuine market would ensure that decreases in wholesale prices are passed on to consumers, not just the increases, which happens at present. Gas from around our coast is largely used up and we are now at the mercy of overseas prices. We need alternatives and cannot be totally dependent on other countries for our long-term energy needs.
During my career, I was involved in setting up fuel poverty campaigns, in partnership with energy suppliers, to develop projects that rescued tens of thousands of people from fuel poverty, to add to the several million others who benefited from similar schemes under the previous Labour Government. Stockton Warm Zone took thousands out of fuel poverty. Sadly, a large proportion of those people, and people across the country who benefited from efficient boilers and loft and cavity wall insulation, have now seen a reverse in their prospects. I am sad to say that more than 20% of households once again count as fuel poor. That is bad enough, but what saddens me further is the way in which the Government plan to take energy efficiency schemes forward, because it means that the kind of benefits enjoyed from schemes across the country can no longer be replicated effectively on a scale that will make a real difference. They should rethink the energy efficiency measures policy and maximise the sums invested by ensuring that every penny raised from consumers is spent on such measures.
From April 2008 to December 2012, the Department of Energy and Climate Change estimated that the carbon emissions reduction target and community energy saving programme cost the energy supply companies £5.5 billion, but it does not know how much each energy company paid per tonne of carbon saved. There is no clear audit trail of what happened to the money. Energy companies must be compelled to be transparent in their approach to how that money is invested—after all, it is a tax raised for the specific purpose of reducing fuel poverty and tackling carbon emissions.
I mentioned earlier that our energy-intensive industries are worried about the limited detail in the Bill about exactly which companies will be exempt from the cost of contracts for difference. For example, what would happen to SSI steelworks, which recently reopened at Redcar? It was not operating during the 2005 to 2011 window to qualify for an exemption. I hope the Minister will address that point, and tell us whether it will be protected.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The overarching policy statement sets out the context of the problem we are trying to solve, and to which there are three dimensions: cost, decarbonisation and security. We have heard quite a lot about decarbonisation, and something on security, which has two parts to it: the level of imports that we continue to need and keeping the lights on. We have heard less about cost, and I will also talk about that.
On security, the big issue unique to the EU is that we must spend £200 billion on new capacity in the next two decades. The companies that need to spend that money are more or less the same companies that we have heard so much about from the Opposition, who say they are ripping off consumers and so on. I gently say to the Opposition Front Bench, and to other hon. Members, that if that sort of language is heard in the boardrooms of some of those companies—which, due to the previous Labour Government, are now principally foreign-owned—it will not be an incentive to invest in our country. A great deal of work needs to be done on that. The biggest source of the increase in electricity supply in the past three years has come from imports through the interconnectors from France and Holland. That is a failure.
On cost, fuel poverty increased from 6% to 16% in the decade up to 2010. It is not possible to grow an economy with differentially high energy prices, particularly when trying to rebalance it towards manufacturing. We must be cognisant of that.
It is right that we decarbonise, but decarbonisation comes at a cost. Ministers must accept that there is a cost to be paid and not hide behind savings from better energy use and all that goes with it. We need to win that argument, otherwise the whole thing will unwind over the next two decades.
I want to ask Ministers about a particular issue. Hon. Members have talked about the European dimension and globalisation. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) rightly said that we are 25th out of 27 when it comes to renewables, although that—I gently tell him—is something we inherited in 2010. Nevertheless, it is true. It is also true, however, that we are one of the best when it comes to carbon per head and carbon per unit of GDP. In particular, Germany uses 30% more carbon per head than we do and 25% more per unit of GDP. It is often set up as an exemplar when it comes to renewables, and it is true that it has a lot of renewables, but the reason it performs so much worse than us is that it burns so much coal.
David Mowat
It is more than remarkable. Germany has also banned carbon capture and storage. That says to me that the people in the heavy industries of the German economy will not put up with differentially high energy prices. Germany is about to build 23 unabated coal-fired power stations. We have heard about how the Opposition Front-Bench team apparently do not want us to build gas-fired power stations, but the amount of carbon coming out of coal-fired stations is huge.
Shale gas will probably not change the world. It has already happened in the US, which now has gas prices one quarter of ours, and it will use that to suck in the chemicals industry and the global chemicals capacity that we need in places such as Teesside and Stockton North. It might well be true that we will never get our gas prices down to the level in the US, but something has happened structurally in the world when an economy the size of the US has energy prices one quarter of what they are in Europe. We need to be cognisant of that and respond. PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that the benefit to US heavy industries of differentially low energy prices is $12 billion a year. Our shale gas prices might not deliver that, but shale gas could have a big impact on our economy.
I would like Ministers to consider certain actions. The first relates to honesty. If we must decarbonise, let us say that there is a price to it. Let us not say that it is actually cheaper. It is true that renewables are a hedge against rising fossil fuel prices—I do not hear that argument being deployed often enough—but it is also true that, at least for the foreseeable future, they are more expensive. We need to win that argument and take it head on, otherwise we will lose it incrementally. That is very important. Secondly, we should take on the EU over the confusion between renewables targets and decarbonisation. We are trying to decarbonise, not get higher up on a graph of who has the most renewables. They are not the same thing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit is being reduced to four minutes. If hon. Members can make their points in less than four minutes, others may get in.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I vividly remember speaking in the Second Reading debate on the Energy Bill of May 2011. I remember thinking that the Bill was a wasted opportunity, treading water while British industry and enterprise were being left behind by our competitors and failing to help vulnerable households at a time of rising bills. Nineteen months on, those comments could be replicated word for word about this Energy Bill.
When the Labour Government left office, this country was in the leading pack of economies for low-carbon technology, ensuring that we could exploit comparative market advantage in an important global sector. By May 2010, the UK was third in the world for investment in new low-carbon manufacturing and innovation. My constituency and the north-east region still have the potential to be the leading centre of excellence for energy production and distribution in its many forms—from nuclear to offshore wind, carbon capture and storage and energy from waste. However, this country is sliding down the competitiveness and investment tables faster than Father Christmas comes down the chimney. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, Bloomberg New Energy Finance has stated that investment in renewable energy fell by a half in 2011. The debacle of the feed-in tariff for solar has damaged investor confidence. The CBI has said that
“while business wants to keep up the pace, they are equally clear that the government’s current approach is missing the mark, with policy uncertainty, complexity and the lack of a holistic strategy damaging investment prospects.”
There are also splits at the top of Government, with Ministers saying contradictory things. That has stalled investment and undermined the competitiveness of industry. The Chancellor says one thing, the Energy Secretary says another and the Minister of State—who is on the Treasury Bench—says something quite poetical and profound, but none the less questionable and contradictory. Little wonder that Camilla Cavendish wrote in The Times that companies
“remain uncertain about investing in the UK…the impression that the coalition is split has spooked companies whose boards need to commit capital for 20, 30, 50 years, whether in wind or nuclear power, biomass or solar.”
The Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change said much the same thing in his contribution to today’s debate. Indeed, he said in a speech this week that
“instead of being out in front again, leading the green industrial revolution, Britain risks being left behind. Our competitors—China, Japan, Germany and the US—are pushing ahead on clean new technologies.”
This Energy Bill could have righted those policy wrongs. It could have provided a compelling vision, but it has failed to do so.
My second point is about the effect on people in Hartlepool. The situation in my constituency is getting worse: 42 people died in Hartlepool last year due to the effects of cold weather, up from 38 the previous year. That figure will increase this winter. Of course, nobody in this House wants to see death, which is the most extreme and unwanted example of a failed social energy policy, but there are far too many examples in Hartlepool of people being unable to keep warm this winter. Hartlepool is particularly vulnerable, owing to a relatively large proportion of pensioner households, people with long-term illnesses, high unemployment and low and part-time wages. One in six households in Hartlepool is fuel poor. Bills have gone up by nearly a third over the lifetime of this Parliament. Many people in Hartlepool now simply cannot cope with the rises in fuel bills.
This Energy Bill does nothing to alleviate those concerns or help vulnerable households in Hartlepool or elsewhere. There is nothing in the Bill to incentivise energy efficiency schemes, which might provide some respite to vulnerable households and provide some much needed employment in my constituency. Taken together with other things the Government are doing—such as ending Warm Front and slashing budgets to help fuel-poor households—this Bill is another missed opportunity to help those who are struggling and help the competitiveness of our economy. That is why I will vote for the reasoned amendment this evening.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Twenty years ago this country led the world in creating a competitive electricity market. This Bill promises electricity market reform, but the reality is that the contracts for difference, the capacity payments and the emissions performance standard will put an end to that market in any recognisable form. Instead, we will have a market that is fixed by civil servants.
When we hear “contracts for difference”, what that means is that instead of the price being set by the market, prices will be set by civil servants for decades in advance, with different prices for different technologies and, potentially, different prices for different consumers. They will not even depend on how much CO2 a particular technology emits; rather, they will depend on what civil servants happen to agree in their commercial negotiations with providers, who I fear will have them over a barrel. Our constituents will be ripped off, with tens of billions of pounds of their money being transferred to producers who manage to negotiate the best deal with civil servants, who I am afraid are not up to the job of running electricity in the way that a market could in the interests of our constituents.
We should consider the price that our constituents will pay. We hear Opposition spokesmen say airily, “It is only £100 a year: it is remarkably good value.” However, the DECC levy-funded spending is to rise from £2.1 billion last year to £9.8 billion in 2020, which is almost a fivefold increase. The Department’s spending is rising even faster than our contribution to the European Union budget. Moreover, our constituents will pay a great deal more than £100 a year. If we divide that £9.8 billion by the 27 million households in the country, the result is £360 per household.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some interesting points. Will he expand on the implications of that £360 figure? Is it connected with EU regulation?
Mark Reckless
A lot of it is connected with EU regulation, but many of the costs of EU regulation are outside and in addition to it. It does not include the EU’s emissions trading scheme. It does not include our own carbon tax, which will rise from £16 to £70 a tonne. It does not include what is happening with the national grid: just two days ago it was announced that that would add a further £15 to each household’s bill, and £8.50 of it will kick in next year—on top of the £53 that the national grid is already adding to bills.
The depreciated investment shown on National Grid’s balance sheet is only £20 billion, yet over the next eight years £38 billion more will have been invested. I fear that much of the investment that has taken place is merely to link wind turbines and other renewables from remote parts of the country with major population centres in order to make the grid less unstable than it would otherwise be. Because of what we are doing with these technologies, all of which are subsidised and costing our constituents large amounts of money, my constituents will have to choose between heating their homes and buying Christmas presents. I fear we have got ourselves into a Westminster bubble.
The only thing that I can say for the Bill is that it is not quite as bad as it would have been if the other lot were in charge. Debating how many hundreds of pounds we should be adding to electricity bills when 6 million, 7 million or 9 million households are in fuel poverty, with more than 10% of their spending going on electricity, is simply wrong. Sooner or later the electorate will prick that Westminster bubble, and many of us will be faced with the reality that very few of our constituents think it acceptable for politicians to load hundreds of pounds on to their electricity bills for the purpose of what is essentially a political conceit.
We hear it said that because so many other power stations are shutting down, we have to replace all the coal. No, we do not have to replace all the coal. The reason we are replacing the coal is the EU’s large combustion plant directive. It is shutting Kingsnorth power station in my constituency, with the result that 300 workers are losing their jobs, and we are losing £7 million in business rates because of the rateable value of the station. It could perfectly well go on producing electricity. It emits sulphur dioxide, which if anything is a cooling rather than a warming agent. However, it cannot be replaced with a more efficient coal-fired station that emits much less CO2 because of the emission performance standard that we are introducing, which basically bans any new coal-fired power even if it is much cleaner and emits much less CO2 than what it would replace.
David Mowat
My hon. Friend may know that Germany is about to build 23 unabated coal-fired stations. Perhaps those 300 people from Kingsnorth could find work over there.
Mark Reckless
My constituents work for E.ON, which is a German company, but I am not sure that they would want to move to Germany even if jobs were available. However, I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. We do not see the Germans, let alone the Chinese—or the Americans: we have just heard about the gas price there—applying legislation like the legislation that we are applying to ourselves. Although the Bill will constrict our industry and impose vast additional costs on consumers—on our constituents—we are going to vote it through tonight. I think that we need to care much more about the family budget, and minimise the costs that we, as politicians, are imposing on our constituents.
Mark Reckless
I do not think I should give way any more.
Why should we not just allow people to build power plants if they get local planning permission, thereby allowing them to support and pay the local community and sell into the market? Why do we want to ban some of the cheapest possible technologies for producing electricity? Why do we want to subsidise others, too—tens of billions of pounds might be transferred to an emanation of the French state? We should instead put our constituents first, and prioritise cheap electricity bills for them, and vote against this Bill tonight.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. May I point out that interventions could result in some Members not getting a chance to speak?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Bill is supposed to deliver secure, affordable and lower carbon energy. It is divided into six parts and is 195 pages long, and in the brief time available it will be impossible for me to discuss many of its most important measures, such as the contracts for difference, the capacity mechanisms, the emissions performance standard and the investment controls. I shall focus on the position of coal in the energy portfolio.
Several Members on both sides of the House have mentioned coal. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) mentioned it twice, once in an intervention and again in his speech. He said that the coal industry is being slaughtered as a result of EU legislation, and in particular the large combustion plant directive. That is partly true, but the fact is that coal has been frowned upon by Government after Government. Even in respect of the emissions performance standard for gas, the Bill allows the gas sector 450 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh, whereas coal has not got any such exemption, yet coal produces 50% of the UK’s winter-time energy requirement, and the average overall proportion is probably between 20% and 25%. Coal is, therefore, unbelievably important.
The Minister, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), is a great supporter of coal, and I am looking forward to hearing him say that he agrees with me that we must do everything we can to maintain what is left of the British deep-mine coal industry. We learned this week that Maltby colliery is to close. It is one of the last five or six collieries in the UK, and it has vast reserves. I look forward to hearing from my friend the Minister on how we can best maintain the British deep-mine coal industry.
We should bear it in mind that the rest of the world will be burning coal. As has been mentioned, Germany has shut down its nuclear power stations and will build 23 unabated coal-fired power stations. I am totally opposed to that. I believe that we should use coal, but we should do so responsibly by using carbon capture and storage and burning coal cleanly. That policy option is probably not on the agenda at present, but it should be. I am not sure how we can get rid of our coal capacity between now and 2020 or 2025 without there being an energy crisis.
Some 30 new gas-fired power stations will supposedly come on stream between now and 2030. I am amazed about that. Those power stations will be emitting gases at a rate of 450 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion for coal, but does he not agree that the decision to open three new power stations, with commitments from EDF Energy and Hitachi, will make an enormous difference in the provision of secure, clean and affordable electricity in this country, and does he not see the advantage of nuclear as well?
Ian Lavery
I see nuclear as part of a cross-portfolio of different types of clean energy, and leading that portfolio should be clean coal technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and burning indigenous coal reserves.
China will double its coal production over the next few years into billions of tonnes and will be burning coal largely unabated. The Germans and other nations that have coal beneath their feet will be digging it and burning it. Why should we not do that and use the new Energy Bill, with its capacity mechanisms and the contracts for difference, to bring investment forward for carbon capture and storage? We need to consider that and I hope we will get some small crumbs of comfort from the Minister on that issue.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to speak in support of the Bill. The debate has reminded me why I should have paid much closer attention to my physics lessons when I was at school.
It seems to me that our country will face a series of issues over the next 10 years: securing a good, stable energy supply; ensuring that we play our part in cutting CO2 emissions in the fight against global warming; and developing new business growth in our economy. A number of Members have spoken about Ofgem and how it expects our energy capacity to fall from 14% to 4% by 2015-16. We must get on with this and I hope that the Bill will be the first step in delivering a much more sustainable energy supply.
Unless we are very careful, Britain will be increasingly reliant on foreign energy or, for that matter, will have to turn the lights out shortly before the general election. I am sorry to say that in my opinion the Labour party, when it was in power, was partly responsible. The Labour Government failed to deliver any nuclear power stations and when they were elected in 1997, they decided to introduce a moratorium on any new gas power stations but cut VAT on energy to just 8%. The policy was at war with itself.
In February, I went up to have a look at the British Antarctic Survey. Those working for BAS have drilled down into 800,000 years-worth of ice, have taken it out and are analysing it. They have found that for the majority of that time—700,000 years—there was almost no global warming, and when there was it was due to a tilt in the earth. Over the past 300 years, when we have had industrialisation, they are finding from the analysis that there have been significant levels of change in our atmosphere, which has ended up going into our sea and having an impact on our fishing stocks. It is very important that we do something about that.
In a meeting I attended recently, I heard that America is doing a significant amount of work and will be independent on energy in the next 10 or 15 years, whereas, as others have said, China will not.
I want to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench for delivering a marine energy park down in the south-west, and I am delighted that part of it will be in my constituency of Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, using the south yard. I am grateful for that and will work closely with those on the Front Bench to try to deliver it. However, in order to ensure we can deliver the marine renewable energy park we must ensure that we have a significant amount of investment from the private sector. I am campaigning for that, because if we do not get it right, like a game of chess, it will be checkmate and we will be out of the game.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
The Bill misses an opportunity to support community energy co-operatives. Brixton solar energy 1 was the country’s first urban energy generation co-operative and was set up by the local community in Brixton, working in co-operation with the local authority, Lambeth council. Solar power generation is not generally feasible on the majority of houses, because they might face the wrong way or suffer from shading from chimneys or other structures, or because the roofs are too small. Collective schemes, such as Brixton energy, are far better. They require partnership working. Solar panels are more likely to be financially viable when they are built on social housing blocks, schools or other public buildings, or on churches or businesses that have a large roof space facing the sun.
Brixton solar 1 was built on the roof of a social housing estate, Loughborough Park in Brixton. Brixton solar 2 is being built on another part of the same estate and a third scheme is planned for another estate in the area. The schemes are funded by community subscription and offer a 3% return to investors, most of whom are local. They are part-resourced by the local authority, which makes the buildings available.
Those projects tackle fuel poverty by offering lower energy prices to residents, who benefit from the feed-in tariff. They reduce carbon emissions by generating energy sustainably, and some of the profits are invested in schemes such as draught-busting, retrofitting, home energy audits and training on energy efficiency. In addition, they build social capital; they bring communities together and keep profits circulating in the local community in a way that does not happen with larger energy companies.
Instead of supporting such schemes, the Bill offers smaller community generators lower market prices for their power, making them less financially viable, and it fails to recognise the administration costs needed to run them. The Bill also ends the renewables obligation, which means that suppliers have no incentive to purchase from independent generators such as Brixton solar energy.
The Bill should be amended to increase the fixed feed-in tariff threshold for community projects, guarantee a market for community energy schemes and set a minimum annual target for new generation capacity from community schemes. I should like to see local authorities incentivised to lower overall household carbon emissions in their area, which they could do in part by supporting projects such as Brixton solar energy.
The Government should recognise the benefits of co-operative energy generation projects in tackling fuel poverty and promoting sustainability, but instead of acting to help them expand to areas such as Croydon North, which have relatively high levels of fuel poverty, they have introduced a Bill that I fear will damage those initiatives.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Bill is important for the country and particularly for my constituency, as its economic future is closely linked to the development of the offshore renewables sector, which is a vital ingredient if we are to see the economic renaissance of northern Lincolnshire and Humberside. Indeed, the Government recognised that by establishing the pan-Humber local enterprise partnership with specific responsibility for developing an energy super-cluster for the renewables sector. Growth is already happening, with more than 1,500 jobs having been created in the year to April. More than 20 vessels now sail from Grimsby docks to service offshore projects. Those jobs did not exist two years ago.
The green economy is producing jobs as well as improving the environment, but taxpayers and customers must be convinced. The Humberside area highlights the difficult balance the Government must achieve, as a large proportion of the jobs in or close to my constituency are in energy-intensive industries—oil refineries, chemicals, Tata Steel at Scunthorpe and others—while as I said, thousands of future jobs depend on the offshore renewables sector. Crucial to those long-established employers is the secure, reliable supply of energy that allows them to compete on the world stage. I welcome the scheme that goes some way to compensate some of those energy-intensive businesses.
I make no apology for stressing offshore. I recognise the industry’s preference is for onshore, where costs are considerably less; but it must be accepted that across the country, especially in a constituency such as mine, which is located on the edge of the Lincolnshire Wolds—an area of outstanding natural beauty—an overwhelming number of residents oppose onshore turbines. Recent comments by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), have been warmly welcomed throughout Lincolnshire. I fail to understand why developers do not consider dockland and industrial areas for onshore turbines.
Doubts remain among our constituents as to the value of wind power, and I share them; but the course is set and I want the much needed investment on the Humber bank. If we are to have wind turbines, I want them designed, constructed, serviced and maintained in northern Lincolnshire with the corresponding benefits to existing local businesses, including the supply chain. I am pleased that, after a protracted planning process, progress is now being made with the south Humber energy park. The area is also gearing up, through its local colleges, to establish better training courses.
Whatever course is followed, what potential investors want is certainty, and what those of us paying the bills want is transparency and clear, logical reasons as to why those bills must subsidise large, multinational energy conglomerates. From the point of view of domestic customers, the most welcome feature will be the proposals, helpfully trailed by the Prime Minister, that will result in a reduction in household bills of between 5% and 9% between now and 2030.
This issue is yet another tightrope across which the Government must tread. The public, though still somewhat sceptical about climate change and moves to wind energy, recognise that there are massive costs in its development, but there is a limit to what they are prepared to pay. I have already mentioned the need to limit the costs to industry, but for hard-pressed households, particularly in areas such as my own, where wages are much below the national average, that is absolutely vital. Constant attention is needed to that, and I urge Ministers at all costs to ensure that the consumer is the focus of their—
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The interpretation that the Secretary of State put on the two main mechanisms underpinning the Bill was, in my view, disingenuous at best and seriously misleading at worst. Under the contracts for difference, the Government will agree a strike price with an electricity generator, offering a guaranteed payment per megawatt-hour of electricity. That means that nuclear generators will have a built-in certainty that, come what may, they will get whatever they demand as a necessary return on their investment—and nuclear plants do not come cheap at £8 billion a time—courtesy of the taxpayer.
Today the Secretary of State repeated again the fake promise that there will be no public subsidy. Parliamentary answers of 8 March 2011 showed that the cost of generating new electricity will be up to £98 per MWh, yet even EDF’s chief executive, Vincent de Rivaz, has estimated that the strike price will be at least £140 per MWh. That implies a public subsidy of £4 billion or more. However, Citigroup analysts have estimated that it is likely to be £166 per MWh. That would require a public subsidy of £5 billion—so much for there being no public subsidy.
Then there is the issue that nuclear costs are on an ever-rising spiral, while renewable costs are set to fall dramatically. For example, large-scale solar will reach grid parity prices this coming year, so feed-in tariff payments to renewable technologies have falling digression rates attached to them, requiring ever lower annual payments for their electricity. Nuclear, however, is a technology requiring an internal subsidy on a rising cost curve. Contracts for difference are therefore in this Bill the mechanism to lock the UK into an ever rising cost spiral for uncompetitive nuclear.
Then there are the so-called capacity mechanisms, which bail out the old fossil fuels. Wind, waves and sun are, of course, free, unlike gas. The obvious policy is to give them priority in meeting grid requirements, leaving the more expensive and polluting fossil fuels to fill in the gaps. That is exactly what happens in Germany, which has reduced the price of electricity at peak demand by between 25% and 40%. If that were done in the UK, it is estimated that it would generate another 77,000 jobs and remove nine out of 10 families from fuel poverty. But that is not what is going to happen in this country under the Bill. Experience in the US of the first six rounds of capacity payments showed that existing fossil fuels took over 70% of the payments under such auctions. It is really tragic that this Government are squeezing renewables in this way, even though they are the most cost-effective methods.
There is one further absurdity. DECC’s own demand-reduction project, published in July this year, found the following:
“We have identified…155 TWh of demand reduction potential…across all…sectors, of which current policy is estimated to capture…54 TWh”.
Frankly, that undermines the whole case for building any nuclear power stations at all, since the 100 or so TWh of savings that remain to be captured are almost exactly the same as the total quantity of electricity that the eight new nuclear power stations are expected to generate.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I tabled a reasoned amendment to decline giving the Bill a Second Reading. I do not do that lightly, and I recognise that there are some small steps forward, including the £7.6 billion for low-carbon energy to 2020, but overall the Bill fails miserably when compared with the scale of the challenges we face. It fails, first, on energy bills and the scandal of 6 million households in fuel poverty; secondly, on the scale and pace of carbon reduction needed; thirdly, because it does not fully recognise the huge potential of energy efficiency and renewable energy, including community renewables, to meet energy needs and create thousands of jobs now and into the future; and finally, because it locks us into a centralised fossil fuel and nuclear energy system at exactly the time when we need more decentralised energy.
Lack of time means that I can focus on only a few aspects. I agree with everything that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said about nuclear. Let me say a few words about energy efficiency and fuel poverty. It is extremely disappointing that the Bill overlooks the huge potential of energy efficiency and demand reduction, despite widespread consensus that they are the cheapest, quickest, most effective ways to protect householders and businesses against high energy bills and to cut emissions.
The Government’s record is dismal. Ministers have slashed overall funding for fuel-poor households by 26% and cut energy efficiency funding for fuel-poor households by almost a half. I very much hope the Government will table amendments on demand reduction when the last-minute consultation is complete, and that they are commensurate with their own analysis, which shows that demand for electricity could be cut by at least 40% by 2030. Unfortunately, current policies would achieve at most about a third of that potential. It is crucial that any such demand-side incentives do not compete with renewable energy, and I hope Ministers will today confirm that demand-side measures will not be funded by the levy control framework.
It is worth reiterating that whether we see proposals for an energy efficiency feed-in tariff or other mechanisms, they must be additional to wider measures, including high efficiency standards for buildings and the recycling of revenue from carbon taxes and the EU emissions trading system to invest in a nationwide housing retrofit to ensure that all our homes need far less energy in order to keep warm.
On renewables, I welcome the announcement last month that the Government will provide sufficient funds through the levy control framework to ensure that the UK meets its legally binding renewables target by 2020. I sincerely hope that that will help reverse the current situation in which the UK is falling miserably behind other EU countries. The UK languishes at third from the bottom of the league table, on just 3.3% in 2011, a quarter of the EU average.
I am worried also about the future of community energy, on which Ministers deliver platitudes and promises but no policy. As a result, the Bill prolongs the uncertainty faced by small electricity generators, including community-owned renewables. What we need is a radical change in ownership—a move towards many more independent generators, smaller companies located in the UK, and community and co-operatively owned energy generation. Many hon. Members will have in their constituencies projects similar to Brighton energy co-operative that offer a real alternative.
I hope we can work together to change the Bill so that it does not disadvantage such schemes, by supporting, for example, the creation of a purchaser of first option to provide a guaranteed market for community energy schemes and other smaller generation projects; an increase in the fixed feed-in tariff threshold to allow funding certainty for community projects; and a minimum annual target for new generation capacity from community renewables schemes.
I will not go into detail—the House can imagine why—on the many reasons why I am a supporter of putting a decarbonisation target in the Bill, but at the risk of sounding just like the Prime Minister did two years ago, I will quote him. He said:
“If we don’t decarbonise electricity, we’ve got no hope of meeting the targets that we’re all committed to.”
That means at the very least a 2030 target of 50g of CO2 per kilowatt hour by 2030. If the scientific evidence shows that we should have more ambitious targets, however, for either power sector or economy-wide decarbonisation, it is crucial that the Bill provides a mechanism to ensure that that can happen in a timely manner.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To resume his seat no later than 6.40, I call Mr David Anderson.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We face the party that inherited the policies of the past 30 years, the party that believed that to tell Sid was the way to go ahead, but what did it tell Sid? “Buy something you already own”, it said. The party told him that he would be part of the great share-owning democracy. The party told Sid not to worry. Those wonderful private companies were dedicated to serving the public, they would ensure that they invested in the infrastructure, and they would give the country great value for money and transfer all the risk away from the public sector.
What the party did not tell Sid was that 9 million people would be living in fuel poverty by 2016; that it would set up a cartel of six big energy suppliers that would have complete control over every facet of energy policy; that the industry would be regulated by the weakest regulator in history; that it would fail badly to invest in the industry’s infrastructure; that we would face the real possibility of power cuts as a result of that failure; that we would have a national grid that has been described as not fit for purpose; that the failure to invest in skills and training would leave a work force incapable of dealing with the challenges we face; and that, 30 years down the line, the industry would want another £250 billion from the men and women of this country—
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
We have had an interesting and, at times, enlightening debate on what will be highly significant legislation. Given the number of contributions that we have heard, I apologise in advance if I am unable to refer to them all in my remarks.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said at the beginning of the debate, the Opposition share the objectives that the Government have set for the Bill. However, as we have heard from many right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), parts of the Bill still require further detail and greater clarity and gaps need to be plugged.
The Minister, who is charged with taking the Bill through Committee, can anticipate full scrutiny on the many issues that have been flagged up today by hon. Members from across the House. I am sure that he would expect nothing less. Indeed, he is known to be a fan of Burke and a prodigious quote machine, so he will know that Burke said:
“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said, we do not consider the Bill to be a bad one, but we do consider that it requires some improvement and change.
I hope that the Minister’s constructive approach will endure through Committee. Judging by the nature of the contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, he will have heard a significant number of concerns expressed about the areas that require further work. It is in that spirit of constructive engagement, genuine scrutiny and an overriding determination to improve the Bill that we will act, as our reasoned amendment makes clear.
As the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), who chairs the Energy and Climate Change Committee, said earlier this week:
“This legislation is far too important for Britain’s future to get wrong.”
As the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) observed, in the next decade around 20% of the UK’s generating capacity is likely to cease to operate. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) referred to the power station in his constituency, and although some nuclear power stations have had their lives extended in recent weeks, the power stations at Cockenzie, Didcot and Tilbury are likely to close in the next few months. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) referred to the Ofgem report and the impact of the capacity squeeze over the next few years.
For all those reasons, the Bill is very important and the implications of not dealing with these issues are particularly serious, as my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said in reference to our carbon targets.
It has been a long road to get to this point. It is almost two years since the Government launched their consultation on electricity market reform. Since then, we have had a White Paper, technical updates, a draft Bill, pre-legislative scrutiny, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and other members of the Select Committee referred to, and now the Bill is before the House. I am sure that Ministers would concede that it has not been a painless process for the Government. The Chancellor’s interventions have not always helped in DECC’s desire to provide, if not certainty, certainly predictability for the investments that need to be made in the future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn observed.
What the Minister described in last night’s Adjournment debate as the great bargain between DECC and the Treasury, with the incessant semi-public fighting within Government, has left many people nervous and reticent about investing in the UK. Those mixed signals are not good for reducing the capital costs of investment, as the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and others observed.
The recent Ernst and Young renewable energy attractiveness index for the third quarter of 2012 blamed
“political miscommunication and the lack of consistency”
over key energy reforms for impeding future investment in the UK. We cannot allow that situation to continue. Without a sense of purpose, the upgrade in energy infrastructure that we need in this country will not happen as quickly and might well cost more, and we will be ever more at the mercy of global commodity prices than we would be with a much more balanced and diverse energy mix that many of us, although not all who have taken part in the debate, see as very important.
As many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Ynys Môn and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) made clear, there are gaps and omissions in the Bill. There are not yet measures on demand reduction, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) mentioned. There is not yet any fulfilment of the Prime Minister’s promise of a few weeks ago on prices and not yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and many others observed, a clear 2030 target for the decarbonisation of the power sector.
All those things, I contend, are required to stimulate the necessary investment. As the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee said earlier this week:
“Setting a target for emissions from electricity generation as recommended by the Climate Change Committee has been put off until 2016, prolonging the political and regulatory uncertainty that is killing investment.”
That issue is at the heart of our reasoned and reasonable amendment, and it is an issue for which the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury argued vehemently less than three months ago at their party conference. We all know how important consistency is to the Liberal Democrats; we also know the perils of inconsistency and the need to ensure that we move towards a decarbonisation target.
As one industry chief executive remarked to me just last week, targets help investors see the direction of travel, like the star shining over Bethlehem that showed the direction of travel for the three wise men. As I look at the ministerial Bench this evening, I indeed see three men; given the charitable time of year, I will wait until Third Reading to judge their wisdom.
Also missing from the Bill are measures to support the type of co-operative and community energy about which my hon. Friends the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and for Cardiff South and Penarth spoke so eloquently, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), with his experience of what happened in Brixton. Members will be aware that his predecessor was one of the most thoughtful and serious contributors to energy debates in the House; in this, as in many other respects, he has a worthy successor.
The Secretary of State recently said that he wanted nothing less than a community energy revolution. I say to him that the Bill is an opportunity that we will help him to use to encourage that. There remain serious questions. We are all pleased to see the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) here 10 years after his operation; he referred to some of the difficulties with the detail of the contract for difference. Many other hon. Members referred to the capacity market and other things for which some detail has yet to be given.
I can anticipate some of what the Minister, a seasoned and erudite contributor to the House, may well say in response this evening. He will doubtless quote Dickens, Churchill, Burke or Disraeli—if we are lucky, more than one of them. He will indicate his own brand of energetic commitment to the Bill and say that he is working with officials, industry and stakeholders to hammer out the detail to which I have referred. Yet a failure to fill some of the gaps in such a significant Bill, leaving it all to secondary legislation, will prolong the period of uncertainty.
Were the Minister able to offer publication of some of that secondary legislation in draft in Committee, Members on both sides would find that extremely helpful for effective scrutiny. At the very least, Ministers should be able to ensure that the impact assessment is updated before Committee and made available to Members; I have raised the issue directly with the Minister and his officials, but it is important to get that on the record to ensure that there is a commitment to assess properly the impact assessment that needs to be updated.
It is in the best interests of the country that the Bill should leave the House in the best possible shape. The Minister prompts me, just by his presence, into recalling the words of Disraeli:
“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
I anticipate keenly my behind-the-scenes encounters with the Minister and hope that he will not disappoint me in taking into account the many issues that have been raised not just by Opposition Front Benchers but by Members across the House during the debate.
It is a pleasure to be taking part in the final debate of the year on Government legislation before Christmas, before many of us spend time with our friends and families—and in my case, no doubt, a daily dose of Peppa Pig. Christmas is also a time of year for reflection. Given the pace of our work and proceedings in the House, we often do not get much time for the luxury of reflection. I therefore conclude by genuinely wishing Ministers a happy Christmas and expressing the hope that during this period they will have the opportunity to reflect on the issues raised by Members across the House and come back reinvigorated, refreshed and ready to engage in those issues so that we can ensure that this Bill does the job that many of us want it to do.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)
Labour Members really are keen now to emulate us as the party of one nation, because we heard the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) quote both Burke and Disraeli. I do not want to disappoint him, so I will start by quoting Mark Twain, who remarked,
“what is a man without energy? Nothing—nothing at all.”
It is in such energetic spirit that I begin to sum up this important debate. Let me say at the outset that we will certainly make the revised impact assessment available before scrutiny starts in Committee, and we will certainly, in the spirit in which I intend to conduct the Committee, make available draft material of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described so that, I hope, all members of the Committee get the chance to shape the Bill, as he suggests.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman another quotation—
Mr Hayes
Not until I have quoted Ruskin—that would be premature—but I will do so immediately afterwards.
“The first duty of government”
according to Ruskin,
“is to see that the people have food, fuel, clothes. The second, that they have means of moral and intellectual education”—
and who better to intervene on the subject of moral and intellectual education than the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr Hayes
As I hope the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to helping low-income and vulnerable households to heat their homes affordably. As part of our work to redefine fuel poverty, we have announced that we will publish a refreshed strategy for tackling it in 2013—he will know, too, that that is the first such strategy since 2001—because we want to ensure that resources are used as effectively as possible. I will be more than happy, following his intervention, to go back to my Department and recommit to that, because I share his passion for the vulnerable. I have little power over food and clothing, although I will continue to do all that I can to make the case for moral and intellectual education. I can certainly say with confidence that the Government, through the Bill, will enable the market to provide the fuel that we need.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and the Secretary of State himself said that the Bill has been warmly welcomed. I appreciate the broad welcome that it has been given by hon. Members across the House, including by shadow Front Benchers. It deserves such a welcome because it provides a framework for certainty to bring heat to homes, light to lives and power to the people, as the Secretary of State made clear in his opening remarks. Most importantly, it ensures a future where the needs of the many, not the interests of the few, drive energy policy. Our utmost priority is that consumers get secure energy at the best prices.
Let me say a few words to my old friend, the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). It is true that nuclear power is part of our strategy, but not at any price. Some of the things that he suggested are well outside what would be the acceptable range in the interests of taxpayers. I cannot say more, of course, because this is a commercial matter, but I just say again: not at any price.
The Bill will, in the terms that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) described, bring about unprecedented investment. That is necessary simply to ensure that supply meets demand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said, the certainty that comes from long-term contracted prices also reduces the cost of capital, which is vital. As the Secretary of State observed, this is a growth Bill. It will bring jobs and investment to every part of the UK, by providing a boost to the energy industries through developing the low-carbon supply chains that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said were so important to his area, as to many others.
I ask hon. Members to reflect on this: when we speak of infrastructure investment, we frequently speak of housing, transport, roads and rail, but let us from now on ensure that whenever we speak of infrastructure investment and macro-economic policy, we speak too, largely and loudly, of the importance of energy. That is something that can unite the whole House.
I share the passion of the shadow Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) for a more plural and more liquid system. I agree that, under the system that will be devised as a result of the Bill, the energy marketplace will need to be more competitive, because it is through that competitiveness that prices can be driven down. It is curious—I will put it no more strongly than that in the interests of creating a consensual approach to the Bill—that the Labour party should say that, given that the number of energy companies fell from 14 to six on its watch.
It is still more curious that Labour Members are advocating a return to the pool. I do not agree with them about that. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Don Valley says that it is a different pool, but she will know that the National Audit Office has said that in effect, despite lower input fuel prices and reductions in the capital costs of generating, the pool—which was abandoned by the Labour Government, not ours—meant that consumers paid higher prices than necessary. There are real questions about the gaming that takes place in a pool situation and the effect that that has on consumer interests.
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend will know that the CCS cost-reduction taskforce reported just a week ago and concluded:
“UK gas and coal power stations equipped with carbon capture, transport and storage have clear potential to be cost competitive with other forms of low-carbon power generation, delivering electricity at a levelised cost approaching £100/MWh by the early 2020s”.
That is not my conclusion, but that of the independent taskforce. By the way, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) is right that CCS can and should include coal. It is absolutely right that, in the long term, we should consider gas and coal as low-carbon technologies, alongside renewables and nuclear.
This is a framework for certainty and secure investment, a commitment to rejuvenate our infrastructure and an understanding that, with a mixed economy of generation, we are most likely to build sustainability by building resilience. We grasp that this is a growth Bill that offers a chance to deliver jobs throughout the whole country. Changes have also been made as a result of the scrutiny of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. There has been a proper process whereby the Committee’s considerations on things such as the counterparty body have been taken into account, considered and acted on. The Bill has been framed on the basis that it will not merely be legislation for this Parliament, but an Act that can help us to inform the future and, in the words of the right hon. Member for Don Valley, shape our destiny.
Some will say that the Opposition, in tabling a reasoned amendment, are dancing on the head of a pin, but I want to defend their Front Benchers. It is true that they are dancing—the choreography being more Sid Owen than Cyd Charisse—but they are trying to occupy a space on narrow ground, because they know, in practice, that the Bill will deliver the kinds of reforms that they would also seek in government. They know, too, that they share the Bill’s purpose, which is to deliver safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy for future generations. I welcome the chance to shape the Bill to that purpose in Committee.
The spirit that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West proposed should enliven all we do is a spirit that I share, and I invite Members to reject the amendment and to support the Bill in that very spirit—the national interest and the common good that drives all we do.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Portland Search and Rescue Helicopter
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a huge honour to speak in this debate, and I should like to start—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Would Members leaving please do so quietly, so that we can hear the Adjournment debate?
Richard Drax
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This campaign is not just about one MP. Other hon. Members are here for the debate and they are equally concerned about the future of Portland’s search and rescue helicopter. We represent tens of thousands of people along the south coast who are worried, many of whom have campaigned tirelessly in the past months to help me. This is a team effort and I pay tribute to, and thank, all who have contributed to the battle to save our helicopter. It would be negligent of me not to pay special tribute to all crews of search and rescue helicopters in the United Kingdom, and in particular to ours in South Dorset.
I will begin by telling a story about a fishing boat called the Purbeck Isle. Sadly, it sank recently and we lost three young fishermen. The search went on for three days non-stop and could only be carried out effectively by helicopter because the search area was so huge. The helicopters had to refuel a number of times. If it were not for the Portland base, they would have had to fly some 21 to 25 minutes to Lee-on-the-Solent before refuelling and coming back. That would have meant being away from the search area for at least an hour. The current water temperature in most of the United Kingdom means that people can survive for about 10 minutes before they become unconscious, and 30 minutes before their core is so cold they die—those are the maximum times.
I remind the House that the initial funding for the helicopter came from the private finance initiative, which was cancelled by the coalition Government in February 2011.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he has done, and I join him in supporting all the crews who work so tirelessly to keep our seas safe. Does he agree that the mess the previous Government made of that PFI deal—the fact that decisions were not made then—is why we are confronted with this awful situation today?
Richard Drax
I agree with my hon. Friend to a certain extent, but when there was an earlier attempt to remove the helicopter, my predecessor was able to keep it because of PFI. In those days the Government were able to throw more taxpayers’ money at retaining it. Sadly, I am not in that position. The proposal has been put out to contract under the Official Journal of the European Union, which states certain key user requirements. As long as those requirements are met—at least theoretically, and that is the point—the Department for Transport assumed that no consultation was necessary. The previous Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), wrote to me and said that no consultation was necessary because she was “improving the service”. That presumption was criticised by me and many others. It has now been criticised strongly by the Select Committee on Transport, which has called on the Government to rethink their proposal.
The Portland helicopter operates in one of the busiest areas in the UK, and 25% of all coastguard call-outs come from there. It is illogical to close a base in the middle of all the action and rely on those further away. Cover should surely be provided close to where it is needed. Portland is only a 12-hour base, yet it compares favourably with its 24-hour neighbours—Solent, Culdrose and Chivenor. In 2011, the call-outs were: Portland 194; Solent 210; Culdrose 249; and Chivenor 272. Its helicopter is being called out as much as helicopters at the 24-hour stations.
Furthermore, the costings were wrong. When I first got involved, the Secretary of State assumed that the Portland base cost about £9 million a year to run. It does not. It is a 12-hour base and costs between £4 million and £5 million. If the Government think they will save money by closing the base, let me tell them that the money spent on diving casualties and flood rescues this year alone would pay for multiple helicopters. Portland costs half the amount of other bases and does almost the same number of taskings. That important point bears repeating.
The flying times were also wrong, and this relates to what the then Secretary of State was told by her advisers. The flying time from Culdrose to Portland is 48 to 54 minutes. If we add 15 minutes—the key user requirement to get the helicopter off the ground—we are looking at about 63 minutes. The flying time from Solent to Portland is between 21 and 25 minutes, plus the 15 minutes, which makes 36 minutes. The flying time from Chivenor to Portland is 37 minutes, plus the 15 minutes, which makes 52 minutes. That is on the basis that the air is still, conditions are perfect and no wind is blowing. As we all know, helicopters are not called out to rescue people unless something has happened—normally in stormy weather. In the sea, a person has 10 minutes before they are unconscious—that is the maximum in current sea temperatures—and 30 minutes before their core temperature drops and they are dead. Not one of the proposed helicopter bases would meet that time. All the people in the water—children, mothers, grannies, whoever—would be dead.
The other helicopters—at the three other bases I have mentioned—are as busy as ours. The point I have made repeatedly to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is that one helicopter can only be in one place at any one time—however new, however fast, it can only be in one place at any one time. So if the Lee-on-the-Solent helicopter, and we will have to rely on that, is called to the east of its basing area, we can add to the 21—or 36—minutes at least another half hour or even an hour because that is how long it will take to get back to its base, having completed its task, to refuel and to come to us. And the people in the water? They would be dead.
On concurrent call-outs—when the other helicopters are in the air at the same time as ours—I have documentation proving that, in the past 14 months, the Portland helicopter responded to 21 incidents at the same time as the Solent helicopter. My helpful and moderate letter from the Under-Secretary, dated 17 December, includes a table on tasking concurrency. It lists the call-outs for Lee, Portland and Chivenor in 2009, 2010 and 2011. According to these figures, tasking concurrency happened three times in 2009, once in 2010 and once in 2011. Why, then, do we have other figures stating that on 21 occasions the helicopter at Lee-on-the-Solent was in the air and doing a task at the same time as the Portland helicopter? Something is seriously wrong, and I urge Ministers to look at the modelling, which I believe is fatally flawed. Someone somewhere has got their maths wrong.
Over the past 10 months, 25 out of the 32 transfers to Dorset county hospitals were so life threatening that the Civil Aviation Authority regulations were waived so that the helicopter could land at the hospital. According to Department for Transport figures, every road death, which equates to a water death—it is the nearest we have got—costs £1.6 million. On the basis of those figures, we save about £40 million by having the helicopter at Portland. If the Government needed any lessons on saving money, that is a pretty stark example.
Sadly, all this is being compounded by the proposals to close the maritime rescue co-ordination centre. They, too, are criticised by the Select Committee. The local resilience forum is particularly concerned. The Government said there would be no cuts to front-line services. I wonder what these are: no emergency towing vessels in England or Wales; no offshore firefighting capability, because the marine instant response group was withdrawn; a proposal that more than 50% of the co-ordination centres should go; and two helicopters going—ours and another—reducing the number of bases from 12 to 10. If these are not front-line services, I would love to know what the definition of a front-line service is, because to me that is the very coal face that the search and rescue capability depends on.
It is not just search and rescue that our Portland helicopter is involved in. It also works with the police and the ambulance service—yes, we have a charitable air ambulance, as do many counties, but it is small and does not have a winch. Without a winch, it can land only at certain places, so on many occasions the Portland search and rescue helicopter is called to help. The air base played a major role at the Olympics—TV companies, VIPs, business; you name it, it was used. Then there are pan and mayday alerts, and let us not forget the Channel Islands, which are also in the Portland helicopter’s area of responsibility.
I would like to thank the Under-Secretary, —he is not the Minister currently sitting on the Front Bench; it is hard to track the right Minister down when trying to fight one’s case—for his letter. To be fair, he has seen me and listened to me, and when he got his facts wrong about the timing from Culdrose to Portland—he initially thought it was 21 minutes, until I said, “By Concorde, yes,”—he wrote a helpful letter saying that the flying time is actually 48 minutes. These are fairly serious errors.
Those on the Front Bench are very intelligent, capable men and women, but I urge them please to come down to Dorset and listen to those involved in search and rescue along our coast. I am a former soldier, and I cannot think of any major decision where one would not appreciate what one was about to do beforehand. It is military training; it is civilian training; it is what we all do—we make an appreciation. To do that we must go on a reconnaissance mission; and to do that we need to go up front as a commanding officer and look over the land that we are about to move over or perhaps the hill that we are going to attack. We do not just sit there in our bunker, look out and say, “Onwards men! There’s the hill! Go and take it! I’m having some breakfast”—and off they go and they get slaughtered. That is what happened in the first world war.
It is that important. I cannot request enough—it must be at least three, four or five times now—that someone comes down to Dorset and listens to those intimately involved. I do not pour scorn on civil servants—they have a very important role to play—but sitting back in Whitehall pressing computer buttons, playing with their modelling and making pretty circles on maps is not really the way to come to a logical conclusion. If someone came down to Dorset and listened to people—this is another thing that really appals me—they would find that they are frightened to speak their minds. Why is that? Because if they do, they will lose their jobs. Is that not unbelievable? In this democracy of ours, in which millions have died to allow me to stand here and speak, the people who should be giving the Government the proper advice that they need are too frightened to do so, because if they do, they will lose their jobs. That is utterly outrageous.
Let us for once, as a Government, stand up and start leading. I say this: “Come down and listen. Listen, and listen. Do not talk; you can do that when you get back to your office. Listen, and I am convinced that once you have done that, Ministers will change their minds, or at least will start thinking about the whole process again.”
In a letter to the Government, the Transport Select Committee said:
“There are understandable concerns that the withdrawal of these bases will lead to…increased fatalities”.
The Under-Secretary took the view that that was entirely different from saying that lives would be lost. I have to disagree: temperate language was rightly used to a Government Department by a responsible and highly influential Select Committee.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The issue that he has raised is very important throughout Dorset. Although none of my constituency is on the coast, my constituents are just as concerned as my hon. Friend about the potential for fatalities. Let me reinforce his point that it is essential for someone to come down to Dorset and observe, for example, our lack of roads.
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the lack of roads. We live in a beautiful part of the land, and helicopters provide the only way of reaching people who need help quickly. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that half my constituency is at sea, and that “at sea” is a dangerous place. Millions of people use our coastline, our seas and our cliffs. They dive under the sea and they boat over the top of it, and all that generates tremendous activity.
In Fareham, one of the new maritime operations centres is to replace our co-ordination centre in Weymouth. At present, people who live locally get out of bed and, as they have done for many years, look out of their windows, see the rain, look at the sea, and get a sense of what is going on. Because they know the area, when something happens they are able to target the right asset immediately. They will know, for instance, that the field by Durdle Door is so boggy that a four-wheel drive will not get there at this time of year, so they must get the helicopter out.
What will happen if, during a busy bank holiday weekend, that huge MOC—with at least 40 staff—is bombarded by calls from people all along the south coast saying, “We have a child here, a mother there, a lilo somewhere else”? I predict that there will be utter chaos. That is another part of my constituency that I am trying to save, and I urge the Government to think again about an issue that is very dear to my heart.
I want to be generous, and to give the Minister as much time as possible in which to respond. Some Ministers—dare I say—stand up and read from a written script which, for eight of the nine minutes available, repeats what we all knew already. I should be very grateful to the Minister if he answered my specific questions. The first is this: will someone come down to Dorset and listen? If no one does, the consequences will be absolutely terrible. My invitation to a Minister to visit South Dorset was declined on the basis that it was
“important that the procurement proceeds as planned.”
I submit that, as it currently stands, it must not, because if it does, lives will be lost. I have been around long enough not to make such a statement loosely or lightly. I say it with the backing of those who are in the know, and who speak to me in the dark of night for fear of speaking out loud. They predict we will lose five, six, seven or eight more people a year. That many people each year will be dead if we do not have our helicopter. That is all because the Government are relying on modelling from miles behind the front line, rather than having the courtesy, if nothing else, to come down to Dorset and listen.
Will the Minister tell me how many search and rescue stations he has visited? How many helicopter crews has he spoken to? How many co-ordination centres has he been to? Talking to the crews and visiting the centres is the best way to learn what this is all about.
Finally, I thank the air crews—especially ours in Dorset—for the incredible bravery they demonstrate in the job they do. My aim is not to be a belligerent Back Bencher. I am supported by tens of thousands of people, as well as many colleagues, who believe the Government have got this badly and seriously wrong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
In the seven or so minutes my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has left me, I will try to respond to all his points and questions. I congratulate him on securing this debate and recognise his strong and genuine interest in this matter on behalf of his constituents and the wider public in Dorset and elsewhere.
I am responding today in place of my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is in Brussels attending the Transport Council. Therefore, to answer one of the questions put to me, I have visited no search and rescue stations, as it is not part of my portfolio to do so. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has visited any, but I imagine that if he has not, he will want to do so, as he is very keen to discharge his responsibilities in a serious manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset recently met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and he referred in his speech to the letter that followed that meeting, issued on 17 December. I am pleased that he received a copy before this debate, because it deals with many of the points he has raised. As he will know, therefore, last year approximately 23,000 responses to incidents were co-ordinated by the coastguard service, many of which were responded to by the service and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Search and rescue helicopters responded to approximately 2,500 call-outs. I pay tribute to the brave men and women who often undertake challenging operations in treacherous conditions to save lives.
As I do not have much time, I will not bother the House with a run through of the history of the service. I should point out, however, that the oldest of the Sea Kings used in search and rescue entered service in the early 1970s, so the fleet is clearly nearing the end of its useful life. As a result, the military are withdrawing the Sea Kings and their personnel from search and rescue in 2016, and, as the most recently awarded coastguard helicopter contracts expire in 2017, the Department for Transport is running a procurement to put a new, modern, state-of-the-art contracted service in place for the whole country, to be managed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Helicopter technology has developed over the past few years, and we will put in place a new service that benefits from those technological improvements. The new service will therefore utilise a full fleet of state-of-the-art aircraft. These aircraft will provide greater reliability and faster flying times to many more locations than the current military helicopters. The Department is determined to provide at least the same level of service as now, but in the current financial climate we must also consider the most cost-effective way to achieve that objective. That has led us to decide to alter the basing arrangements for the service. The increased capability of modern aircraft will enable us to move from 12 bases to 10 and provide at least the same capability as today while reducing costs.
We chose to prescribe 10 bases with 98% availability. We could, according to procurement and other experts, have had a lower figure but we have settled on 10. That enabled us to ensure that the future service would be at least as good as the existing capability and not endanger life by risking an overall increase in response times. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset referred to the statement from the Select Committee and, to be fair, read out the response. In linguistic terms, “having a concern that the withdrawal of bases will lead to” is not the same—I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—as saying that that will be the inevitable consequence of any change. Clearly, the impact on the capability of the service and the ability to deal with incidents has been foremost in the Department’s mind in considering the future configuration of the service.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Minister give way very briefly?
Norman Baker
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not, as I have been left seven minutes to try to respond sensibly to a debate. I am very sorry and will happily take any interventions in a subsequent debate—if that is technically possible—when I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond.
This is obviously a matter of concern in South Dorset, but the Department is confident, as our independently verified analysis shows, that the arrangements we are putting in place will provide a comprehensive level of coverage that will not compromise our ability to reach persons in distress. Furthermore, the future service will bring substantial overall benefits to the country as a whole. It will require helicopters to be airborne within 15 minutes of being tasked during the day and to have a minimum availability of 98%. Within 60 minutes, the fleet will be able to reach all areas in the UK where there is a very high or high risk of incidents occurring, and modelling shows that average flying times to incidents would improve by approximately 20% under the future arrangements.
Currently, approximately 70% of high and very high risk areas within the UK search and rescue region are reachable by helicopter within 30 minutes. Under the new contract approximately 85% of the same area—therefore more of it—would be reached within that time frame. I recognise that Portland is of particular significance for my hon. Friend and other colleagues on the Government Benches. I am advised that approximately 5,000 coastguard co-ordinated incidents are handled by the Brixham, Portland and Solent coastguards annually, but over the past three years, an average of 214 a year required assistance from the Portland helicopter—that is about four a week. Other bases operating Sea Kings have performed up to double the number of taskings in a year, so it is not unreasonable to expect that neighbouring bases with modern helicopters would be able to respond to future incidents that Portland might respond to today. Indeed, other bases already do so at night because, as my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, Portland only operates during the day.
It is of course true that a helicopter, however modern, can only be in one place at a time, but there are three other bases in the region, all within reach of the areas the Portland base often flies to when responding to incidents. Of these other bases, the closest are Chivenor and Lee-on-the-Solent, just 20 minutes from Portland.
Richard Drax
Will he answer just one question, because—dare I say it—I have heard all this before? Will he guarantee that someone will come down to Dorset to listen?
Norman Baker
I was trying to respond to that point. His request has been clearly heard and I shall pass it on to my colleague the Under-Secretary and to the Secretary of State. It is their responsibility to deal with this issue and they will make a judgment, but he has made his point very firmly and I am sure that it has been heard by others in the House, too.
Let me try to deal with one more point before I run out of time. Over the past three years, Chivenor and Lee-on-the-Solent have been tasked at the same time as Portland on only five occasions. He cited the figure of 21, but I am advised by officials that the concurrent tasking figures to which he referred were from the Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centre, the RAF tasking authority, and relate to three bases—Portland, Chivenor and Lee-on-the-Solent—not just to one. That might account for the difference in figures to which he referred—
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Food Banks (Scotland)
(12 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, as we debate what is fast becoming a national disgrace—I refer to the widespread growth of poverty in our society, and in Scotland in particular, and the consequent mushrooming of food banks throughout the country, both formally and informally, via charities, churches and voluntary organisations. As constituency MPs, we know what is happening on the ground. It is distressing to find that neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government have been able to get any reliable statistics on the extent of food poverty in our country. I regard that as a gross dereliction of duty. They are what I call the “don’t know and don’t care” Governments. My plea is for them to establish the facts about food banks and food poverty, and to do so quickly.
This morning I want to focus on four related themes. First, I want to praise the many individuals and organisations stepping up to the mark to address this unprecedented food crisis. Throughout the country, groups are often overwhelmed by the extent of food poverty in their communities. Secondly, I shall highlight real-life constituency cases that hon. Members will find appalling. There are already food banks not on the official list that are operating informally. Thirdly, I shall present a picture of the food crisis in Scotland overall and identify some of the causes. Lastly, I want to emphasise the apparent complacency of two Governments who have abdicated their welfare responsibilities to those in desperate poverty and exhort them to think again about their priorities. In particular, I want to focus on the legitimate needs of the increasing number of constituents who are marginalised in society, many of whom keep a low profile due to the perceived stigma and the shame of seeking handouts. [Interruption.] While I locate this mobile phone—it is lovely to see somebody on call—I will give way.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. Only one Member should stand at a time please.
Mr Donohoe
Thank you, Mr Betts. I am sorry. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is saying that in this age—in 2012—there is a necessity for food banks? Is that not an abrogation of all Governments’ responsibilities?
Lindsay Roy
Absolutely. I could not agree more. The only organisation or government I know of that is beginning to take a significant interest in this is Labour-controlled Fife council, for whose area I am MP.
In particular, I want to focus on the legitimate needs of the increasing number of constituents who are marginalised in society, many of whom keep a low profile due to the perceived stigma and the shame of seeking handouts, when they once had a pride in catering for their own and their family’s needs.
I commend the many charities, trusts, churches and voluntary organisations, such as the Trussell Trust, FareShare and the plethora of local groups, that have set up food banks in our communities—and they are not only for Christmas.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am going to a Select Committee meeting shortly, so I apologise that I will not be able to stay for the full session. My hon. Friend refers to the many local groups undertaking such work. Does he agree that there are probably dozens of organisations in each constituency? We will not know about some of them, which is why it is important to get some idea of the extent of such activity. In my constituency, besides FareShare, we have Edinburgh City Mission, Bethany Christian Trust, the Missionaries of Charity and the Salvation Army, as well as local community groups and many other organisations. We need Government recognition of the extent of the problem.
Lindsay Roy
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I will cite examples from my constituency.
I commend highly the initiative, moral purpose, compassion and tenacity of those doing voluntary work in the face of adversity. I warmly welcome, too, the work of Citizens Advice Scotland, supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Tesco and the local authorities who are intervening to help. Collectively, they are trying valiantly to meet the desperate needs of many people who face genuine poverty—working families, those on benefit, pensioners and young people.
Charity and voluntary work is highly demanding, and usually rewarding when needs are met, but sometimes recently it has become a soul-destroying venture, because needs cannot be met even with all the resources in the local community and the good will it provides. Such volunteers are, in every respect, local heroes who contribute above and beyond the call of duty to address hunger and poverty that is sadly increasingly rife in our society. I pay tribute to those outstanding individuals and groups, who put service before self and make real differences to the lives of those in despair through poverty.
What a sad indictment of the Governments at Westminster and Holyrood that so many Scots are dependent on handouts and nobody has bothered even to gather statistics. I shall illustrate that later with a response from the Department for Work and Pensions.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On Friday, I and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland visited a food bank in my constituency. We were told sad stories of people, even working people, who have to go to food banks for food parcels. At the weekend, that same organisation—Elim Pentecostal Church, working in partnership with the Trussell Trust—was working with the messy church in Toryglen on Saturday on a toy bank, because many families cannot afford to buy their children toys at Christmas. Local people give toys—another demonstration of how Scotland is coming together to help people in vulnerable communities. We now need our Governments to come together to help such communities too.
Lindsay Roy
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, which stressed the situation I have been highlighting.
The Governments are strong on rhetoric, but short on action in dealing with the human tragedy that is seeping through our communities, where payday loan sharks capitalise on fuel, clothing and food poverty. We are told again and again that we have caring and compassionate Governments and we are all in this together, and yet there is an explosion of food and fuel poverty. It is an outrage. Our good track record in responding to human tragedy and emergencies abroad must be matched here. Welfare begins at home.
The hallmark of a civilised society is how we treat the poor and vulnerable, and we are falling well short for those who are disadvantaged and disabled. The Tory-led and SNP Governments have shown a callous disregard for the increasing number of citizens on the breadline. They should hang their heads in shame.
I want to give hon. Members a flavour of the nature and extent of the food crisis that faces people in my constituency. We affectionately refer to the YMCA and the YWCA as the Y. To their eternal credit they have run food banks and homeless shelters for 20 years. They inaugurated a food bank long before the term was commonly used and recognised. Numbers were small and their success was impressive. Mary Hill and her team do a fantastic job, way beyond realistic expectations. I visited the Y on Monday and, as I was leaving, I met a former pupil, now in his mid 20s. He had been a model student, worked hard and got an apprenticeship, but had lost his job. He was unsure how to react when he saw me—hon. Members might say that too—but seriously, tears welled up in his eyes as he told the staff that he had no food until his next benefit payment on Friday. He had 7p in his pocket. He clearly felt ashamed and uncomfortable, and I reassured him that the Y would do all that they could to help him in his crisis. That visit was his first, and it symbolises the recent upsurge in demand of more than 50%. The Y cannot cope on their own, so they are outsourcing food bank pick-ups from local churches and other voluntary organisations.
Rationing is occurring in the Y. The senior caseworker recently told me that they have been opening bags of rice and rationing the rice, giving people just enough to see them through one day. She says that some have been so undernourished that they can provide them only with soup, because their stomachs are not used to food and cannot handle a full meal; and they are not drug addicts. What a sad indictment. Understandably, victims do not want their names publicised, because of the stigma, low self-esteem and lack of hope associated with their plight. In a very real sense, they are the hidden hungry and, as I will illustrate later, they do not come into the statistics at all.
Two examples of the callous and inhumane treatment by Government agencies, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, are worthy of note. The first concerns a young man who was badly beaten up; the perpetrator was jailed for two years. The young man’s employment and support allowance was stopped after he failed an Atos assessment. Despite the best efforts of my constituency staff and his doctor, who had sound medical evidence, his appeal was rejected. He now has no income for two months—his appeal will be held at the end of January—and is totally dependent on the good will of his friends in the Y and associated organisations.
The other example concerns a father whose wife was giving birth to their third child. He was instructed to visit a company 9 miles away, but it was snowing and he had two children at home, so he did not attend to pick up a leaflet. As a result, despite the explanation given both by me and other folk in the constituency, his appeal was turned down and he is now on hardship benefits. There was no flexibility, no human understanding. I do not blame the DWP personnel, because that is what they are told to do. It is disgraceful; what an outrageous indictment of life in Fife, Scotland and the UK in the 21st century. The only Government agency that is planning to help is Labour-controlled Fife council, and we will take that forward at a meeting on Monday.
The Y plans to join the Trussell Trust link of officially recognised food banks, but the franchise fee is £1,500, which is an additional sum of money for it to find. The caseworker’s assessment is stark:
“The working poor and benefit recipients are being manoeuvred into a long-term famine”.
She also warns that
“the eye of the storm has yet to hit as April looms, when the bedroom tax for many will further reduce income”.
According to the Trussell Trust, there are 21 official food banks in Scotland and, since April, almost 6,200 people throughout Scotland have received emergency food parcels, including almost 2,000 children. About 6,000 people in Scotland benefit daily from FareShare services, but I submit that that is only the tip of a much larger Scottish poverty iceberg, as local food banks are emerging throughout Scotland. With minimal research, I have discovered that there are 10 in my constituency, which has about 65,000 to 70,000 people. According to Save the Children, one in seven of Scotland’s poorest children do not get enough to eat. I am sure that others speakers will elaborate and give more information from their experience, as hon. Friends have already done.
Scots are trapped between two Governments who have their priorities wrong. The Scottish National party could intervene now, and it has the power to do so. According to my information, the Scottish Government have found thousands of pounds for political saltires, and have spent £500,000 on the First Minister’s visit to the Ryder cup, £400,000 on the rental of Scotland house during the Olympics and £30 million on communications and ministerial support—much of it no doubt fixated on the referendum—at the expense of the real needs of the poor in Scotland. I understand that the last time food banks and food poverty was mentioned in the Holyrood Chamber by the First Minister was in September—so much for the commitment to protect Scots from the worst excesses of the coalition Government. We hear regular promises of a land of milk and honey on separation, but the SNP commitment to the poor hungry seems shallow to say the least. Indeed, it suits the SNP to sit back and blame the coalition Government, rather than, in its quest for separation, take the initiative.
The number in poverty is dramatically increasing, with gas and electricity prices rising between 8% and 14%. In part, the food crisis is exacerbated by the increase in fuel poverty, which the SNP said that it would eliminate by 2016.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is letting his prejudices against the SNP cloud his judgment about the real drivers of the increase in food banks in Scotland, which is to do with income poverty. Does he accept that support aimed at tackling fuel poverty in Scotland is now 15% higher, in cash terms, than it was when Labour left office?
Lindsay Roy
It is certainly higher, but the SNP Government promised to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016, and we are not aware of what they have done.
Most recipients of food from food banks are working strivers, as well as people on benefits. They have had their pay cut or their hours reduced, while others have had their benefits slashed or delayed, which has placed tremendous pressure on families. Others face the same kind of personal challenge that many face when buying a new fridge or something else that compounds the difficulty of managing their expenses. Some have resorted to payday loans and are literally destitute.
Finally, I want to focus on the autumn statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a golden opportunity to address the humanitarian issues that are bringing such hardship and despair to so many citizens throughout the UK. His statement marks a watershed in our welfare system, fracturing the long-standing link between benefits and earnings or prices, which is a hammer blow to the thousands of low-income families struggling to make ends meet.
In the face of overwhelming austerity, the Chancellor would have done well to heed the commitment made in the last century by the Liberal Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, who said:
“This…is a War Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty...I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time when poverty and wretchedness and human degradation which always follow in its camp will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 548.]
Regrettably, the wolves are back, with that characteristic ruthlessness and insensitivity towards the vulnerable in our society. I am not surprised in the slightest that few coalition Members are here. How on earth could they come along to try to defend the indefensible?
Further evidence of a “Don’t know, don’t care” Government is the response to my written question to the DWP about the number of food banks in operation and the extent of food poverty. It stated:
“DWP/Jobcentre Plus do not collate or hold numbers of people signposted to food banks or the reasons why individuals are referred. Jobcentre Plus is not the only route way for individuals to be signposted to a food bank.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 321W.]
What a clinical, insensitive and uncaring response.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated:
“There is no official estimate of the level of food poverty in the UK.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 298W.]
Surely, with the scale of the crisis and the growth of the hidden hungry, responsible Governments should desperately want to know. Or are they happy to abdicate responsibility to the many voluntary organisations—they do such tremendous work and depend on donations—that act as substitutes for the welfare state? In the light of the evidence, would a responsible and caring Government not want to abandon the tax cut for millionaires, robustly pursue tax avoidance and evasion and consider windfall taxes on the vast profits of energy companies to enhance benefits and tax credits by more than 1%?
John Dickie of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland summed up the Opposition’s position. He said:
“We would be deeply concerned if it was ever seen that charities and food banks would in any way be a kind of replacement for a tax and benefit policy that ensures all our families have adequate income for the task of bringing up their children.”
I urge the Government to assess robustly the nature and scale of the food crisis faced by the poor and vulnerable in our society and, more importantly, to do something about it.
A letter published in The Observer newspaper, signed by 59 leading charities and civic society groups, sums up my position well:
“As we mark the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge Report, which laid the foundations of the welfare state, we risk losing that very safety net he intended, it is a punitive, unfair policy and must not happen.”
The “Don’t know, don’t care” Government will forever be castigated for their inhumane and callous approach to the hidden hungry. They have completely abdicated their responsibility. It is not too late to change tack, Minister. I hope that he will as a decent man, through his office, pursue this matter and oppose what is happening in Cabinet. I implore him to break ranks with the out-of-touch Cabinet, which is, whether consciously or unwittingly, wrecking the lives of Scots through its complacency and inaction. Scotland’s poor deserve his unequivocal support.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing this debate.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic, as last week’s autumn statement revealed the true scale of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s economic failure. While millionaires get a £3 billion tax cut, it is people who are already struggling to make ends meet—lower and middle-income families, and pensioners—who are paying the price for this failure. Every day, people in this country go hungry for reasons ranging from losing their jobs, to receiving an unexpected bill on a low income. Some 13 million people are living in poverty in this country.
I find it abhorrent that in 2012, people have to rely on food banks or go hungry. What kind of society are we living where so many of our citizens cannot afford to eat properly or keep warm, yet the rich get richer under the coalition Government’s tax breaks for the very wealthy, and the banks continue to make astronomical profits and pay out obscene bonuses? Back home, the SNP Scottish Government stand idly by.
Britain’s biggest food bank operator, the Trussell Trust, has more than 250 food banks throughout the United Kingdom, of which some 10% are located in Scotland. This year alone, it launched three food banks per week in response to demand, which has been exacerbated by the current economic climate. Incredibly, up to 1,000 food banks are needed to satisfy demand that has leapt by 30% a year since the recession began.
The Trussell Trust fed 110,000 people in the first half of this year, and 250,000 hungry Britons—a quarter of a million—will have used emergency food banks by the end of the year. What a dramatic change in a relatively short space of time.
The latest figures, which are four times higher than two years ago—that represents a 400% rise in people using food banks—include parents too poor to feed their children and desperate householders forced to choose between eating and heating. Even people in work are on the breadline, and the number of people struggling to feed themselves is rising. Let me say for the benefit of the Minister that the sole purpose of food banks is to provide an emergency supply of up to three day’s worth of non-perishable and nutritionally balanced food, such as tinned soups, meats and pasta, to individuals and families in crisis who would be at risk of going hungry.
Mr Donohoe
Is it not absolutely ironic that in two days’ time Halls of Broxburn, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is closing and as a consequence, the workers are setting up a food bank? Is that not an indictment against the nationalists and the Government in Westminster?
Graeme Morrice
Indeed. It is a sad indictment of both Governments. The example my hon. Friend gave is based in my constituency, and some 1,700 people are in the process of losing their jobs.
The food produce is donated by churches, voluntary groups, individuals and the public via collection days outside supermarkets. To help sustain anonymity, food parcels are handed out from the food bank warehouse distribution centre by volunteers and no deliveries are made. Access to emergency food boxes is secured via the exchange of a voucher, which may be issued by social workers, health visitors, GPs and the police.
Christmas is a particularly difficult time for people with little or no disposable income. I wonder whether Dickens ever imagined such a bleak picture more than a century and a half on from “A Christmas Carol”. Could he have guessed that many of these neglected people would come not from the poorer, deprived sections of society but from middle and lower-income families, and include pensioners? Fewer than 5% of food bank clients are homeless; many are in working families; one third of recipients are children. What a sad indictment of modern society under the Prime Minister and Alex Salmond. The Tories’ instinctive dislike of the poor and the spread of food banks seem to go hand in hand under this Government. How long ago would collecting food parcels for the hungry have been virtually unthinkable in the UK?
I am really disgusted that the Government place so much effort on reforming the benefits system and, in turn, punishing the most vulnerable in our society. Yet if the Government concentrated at least some effort on collecting taxes from the international corporations that operate in this country and on closing some of the loopholes in the tax system, there would be more money to go around. It also makes me sick that the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England is to receive a £7.64 million pension pot, while British kids go hungry.
Increasing costs of food and fuel combined with static income, high unemployment and changes to benefits are causing more and more people to turn to food banks for help. Coalition Government austerity cuts and squeezed incomes are forcing people with jobs, as well as benefit claimants, regularly to queue up for food parcels. Many people everywhere are struggling to make ends meet and household finances are being stretched like never before. A small financial crisis, such as a repair bill for a car or a big bill, can quickly turn into a massive disaster. For many people, buying food slips down their list of priorities simply because other things, such as rent, gas and electricity, have to take precedence. For all those people, turning to a food bank is a last resort.
The effects on poorer people can be devastating. An elderly constituent said in an impassioned plea to me when she visited my surgery that she shivers every time she hears the words “food bank”. It reminds her of the depression and conjures up images of breadlines. Many had hard existences in her day, but looking after people was considered a prime moral virtue, regardless of status.
In my own area, the West Lothian food bank is in the process of being developed in association with the Trussell Trust. I believe that the trust’s experience, coupled with the enthusiasm of those concerned, will ensure that the endeavour will succeed. It serves as a good example of effective community building and is testament to how communities in my constituency and throughout West Lothian—and, indeed, across the country—are harnessing and investing their own resources to assist those in greatest need. I pay tribute to them.
What can be done? The first step is for the Government to stop pretending that poverty is not happening. It would be good to see the Government recognise what is very much evident: that it is the most vulnerable who are in greatest need. We need to break down the barriers and change attitudes between the new “us” and “them”—rich and poor.
We also need to appreciate that if the curtains are closed early in the morning, perhaps there is an elderly pensioner trying to keep the heat in, or an impoverished single mum hiding her shame at her inability to feed her children properly, or an unemployed youngster depressed at being unable to find a job.
Some practical interventions could help: a package of support put in place by the Government for those experiencing an acute crisis in their personal circumstances; and a longer-term Government strategy for dealing with the issues identified in this debate. Ultimately, however, we need a lasting change of direction by this Government or, ideally, a change of Government itself: to one who demonstrate compassion, put ordinary people first and recognise the right priorities.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to offer by way of a solution to this completely avoidable crisis.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I will call the Front-Bench spokesmen from 10.40 am. That gives no more than eight minutes each for all the other Members who want to speak. That is a voluntary arrangement, but I hope we can keep to it.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Betts, for calling me to speak and I will endeavour to keep to the time stipulations.
I begin by commending the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on bringing such an important issue to the House today in one of the last debates that we will be having in Westminster Hall before the Christmas recess, when I am sure that many of us will eat and drink a lot more than is necessarily good for us. It is, therefore, timely for us to remember that some people’s festivities will be extremely frugal this year, particularly if they are in food poverty.
I must confess that I do not think food banks are a good means of addressing the low-income inequality that gives rise to the need for them, but they are playing an increasingly important role in emergency provision for people who are in crisis. We can only commend the people in our local churches and communities who are stepping up to fill that gap in what should be an important part of our social protection provision, to ensure that people do not go hungry at what is a very difficult time for many people economically.
The Trussell Trust and Citizens Advice Scotland have both presented a picture—one that is remarkably similar across the islands—of a doubling in demand for food bank provision during the last year alone. This morning, it is particularly important to pay tribute to the work of CAS, which has done so much to highlight the exponential growth in food banks and, critically, has also attempted to understand the reasons for that growth. Its analysis, especially in its “Voices from the Front Line” report, which was published this autumn, identifies the key drivers very well.
Margaret Lynch, chief executive of CAS, has described the historical backdrop of food parcels and the situation that we are in now. She points out that charities such as the Salvation Army and the Society of St Vincent de Paul have always provided practical assistance for families in crisis who temporarily could not feed themselves. In this recession, the number of working families and people on benefits who need help to feed their children and themselves has increased exponentially. Margaret Lynch says:
“The National Minimum Wage has failed to keep pace with the massive increases in food prices over the last 5 years, leaving many low income families facing food insecurity. The fact that 50% of those getting food parcels are working is shocking.”
Anas Sarwar
It is interesting to note that the Scottish National party failed to turn up to vote in favour of the national minimum wage when it was put in front of this Parliament.
Let us not argue about what the cause of this crisis is. What are the Scottish Government specifically doing to help ease the pain of families across Scotland?
Dr Whiteford
I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because if we do not understand the causes of this crisis and articulate them clearly and properly, we cannot take effective action. We have seen his own Government in previous generations throw money at problems but with no, or negligible, impact. Until we understand what is driving this crisis, there is absolutely no point flinging words around Westminster Hall.
The fact that 50% of people claiming food parcels are working is—
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Dr Whiteford
No, I will not give way again, because the quality of the last intervention by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) left quite a lot to be desired.
Dr Whiteford
I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have a higher quality of intervention, but I will not give way at this point, simply because I am conscious of time. Clearly, I have some things to say in this debate and I want to get through them in the time allotted.
The other 50% of the increase in demand for food parcels is from people whose benefits have been delayed or who are having problems with the administration of the benefit system. There is no doubt that the dramatic increase in the demand for emergency support is a consequence of the recession, and the increased numbers of people who face sudden unemployment, or cuts in their working hours or real-terms cuts in their wages. However, demand has also been increased by the austerity measures—the response to the recession by the Government—and the disproportionate hit that people on low incomes, particularly those who wholly or partially depend on benefits to keep them above the breadline, have had to bear in the raft of financial cuts that we have seen during the last two years.
The changes to the benefit system have placed greater restrictions on people, and the stringent time limits on some benefits—such as employment and support allowance, and housing benefit—will only make that problem worse. Experts are warning that the real bite of these measures is still to come.
Aberdeenshire was part of the pilot scheme for the work capability assessment. I am already seeing people at my surgeries who have been assessed as fit to work who are simply not fit for work, and whose precarious health has been further jeopardised and damaged by very difficult engagement with the benefit system. Those left without entitlement are increasingly falling back on financial support from their unpaid family carers, who themselves are often in very tight financial circumstances. These are families who are finding themselves having to rely on emergency support.
The other emergency support in our social protection system, which I debated with the Minister a week ago, is the social fund. As I am sure Members are aware, the social fund currently provides crisis loans and community care grants; it is very much the last safety net of the social protection system. It will be abolished next year, with responsibility for its functions being devolved to Scotland. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Department for Work and Pensions has been managing back the social fund to its 2005-06 level, despite the increasing demands on it, and the money being devolved next year will represent a cut of about 50% on the 2009-10 level.
Dr Whiteford
I would be delighted to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but I will not take any more interventions after this one.
Mr Brown
I will do my best to be brief, Mr Betts.
I say to the hon. Lady that the social fund that is now finding its way into the hands of local authorities has not been ring-fenced. Does she share my view that what we may find is some local authorities to a certain extent misusing that money, rather than targeting it at the areas where it is most needed? She should keep in mind that local government is under pressure under her party’s Government.
Dr Whiteford
I am aware that the social fund has not been ring-fenced across the UK. There is a strong argument for ring-fencing it. I am not aware of the details of the welfare fund that the Scottish Government are putting in place, but I know that it will be a national fund. I expect that that fund probably will be ring-fenced, but that is a question that needs to be addressed to Scottish Ministers.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government have committed extra money to make up the shortfall in the social fund once it is devolved, after the cuts that have been made to it, and that there will be an opportunity for that to happen. That is one concrete way in which protection can be put in place.
I will be very quick, as I do not want to test your patience, Mr Betts. One of the assertions that has been made in the debate is that there is a lack of research in this area. When I was doing my research in preparation for the debate, I was very much informed by the low-income diet and nutrition survey, which was commissioned by the Food Standards Agency. It gave a very clear picture, and a wealth of useful information, about diet and nutrition in Scotland, and it makes it very clear that they are associated with income poverty. The most deprived 15% of the population are likely to be eating about half the recommended level of fruit and vegetables, and well above the maximum recommended level of sugar.
Health inequalities and their consequences are not the subject of this debate, but it is important that we look at the issue of food banks holistically and on the basis of the evidence, and that we understand that changes to the benefit system are having an impact across these islands. We need to put in place emergency provision, but at the same time we need to tackle the long-term drivers of income poverty and poor nutrition in our society.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing this important debate.
Put bluntly, food poverty across the UK is a national disgrace. The statistics are shocking and heart-rending. In Britain today, 13 million people live below the poverty line. In 2011-12, food banks fed more than 128,000 people nationwide—100% more than in the previous year. That has been driven by the rising cost of food and fuel, combined with static income, high unemployment and changes to benefits made by the Tory-led coalition Government. Those things are causing more and more people to go to food banks for help.
In Scotland, the number of families needing food banks has also risen by 100%, with nearly 3,000 people receiving food parcels since April this year. One charity alone has fed 6,000 people across Scotland. We now have a Dickensian situation, with many people in low-paid jobs, and people who rely on benefits, being forced to use food banks to feed their children and themselves regularly. The fact that 50% of those going to food banks are working is quite shocking, and it underlines the employment position across Scotland.
I want to focus on my constituency, where a new food bank opened less than three months ago for families falling below the poverty line. It is coming to the aid of local people who are struggling to find enough money to pay for food. It is working in partnership with the Elim church in the east end of Greenock. Those who know that area will know that it is not one of the most wealthy areas in my constituency, but it is certainly one of the most giving. I commend the church’s caring response to the hardship that is unfolding in and around its congregation.
I was delighted to assist members of the church with their fundraising the other week. I was also delighted to assist them outside supermarkets, asking for donations for those who are finding it difficult to feed themselves and their families. I have visited the church’s i58 food bank in Inverclyde, and for those not familiar with the Book of Isaiah and Isaiah 58, I should add that it deals with fasting and hunger. Staff at the food bank told me that more than 300 families had visited it in its first three months. They were worried because referrals to it had increased day by day, with more than 50 families visiting on just one day last week. Clearly, the situation is getting worse, as evidenced by the fact that demand is increasing so dramatically as we approach Christmas.
We have a Government in London who seemingly just do not care. Unfortunately, we have a Government in Edinburgh who are blind to everything except their obsession with the constitution. The ever-growing demand for food banks is a shocking sight in 21st-century Britain, and it shows what it truly means to live in Cameron’s Britain and Salmond’s Scotland at present. Neither Government has a credible plan to tackle the dreadful poverty that afflicts our nation.
The UK of the 21st century has people choosing between eating and heating, and for some there is no choice at all, because they can afford to do neither. There should be a national outcry, and tackling this issue should be at the heart of any Government’s programme. No child should go hungry in the UK, and no child, adult or pensioner should go hungry on Christmas day or any other day. Our Governments need to do more to eliminate the scandal of food banks.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing the debate. It is timely, given that we are looking ahead to enjoying ourselves over Christmas and new year. It is important that we spend some time reflecting on the circumstances of those who are perhaps not quite so fortunate. Perhaps more importantly, we also need to look at what we can do to renew our efforts to deal with this issue when we return to Parliament next year.
This morning on the BBC, I heard a report about the number of children—particularly primary-age children—being fed by schoolteachers, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be familiar with that, given his background in education. From my contact with many primary teachers in my local area and further afield in Scotland, I know that that is not uncommon. For many years, teachers simply would not see children going without a packed lunch or a meal, so it was quite shocking to discover the number of parents in my area who are in arrears with their school meals charges; indeed, that caused a particular problem in the primary school in the village I live in. That is a real concern, because people who are not entitled to free meals, but who are none the less on relatively low incomes, are finding they cannot pay for a school meal for their child. That is a big worry.
In some ways, food banks have made the problem much more visible. For many years, families and the wider community helped out where they could, but the problem now is that many people simply do not have those local networks. Similarly, families do not have the resources to help out, and the grannies, the aunties or whoever would traditionally have helped out may now find that the cuts to benefits and pensions, and the other things that are impacting on them, mean they are unable to help out in the same way.
No one would have wanted to see food banks being set up. For many years, I worked in social work, and I had to go to homes to deliver food parcels on many occasions. It was not a part of the job that I enjoyed, because it was sometimes difficult for the people on the receiving end to ask for help and to feel that they were obliged to others for the help they had been given. However, I recognise that those who have set up food banks are those who have decided they will not simply pass by on the other side of the street, let others take on the responsibility or watch as others suffer.
The sixth food bank to open in Scotland under the auspices of the Trussell Trust was set up in my area of East Ayrshire by Cheryl Forbes and her now husband Gordon Cree. They are well known in my community, and Cheryl is a renowned opera singer. Her background was not particularly well off, but she has done extremely well for herself. Like many people from such a background, she was determined to put something back. When she talked about setting up the food bank in an interview in the local Kilmarnock Standard, she said she remembered vividly how her granny went without so that she could have a meal, following a change in the family’s circumstances, and that has stayed with her.
Many of us would recognise that personally or from the experiences of others we know. Indeed, I was recalling with someone just the other day how we as kids did not actually believe that women ate or sat down at family meals. Quite often, the children would be fed, but the mother or the granny would disappear into the kitchen, saying, “I’ll get something later.” It was only years afterwards that we understood that they never really got something later, because the children were fed, but the mother or the granny went without.
Cheryl set up the food bank, and she has recruited a number of volunteers. The organisation is now very successful, although, ironically, that does not give her and the volunteers a great deal of pleasure. It is doing well—it has recruited the volunteers, got the donations and regularly been out collecting—but it is seeing increasing numbers of people coming for help.
From a very small start in the village of Darvel, with support from the local church, the service has expanded to cover the whole of East Ayrshire, which includes rural communities. It now needs a delivery service to take food out to people in emergency situations in some rural areas. As we have heard, many of those people are not necessarily the ones who have been on low incomes or on benefits for years—ironically, some of those people can manage their money, despite their limited income, because they know exactly how much they have coming in. The people who come to the food bank are those on low wages who have experienced some problem—either, as has been suggested, because of delay in the payment of in-work benefits, child maintenance or something of that kind, or because of unexpected outlay from family income. That could be something as simple as a child needing new shoes or a coat for the winter, so that the family budget for that period is suddenly blown. The people who come to the food bank are of course in a crisis, and need help there and then.
I spent some time with local volunteers and particularly wanted to mention the help that we had. Those helping in the past few months have included Sainsbury’s, the Co-op, Asda and Tesco. The volunteers I was out with a couple of weeks ago, making collections at Tesco, were Rob Hamilton, Linda Nagle and Elaine Haining, who is a Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers representative at Tesco—and, indeed, Tesco staff. There were people who came quietly up to me—some of them on very low incomes themselves—to hand over a couple of tins or a couple of packets of pasta, because they know what it is like not to know where the next meal is coming from and whether they can feed their children.
Surely, despite all the effort that has been put into setting up food banks, that is an indictment: in the 21st century we have a situation that I believed—years ago, when I was involved in social work—we could eradicate, by ensuring that there was a safety net. The problem now is that the safety net is being unravelled bit by bit, and the real terms cuts in in-work benefits in the autumn statement mean that more people will have to rely on food banks in future. I praise the volunteers and everyone who does not walk by, so that people are fed, but I cannot see that that is a good thing in 21st-century Scotland.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing the debate. I have known him for some time, having worked with him for three months in the lead-up to his glorious by-election victory, and no one in this place is more committed to serving the people he represents.
We now have a food bank in East Lothian. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), I have mixed feelings about having to come together to fill the gaps the Government should attend to, and propping up their failure. However, I have increasingly encountered food poverty in my surgeries, and heard about it from local churches and community organisations. I felt that the stage had been reached where to do nothing was not acceptable.
As the data collected by the Trussell Trust show, many of the situations affecting people are caused by interruptions or delays in benefits. That is something on which the Government can act. They can do something about it, and I hope the Minister will comment on it. I draw his attention particularly to the issue of tax credits. A family recently got in touch to tell me about a change in circumstances. Their tax credits were stopped by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs while a review took place. The delay seemed unreasonable—I am sure that many hon. Members have experienced similar cases—and in the meantime, after that family of six had paid for child care and rent, they were left with £80 a month to pay all their bills and feed their children. That is unacceptable in a civilised society.
The other major cause of food poverty in my constituency is the imposition of sanctions on people by the Department for Work and Pensions. I understand that there must be consequences and people must comply; but surely there is a duty of care on the DWP and the Government, and people should at least have access to shelter and food, two of the most basic human needs, whatever their situation. A man who turned up at our citizens advice bureau had not eaten for three days. The Government are not going to starve people into work. That approach will simply not deliver.
I want to draw attention to the impact of food poverty on the health and well-being of children particularly. The development of the brain in the early years is very much affected by the emotional environment and by nutrition, so it is a major concern that young children in Scotland do not get the food they need. A witness who gave evidence to the Select Committee on International Development recently said that the litmus test of a Government is how they are affected by poverty and how they affect poverty. The present Government fail that test. They are not engaging with the issue, and not taking action. I recently tabled a question to the Prime Minister and asked
“whether he has visited a food bank in the last six months; and whether he plans to visit a food bank in the next six months”.
His answer was:
“I have meetings and discussions with a wide range of organisations and individuals at a variety of locations around the country. My engagements are announced as and when appropriate.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 455W.]
That is a shocking response to the most desperate situation that families, pensioners and vulnerable people in my constituency face. The Government are out of touch and need to get to grips with the problem.
Two things have surprised me recently as East Lothian food bank begins to offer help and support. The first really should not have surprised me: that was the generosity of the people of East Lothian. At a recent supermarket collection day at Asda, two weekends ago, people with plenty were willing to share and people who had little were determined to do something. It is amazing how similar that experience is to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. People often said, “I know what it’s like not to be able to put food on the table.” It is an experience I have had as a mother, as well. I am sad to say that that was when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister. Food poverty is not always where we expect it to be. We had a lovely detached four-bedroom house. Suddenly the mortgage doubled and we were unable to make ends meet. At that time we had a bank that charged us £50 whenever we were overdrawn, and set us even further back into debt; so I absolutely understand the situation that many families face. The other thing that surprised me is the need. We started to offer support last Tuesday. In seven days the number of referrals has been increasing, and yesterday we had 10. The Government must find out the scale of the problem.
The Government also need to stop demonising the poor. The Chancellor spoke about drawn curtains, but he needs to think why someone would have no sense of purpose in life, and no hope of having a reason even to open their curtains, rather than characterising such people as lazy and unwilling to contribute to society. He will no doubt have his annual skiing holiday, perhaps at Klosters. I do not blame him, as, let’s face it, he has not had a good year; but poor people are human too. They have needs, and need an escape and coping strategies. The Government should stop demonising them and do something about the causes of poverty.
I spoke last night to one of the mothers who received a parcel from the food bank. She talked about how her daughter was enjoying a tin of sardines, and she had not known that she liked them. I realised that I had prepared that food parcel, and it was one of the best feelings in the world to put that parcel together and imagine the pleasure it would bring to a family.
I will leave the Minister with some words from my summer holiday reading, “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck. If the Minister has not read it, I recommend it, because no one understands poverty quite like John Steinbeck:
“The causes lie deep and simple—the causes are a hunger in a stomach, multiplied a million times; a hunger in a single soul, hunger for joy and some security, multiplied a million times.”
I ask the Minister please to do something.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing the debate.
It is only a week since we last had a debate in Westminster Hall on food poverty. I want quickly to mention one or two things that were raised then, and to discuss a local organisation in my area. We all know of the good work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and we heard in the debate last week that its latest report shows that 13.2 million people in this country live in poverty. There is also the recent shocking report by Save the Children. There is no doubt that Save the Children, along with the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s, does tremendous work the length and breadth of the country. That Save the Children report, which was released in September, states that well over half of parents in poverty—some 61%—say they have cut back on food, and more than a quarter—26%—say they have skipped meals. That comes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made about mothers all too often saying, “I’ll get something later.” Those words resonate with me because I come from a large family, and on numerous occasions my mother said that, without my realising what she was really saying. We would be having a meal as a family of five children, and mother was going to get something later—that probably never happened.
I want to raise again today a point I raised in last week’s debate, because it is important that we understand just how desperate things get for people. In the Save the Children report, a parent is quoted as saying:
“A year or so ago, we literally relied on any money we raised at car boot sales to pay for food for the week. Some weeks weren’t too bad, others were dire. The British weather decided how we lived that week (when it rained, the turnout at car boot sales fell).”
It is terrible to think that people have to go to such lengths to have money for food.
I want quickly to mention the First Base Agency in Dumfriesshire, organised by a guy called Mark Frankland. Mark is real local worthy. He initially set up the agency to help and support individuals with drug and alcohol problems, and from the success of that he went on to work with veterans, providing them with support through a gardening scheme. They managed to produce some fresh vegetables, and I suspect he must have also had some kind of livestock, because he ended up producing eggs as well.
Mark is a well-known guy who does a lot of work, and the scheme for veterans was therapeutic work, to get some guys back on the road. He has developed a local charity into a business, and that business provides a factoring service for a local registered social landlord, thereby creating a number of jobs that are given over to veterans. Mark has also, very much under the radar, provided food parcels. He is not a recognised food bank of the kind that colleagues have described this morning and in other debates, but he has provided food parcels for a number of years to some of the most vulnerable individuals and families in the local area. Support through churches and local charities has enabled it all to happen. I spoke to Mark yesterday, and he told me that between November last year and November this year the demand for food parcels trebled. One of the parcels that he manages to provide lasts a family for about three days.
From a wider perspective, all too often we hear comparisons in the House between the UK’s deficit and debt and those of Greece and Spain, with people saying that we are in the same ball park. The fact is that about 2.5% of the population in Greece and Spain is supported by voluntary sector handouts, and that equates to 10 times the support we are experiencing in the UK through food banks and other charities. I absolutely balk, therefore, at the idea that we should be compared with those countries, and I am pleased that we are not there along with them because I wonder what some families, households and communities would be experiencing if the situation was as bad as that.
Colleagues have mentioned the Department for Work and Pensions, and I want to give an example similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes gave. A single father with three children fell foul of the DWP—the Department, not the staff; the staff are only delivering the systems and policies that are dictated to them. The unfortunate gentleman fell foul of the DWP when he missed an appointment, an appointment of which he said he definitely never received notification. Sanctions were imposed, including a two-month suspension. A father and three children had to simply get by—on what? Fresh air? People must have some kind of support. Frustratingly, the guy was unemployed. He had spare time on his hands, so he went along to the First Base Agency and helped Mark Frankland. He saw it as a duty to do a bit of voluntary work for someone who had helped him in the past.
Fiona O'Donnell
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government are not just dividing rich against poor, but the deserving poor against the undeserving poor?
Mr Brown
Absolutely. I could not put it better myself.
So with a two-month suspension and no money, how could the family cope? What kind of lesson or way of existing is that? What kind of environment is that in which to bring up children? Let us not forget the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian made about the need for children to be fed properly, to enable them to develop at a young age. It is life experiences in the early years that have the most impact on children.
We have talked about the SNP Government, and I appreciate that that is not an issue for the Minister to respond to, unless he finds that he has the same train of thought as I do on it. Local government is, however, under real pressure, and what Mark Frankland at the First Base Agency has been experiencing for a long time is social services referring families to him for food parcels. I have spoken to Mark in the past 24 hours and he has told me that social workers will arrive at his office today to pick up food parcels to deliver to some of their clients. A little extra money into social services from the Scottish Government would go a long way.
Dr Whiteford
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the cuts to local government in Scotland have been at a lower level than in other parts of the UK, and that the Scottish Government have worked closely with Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to mitigate the impact on low-income families, through, for example, work to secure council tax benefit where it has been abolished?
Mr Brown
I identify where the hon. Lady’s loyalty lies, but a question that she and her colleagues in the Scottish Government need to answer is: why were we seeing cuts to local government in Scotland three years before the block grant was cut? There was no need for that whatever. I know that the money was not as great as she might have expected, but we saw cuts three years before the block grant was reduced.
In conclusion, the dilemma that families face—some of which I hope we share—will only be compounded as we move through the next 12 months. There will be universal credit for those in receipt of benefits, and it will be delivered directly to them, so housing benefit and council tax credit will be delivered to the person applying, rather than going directly to where it should be going. Families will get the money, and then the dilemma for them will be: will they pay their rent, or their council tax?
Cathy Jamieson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the bedroom tax is already having an impact, and that it will also be a major feature?
Mr Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will compound the problem when people have to make choices. Is it a meal on the table, a pair of shoes for the son or daughter, or paying the rent? I, thankfully, do not have to make those choices, but I am there with people who have to make such difficult decisions.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Betts.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing this timely debate and on speaking with such eloquence and passion about the real picture affecting his constituents in Fife. I also praise the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) and for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), and I commend the contribution of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).
As people across the country prepare to celebrate the festive season, it is right that we all consider the effects of policy on those who are struggling to make ends meet. Sadly, this year the number of people struggling in food poverty has risen dramatically. I hope the Minister, unlike the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) in a debate in this Chamber last week, will acknowledge that food poverty is a growing and distinct social problem and will work to produce a strategy across Government to overcome it.
We should also remember the work of the Trussell Trust and other organisations that are filling the gap in society that this Government are so shamefully leaving behind. The Library of the House informed me on Monday that 6,196 people, including nearly 2,000 children, have been fed by Trussell Trust food banks in Scotland since April 2012. The difficulty in putting together the whole picture is caused by the Government failing to keep proper data on the prevalence of food banks, and I hope the Minister will at least remedy that following this debate.
The Scottish Government are not helping with the cuts they are making to the fuel poverty budgets, which threaten to abandon 800,000 people in Scotland to the scourge of fuel poverty. In addition, progress on child and family poverty has stalled under the present Scottish Government. I do not regard the investment made by the previous Labour Government in the tax credit system, which the Resolution Foundation has established was the principal driver of living standards being sustained to any extent beyond 2003, as throwing money at a problem; it was important as a means of keeping families in good living standards through a difficult period. However, I will focus my remarks on the current Government’s policies, which are causing the surge in the use of food banks.
Yesterday’s inflation figures were striking in pointing to the 3.9% rise in the cost of food compared with a year ago, whereas the consumer prices index measure of inflation is 2.7%.
Cathy Jamieson
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Does he agree that it is significant that, within food pricing, bread and vegetables are the items that are most affected?
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The price of fruit and vegetables is rising particularly strongly. Fruit is up 3.9% in the past year, and vegetables are up 8.1%, all of which is contributing to what has been described as a nutritional recession, with people cutting back on the purchase of fresh food and relying more on cheaper processed food instead.
Last week the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a study, which included evidence from Scottish households, showing that households in the lowest two income deciles are spending more of their income on food than they were five years ago—such spending is now 16.6% of their income—but their purchases of fresh fruit and vegetables have slumped because of soaring prices and the squeeze on household finances.
There is no doubt that some of the principal underlying causes are the squeeze on real wages in Scotland—down 7.4% in the first two years of this Government—the excessive pace of fiscal tightening, annual energy bills rising by an average of £300 since 2010 and the tax rises being imposed on ordinary people by this Government, not least the hike in VAT, which on average is costing ordinary families £480 a year in extra tax. As we predicted, the effect of those policies has been to strip demand from the economy, particularly from the poorest communities.
Three themes have emerged from this debate. First, the Government have no policy to counter the downward spiral of real wages. Under this Government, people are worse off than they were a decade ago. The effects of continuing with their policies were put starkly by the Resolution Foundation in its recent report, “Gaining from Growth”. Under this Government’s policies, real wages are likely to be no higher in 2017 than in 1999. People will be on average £1,700 a year worse off at the end of that period. With living standards in the UK declining at a faster rate than for some of our major European partners, perhaps seeing us drop to sixth in the European living standards league will focus minds in the Treasury a little more than has so far been the case.
Secondly, underemployment is affecting the disposable income that people in Scotland are taking home and are able to spend on food and other social necessities. More than 270,000 people in Scotland are trapped in involuntary part-time work or self-employment. There is a huge amount of evidence demonstrating the link between underemployment and low pay.
Thirdly, the Government’s policies on tax and benefits will increase reliance on food banks still further. We know that one major driver of the use of food banks among the jobless and those on low incomes is short-term cash-flow difficulties and problems accessing the social fund. Should this Government persist in introducing a real-terms benefit and tax credit cut over the next three years, they will accelerate the process by which people fall into debt problems and extreme poverty.
We need only consider the warning from history about where such policies take society. The cuts in the 1930s contributed to a situation described by Beveridge as one in which social evils such as want were on the rise. Surely we have moved beyond a situation where Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers—sadly, no Liberal or Conservative Back Benchers were willing to come to this debate to support their Minister or to defend these outrageous policies—would inflict that on the country once again, in the face of all the evidence on how destructive it would be to fragile economic demand and how it would endanger our social fabric.
The Chancellor said in relation to his emergency Budget of June 2010 that he would not seek to balance the books on the “backs of the poor.” He has at least kept part of that pledge, because with borrowing £212 billion higher at the end of this Parliament, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, and debt higher, not lower, as a share of GDP, the Chancellor is not balancing the books; but he is making the poorest hurt the most through that policy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the policies announced in the autumn statement will hit the bottom 40% of the income scale harder as a share of income than the top 10% next April while removing work incentives for millions of people. Sixty per cent. of the Chancellor’s welfare cuts will affect people in work, and 76% of the cuts in tax credits in Scotland will hammer families in which someone works.
In the Minister’s constituency, which I have researched, 83% of the tax credit cuts will affect people in work. In the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), 82% of the tax credit cuts will hammer people in work. How on earth is that defensible?
The politics behind what the Government are doing are equally contemptible. The Scottish National party Government are attempting to divide us geographically from the rest of the UK, but this Government are attempting to divide people socially and economically form their neighbours.
This has been a good debate, but now it requires a proper response from the Government, who must answer why, in a rich country, they are prepared to tolerate the return of involuntary reliance on charity rather than adopt a proper policy to tackle food poverty and boost wages and living standards. They must answer why they are prepared to demonise the poor rather than join the rest of Scottish society in ending poverty. They must answer why, in losing their battle to recapture lost economic growth, they risk losing something even bigger: their sense of morality and what makes Scotland a good society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing this debate, and I thank all Members who have taken part. I have listened to some positive things being said not just about food banks but about other voluntary and community organisations operating across Scotland and in individual constituencies.
I put on record my thanks to the many organisations that provide food banks and other services, and especially to their volunteers. Many such organisations, if not most, are set up by charities and churches, which have a valuable role to play in supporting the most vulnerable in their local communities. We should feel thankful for the work that they do to provide support in sometimes desperate situations. As some Members have acknowledged—including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who gave a thoughtful speech, as ever—such organisations have been doing that work for a considerable time.
Although I will address the issue of the increase in the use of food banks, we should not suggest that the work of such organisations, or the need to help and support the most vulnerable in our society, began recently. The issue is ongoing and serious, and it must be constantly challenged and worked on. Many Members gave many indications of that in their contributions, including examples such as unexpected bills, whatever their source, for those on low incomes.
Much of what we have heard recently about food banks has been through the findings of the Trussell Trust, a network of food banks providing services throughout Scotland and the UK. The Department for Work and Pensions, through Jobcentre Plus, has worked with the Trussell Trust to establish a food bank referral service, a simple signposting process to help claimants who say that they are in financial difficulty find alternative sources of assistance. People will not be referred where assistance and support is available directly from Jobcentre Plus.
What Opposition Members did not tell us is that when they were in Government, Labour refused to allow food banks to advertise by putting leaflets in jobcentres. This Government have allowed them to, and jobcentre advisers now also tell people about food banks. Some of the expansion, although not all, is due to the fact that people now know about the existence of food banks who did not know before we told them. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told Parliament in September:
“When we came to office, I was told by the Department that despite the constant requests from a variety of people who provide food banks, in particular the Trussell Trust, to put their leaflets in jobcentres to advertise what they were doing, the last Government said no, because they did not want the embarrassment of their involvement. We immediately allowed them to do so, which is one reason for the increase in the number of people seeking food banks.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 13.]
Fiona O'Donnell
It is unbelievable: the Minister almost seems to be congratulating himself on the scale of growth of food banks. That and payday lending are the only areas in which this Government are delivering any growth.
David Mundell
I am afraid that I am not going to take any lessons from the hon. Lady, who had the temerity to quote “The Grapes of Wrath” in this Chamber but takes absolutely no responsibility for bringing this country to the brink of bankruptcy and creating the backdrop for the situation in which people now find themselves in so much difficulty. The Labour spokesman for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), was as lucid as the shadow Chancellor in setting out exactly how Labour would deal with the issues. It comes back to the same things: more borrowing, more spending and more debt. That is exactly what got us into this difficulty and why we are in such difficult times.
Lindsay Roy
Can the Minister tell us what lessons he has learned from this debate?
David Mundell
The principal lesson that I have learned is that Labour has learned nothing from its time in office and has nothing to suggest other than soundbites. Of course it is a serious problem that people in Scotland have insufficient income for food. I take it as a very serious problem, but I do not believe that there is some miracle solution. Opposition Members suggest the return of a Labour Government, but they would simply pursue the same policies that brought us to the situation that we are in.
In the limited time available, I will deal with one or two of the specific points raised. All Members with individual constituents facing difficulties with the DWP or other parts of Government, such as the constituent mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), should refer them to Ministers in this Government, or to me and the Secretary of State. We are happy to take forward those proposals. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and others were not suggesting that there should be no system of sanctions for those who do not operate within DWP rules and guidelines.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) mentioned benefit delays. That is an issue of concern, but from April 2013, DWP will replace the current interim payments—crisis loan alignment payments, for those who cannot wait until their benefit is due—with an improved system of short-term benefit and universal credit advances. Those advances of benefit, unlike the current social fund, will not be budget-capped. We heard, as we did in last week’s debate, about the transfer of the social fund to the Scottish Government. We highlighted in that debate that the funds being transferred to the Scottish Government are not ring-fenced. I take it from what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said about the Scottish Government’s approach that those funds might be ring-fenced when the Scottish Government receive them, and I certainly hope that they will work with local authorities to bring decision making on the social fund closer to the people who need it most.
Contrary to what we sometimes hear in debates like this, there is good news. Some 300,000 people in Scotland will be better off under the transfer to universal credit, and 3,100 fewer people are claiming jobseeker’s allowance than a year ago. That does not hide the fact that there are serious difficulties and that these are hard times. Particularly at this time of year, all our thoughts should be with the people who are suffering in these hard times. As I did at the outset of my remarks, I commend all the charitable and voluntary organisations that work closely with people in the most vulnerable situations to support them not just at this time of year but throughout the year. This is an important debate, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes on securing it. On that basis, I conclude my remarks.
Henry Moore Sculpture Sale
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I secured this debate because the proposed sale of the Henry Moore sculpture, “Draped Seated Woman”, and the true value of public art, are of great concern, both in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). “Draped Seated Woman” is a piece of public art that is being put up for auction by the mayor of Tower Hamlets, despite urgent calls by many of my constituents and leading arts figures for the sculpture to be kept in the borough.
I want to talk about the importance of public art in the UK and the positive impact that “Draped Seated Woman” has had in my constituency. Sold at a substantially reduced price of £7,000, the sculpture, affectionately nicknamed Old Flo by local residents, was essentially a gift to the people of Tower Hamlets and is part of the east end’s and London’s cultural heritage. It was created by Henry Moore in 1957 and acquired in 1960 by London county council for the new Stifford housing estate in Stepney in my constituency. It was then loaned to Yorkshire sculpture park in 1997, when the Stifford estate was demolished, and during its time there was seen and enjoyed by millions of people.
Moore was a socialist and a miner’s son from a working-class background. He sold “Draped Seated Woman” below market price on the understanding that the sculpture would be sited directly in the community. He intended “Draped Seated Woman” to be accessible and available to all, to enable working-class people in the east end to derive meaning and enjoyment from this work. She was a symbol of new life and new hope for Londoners, who had suffered so much during the blitz. In a socially deprived area in the east end of London, “Draped Seated Woman” helped enrich the lives of local residents.
The sculpture’s location in the east end highlighted the importance of the post-war belief that everyone, regardless of background, should have free access to art and culture. Moore based “Draped Seated Woman” on his wartime drawings of people sheltering from the blitz in the east end underground, on the Central line at Liverpool Street and elsewhere. This gives the sculpture even greater connection to the people of the east end, where thousands of people lost their lives during the war, including the 172 people who were killed in the Bethnal Green tube disaster, the worst British civilian disaster during the second world war.
“Draped Seated Woman” was born in the east end, she lived in the east end for a long time and she belongs in the east end. The proposal to sell this important sculpture is deeply disappointing and sets a dangerous precedent, risking the loss of other important public art around the country in these tough economic times.
Many are dismayed by the decision to sell off this special east end treasure, which is a poignant tribute to the working class heritage of the east end of London. The decision was made despite two council motions, supported by a cross-party committee of councillors, opposing the sale. The sale of the sculpture goes against the wishes of Henry Moore, who entrusted the sculpture to the people of Tower Hamlets in recognition of their struggles and sacrifices.
Nearly 3,000 people, including many of my constituents, have signed a petition calling for the mayor of Tower Hamlets to reconsider and keep the sculpture in the borough in honour of Moore’s idealistic vision. Mary Moore, the artist’s daughter, has also voiced opposition. Leading arts figures have backed the 3,000 local residents in their opposition to this sale. Among those figures are: the Olympic opening ceremony director and local resident, Danny Boyle; Tate Gallery director, Sir Nicholas Serota; artist Jeremy Deller; and many others. This is an alliance of local residents—people who have strong memories of spending their childhood around this important sculpture, having grown up in the local housing estate—and those in the arts world. This is not just about a group of people in the arts world wanting to preserve this important work of art; it is about a sculpture that people feel connected with, having strong associations with it, and memories of its presence in the borough.
Claims that the sculpture cannot be safely returned to Tower Hamlets have proved untrue. Several publicly accessible sites across Tower Hamlets, including the Museum of London Docklands, Queen Mary university and Morpeth school, a local school in my constituency, want to bring the sculpture back to the east end and have generously offered to house and insure “Draped Seated Woman” at no cost to the council. That highlights the strength of feeling locally and, as I say, the attachment to this important work of art. The Art Fund and Whitechapel gallery have offered their expertise in transporting and maintaining the sculpture.
Unfortunately, the mayor of Tower Hamlets is going against the wishes of many residents and artists who have raised concerns, and is refusing to consider the recommendation made by the cross-party committee of councillors on two occasions. Will the Minister join me in urging Tower Hamlets council and the mayor of Tower Hamlets to think again and secure the sculpture’s return to public display in the borough, either on council land or in one of the institutions that have generously offered to house it?
Although times are tough, there are clearly major issues with the council’s arguments for the sale of the sculpture. The mayor of Tower Hamlets has argued that the sale would address a financial gap in the council’s budget, but it is clear that there are restrictions on how the sum raised from the sale could be used, and some commentators have said that this is effectively a fire sale caused by the appalling financial deficit brought on by profligacy and extraordinary waste in the council. Many examples of where that waste is happening have been given, ranging from a £1 million-a-year budget for the local council newspaper, East End Life, chauffeur-driven cars, and advisers’ and consultants’ costs. Cuts and savings could be made in those areas without impacting on local services.
The debate about whether this sale would address a wider issue to do with funding has to sit with an examination of how public money is being used at present by the local authority. This bonfire of public art is not the answer. One has to ask, where does this end? What precedents will be set for other areas that may wish to make such sales to deal with financial challenges?
There is a bigger question about who actually owns “Draped Seated Woman”. There are serious questions about whether Tower Hamlets council even owns the sculpture. She was acquired in 1962 by London county council for the new Stifford housing estate at Stepney Green. When the Greater London council was abolished in 1985, ownership was thought to have passed to Tower Hamlets. However, new research suggests that this may be wrong. It would be extraordinary to auction this masterpiece without clarity over title. Will the Minister ensure that his Department seeks clarification from Tower Hamlets council about claims of ownership and whether the auctioneers, Christie’s, are prepared to delay plans to auction off “Draped Seated Woman” until the issue is resolved?
Does the Minister think it is acceptable for public art to be privatised in such a way—possibly sold off to billionaires’ private collections, never to be seen again? Would he be happy to see “Draped Seated Woman” leave the country? If he is not, as I believe he would not be, what steps will he consider taking to prevent the sculpture being sold off and ending up overseas in a private collection, never to be seen by the British public again? I thank the Minister for taking the time to join us in the debate, and I look forward to hearing his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for raising this important issue and bringing it to the attention of the House. She has campaigned assiduously on it with, as she mentioned, the support of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is present, and of fellow Members of Parliament in other constituencies in the east end of London. Anyone who takes an interest in cultural policy is aware of the wide public and stakeholder interest in the matter we are debating, and I have exchanged correspondence with the Art Fund and met with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow on the subject.
We live in a country that celebrates art and creativity, that has a strong and proud tradition of making art works available to the public, and that protects art works for the enjoyment of communities. In London, thousands of statues, monuments and sculptures are testament to that. Who among us does not enjoy walking past another great work on our way into Parliament, “The Burghers of Calais” in Victoria Tower gardens, especially on such a beautiful morning?
People are also rightly passionate about the sculpture that we are debating. It was created by Henry Moore in 1957, while he was working on a commission for the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. Its presence in Stepney came about because it was bought in 1962 and housed in the Stifford estate, until that estate was demolished in 1997. The sculpture is large, at 1.6 tonnes in weight, and it was bought for almost £7,500 by London county council.
Let us pause and reflect on that time. After the war, people recognised the importance of the arts in restoring Britain’s morale. They put the arts front and centre of Britain’s regeneration and rebirth. The Henry Moore sculpture we are discussing fits very much into that narrative. As the hon. Lady pointed out, it is based on the sculptor’s wartime drawings in the air raid shelters —the tube stations—of London, which are world- famous. Moore saw the sculpture as an homage, an acknowledgement, of the bravery of Londoners shown in the blitz. He created similar sculptures to Old Flo, which are still on public display around the world, in particular, appositely, in Germany, in a city that was itself bombed, and in Belgium, Israel, the United States and Australia.
It is also worth reflecting on the man behind the purchase of Old Flo, Sir Isaac Hayward. As leader of London county council, he was passionate about a programme to purchase public art for the people, and putting that art in the new housing estates of London, to symbolise London’s rebirth after the war. He was the Labour leader of London county council from 1947 to 1965. He was the son of a miner, as was Henry Moore, but a Welsh miner, and Hayward himself went down into the mines at the age of 12. He was the leader with vision who built the Royal Festival hall; the Hayward gallery is rightly named in his honour. That story makes two valid points: we can still have ambition and creativity at a time of austerity; and the idea that the high arts are somehow not for the likes of us and not for working people is absolutely disabused by people such as Sir Isaac Hayward, the son of a miner and a miner himself, and the great sculpture Henry Moore, the son of a miner.
The recent history of Old Flo has been somewhat chequered. It was moved from the Stifford estate because it was too expensive to insure and might be vandalised. I am pleased that Old Flo has resided in the interim at the Yorkshire sculpture park in Wakefield. The hon. Member for Wakefield knows that sculpture park well, but I, too, have had the privilege of visiting it. If you ever have the time, Mr Betts, I thoroughly recommend a visit. It is another astonishing creation. I think it was effectively one field, the vision of one man, and it has now been turned into the most remarkable park, one of the most beautiful places I have visited, full of the most fantastic sculptures.
The period of the loan to Yorkshire is due to expire shortly, however, and Tower Hamlets council has decided to put that wonderful and unique sculpture up for sale, through an auction in Christie’s next year. The planned sale has rightly come under significant scrutiny and is subject to continuing strong debate. Given the historical and social importance of the sculpture to the UK and, in particular, to London, with everything that its purchase signifies, the potential outcome of its sale—the loss from public display, the permanent absence from east London and the giving up of aspiration, as it were—is lamentable. Henry Moore’s intentions were, clearly, that the sculpture should be enjoyed by the people of London, but regardless of that, for almost 40 years its presence in an estate in the borough has signified the great importance that we place on our culture, our artistic history, and our ambitions as a country, and the value we place on our public spaces and the need to protect them for the enjoyment of all.
Many people have asked me to look into the situation. I must stress that the Government have no specific powers to intervene in what is strictly a matter for the owner of the sculpture, but I have continued to take an interest in the sale over the past few weeks. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed out that the ownership is under dispute, in connection with how ownership of the sculpture and other assets of London county council were in general transferred, first under a 1964 London authorities order, when assets were transferred from the London county council to the Greater London council, and then under the various measures taken when the Greater London council was abolished—the 1981 Greater London council orders and the Local Government Act 1985—and when the London Residuary Body, which had taken ownership of the GLC assets, was wound up in 1996.
Rushanara Ali
Has the Minister had the opportunity to speak to the London borough of Tower Hamlets and to Christie’s about the matter?
Mr Vaizey
As the hon. Lady knows, I have spoken briefly to Christie’s to suggest that its people take the ownership issue seriously and, more importantly, to recommend that they speak to her. I have not engaged with the London borough of Tower Hamlets directly on the matter.
Clearly, should ownership lie with a London borough other than Tower Hamlets, the possibility of different outcomes emerges. I therefore agree with the hon. Lady that it is absolutely essential for the proper ownership of the sculpture to be established. There is a reasoned argument to be made that says that the ownership is uncertain. While the question of which council owns the sculpture is being explored, however, we cannot be in any doubt that its ownership lies with one or other of the London boroughs mentioned.
I am afraid that I may now disappoint campaigners, to a certain extent, because the Government have to pay heed to an important and enduring principle: it is for a council to manage its art work, acting in accordance with its own rules and with any conditions attached to that art work. Clear rules govern the acquisition and disposal of assets in our national museums, most of which were established by Acts of Parliament that usually set out clear rules on the disposal of assets. Asset disposal is also dealt with in a code for museums. Sometimes a local authority takes an asset that belongs to a local authority museum and disposes of it, only for the Museums Association to take issue with that, on the grounds of whether the code was complied with appropriately.
Our policy is to empower local communities to make decisions that are right for their area. We cannot dictate to them, but we share and discuss priorities with local authorities. The hon. Lady forcefully set out her view, and perhaps the view of others, of how Tower Hamlets has managed its financial affairs, but it would not be appropriate for me to delve into that.
The sculpture has undoubted significance for east London. For 15 years, it has resided in Yorkshire, which was Henry Moore’s birthplace, so for a long time it has not been readily available for the enjoyment of Londoners. I want the sculpture to be freely available and accessible to the residents of east London.
Rushanara Ali
There are concerns that, if the sale went ahead, the sculpture might leave the country, and the public will not have access to it if it goes into a private collector’s hands. Would the Minister consider taking steps towards an export ban if that were the case?
Mr Vaizey
There is the Reviewing Committee on the expert—sorry, Export—of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest; I made that Freudian slip because it is made up of experts in the arts. The committee reviews appropriate cases where significant works of art have been sold and could leave the country, and recommends to Ministers whether they should put an export bar on a particular piece of art. It is important to state that that export bar is time-limited. The export of a work of art cannot be banned in perpetuity; it is banned only for a period, to allow a British public collection to raise money to buy it at the price for which it was sold. The committee is independent, and gives me independent advice if the situation arises. It would be wholly wrong for a Minister to interfere in its decision-making process.
The issue of the cost and care of the sculpture is difficult, and must be faced. I am aware of the notable and welcome offers from the Museum of London and Queen Mary, university of London, to maintain and care for it if current plans for the sale are halted. I am heartened by those offers, and support the spirit in which they are made; they have at heart the interests of the public, and the uniqueness and value of the sculpture.
I have discussed de-accessioning by museum collections, and have pointed out that that is guarded through legislation, but local authorities have ownership rights over their assets, so are entitled to sell those assets, however unwelcome that might be. I covered the point about the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest, but might add that recent deferral of licences have applied to a Manet, a Benjamin Britten manuscript, and a sculpture by John Nost the elder. Those works were subsequently acquired by museums and public institutions. The Government cannot ensure that the sculpture is again put on public display in London, but we can assure those who are interested that any attempt to remove the work from the UK would attract the scrutiny of experts, and would be given serious consideration with great weight given to its historic, social and educational importance.
The picture is still emerging. I share the concern and disappointment of many people at the potential loss of this sculpture from public view, but the Government cannot dictate the outcome. I am not in a position to wave a magic wand. However, I hope that parties who are interested in Old Flo’s future—Tower Hamlets council, Christie’s, the nominal auctioneers, the Art Fund, which is taking a great interest, the Museum of London, and Queen Mary, university of London, all of which care deeply about the future of this marvellous sculpture—continue to work together and to engage with one another in the interests of the sculpture. First and foremost, the question of ownership must be resolved.
Henry Moore once said:
“I think in terms of the day’s resolutions, not the year’s.”
I propose a resolution for all of us who have a deep love of great art: we should continue to question, to deliberate, and to debate these matters, acting in the public interest and, whenever possible, honouring the UK’s strong and excellent traditions of public art.
I thank the hon. Lady again for this important debate, and I look forward to engaging with her and her colleagues in future.
HIV (Developing Countries)
(12 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bayley, because this debate is probably of more interest to you than many debates you have to chair, given your membership of the Select Committee on International Development.
I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this important debate on the rights, risks to and health of HIV patients in developing countries. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), for attending, and I hope she has fully recovered from her recent illness. Before I start—as this would not be appropriate at the end—I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.
The Global Commission on HIV and the Law, chaired by the former President of Brazil, recently published a report the findings of which are the reason why I wanted to secure this debate. If there is just one point that I want everyone to take away with them today, it is this quote from the commission’s chairman:
“The end of the global AIDS epidemic is within our reach.”
We have the unprecedented opportunity of a generation to have a world where no one dies of AIDS-related illnesses or newly acquires HIV. It is now a realistic ambition to imagine an HIV-free generation.
Some three decades ago, the HIV epidemic was first discovered. Since then, 30 million have died of AIDS, and 34 million more have been infected with HIV. The epidemic became one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. However, as the report makes clear, the crisis is also one of law, human rights and social justice. We are now fortunate enough to live in an age where we have all the research and tools to slow radically the rate of new HIV infections and stop HIV-related deaths, but the AIDS epidemic is not over. This time, it is not nature that is getting in our way of achieving success; this time, we are the problem. Bad laws, political obstacles and straightforward discrimination are preventing us from combating one of the greatest challenges ever to face humankind. We, as members of the human race, are standing in the way of ourselves.
Before I go on, it is important to praise United Kingdom Governments over the past 30 years—Conservative, Labour and now the coalition—for their work and for being global leaders in the response to HIV for much of the past 30 years. Tribute should be paid to Lord Fowler, who, as Health Secretary, opened up the discussion about HIV/AIDS at a time when many hesitated to speak its name, and initiated the striking “tombstone” adverts to alert the public to the nature of the new and dangerous disease. That is something the British people should feel proud of and that should continue, as I am sure we all agree. Perhaps we are ready again for a public health awareness campaign.
As many Members present will be aware, I undertake a lot of work on international development, and an issue that almost always arises in developing countries is gender inequality. Women and girls account for half the people living with HIV in the world. In Africa, the rate is even higher. Poverty repeatedly features, as almost all women with HIV—98%—live in developing countries. Why are women so vulnerable to HIV there? Their vulnerability can partly be put down to biological reasons, but the real reason is the gender inequality and discrimination enshrined in the customs and law and sexual and domestic violence that rob women of power. The United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women found that the majority of sexually active girls in developing countries aged 15 to 19 are married, often to much older men, and such married adolescents tend to have higher rates of HIV infection than their peers.
Sexual violence is the accomplice of HIV, depriving women of their ability to control their lives and thereby protect their health. In 2005, a World Health Organisation study found that in a broad range of settings, men who were violent towards their female partners were also more likely to have multiple partners, with both violence and infidelity being expressions of male privilege. I have previously spoken in this Chamber about rape being used as a tool of war. Increasingly, it is a weapon to break the spirits of women and girls, because, as the global commission’s report rightly points out, it destroys what holds people together—a community.
Disclosure of positive HIV status puts women at risk and in fear of more violence. I recently visited Pakistan, and when I returned home, I read about a Pakistani woman who had been gang-raped. She later discovered that she was both pregnant and HIV-positive. Her husband then abandoned her and her children. The commission’s report cites an example that demonstrates that education and class do not necessarily insulate women from such outcomes. It describes how a Tanzanian woman who led a middle-class life and was happily married to a professional man was affected. When she told him of her positive status, he was furious and started blaming her for their sons’ illnesses. He exposed her to stigma and torture, expelling her from the matrimonial home that she had paid for with her own money. The divorce courts did nothing to uphold her rights or to help her children.
We know that many women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo suffer rape, often in front of their husbands and children, who are then murdered in front of them. As a result, the women are frequently victims of HIV/AIDS, and they have few places to go for help. Antiretroviral drugs are much more difficult to obtain, administer and take consistently in such a chaotic place.
I welcome the commitment of the Department for International Development to putting women and girls at the centre of its work in the developing world. However, the Government have to urge other Governments, particularly at the G8 next year, to adopt the same strategic priority in their international development policies.
Another issue is Governments such as Uganda’s wishing to introduce laws making gay sex illegal and punishable by the death penalty. Many Governments in Africa are intolerant of gay sex. If challenged by UK Members of Parliament such as the late David Cairns, their Ministers try to tell us that they are just continuing with the laws we left with them following independence. That is some 50 years ago, so it is absolutely no excuse. We have moved on in the past 50 years and so should they.
There was a debate in Westminster Hall about the brutal murder of Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato. Since then, I have met a number of young gay men from African countries who are frightened for their lives. Such repressive laws must be outlawed, and it is up to our Ministers in the Foreign Office and DFID to stand up to Governments in countries where such laws are a problem.
Not only are the laws frightening gay men; they are a recipe for disaster in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Men will go underground; they will not see their doctor if they suspect they have HIV, because they are terrified they will be labelled as gay. They will not even want to collect drugs from a pharmacy for exactly the same reason.
A Bill has been tabled in Uganda—it is supposed to go through by the end of the year, so it is not long—proposing to expand the scope of criminalised activities and provide harsher punishments on conviction, including life imprisonment and, unless the clause in question is definitively removed, the death penalty for some offences. The Bill will force anyone who is aware of an offence under the Bill or an offender to report the offender within 24 hours, or be liable to a fine or three years’ imprisonment. There are indications that the clause might be dropped or amended, but if it remains the draconian provisions will punish any parent who does not denounce their lesbian daughter or gay son to the authorities. They will face fines of 2,650 dollars or three years in prison. Any teacher who does not report a lesbian or gay pupil to the authorities within 24 hours will face the same penalties. That must not happen, and I call upon the Minister to try to do something to stop it.
As the global commission’s report states, children and young people have the most to lose from HIV. It also states that such children are far more likely to become poor or homeless, drop out of school, face discrimination and violence, see their opportunities dwindle, or grow ill and die long before their time. The research quoted in the report states that globally, there are 3.4 million children living with HIV, roughly 16.6 million of whom have lost one or both parents to AIDS, and millions more have been affected. Fewer babies are now born with HIV, thanks to an increase in programmes to prevent vertical transmission. However, less than one quarter of children who qualified for the standard antiretroviral therapy actually received it in 2010. Despite that treatment, 2,500 young people still acquire HIV every day.
Young people in developing countries are also affected if their parents become ill or die. That point is in many ways linked to the gender rights issues I raised earlier, as older children, especially girls, are often forced to leave school to care for the family if a parent dies. That becomes a vicious circle for girls, trapping them for life, meaning they cannot have a long enough education to become economically independent, and elevating their risk of being infected by HIV. We must ensure that when parents die, developing states are well enough equipped to provide children with human rights and to make sure that their legal interests are protected, and that they are being cared for by suitable people.
Then, there is the issue of discrimination against families living with HIV. Adults living with HIV may be denied rights to see their children. Agencies prohibit HIV-positive children from living with their parents in state-sponsored housing, and school and child care administrators shut the door to HIV-positive pupils, believing that they will infect others. For example, in Paraguay,
“People who suffer from chronic contagious disease”
are forbidden to marry or adopt. Challenging those legal obstacles is a particularly important role for non-governmental organisations. Gidnist, the Ukrainian legal aid NGO, challenged the Ukrainian court to protect the rights of an HIV-positive child who was denied access to the paternal home. Thanks to that legal action, the child’s access to his paternal home was restored.
Studies cited in the global commission’s report state that age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education, including information on HIV prevention, serves the health of young people. Those studies show that such programmes reduced sexual risk-taking. If we are serious about working towards an HIV-free generation, it is therefore vital that age-appropriate sex education be available in schools worldwide.
As I briefly mentioned, among the things that stand in our way are the laws and political thought in some developing countries. The global commission’s report makes it clear that HIV is not just a health issue. The report makes for sober reading, informed as it is by those at the sharp end of the making and breaking of HIV-related laws in more than 140 countries. The global commission heard from people living with HIV who are deprived of the medicines they need because of intellectual property laws that put the prices out of reach. Men who have sex with men, and female sex workers, told the commission of their harrowing experiences of arbitrary arrest and abuse by police. People who inject drugs spoke of their time in detention, when they were denied clean needles or substitution therapy to help them reduce the harms associated with their habit. The commission heard about the experiences of migrant workers expelled from countries with laws that ban the entry of, or deport, foreigners with HIV, and the experiences of HIV-positive citizens denied health care, schooling, employment or housing because of stigma and discrimination.
Many companies help their own work forces by providing antiretroviral drugs, antimalarial drugs and other drugs that families need, in order to keep a healthy work force. In Uganda, we saw people from Nile Breweries give such drugs not just to their own workers but to the farmers who provide the agriculture for them—I forget which plant they make beer from. However, they also provide condoms for sex workers. There are people out there trying to help, and they are not just from NGOs and Governments, but from companies. That is encouraging to hear.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very strong case, particularly with regard to the attitudes that must be overcome in order to address this issue. Does she agree that one answer clearly must be further integration of HIV systems—not a separation of HIV systems—within an integrated health systems approach, particularly in circumstances in which TB is the major killer of people with HIV? In view of those circumstances, does she agree that what we can do in this country is to ensure that the UK continues to take a leading role in addressing the replenishment issue with regard to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria?
Pauline Latham
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I will come on to those points in a moment, but they are very important because we do need an integrated approach. It cannot be a stand-alone approach; it has to work together with other things.
The global commission’s findings clearly demonstrate that the myriad laws, across multiple legal systems, have one thing in common: by punishing those who have HIV or the practices that may leave them vulnerable to infection, they serve simply to drive people further away from disclosure, testing and treatment—fostering, not fighting, the global epidemic.
To quote Dr Shereen El Feki, the representative from Egypt on the global commission,
“It is time to say, ‘No more.’ Just as we need new science to help fight the viral epidemic, we need new thinking to combat an epidemic of bad laws that is undermining the precious gains made in HIV awareness, prevention and treatment over the past thirty years.”
I absolutely support her position. She argues, and I agree, that deliberate and malicious transmission of HIV is best prosecuted through existing laws on assault, homicide or bodily harm, rather than the special HIV criminal statutes that have sprung up in recent years and that sweep up those—pregnant women among them—to whom they should never apply.
In relation to pharmaceuticals, existing intellectual property laws require a complete overhaul to ensure that the interests of public health are balanced against incentives for innovation, and that the best new HIV medicines are available to all. Laws that criminalise sex work, drug use, same-sex relations or transgender identity do little to change behaviour aside from discouraging the people most at risk of infection from taking measures to protect themselves and their communities from HIV. Laws against gender-based violence and towards the economic empowerment of women are badly needed, and need to be enforced, to reduce women’s vulnerability to HIV. To work towards making an HIV-free generation a human reality, the world needs to take a joined-up, 21st-century approach to, as I said, one of the greatest public health challenges of our time.
Let me now discuss what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned in his intervention. Since the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was created in 2002, it has saved an estimated 7 million lives, disbursed antiretroviral drugs to more than 3 million people, treated 8.6 million cases of TB and distributed 230 million insecticide-treated bed nets.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I must apologise to her and to you, Mr Bayley, because I must leave the debate early to attend the Energy Bill debate in the main Chamber, but I wanted to be here today to listen to the comments being made. The hon. Lady has made important points about children, access to medicines and the pharmaceutical industry. She will be aware that 72% of children living with HIV still lack access to the ARVs that they need. Does she agree that we need to see a greater commitment to treatment, care and support for those children and simpler drug formulations that are more suitable for younger people suffering from HIV? Does she recognise, like me, that without treatment 30% of children living with HIV will die before their first birthday and 50% before they reach the age of two?
Pauline Latham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We need drugs to be regularly available at an affordable price, but many countries where the problem is rife are chaotic and often in conflict, so the drugs would not necessarily get to where they are needed.
We have a role to play with DFID, because we provide a lot of health strengthening in different countries, but we must ensure that the health strengthening in the Governments is true. Often a Government will take money out of the health system, because we have put it in. We must ensure that the systems we put money into to fight this huge epidemic are absolutely transparent. It is also important that drugs are age-related; a drug for a young child will not be the same as a drug for somebody in their 50s. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
The global fund is the largest international financier of the fight against the three diseases. It channels two-thirds of the international financing provided to fight TB and malaria and half of all antiretroviral drugs to people living with HIV and AIDS. It also funds the strengthening of health systems. Inadequate health systems are one of the main obstacles to scaling up interventions to secure better health outcomes for HIV, TB and malaria. In contrast to other multilateral institutions, the global fund has been ranked by DFID as performing very highly on transparency and accountability. However, 2011 was a difficult year for the global fund, as the cancellation of the round 11 funding caused great concern among non-governmental organisations delivering services through the fund in developing countries.
In 2012, the Select Committee on International Development, of which I have been a member since the 2010 general election, held a short inquiry into the global fund. It concluded that the UK Government should release the additional funding promised to the fund without delay. In the Government’s response to the inquiry, DFID unfortunately states that they will wait until after the second multilateral aid review, which is due to be published in spring 2013.
The global fund has gone through a huge transformational process, developing a new strategy and recently appointing a new executive director, Mark Dybul. It now has a new funding model. Due to financial constraints, however, the fund has withdrawn its programme from some middle-income countries, such as Ukraine, where the figures on the HIV epidemic are rising. Will the Minister look urgently at that?
On drugs, it is worth noting that approximately 80% of the 8 million people currently taking ARVs are prescribed generic versions. Competition in generic drugs has enabled the cost to be reduced at least tenfold to around $100 a year for first-line treatment. That was only possible due to India’s pre-2005 patent laws and protracted discussions with the pharmaceutical industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Since India’s patent laws have become compliant with the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—TRIPS—it is not possible for Indian companies to make generic versions of newer medicines within the 20-year patent period. We are, therefore, reliant on the good will of pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices for poorer countries.
During 2012, it is estimated that about half a million people will need second and third-line treatment, which is patented and at least three times the price of first-line treatment. Third-line treatment is as much as 20 times the price. One initiative to deal with the cost of drugs is the medicines patent pool, which would enable free generic competition on newer patented medicines. Unfortunately, only one company—Gilead Sciences Inc—has signed up and more companies need to join for the system to be viable. Will the Minister comment on what she plans to do to help that happen?
As we move towards 2015, a lot of work is being undertaken to put together a post-millennium development goals framework. One risk we face as the MDGs come to an end is that the global community will turn its back on the gains made in the past decade. It is important to consider the linkages between HIV/AIDS and other diseases. A post-MDG framework must continue to work towards the unmet MDGs. There is an urgent need for continued action on HIV: each day more than 7,000 people are newly infected with HIV; and 7 million people are still in need of HIV treatment—a number set to increase dramatically as all 34 million people living with HIV will ultimately require it.
TB is the leading cause of death among people infected with HIV/AIDS in developing countries, and 1.1 million people were living with HIV-acquired TB in 2010. Because HIV infections attack and weaken the immune system, an HIV-positive person with latent TB is 20 to 40 times more likely to develop active TB than someone who is not infected with HIV. Promoting and implementing the linkages between HIV and other relevant areas—including gender, sexual and reproductive health, maternal and child health, TB, education, and hunger and nutrition—brings wider benefits for development. A post-2015 framework must therefore ensure that goals and targets support synergies between areas. In particular, it must ensure that addressing HIV is part and parcel of a coherent and holistic approach to strengthening overall health, social protection and legal systems. Will the Minister tell us what progress she hopes will be made at the G8 next year?
Andrew George
My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point, which echoes my intervention on the integration of services. Does she agree that it is a serious false economy if developing countries do not ensure that the drugs are delivered on the ground? The cost of treating drug-resistant strains of TB—such strains are an increasing problem—is much greater than the cost of investment on the front line to treat such cases in the first place.
Pauline Latham
My hon. Friend is right; if we cannot get the drugs out to the people, they will not do well, so systems need to be put in place. It is ironic that many African countries have appalling transport systems and yet organisations such as Nile Breweries, which makes beer, can get drugs to people, no matter how difficult it may be, because beer gets everywhere, whereas Governments do not always think it important to ensure that pharmacies and health clinics do not have stockouts. All African countries need to ensure that there is blanket coverage of such drugs and that there is never a shortage, because, as my hon. Friend mentioned, to do otherwise is a false economy. They need to work hard to move forward on prevention, because so many people are living with, and still dying from, HIV/AIDS.
I started by saying that the key point I wanted everyone to take away today is that the end of the global AIDS epidemic is within our reach. Working towards an HIV-free generation is now a possibility, but it will become a reality only if we have the will to make it a reality. I shall repeat what I said earlier: nature is not standing in our way; we, as members of the human race, are standing in our way. We must urge the Governments of the world to take a joined-up approach to combating HIV/AIDS.
I also started by praising the work of UK Governments over the past three decades. The UK has provided excellent political and financial support. It is clearly an example of best practice and has set the standard for others to follow. The UK Government will review their HIV programmes in 2013. I agree with the Stop AIDS Campaign, which urges that the 2013 review becomes a blueprint or strategy for the future of the UK’s global HIV work. It is a chance to demonstrate the UK’s continued leadership in the field.
The strategy would map the UK’s contribution to delivering the combination of game-changing interventions necessary to ensure that we reach the tipping point and have a generation in which no one dies of an AIDS-related illness or newly acquires HIV and in which the rights of all those living with or affected by HIV are upheld. I also agree with the Stop AIDS Campaign that the blueprint should include three key themes: first, commit to maintaining the UK’s investment in HIV/AIDS; secondly, commit to putting all people living with and affected by HIV at the centre of the response, regardless of where they live; and thirdly, commit to leading the way in the UK and globally.
It was a privilege to secure this debate and speak on this important issue. I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I thank everyone who has attended and the various organisations that provided me with briefings ahead of the debate. I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions and particularly the Minister’s response.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
Order. Three colleagues are trying to catch my eye. I will call the first Front-Bench speaker at 3.40 pm, so we have plenty of time for speeches of about 10 minutes each.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on bringing this important issue before the House. Some people know about it and others have acquired knowledge of it, as I have through my office and the organisations that I deal with.
The topic is worthy. Many of us cannot fail to be touched by the scenes on television from Africa and other parts of the world, and we often think, “If only the children had more food.” However, looking more deeply at the issues, they need not only more food, but more medication and, in many cases, HIV medication. The hon. Lady referred to the statistics. Some 1.7 million people died of AIDS in the past year, and there have been 2.5 million new infections this year, so there has been an increase to about 38 million people with HIV infections across the whole world. Those figures put the issue into perspective, and bring into focus where we are on this.
Every year, one of the girls in my office takes a two-week summer holiday in a small country called Swaziland. I will speak specifically about that country, because I have some knowledge of the area. She does it through the Elim Church’s international missions; the headquarters are in Newtownards in my constituency. The missions do marvellous work in Swaziland, in schools, education, and health, and in trying to build lives and give people more quality of life and opportunity. Two years ago, we had the youth choir over from Swaziland. What put the issue into perspective for me, perhaps for the first time, was meeting some of those young people, who were in their teens or early 20s. I did not know this until they had returned home, but the girl in my office said, “Jim, many of those people you met have AIDS—not by choice, but from birth.” That puts the issue into perspective; it certainly did for me.
In Swaziland, the people are very similar to those in Northern Ireland—they have the same friendliness that we have, and that the Scots also have, and which we are renowned for—and it is also about the same size as Northern Ireland, but there is one big difference: 40% of Swaziland’s population has HIV/AIDS. The perspective is that nearly half the population has it, and the difficulty is that no one talks about it. I agree with what the hon. Lady said about educating people better to address the key issues that affect them.
When someone goes into an overcrowded hospital in Swaziland, they find two people on each bed and another lying beneath each bed. That is the nature of their hospitalisation. They are probably there for tuberculosis, cancer or some other problem, but they will never admit that the underlying issue is HIV/AIDS, and we must address that. Those lovely young people from Swaziland whom I met had what I would call heavenly voices, but that belied the undercurrent of their health issues.
In Swaziland, to use that country as an example, people do not protect themselves against HIV. They do not use the condoms that are given out for free, because that would be an acknowledgment that they were already ill or could become ill. We have to get past the barrier that seems to exist. In Swaziland, as in many other African countries, male circumcision is also available as a method of trying to reduce the number of people with HIV/AIDS. Will the Minister give us details, if she has them—if not, I am happy for her to reply in writing—on how much the use of condoms and male circumcision has reduced HIV/AIDS in Swaziland, in which I am particularly interested, and across the world? For every one starting treatment, two become infected, which gives us an idea of the massive mountain that we have to climb.
My office sponsors a child in Africa. It is not big money; every week £1 goes into a box to sponsor a young orphan in Swaziland. Through the Elim missions, that money gives orphans clothing, school fees, school books, food and, most importantly, the HIV medication that they need to allow them to live a full, normal life—small moneys, but big dividends and big returns. The kids live on a farm and are sponsored by people from all over the world who understand their illness and how to treat it. The orphanage has a hospice, with a nurse who picks up the first signs of infection. They have hope and a future, but unfortunately the same cannot be said of most people with AIDS in Swaziland, not because of ignorance, but because they just do not want to face the key issues.
An entire generation is missing due to this disease. Grandmothers look after toddlers because the parents have died of AIDS. The grandparents who concentrate on the children perhaps do not want to talk about it. They do not talk about it to their grandchildren, because they do not want them to know that their mums and dads died from it. Again, we can see the dangers for that third generation. A middle generation is missing because of the epidemic, and the older generation is keeping that from their grandchildren, so another generation is being raised not to talk about this unspoken illness.
The scenario is replicated across Africa and the whole world; we have statistics and information relating to places such as Indonesia. Will the Minister respond about the educational drive that we need? It has to be an educational drive that people will respond to, not one that sounds good on a piece of paper that can be sent off without our knowing how the drive works or whether it will be successful. We need to know that it will ensure that we can put an end to losing entire generations. I have looked through the statistics on India. It has had an AIDS campaign since 2001, and it has reduced new infections by 50% in 10 years. The statistics illustrate that; there were 270,000 infections in 2001, and 120,000 in 2012. However, there are still 2.1 million people in India with AIDS, which gives us an idea of the magnitude of the problem.
There have been many pharmaceutical developments, and some of the costs are fantastically different. In America, one dose of medication would cost $12,000, but the same medication can be produced in India, where there are pharmaceutical companies, for $300. Again, we must focus on that. With the wonders of modern medicine, HIV/AIDS no longer has to be a death sentence; medication and care can allow people to have a long life. That life will not be as long as ours in this Chamber, because the disease reduces people’s length of life and their time on this earth, but it will be longer than if they were under the threat of the disease without any medication.
Medication is not always readily available, and given the cost implications, it is clear to many that change must come from stopping the spread by educating people and changing their mindset. If that needs the help and support of those of us in the western world, I believe that we should give it.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in many African countries, for education to be successful, it needs political leadership behind it? Without that, we will struggle.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree that we need leadership at the very top in all countries, and that we need to make the necessary commitment.
The pupils who came over here as part of the choir from Swaziland were young, and although they were AIDS carriers, they were clearly focused on what they had to do for the future. If we can keep young girls at school, or give them an improved livelihood, so that their focus is on the good things of life, we can reduce the number who can be infected by AIDS. I support the efforts of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire to highlight this issue in the hope of securing attention and help for people who are so much in need, in Swaziland and many other countries across the world.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing the debate and on drawing attention to the continuing importance of these issues. [Interruption.]
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
Order. I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman early in his speech, because there is a Division in the House. I suspend the sitting, and I ask Members to get back as quickly as possible. We will resume as soon as those who are here have returned to their places.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
Nick Herbert
As I was saying before I was interrupted, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire for securing the debate and for raising the issue of tuberculosis. It is often the orphan disease, in terms of public attention and understanding in this country. Nowadays it is possible to hear people say that they believe TB is resurgent, and that betrays a certain attitude—that somehow the disease is relevant only when it occurs in this country, where we believed we had it beaten, whereas there continue to be 1.5 million unnecessary deaths a year globally, because of a disease that is, essentially, easily and cheaply treatable. That is relevant to this debate in the context of TB and HIV co-infection, which is a particular problem.
At least one third of the 34 million people living with HIV worldwide are infected with latent TB, and TB is the leading cause of death among people living with HIV. It accounts for one in four HIV-related deaths. In fact, last year, some 430,000 people died of HIV-associated TB. In 2005, when I was first elected, I joined a party that included my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is now the chair of the all-party group on global tuberculosis, on a visit to Kenya, indirectly sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to go and see the problem. The success of the visit was that it drew the importance of TB to the attention of a few of us. Afterwards, we founded the all-party group, and since then we have continued to try to raise the profile of the need to deal with that disease. I had to step down as co-chair of the group when I became a Minister, but I am pleased to have resumed my interest since stepping down from the Government.
There are things that we still need to draw attention to, in connection with the problem, and I want to raise a couple of them. First, anyone who doubts the importance of focusing on HIV and TB together, and ensuring diagnosis of both diseases, need look no further than sub-Saharan Africa. There were more than 1 million HIV-positive new TB cases globally in 2011, but around 79% of those patients live in sub-Saharan Africa. That is the only World Health Organisation region that is not on track to meet the millennium development goal for TB, which is to halve the 1990 prevalence and mortality rates by 2015. We need attention on that region and on that incidence of co-infection. It is highly unlikely that the target will be met, because of the negative impact of the HIV epidemic. For the world as a whole, reaching the 2015 prevalence and mortality rate targets will be possible only if TB control efforts, and funding for those efforts, are sustained.
The Government have a clear understanding of the importance of an approach based on the possibility of co-infection, and the need for integrated programmes of diagnosis and treatment. Their position paper on HIV, published in May last year, recognised that, which is welcome. The Government’s major contribution, in particular through multinational channels such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, is also welcome. A considerable portion of it is invested in TB interventions.
There are two things that I want to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. The first relates to diagnosis. It is striking that the diagnostic ability and treatment for HIV are much further ahead than they are for TB, yet TB is a more easily and cheaply treatable disease. Why is that? It is straightforwardly because HIV is a disease that affected the west, and TB was a disease that the west believed had gone. Its attention was therefore not on it. The resources and money that were invested in necessarily trying to deal with the terrible and growing problem of HIV were not directed in the same way at TB. Therefore, the diagnosis of TB is not as quick as it should be, and the treatments go on for an extended period, with old-fashioned drugs that must be taken on a continuous basis; if they are not taken in that way, the problem of drug-resistant TB arises—and that is a killer and particularly difficult to deal with.
When people living in poverty are far from the facilities that they need to travel to repeatedly for diagnosis and to get drugs, there are no incentives to get the diagnosis and continue to take the drugs for an extended time. Something that should be cheaply and easily dealt with is not, and that accounts for the numbers of deaths. That is why programmes that improve diagnosis are welcome.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the TB REACH programme, which is a WHO initiative that gives small grants of up to $1 million to find and treat those who have no access to TB diagnosis or treatment. It is an incubator for innovation. It pushes the frontiers of mobile phone technology in health, and the deployment worldwide of rapid diagnostics. Even if my hon. Friend cannot answer today—I know she has a lot to get into her response—perhaps she would just consider the power of the TB REACH programme, and the support that the Government might be willing to give it in future.
The second issue that I wanted to raise was diagnosis and vaccination. The first thing that people in the west tend to say about TB is “Surely there is a vaccination available for it.” People know about vaccinating children in this country. However, the vaccination is not available for adults; if a vaccination were available, in developing countries, there would not be such a problem, and there would not be deaths on such a scale. Research and development of a vaccination is therefore as important as R and D of improved diagnostics. It is particularly important for the growing threat of drug-resistant TB, which is not so easily and cheaply dealt with, and can indeed be a killer, evading all medical treatment, including what might be available in the west. My second question to the Minister is therefore this: what support are the Government giving to TB vaccine development, which would be so important in heading off the incidence of the disease and save a large number of lives every year?
On the wider debate about why it is necessary to maintain public spending on international development and aid, there are few better examples than the successful spending of money, through the global fund and directly, on programmes doing very simple things—providing the diagnostics for TB and securing treatment. The intelligent organisation of those programmes to address TB and HIV co-infection is particularly important. We should hold TB up as an example of a disease that we in the west believed we had conquered, but that we are now concerned about, because it is coming back. We can treat it relatively easily, but we have ignored the fact that every year it killed 1.5 million in the rest of the world. We should be concerned about that, too.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing this debate and on making a thoughtful opening speech that covered a number of topics that I, too, want to explore. I should also like to congratulate UK organisations, and the agencies that they support overseas, on their fight to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. They include the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, Save the Children, Oxfam, Christian Aid, and Voluntary Service Overseas; I could go on with the list for the rest of the afternoon. I shall concentrate first on VSO, as I was lucky enough to do volunteer work with it in Kenya during the last recess. It became clear to me that civil society plays a key role in Kenya when it comes to the response to HIV/AIDS.
I want to focus on three main points. The first is the issue of the rights of men who have sex with men. I very much appreciate the fact that the Minister, in her short time in office, has made it clear that she is committed to tackling this issue, and that appreciation goes right across the board. I am sure that she shares the grave concern felt by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire and me about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that has appeared on the Order Paper in Uganda. The Bill had been promised as a Christmas present to the people of Uganda. Although its Parliament is now closed for the holidays, I am pretty sure that the Bill will be firmly back on the agenda in 2013.
One of the most shocking sections of the Bill states that any member of the Ugandan public can be obliged to tell the authorities about homosexual people that they know. Failure to do so could lead to prosecution. The Parliament, therefore, is not only outlawing practising homosexuality, but criminalising those who do not inform on homosexual friends, family members and colleagues. Criminalising a section of the population that is most at risk from HIV and denying them access to basic services not only undermines their human rights but poses a devastating threat to public health in a country where over 7% of the population lives with HIV.
Even those who are inherently against the practice of homosexuality must see that the legislation would pose a health risk, not just to the community, but to the entire population. This is a matter of human rights, and must be of interest to people across the world and to leaders in Africa. Will the Minister confirm whether she or other Government Ministers have raised this matter with African leaders, in the hope that they might raise it with both the Speaker of Uganda and President Museveni?
Following the recent announcement by the UK Government that they are withdrawing direct budget support from the Ugandan Government, I was concerned that the Department for International Development did not appear to offer a route back for the funding to be reinstated. None the less, I do support the reasons for the funding being withdrawn at this time. I worry, though, that there is little incentive for the Ugandan Government to address the corruption issues that led to that withdrawal of funds, and to engage with us and other countries on human rights abuses, such as those we are about to see if the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is passed.
Part of the reason why the Bill is back in the headlines is to distract people from the problems caused by corruption, and to keep out of the headlines the fact that the UK Government have withdrawn direct budget support from the Ugandan Government. Will the Minister confirm whether there is a possibility of Uganda again receiving direct budget support, and what obligations it will have to fulfil to achieve that?
Moreover, what support is our Government providing to organisations that are fighting for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people in Uganda, such as Sexual Minorities Uganda, for which many of my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS have shown support? Finally, what provisions have been put in place to support the health needs of all people in Uganda following the suspension of direct budget support to the country?
My second point relates to access to HIV medicines. In my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group, I have been honoured to meet many inspirational people who are living with and affected by the virus. One of them is Angelina Namiba, who I believe the Minister met in her constituency last week. Angelina has been brave enough to share her story in the national press this week, and I congratulate her on her courage in doing so. She has also participated in many events here in Parliament and has shared her story, allowing us further to understand what it is like to be a young woman living with HIV in the UK today.
Women such as Angelina live healthy, happy and productive lives because they are lucky enough to receive the treatment that they need. Sadly, 7 million people around the world are not receiving that treatment. The Minister may be aware that the majority of antiretroviral drugs are produced in India, which has been able to take advantage of the flexibilities in laws on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights set by the World Trade Organisation. Some 80% of the drugs used in Africa and purchased by multilateral organisations, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, come from India.
The United Nations Development Programme’s Global Commission on HIV and the Law recently highlighted the fact that many of those flexibilities are currently under threat from a series of trade agreements. Clauses relating to data exclusivity, which would require generic companies to redo clinical trials and would therefore significantly delay generic versions of medicines, have hopefully been dropped from the EU-India free trade agreement, but there are other treaties, including the EU-Thailand free trade agreement, that may contain equally harmful provisions. Has the Minister had any conversations with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the impact of such trade agreements on the availability and affordability of HIV medicines? Although price is not the only barrier to accessing HIV medicines, it is an important one.
When I was in Kenya with VSO in September, I witnessed the difficulty that people have in rural areas—they were very rural areas, as I know from my 10-hour trip there in the back of a car. People have to travel for many hours every week on poor roads to access clinics and the medication that they so desperately need. Poor health systems and infrastructure hinder people’s ability to access HIV treatment. Next year, the all-party parliamentary group will be looking in more detail at the barriers to accessing medication, and I look forward to working with colleagues and, hopefully, the Minister on that matter.
My final point is about the importance of the UK as a global leader in fighting HIV and AIDS. I am delighted that other Members have already raised that point today. The Department for International Development is the second largest bilateral donor on HIV, and has given tremendous political and financial support to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I was delighted to hear, from the Secretary of State at the all-party parliamentary group’s world AIDS day event, that DFID is “absolutely committed” to getting to zero: zero infections, zero discrimination and zero deaths. A new strategy for HIV that maps out how to achieve that goal would illustrate DFID’s clear commitment to tackling HIV.
Last year, the Government focused on family planning, and I was pleased that a side event at this summit highlighted the links between HIV and sexual and reproductive health rights. We cannot tackle any major development issue, be it food security, hunger or violence against women, without also addressing HIV. Moreover, as we go into discussions about the post-2015 development agenda, we must not lose sight of the incredible challenges that lie ahead. As campaigners from the Stop AIDS Campaign asked parliamentarians just three weeks ago, why stop now? We cannot afford to ignore this disease, which still takes almost 2 million lives each year. An AIDS-free generation is within our grasp, but AIDS is certainly not over. We have the tools, the science and the knowledge to turn the tide on this epidemic. We just need to sustain the political will.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Bayley, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to take part in a debate under your chairmanship. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) for securing this vital debate, and I pay tribute to the work that she does on the issue.
As I was reminded when I met campaigners from Why Stop Now? on world AIDS day recently, impressive progress has been made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, but as other speakers have already said, there is still much more work to be done. Millennium development goal 6, which is to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, galvanised international attention to the fight against HIV, and created political momentum that has played a substantial role in the success of the HIV response.
Since 2005, 25 countries have seen a 50% drop in new HIV infections. In 2011, a record 8 million people living with HIV had access to antiretroviral therapy, which is more than half of those in need of such treatment. Globally, there were more than 500,000 fewer AIDS-related deaths in 2011 than there were in 2005. As a result of the mobilisation effects of the MDGs, people living with HIV are living longer, healthier and more productive lives. A tipping point—where more people living with HIV are initiated into treatment than there are people newly acquiring HIV—is now within reach.
However, global action and shared responsibility is necessary to sustain investment in AIDS programmes. Consequently, although we have all welcomed the progress made to date, we must also acknowledge the challenges that lie ahead and make a concerted effort to maintain political momentum. I was particularly disappointed—I put it no more strongly than that—that the UK failed to send a Government Minister to the international AIDS conference in Washington in July.
Pamela Nash
I just want to highlight that an ex-Government Minister attended that conference on behalf of Parliament: Lord Fowler. There was also representation at the conference from the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, and from the all-party group on global tuberculosis. We were able to meet parliamentarians from across the world and discuss a lot of the important issues that we have discussed today.
Sir Tony Cunningham
And vital work it is. That gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her personal commitment in this area, and to the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, which does incredibly valuable work. We must ensure that the UK and the EU maintain their commitment to financing efforts to combat this epidemic, and make strategic plans to capitalise on the opportunity that we have all said is within reach.
Let me move on to some of the challenges that we face. First, progress on HIV has been uneven across countries and certain populations. Although many countries have seen impressive declines in the rates of new HIV infections, since 2001 the number of people newly infected in the middle east and north Africa has increased by more than 35%. HIV prevalence is also consistently higher among sex workers, intravenous drug users and men who have sex with men. In sub-Saharan Africa, as has already been said, women have a 60% higher risk of HIV infection than men. These groups often face legal and social barriers, including discrimination and criminalisation, which impede their access to services.
Secondly, as the majority of HIV infections are sexually transmitted or associated with pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding, there is a need for greater integration of sexual and reproductive health responses, and HIV responses. I think that the Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), mentioned how important that is.
In 2011, one in five maternal deaths was directly related to HIV, but when women living with HIV receive antiretroviral treatment during pregnancy, the risk of transmission is reduced to less than 5%. This progress on mother-to-child transmission has been hailed as a hugely significant factor, and it provides a real opportunity to take control of the problem.
Finally, we need to acknowledge the importance of middle-income countries, which are often forgotten. Three of the top five countries with the highest HIV burden but the lowest coverage of antiretroviral treatment are middle-income countries. We need to focus on tackling this inequality within and between countries, and ensure that human rights are integral to the global response to the HIV epidemic. Will the Minister tell us what steps her Department is taking to tackle discrimination and to ensure that there is access to HIV treatment for the poorest, most vulnerable communities? There is also a need for urgent action to ensure that we can continue to reduce transmission and expand access to treatment to those who need it.
As a number of speakers, particularly the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire, mentioned, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which was created in 2001 to increase funding to tackle three of the world’s most devastating diseases, has approved $22.9 billion for more than 1,000 programmes in 151 countries and provided AIDS treatment for 4.2 million people. That is incredible. The fund channels half of all antiretroviral drugs to those living with HIV/AIDS. The UK has been the fund’s third biggest donor since its creation, and the second largest bilateral HIV donor, which reflects our impressive leadership on this issue. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire talked about a period of 30 years; this work is not party political, but will go on across decades and across political parties.
However, in May 2012, the International Development Committee’s inquiry into DFID’s contribution to the global health fund urged the Government to honour their promise to increase their contribution to the fund significantly, over and above the current pledge of £384 million for 2012 to 2015. The Government have cited a desire to see reforms to the fund as the reason for the delay, so will the Minister tell us more about the fund’s new funding model and strategy? The IDC specifically stated that
“DFID is a key partner whose increased contribution to the Global Fund could unlock funds from other donors. It should do all possible to commit additional funds earlier than 2013 by prioritising its assessment of the Global Fund ahead of, and separately from, the broader update of the Multilateral Aid Review.”
Given that next year will be a replenishment year for the fund, will the Minister use her G8 discussions to leverage additional funding from other countries and announce further UK funding for the fund? Does she agree that announcing funding for the fund would help to increase certainty and encourage other donors to make a commitment of additional resources?
The UK Government should be doing everything they can to ensure that the global health fund is able to operate at the height of its ability, tackling these horrific diseases and saving lives, so I ask the Minister: can she say when we can expect to see the “increased contribution” to the fund from the UK that was announced by the previous Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), earlier this year? Also, what steps are the UK Government taking to galvanise support from other donors for the global health fund? Although the fund is not the only institution involved in the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria, it is by far the single biggest actor in the fight against these diseases. It was a British Government who spearheaded the drive to establish the global health fund, and it is the current British Government who should pick up the mantle at this important moment, showing the leadership to get the fund back into full operation.
In conclusion, it is clear that progress is being made on HIV. The number of new infections is declining, and the number of treatments is increasing, but we must not lose sight of those who are still in desperate need. Rather than focusing on single programmes or issues such as family planning or drug availability, the overall approach must be one of cohesion. Health systems and the integration of HIV/AIDS responses with wider programmes of reproductive health must be considered. Commitments to address the global AIDS pandemic must not take a back seat as other issues take the political stage in the UK. As significant advances are made and global leaders in the United States and elsewhere begin to state openly that an AIDS-free generation is within reach, the UK must continue its leadership on this issue.
The significance of what we face must not be forgotten, and as 50% of people eligible for HIV treatment do not receive it, it is essential to support those most at risk, to help them to access the help that they desperately need without fear of discriminatory laws or prejudices. The UK’s impressive record on this issue must be maintained and, as such, we need continued and renewed leadership. Will the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to increase access to medicines for the 7 million people who are still waiting for HIV treatment? Will the Government commit to a blueprint that will lay out the UK’s contribution to the attempt to gain control of the HIV pandemic internationally? Much has been done; much is still to be done. However, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said so eloquently, success is within our reach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
Thank you, Mr Bayley, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.
First, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) for calling a debate on such an important topic so soon after world AIDS day. I also thank hon. Members from all parties for their thoughtful and important contributions to this debate on what I still regard as one of the priorities for all of us in this day and age. I sometimes feel that, with the advent of drugs that mean people can live with AIDS rather than it being a death sentence, a complacency has begun that somehow the situation is not as bad as it was. With the tantalising prospect of zero infections and zero transmissions just out of reach, we know that success can be achieved, but if any of us let up on our commitment to tackling the disease it will not happen. We must translate our commitment in Westminster Hall today to those around the world who have the power to take the fight forward, and we must keep going in that regard.
As many Members have said, there is much to celebrate. The latest UNAIDS report shows an unprecedented pace of progress in the global AIDS response, with 700,000 fewer new HIV infections each year across the world than a decade ago, especially among newborn children. The work to eliminate HIV transmission from mother to child is clearly delivering results. More than 8 million people now have access to treatment and, for the first time, countries are investing more money in HIV than is received from global giving, which shows that we are moving forward to a sustainable response. That is really good news.
Many people, including me just now, have raised the possibility of seeing an end to transmission—zero infections—but so much is still to be done, and there are risks that could seriously jeopardise the incredible progress we have made. Too many people are still getting infected, with 2.5 million new infections last year. Women remain disproportionately affected, accounting for 58% of people living with HIV in Africa, and I will come on to specific points raised about that in a moment. Some 7 million people still do not receive the treatment they need, and in low and middle-income countries work to address HIV in key populations—sex workers, men who have sex with men, injecting drug users and prisoners—is still almost entirely funded by international sources, which is an inadequate human rights response and is not sustainable. I will come on to some of the issues relating to human rights and homosexuality.
The context in which we work is changing; the dynamics of the HIV epidemic are changing and the patterns of resources are shifting. We must continue to adapt our ways of working to overcome those challenges, and we need a global HIV response that is fit for purpose. DFID supports, therefore, the strategic investment approach, which allows countries to make decisions about how to allocate resources most effectively and efficiently on the basis of national evidence. I am pleased that through the approach DFID and other members of the HIV community are embedding the principles of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. The focus will help to drive more and better results and improve value for money.
The decisions taken at the recent board meeting of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria demonstrate that efforts are being made to find new and more efficient approaches. The new funding model should better align with country processes, reduce transaction costs, and make a greater impact with investments. DFID is closely following its implementation to ensure that it achieves those aims.
Many Members have mentioned the issue of the global fund. We have committed £1 billion between 2008 and 2015, and that time scale has not been delayed but rather brought forward by one year. Regarding increasing our funding, we have stated that future funding increases are contingent on the global fund’s progress with reforms. I hear the exasperated, “But hasn’t it done enough?” We have committed to reviewing our position paper, and we will have the multilateral aid review update, which is due in the first half of next year. That will provide us with the evidence, but the intention is to make the increase. The global fund has moved a long way from the days when there were issues in round 11 and we had to suspend payments to the fund. With the fund’s replenishment planned for September 2013, the UK is committed to working with others to ensure that reforms succeed and, as has been mentioned, to using our influence with other donors to draw in more overall financing to raise the final total.
One of the deepest ironies of the HIV epidemic is that the people most in need of prevention and services are from communities that are most neglected and discriminated against. A human rights approach is, therefore, essential, and through our bilateral aid review process DFID’s country offices have been updating their HIV programmes, based on the latest evidence and on national responses. In Zimbabwe and other parts of southern Africa, where there is evidence of growing epidemics in key populations, we are exploring how we can pilot innovative approaches to prevention with sex workers, adolescents and prisoners. We have also given new funding for the Robert Carr Civil Society Networks Fund to support global and regional networks to improve HIV responses for key populations.
We also recognise that addressing gender inequality and ensuring women’s rights is also essential to achieve universal access. The Prime Minister appointed me as international champion for tackling violence against women and girls across the world, and that issue is a key part of my agenda. Violence against women and girls is one of the most systematic and widespread human rights violations in the world, and it materially and significantly increases the risks of maternal death and vulnerability to HIV and AIDS.
The issue of sex education has been raised. I recently returned from Zambia, and I was shocked to find that no one talks about sex there. Not only is sex education not taught in school, sex is simply not spoken about. One of DFID’s programmes there is about girls’ empowerment, and I went to visit the girls and asked them which of their life lessons—that is almost what they are—they liked the most. They had had only three lessons so they did not have many to choose from, but it was heartbreaking that they said that what they most liked was finding out about their own bodies. They had absolutely no idea about the changes that were happening to them.
Pamela Nash
I want to reassure the Minister that I witnessed a similar DFID-funded programme in Rwanda that was much further forward than the three lessons. I witnessed young girls being fantastically confident in talking about their own health issues. They had much stronger and brighter futures as a result of the programme.
Lynne Featherstone
That is the key point: education is vital. The girls were saying that the boys were already very jealous because they were not allowed to go to the girls’ meetings. The initiative was empowering them to feel confidence in their bodies and about their rights over their bodies, and the boys were beginning to be a bit more wary of them. It is a long process, and negotiating such relationships, even in this country, is not always easy.
Having said that about boys, there is also a lot of work to do with boys and men. I went to a gender-based violence clinic—a one-stop shop—where remarkable work was being done with bringing the men along. Where there had been violence, the men had to come in for counselling. They were invited in, and if they did not come they were invited again, by the police. If they still did not come the police went and got them—quite extraordinary. Of the 10 survivor women I talked to, five said that they were still with their husbands, who had changed. One of the men had joined a men’s network. Men who have multiple partners are a real threat, where the spread of HIV is concerned.
Many Members raised issues about Uganda and the homosexuality Bill. I went to Uganda before I moved to DFID, in my violence against women role. Where women are oppressed, there are often hideous homosexuality laws. I raised the issue with the Speaker of the House in Uganda. I would not say that what I said was taken in the best way, but I raised the issue politely, but firmly. It is important to be able to discuss matters, even when people disagree. The discussion was private and appropriate. The issue is a really serious one, and it is not uncommon in many countries across Africa and Asia. I am looking closely at what is possible and at how we move forward on the agenda. One thing we do is to support civil society and Ugandan groups. I met with groups when I was in the country, and there is a lot of fear of a backlash, so how we move forward is a delicate matter.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned Uganda. Has she had any discussions with any of her Foreign and Commonwealth Office colleagues about making the case in other Commonwealth countries about more legal reform, so that people are not persecuted? I firmly believe we should be doing that.
Lynne Featherstone
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He may be aware that the Prime Minister raised the issue at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. I have spoken to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers about the issue, and in my international champion role I have developed key messages. Three of those messages are on women, and they address: leadership; rights and laws; and impunity, access, justice and enforcement. There are two messages on homosexuality, and it has been agreed that all travelling Ministers will raise the issue when appropriate. That must be done appropriately as it is easy to raise feelings that the issue is a western construct. The issue, therefore, has to be worked out with the countries not in a preaching way, but in a way in which we can discuss our differences and move the agenda forwards. Human rights are a priority, and we have all made that clear on many occasions. Nevertheless, we work across many countries that come from a different place from us.
In parallel, the UK Government complement grass-roots demand for change through our diplomacy on human rights overseas. We are committed to ending religious intolerance and persecution and discrimination against individuals on the basis of their sexuality. We regularly review the commitment to and respect for all human rights in other countries, including the likely direction of travel over the coming years. Where we have specific concerns about a Government’s failure to protect their citizens’ rights, we raise those concerns directly at the highest levels of the Government concerned.
I will now answer some of the other points that were raised by Members and try to finish ahead of time—we are running over because of the Division.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) asked about direct budget support payments to Uganda and the condition of renewed payments. Aid to the Government of Uganda is predicated on fundamental commitments and agreed principles, so any renewal of general budget support depends on those conditions being met. The route is always open, and there is nothing we would wish more than for countries to want to come back to the same table as us. I am hopeful that that will be the case one day, but it is very early days as we try to address the diplomacy and geopolitics on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda.
We support Ugandan civil society groups, including the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which trains in advocacy and covers the costs of legal cases to protect LGBT communities. That is just one example. Where we cannot give directly to Governments, we find other ways to help people in countries where possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire specifically raised a number of points. Under the global fund’s new funding model, there will be a targeted band for countries, such as Ukraine, with higher incomes and a lower disease burden that remain at risk from rising epidemics. That allocation band includes countries that should focus resources on most-at-risk populations, which are the groups that we have discussed. The UK has consistently argued that such groups should be prioritised in that context. That was the argument I used in Ethiopia when then Prime Minister Meles and I discussed public health, transmission and other such issues.
My hon. Friend is right that Gilead has shown leadership in joining the medicines patent pool, which we strongly support. We are encouraging other companies with patents for new first-line treatments for HIV/AIDS to consider beginning formal negotiations to enter that pool.
On the G8 and the post-millennium development goals, we will use our influence with the international system to deliver our global commitments. As part of our G8 presidency, we will be reporting on progress against existing commitments and holding members to account. There is definitely a view that we need to finish the job. As exciting as it is to think about post-2015 MDGs, there is still much work to be done on the goals we are in the middle of right now.
Several Members raised the issue of the Why Stop Now? UK blueprint, which is where we slightly part company. Our review of progress on the UK’s position paper will happen in the early part of next year, and it is there that we will make our next decisions based on evidence. We think that just spending a lot of our resources to create another blueprint will be just that—using a lot of our resources—when we basically know what we need to do. We want to get on with working with international partners on implementation, rather than having to stop and bring all our resources back to create another plan. We want to work with stakeholders to ensure a robust and accountable analysis of DFID’s HIV results. We are still discussing the time frame because our review of our position paper needs to align with a number of other international processes. I am aware of the call for a blueprint, but I do not think it is necessarily the way we want to go. I apologise if that disappoints anyone. Indeed, I see the AIDS Consortium sitting in the Public Gallery, and I think I have shown my commitment. My first speech as a Minister was an address to the annual general meeting of the AIDS Consortium, which I have since met to discuss all the issues.
I must be quick, but a number of Members raised the issue of the relationship between HIV and tuberculosis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), whom I used to work with at the Home Office, specifically raised that issue. TB is the leading cause of death for people living with HIV. DFID supports leadership among countries on integrated responses rooted in knowledge of local epidemics, with donor support harmonised in line with national plans to deliver quality integrated HIV, TB and reproductive health services, which was a call across the Chamber.
I acknowledge the two issues raised by my right hon. Friend on the TB REACH programme and on vaccination, both of which I will consider further. At the moment, DFID’s support for TB research includes £205 million to the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development and £14 million to the tropical disease research programme.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned how condom use and circumcision have helped HIV prevention work in Swaziland and the rest of the world. I thank him for highlighting the challenges in Swaziland, and DFID agrees that a combination prevention approach, including condoms, male circumcision and education, is essential to an effective response.
Jim Shannon
I also mentioned how pharmaceutical companies in India are able to produce the same anti-HIV drugs more cheaply than companies in America. Without promoting any company over any other, does the Minister agree that, if cheap medication is available in India that is every bit as effective as other medication, we should be sourcing medication from India, given our DFID contribution to countries across the world?
Lynne Featherstone
I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have heard the point that he has made so well.
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire, who secured this important debate. It is heartening to see so many Members who genuinely hold HIV as a priority and will pursue the wonderful goal of zero infections.
Shale Gas Profits
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Bayley. Before I go into the argument for community compensation, I will set the background for the impact of fracking in terms of the present energy demands on the county of Lancashire. At the moment, we face energy projects across the country. My own constituency has a third planning application for onshore wind farms in the Lune valley. We have offshore wind farms, the Walney field off Barrow and proposals for new offshore wind farms run by Centrica off the Isle of Man. Now, the need to transport power from those wind farms will mean extra pylons on land through the middle of my constituency and the middle of Lancashire.
At the south end of my constituency, there is a fourth planning application by a company called Halite for the excavation of salt mines and the storage of liquefied gas, a proposal that I oppose, as do my constituency neighbours and hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). There are also a number of proposals for smaller hydroelectric schemes in the hills. It is already a massive issue for Lancashire, and there is even the possibility of an extra nuclear power station at Heysham, in the north of the county. All those proposals are the background. Into that mix comes the issue of fracking.
I want to put on the record my position on the wider shale gas issue. I have never been against using shale gas in our energy mix in principle. However, I want my constituents’ genuinely held concerns to be addressed before I support an expansion of fracking. I have raised those concerns with Ministers before, including three times in previous debates in Westminster Hall, but they are worth recapping.
First, my rural constituents have understandable concerns because many of them draw their water directly from boreholes rather than the mains. They are worried about contamination of their water supply, and equally worried about the impact on their water supply of the vast amounts of water that will be drawn from the water table to carry on full industrial fracking. Secondly, the small earth tremors that happened last year were proved subsequently to have been caused by the fracking process. Thirdly, my constituents have serious concerns that the regulatory regime, even if more stringent than in the US, will not be extensive enough to keep track of all the activity that could take place if the fracking moved to an industrial scale. I underline the point that, in a sense, we are in a hypothetical position. All that the Minister has reallowed is one testing at Preesall in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), and we may be some way along in the process.
I welcomed the pause in fracking operations to allow an investigation into the earth tremors. I was pleased that the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society produced reports into the processes and equipment involved, and that they were studied further by an independent panel. Such investigation and review was much needed.
As a result of those investigations, the Energy Secretary announced last week that fracking and the tests at Preesall by Quadrilla could resume, but, as his recent statement made clear, with new safeguards in place. I welcome some of the measures in the Energy Secretary’s statement, including monitoring of seismic activity and enhanced wellhead integrity, which are fundamental to ensuring safety of the water table and water supply. I also welcome his commitment to continuing to record and analyse data on the effect on the environment of exploratory fracking. It is an important step, along with the appointment of an independent inspector who will be on site at all times. However, I still want greater efforts to boost the safety of the water supply and put in place a proper and effective regulatory system.
Although exploratory fracking has been resumed, we are still some way from industrial-scale operations, although anyone who reads the national press would think that the bonanza was going to happen next week. We in Lancashire are realistic in seeing that it will be a long-term process, but this debate is meant to get in at the beginning and ask what the impact might be if it happens.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on a subject that is hugely important and of great concern to my constituents. I urge the Minister to take on board the point that my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend, are incredibly worried that fracking could be done on an industrial scale. It is important that the company be clear from the outset that until safety measures and regulations are in place, it will be done on an incredibly limited scale, with detailed on-the-ground monitoring at every stage.
Eric Ollerenshaw
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP. To underline the point to the Minister, there has been speculation in the papers that if industrial fracking happens, there could be some 800 wellheads across Lancashire, against the background of onshore and offshore wind farms and the possibility of new nuclear. One can see why it is generating concern.
I stress that we are talking about a hypothetical situation involving industrial fracking some time in the future. The point that I am here to make is that if shale gas operations commence on that scale and scores of wells are drilled, Lancashire should share in the rewards. At the moment, that is not likely to happen, at least not beyond any small-scale voluntary schemes that energy companies might decide to pursue themselves. To be fair to Quadrilla, I understand that it has given a number of grants to various local parishes. The only other way is through section 106 agreements, which do not derive a vast amount of money for the local infrastructure.
The clear point is that the United Kingdom, and Lancashire in particular, is not Texas, where local landowners can strike it rich if oil or minerals are discovered on their land. The mineral rights in our area belong to the Crown, but mainly to the Duchy of Lancaster. Any farmer for whom fracking is proposed on their land will gain precious little, except perhaps a small amount of rent, and the local authorities will get a small amount of business rate. The company will get its profits, the Duchy will get its share from the mineral rights, and of course and as ever—unless Starbucks starts drilling operations—the Treasury will get its share of the proceeds from taxation. Local residents, who will have to deal with increased industrial activity, traffic movements, the movement of chemicals and so on, will not see a direct reward.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
I declare my interest, as on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that on fracking, Lancashire is once again leading the way? Should operations expand, it should be laid down in regulations that local residents, not absentee landlords, receive the compensation.
Eric Ollerenshaw
As ever, my hon. Friend spots where I am going, and I am glad she is here to support that.
There is lots of talk about job creation, but as far as I can see, the thousands of jobs promised will not be created. As I understand the engineering process, once fracking wells are set up and the gas is being used, the jobs involved are support jobs. It is likely that the specialist engineers will be brought in from elsewhere, unless deals can be done with local universities such as the university of central Lancashire or Lancaster university.
I want a fair and substantial share of the profits from shale gas for the people of Lancashire if this is to be a runner. In a way, the Government set a precedent with the introduction of the new homes bonus, whose principle is that communities that allow development in their area should share in the rewards. We could see a similar approach with shale gas or minerals more generally. Although I have a problem with the new homes bonus—it does not reward parish councils directly—any scheme for shale gas should send at least some of the rewards directly to the local areas or residents most affected, as well as to principal or top-tier authorities.
It is perhaps worth mentioning how such things are dealt with abroad. Alaska operates a scheme called the Alaska permanent fund, which is created largely from income from oil operations in the state and designed to ensure that future generations can share in the profits even when the oil is exhausted. Interestingly enough, the fund also pays out an annual cash dividend to all state residents. Apparently, people must reside there for only one year to be classified as a state resident. The payout varies; I think that last year it was $1,000, but in previous years it has reached $2,000. That is an interesting precedent.
In south America, the Brazilian constitution ensures that a share of oil revenue is provided to the states where oil is extracted. They can then use the money to fund infrastructure projects, community schemes or tax cuts as they see fit. That other foreign country, Yorkshire, has the newly established potash community fund, brought to my attention by my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North. The extraction company York Potash has set up a fund of 0.5% of profits to be used for the local community. It is expected to provide between £3 million and £9 million a year to fund local projects.
Three different models are in use in different places—from the voluntary to the compulsory—varying according to how the payments are made and to whom. I should like a system to be put in place that provides direct compensation to the local residents and parishes most affected, and an income to the principal or top-tier authorities in the area for infrastructure projects, service provision or even council tax cuts. I should like the Government to give an “in principle” commitment to providing something along those lines before any decision is made on whether to expand shale gas operations. This should apply elsewhere in the country, too.
What I am proposing will be seen by some as trying to bribe residents into supporting shale gas, but that is not so. I know for a fact that many of my local residents would never be convinced of the merits of shale gas, whether it is extracted locally or not, even if they were offered a cheque for £1 million. Their objections are based on genuinely held fears about safety and concerns about the environment, particularly their own water supply. I am suggesting merely that there should be a fair reward for the communities that might have to host all that infrastructure, worry about safety and deal with increased traffic, and, as I have stressed before, that will not secure thousands or even hundreds of extra jobs.
I stress again that I am not proposing that we agree to a move to immediate shale gas operations. I still share my residents’ concerns about water safety and the adequacy of regulatory regimes, and want to see those dealt with in more detail. I support the Energy Secretary’s introducing increased regulation for the test site. It will be interesting to see over the next few months and years what those measurements say and what the safety record is, particularly regarding seismic activity and so on.
We are generous folk in Lancashire. We are loyal to our Duke and are patriotic members of the United Kingdom. But if others are to make millions, then it is only fair that Lancashire should have a share of those millions.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing this debate.
I am concerned that there are no plans for new extraction regulations. We met with the Secretary of State before the statement last week and he made it plain that he believes that existing European directives and environmental agency regulations are sufficient at this stage for the experimental and exploratory phase to take place. For me, that is a shock and a surprise. The industry is new to this country—except for the small amounts of fracking in Lancashire—but given the extensive fracking that has taken place in the United States, there should be plenty of lessons for the industry regarding new regulations. Adequate new regulations should be put in place.
Some US states have no regulation, but that is because the locations in question are often remote and unpopulated. The UK, and Lancashire in particular, is not like that. There are many villages and towns in the areas that are going to be releasing shale gas.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that the exploratory and experimental phase that has been given the go-ahead for the next two years may yield results that highlight the need for new regulation. However, that amounts to using Lancashire as a guinea pig for the rest of the country. That is a cavalier approach to serious industrial activity, and above all to the people of my constituency and Lancashire as a whole, who could be subjected to the earth tremors that Blackpool experienced. We do not want earth tremors or serious earth movements; we want a safe industry. Lancashire should not be an experiment for the rest of the country. It should have all the necessary safeguards to ensure public safety before further work is undertaken. Yes, we should have the rewards—if it is safe for residents, safe for the water supply and safe for the environment.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), who yet again demonstrated why he is known as such a formidable, and probably unequalled, champion of the interests of his constituents. He also demonstrated his strong commitment not just to his own constituency, but to the wider area of Lancashire. Indeed, he successfully secured a wider debate a few months ago on energy and infrastructure in Lancashire, in which shale gas was also covered. That builds on his tireless work on this issue, which he continues to go at, terrier like, on behalf of his constituents.
I apologise for my croaky voice, Mr Bayley, I hope that it lasts. The focus of this debate—the community share of shale gas profit—comes from a slightly different perspective than the previous debate secured by my hon. Friend. I note that he is joined by those equally formidable constituency Members of Parliament, my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and for Redditch (Karen Lumley), who have been here throughout the debate.
The question in this debate is how development of new energy sources, such as shale gas, can provide benefits not just to the country as a whole, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood rightly says, to the communities where they are developed. As the Secretary of State said only last week, shale gas may have an important part to play in our national energy mix and our economy, but we must ensure that communities benefit and that there is proper environmental regulation.
I understand the issues that were rightly raised by Government colleagues and by the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick), not just about sharing the benefits, but about the need to ensure that the highest levels of environmental integrity are achieved, and about what that means.
I make it clear at the outset that we recognise that there is an important issue of fairness here. We do not yet know whether shale gas in this country is a commercial proposition at all. We hope that it is, but we are even more unsure what scale of development may be proposed and if it can be established that there is a geological potential for an economic development. It is still early days. But it is clear, from looking at what has happened in the US, that if shale gas production proves economic, the scale of development that might be proposed could be substantial, or “industrial”, as my hon. Friends have said.
I stress that the important word is “might”. It is already clear that the Bowland shale in Lancashire is not an exact analogue for any US shale, and it is not to be assumed that the pattern, or patterns, of development which have been followed in the US will necessarily work here. But there is at least the possibility that proposals for one or more large-scale gas production projects in the UK would involve large numbers of wells drilled over a substantial period of time. I have no doubt that if such proposals are made, the planning authority will do what they can to make the impacts of such a development, in terms of noise and general disturbance, traffic movements and night-time working—all the many ways in which an industrial development can impact on the lives of those who live nearby, particularly in a quiet, tranquil rural area—as small and acceptable as possible. I have no doubt that the planning authority will do what it can to minimise and mitigate such impacts. Even so, there is no question but that a large project of such a kind would have impacts on the lives of the people living in the areas around.
In such circumstances, it is only right and reasonable that the communities that suffer the inconvenience of the development should have a share in the economic benefits. However, while I and my colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change wholeheartedly agree with the principle articulated at length by my hon. Friend—perhaps we can call it the Lancaster and Fleetwood principle—at such an early stage I am afraid that we simply cannot propose exactly how that would be done or what mechanisms might be appropriate.
Gregory Barker
I shall make some progress, if I may, because I want to reply to the many important questions raised.
I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood and for Fylde, who have engaged in the debate sensibly and robustly, take comfort from my reassurances but appreciate our position given our state of knowledge and understanding of the sector. As such understanding grows, there can be genuine dialogue and discussion between the company proposing the project and the communities that might be affected. The Government will take a clear interest in such developments.
Shale gas has been of increasing importance in the US for some years, but exploration has only just begun in the UK. The potential to produce shale gas from a suitable formation can only be established by fracturing the rock. The fracturing of the first shale gas well in the UK, however, at Preese Hall near Blackpool last year, resulted in noticeable seismic tremors. Seismic activity at such a level could not cause any damage, but was not an expected consequence of the fracking activity, so DECC rightly suspended all fracking operations for shale gas pending a thorough investigation of the causes of the tremors and of the scope for mitigation of seismic risks in any future operations of that type.
The coalition Government carefully reviewed the evidence, with the aid of independent experts and of an authoritative review of the scientific and engineering evidence on shale gas extraction conducted by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society, and concluded that appropriate controls are available to mitigate the risks of undesirable seismic activity. The new controls will be required by DECC for all future shale gas wells. In principle, on that basis, we are prepared to consent to new fracking proposals for shale gas if all other necessary permissions and consents are in place. In practice, it will be well into next year before any new exploration work has all the necessary consents to proceed. Whether any production operations are proposed will depend on the success of exploration work but, in any event, that is likely to be some years away yet. The new controls on seismic risks do not remove any of the existing regulatory controls and requirements. Consistent with previous practice, my Department will not give consent to specific fracking operations until all other consents are in place, including planning permission, the obtaining of environmental permits from the relevant environment agency and scrutiny by the Health and Safety Executive.
We are conscious that many people, including residents of Lancashire and other areas where shale gas exploration might be contemplated, have other concerns besides the seismic risks. Indeed, for most people, they are not of most concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood eloquently pointed out. In the US, the development of shale gas has been accompanied by increasing debate on its environmental impacts. Many of the incidents reported have, on investigation, not been shown to be connected with oil and gas activity, although they have given rise to concerns that in themselves are entirely reasonable. Residents in such areas want, therefore, to be assured that their water will not be contaminated with gas or toxic chemicals, that the air will not be contaminated with noxious gases, that there will be no damage from earthquakes and that other kinds of disturbance such as traffic, lights and noise will be kept under control. We understand that. In considering the concerns, we have had the benefit of the earlier report on shale gas by the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change and of many authoritative reports from the US, including two from the Secretary of Energy’s advisory board.
In the UK, the industry has a good record, and robust regulatory controls on all oil and gas activities are already in place. On water contamination, which my hon. Friend discussed, all such operations are subject to scrutiny by the appropriate environment agency, the Environment Agency in England and for the time being Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency north of the border. It is an offence to cause or knowingly permit poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter controlled waters, which include groundwater. The environment agencies are statutory consultees in the planning process and must be consulted on all proposed borehole operations. A permit from the agency is required if fluids containing pollutants are to be injected into rock formations that contain groundwater. A permit may also be needed if the activity poses an unacceptable risk of mobilising natural substances that in themselves could cause pollution. The permit will specify any necessary limits on the activity, any requirements for monitoring the chemicals that may be used and any appropriate limits on permissible concentrations. Regulators will take a risk-based approach; if the activity poses an unacceptable risk to the environment, it will not be allowed.
The reports I mentioned also emphasise the importance in such a context of the integrity of the well. That issue is central to the regulation of the safety of well operations by the HSE, which must be notified of all drilling operations for oil or gas and will scrutinise the well design and the operational plan. Additionally, the regulations require a full review of the proposed and actual well operations by an independent competent person, the well examiner.
The use of chemicals in frack fluids is another matter that occasions much concern. Again, the environment agencies take a risk-based approach to the regulation of the use of chemicals in shale gas fracking activities. The hazard potential of all substances proposed—
Gregory Barker
I will not, I am afraid. I am close to coming to the end of my—
Gregory Barker
I do, to get to the end of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood.
The hazard potential of all substances proposed to be injected into the ground will be assessed, and the use of substances hazardous to groundwater will not be permitted.
Mark Hendrick
On a point of order, Mr Bayley, the subject of the debate involves the benefit to the people of Lancashire. The Minister is going into a great deal of technical detail about the safety issues, when he should be discussing the benefit to the people of Lancashire.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
It is for the Minister to present his arguments as he sees fit. He has made it clear that he does not want to take an intervention at this stage.
Gregory Barker
I am also mindful that the debate was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and that it is unusual for other Members to speak as well. The hon. Member for Preston has done well already, so in the remaining time I should answer my hon. Friend.
The national planning policy framework requires planning authorities to assess applications for all minerals developments so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse effects on the natural or historical environment or on human health, including from noise, dust, visual intrusion or migration of contamination from the site. In doing so, they should take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality. Conditions can be placed on working hours at a site or on numbers of traffic movements to ensure that any effect on local residents remains within acceptable bounds.
I hope that I have assured my hon. Friend that we will continue to maintain our responsible, thorough and rigorous approach. Within that framework, Government consider shale gas to be an interesting new prospective source of UK energy supplies. I again welcome the debate and the further opportunity to explain the Government’s positive approach to a potentially valuable addition to our energy resources, but my hon. Friend is right that we must ensure that local communities suffering the inconvenience that comes with development should have a share in the economic benefits. I assure him and my other hon. Friends from Lancashire that that will be one of the many considerations examined should shale gas in the UK prove to be a successful proposition and we move to the development phase.
West Midlands Economy
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
This is probably only the second time, Mr Bayley, that you have chaired a debate of mine, and I welcome you. This is a short debate, and all the issues relating to Coventry and the west midlands cannot be covered, so I will be brief. The present economic situation developed in America, but the Government’s policies have not helped the general situation nationally or locally. [Interruption.]
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman wait a moment while colleagues leave the Chamber? Their conversation should take place outside the Chamber so as not to disturb this debate.
Mr Cunningham
The present economic situation started with Lehman Brothers in America, and the bankers. Some bankers in America faced Senate inquiries, and some were charged, but I do not want to go into that today. I want to talk about Coventry in particular, the west midlands in general, and some of the issues that affect Coventry and the west midlands.
We have issues concerning the police, and the problem of police numbers and cuts are well known. There are also issues with fire brigade cuts, and a running issue during the next few months will be changes to employment law. I will not develop the arguments too much today. Some have been well rehearsed, and some will be. There is a west midlands campaign for a fair deal for Birmingham, but there must also be a fair deal for the other districts that make up the west midlands, including Coventry. I am looking for a fair deal for Coventry.
Coventry was mentioned once in the autumn statement. It is one of the 12 smaller cities that will be included in the super-connected cities programme, and will receive funding for ultra-fast broadband. I am obviously pleased at the news, and I recognise the impact that superfast broadband can have on growth. I particularly understand the importance of encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises to realise the opportunities that superfast broadband can bring. A Lloyds Banking Group survey found that 45% of digitally mature small businesses had registered growth, compared with 35% of digitally immature SMEs.
Some research suggests an £18.8 billion opportunity for SME revenue growth through more high-tech approaches to marketing, data optimisation and more, so I am pleased with the Government’s commitment to broadband expansion. We can say something positive about the Government for a change, but we will be looking to ensure that they proceed intelligently to ensure that small businesses make the most of the available opportunities.
I am also optimistic about the city deal in Coventry and Warwickshire. Over the past month, Coventry MPs and councillors in particular have lobbied hard, as have Warwickshire MPs and councillors. The city deal could bring great benefits to the region, including giving cities the powers and tools they need to drive local economic growth, unlocking projects or initiatives to boost their economies, and strengthening the governance arrangements of each city. Each city deal includes at least one major commitment specific to the city, which generally involves leveraging private sector funding. Many have included tax increment financing and community infrastructure levies, and there is a focus on investment and trade.
I very much hope that Coventry and Warwickshire local authorities will make the case for Coventry’s candidacy for the deal. Coventry is a strong contender, and has been working for months to develop infrastructure plans that are ready to go ahead given sufficient funding and support. The plans reflect local understanding of the asset base, transport issues, the financial situation, and what can be achieved. An example of the work that Coventry is already undertaking to stimulate growth is the gateway project. It is controversial because environmental issues are involved, but I understand that it is on the way to obtaining planning permission, or has already received it. I am not clear about that. The project will be interesting, but controversial.
Another excellent example in Coventry is the Friargate project next to Coventry railway station. It is a 300,000 square metre development, which will extensively renovate the area to include 14 grade A office buildings, two hotels, new pedestrian routes, high quality public spaces, new residential buildings, and space for retail outlets and bars. Outline planning consent was granted in July 2011, and the first phase of the development has started. I hope that the development will transform the city centre, making it welcoming and lively. More importantly, I hope very much that the renovated city centre will raise optimism and encourage investment in the city.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Coventry’s economy has been greatly assisted over the years by the car industry, particularly Jaguar. What does he think about Tata’s proposal to open a factory in China?
Mr Cunningham
There are a couple of schools of thought about that, but my understanding is that the trade unions are worried and will be having discussions with Tata. Some years ago, there was concern about Jaguar’s trade with China. Some people thought that cars would be built in China, but they were only assembled there, and there had been a misunderstanding. We need to find out more about the current deal, and discussions are ongoing.
Coventry city council is suffering from Government funding cuts. From 2010-11 to 2012-13, the council has suffered cuts of £101.89 per capita. That is among the hardest hit 20% of local authorities. More unjust and distressing is the fact that of those local authorities with cuts of more than £100 per head, including Coventry, 85.71 % are Labour-run, and only 5.36 % are Tory-run. Meanwhile, of those local authorities with cuts of less than £100 per head, 60.82% are Tory-run and 19.4% are Labour-run. It is hard not to be concerned about the Government’s fairness when the cuts seem to be distributed across local authorities on party lines. Coventry council had expected to lose 1,000 jobs over four years to 2014-15, but it is now predicting 1,600 job losses over the four-year period, with a cut of more than 10% in the work force.
Those cuts are impacting on the council’s services for the vulnerable. For example, its funding for early intervention will be cut yet again. Two years ago it was £22 million per annum, but from next year it will be £11 million. That is particularly damaging given the current increased pressure on social care. Every penny spent on early intervention in families with young children to help them help themselves is of paramount importance in taking people out of poverty and improving children’s life chances. Those pressures are increased by a social care budget for children of £64 million which has not significantly changed for two years. Similarly, the pressures are increasing daily on the adult social care budget because elderly people and disabled people are living longer, but that is not reflected in the budget, and the extra cost of care is not recognised in financial terms.
Those are only a few of the extreme budgetary pressures on the council; to put the huge cuts in funding into context, there are others. In my constituency alone, 920 households have already received letters from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs informing them that their child benefit is likely to be reduced or withdrawn. Across Coventry, that figure is 1,740 households. The jobseeker’s allowance claimant rate in Coventry and across the west midlands is 6.2%, well above the UK’s rate of 5.2%. Even worse, the rate of jobseeker’s allowance claims by 18 to 24-year-olds across the west midlands is 8.7%, far higher than the UK’s 7.1%.
Mr Cunningham
I want to get on. If I have time, I will let the hon. Lady in.
Looking at the proportion of people referred to the Work programme who have had a job outcome, there has been poor progress. In Coventry South, 1,670 referrals were made to the Work programme last year. In the same period, only 50 job outcomes resulted from the programme—a success rate of only 3%. Although employment levels have increased, we do not have enough information about the type of work being gained. There are clearly many people in part-time work who are not earning the income they need to survive. We need to look closer at the numbers, as it is not a question of simply being in or out of work; we need to know more about the type of work.
Karen Lumley
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he not agree that under this Government, unemployment is falling month on month, and that new business start-ups in Redditch have increased by 14%? Does he not think that that is good news for the west midlands economy?
Mr Cunningham
We do not have a breakdown of those figures. We do not know how many people are part-time workers or are in temporary jobs. I want to know more about those figures.
Budgetary pressures on the council are made all the more damaging in light of the financial pressures individual households face. For example, I am extremely concerned about the coming introduction of the under-occupancy penalty, or bedroom tax—in other words a new poll tax, but no one has grasped that. It will cut the housing benefit of working-age tenants in the social rented sector who have spare rooms.
The Government say that if people do not want to face the benefit cut, they can simply move into a smaller property. However, there are simply not enough smaller homes available in the current housing market. There is a national shortage of one-bedroom houses, particularly in the social housing sector. Furthermore, there are concerns that tenants are not being sufficiently prepared for the changes and do not know anything about the penalty.
The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that the introduction of the social sector size criteria measure is likely to affect 60,000 working-age housing benefit claimants living in the social rented sector in the west midlands at the time of its introduction in 2013-14. The change will mean that anyone in social housing with a spare bedroom will lose 14% of their housing benefit, or 25% if they have two spare rooms. Most people with a spare bedroom are pensioners who live in two or three-bedroom houses. There is a national shortage of one-bedroom houses, particularly in the social housing sector. In many areas, moving is not an option, because there are not enough smaller places to move into. I have long been concerned about that issue and want to prepare those who will be affected in Coventry as much as possible.
Another factor that is putting pressure on households is fuel prices. Petrol prices have fallen by less than 4p a litre, despite a 10p drop in wholesale prices—almost mirroring what happened six months ago.
Mr Cunningham
No. I want to finish my speech, and my colleagues want to come in.
The average pump price of diesel has fallen, but only by 40% of the fall in the wholesale value. The Government should be doing all they can to try to mitigate the impact of high prices, and doing all in their power to make the prices at the pump fairly reflect any drops in the wholesale price.
I have a number of serious reservations about High Speed 2. I wish to be given all possible assurances that Coventry will not lose out from the development of HS2. We have had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport, who will look at the situation and at how to ensure that Coventry does not lose out. I am concerned that HS2 might drive up prices in existing services to Coventry and reduce services on the west coast main line, which could blight inward investment in Coventry.
European attempts at high-speed networks are concerning. There have been criticisms that the high-speed route in France has meant that towns near but not on the route have suffered, as investment was sucked into the cities on the route. Coventry’s proximity to Birmingham is making me anxious that a similar loss of investment to Birmingham may occur.
Furthermore, I am extremely concerned about the compensation package being offered by the Government. I understand that the existing package does not cover all who will be negatively affected by HS2, particularly those at the fringes. Households may experience negative equity on their properties but will receive no compensation, therefore making it difficult to sell the properties on the periphery. I have been having meetings, but will seek more to gain every reassurance that Coventry households, as well as the local economy, will not be negatively affected by HS2.
In conclusion, I want to know what the Government intend to do to support Coventry. The city is working extremely hard to encourage investment and regeneration and to free up land to provide space for manufacturing facilities and many other projects. The council is doing all it can to continue providing essential services, particularly for Coventry’s vulnerable people, despite difficult budgetary pressures. The people of Coventry want reassurance that such hardships are not going to continue without the Government also taking action to stimulate growth in the region.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve—for the first time, I think—under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley? I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) for inviting me to take part in it. The debate is timely, given the dreadful news that came in the autumn statement, the downgrading of the Government’s forecast, and the implications that has for continuing poor economic performance throughout the country and in the west midlands in particular. Sadly, we have yet to see a pick-up there.
Mr Robinson
No, I will not. If I had the remotest hope of the intervention being intelligent or relevant to what we are talking about, which is the west midlands and Coventry, in the way that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) was, I would. However, we know that it would be a recital of what the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) believes are the great Government accomplishments. That is not what we are here to do. Nor are we here to criticise the Government point blank—there are one or two things that I am pleased to say that they have done well on. If he will forgive me—I will not expect to be invited to intervene in any of his speeches; I can give him that reassurance—I will not, on this occasion, give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South gave us a tour d’horizon. In 15 minutes, he drew us through every aspect of Coventry’s activities, particularly the interface with the Government and the impact of Government cuts on the city. I want to pick up on one point, initially: the cuts to early intervention, to which he referred. Over two years, Coventry’s receipt from Government for early intervention has been halved from £22 million to £11 million. That is a massive cut by any standard. Those figures are from the council; I am sure that they must be pretty accurate.
I am not trying to say that that is the direct consequence of my next point, which is a sad fact: in Ofsted’s latest rankings, Coventry’s primary education has been ranked the worst in the country for giving opportunity to its youngsters. It is always argued by people who are much more knowledgeable about education than I am that early intervention in the primary stage is key to the child’s whole chances in life. In my opinion, education is the vital provider of life chances to all children. If, at that early stage, we are offering the worst possible opportunities in the country for youngsters, that is clearly a matter of great concern to Coventry and its Members of Parliament.
I have made some criticisms in that regard. Using the rather grand BBC euphemism, I suggested that the director of education should follow the director-general’s example and step aside. It was not well accepted, but I still say it. If someone asks me what that means, I will say, “Resign.” If someone has been in a position of public trust for so many years, as the director has been, but local children are judged to have the worst life chances at a key stage in their education, they have to ask themselves, “What am I here for?” I make no excuses for saying that, but nor do I say that we are in this situation just because the Government have cut the funding in half. I am not sure how far the correlation can be pushed; I do not think it can be pushed all that far. I think that what we are up against—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South agrees—is an acceptance of poor standards, a belief that we cannot do better.
For that reason, the first thing that I want to say today, pursuing the initiative that I have already taken through the local press and media in the city, is that much stronger, much more powerful pressure is needed on the education establishment in Coventry. Fortunately, we now have as a councillor—this was well timed, in that respect—a former head of a secondary school in my constituency who, after 21 years, can proudly say that his school was top in Coventry every single year, and was within the top 10% for performance in the whole country. He is now a Labour councillor; I am pleased to say that he is the council member for education. Again, I make no excuses for saying this: I pushed for him to be encouraged to take on the responsibility of replacing the director, and for much-improved status, quality and priority to be given to the education department in the council. I think that I am within my time limit, if there is one. Perhaps it will be indicated to me if I am not.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate ends at 5.10 pm. It is for him to decide how much time the Minister has to reply. There are eight and a half minutes to go.
Mr Robinson
I am grateful to you, Mr Bayley, but I know the Minister personally very well. He is extraordinarily succinct in everything that he has to say, and I am not sure that he is going to tell us very much when it comes to it, but I do have a question or two to ask him, if I may.
We are so pleased to be in the broadband scheme. Unfortunately, I do not think that broadband will play a big part in getting the primary education sector right, but I am sure that it will play a huge part in improving the secondary and tertiary sectors of our education system, and also in business. Can the Minister tell us how much money will come to us, given that we have been named, thankfully, as one of the cities involved? Can he tell us what the timing is, what speed is envisaged and, above all, when we in Coventry can expect to feel the benefit? Those are my few questions for the Minister. I am mindful of your advice, Mr Bayley, and would hate to build a reputation with you, Sir, for being other than adherent to your orders. On that note, I will sit down, but I do hope that the Minister can reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I, too, commend the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing the debate and on his contribution. I also note the contribution from the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and the refreshingly frank things that he said about the need for educational improvement. That probably applies not just in Coventry, but in many of our cities.
No one is under any illusions about the scale of the wider challenges that we face as a country, but we are not just dealing with the deficit; we are rebalancing the economy and helping to protect the most vulnerable. In the west midlands, we have taken 22,000 people out of income tax altogether, and 2 million people in the region will pay less income tax as a result of the personal allowance reforms that we have announced.
The economy of Coventry and the west midlands is a vital part of our national economy. It accounts for more than 7% of the UK’s gross value added, and it is important for us all that it is successful and prosperous. Of course, Coventry has long been at the heart of Britain’s manufacturing sector. In recent years, there has been much welcome news of private sector investment, including investment by BMW at Hams Hall, by Jaguar Land Rover near Wolverhampton and at its other plants and, most recently, by JCB, which is investing £31 million to develop new engine technology. All that is welcome news and a tribute to the efforts of businesses and employees in Coventry and the west midlands.
The Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership has brought together public and private sector partners to work to deliver economic success. We have provided Coventry and Warwickshire with some £13 million from the Growing Places fund. We have also invested directly in encouraging business growth through the regional growth fund. The west midlands was awarded the largest regional allocation of all in round 3 of the regional growth fund: £184 million was provisionally allocated in October to programmes and projects with a strong focus on high-value manufacturing growth. In addition to that, the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP has been allocated more than £24 million to unlock key sites and drive local business expansion. Companies from Coventry and Warwickshire that were successful include Jaguar Cars, Pailton Engineering, Aston Martin and Bladon Jets. The Government have also announced a range of other investments.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West specifically mentioned superfast broadband. I hope to get him some figures on that. I may not be able to do that today; if I do not, I will certainly write to him.
Mr Marcus Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for giving way; that is very generous of him. The positive news that he mentions is extremely important. Does he agree that it includes a fall in unemployment since May 2010 in my constituency of Nuneaton, and the fact that in Nuneaton we have had the largest business growth, at 22% nearly, in the country over the past three months? Does he agree that that is a good success story and we should build on it?
Michael Fallon
It is a good success story, and I note that unemployment continues to fall. Coventry and Warwickshire was one of the areas invited to submit an expression of interest in developing a wave 2 city deal. I cannot guarantee its success. Twenty cities have been invited, and they will not all make it; it is a competitive process. However, it sounds from what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) has said as though good work is in hand there.
The hon. Member for Coventry South mentioned some specific issues. I look forward to the Friargate development beginning to roll out in 2013; that is important. He asked me about the Coventry gateway. That has not yet, as I understand it, fully secured planning permission; I think it is before Warwick district council today, as a matter of fact, so I had probably better not comment on it. He made some criticisms of the cuts in grant to Coventry council. There was some suggestion that those were somehow politically motivated. The cuts seem to have fallen more heavily, he said, on Labour councils than Conservative councils. The fact is that they have fallen on all councils. We must get our public spending under control. However, I will certainly refer what he said about the impact on social services to my ministerial colleagues.
The hon. Gentleman then raised two or three very specific issues, including the bedroom tax. If people continue to live in a property that is larger than they need, it is not unreasonable to expect them to make a contribution to its cost through a reduction in housing benefit. However, the Government have listened to concerns about that, and an additional £30 million has been allocated to the discretionary housing payment budget from April 2013.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about fuel prices. Cancelling the fuel duty rise in January, which I think the last Government programmed in for us, will reduce the running costs for the 3.5 million vehicles in the west midlands, saving the typical motorist in the west midlands £40 a year.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about HS2. HS2 is a fundamental part of the Government’s plans to promote national economic growth, benefitting the whole country, but of course HS2 also puts the west midlands at the heart of a new high-speed rail network. That is a great opportunity for the region as a whole, with the benefits spreading beyond the station sites and into the wider city region. There is a challenge for councils in the west midlands and their partners to work together on how to achieve that.
I was asked about broadband funding and I can reassure the hon. Member for Coventry North West that it will be a share of some £50 million of funding. There will be an invitation to tender to Coventry, issued in January. He asked me about the timetable. If we stick to that timetable, the contract for the broadband should be agreed in May. I hope that that is helpful to him.
The Government share the desire expressed by the hon. Member for Coventry South to see Coventry and the west midlands flourish, and people in Coventry and the west midlands are responding to the real challenges of that economy. Whether that response is in the established industries, such as the automotive industry, or in developing sectors, such as low-carbon technologies and digital games, the resurgence is being led by the private sector. It is leading the growth of the west midlands economy. There are no guarantees of success. It will obviously require hard work, the ability to harness innovation and the winning of new businesses opportunities, but the Government are there to support the regeneration of the west midlands. That is why we are going all out to create the best possible business environment that will give companies the confidence to invest and grow in the west midlands.
Written Ministerial Statements
Social Media
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has today launched a public consultation on his interim guidelines for prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media.
The guidelines set out the additional considerations which are relevant when prosecutors assess whether a prosecution is required in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. Each case will be considered on its own facts and on its own merits, and prosecutors have the task of balancing the fundamental right of free speech and the need to prosecute serious wrongdoing. The interim guidelines make a clear distinction between communications which amount to credible threats of violence, a targeted campaign of harassment or breach court orders on the one hand, and other communications —for example, grossly offensive communications—on the other. The first group will be prosecuted robustly, whereas the second group will be prosecuted only if they cross a high threshold and a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest if the communication is swiftly removed, blocked, not intended for a wide audience or not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.
The guidelines have been issued on an interim basis as they are the subject of a public consultation exercise that will last for three months. The DPP will publish his final guidelines next year once he has considered the responses to the consultation.
Copies of the interim guidelines have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Industrial Development Advisory Board (Triennial Review)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
On 22 March 2012, as Minister with responsibility for business and enterprise, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) announced in Parliament through a written ministerial statement, Official Report, column 66WS commencement of the triennial review of the Industrial Development Advisory Board (IDAB). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The Industrial Development Advisory Board is a statutory body which plays an important role providing independent and expert advice to Ministers on large capital investment projects in England, particularly applications under the Grant for Business Investment (GBI) scheme or the Regional Growth Fund (RGF).
The review concludes that the functions performed by the Industrial Development Advisory Board are still required and that it should be retained as an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB). The review also looked at the governance arrangements for IDAB in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office. The report makes some recommendations in this respect; these will be implemented shortly.
The full report of the review of IDAB can be found on the BIS website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
ECOFIN
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 12 December 2012. Ministers discussed the following item:
Banking Supervision Mechanism
Ministers agreed an approach on the Commission’s proposal for a single supervisory mechanism in the European Central Bank and an amending regulation for the regulation establishing the European Banking Authority (regulation 1093/2010).
The Government have been clear that the UK will not participate in the banking union, including the single supervisory mechanism. Other member states outside the eurozone have also signalled that they will not participate at this stage. Accordingly, it is vital that these proposals are underpinned by measures that protect the single market. To ensure this, the Government have secured a number of safeguards to protect those outside banking union.
There will be a duty on the ECB to have regard to the unity and integrity of the single market. Importantly, the ECB will be subject to an express obligation to ensure that no action, proposal or policy of the ECB shall directly or indirectly discriminate against any member state or group of member states as a venue for the provision of banking or financial services in any currency.
The scope of the ECB’s supervisory remit will be expressly limited to credit institutions in participating member states. The supervision of central counterparties will be explicitly excluded from the ECB’s mandate.
The Government have also secured symmetry of treatment between the ECB and national competent authorities in those member states who are not participating in banking union. Powers and decisions of the EBA, for example in cases of mediation between supervisors, will apply equally to the ECB and other supervisors. The Council has also agreed that the ECB’s supervisory powers should be aligned with those available under Union law to national competent authorities in non-participating member states.
There will be a statutory underpinning for a bilateral memorandum of understanding between the ECB and Bank of England to ensure proper co-ordination of supervision for cross-border banks.
The introduction of banking union will see the interests of the eurozone converge as participants move forwards with further integration. We have therefore secured changes to voting arrangements in the European Banking Authority to ensure that the eurozone cannot systematically dominate decision-making on matters that affect the whole single market. All key decisions taken by the EBA will require a double majority—that is either an overall qualified majority or simple majority in the Board of Supervisors of the EBA, plus a simple majority of representatives of participating member states and a simple majority of representatives of non-participating member states. This will ensure that all member states will continue to have a meaningful voice in EBA decision making. In addition there will be a review by the Commission of the decision-making rules when the number of non-participating member states reaches four or fewer and this review will report to the European Council.
Taken together, this is a good agreement for the eurozone and the wider European Union, including the UK.
The proposals will now be discussed between the Council and the European Parliament before the final texts can be agreed.
Local Government Finance
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Over the last two years, the coalition Government have worked with councils to help freeze council tax bills for hard-working families and pensioners and this has seen council tax bills in England fall by 4.4% in real terms. Under the last Administration, band D council tax bills rose by £751 (+109%) across England as a whole.
The Government are setting aside an extra £450 million over the next two years to help local government in England to freeze their council tax in 2013-14, which will be the third successive year in which a freeze scheme applies. The cumulative impact of three years’ worth of council tax freezes represents up to £227 off the council tax bills of an average band D home.
I am now setting out the provisions for the new scheme that we are offering local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and police and crime commissioners which freeze or reduce their council tax bills.
Authorities and police and crime commissioners which do not increase their basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 will receive a grant equivalent to the revenue they would have generated by increasing their basic amount of council tax by 1%. The amount an authority will receive will be equivalent to 1% of its 2012-13 average B and D amount multiplied by a council tax base for 2013-14 which does not take into account reductions given to those receiving council tax support. This will put the calculation for the freeze grant on a consistent basis to previous years’ grants.
The grant will be paid in each of the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15, amounting to some £225 million of funding in each year, and will be paid in instalments to mirror council tax receipts. Payments will be made using the grant-making powers provided by section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. Payments will be made in 10 instalments per financial year from April 2013. As in previous years, local precepting authorities are not eligible for the scheme.
To help local government with budget planning, the Government will publish on their website an estimate of the council tax freeze grant each participating authority and police and crime commissioner will receive. Grants will be finalised once authorities have reported on their council tax decisions, which they are required to do by March 2013.
I would hope and anticipate that most authorities and police and crime commissioners will choose to take up the grant offer and freeze their element of the council tax. In doing so, they will be providing real help to families and those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, with their cost of living.
However, for those bodies who choose not to protect families and pensioners and want to increase their council tax, the Government are proposing trigger points for council tax referendums so that any excessive increases in 2013-14 are put to the local electorate for approval. The Secretary of State has today proposed that a 2% referendum principle will apply for all principal local authorities, police and crime commissioners and fire and rescue authorities. This would mean that if an authority wished to raise their relevant basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 by more than 2%, their local electorate will have the opportunity to approve or veto the increase in a binding referendum.
The exception to this excessiveness principle will be shire districts, police and crime commissioners and fire and rescue authorities whose 2012-13 council tax was in the lower quartile of their category of authority. In the case of these authorities, a referendum must only be held where the authority increases its relevant basic amount of council tax for 2013-14 by more than 2%, and there is a cash increase that is more than £5 in the relevant basic amount.
The Secretary of State does not propose to determine principles for local precepting authorities for 2013-14. However, he intends to revisit this issue next year, having considered the extent to which local precepting authorities have exercised restraint in relation to council tax this year.
The Secretary of State is also consulting on alternative notional amount figures in respect of 2012-13 which a number of local authorities must use when determining whether the increase in their relevant basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 is excessive. These are required to reflect changes brought about by the localisation of council tax support. A copy of these amounts has been placed in the Library of the House.
Having considered any representations, the Secretary of State will put the final principles and final alternative notional amount report before the House of Commons for approval alongside the local government finance report early in 2013.
My officials are today writing to all local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and police and crime commissioners with more details of how the council tax freeze scheme will operate.
The council tax freeze offer applies to England; however, Barnett consequential funding has also been provided to devolved institutions, and their electorates will rightly want to hold the devolved representatives to account if they do not offer a council tax freeze to local taxpayers.
Local Government Pension Scheme
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
On 12 September 2001, the then Department for Transport, Local Government and The Regions announced plans to give taxpayer-funded pensions to councillors, through access to the local government pension scheme.
The proposals came into force in 2003. The Councillors’ Commission report of the last Administration noted that 912 councillors in England had joined that pension scheme by 2004. A taxpayers’ alliance survey in February 2009, across the whole United Kingdom, found that 3,527 councillors had pensions as of 2007-08; a further survey in January 2012 found that figure had increased to 4,548 councillors by 2010-11. The trend is clear.
Abolition of taxpayer-funded pensions
Ministers in this Government take a fundamentally different view to the last Administration. We do not believe that taxpayer-funded pensions are justified. Councillors are volunteers undertaking public service; they are not and should not be employees of the council dependent on the municipal payroll. They are not professional, full-time politicians, nor should they be encouraged to become so.
Councillors do not receive a salary; rather, they receive allowances to compensate for their out-of-pocket expenses. Yet following changes made by the last Administration, allowances have slowly become a form of salary, a situation worsened by the state-funded pensions. This is a corrosive influence on local democracy and independent thought, blurring the distinction between council staff and councillors.
Every bit of the public sector needs to do its bit to help pay off the deficit inherited from the last Administration. Local government grants are being reduced. Ministers have cut and then frozen their salaries. Public sector pensions, including parliamentary pensions, are being reformed to reduce the burden on taxpayers. It is only right that councillors do their bit as well.
We do not believe that an occupational pension scheme intended for employees, and paid for by taxpayers, is an appropriate vehicle for councillors.
Existing pension rights
Subject to consultation, we propose that there will be no access for councillors to the local government pension scheme in England from April 2014. In the interests of fairness, those councillors already in the scheme would have their accrued rights up to April 2014 fully protected, but would not be able to accrue any further benefits after that date in the existing scheme.
This will not prevent councillors contributing to a personal pension; if they put aside part of their (taxable) allowances into such a pension, then that is a matter for them; they will continue to receive income tax relief like any ordinary member of the population, subject to the prevailing tax rules.
Although central records on councillors’ participation in the scheme are not held by my Department, initial rough estimates suggest that this could save £7 million a year in taxpayers’ money. There is absolutely no case for increasing councillor allowances to compensate. Instead, councils may want to consider earlier, voluntary closure of the scheme to their councillors as a sensible saving.
Civic duty
Eligibility regulations for the local government pension scheme are overseen by my Department. Although this is a centrally mandated change (as was its original introduction), we believe these reforms will assist localism and local democracy by encouraging a greater separation between councillors and officers. Robust local scrutiny of council spending requires councillors to be substantively independent of means and of thought from the body they are overseeing. Civic duty should not be bought.
We do not believe it will have any detrimental effect on people choosing to become councillors. The best thing we can do to encourage more people to take part in municipal public life is to decentralise power to local communities so being a councillor is a meaningful and rewarding role.
Elected mayors
We recognise that there is a greater expectation that an elected mayor is a full-time position. We therefore propose to consult on allowing elected mayors to remain in the scheme as a voluntary option (but not as an expectation), subject to local scrutiny, challenge and determination. The salaries of the Mayor of London, members of the Greater London Assembly and Police and Crime Commissioners will remain pensionable.
Timing
Statutory consultation is required and will commence in due course, as part of the planned consultation on the wider reform of the local government pension scheme. We will consult with the Welsh Assembly Government in respect of access to the local government pension scheme for councillors in Wales.
As a former councillor myself, I would like to pay tribute to their often unsung and ongoing work in standing up for their local residents. We hope these reforms will further strengthen the integrity and independence of councillors and increase the respect within their communities for the voluntary work they undertake as champions of the people.
UK's Future Nuclear Deterrent
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
On 18 May 2011, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) made an oral statement to the House, Official Report column 351 and published “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: The Submarine Initial Gate Parliamentary Report”. Since then my ministerial colleagues and I have undertaken to provide an annual update on the programme. As we reach the end of 2012, I have today published “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: 2012 Update to Parliament” and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
Education Funding Reform
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
The school funding system should be transparent, pupil-led and easy to understand. That is why, from 2013-14, we have made changes so that the core funding for all schools and academies will be allocated based on the needs of pupils using clear and consistent local funding formulae.
We are now reforming the way that local authorities and academies are funded for education services.
The current funding arrangements, designed when there were far fewer academies, can no longer support an increasingly autonomous school system following the growth in the number of academies.
We need to ensure that academies and local authorities receive money for the pupils who are their responsibility. As key responsibilities transfer to academies, an appropriate amount of funding should also transfer.
Academies are responsible for a range of education services, such as school improvement, audit and asset management, that local authorities perform on behalf of maintained schools. This gives academies greater freedom to secure the right services for their pupils.
Local authorities and academies receive funding for these responsibilities separately via two different grants from Government. The method of calculating how much money each academy should receive for education services is bureaucratic and convoluted.
That is why we are establishing the education services grant from 2013-14. The new grant will be allocated on a simple per-pupil basis to local authorities and academies according to the number of pupils for whom they are responsible.
The funding for education services will be fairer, simpler and more transparent as a result.
We consulted on these changes over the summer. The Government have listened to the local authorities that told us the transfer for the education services grant from local government funding was too high. They told us they were now spending less on these services and so we have reduced the amount of money that is being transferred from local government funding for the education services grant by £180 million, from £1.22 billion to £1.04 billion, in 2013-14. A total of £1.03 billion will be transferred in 2014-15. This means that less money will be transferred from local authorities for education services than we originally proposed.
We took this decision in order to protect local authorities, who are now spending more of their funding on other priorities, but it would not be right for academies to lose out as a result. That is why we are using money from the Department for Education’s budget to supplement the education services grant rate for academies over the next two years. This will not affect the amount transferred from local authorities or the funding available for maintained schools. We intend to remove this transitional protection for academies over a limited period of time so that the rates for local authorities and academies are brought together.
The changes that we are announcing today will end year-on-year turbulence for academies, address the wide national variation in the current funding rates, and give local authorities and academies confidence in the way their funding has been calculated.
Copies of the Government response to the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
School Funding 2013-14
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
Today I am announcing details of school revenue funding for 2013-14. My announcement includes the dedicated schools grant (DSG) and provisional allocations of the pupil premium.
Our document “School funding reform: next steps towards a fairer system”, published in March 2012, set out the Government’s intention to introduce a national funding formula in the next spending review period. As the first step in this transition all local authorities have now submitted proposals for simplified local formulae on the basis set out in the document.
The distribution of the dedicated schools grant to local authorities will continue to be based on the current “spend-plus” methodology for 2013-14, but the presentation of the settlement has been changed to show three spending blocks for each authority: an early years block, a schools block and a high-needs block. In addition the baselines of local authorities have been adjusted to reflect the incidence of high-needs pupils and places supported by each authority. The underlying school budget will be kept at flat cash per pupil for 2013-14.
Although the overall schools budget will stay at the same level on a per pupil basis before the addition of the pupil premium, the actual level of each school’s individual budget will vary. To protect schools from significant budget reductions, we will continue with a minimum funding guarantee that ensures no school sees more than a 1.5% per pupil reduction in 2013-14 budgets (excluding sixth form funding) compared to 2012-13 and before the pupil premium is added.
The pupil premium level of funding for 2013-14 for disadvantaged pupils is £900 per pupil. The service premium for 2013-14 is £300 per pupil. We are now publishing illustrative allocations of the premium for each local authority, parliamentary constituency and school. As the pupil premium is calculated using the pupil numbers from the January school census, final allocations will be confirmed in summer 2013.
Details of these arrangements, including per pupil funding for schools and early years for each local authority, are being sent to local authorities today and have been published on the Department for Education’s website.
Smart Meters
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
Today, I am pleased to announce the publication of the first DECC annual progress report on the roll-out of smart meters.
Smart meters have the potential to transform consumers’ relationship with energy bringing considerable benefits for both them and the energy industry. Smart meters will for the first time put consumers, who are at the heart of the roll-out, in control of their energy use, allowing them to adopt energy efficiency measures that can help save money on their energy bills, offset price increases and reduce carbon emissions.
The annual report provides an introduction to smart metering and its benefits to consumers, the energy industry and Great Britain as a whole. It describes the early work that is already being undertaken by the Government and the energy suppliers during the foundation stage of the roll-out, to help prepare for the start of mass roll-out towards the end of 2014. This early work will help to ensure that everything is in place to handle a roll-out of this scale (over 50 million meters to be installed in 30 million premises) and that consumers will have a good experience, which is crucial for realising the benefits. Energy suppliers are already testing and trialling the new technology and some consumers are already receiving smart meters from their energy suppliers and starting to see the benefits.
The annual report is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses and can be found at: http://www.decc. gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/smart_meters/smart_meters.aspx
International Aviation and Shipping Emissions
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
Today Government have published a parliamentary report announcing that, recognising uncertainty over the international framework for reducing aviation emissions and particularly the treatment of aviation within the EU emissions trading system, it is deferring a firm decision on whether to include international aviation and shipping emissions within the UK’s net carbon account.
The parliamentary report clarifies that the first four carbon budgets, covering the period 2008-27, have been set to leave headroom for international aviation and shipping emissions, putting us on a trajectory which could be consistent with a 2050 target that aligns with the UK’s share of the international goal of limiting global temperature rises due to climate change to 2°C.
The Government do not intend to alter the way in which international aviation and shipping emissions have been taken into account in carbon budgets one to four.
Government reaffirm their overall commitment to the 2050 target and recognise that emissions from international aviation and shipping should be treated the same as emissions from all other sectors, in order to reach our long-term climate goals.
In taking this decision. Government have taken full account of advice provided by the Committee on Climate Change, and will revisit this issue when setting the fifth carbon budget.
Publication of this report fulfils the Government’s statutory obligations as laid out in section 30 of the Climate Change Act. Copies of the parliamentary report have been laid in the House and can be obtained electronically from the DECC website at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/carbon_budgets/carbon_budgets.aspx
Overseas Territories
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I chaired the first meeting of the Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council in London from 4 to 5 December. This Council brings together the political leaders from the overseas territories and UK Ministers. It provides a forum for the exchange of views on political and constitutional issues and has a mandate to lead work to review and implement the strategy and commitments in the June White Paper “The Overseas Territories: Security Success and Sustainability” and to promote the security and good governance of the territories and their sustainable economic and social development.
This Council agreed a communiqué which identified priority issues and set out a comprehensive action plan for joint work. A copy of this communiqué has been laid in the Library of the House. The communiqué reflects the commitment of the Governments of the overseas territories and the UK to work together to support economic growth and jobs; to protect the environment and create green growth; to harness effectively the support of the EU, the Commonwealth and other international organisations; and to deliver better Government, better education and stronger, healthier and safer communities.
In line with our commitment in the White Paper we will report to Parliament on progress in implementing the commitments in the communiqué by territory Governments and UK Departments.
The annual Joint Ministerial Council succeeds the Overseas Territories Consultative Council set up in 1999. It was attended this year by political leaders and representatives of the following territories: Anguilla; Bermuda; the British Virgin Islands; the Cayman Islands; the Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn; St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
On 5 December the Prime Minister welcomed territory leaders to 10 Downing Street: the first time that overseas territory leaders have had a collective meeting with a Prime Minister.
Hillsborough Investigation
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In September 2012, the Hillsborough independent panel published their important report which sets out the truth about the Hillsborough disaster. I am today setting out the different pieces of work that will belatedly deliver justice for the victims and their families, and how this work fits together.
It will be the job of the criminal justice system and Government to work in three areas:
Investigation
Inquest
Prosecution
Investigation will need to cover all aspects of the truth set out in the report. Where the panel interrogated the documents, investigation of their report will go further and investigate all of the people and organisations involved—before, on, and after 15 April 1989. Investigation could lead to criminal prosecution; for serving police officers it could also lead to misconduct proceedings. Investigation will be the responsibility of both the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and Jon Stoddart. The IPCC will principally investigate the aftermath of Hillsborough; Jon Stoddart will principally investigate the deaths at Hillsborough. It is not possible to appoint a single lead investigator unless that person is a police officer. For something this serious and complex, where a previous police investigation into the police has failed already, we do not believe that the police should be solely responsible for investigating the actions of the police. Investigation of the police in such a serious case is the job of the IPCC.
New inquests will be established if the Attorney-General is successful today in his application to the High Court to quash the existing inquest verdicts and order new inquests to be held. Inquests are likely to need to undertake further investigation. Responsibility for that, and for who conducts the inquests, as well as for their timing and location, will rest with the coroner.
Prosecution for criminal matters may flow from the findings of the investigation and the inquest. Prosecution will be the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS will work closely with the investigations from the outset so that any risk to successful prosecutions is managed from the earliest stage, and throughout the process leading to the decision whether to prosecute and throughout any subsequent prosecution should there be any.
There will be two investigations—one into the deaths at Hillsborough and one into the police actions in the aftermath. The investigations will be integrated, working from the same office in Warrington. They will be run from a single major incident room, share access to documents and other evidence, and work together on liaison with families and survivors.
The IPCC has powers to investigate the police—serving and retired, for both criminality and misconduct—but does not have powers to investigate the other people and organisations involved in the Hillsborough disaster; Jon Stoddart, as a police officer, has the powers necessary to investigate these others. This is why the investigation into the aftermath will be headed by Deborah Glass, IPCC deputy chair, and the investigation into the deaths will be headed by Jon Stoddart. Investigation into the deaths will overlap both investigations—covering the police, as well as all the other organisations and individuals involved in decisions and actions ahead of and on 15 April 1989. Jon Stoddart’s investigation will report findings to the IPCC, in relation to police officers investigated.
The CPS will work closely with the investigations from the outset so that any risk to successful prosecutions is managed from the earliest stage, and throughout the process leading to prosecution.
Should new inquests be ordered, the coroner may decide that they need to direct further investigation into aspects of the deaths. It will be for the coroner to decide how that investigation should be conducted, if it is necessary.
The IPPC and Jon Stoddart’s investigations will not employ officers or former officers with any prior connection to the Hillsborough disaster, nor who have worked in West Midlands, South Yorkshire or Merseyside police forces.
Jon Stoddart and Deborah Glass will be resourced to appoint investigators and staff as necessary to ensure that they each have the team they need to investigate all aspects of the Hillsborough independent panel report as fully and swiftly as possible.
Jon Stoddart recently retired as chief constable of Durham Police. He is being appointed to the Metropolitan Police as an assistant commissioner (a rank equivalent to chief constable). This ensures that he can be re-attested as a police officer and can hold the same senior rank that he held before he retired. He will not be under the direction and control of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in leading this investigation and nor would the commissioner be responsible for any complaints raised against him. He will initially be seconded to the Home Office and then, once it exists in law, to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
I, the Home Secretary, lead in Government for co-ordination of this work.
The Bishop of Liverpool has agreed to act as an adviser to me on Hillsborough.
A liaison board will be supported by the Home Office to bring together the individuals and organisations responsible for this work on a regular basis. It will work to integrate the three major pieces of work, ensuring effective planning, organisation and exchange of information, as well as avoiding duplication and unnecessary delay. It will provide assurance to me in my co-ordinating role.
The IPCC and CPS are establishing an independent challenge panel which will inform and advise the investigations and the work of the CPS. This will involve independent experts, including individuals nominated by the Hillsborough Family Support Group and the Hillsborough Justice Campaign.
I have already said that we will ensure that the IPCC has both the resource and powers that it requires to undertake the investigations necessary. The Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill has passed both the Lords and Commons stages and we are currently awaiting Royal Assent. The Bill will give two new powers to the IPCC to assist them in investigating the Hillsborough independent panel’s report. The new powers are: to require a serving police officer to attend an interview as a witness; and to enable the IPCC to investigate matters which were previously investigated by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA).
Now that the truth about the Hillsborough disaster has finally been revealed, it is crucial that Government and the criminal justice system move swiftly to make sure that justice is done for all the loved ones who died on that day in 1989, and those who have been campaigning on their behalf ever since.
Police Funding
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I have today placed in the Library my proposals for the aggregate amount of grant to Local Policing Bodies in England and Wales for 2013-14, for the approval of the House. Copies are also available in the Vote Office.
Today the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) will be publishing proposals for the distribution of Formula Grant to English local authorities for 2013-14. Funding to the police that in previous years was paid via the Local Government Finance Report issued by DCLG will now be paid via the Home Office Police Grant Report. This change reflects the fact that the police are outside the Business Rates Retention Scheme, and confirms my intention that this funding for the police will be permanently transferred to the Home Office in the next spending review.
The Welsh Government will shortly be setting out their proposals for the allocation of funding in 2013-14 for Local Policing Bodies in Wales.
Earlier this month, the Chancellor announced further reductions to departmental budgets for 2013-14 and 2014-15 in his autumn statement. However, I have protected the police from these reductions in 2013-14. In addition, in 2013-14, I have also protected the police from reductions announced by the Chancellor in November 2011 relating to public sector pay restraint. Without this protection on pay restraint, central Government funding for the police would have been reduced by £66 million in 2013-14. As a result of both these decisions, the police will receive the same amount of total Government funding in 2013-14 that was agreed at the October 2010 spending review.
Following the Chancellor’s recent autumn statement, I have decided to defer publication of police funding allocations for 2014-15 in order to fully scrutinise all Home Office budgets.
I have decided to apply damping so that every police force area in 2013-14 will face the same percentage reduction in core central Government funding (1.6% cash). I intend to apply damping in the same way in 2014-15. In making this decision, the Home Secretary and I have carefully considered responses to the recent informal consultation on damping. Many of the responses stressed the need to undertake a full review of the Police allocation formula before changing damping policy given that damping and the formula are inextricably linked. That is why we have decided to continue current damping arrangements and why the Home Secretary will be commissioning a fundamental review of the formula to begin once Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are established in their roles and able to engage fully in the review process. Determining how funding should be allocated to the police in the future is a complex and important matter which requires careful consideration and will take time. I am also aware that a continuation of existing damping arrangements is the basis on which many Police and Crime Commissioners and police forces are making their financial plans.
We have embarked on the biggest reforms to the policing landscape for 50 years. And 2012 is the year when these reforms start to come together at both the local level with the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners and at the national level, with the National Crime Agency. In November 2012, we welcomed 41 directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners. These directly elected individuals will have the statutory duty to deliver an efficient and effective police force, which clearly demonstrates value for money and, above all, cut-crime.
Police reform is working. Thanks to the hard work of officers up and down the country, day in and day out, crime is falling even though budgets are reducing. As Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has made clear, police forces have risen to the existing financial challenge, cutting spending while largely maintaining the service they provide. The proportion of officers on the frontline is increasing, crime continues to fall, victim satisfaction is up and the response to emergency calls is being maintained.
As my decisions on police funding in 2013-14 demonstrate, we are committed to ensuring that the police continue to have the resources they need to carry out their important work. I recognise that the funding settlement remains challenging, but I am confident that PCCs and forces win continue to drive out waste and maintain the level of service that the public expect.
I have set out below how I propose to allocate the police funding settlement between the different funding streams in 2013-14.
2013-14 | |
|---|---|
£m | |
Total General Funding | |
Comprising | |
Police Core Settlement | 4725 |
of which Home Office Police Main Grant | 4540 |
of which National, International and Capital City Grant (MOPAC only) | 185 |
DCLG | 3144 |
of which formula funding | 3067 |
of which council tax (11/12) freeze grant | 75 |
of which Ordnance Survey | 2 |
Welsh Government | 148 |
Total Home Office Specific Grant | |
Comprising | |
Welsh Top-up | 13 |
Counter Terrorism Specific Grant | 563 |
NPoCC | 1 |
PFI Grant | 60 |
Total Government Funding | 8660* |
% Cash change in Total Government Funding | -1.9%** |
*Includes a small amount of contingency funding which is not shown in the table. **This is the difference in total central Government funding to the police compared to 2012-13 which included additional funding relating to the PCC elections. The reduction in core Government funding (i.e. funding that is damped) is 1.6%. |
Provisional allocations of these grants (with the exception of counter-terrorism funding) for each force area in England and Wales for 2013-14 are set out in table 3.
Counter Terrorism
I will continue to allocate specific funding for counter-terrorism policing and have provided a ring-fenced budget for this throughout the spending review period to ensure that critical national counter terrorism capabilities are maintained. We have allocated at least £563 million to support counter-terrorism policing in 2013-14.
PCCs and forces will receive their specific counter-terrorism allocations in the new year. For security reasons, these allocations will not be available in the public domain.
National Police Co-ordination Centre
From 2013-14, I will be providing funding from the police settlement for the National Police Co-ordination Centre (NPoCC) which is being established following a review led by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) into the August 2011 disorder. NPoCC will have three main functions including assessing national capability and capacity in relation to the strategic policing requirement and police national requirements; co-ordinating a continuous testing and exercising regime to ensure effective mobilisation of national assets in a crisis; and brokering mutual aid in a crisis.
Private Finance Initiatives Grant
Specific funding will be given to cover the costs of police private finance initiative projects which are currently operational. This funding was added to the police settlement for this specific purpose. The Home Office will also support the two police PFI projects that are under construction, and which are not yet operational.
Council tax freeze
Funding will be paid in each of the four years of the spending review period to all English Local Policing Bodies who froze the police precept component of council tax in 2011-12. This funding is worth £75 million. Funding for the 2012-13 council tax freeze scheme has been paid from outside the police funding settlement. This will also be the case for future council tax freeze schemes.
Council tax referendums
The Communities Secretary, in consultation with the Home Secretary, will today give an indication of the council tax excessiveness principles he is minded to propose for 2013-14. After considering any representations he will set out the final principles in a report to the House and seek approval for these in parallel with the final report on the local government finance settlement. In Wales, council tax capping is the responsibility of Welsh Ministers.
Neighbourhood Policing Fund
From 2013-14 the Neighbourhood Policing Fund (NPF) has been consolidated into Police Main Grant. The baseline against which damping has been calculated has been adjusted to ensure that final allocations reflect the fact that they had previously been allocated on a different basis to Police Main Grant. This minimises the impact on overall funding allocations to police force areas.
Other funding
Community Safety Fund
The vast majority of drugs, crime and community safety funding that the Home Office currently provides to a range of partners will cease at the end of this financial year. Instead, PCCs will receive funding from a transitional and unring-fenced Community Safety Fund worth £90 million. The funding has been allocated according to the current allocation of those funding streams which are ending. Force level allocations are set out in table 3. This funding will be rolled into Police Main Grant in 2014-15, and the baseline prior to damping being applied will be adjusted accordingly.
Police Capital
Capital allocations will be as announced in the written ministerial statement laid in January 2012. A portion of capital will continue to be top sliced to fund the National Police Air Service in 2013-14 and 2014-15. These proposed figures are set out in table 2. The National Police Air Service began operations on 1 October in 11 police areas in the east and south-east of England. Further forces are scheduled to join during 2013-14.
2013-14 | 2014-15 | |
|---|---|---|
£m | £m | |
Capital Grant | 106 | 109 |
National Police Air Service | 13 | 10 |
Special Grant Capital | 1 | 1 |
Total | 120 | 120 |
I still intend to allocate the majority of capital funding directly to Local Policing Bodies. Like last year all Local Policing Bodies will receive the same percentage change in Capital Grant. I will also continue to maintain a capital contingency. These proposed allocations (set out at table 4) are the same as those announced in the written ministerial statement laid in January 2012.
Royal Parks Policing
Funding in respect of policing the royal parks will continue to be provided by the Home Office to the Greater London Authority on behalf of the Mayor’s Office for policing and crime. In 2013-14 a total of £6.9 million will be provided from outside of the police funding settlement.
2013-14 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
£m | |||||
Local Policing Body | HO Core | CSF | Welsh Top-up | WG | DCLG |
Avon and Somerset | 115.8 | 2.4 | 0 | 0.0 | 61.5 |
Bedfordshire | 44.5 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.0 | 25.5 |
Cambridgeshire | 53.7 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.0 | 26.5 |
Cheshire | 68.4 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 49.0 |
City of London | 20.6 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 37.2 |
Cleveland | 50.2 | 1.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 42.3 |
Cumbria | 31.9 | 0.4 | 0 | 0.0 | 33.9 |
Derbyshire | 68.9 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 41.2 |
Devon and Cornwall | 111.0 | 1.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 68.9 |
Dorset | 45.9 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 18.8 |
Durham | 47.3 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 40.6 |
Dyfed-Powys | 33.9 | 0.9 | 6.0 | 15.0 | 0 |
Essex | 114.4 | 1.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 60.9 |
Gloucestershire | 38.2 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.0 | 21.3 |
Greater London Authority | 1138.4 | 18.4 | 0 | 0.0 | 821.4 |
Greater Manchester | 248.3 | 6.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 199.0 |
Gwent | 47.1 | 1.4 | 0 | 32.3 | 0 |
Hampshire | 133.6 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.0 | 68.8 |
Hertfordshire | 79.5 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 39.6 |
Humberside | 73.4 | 2.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 51.0 |
Kent | 118.3 | 1.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 72.8 |
Lancashire | 111.4 | 1.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 86.8 |
Leicestershire | 71.9 | 1.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 43.3 |
Lincolnshire | 42.6 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 22.1 |
Merseyside | 134.7 | 3.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 124.0 |
Norfolk | 55.9 | 0.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 31.4 |
North Wales | 48.8 | 1.4 | 6.9 | 23.9 | 0 |
North Yorkshire | 46.3 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 29.6 |
Northamptonshire | 47.7 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.0 | 26.4 |
Northumbria | 121.2 | 2.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 118.1 |
Nottinghamshire | 84.9 | 2.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 52.6 |
South Wales | 97.6 | 3.5 | 0 | 76.6 | 0 |
South Yorkshire | 110.0 | 3.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 84.9 |
Staffordshire | 73.8 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 43.6 |
Suffolk | 45.3 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 24.9 |
Surrey | 69.3 | 0.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 31.7 |
Sussex | 108.9 | 1.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 58.7 |
Thames Valley | 155.9 | 3.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 80.4 |
Warwickshire | 34.5 | 0.4 | 0 | 0.0 | 19.0 |
West Mercia | 73.7 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 47.4 |
West Midlands | 275.3 | 7.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 197.5 |
West Yorkshire | 187.8 | 5.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 141.7 |
Wiltshire | 41.7 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.0 | 22.5 |
Total England and Wales | 4725.4 | 90.0 | 12.8 | 147.8 | 3067.2 |
Local Policing Body | 2013-14 | 2014-15 |
|---|---|---|
£m | ||
Avon and Somerset | 2.3 | 2.4 |
Bedfordshire | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Cambridgeshire | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Cheshire | 1.5 | 1.5 |
City of London | 0.8 | 0.9 |
Cleveland | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Cumbria | 0.8 | 0.9 |
Derbyshire | 1.4 | 1.5 |
Devon and Cornwall | 2.5 | 2.6 |
Dorset | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Durham | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Dyfed-Powys | 0.7 | 0.8 |
Essex | 2.2 | 2.2 |
Gloucestershire | 0.9 | 0.9 |
Greater Manchester | 5.4 | 5.5 |
Gwent | 1.0 | 1.1 |
Hampshire | 2.7 | 2.8 |
Hertfordshire | 1.4 | 1.4 |
Humberside | 1.6 | 1.7 |
Kent | 2.5 | 2.5 |
Lancashire | 2.5 | 2.6 |
Leicestershire | 1.6 | 1.6 |
Lincolnshire | 0.9 | 0.9 |
Merseyside | 3.1 | 3.2 |
Metropolitan | 28.1 | 29.0 |
Norfolk | 1.2 | 1.3 |
North Wales | 1.1 | 1.1 |
North Yorkshire | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Northamptonshire | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Northumbria | 2.9 | 3.0 |
Nottinghamshire | 1.7 | 1.8 |
South Wales | 2.3 | 2.3 |
South Yorkshire | 2.5 | 2.6 |
Staffordshire | 1.6 | 1.6 |
Suffolk | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Surrey | 1.4 | 1.5 |
Sussex | 2.1 | 2.2 |
Thames Valley | 3.4 | 3.5 |
Warwickshire | 1.0 | 1.0 |
West Mercia | 1.7 | 1.7 |
West Midlands | 5.7 | 5.9 |
West Yorkshire | 4.2 | 4.3 |
Wiltshire | 0.9 | 1.0 |
Total England and Wales | 106.0 | 109.3 |
Administrative Justice and Tribunals
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I am today publishing a strategic work programme for administrative justice and tribunals.
This document sets out the Government’s ambitions for administrative justice and tribunals under six headings:
1. Governance of the administrative justice and tribunals system;
2. Non-HMCTS tribunals and new appeal rights;
3. Funding of tribunals administered by HMCTS;
4. Improving initial decision making;
5. Enhancing proportionality; and
6. Maintaining a user focus.
The Government recognise that administrative justice plays a vital role in holding the Executive to account and upholding the rights and entitlements of people subject to the decisions of public bodies. It deals with issues that affect the lives of more people than any other part of the justice system, providing a means of redress across a range of issues as diverse as immigration, social security, mental health and taxation. It is delivered by many different bodies, including tribunals, ombudsmen and regulators.
The last decade has seen a period of major structural reform in the tribunal system which, with the creation of the Property Chamber, will be largely completed in 2013. The unified tribunal system that has emerged, administered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), ensures that the members and administration of tribunals remain independent from the Departments and authorities that make the original decisions. It now provides rulings on hundreds of thousands of appeals on administrative matters every year. In addition to this, some tribunals also hear non-administrative claims such as disputes between employers and employees, which are heard by the employment tribunal.
With this period of structural reform almost at an end, the Government intend to shift their focus towards making practical improvements to administrative justice and tribunals processes. The programme of work planned under the headings above will allow us to make the system work better for users and be more cost effective for taxpayers.
This work programme will be taken forward by the Ministry of Justice in partnership with other central Government Departments, public authorities and other bodies.
Copies of the strategic work programme will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website at: www.justice.gov.uk.
Automatic Enrolment (Transitional Provisions)
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
The workplace pension reforms are a hugely important part of the Government’s commitment to secure and protect people’s income in retirement. As part of the automatic enrolment process, it is vital that employers comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law.
The Government therefore intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to clarify the law and to provide certainty by preventing the avoidance of the automatic enrolment duty through the exploitation of an easement aimed only at employers who provide defined benefits under hybrid schemes or defined benefit schemes. Our intention is for the legislation to have retrospective effect from the date of this announcement.
The legislation will make it clear that only defined benefits (whether offered under a hybrid scheme or a defined benefit scheme) offered to the jobholder in question would satisfy the pre-conditions for employers to defer automatic enrolment under section 30(2) of the Pensions Act 2008. The legislation will amend the provisions of that Act relating to the transitional period for defined benefit and hybrid schemes, as well as the definitions of “hybrid scheme” and “defined benefit scheme”.
We intend for the legislation to have retrospective effect. Any employer who offers only money purchase benefits to the jobholder and has issued a notice to them to defer automatic enrolment under section 30 will need to automatically enrol that jobholder and backdate employer contributions to the date of this announcement. From the date the legislation comes into force, any employers who will be affected by the legislative change will be required to make back payments covering the period from the date of this announcement. It will be the jobholder’s choice as to whether or not they wish to pay their own contributions for this period. Where jobholders wish to make contributions, employers and schemes will need to allow these to be made over an extended period.
Employers offering money purchase benefits will still be able to use the transitional arrangements under section 29, which permit a gradual phasing in of the contribution requirements over a transitional period.
Grand Committee
Defamation Bill
(12 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, in the unlikely event of there being a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 3 : Honest opinion
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, Amendment 11 seeks to amend the second condition of the defence to libel of honest opinion. This requires that the statement complained of “indicated” in general or specific terms the background to the supposedly defamatory statement. The importance of that is very evident and I acknowledge that this clause is largely codificatory of existing law.
My concern is simple, as the amendment indicates. There needs to be a qualifying adjective before “indicated”. I do not believe that left on its own it necessarily carries any qualification as to adequacy or sufficiency of the indication given about the basis of the opinion that is supposedly defamatory. I am reinforced in my sense that we need the qualificatory adjective by reference to other parts of this short Bill. For example, Clause 4(3) refers to “accurate and impartial”. Clause 6 refers to “fair and accurate”. Indeed, there are multitudinous references to that phrase in Clause 7. On its own, “indicated” is a rather bleak word which needs the qualification of “adequately” to do justice to the parties.
Amendment 12 again is designed to provide a more satisfactory outcome in terms of this clause, “Honest opinion”. Clause 3(6) states that a person sued for a libellous statement does not lose his or her defence if that person was not “the author” of the libel but only a secondary publisher and that they published the original statement. My amendment would extend that protection to a situation where the publisher does not simply republish the original statement but publishes it,
“in a form which is substantially the same”.
Again, this qualification is necessary.
Clause 8 deals with the statute of limitations and how to assess when a publication shall run from in terms of the limitation. Clause 8(1)(b) refers to a publication that,
“subsequently publishes (whether or not to the public) that statement or a statement which is substantially the same”.
My amendment seeks to introduce the qualification of a statement which is “substantially the same”. As worded, under Clause 3, the defence would be lost unless it was a statement precisely the same as the original statement.
The Minister may tell the Committee that the Government believe that the provisions in Clause 8 under the single publication rule should be read into Clause 3. If that is what he says, I find it difficult to reach that construction given the way in which Clause 8 is worded, with no reference to Clause 3 and vice versa. I hope that whatever the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says on Report, we can make this clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Amendment 13, in my name, has been grouped with this amendment, but it raises a separate point. It is concerned with the defence of honest opinion or fair comment, as it used to be called. In 1975, the Faulks committee described fair comment as the bulwark of free speech and so, indeed, it is. A few years earlier, that great defender of free speech, Lord Denning, had made exactly the same point, adding that fair comment as a defence must not be whittled down by legal refinement.
My case will be that the defence of fair comment has been whittled down not, I hasten to add, by Clause 3 of the Bill, but by a decision of the House of Lords in 1992. The name of that case was Telnikoff v Matusevitch and I must declare an interest, since I gave the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal in that case, together with Lord Justice Glidewell and Lord Justice Woolf, as he then was. We were, unfortunately, reversed in the House of Lords, so I have a rather selfish interest in satisfying myself and, I hope, persuading the Committee that the Court of Appeal was right and the House of Lords was wrong.
The facts of the case were very simple and typical. The plaintiff wrote an article, published in the Daily Telegraph, criticising the BBC’s Russian service for recruiting its staff entirely “from Russian-speaking ethnic minorities”. The defendant, an emigré Russian Jew, took great exception to the article and, five days later, wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph referring to the article by title and giving the date on which it had appeared. The letter contained the following sentence:
“Mr Telnikoff demands that [the BBC] should switch from professional testing to a blood test”.
As it stands, that statement looks, on the face of it, like a statement of fact: that that is what he had demanded. If so it was clearly defamatory, if untrue. However, if you look at the same sentence in its context, including the article to which the letter had referred, it looks very different. It was obvious, looking at the article, that the plaintiff had not demanded a blood test, so the words complained of were not a statement of fact at all but a comment. It was a strongly worded comment, but a comment none the less.
The crucial question on which the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords differed was whether you could look at the article as part of the context in which the letter was written. In the Court of Appeal we held, without much difficulty, that you could and should. Accordingly, we upheld the defence of fair comment in the interest of free speech and the action failed.
The case went to the House of Lords and there we were reversed. The only reason that their Lordships gave was that somebody might read the letter without having read the article. To such a reader, the letter would indeed appear defamatory, even though it would not appear defamatory to anyone who had read both the letter and the article. Therefore it followed that the writer of such a letter, if he was going to take a safe course, should set out the whole of the article, or the substance of the article, on which he proposed to comment—or, if he was even more determined to take a safe course, should consult a lawyer.
It seemed to me at the time that the decision was wrong. It did exactly what Lord Denning said one should not do: namely, whittle down the defence of fair comment by a legal refinement. Even so, I might not have been bold enough to table my amendment but for one other factor: the dissenting speech of Lord Ackner in the House of Lords. If ever there was a tour de force, this was it. I should like to quote the whole speech—I had the whole speech before me on Monday of this week—but perhaps I should confine myself to the two sentences that contain the answer. Lord Ackner said that,
“the defence of fair comment is not based on the proposition that every person who reads a criticism should be in a position to judge for himself. It would be absurd to suggest that a critic may not say what he thinks of a play performed only once, because the public cannot go and see it to judge for themselves”.
There could not be a stronger support for the amendment than the speech of Lord Ackner in the House of Lords in that case.
It is true that Lord Ackner was only one of five Law Lords—but five judges in all were in favour of the amendment, if one includes Mr Justice Drake, a great expert in this field, together with the three of us in the Court of Appeal. That makes five in favour of the amendment, with only four against. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will find time during the Christmas vacation to read the judgment of Lord Ackner. He may well have time on his hands from now on. At Second Reading, the Minister went as far as to say that he thought that the view of Lord Ackner was probably right. I hope that he is still of that view and will maintain it when he has read Lord Ackner’s speech.
This brings me to the question that I asked at the end of my speech: is the wording of Clause 3(3) sufficiently clear and specific to enable the court to say—and in particular, to enable textbooks to say—that the decision of the House of Lords in Telnikoff v Matusevitch is no longer good law? The noble Lord said that his officials wished to consider the question and would write, but unfortunately they never did. If they had, I feel sure that we could have agreed. My view is that Clause 3(3) is not sufficiently precise. If Parliament is going to reverse an important decision of the House of Lords—and it was an important decision—in the field of defamation, as I hope we will, we must make it absolutely clear that that is what we are doing in the Bill. That is the only purpose of my amendment. The point would then be picked up by the textbooks—this is an important argument—so that we will not have to wait until a decision of the court, which would only add to the waste of time and money involved. We can do this now, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree to do so and accept the amendment. It will in no way detract from Clause 3(3), but it will cover a specific case, as we often do. I can think of literally no good reason why the Government should not accept the amendment now. I hope that the Opposition will take the same view.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for arriving late for a group in which I have amendments, but I am not fussed about having missed Amendment 10A. These are only for discussion anyway. I am also delighted that the Minister is not a lawyer, no more than I. We are in very intimidating company, but I shall be comforted by the thought that I am at least talking on a sort of level with him.
I declare an interest in that I run the Good Schools Guide, and therefore the whole matter of opinion is central to my life. Knowing what is and is not opinion is something to which I have to give daily consideration when I am looking at the comments that people have posted on our website and the comments that we choose to make about schools. I am conscious that I do not get good, consistent legal guidance in this area.
When things are put as they are in subsection (2)—
“the statement complained of was a statement of opinion”—
there are clearly a lot of factual statements which I treat as if they are statements of opinion. If someone says in a restaurant review that the food was cold, that is a statement of fact but the courts are going to treat it as a statement of opinion. On the other hand, if I say about a school that my child was bullied, that is not a statement of opinion but a statement of fact. Yet they both appear in the same English construction as the statement which will be taken as a statement of opinion. Dividing the two for people who are going to practically use this legislation is something which they will find difficult and I have always found difficult; it has frequently cost me lawyers’ bills to decide. I would be comforted if the Government were to make some effort, since we have a Bill on the subject, to enable ordinary users of this legislation to have some certainty as to what is an opinion and what is not. I do not see anything in this clause that makes life easier for me.
The second thing that causes me particular concern is subsection (4)(a), where it seems that in this matter of opinion we introduce the question of a fact:
“The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of … any fact which existed at the time”.
Even if we go back to the restaurant review, and I say in a review on a website that the food was cold, how can I establish that fact? I am being asked by subsection (4)(a) to say that there is a fact there. I have no way of establishing that fact. If the restaurant disputes that the food was cold, how will I argue that I am dealing with opinion? In my interpretation of subsection (4)(a) as a user of this legislation, rather than being given the freedom of expressing a reasonable opinion based on my experience of something, I am being called back to establish a fact in order to justify my defence that this is an opinion. I have to establish that I have this opinion based on facts. Therefore I have to establish the fact, and I cannot, so I am not entitled to an opinion. As a lay interpreter of the Bill, I find that a worrying clause. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why I should not be worried about it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, first, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, referred to Lord Ackner. I remember when I was arguing a case called Pepper v Hart and the Attorney-General said, “Don’t pay any attention to what Ministers say at three in the morning, it is often rubbish”. Lord Ackner looked at him and said, “Mr Attorney, is the proposition that Ministers should think before they speak incompatible with good government?”.
The purpose of Clause 3 is to get rid of the uncertain common law and make sure that the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just raised will not arise again. It is curious that he should mention the example of the food critic, because what convinced me that we needed a Bill, and particularly Clause 3 of the Bill—which was invented by Heather Rogers QC, in my view the most knowledgeable and open-minded of all the QCs practising at the libel Bar—was a case that I did in Northern Ireland about a food critic. A restaurant called Goodfellas, which was probably funded by the IRA, was reviewed in the Irish News by Caroline Workman, the newspaper’s food review critic. The review was very rude about the quality of the food in the restaurant. However, counsel on both sides and the trial judge—and certainly the jury—confused facts and opinion. Caroline Workman was put in the witness box for three days and cross-examined on whether the food was, or was not, of the standard that she had put in the review. When I came in on appeal, I attempted, successfully, to repair the damage by persuading the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that if it is a food review, and everyone can see that it is about opinion, you need very few facts in order to justify the opinion. There are, for example, food or theatre reviews that just use stars, so that no stars means that it is terrible and five stars means that it is worth eating or seeing. It is defamatory to put no stars, or only one star, but it would be absurd for the reviewer to have to prove anything more than that they were there at the time; in other words, that it was not malicious. Leaving aside for the moment the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the beauty of Clause 3, as it stands, is that it really does, for the first time, make the distinction between honest opinion and the defence of truth as good as I think one can get it.
However, I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said about the Telnikoff case. I am not sure about the precise words of the amendment, but if the Minister were able to make a Pepper v Hart statement to indicate that whereas in subsection (8) we overrule the common law defence of fair comment—that we abolish it and start afresh—and that the intention in doing so is, among other things, to overrule the majority decision of the House of Lords in that case, then it might not be necessary for an amendment to proceed. One of the difficulties I have with the amendment is that although it singles out newspapers, there are of course other publishers as well—but that is a matter of boring technicality. I strongly support the spirit of that amendment and I hope that I have clarified why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can sleep easily tonight.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, the Committee will be pleased to hear that—broadly for the reasons articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, about the purpose of the clause—I do not intend to speak for very long on Clause 3. Our Benches support the clause, although we recognise that in doing so we are not saying that it cannot be improved. If any of the amendments in this group can improve or assist the purpose of this clause, we will be happy to support them.
I regret to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that while his proposed amendments raise an interesting aspect in the discussion about the difference between facts and opinions, I have to say that I am inclined to agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which is that the only fact that must be established in the example of a restaurant review is that you can prove that you have eaten in the place. I cannot support his amendments, although I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the degree of certainty that one can have now when operating in the area of opinion, so that one can avail oneself of the defence offered by this clause in the future, as opposed to in the area of fact. However, I suspect that one would not want to raise that issue in a room full of lawyers because the position is unlikely to be clearer at the end of the discussion than it was at the beginning. It may be better just to leave it to ordinary people to decide whether or not they are dealing with opinion. It is the sort of thing that one knows when one sees it.
On the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I anticipate to a degree that the response will be that they are unnecessary. I hope that the Minister will be convincing in his explanation that they are, but the noble Lord has raised important issues around the adequacy of information that would allow people to take a view as to whether the opinions being expressed are supported by facts. If they are the reporting of other people’s opinions or statements, there has to be some information available to allow people, outwith court proceedings, to come to a view as to whether the opinions are justifiable in the circumstances of the facts that have informed them. The noble Lord has done the Committee a service by identifying this issue. I am not entirely sure that his amendments would improve the clause, but I shall leave it to the Minister to defend the drafting.
I turn to the very specific amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We cannot say that we have not had notice that this amendment was likely to be brought forward because the noble and learned Lord raised this issue in a short contribution made on Second Reading, when he asked a series of very specific questions. My recollection is that he got a positive response from the Minister, who indicated that he agreed with his view. I thought that the noble and learned Lord explained the point compellingly in terms of the House of Lords’ decision in Telnikoff v Matusevitch, saying that it is not good law. However, I suspect that the noble and learned Lords who considered that decision did not think that it would be further appealed in the House of Lords some 20 years later. The question, of course, is whether the issue needs to be addressed. I think that the mood of the Committee suggests that this is not good law, but there is a question of whether it needs to be dealt with in the Bill or by the sort of device suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Members on these Benches will listen carefully to the Minister’s response and we will test that against how the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in turn responds to it. If we need to come back to this issue again, I think that the noble and learned Lord can rely on our continued support. This stain on the law of England should be removed at some stage by other processes.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I rise simply to say that for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to which I cannot usefully add, I entirely support his amendment.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I rise to say the same thing because, of course, I was the other person who had his decision overruled by the House of Lords. I agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in the Court of Appeal and I agree with him again today. I must apologise to the Committee for my late arrival, which I can only blame on the queue at the gift shop.
Lord May of Oxford
I suspect that I am the only non-lawyer around the table but I wish to express my enthusiasm for the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I should be interested whether the Minister who is to sum up can tell the Committee whether there has previously been a conspiracy of judges frustrated in the manner that we have seen today.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I note with great interest that everyone referred to my noble friend Lord McNally, but it falls upon me at least to attempt to address some of the issues raised. I am mindful also of the fact that some holiday reading was put forward, and I now realise why my noble friend suggested that I deal with these amendments—I will be travelling to Australia and, rather erroneously, I asked him to suggest some reading for my long trip. Now I know what it will be.
I should like to respond to the various amendments in the group, Amendments 11, 11A, 12 and 13. Amendments 11 and 13 relate to Clause 3(3). The subsection reflects the test that has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Spiller v Joseph. This provision has been included to address the concern of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill that unless an indication of the subject matter on which the opinion is based is included it is difficult to assess the real nature of the criticism that has been made.
Including the word “adequately”, as proposed by Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips, would make no difference to how the provision would operate in practice. In order to succeed in establishing the defence, or indeed any other defence, the defendant will have to show that all the conditions attached to the defence are adequately met. If the way in which they are met is not adequate, it will be inadequate and by definition will fail. We therefore do not consider that this amendment is necessary at this time.
My noble friend also referred to Clause 8, which deals with a different situation, where the material is republished by the same publisher. Clause 3(6), however, deals with situations where the defendant is not the author of the statement—that is, where the newspaper editor publishes a comment piece written by someone else.
I move on to Amendment 13, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. It is true that this issue was flagged up at Second Reading. He referred to the specific assurance that he suggested was given, whereby a detailed letter was to be sent to him. If that has been overlooked, I am sure that the officials and my noble friend have noted that, and we will write to him quite specifically.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Regretfully noting such a thing is not enough. I was promised a reply and it did not come. Something more than noting is required.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his suggestion, but if I had been able to finish my sentence, I was going to say that I apologise regarding the commitment made and, as I said, we will be writing to him quite specifically on the issue that he has raised.
I turn to the matters that the noble and learned Lord raised. Amendment 13 provides for this condition to be met if, in commenting on a letter or article in a newspaper, the defendant identifies the subject matter of the letter or article and the date on which it appeared. This situation is already covered by subsection (3). If the statement indicates that the basis for the opinion is what was said in a particular letter or article that has previously been published, then that would enable the claimant to read the letter or article and assess the nature of the criticism, and the test would thereby be met.
The noble and learned Lord referred to a particular case. I am mindful of the great expertise not just around the table but in the array of judicial expertise engaged in the particular case to which he referred and in which he was involved, as he pointed out. I would hesitate at this point to express a view on the rights and wrongs, but what I can say is that Clause 3(3) reflects the test that was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in Spiller v Joseph, and that covers the circumstances that are set out in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
Lord Mawhinney
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Apropos of his comments about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that noble and learned Lord is not the only one who finds my noble friend’s response slightly lacking. Governments have a habit of making promises that are important, first, because they come from the Dispatch Box or whatever, and secondly, because they are important to the recipient of the promise. When those promises are not upheld to Members of this House or of the other place there is a significance to the absence, which my noble friend did not entirely encapsulate in his reply. If he will forgive me, as a friend, for saying so, conveying the Government’s understanding that breaking such a commitment is simply not acceptable probably needs more substance than a quick apology, en passant, and the promise of a letter.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank my noble friend. He emphasised the word “friend” and I acknowledge this fully. I can assure the Committee that I did not intend to appear as if I did not fully understand the nature of the question put by the noble and learned Lord. If that has been communicated, I make an unreserved apology and assure the Committee that we fully acknowledge the fact that a letter should have been written to the noble and learned Lord, based on the discussions at Second Reading. I am sure that my noble friend Lord McNally has taken particular note of the comments and expressions that have been made. As a reasonably new Member of your Lordships’ House, I always welcome direction, particularly on the way that the House operates. I reiterate that I intended no discourtesy to the noble and learned Lord and thank my noble friend for his direction, which I acknowledge and will take on board. I hope that the noble and learned Lord also feels that I have acknowledged any shortcoming in my initial response.
The Earl of Erroll
This is not on the subject we have been talking about but goes back to the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Subsection (3) says,
“the basis of the opinion”.
Is that the same as the subject matter on which you may form an opinion? In English, the basis of my opinion would be formed by my knowledge or experience or other knowledge that I had, whereas I am commenting on something external: the subject matter. In ordinary English, the subject matter on which I am making an opinion is very different from the basis on which I form this opinion about the subject matter. I am not sure whether the Minister’s reply covered the noble and learned Lord’s point or whether it should be reconsidered.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I hear what the noble Earl says. We shall return to this point in writing. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to return to this point, it can be debated more extensively at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
We know that the common law is being overruled by this clause. As I understand the Minister’s reply, it is that, without saying that the majority opinion in Telnikoff has been overruled, this clause effectively no longer reflects that narrow view of the majority of the Law Lords. Is this right?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
We will take this on board in light of the comments that have been made. I seek the Committee’s indulgence on this. As I said, as ever, some valued points have been made and they will be duly considered. I will write to the Committee on that specific issue.
On Amendment 11A, my noble friend Lord Lucas spoke about Clause 3(4). Amendment 11A would remove the bulk of subsection (4) so that the third condition for the defence to apply would be satisfied if the defendant simply shows that an honest person could have held the opinion. That rather asks the question as to the basis on which they might have reached that opinion. Subsection (4) would simplify the current law. It would give some guidance as to the basis on which the opinion might have been formed, while avoiding the complexities which have made the defence too complicated and technical. The provision as drafted therefore strikes the right balance.
Amendment 12 would change the drafting of Clause 3(6) in a way which the Government do not believe would be helpful. Subsection (6) relates to situations where the “honest opinion” defence is raised but the defendant is not the author of the statement—for example where an action is brought against a newspaper editor in respect of a comment piece, rather than against the person who wrote it. In these circumstances, the defence will be defeated if the claimant can show that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the author did not hold the opinion.
To the extent that Amendment 12 shifts some of the wording in the subsection, it does not alter the effect. However, it also inserts a reference to the statement being published by the defendant in a form which is “substantially the same” as the statement by the author. This would create uncertainty in the law, as it could be read as implying that the defence might be available in situations where the defendant has changed the statement by the author. This is not desirable.
We have looked at specific issues. I return to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Berwick. I end my comments by again assuring him unreservedly that, while there were shortcomings, no offence was intended in my response. We will write to him fully on the matters he has raised previously and today. I hope that, on the basis of my comments, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, I am sorry to say that I am confused by the Minister’s reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. It is not the Minister’s fault, I am sure; it is the departmental brief that he has been given. As I understand it— I may be wholly wrong—at present the Government are unable to respond to the noble and learned Lord’s comments which were canvassed in appropriate detail at Second Reading. Is the position that there is no government position?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I did refer to that. We believe that the situation is already covered by Clause 3(3), to be clear. However, I have again noted and totally taken on board the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, and acknowledged the fact that, as was mentioned at Second Reading, this issue would be fully addressed in a letter. As I have stated previously, I have asked the Committee whether we may write specifically on that issue and address any other issues which remain outstanding. Again, however, as I said in my comments, the Government’s position is that the situation is already covered by the clause.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, perhaps I may first ask a question on the matter raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The Minister said in his reply that he thought that it would now, under this Bill, be fine if someone reading the letter could refer to the article, because that was referenced, and that would cover things. Would that be the case if the letter concerned was behind a paywall? As would commonly be the case on Twitter or blogs or whatever, you might well find that the letter had been published in the Times or the Financial Times or some other place which is only accessible if you pay some mogul a large sum of money annually, and is therefore not in a practical sense accessible to someone who just happens to read the letter and react to it. Would that mean that if you published behind a paywall and then commented on it you were not protected by the law as it is set out in this Bill?
Secondly, I turn to the subject of my amendments. As a practical user of the Bill, I am going to find it very difficult to know what is opinion and what is not. At the moment one has to go through ridiculous and convoluted forms of language such as, “I felt that the food was cold” or “I believe that my son was bullied”, in order to make it clear that you are talking about opinion. It does not say clearly anywhere in this Bill that when you are talking of personal experience, that is equivalent to opinion. We are coming to the effects of this clause on Clause 5 concerning website operators when judging whether an incoming comment is a comment or a statement of fact. It is very important to have rules and to know where the law lies, but at the moment Clause 3 does not make that clear. I continue to have a problem with the way paragraph (4)(a) is expressed. Something is not an honestly held opinion,
“on the basis of any fact which existed at the time”.
That does not appear to have any application to whether the person who held the opinion was aware of the fact, or indeed was even capable of being aware of the fact. If the fact existed, that makes the opinion a dishonest one and therefore not protected. Again, I find that concept very difficult.
I shall certainly bring these matters back on Report, but I will be grateful for any guidance and perhaps the opportunity to go through these things with officials before the next stage.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank my noble friend for his questions. I can give him an assurance that we will write to him on the specific points that he raised. That will allow for a proper period of reflection.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his support for this amendment, and indeed to other Members of the Committee, some of whom have spoken with particular knowledge of this aspect of the law. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was concerned about the language of the amendment, and of course I accept that the wording could be improved. It may be that it is in fact too narrow in the sense that it refers only to newspapers and not to other places where articles might be published. It is the sort of thing that can be dealt with very easily if only one could have some sort of conversation on these matters with Ministers.
The noble Lord also said that it might be dealt with sufficiently with a statement under Pepper v Hart. There I think I would disagree with him. The point in Telnikoff v Matusevitch is so important in the law of defamation that it ought to be dealt with specifically so that it is on the face of the Bill, not just through a statement from the Minister. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his support.
As to the reply, of course I accept the apology offered by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. However, these things should not happen and it is not the first time it has happened, even to me. One is told that one is going to be written to, but then one is not, so it is important that when the Government say that they are going to write, they should in fact do so. There is simply no purpose in raising points at Second Reading unless they can be dealt with properly at the Committee stage. In this case, of course, that has not been possible.
There were two questions for the Government to consider. First, do they accept that the decision of the House of Lords was erroneous? They have not dealt with that at all. Secondly, if it was erroneous, is that point made sufficiently clear in Clause 3 as it stands? On that I very much echo the statement of the noble Earl on the other side of the table. My view is that it is not sufficiently clear and I can see no reason why it should not be made sufficiently clear. It does not cost the Government anything to accept an amendment of this kind. Although I necessarily will not press the amendment, I intend to raise the matter at the next stage.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, to be frank with my noble friend, I do not feel that his response to Amendments 11 and 12 really addressed the case I was making. However, I do not propose to say anything further today. I will reread what he said; I hope he will reread what I have said; and I hope that there may be discussions before Report, when I can perhaps convince him otherwise.
Lord McNally
“(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, this is the first opportunity for me to associate myself with the apology that my noble friend extended to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I do so. The noble and learned Lord has indicated that we can move on, but perhaps I should say that when one of the observers of this Committee asked me the other day what my intention was, I felt a little like Metternich’s reaction when Talleyrand died: “Well, what does he mean by this?”. I repeat again for the benefit of the Committee that my objective is that by the end of the Committee, we will be able to bring forward a better Bill. That is the only intention I have. I have no secret orders or red lines. I want a Bill that clarifies the law, gets the balance right between reputation and freedom of speech and puts the law in a better place than when we started this journey. I am, of course, absolutely grateful to the many noble and learned Lords who are contributing to our deliberations. I would only urge on them this humility: the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made the point at the beginning of our debate that British libel law—or the English law of defamation, I am being corrected—is not in good repute. That is why we are bringing forward legislation. I humbly say that the various judgments over the years have not brought us to a good place. That is why we are here and that is my sole intention.
As someone who has some knowledge of the history of the trade union movement, the trade union solidarity show by my learned friends is very impressive, but I hope that we will get a Bill—to take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—that the textbooks can take guidance from and that will give people some better clarity and assurance. However, as people always tell me, even when we have finished our work, it will be tested by a judge and we may then find out how good it is. That is my mission statement and I hope we can all join in that. I will certainly make sure that we try to respond to the points raised in Committee and that we have a Committee stage that gets the Bill into good shape. People have been telling me that Clause 4 is the heart of the Bill, and getting it right will be the test of how good a Bill it is. The fact is that we have tried in this process and been advised on several responses—particularly as to whether we should have lists or general principles. I should make it clear that I will listen carefully to the legal and other expertise around the table on whether we have got this right. In this approach, I am considering not only legal opinion but I want to be sure that academics, scientists and the general public know what we are about and where the thresholds are that we are trying to set.
In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment 16 and 21. These amendments respond to concerns that were expressed during the Second Reading debate in this House and in the other place about the way in which the public interest defence in Clause 4 is currently articulated.
At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords were concerned that Clause 4 as drafted might not adequately reflect the current law in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in Flood v Times Newspapers. Some noble Lords also took the view that including a non-exhaustive list of factors to which the courts can have regard in considering the defence could risk creating a rigid checklist approach and add to the evidence that would need to be gathered and to the expense of running the defence.
From a different perspective, some stakeholders have called for a radical shift in the clause towards the interests of defendants by introducing a requirement for the claimant to show malice in order to secure any remedy beyond publication of an explanation or correction. Let me say at the outset that the Government do not believe that this approach, which changes the burden of proof, would provide appropriate protection for people who have been defamed.
However, we are grateful for the many contributions that have been made to the debate in this House and elsewhere, and we accept that the clause can be improved. Our amendments make changes which recast the defence in a number of respects. First, Amendment 14 replaces the requirement for the defendant to show that he acted responsibly in publishing the statement complained of with a requirement for him to show that he reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest. Consideration of whether a publication was “responsible” involved both subjective and objective elements. “Reasonable belief” also does this, but we believe that it brings out more clearly the subjective element in the test—what the defendant believed at the time rather than what a judge believes some weeks or months later—while retaining the objective element of whether the belief was a reasonable one for the defendant to hold. The courts will need to look at the conduct of the publisher in deciding that question.
Amendment 21 inserts a new subsection requiring the court, in considering whether the defendant’s belief was reasonable, to make such allowance for editorial judgment as it considers appropriate. This expressly recognises the question of editorial discretion which has featured in recent cases, in particular in the Flood judgment. Although this provision is likely to be most relevant in journalism cases, it has been drafted in a way that does not limit it to that context.
Amendment 16 removes the list of factors which the clause currently invites the court to consider. This is a difficult issue. Although we do not believe that the courts would apply the list of factors, based on those in Reynolds, as a checklist, we have responded to strongly expressed concerns that the use of a list may be likely to lead in practice to litigants and practitioners adopting a risk-averse approach and gathering detailed evidence on all the factors listed, in case the court were ultimately to consider them relevant.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Page 2, line 34, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the new paragraph (b) as printed on the Marshalled List. As an amendment to that amendment, I call the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to move Amendment 15.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I was going to ask my noble friend a question. Is it too late to ask him?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
In that case, it is very important, in the light of the amendment in my name, to know whether the words, “the defendant reasonably believed”, inserted by Amendment 14 to Clause 4(1)(b), are construed in an objective or a subjective way. If that is an unfair question then we will have to wait for a reply, but it is very important.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, to get us back on to the straight and narrow, an amendment to Amendment 14 has been proposed.
Amendment 15 (to Amendment 14)
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
(c) the defendant acted fairly as to the manner, balance and content of such a statement”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I have rather lost the plot. Can the Minister reply to my question before I move my amendment? I may not have to move it if he answers in a certain way.
Lord McNally
I would have to take advice on those matters. In a room full of lawyers, I am not going to make comments ex cathedra, ad hoc, on the hoof, or whatever description they might say. Why not ask your questions? By the time I come to reply I might even give you an answer.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and sympathise with his predicament. In the light of what he has said, and as we have an opportunity to discuss this at a further stage, I will not move Amendment 15 at this time.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry—I am always very bad on procedure.
Clause 4 is at the heart of the Bill. The Government have done an extremely good thing. Originally, like my Bill, and like the judgment in Reynolds of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, there was a checklist of factors. In practice, the checklist proved unworkable. It was a list of factors that could not be weighed one against another. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, there was great opposition to it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, expressed the conclusion in paragraph 15 that the checklist was inappropriate and that we needed instead a generic test. The Constitution Committee expressed the same conclusion in paper 86.
The inventor of Clause 3 was Heather Rogers QC. The inventor of Clause 4—as it is proposed that it should be amended—is neither me nor the Government but Sir Brian Neill. He is in hospital at the moment, otherwise he would be here, but he will be delighted to know what is happening today. It was he who asked why on earth judges would need a checklist of factors when one could produce a proper, objective test coupled with a reasonable belief. One can then leave it to judges to decide on a case by case basis whether there has been responsible publication. Whether there has been such publication requires the answer to two simple questions. At least, the questions are simply stated; they are not always simply answered.
The first is whether, objectively, the publication is about something of public interest. The second is whether there has been responsible publication—I do not say responsible journalism because this applies to everybody, not just the press—in that in newsgathering, editorial judgment and the rest of it there has been compliance with the professional standards appropriate to a newspaper or to other circumstances. That means that this is not a charter for irresponsible publication. For example, if a newspaper publishes something that is defamatory and untrue, it cannot be covered by Clause 2. If it is not just a matter of opinion, it cannot be covered by Clause 3. If it is not covered by statutory or common-law qualified privilege, it cannot be covered by that. It can be covered only by Clause 4—and it has to earn it because this is a privilege that is being given in the public interest. It is not a privilege because the newspaper or whatever should have a special right. It is a privilege because the public, through the eyes and ears on the media, are entitled to have information provided to them on matters of public interest.
This is a far better solution than the one I tried to persuade the Law Lords of when I did Reynolds, which was the New York Times v Sullivan approach in the United States. What came out of Reynolds was a compromise on the American position. The reason why the American position does not make much sense—with respect to the great court that decided New York Times v Sullivan—is that it focuses on the identity of the publisher and not the content of the publication. It asks: is the publisher a public figure? That is the wrong question. It does not matter whether the publisher is a public figure. What matters is whether it is in the public interest to publish what is in the publication. In the United States—I say this as someone who greatly admires the American legal system—not just, for example, a servant of the state but a basketball coach or a restaurant owner is defined as a public figure because they want to find a way to say rude things about restaurant owners. The beauty of Clause 4 is that we have now got rid of the checklists, we leave it to the courts which are well capable of considering matters on a case-by-case basis, and there is a generic formula. I pay great tribute to my noble friend Lord McNally, under whose leadership all this has become possible. We have had great arguments about this in the past few months and he has listened. What has been produced, thanks to Sir Brian Neill, does not need any further amendment. It is fine as it stands.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, the Joint Committee’s report was published 14 months ago. It is a fairly accurate account of the months of work it put in to produce that report. This is one of the instances where 14 months has assumed considerable significance. I will be truthful, as noble Lords would expect me to be, but I have not had time to go back, prior to this Committee stage, and read all the evidence that was given to us. However, my memory is that by and large we concentrated on the list because the list already existed. We listened to evidence from people who wanted to tweak the list. My recollection is that there was no discussion of a slightly more radical solution—or, if there was, it was of a passing, almost ephemeral nature. However, I do not believe that such a discussion actually happened. Given that three other members of that committee are present, they can correct me if my memory is in error.
I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who is a distinguished member of the committee. He took upon himself the role of reminding us that if we wanted a radical change of the law, we were going to create—to use his memorable phrase—“a cottage industry for the lawyers” until the new law had settled down. We paid attention to what the noble and learned Lord said. Had there been a significant discussion about a radical alternative to the list, I guess that at least some thought would have been given to whether or not we were going to generate a new cottage industry. He will recall that I was slightly more relaxed about cottage industries than perhaps he was, in part because it seems to me that any time the law is changed, lawyers and judges will always want to have a say in determining what it actually means before the whole issue moves forward.
I come back to the significance of the 14 months, because the conversation about a radical alternative to the list has emerged in that time. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who, in turn, introduced me to Sir Brian, and we spent a certain amount of time talking about whether the list was the best way to proceed or whether something more general and more dependent on the common sense and good judgment of the courts would not be a better way forward. I do not wish to unduly embarrass him, but I thank my noble friend Lord McNally also, because he and I had some conversations around this issue as it became clear to all of us that doing away with the list and having a more general statement would almost certainly be the right way forward. From looking at Amendment 23, it is clear to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, was having similar conversations to those that I was having, because that amendment is a good summary of where the new thinking should be placed.
My noble friend Lord McNally concentrated on the words,
“all the circumstances of the case”,
and I have underlined them. I am not sure that I entirely buy the official interpretation of those words that his officials have given him. I am of either the old school or the new school but I am not sure which. I think that, just occasionally, it helps to have the obvious stated in a Bill for the avoidance of any misunderstanding or, indeed, any potential mischief-making. In supporting the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, have suggested, having the words,
“all the circumstances of the case”,
in the Bill would be a happy addition.
Perversely, that takes me to the amendment I have proposed. It emerged out of conversations that were held 14 months ago and it is an accurate reflection of one more addition to the list that emerged from our considerations. However, I am happy to acknowledge that in the intervening time my noble friend Lord McNally, and indeed the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, have moved the conversation forward to a much better place. With that in mind, when the time comes, I shall not move Amendment 17.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I found the question of whether we should or should not have a list of factors in Clause 4 a very difficult one. In the Joint Committee I was certainly of the view—a view I expressed at Second Reading—that a list of factors would be helpful, primarily because it would enable members of the public to look at the statute on the internet to see what kind of factors might or might not be important in determining whether a publisher would be held to have acted responsibly.
I remember the arguments around this issue in Joint Committee, and my noble friend Lord Mawhinney may like to think back to them. However, I have now been persuaded that the list of factors arising out of the Reynolds case has been treated as a checklist and used by claimants and defendants alike, and by their solicitors, to put their opponents to very costly proof at the pre-action stage in a way that has tended to be oppressive and increase costs. There is a serious risk that a codified list of factors as set out in the unamended Bill would have the same effect. I now accept that a statement of general principle is the right approach, but I have reached that conclusion with some difficulty.
It is important to note that the way the test is now expressed in government Amendment 14 combines an element of subjectivity with an element of objectivity. That is really the answer to the question put by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury to my noble friend Lord McNally when he decided not to move his amendment. I am bound to say that I thought that my noble friend Lord McNally did himself an injustice in declining to answer the question because he had in fact already answered it in his opening remarks on his own amendment. The element of subjectivity is that the court will have to look at what the defendant believed, and that is a subjective test. It will then have to look at whether that belief was reasonable, and that is an objective test. That combination will enable the court to develop the law on the basis that it is an issue of fact which will necessarily take into account all the circumstances of the case. My concern is allayed by that because it seems unlikely that the case-by-case development—the cottage industry development to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, referred—will not create too much difficulty. However, it is a danger, and I hope that it is one that the courts will be careful to consider.
Amendment 15, tabled by my noble friend Lord Phillips—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I entirely take what my noble friend has said and agree with it. However, would it not be advisable, if only to help the general public and the lawyers? Under Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the double test—the subjective and objective tests—which he outlined, could be more clearly enunciated.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I am bound to say that I am worried about the way in which the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips makes that suggestion. I appreciate that he does not intend to move it. It seems to me that one can do no better than require the court to look at all the circumstances of the case. As a matter of drafting, I am not entirely sure that the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is necessary. It seems to me implicit that,
“all the circumstances of the case”,
have to be taken into account. That phrase is usually used in statute to say that all the circumstances of the case “included but not limited to”, and then it goes on to a checklist. We are not having the checklist so I am not sure that that requirement is necessary to be expressed.
My worry about the way in which my noble friend Lord Phillips—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am catching a bad habit from sitting next to my noble friend Lord Phillips and interrupting but since he does not intend to move Amendment 15, is not the vice of his approach that he will seek to make the court into the editor?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Before we go on, perhaps I should remind the Grand Committee that we are discussing an amendment to a government amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It was called and therefore it will need to be withdrawn. Since it is in the same group, it does not particularly matter for the purposes of the debate. But that is the position.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
If it will assist the House, I will withdraw it post haste.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I would rather that my noble friend Lord Phillips did not withdraw it. I was about to address it in terms that agree precisely with the interruption helpfully made by my noble friend Lord Lester but at a little more length. It seems to me that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips invites the judge to enter into a critique of the position of the defendant and, in using the words “manner, balance and content”, one is requiring the court to decide on whether the defendant should have written what he has written. That seems to me to be inimical to freedom of speech and to go very much against what this defence is trying to do. The importance of the defence is that it is a liberalising defence. It seems to me that that would narrow it in an unacceptable way.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 22, which, rather unfairly, I will comment on before the noble Lord, Lord May, has spoken to it. The question is whether the words used should be “editorial” judgment or “the publisher’s” judgment. It may be that one could argue for the use of both phrases but it seems to me that we need these concepts to go wider than simply editorial judgment. We live in a world where many of the statements to which this defence will be referable will never go anywhere near an editor: they will be published on the internet by individuals and will not bring editorial judgment to bear. It seems to me that the beauty of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord May, or something very like it, is that it allows for a publication with a much wider ambit than the government amendment. However, by and large, I support the government amendment wholeheartedly.
Lord Mawhinney
May I offer my noble friend a personal apology? I said that there were three distinguished members of the committee here present. I will be honest with my noble friend and say that my eyes saw him but my brain did not register the fact. Of course, there are four distinguished members present. I want to correct the record and, in so doing, express my appreciation for his contribution to the committee.
My noble friend invited me to reflect back on our conversations about the list. I well remember conversations about whether the list would become a tick-box exercise and the damaging impact that that would have on courts having to make decisions so that every item was covered. However, I do not remember any conversations about a radical alternative to the tick-box approach. I hope that he will accept that that is my best memory of the conversations that we had.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, of course I accept that. I would like to say that I am grateful for the apology, but I am not sure that I am. I had worked out that there were four of us and I had not worked out who was left out, but now I know that it was me. It matters not, perhaps, what the conversations were, as I think that I have made the point.
Lord May of Oxford
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 22 but in a broader context, as I believe that it relates directly to some of what many people feel to be the unsatisfactory elements of the Bill in its present form and Clause 4 in particular. In saying that, I express my appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the Government generally for helpfully moving things forward in response to earlier worries. I much appreciated the noble Lord’s comments, particularly in connection with Clause 4.
The Government’s proposed amendment to Clause 4 is a big improvement. The proposal significantly to modify Clause 4, which in its original form was largely an unhelpful codification of existing law, has been widely welcomed by those campaigning for a public interest defence—some 60,000 people have been involved one way or another. They and many of those involved in the awful cases that have given rise to the broad campaign for reform have been unable effectively to use a defence that was designed for newspapers. It is too complex and usually hugely expensive. It is certainly not suited to what medical specialists say at a conference, to reports on consumer issues or to reports on human rights.
Given that the Government appear to have recognised this fundamental point, I believe that they should clarify things further by changing the wording of Amendment 21. It says:
“In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate”.
The phrase “editorial judgement” has the subtext of newspapers. That covers much of the matter, although not necessarily legalistically. It would be much clearer if it said, “such allowance for the publisher’s judgement as it considers appropriate”. I notice that, despite the many sensitive comments that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has made, he was not minded to accept this amendment, but I will persist with it.
I want to go little more widely. This amendment addresses part of a more general problem, in that the Bill still seems to many readers to focus on newspapers, editors and corporations. We need to recognise that the central need that has provoked the entire issue of the revision of the Bill is for a well drafted protection of individuals acting in the public interest. It needs to correct the current internationally notorious and embarrassing situation which is being abused by those with deep pockets who travel to the UK with the specific aim of using our existing legislation and its whacking great costs to prevent individuals speaking out on issues of public interest, particularly in biomedical and other scientific contexts. I realise fully that this is only part of a larger problem.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry, but Clause 4 in its present form and in its amended form could not be clearer. It does not apply only to newspapers and the media as it refers to:
“Responsible publication … for the defendant to show”.
That applies to me, to an NGO and to anyone at all. Criticisms of the law of libel in general are a different matter. On this specific point, I do not know who these people are who think that it does not apply to anyone but the media, but they are mistaken unless they cannot take the opportunity of reading the words themselves.
Lord May of Oxford
I realise that the situation is more complicated than I may have portrayed it. One of the more fascinating and charming things I have learnt in the course of these procedures is that if one is a member of the legal profession, one is not merely a noble Lord, but a noble and learned Lord. As an unlearned Lord, it does not seem that the bulk of the discussion has focused on what I understand to have been the moving issue here in the first place. In large part, it is a response to the Libel Reform Campaign which involves almost 100 organisations and, as I said a moment ago, some 60,000 supporters, including leading names from the sciences, the arts and public life. They have been calling for legislation to reform the libel laws since December 2009. The committee took that on board. I am not familiar with the committee because I was not a part of it, but it seems to have addressed the issue by and large in a sensible way and it has brought forward the Bill before us.
The Bill contains many welcome proposals—the single publication rule and some measures to reduce libel tourism, which is rarely referred to—but what it does not contain are measures to limit corporations’ use of the law in what I think are dodgy ways, or clear provisions for online hosts and intermediaries because it still assumes that publication means print rather than online. Until it provides a strong public interest offence, scientists, human rights groups, NGOs, consumer groups, authors and doctors will continue to be silenced by a piece of legal machinery that we should be more embarrassed about than we seem to be.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry, but if the Libel Reform Campaign has been briefing in that way, it is completely wrong, and it is time that it realised that it is completely wrong. As I have said before, the whole purpose of this defence is to protect NGOs, consumers and individuals, not only the media. So far as I am aware, the Libel Reform Campaign has not come up with anything better than the amendments to Clause 4, and I have been waiting for it to do so. Since I began to prepare my Bill, for a year I made quite sure that all the NGOs met me every month or so in order to reach a high common factor of agreement. The Libel Reform Campaign did a great job of publicising the need for reform but, with respect, it is not good enough for the campaign to make a root and branch statement of that kind without giving proper credit to all the ways in which this Bill dramatically and importantly reforms the law and creates a better balance between free speech and reputation. I have to say all of this because sometimes even NGOs need to be accountable.
Viscount Colville of Culross
I declare an interest as a journalist, producer and director at the BBC. I support Amendments 14, 16 and 21. In my Second Reading speech, I expressed concern about the chilling effects on free speech through the use of all 10 factors in the Reynolds defence as a checklist by lawyers trying to affect investigations both prior to publication and in destroying the public interest defence statement once something has been published.
In the letter sent to all Peers on 10 December, the Minister said that he was honouring his commitment given at the conclusion of Second Reading to look again at Clause 4. In the intervening period he has worked with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other distinguished libel lawyers to formulate a new wording for the clause. The wording they came up with to amend Clause 4 is very satisfactory and addresses my concerns.
Any amendment must not be a charter for reckless statements that hide behind the shield of a public interest defence. Amendment 14 contains the crucial words, “the defendant reasonably believed”, which replace, “acted responsibly”. Amendment 16 would drop the list of factors altogether. Some supporters of free speech fear that the words “reasonably believed” will allow the courts to work up yet another list of factors that can be used as criteria for what is reasonable. However, the amendment will allow serious journalists, NGOs and scientists who are reporting on matters that they consider to be in the public interest to use their own checklist of what is reasonable. I talked to my colleagues at the BBC who were preparing Monday’s “Panorama” programme on the Barclay brothers’ tax affairs, which had been months in preparation. They had dealt with multiple firms to get the programme on air. This would have been extremely helpful to them by bringing a very important public interest defence to a debate about tax avoidance by people who are extremely important in the affairs of our country. I am very grateful that the amendment has been brought forward.
As a journalist I do everything I can to check the veracity of claims that I intend to publish; to question at length the witnesses; to check out by any other means the truth of witnesses’ evidence; to find other supporting witnesses where possible; and to ask an individual, or an authoritative representative of an organisation being investigated, to reply. But sometimes, despite one’s best efforts, it is not possible to get a satisfactory reply from a person or an organisation being investigated. Very often that means one cannot publish. However, I am convinced that with this amendment I would be safeguarded by the Clause 4 defence when publishing a statement that would be in the public interest. I am very reassured by that.
I welcome Amendment 21, which further strengthens the hand of the author by making allowance for editorial judgment. It includes the words, “considers appropriate”, to ensure that the amendment is never used just for reckless statements. Not only will the amendment comply with the Flood decision that editorial judgment should be taken into account, but the many people who are worried by the quality of editorial judgments revealed in the report of Lord Justice Leveson will be reassured that the courts will have the final say on the nature of editorial judgments exercised in the publication of an article or statement. For far too long, responsible authors who want to publish in the public interest have been cowed by our libel laws. The people of this country have a right to be presented with matters of public interest so that they can have at least an informed choice in a debate on the subject. The amendments to Clause 4 tabled by the Government will boost democracy and accountability in this country. They are a great step forward.
Baroness Bakewell
My Lords, I had not intended to speak but I am one of the campaigners, and one of the signatories to many appeals, for the reform of the libel laws. I am a journalist and I am at risk. I am at risk every day I write or report for the BBC or anyone else. I regard myself as the focus of Clause 4 and how it might affect my livelihood, my reputation and the cases which I report when I make a programme. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will not press his amendment, but I was alarmed when he spoke about the defendant acting,
“fairly as to the manner, balance and content,
of the statement that they make. Each of those words is a millstone around the neck of a journalist, who of course will seek to please his employer but also to be fair to the public. Each one of those words can be interpreted in so many ways that I foresee—following what we heard—conversations going on for months in the “Panorama” office about each of them.
That is why I appreciate and commend the Bill and Amendment 14, which leaves things clear and lets us know where we stand. Amendment 21 provides for responsibility and allows for the discussion covered by Amendment 23, which states:
“In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case”.
Those are going to be innumerable and may move in many directions, but they are what journalists want to see because it makes them both responsible and true professionals. I support the amendment.
Lord Bew
My Lords, I support government Amendment 14. The recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, of the committee’s discussion of this matter is entirely fair, in that this discussion has moved on over the 14-month period. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, we discussed at various times our view of the checklist approach, as was embodied in the Reynolds defence which will now be abolished. We heard quite a lot of evidence that it was not working particularly well, but it was not radically unworkable. On balance, it has not been working well enough. There were real issues with the ways in which certain newspapers were working or not working with it. I accept completely that, in the main, the discussion has moved on over the past 14 months, and the evidence was clear that it is not working well enough. I balk slightly at the idea that it was absolutely unworkable.
I think that we are doing the right thing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It is not his wording, but we all know how much work he and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, have put in on the rather neat formulation before us today.
I am slightly surprised that an unintended implication of what we are doing has not been picked up on thus far. Listening to the debate in the other place on the Leveson inquiry, much reference was made to the Irish model. Indeed, some Members of the other place obviously thought that there was a great similarity between the Irish model and what Lord Justice Leveson is recommending. There is one respect, at the heart of what we are doing today with Clause 4, in which it is quite important to note that that is not so. It appears to be the opinion of all parties in both Houses that we need this public interest defence. It is not part of a transaction. The Prime Minister recommended that Members of both Houses read the Irish Defamation Act 2009. There is an implicit transaction in Section 26 of that Act: the newspapers agree to regulation because, by that means, they are more likely to be able to offer a defence of this sort of public interest defence.
It is apparently the forming view of Parliament that this is not a matter of a transaction. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred very eloquently earlier to the fact that the public interest defence ought to be available. There is no transaction there at all. We are doing the right thing, but I simply make this comment because people are talking a little too easily about transferring the Irish model into our affairs. The Irish model is constructed on a different principle, and we are going ahead on a different basis.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I join noble Lords who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the way in which he has approached this and the kind of solution that may now be very close to fulfilment. To be candid, it is not a position that I thought likely to be one of the outcomes, but I can see a great deal of the sense of it. I can also see that it fulfils part of his aim that there should be greater clarity for people who need to use this law; that there be a better, more effective law; and that we should not end this process with the same lack of reputation in this general field from which we have perhaps suffered in the past.
I will draw several arguments about the heart of the Bill together in a moment. I understand the strength of the proposition that if judges are to decide, in the ways that they are capable of deciding, that would be better than providing an extensive checklist.
In his opening statement, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that he believed that the courts and the judges would have a mind to these kinds of things as they formulated their views. That is fine up to a point. The point where I think it needs a little more testing is that it would be helpful if, when the law is on the statute book, there was a sense both of what Parliament believed were critical issues and of what the Government had said in their responses were critical issues. This is not just a matter of what the legal opinions are; views are now widespread among the public of the United Kingdom about what it is or is not legitimate to do.
Let me turn directly to Amendment 14. A short while ago, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that there may be a clearer enunciation of at least one part of it. I do not think that he was talking specifically about his amendment; I think that he was making a general proposition about clearer enunciation. Indeed, I do not know whether his amendment is now a matter of fact or opinion, as it may or may not have been withdrawn.
Let me look at the two words “public interest”. When somebody uses those words to me, I understand them to mean that there is an entitlement by the public to learn of matters that are of the public interest in a broad sense—knowledge of policy practice and the debates on all those matters, what might be wrongdoing, malpractice or malfeasance, many aspects of social and cultural life, scientific knowledge and other scholarly knowledge. There is probably a long list and my point is not to produce a checklist. That is what I broadly understand “public interest” to mean.
What has also become entirely clear over many years is that many of the editors of newspapers—and this was also clear in the evidence that they provided to Lord Justice Leveson—do not think that that is the whole of what is meant by “public interest”. They have a fundamentally different view of what public interest is. I am not thinking of the things that Lord Justice Leveson and others have said were criminal intrusions into the privacy of individuals. Those are covered by criminal law, which is more or less adequate, although that, too, is probably a matter of debate.
My point is that common practices in parts of the press and parts of the culture of the press mean that there is a view of what is in the public interest and that it means whatever those editors believe might interest the public, whatever it is. Consequently, they can libellously or otherwise intrude into aspects of private life—as I said, I am not going into the criminality of the means by which they obtain the information—so that, for example, if they have discovered by one route or another that someone has a medical condition that they are discussing with their mum, that becomes a matter of public interest in the sense that the public in a prurient way may be interested and that it will unquestionably sell more copies of a newspaper if it is in that newspaper. That is entirely unreasonable. In some cases, of course, that may just be a matter of intrusion of privacy, but it is clear that on occasions it could have a defamatory effect on the person who is being written about.
I am not in any sense content to believe that the simple words “public interest” will convey to Paul Dacre that he is not, as he seems to believe, the ultimate arbiter of anything and everything that we should consider to be in the public domain. That should not be the last word on this and we should not allow it to be. That applies, too, to the former News of the World journalists. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I wonder whether it is any comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to know that the courts have made it quite clear that there is a significant difference between what is of interest to the public and what is in the public interest. The two are not the same.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I am very grateful for the intervention because it will cut out my saying a great deal more. However, it would be helpful, in the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, intended when he said greater enunciation might be sensible, for the legislation that we are looking at to somehow indicate what that distinction is, so that somebody who does not study law as a matter of practice can pick it up, read it and understand exactly what is meant by it. I am very grateful for the intervention because that is precisely the point that I wanted to make.
Finally, I will say something about the list that is about to be removed. It goes back to the point that I was trying to make about Parliament and the Government giving at least some indication of the things that might concern them. I was intrigued by—and at one stage convinced of the importance of having in subsections (2)(d) and (2)(e)—the words that appear there. Even if the words do not finally appear in the Bill, it should be understood, under subsection (2)(e), that when somebody publishes information, the reliability of the information is capable of being subjected to some real test. I do not know whether that is another point that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may have in part answered. However, what seems to be true is that there are often few demonstrations of the sanity or motives of those who have provided information that simply gets reproduced and, on occasions, is not withdrawn. I say to my noble friend Lady Bakewell and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that not every journalist uses the standards that I am pleased to acknowledge that they plainly do. Not every journalist does that by a long chalk.
In those cases, knowing about the credibility of the information seems important. It is something that one would want Parliament to have expressed, even if it does not appear as a list in the Bill. Equally, in subsection (2)(f), although I am conscious that bad experiences should not be promoted into the making of law, it seems important that people about whom things are to be written should have at least some knowledge of them or some opportunity to say something about them before the event happens. If those were the ways in which interpretation of the law by judges were achieved, that would amount to great progress here. I conclude by stating that if judges do that, and if lawyers put arguments to the judges, my anxiety—which I guess I will just have to live with—is that we will not be talking about a cottage industry but rather a major multinational for the time being.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
To correct the record, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to Sir Brian Neill and the huge contribution that he made to this part of the law, but he did say that he was in hospital. I am happy to tell the Committee that he is now back home and will no doubt be following this debate with the greatest interest, either in Hansard or possibly—he is sufficiently technically minded—on television.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, my noble friend in his speech, and my other noble friend subsequently, convinced me that my Amendment 16A was misguided, so I shall not pursue it. However, I will ask my noble friend how he thinks his Amendment 14, and in particular the words “reasonably believed”, will apply to Twitter. It is a common function of Twitter that one passes on interesting news, sometimes with an added comment of one’s own, attributing it to a source generally rather than appropriating it for oneself. Would one be expected, under this amendment, to pursue inquiries as to whether one believed the source, or the particular information; or will it be sufficient to reasonably believe that the place you got it from is likely to be reliable?
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, first, I join those who have expressed their gratitude to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for not only his approach to engagement but his willingness to listen and persuade the Government that perhaps the draft Bill that was presented to us did not meet the challenge—certainly in this respect—that the Government had set themselves. In fact, I am simply grateful for his willingness to change what was before us. That is reflected in these amendments and in another amendment that we will come to in the next group. I have personally been grateful to him, as has my noble friend Lady Hayter, for his engagement and his willingness to listen, and I add to the thanks given to Sir Brian Neill, who I do not know but who clearly has made a significant contribution to improving the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his work, and the Joint Committee. However many of its members are present—a protean number—it has done us a valuable service.
I should also thank my honourable friends Robert Flello, Helen Goodman and others in the House of Commons who engaged with this in some detail, of necessity because of the then apparent reluctance of the Government to shift on the issue. They debated many matters that we now do not have to debate with some intensity over many hours. It is to be regretted that throughout those debates the Minister at the time appeared unwilling to shift. Behind them there is a broad coalition of people who have campaigned on these issues for a significant period, and who have been represented properly here, who are too numerous in their different forms to mention.
It is probably inevitable that we will disappoint some of their best expectations of the law. There are people out there who still believe that there should be an additional public interest defence that is based on an obligation on the claimant to show malice on the part of those who publish. However, it would appear that that has not found support in your Lordships’ House and come before the Committee. The issue has not gone away and it may come back. At some stage, we will have collectively to come to the point whereby we have made the best of this legislation. We should not make the very best become the enemy of the good.
Secondly, I will make an observation that will not be lost on everyone in this Room, although it may be lost on some noble Lords. I say this with great respect to many of my friends in this Room, but it is interesting to see the chilling effect on other people that my profession can have when debating these complex and difficult issues. I am doing my best in my contributions to try not to add to the chilling effect that lawyers can have on others when they start to engage in the technicalities and obscure corners of these discussions. I constantly keep in front of me in the Bill the objective of trying to find a clear and accessible statement of the law of defamation for England—and partly for Scotland, which I shall deal with in a moment, because there are provisions in the Bill that apply to Scotland and need to be accepted through a process in the Scottish Parliament known as a Sewel Motion.
Despite the fact that the ultimate test of everything that we do here is, “How will this be applied in courts, what can we rely upon judges to do, how can people make arguments, what implications does this word have, what can we assume that that will do?”, at the end of the day people will make decisions in relation to the law of defamation well before there is any engagement with a court. There is overwhelming evidence, particularly in the world of learned—I do not use that word in the legal sense—and informed opinion, that fear of our defamation law is having a substantial and chilling effect on people, not because they do not think that at the end of the day they will be able to persuade a judge that this was a reasonable position to hold or that these facts alone are able to be proved in every jot as defensible, but because, by and large, their observation of the way in which our law works suggests to them that this is too dangerous a business to get involved in, and they would prefer to get on with their science or some other area of their life rather than devote the next two or three years to protecting the position that they justifiably hold and which they would like to get out there for discussion in the public domain.
In any event, I do not have experience of these great cases because I have not contributed to any of the ones that have got the law into this state. I try to avoid approaching that on this basis, and I will make my contribution to the debate on this group of amendments on that basis because I have an amendment that, yet again, appears to come into conflict with the way in which we pass law, with what is necessary and all the rest of it. I want that amendment to be tested against a different standard in these circumstances, for some of the reasons that I have articulated. For those reasons, I am extremely grateful that we have had the benefit of views that may not have been appropriately in point on the amendment before us but which, for people who are not lawyers, set the scene for the reality of the world in which we live. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Hayter agreed to take responsibility for Clause 5 and everything associated with new media. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I will leave it to my noble friend to have a view on whether Twitter and retweeting, which I think is the appropriate active verb, is publication and whether it attracts the responsibilities that are necessitated by this part of the legislation.
I have no doubt that many questions will not be able to be answered, particularly in an environment that is changing as we speak. A later amendment seeks to get some clarity on the word “website”, simply on the basis that no one knows what will be a website, or the equivalent of it, in five years’ time. Yet the word is put here although it may not be litigated on, from the point of view of a definition, for another three or four years. However, this communication world, with which most of us have a passing relationship but are not intimately involved, is changing significantly. We should bear that in mind.
I think that by common consent Clause 4 is at the heart of the Bill and, quite rightly, has attracted the most attention. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, made clear, it is only part of a suite of defences. It is the most contentious and the most difficult. Effectively, it provides protection for defendants in circumstances where the publication of defamatory material, which is not necessarily true but is in the public interest, can be defended against an allegation of defamation if the publisher, in the previous wording, “acted responsibly”. However, those words are now to be amended to put a slightly different test, which probably would be an easier test for people to understand. However, we are still talking about the same combination of dual factors.
The question is whether this clause, imperfect as it almost certainly is, better meets the requirement. I think that, unanimously, we are of the view that it does. The principal reason is that it reflects better the decision in the case of Flood. It happened after the first drafting took place and, although it is a rather substantial judgment in terms of reading for someone who is not used to reading judgments, essentially it says that one should apply these two tests and that almost any circumstance that is relevant to the issue can be used to prove that the publication was in the public interest.
As one would expect, lawyers take a long time to say that, but I do the judgment no disservice if I say that that is what it says. When I first read the case I was extremely attracted by that approach. I was reinforced in my view by consistent exposure to groups of people who had had a bad experience with the existing law. This was not because they said to me that when they got to the proof or argument of a case they found judges unwilling to listen to their arguments as a whole; rather they said that they were scared to publish because when they go for advice people produce this list and if they cannot tick all the boxes in the list then the advisers say: “You may publish, but our advice would be not to because you will not be able to meet the necessary defence in these circumstances”. That is not a set of circumstances that we should allow to persist and there is no contributor to this debate who thinks that we should.
Either we try to list those factors that are relevant, leaving room for other people to add to them because of the changing world we live in, or we get rid of them altogether. The Minister argues, probably rightly in law, that if we get rid of them altogether it implies that all relevant circumstances have to be considered. The problem is that, whether or not we generate further energy for the cottage industry of lawyers arguing what is relevant to prove public interest, we may find that the courts are persuaded back towards illustrative lists in judgments which then become frozen again as being what the comparatively small number of English judges who do this work will be persuaded by. That is the reason for Amendment 23.
Of course it is unnecessary in one sense. I noted that the Minister three times used the phrase “in all the circumstances of the case”, yet those words are absent from the clause itself. On these Benches we argue that they should be included, not because we think judges or lawyers will not appreciate that that is what they are entitled to look to in order to prove that something is—or somebody reasonably believed it to be—in the public interest, but because, against the history of how we got to this stage, it is worth Parliament saying that, in changing the law, we are moving away from a checklist approach. So far, we are saying that there is no limit to the circumstances or the factors that you can bring to make your argument that something was—or you reasonably believed it was—in the public interest. We want to make that clear to everyone.
We would put this in the Bill not because anybody has cleverly suggested to us that, without it, judges would not allow us to do that. However, when you are making decisions about publishing anything, in any circumstances, you ought to know that, whatever the factors are, if you hold opinions reasonably and if they go towards the public interest, any attack that is made on you to the effect that you were not justified in publishing them will be irrelevant. I suspect, because I have stood in the position of the Minister at another Dispatch Box, that the Government will resist that. I suspect that lawyers, too, will resist it. However, my suspicion is that all the non-lawyers in the Room, and the people out there who have lived in the environment where they have been forced to engage with lists of things, would welcome it. They would think that Parliament had got it and was giving them a degree of freedom that they had not had before. I urge the Committee, and ask the Government, to consider that this, although not a necessary thing to do, would be an important thing to do.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Would it not be in favour of the amendment to look back at what Clause 4(2) looks like? In subsection (2), it says that the court may,
“have regard … (amongst other matters)”.
That goes, because of the way in which the amendments operate. Is the noble Lord saying more than, “The concept that the Government accept in the unamended subsection should somehow be reflected in the amended one”? It seems that what is being said represents the Government’s own view, as expressed in the unamended Bill, that the court may,
“have regard … (amongst other matters)”.
What is being said now is that that must be reflected in new wording. It therefore seems that the noble Lord may be too pessimistic in assuming that what he is proposing would not be accepted by the Government; I have no idea.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Unlike a previous intervention that he made—which I thought had the distinct shape of a lifeboat being offered to someone who refused it—I am not going to reject his offer to keep my head above water. The oxygen of an intervention can quite often be helpful.
I am of course willing to discuss the mechanism for this further. I am conscious enough of the necessity sometimes not to insist on the form of words that I alight upon, allowing room for some manoeuvre. I would just make the argument on behalf of our Benches that it would be helpful to the general direction of the Bill, and on the effect that it will have on people’s behaviour, if we send a strong message in this clause that we are moving so far away from this checklist that we are prepared to countenance any relevant circumstances as being important to whether something is in the public interest or whether they reasonably believed it to be so. I am pleased that the Minister has used this form of words himself on more than one occasion, particularly when he was explaining the expectation of what the courts would do in applying this particular test.
I turn to the only other amendment apart from the Government’s three amendments, which I support. It has survived the contributions of those in whose names the amendments appeared under in the Marshalled List. It seeks to replace editorial judgment with the publisher’s judgment. I entirely understand, from the point of view of those at the sharp end, why they do not want to be hemmed in by something that is too closely associated with only one form of media. They are looking for a generic term that covers all the forms of publishing that now exist. Everyone involved in those forms now has responsibility for putting information into the public domain. I respect entirely the argument of the noble Lord, Lord May, on this.
I noted that in the Minister’s introductory remarks—I hope that he will find a few moments to reinforce this—he referred to the phrase “editorial discretion” as intending to give latitude to the judgment of how a story should be presented. From that I took the view that “editorial” is an adjective relating to an action rather than a job description. I think that it already covers all the different kinds of people who are, in legal terms, “publishers”. If that can be made crystal clear in an easily accessible way, the concerns that were properly expressed by those who think that perhaps this is too newspaper-oriented in its terminology can be dealt with.
I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords, and I hope that they will forgive me if I do not mention them individually. They have substantially enriched our debate, even if only two supported the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend. I am grateful in particular for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, because he comes at this with a view that is born out of his intense relationship with the issue over a concentrated period as chair of the Joint Committee. He speaks with authority, so when I get support from that quarter, I value it. The same gratitude applies to my noble friend Lady Bakewell for her support. She speaks for many people who have to make these decisions without constantly having lawyers by their side, and sometimes in comparatively difficult circumstances. I am grateful to her for saying that my amendment would be of assistance to them.
I have little to add and I will not go into the detail, but on the point made by my noble friend about the definition of “public interest”, I would draw the attention of the Committee to the Guidelines for Prosecutors on Assessing the Public Interest in Cases Affecting the Media, which is published by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Paragraph 31 on page 9 gives a set of examples of conduct that is capable of serving the public interest. It is designed to instruct prosecutors on how they should approach decisions that affect the media, particularly on the question of whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. These considerations are helpful because they clearly show the distinction between what the public are interested in and what is in the public interest. At some stage when we come to consider guidelines or government expressions of what they think they have achieved with this legislation, drawing on that sort of information will be helpful when addressing the issue identified by my noble friend Lord Triesman. It is a serious and important point in the challenge of finding a balance.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Not only do I agree but I wonder whether the following might meet that need. The Explanatory Notes on the Equality Act are the best example that I have ever seen. They are particularly good because they give illustrative examples of the application of particular clauses. As I understand it, it is now good practice when a Bill has completed its stages for the Explanatory Notes to be revised in the light of the debates, so that the courts and public have an authoritative guide. The Explanatory Notes to this Bill are accurate but not in any way verbose; they are sufficient to provide that kind of guidance. It might be worth thinking about ways of including such examples in the Explanatory Notes. I know that they are not the kind of things that normally one reads on the train, but it might be one way of encouraging public understanding. I am sorry to have interrupted the noble Lord, but it occurred to me that that might be a way forward.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am very pleased to have given the noble Lord an opportunity to make a very good and common-sense suggestion that I am sure the Government will take on board. They have taken on board quite a lot of what he has suggested in relation to this particular area of the law. In general, I agree that Explanatory Notes should not be set in stone at the point of publication of a Bill and not revisited, because Bills are often changed substantially during their passage through Parliament. It would be helpful to have revised Explanatory Notes. I agree with the noble Lord that sometimes the Explanatory Notes do not take one very much further forward than the Bill itself. This Bill has been significantly changed and the notes could do with some revision.
I will just point out that as a Scottish lawyer there is no conceit on my part about the state of Scots law. Clauses 6, 7, 15, 16 and 17 of the Bill extend to Scotland. When we reach a discussion of something that is directly relevant to Scotland, I will express my regret that there does not seem to be any parallel movement on the part of the Scottish Government to find time in their Parliament to bring the law up to the improved state that it will be in down here when the Bill becomes law.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, I come very late to this legislation, having devoted myself over recent years merely to deciding defamatory cases. I am enormously glad that the House is proposing to simplify and clarify the law and, in that respect, to raise the bar. However, noble Lords should recognise—as assuredly the courts will recognise, if and when they come to apply the clause—that it is implicit that the defence will apply even when it is assumed that the defamatory statement is wholly untrue, even when there is no possibility of it attracting the Clause 3 defence of honest opinion, and even when assuming that it is not privileged. Amendment 14 to Clause 4(1)(b) inserts a defence that,
“the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest”,
notwithstanding that it was untrue, not the subject of honest opinion, and unprivileged.
I support Amendment 14, although not Amendment 23, because I value freedom of expression and freedom of speech so highly as to justify, on occasion, the destruction of an individual’s reputation without his having any opportunity whatever to vindicate himself. Noble Lords should recognise that that is the price exacted for the provision of a defence in the interest of freedom of speech.
There can be no question that in applying such a clause the court is bound to have regard to all the circumstances. Time and again it has been made perfectly plain that the Reynolds list is non-exhaustive. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, said so, and in the recent Flood case in the Supreme Court, in which I was involved, not only did we say that in terms, but we brought into account various factors and considerations that did not feature in the Reynolds list.
Lord McNally
My Lords, my first thought is about the wish that Sir Brian Neill, having just been released from hospital, should follow closely our proceedings. If you are, Sir Brian, please switch off. It is not conducive to recuperation.
I said at the beginning that this clause is at the very heart of the Bill and the contributions have been extremely useful. Since noble Lords have been dishing compliments around, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for the attitude that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, have taken. Of course, in our system, the job of the Opposition is to oppose, and we understand that. However, I think that the more we can produce a Bill that is the result of all-party work and contributions, the better we get something that sticks. This is not an area for party games. When there is a campaign such as the Libel Reform Campaign, it is sometimes tempting for opposition parties simply to espouse the campaign and go down to the last with them. I appreciate where the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has been willing to tell the campaign that it cannot deliver. As we keep on saying, we are trying to get a balance between the right to free speech and the proper protection of reputation. If I can send a message to the Libel Reform Campaign, it is not to indulge in an exercise in impossibilism. We are trying to get this right. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others who have had these responsibilities know, for every concession I make and every amendment that is carried, I have to write to Cabinet colleagues, not all of whom are as enthusiastic about reform as perhaps I am. That is the nature of things, and the way that this Committee is approaching it is helpful in that respect.
As to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has just said that he does not support it. I fear that that is part of the dilemma. However, I will think about it. As a layman, I tend towards thinking that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in writing the bleeding obvious into a Bill. I understand when people say, “Well, it’s covered in another Bill or elsewhere in this Bill et cetera”, but it is reassuring if the public can read very simply what we intend.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, made the point that within the Bill there are a suite of defences. It is also worth reminding ourselves—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has just reminded us of it very clearly—that in the end we will be subject to interpretation by judges. We had a short debate yesterday about it, and that is what the separation of powers is all about. Of course this will be tested, and that is the challenge to the work we do. We will have a look at the phrase, “all the circumstances”. We have quite a long time until we meet again, and perhaps we can have some further talks about it.
Lord Mawhinney
Before my noble friend leaves this point, who are the Cabinet Ministers who fail the McNally test of enthusiasm?
Lord McNally
I will publish them on the MoJ website. Even better, I will tweet them. No, I will not. Now I am trying to run through in my head who they are.
It is interesting that the recently departed Solicitor-General, who was and is a practising libel lawyer, thought that this was entirely irrelevant, unneeded and so on, and argued very strongly against it. He felt strongly about it, although that is not the reason why he is now an ex-Solicitor-General.
Lord May of Oxford
Would the Minister’s decision have been difficult if a huge sum of money had hinged upon it?
Lord McNally
I was just going to pay the noble Lord, Lord May, a compliment. When he spoke about the fact that some of our colleagues are noble and learned, I was thinking that that goes with the rations, whereas I think that he is extremely learned, and that goes with reputation. I am not sure who he was thinking would take such a sum of money.
Lord May of Oxford
It is a question of solving the Simon Singh problem. However well we draft the legislation, if the hurdle is not high enough to justify—
Lord McNally
This is interesting. There is a suite of protections in this legislation, and I want to test it. I have had Simon Singh say to me, “Oh, this wouldn’t have protected me”. First, I have been here long enough to realise that you cannot draft law for one particular case, nor can you deal with particular circumstances that may have ratcheted up. However, what I want to do, and I mean this absolutely sincerely—I look particularly at the noble Lords, Lord May and Lord Bew—is to be able to meet senior academics and scientists and for them to say, “Yes, this does help”. This is the process that we are going through now. I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, referred to as the suite of protections that are built into the Bill will give a lot more protection to what we are doing.
To clarify the editorial matter, editorial discretion is not just about editors. The courts have used the term to refer to matters of judgment about how a story is presented, its tone and its timing. The courts recognise that there may be legitimately different views about this and that some allowances may be necessary but we do not think that publishers’ discretion is any clearer. Under the Government’s amendment, the courts will already need to look at the reasonable belief of the publisher. The reason we also proposed amendments referring to “editorial judgment” was to put this in the Bill to respond to concerns that we were not sufficiently reflecting Flood. It is better to use the language of Flood. At the same time, I can assure the Committee of our view that the term “editorial” is not limited to editors or newspapers. It is a more flexible term that leaves it open to the court to develop as necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, wanted a clarification of “reasonable belief”. That phrase brings out more clearly the subjective element of what the defendant believed at the time, while retaining the objective element of whether the belief was a reasonable one to hold. I hope that that clarifies the matter; I shall read through it a few times myself over Christmas.
However, let us also be clear. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to us introducing a liberalising defence, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, made this point. Yes, we are lifting the bar or moving the goal posts, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, helpfully explained as regards his thinking in the Flood judgment. There is a lot of talk about attempts to shackle the press; a lot of it is misguided. However, Clause 4 is a genuine attempt to strengthen freedom of speech and should be seen as such. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, among others, raised important issues about the public interest. It remains the case that it will be for the court to determine the first limb of the test; that is, whether the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement which was a matter of public interest. Again, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, helpfully let us into his thoughts on this matter.
That is a matter that we must think of. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, explained to us what the responsible journalist does in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly reminded us of the question of what to do when the intention of the publisher or owner is to destroy a reputation. Do we give impunity to that? That is why, when our friends in the Libel Reform Campaign come close to asking for a blank cheque, I have to say that we cannot give it to them. We also have a responsibility, as well as a recognition that there is irresponsible publication.
We are moving on to new media, and my noble friend Lord Lucas will be pleased to know that that is another hospital pass that I have left for my noble friend Lord Ahmad. I would say to Twitterers the Twittering equivalent of “caveat emptor”: “Twitterer beware”. Twittering is not beyond the law. We somehow got the idea that new media is a law-free area. People are going to find that it is not.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
Perhaps I could assist the Committee by suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has proposed an amendment as an amendment to Clause 14. Does he wish to move it?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I do not. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has given as satisfactory a reply as is possible in the circumstances.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that if he is not going to move his amendment he should not speak to it.
Lord McNally
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has put me in the position of Scrooge by suggesting that his officials should waste their time over Christmas amending the Explanatory Notes. They can do that over Easter when, it is hoped, the Bill will have received Royal Assent.
I am going to suggest something which I hope will go down well with my noble friend Lord McNally and with the Committee. I suggest that we should simplify what at the moment is completely unnecessary and should be deleted from the Bill. It concerns reportage and what should happen when a publisher publishes a report fairly and accurately. My original Bill, which I do not have with me, dealt with reportage, and subsections (3) and (4) explain how the Government see the position. We now have government Amendment 19 in this group, which is a new version of reportage. However, I have to say that it is completely unnecessary because now that Clause 4 is in a very satisfactory form, I do not think that we need to include anything at all about reportage.
Let us look forward to Amendment 19, which has not yet been moved. It is not something that the man or woman on the Glasgow omnibus would understand. It states:
“If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party,”—
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, does not like the words “to which the claimant was a party”, and I do not much like them myself—
“the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission”—
that is something of a double negative—
“of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it”.
With great affection and respect for parliamentary counsel, I have to say that I find it very hard to understand what is being said here. While I think I understand it, I do not see why it is needed at all. A proper public interest defence, as we now have in Clause 4, covers all publications, including reportage. We could go into the tricky thing about whether it should or should not cover someone who is not a party to a dispute, but I suggest that we should consider that hereafter—I say that not just because I have had no lunch. I do not see the necessity of including anything special on reportage, given the clarity with which the Clause 4 defence is now worded. I seek, therefore, to leave out subsections (3) and (4) and I would oppose putting anything like Amendment 19 in their place. I would certainly regard it as unnecessary to consider an amendment to widen this further. Rather idiotically, I think I have just said the opposite of what I wanted to say. I suggest that we leave out subsections (3) and (4) because they are not necessary and that we do not put anything in their place. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I shall speak to Amendment 20, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayter, simply because I have no idea where these particular words came from. They qualify the dispute that has been reported as being one to which the claimant had to be a party. Shortly I will explain why that is, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—I wish that I had added my name as well to his amendment—on reflection I really do not understand why these two subsections were included in Clause 4 in the first place. I have no particular objection to the attempt in the government amendment to concentrate them into one subsection, although the language is cumbersome. However, I would never underestimate the ability of the ordinary man on the Glasgow bus to understand verbiage.
I do not understand why these subsections were included in the Bill in the first place and I cannot find any debate about it other than that the initial attempt was a codification of the existing law. As I understand it, this element or refinement of the defence about reportage came from a case called Al-Faghi v a Saudi newspaper, or something. Essentially, this offers the opportunity of a qualified privilege defence to the reporting of a dispute, when it is the reporting of the dispute that is the issue of public interest rather than the truth of the allegations that may have been made between the parties to the dispute.
I will not detain the Committee by going through the distillation of the principles on which I have worked from the Al-Faghi case to see where the idea came from that the dispute had to be one to which the claimant was a party before it attracted this qualified privilege. I am pretty certain that the Minister will not be able to find in Al-Faghi a principle that requires that the dispute that is being reported be a dispute to which the claimant was a party. I can think of circumstances where the claimant could be defamed by statements made in a dispute to which he or she, the claimant, was not a party but where the reporting of that dispute could be in the public interest. So it seems unnecessary to qualify this defence, or subset of the defence, if it is to continue to exist, by requiring it to arise out of a dispute to which the claimant was a party. That is my argument. I see from his body language that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is about to make another helpful intervention.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
It might be helpful to the Minister as well, because I did a pretty sloppy job just now in my desire to be quick. Under existing case law, it is true that the claimant has generally been involved in the dispute reported, either through being personally and directly involved as a party or through membership of a faction or group that is a party. But the principles are applicable when, especially in a political context, both sides of a dispute are being reported. According to Lord Justice Sedley, in a case called Charman v Orion, from 2008, 1 All ER 750, there is no need for reciprocal allegations. There can be a reportage defence for what he called a unilateral libel. He said that the reportage defence,
“developed in Al-Faghi”—
to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred—
“cannot logically be confined to the reporting of reciprocal allegations. A unilateral libel, reported disinterestedly, will be equally protected”.
That is, I think, in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. There is no express statement in case law that the claimant must be a party to a dispute, and it would be unfortunate if the new statutory effects were more restrictive than the common-law position. That is why all of this is present. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, it is not to undermine something in the common law. The problem is that the common law is pretty uncertain. It seems to me that we can do away with all this by not having subsections there at all. I hope that that helps. The new subsection has the potential to cause confusion in the light of the rest of the clause by stating that,
“the court must disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation”.
The reference to taking steps to verify is there because the checklist in the current version of Clause 4(2)(g), provides, as one of the factors,
“whether the defendant took any other steps to verify the truth”.
If subsection (2)(g) goes, there is no need to provide for the court to disregard that, and any reference to taking steps to verify in subsection (3) would be confusing. I am sorry to go through all this but I think that in the interests of simplifying the law we can get rid of it altogether.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am very grateful to the noble Lord and am pleased to have given him the opportunity to make the speech that he wished he had made in supporting his amendment. Now that I have the noble Lord’s support, I can summarise my argument in relation to my amendment by saying that I am reinforced in the view that it would appear the common law is still developing. The Government’s wording in the draft Bill, and even the wording proposed in the noble Lord’s amendment—I sympathise with his attempt to try to make two subsections one subsection—broadly restricts the defence specifically in relation to the reporting of a dispute to which the claimant has to be a party. I did not understand that to be the common law of England and I now have support for that view. If there was a justification and a necessity for this provision, I suspect that it arose from the way in which the clause was framed previously. For the reasons expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, it is no longer necessary.
I hope that the Government will go away and think about that but if they insist on retaining this subsection in the Bill, I propose that we should delete the qualification of the dispute because it does not refer to the common law and is a restriction. I do not think that the Government intend to restrict this defence.
The Earl of Erroll
I intervene with great temerity given this incredibly legal provision. However, as an outsider, I cannot understand why the courts should not be allowed to determine whether or not someone has behaved responsibly. If a large organisation is involved, it should have to verify the information or take some reasonable steps before repeating an appalling slander, libel or whatever it may be. I cannot see why we should restrict the courts’ ability to look at all the circumstances by retaining the relevant measure. Therefore, I support Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord McNally
My Lords, when both the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, tell me that we are getting this matter wrong, I have to think very hard. However, I shall respond to it and then provide some further thoughts.
Amendment 19 is a government amendment and is grouped with Amendments 18 and 20, as we have heard. Amendment 19 makes drafting changes to bring the provisions on reportage, which were previously in subsections (3) and (4) of the clause, into one subsection in order to improve the overall clarity of the clause. It makes changes to refer to the test of “reasonable belief”, to which I spoke in the previous group of amendments.
“Reportage” has been described by the courts as,
“a convenient word to describe the neutral reporting of attributed allegations rather than their adoption by the newspaper”.
Clause 4 is intended to catch the core elements of reportage as articulated by the courts. These are that where the defendant publishes an accurate and impartial account of a dispute between two or more parties, the defendant does not need to have verified the information reported before publication. This would not, however, absolve the defendant from the need to satisfy the court that, in all the other circumstances of the case, it was reasonable to believe that the publication was in the public interest.
Amendment 18 would remove the provisions relating to reportage. Conversely, Amendment 20 would extend their application. We do not consider that removal of the reportage provision altogether would be desirable, as is proposed by my noble friend Lord Lester in his amendment. As I indicated in speaking to Amendment 14 in the previous group of amendments, for the operation of Clause 4 generally, in assessing the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that publication was in the public interest, the court will be looking at the conduct of the publisher. Often that will include examination of the steps the publisher took to verify the information. We would not want the clause’s silence on the matter to suggest that there may in future be a need to verify in reportage cases whereas now there is not.
However, nor do the Government think it right to extend reportage more widely, as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in Amendment 20. We consider that it should, as now, be limited to circumstances where the claimant is a party to the dispute. The reason that we adopted this approach is because if the claimant is a party, for the account to be “accurate and impartial”, his side of the story would be likely to have been reflected in the published article. On the other hand, where the claimant is not a party, that would not necessarily be the case. We believe, on balance, that where the claimant is a third party, the defendant should have to satisfy the court that in all the circumstances of the case it was reasonable to believe that publication was in the public interest. This should properly include consideration of steps taken to verify, should the court decide that is relevant. That point was made latterly by my noble friend. On this basis I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
I am not sure which noble Lords made the accusations that the amendment will cause confusion, is unnecessary because the common law is already developing or overly restrictive, but I shall look at those criticisms. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and that he and the noble Lord will allow the government amendment to stand. I will look very carefully at this amendment, and the points that have been made. I give an assurance that I will take another look between now and Report.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The criteria in Clause 4, as it now stands, are objective public interest and reasonable belief, and I simply do not understand why those criteria are not sufficient to deal with reportage publication, as with any other publication. I am not clear as to what we are trying to save by putting these words in and I quite understand the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which does accord with developing common law. All of this is unnecessary and I enthusiastically withdraw my amendment, knowing that all this will be thought about during the Christmas holiday of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord McNally
“( ) If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it.”
Lord McNally
“( ) In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I have lost my support team. The amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord Browne and myself, and I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. The amendment, as my noble friend suggested earlier, is by way of a probe. It would replace the word “website” with “electronic platform”. It is seeking clarification from the Government about what they mean by website and to ensure it is sufficient to make the Bill future proof. We might also consider whether the common definition of, for example, “journal” includes electronic peer-reviewed offerings, which might deal with some of the later amendments.
As the Minister indicated earlier, we can probably assume that “website” covers Facebook, blogs and Twitter, but we need some clarification on that. I did not have a chance this morning to study the DPP’s guidelines released earlier about when legal action would be taken on harassment and similar issues on electronic platforms. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us that these two initiatives, albeit one on criminal prosecutions and one about defamation, are moving in harmony. Amendment 23B specifies that the defence applies only in relation to damages and not, for example, in an application for an injunction. This was probably addressed in Clause 13, but it would again be helpful for it to be part of this clause. Amendment 26A simply replaces “was” with “is” for clarification. “Was” implies that a post used to be on the website and has been taken down. That amendment would clarify that no action would be needed if it had been removed.
I turn now to our main amendments in this group, Amendments 25A and 25B. I shall first refer to a letter from the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Justice, Jonathan Djanogly, on 13 June, which included a helpful attachment indicating the department’s thinking about the procedure to be followed under Clause 5. There was a subsequent letter on 10 December from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, with that attachment. It states that:
“Website operators will be encouraged to set up and publicise a designated email address”—
that is, for complaints—
“as a matter of good practice”.
Is it not time to make a real difference to the whole business of reputation and innuendo by establishing a need, not just a request, that if website operators want to take advantage of the defences to defamation then, through them, the authors must be easily contactable by anyone with a potential claim? Neither authors nor website operators should be able to hide behind some electronic wall to avoid receiving a writ.
We seek the easiest possible route between the defamed and the author of the offending words by, we hope, virtually bypassing the website operators. We do not want the defamed, as in the Government’s suggested outline, to have to go round the houses, waiting here for 72 hours, waiting there for seven days and possibly applying to a court before even finding out who has written the alleged libel or where that person can be contacted. We therefore want it to be obligatory for a well publicised e-mail address to be on the website, for use where the author is not already identifiable and contactable. It is slightly strange that in the Government’s appendix to those letters, they seem to ask that the complainants should identify themselves and give their address and everything to the poster, with no such reverse obligation on the author.
It is not good enough for authors to hide behind anonymity. This has not been allowed to the defamed person and it is hard to see why it should be available to the alleged slanderer. I shall leave whistleblowers to one side at the moment. I shall come back to them, but we should not allow that tiny number of people who can be safeguarded by other means to act as a cover for the anonymity of the millions who trounce other people’s reputations. It is hard to understand the Government’s proposal to allow the author to refuse to reveal his or her identity, with no excuse having to be given. This would therefore make the complainant seek a court order to locate the author.
If the provision were to be enacted, no author would ever have any reason to give out their name, knowing that no action could even be started against them without a court order. We have to change this around. Either the author puts up his or her hands and says, “It was me who wrote it and it is not defamatory”, or the website operator must take the hit and stand in the shoes of the secret writer. I leave whistleblowers to one side for the moment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 24, 25 and 29 in my name. I agree with virtually every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, has just delivered to the Committee. I should also say—and I think this will come as some relief to the Committee—that, in the spirit of Christmas, I do not propose to oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. However, that is not to say that my discontent with the position of web operators is in any way lessened by what has been heard, because I believe that the one weakness of the status quo is just that—web operators have a degree of impunity that is not justified in the public interest.
I spent a few years as a libel solicitor—not exclusively so but I had a steady diet of libel work, always for individuals. I reiterate what I said at Second Reading: there is an unintended bias in the Bill and in much comment in favour of the media and journalists. I have as much commitment to the free press as anyone. For 10 years, I was a member of the Scott Trust, which owns the Observer and the Guardian. However, when I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talk about the millstones around the necks of journalists, I have to be frank and say that if you look at it from the point of view of the individual—particularly the individual who is not affluent—the millstones all seem to be on the other side.
The disparity of arms between claimant and defendant is nowhere more vivid than in relation to the web operators, many of which are huge multinational companies. They do not do this for fun—they are not like a village notice board. They do it for profits, and mighty big profits, and some of them do not even like paying taxes on those very big profits. They are the Goliath in the defamatory relationship, so to speak, and in my view their impunity is not justified in terms of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has to be balanced by respect for truth and protection of the reputations of individual citizens. I know that this is common ground between us and I should say—because I do not think it has been fairly represented—that the Libel Reform Campaign itself makes that point. Freedom of speech has to be balanced by a countervailing duty of responsibility and truth, otherwise one has a tyranny. I cannot understand how we got into the position in Clause 5 of web operators having no responsibility whatever for defamation, however grotesque and damaging, so long as they do not originate the defamation on their website—that is in Clause 5(2)—and so long as, if and when they receive a notice of complaint, they act in accordance with the regulations still to be made under Clause 5. I am delighted that the Government have listened to what was said at Second Reading and have now prescribed a positive procedure for those vital regulations under Clause 5 (5).
However, one can imagine a rerun of something comparable to the recent BBC-McAlpine debacle, or imagine that the most sordid and graphic statements are posted on the web about a public figure, statements that would inevitably be taken up and repeated across the wide world of the internet, with or without embellishment. Under this clause, such defamatory statements—the damage of which will, in the nature of things, linger for ever and cause the acutest pain and damage to the reputation of the person concerned—do not touch the operators of the websites that first published the statements. Under Clause 5, the operator will not even have to moderate the libels until it receives a notice of complaint. Indeed, an operator with an axe to grind against the person who is defamed may even welcome or encourage the posting of the defamations. That is a situation to which my Amendment 25 refers. It would dislodge the defence under Clause 5(2) if there was any malice or bad faith at behind the defamations.
Consider this: if a person or company associated with the operator—whether by way of partnership, joint venture, interlinked companies or however—posts defamatory statements on a website, the operator, under Clause 5, still has impunity. That cannot be right. My Amendment 24 deals with that. I am the first to confess that if my amendment is acceptable to the Government, one will need on Report to refine what is meant by an associate. However, I thought that at this stage it would be satisfactory to leave the amendment as it is.
The phrase “chilling effect” has been much used in these debates, and that is fair enough. However, I again remind the Committee that the chilling effect is on both sides of the fence. If Goliath has a chill running down his spine, as was notably enunciated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, think of the individual who is facing up to this media behemoth. I have been in the position again and again of dealing with individuals who have been grotesquely libelled. I am not talking about the responsible media but, let us face it, parts of the media in this country will resist the most rightful claim, knowing that they can get away with it because the costs are simply way beyond their reach. They can delay and string out the case, and I have experienced that. This Clause 5 puts a web operator into a wholly unwarranted position of unreasonable strength against the public interest. I therefore hope that the amendments to moderate that impunity will be taken on board by the Government. From everything that I have heard so far, I do not believe that they will be content for this imbalance to remain.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I shall address my amendments in this group and reiterate that I have a considerable interest to declare in that I run the Good Schools Guide and, therefore, a website on which such comments are regularly posted.
So far as identity is concerned, I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said. I do not generally like people who hide behind anonymity on the web, although it has become a habit. One generally knows who one is talking to on Twitter, at least after a while, but there are other areas of the web, such as Mumsnet, where you do not have a clue and there is no indication of the identity of the person. Often that is just because people are talking more openly than they might if they were to be identified. They might say something about a shop that they use regularly or a school which their children attend which is helpful to other people to know, but which they would find it embarrassing to be linked back to.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Why should the expense and risk be on the side of the citizen?
Lord Lucas
Absolutely—the expense should be on the citizen who, having made the comment, is the target of the defamation action; but the website should not be forced to take down the comment just by the threat of a defamation action against the person who originated the comment. Otherwise, it becomes all too easy to wipe complaints off the public record. It is not that I wish the person complained against not to have any means of action but it should be against the person posting the comment and not against the website that is hosting the comment, until it has been proved to be defamation and a court order comes saying, “You must take this down”.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My noble friend is putting forward a situation which has no parallel, for example, in newspapers, or radio or television. It is no good the newspaper saying, “Well, this isn’t my letter, this is the letter of John Smith and therefore it is nothing to do with me”. Why should it be any different for the web operator?
Lord Lucas
We are dealing with the web operator as a conduit and not as a publisher. If I want to make a particular statement about a company that I feel has wronged me, I will do so using public media such as Facebook, Twitter or other sites on which I might post a comment. That is me making that statement. If I am identifiable, which I think is quite proper, then the action should be against me. Otherwise, it means that those who are behaving badly and wish to hide that bad behaviour can simply wipe all record of my complaint off all public websites without any risk or trouble to themselves. I would say that it is in the public interest that I make my views on this particular company known, but I am going to be deprived of all means of doing so in an electronic world because I will have no access to what becomes the medium of communication, because as soon as I say anything there the company that I have complained about can wipe it out. That seems to me an entirely unreasonable situation.
We have to recognise that we are dealing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, with a different world and a different way of doing things and that if we want news of bad practice to spread, we have to allow it to be published. Allowing it to be published means holding harmless those who are acting as a conduit. I am a publisher and recognise that if I publish something unpleasant about some school or person then I, as a publisher, take that on the chin. That is part of my remunerated business. However, the owners of Twitter are getting no benefit from the fact that I have tweeted something on it—there is no revenue with which to offset the cost of establishing that I have a right under law to say what I have said, so they will immediately take it down, if complained against, unless we provide them with some kind of “hold harmless” defence. So it is very important that the conduits, if they behave well, establish the identity and share it with the complainant, and can continue to publish until the point has been reached where it has been established in a court of law, or by agreement or otherwise, that what has been said is defamatory.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that it is very important that, where something has been said about a company or a person that is considered defamatory, a statement from the person who is being defamed should be published alongside the original statement. That is a relatively easy technical thing to do, and I do not think people should have to wait seven days. It should be relatively automatic. These days, one day—certainly one working day—is enough to do that. That should be an automatic right, because it is easy to do and balances things reasonably.
I am also interested in the question of moderation, which has been referred to. The status of moderation under this clause seems to be very uncertain. By moderating to any extent, do you become the publisher of what has been said? A lot of sites will just allow unrestricted publication, and that appears to be safe, but we and many other sites will moderate; that is, we will want to see what has been said before we decide that it can be published. If we moderate and then publish, have we assumed liability for what is said? Have we assumed a liability for checking it? If not, it becomes impossible to moderate and you are saying, “We wish the web to be entirely unmoderated and we think that the process of moderation is undesirable”. I am not sure that that is what the Government intend to say.
If you allow moderation, do you allow within that any kind of editing or advice? If someone posts a comment and it appears to be a statement of fact rather than opinion, are you allowed to say to that person, “You have not phrased this as a statement of opinion. If you resubmit it as a statement of opinion, we will publish it”. Is that taking responsibility for what as been said? I think of moderation as something we should encourage. It improves the quality of the web as a whole, although it is an expensive thing to do. We should be clear in this clause about the extent to which we are prepared to support and protect the process of moderation.
Lastly, I come back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said about TripAdvisor. I think that it is barking up the wrong tree. I suggest that it employs what we have effectively used over many years and I will call the Good Schools Guide defence. If a school starts to complain about comments we have made, we merely post the fact that we are not prepared to allow comments on this school because we do not agree with the school’s policy on taking down comments. That is as good as anything. If TripAdvisor were to do that to a hotel, that would be worse than any comment that anyone could possibly publish. It would achieve the end result it wanted without pain.
Lord Allan of Hallam
My Lords, I also declare a considerable interest in that I work for Facebook, one of the web operators which may receive notices under subsection (5). In contributing to the debate, I am trying to bring some of the expertise that we have as operators of internet websites more generally to what is, I know, a complex and difficult debate and one which we make more complex and difficult by having fast-moving technology. In that respect, I shall touch first on the amendment which proposes that we should talk about electronic platforms rather than websites per se. In doing so, I will pick up on some of the other points made in the debate around whether websites are different and special; they may be or they may not.
There are essentially two classes of website. There are websites which are owned by a single organisation and over which that organisation has editorial control. It could be argued that such websites should be treated like a newspaper or any other form of media. Indeed, those websites are specifically excluded from having this defence because, under subsection (2), they are clearly the organisation that posted the statement in question to the website, so it runs the website and creates the content for it.
There is a whole class of other websites or platforms where the body which produces that platform has no direct interest in the content, exercises no editorial control and simply exists, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, described it, as a conduit that enables a citizen to speak with other citizens all over the world. These platforms have become tremendously successful precisely because they democratise speech in a way that was not previously possible because you needed a printing press or other expensive equipment. It is right that in the context of Clause 5 we should think about the position of those operators. That is much more widely recognised in law, if we look at the e-commerce directive, which has been very successful. It was designed precisely with the fact in mind that we have on the internet platforms the job of which is to connect people, but which are not responsible for the content being shared between the people connecting through these platforms. This covers a whole range of other areas such as copyright, illegal content and so on.
However, this does not mean it is a lawless space —that discussion was held earlier—in fact, it is a very lawful space. The operators have responsibility but the primary responsibility for content shared across a platform has to reside with the person who posted and shared that content. In that respect, Clause 5 takes us absolutely in the right direction. It directs platforms—the second type of website that is not editorially responsible—towards a regime within which it is in their interests to connect the poster of the content with the complainer about it and to seek to resolve the dispute between the two parties. Where that dispute cannot be resolved between them, the operator then has some responsibilities.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
To equate the world wide web with a pub discussion is bizarre. The thing about a pub discussion is that it goes no further than the pub and it is all within a context that people understand. The problem with the web is that the defamation can shoot around the world in 24 hours and remain out there for years.
Lord Allan of Hallam
I agree with the noble Lord. The new concept has been described. There is a lot of thinking and literature being developed around this. We are talking about private speech in a public space. Essentially, the speech is made in a private tone but the reality is that the speech is publicly accessible, because of the nature of the technology, to anyone in the world. That does not mean that we ignore it, with which I completely agree. In this clause, we are aiming to get towards a sensible way of dealing with that speech and recognising that it is different from the speech traditionally regulated through defamation law, which was speech through editorialised large organisations.
Lord Mawhinney
I am grateful that the noble Lord made this argument because of all the arguments we heard in the committee this was the one we thought probably had the least validity. If you make a statement and it goes round the world, who—I was almost tempted to say a naughty word—cares whether it is made in a pub, in Tesco or anywhere else? Who cares if it is made by a friend to a friend? To use that argument is to somehow say there is a qualitative difference. I will speak later in this debate at greater length but I want my noble friend to think carefully before relying on what is almost a patently non-sustainable argument.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
I want to remind the Committee that the Chamber will be rising in about five minutes and, in the spirit of Christmas, if noble Lords can keep their comments short we will finish after the end of this group.
Lord Allan of Hallam
I shall aim to do so. I turn specifically to the amendments. Let me work through those. There is a lot of merit in Amendment 23A, on the electronic platform. I am interested in the Government's response about what they perceive the legal definition of a website to include. It is certainly the case, and the expectation in the technology community, that most content will be accessed within as short a space as two to three years, primarily through untethered mobile devices and applications—specific applications tied to a particular service. The traditional notion of going to a web browser and typing in a web address will not necessarily be the dominant form of accessing information. It is a fact that most information and contact will be delivered in a different and more sophisticated way, and it is important to ask the question now as to whether the definition of website that the Government intend covers this wide range of information services or is intended to cover stuff delivered by the http protocol; the traditional web browser.
In the context of Amendment 25A and the notice to be posted alongside the publication, I have concerns about how realistic that is. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about how straightforward that might be. Given the different formats out there and the wide range and type of contact that may be posted, to be able to guarantee that a notice of complaint is posted alongside the original content may prove to be much more technically complex than has been imagined. I wonder about the value of doing that given how people access content through small-screen devices and the way in which the content scrolls and moves rapidly these days. The idea of a notice next to a piece of content is again looking back to the newspaper model, where you have something much more static and in a much more defined format. I have questions about the workability of the notice in Amendment 25A.
The e-mail contact in Amendment 25B goes back to the website versus platform debate. It may come as a surprise to the Committee but e-mail is a dying communications mechanism. Young people do not use e-mail. E-mail is for work and if you want to communicate with people whom you know and like and with organisations, you use different forms of communication—instant messaging-type applications and a whole range of new communications services. In the context of how website operators might receive complaints, e-mail is probably for a large operator one of the least efficient ways of doing this. It is relatively unstructured and people will send anything to an e-mail address.
A much better approach, if we want to include something in the Bill, is to say that there must be an efficient contact mechanism and then allow the website operators to determine the most efficient contact mechanism for them. In the case of a lot of the large providers, their preference, rather than e-mail, would be for people to use a contact form. A contact form allows you to give guidance to the person. You can have a very simple flow. Somebody types a defamation on a website. The website says, “Hey. If you want to report defamation go here”, and they are given a screen that takes them through all the information that they need to provide in careful detail and then offers them a form that they can send in. The great advantage of that method is that the form then sends the information to the legal team to do an assessment, with all the relevant contact information. A smaller operator may choose to use e-mail because they have nothing else and they do not have the technology, but we should not specify the technology used for contact in the Bill. We should leave that up to the operators.
Those are my comments on this group of amendments. I know that we will come back to the larger issues of principle and the balance of power between the complainant and the website operator in the next group.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I will try to do this as briefly as possible. I support my noble friend Lady Hayter’s amendments and also—I hope it does him no harm—the amendment and comment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I was responsible for intellectual property at the relatively short lived Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. One of the things that I found completely astounding, almost every day, was that when we tried to deal with widespread theft of other people's intellectual property, and the propensity of some people to use the internet for serious criminal purposes involving children or whatever, one argument always and consistently was put to us. “We are only a conduit. We are no different from the Post Office. It went through in a sealed envelope in the mail. Who would know? Why on earth should we take any responsibility?”.
What I observed, as noble Lords may expect, from this sequence of events was that it was perfectly okay for people who are creating music, film, literature or many other products that are vital to the creative output of the United Kingdom—and very successful in the interests of the economy of the United Kingdom. But their interests were as nothing when compared with this apparent complete barrier to dealing with anything that happened to be done through a web platform or internet company. They had no responsibility in any circumstances. I have never bought that argument, which is why I agree so strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on the matter. It may be very complex and it may be that the technology keeps advancing, but the reality is that, unless there are some restraints on what people can do with this form of technology, the argument inevitably goes to the point where it is possible to protect individuals, even with inequality of arms, from some forms of publication but they are completely and inevitably lost when it comes to electronic publication. That is a very dangerous and damaging concept for our society.
I know the importance of the businesses and the value of the work conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, but I respectfully say that the idea that Twitter or anybody else is not making money out of it is completely bizarre. It is not, of course, making money in the sense that people who post anything on Twitter are paying for it; at least in general they are not. However, advertising revenues are created around these new media platforms, including, pre-eminently, Facebook. The ability of companies to be able to track people’s interests and identify how to approach them with commercial products—I have seen this in sports websites that are associated with Facebook, for example—is an amazing way of generating vast amounts of money. It is no surprise that the companies have become worth so much money in their quoted positions as well.
The Earl of Erroll
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, had Second Reading to say all this. I have some points on the amendments.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I do not accept that supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is a Second Reading proposition. It may be very difficult, in a number of contexts, to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is suggesting, but it is well worth doing it. A comparison can be made with somebody at a football match. I heard over very many years that when people made loud, offensive, grotesque, racist comments in a football crowd you could do nothing because of the great mass of faces. Then CCTV came along and we were able to do something about it—and it was quite right that we did, though apparently not yet fully successfully. There will be technical means—there probably already are. That is why the amendment should be supported.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am sure that the Committee will agree that, in light of the other contributions that remain to be made and of the time, further debate on Amendment 23A should be adjourned. Perhaps it would be a convenient moment to suggest that we adjourn this debate until Tuesday 15 January at 3.30 pm.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Before we put that to the Committee, perhaps we may take this opportunity to thank the Deputy Chairman and all Members for what they have done so far and wish everybody a very happy Christmas.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
In adjourning the debate until the day specified, I wish you all a very happy Christmas and new year. We will no doubt have more fun discussing this in January.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Armed Forces: Long-Term Care
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many members of the Armed Forces have sustained life-changing injuries as a result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan; and what additional resources will be made available for their long-term care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, for reporting purposes serious UK operational casualties are usually categorised as having either serious or very serious wounds and injuries. Between 2003 and 2009, 222 UK casualties in Iraq were included in these categories, while the number for Afghanistan between 2001 and November this year was 591. We constantly invest in staff, facilities, patient welfare and treatments, including rehabilitation, to ensure that casualties get the best possible medical treatment and ongoing care.
Lord Empey
I do not wish to get into an argument over statistics, but clearly the Minister’s figures cannot possibly at this stage include people who will suffer from mental illness, which, as we know, emerges over time. However given that many of these casualties will require care for anything up to 60 years or more and that the care is of a specific nature which cannot inevitably be supplied by the Armed Forces, what strategy is in place to ensure that the National Health Service, which will have to bear this burden, is adequately resourced? The resources will have to be not only financial but professional, with specific knowledge required to treat these casualties whose sacrifice ensures that we continue to enjoy the freedoms which sadly we so often take for granted.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord asks an important question. I assure him that my department takes this issue very seriously. The continued care of veterans injured while in the Armed Forces remains a key component of the military covenant. When personnel leave the services, responsibility for their healthcare is transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the NHS. We are working closely with the Department of Health to ensure that any service-related medical needs are met throughout their civilian lives. For example, the NHS is introducing national specialist prosthetic and rehabilitation centres to address the long-term needs of amputee veterans. It also recognises concerns about their mental health and is introducing a nationwide network of new veteran-focused mental health outreach and assessment teams.
Lord Lee of Trafford
Could my noble friend give any breakdown between regulars and reservists in the figures he gave earlier? In their ongoing situations, is there any differential between the resources and support given to regulars and that given to reservists?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can answer my noble friend. In Iraq, of the 222 UK casualties listed as having serious or very serious injuries, 25, that is 11%, were members of the Reserve Forces. In Afghanistan, of the 591 UK casualties listed, 22—4%—were reservists. Those reservists who sustained wounds or illness while mobilised will be retained in service prior to being demobilised and returning to work, to ensure that they receive the best possible welfare support and care and are eligible for the full range of Defence Medical Services care. Once reservists have been demobilised, their local reserve unit continues to ensure that they have access to welfare services.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, when we were in government there was a rule that no one would ever be fired from the services as a result of wounds sustained in the course of duty. Anybody in those circumstances always had a choice of taking a compensation payment and an immediate pension if he or she preferred or taking a compensation payment and remaining in service. I will never forget the occasion when, talking to someone doing an important job in Camp Bastion, I suddenly realised that what he had in place of a left leg was a wheel. Is that rule still in force and will the Government commit to maintain it?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, to the best of my knowledge that rule is still in place. If it is not, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I very much welcome what my noble friend said in Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about servicemen who suffer severe mental stress. But will he confirm that this does not in any way reduce the need for the very splendid voluntary organisations that work in this field—I mention in particular Combat Stress—which do splendid work with people who often have very long-term mental illness problems following service?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point. I have seen some of the excellent work that Combat Stress and the other charities that help with mental health issues do and I have enormous respect for it.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the number of members of the Armed Forces coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from life-changing levels of post-traumatic stress disorder? Is he aware that in Northern Ireland anyone who has served in the Armed Forces and who is seriously ill in this way is not able to avail themselves of the services offered by Combat Stress—that applies only in England—since it will not deal with a person who is regarded as too unstable, following repeated hospital admissions? For those former soldiers, there is only very limited treatment available on the NHS, with no appropriate therapeutic interventions. I raised a case three years ago of a former soldier who was hospitalised repeatedly for very long periods over three years, was self-harming and had no therapeutic help. Is there nothing Her Majesty’s Government can do to assist such former soldiers in Northern Ireland?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. I was not aware of this issue. I will look into it and get back to her on this very important point.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I also very much welcome what the Minister has said so far. In helping the Afghan army and police develop responsibility for their own security, what efforts are the Government making for the rehabilitation and long-term care of people in those forces who have suffered life-changing injuries? For example, are processes in place to pass on all the knowledge and expertise gained over the years at Headley Court? What plans are there for the trauma hospital at Camp Bastion after 2014?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, there will be a Statement on Afghanistan later. I will be briefed for that and should be able to answer the noble Lord’s question then.
Viscount Slim
My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that a number of wounded and sick servicemen have fallen out of the net and live rough in our cities. The coalition Government have decided to remove, and make redundant any minute now, some 25,000 servicemen. The numbers who will fall out of the net will increase. What is required is a national plan to bring these people back into the fold, involving the Ministry of Defence, other departments and the National Health Service, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said. What are the MoD’s plans to cater for this?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, most veterans, including the seriously wounded, make a successful transition to civilian life and require little if any assistance after service. The MoD is working very closely with other government departments, the devolved Administrations and voluntary and community sector organisations to address all issues faced by ex-service offenders and homeless veterans.
EU: United States Free Trade Agreement
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Anderson of Swansea
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they, and the European Union, will take to make progress on proposals for a European Union-United States free trade agreement.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint)
My Lords, the European Union-United States high-level working group on jobs and growth, which is tasked with examining the options for enhancing the transatlantic economic relationship, is expected to release its report in the coming weeks. The UK Government look forward to receiving the conclusions of this report and to working with other EU member states and the European Commission to take forward this important agenda and achieve—if at all possible—an EU-US free trade agreement.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, following the failure of the Doha round of global trade negotiations, does the Minister agree that the focus will increasingly be on regional arrangements and where better than the EU-US following the EU summit with the US last year, which accounts for half of the total GNP of the world and one third of world trade? Will he give an assurance that the conclusions of this working group will be speedily worked upon? What steps does he see following that?
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I agree with the noble Lord that this is an extremely important negotiation. It is indeed the case that in the wake of the stalling of the Doha round, regional arrangements of this kind is the inevitable way forward in practice for free trade. The EU has a heavy agenda; a couple of weeks ago, it agreed a mandate for negotiating with Japan—obviously another major economy. The EU-US deal will be the most important one for the reasons that the noble Lord has indicated—the importance of the two blocks in world trade—and I assure him that the British Government will pursue every avenue that we can to encourage, support and cajole others into working to get this deal done.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I think it is the turn of my noble friend Lady Falkner.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Is my noble friend aware of the United States’s concerns about its influence with both the United Kingdom and the European Union should the United Kingdom seek to distance itself from the current arrangements it has as a serious partner in the EU? Will he consider, in the light of the US-UK free trade agreement what the implications might be if we proceed to distance ourselves from within the European Union?
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
My noble friend asks a very important question which embraces the wider issue of the British relationship with the European Union. I think it is appropriate for me to stress that as far as trade and the single market are concerned, Britain’s role in the EU is extremely important, both to it and to the EU. Our chances of a good trade agreement that is of interest to the US are much greater in the context of a European Union negotiation.
Lord Peston
My Lords, I speak as an ardent free-trader. I hate to sound cynical, but is the noble Lord aware that, if by free trade you actually mean free trade—namely, free trade in all goods and services, which on the one hand must certainly include agriculture and on the other hand must certainly include financial services—there is not the slightest chance that the Americans will agree to anything resembling free trade as understood by most people, including Adam Smith, who believed in it?
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
The noble Lord has pointed out a number of the issues which will indeed be points of difficulty in the negotiations. Agriculture will clearly be a significant demand on the part of the United States. On the part of the European Union, and indeed so far as the UK is concerned, freer access to the services market in the US is an important demand. The complexity at that end lies in part in the fact that some of the regulations are at state level not at federal level in the US, and this just points to the general theme that this is going to be a difficult, long and painstaking process. It would be naive of any of us to believe that it will take merely a few months to get a deal done.
Baroness Hooper
My Lords, given the recently concluded treaty between the European Union and the region of central America and the ongoing negotiations with the Mercosur countries—Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil—is there any scope for going one step further and, once the bilateral agreement with the United States is completed, having an EU-NAFTA treaty?
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
My noble friend asks an important question about the wider ramifications of a US deal. Indeed, NAFTA is the first consideration here. The EU already has an agreement with Mexico—I think I am right in saying that it was signed in 2000. It is a deal which covers only tariffs and not non-tariff barriers, and Commissioner De Gucht has publicly mused on the value of updating that agreement in time. The EU is in the midst of negotiations with Canada and is hoping to conclude them within the first few weeks of the coming year. As far as Mercosur is concerned, I think that there is a lot further to go. At the moment, the negotiations are rather stalled, but a recognition of their importance is the fact that we will keep going, not least because of the importance of the Brazilian economy.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, under the Irish presidency, Dublin hopes to host a meeting for the promotion of the European Union- United States free trade area agreement? However, does he believe, as I do, that, while there may be resort to plurilateral, bilateral and indeed regional meetings, we still require, for the most efficient purposes, multilateral agreements along the lines that Doha proposed?
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
I completely agree with the noble Lord. The ideal position is a completed Doha round, but I am afraid the reality is that that has stalled. However, we do not conclude that there is therefore nothing that we should do, and we will be encouraging the Commission to work to complete a trade facilitation agreement in the context of the WTO that we hope can be improved at the next ministerial meeting of the WTO in about a year’s time.
World Sepsis Declaration
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Greengross
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to support the goals of the World Sepsis Declaration; and what action they are taking to improve knowledge and skills regarding sepsis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Government fully recognise the importance of addressing sepsis—a potentially life-threatening condition. We support the overall thrust of the World Sepsis Declaration. We have taken a range of actions to address sepsis, focusing on those interventions directly relevant to England—for example, the training of healthcare professionals in the awareness of sepsis. I commend the Global Sepsis Alliance for its initiative in raising the profile of this serious condition.
Baroness Greengross
I thank the noble Earl for that reply. However, given the problem of even adequate recognition of the problem of sepsis, and to ensure that the desired treatment improvements are fully underpinned by quality standards, can he assure the House that the Government are able to identify where sepsis sits within the NHS Outcomes Framework and the QIPP workstreams?
Earl Howe
Yes, my Lords. The NHS Outcomes Framework is, as the noble Baroness will know, a high-level document intended to drive improvements in the service generally. A condition such as sepsis would be covered in three separate domains of the framework, depending on which aspect of the condition was being considered—for example, safety, most obviously, or quality, or indeed the patient experience. The patient safety aspects are reiterated under Section 5 of the mandate as well, and under this general direction it will be for clinicians to take responsibility for delivering the clinical outcomes.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what research the Government are supporting for the development of new and effective antibiotics for the treatment of sepsis? Can he also comment on a recent report from Southampton, which is based on a huge controlled trial of treatment where antibiotics were prescribed for patients with minor respiratory tract infections, and showed that such treatment was of no particular value but inevitably leads to increased bacterial resistance to current antibiotics? What is the Government reaction to that report?
Earl Howe
My Lords, on the research on antibiotics, the noble Lord alights on a real problem. There is a dearth of such research; I am aware of at least one company engaging in it but in view of the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance it is a real issue. As the noble Lord will know, there are extensive guidelines to ensure that there is responsible prescribing of antibiotics. I am not aware of the Southampton example which he quotes, although I shall look into it and write to him as appropriate. He may like to know that the department has been developing a five-year antimicrobial resistance strategy—an action plan. It has an integrated approach and builds on a range of initiatives, such as the 2000 UK strategy and the 2011 EU strategic action plan.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I believe it was the same report from Southampton that said the public have no idea of the difference between sepsis and septicaemia, which of course is a fatal condition if not treated. In view of the success of educating the public on strokes and how effective that has been, does the Minister think that as well as educating professionals there should also be a wider publicity campaign given to the general public to make people aware of the very important differences between these conditions?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes an important point. Public awareness is a key focus of the Global Sepsis Alliance’s declaration. On raising awareness, the NHS Choices website has extensive information about sepsis, its causes, symptoms and treatment. I do agree, however, that it is important to empower both patients and the public to ensure that everybody is on their guard against this very serious illness.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, since sepsis accounts for more deaths than bowel, bladder and breast cancer put together and for one-third of all the expenditure on critical care in the NHS, would the Minister agree that early diagnosis is the key here? I declare an interest as someone who recovered from full-body sepsis, thanks to early diagnosis.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. The need to rapidly identify sepsis when it occurs is vital to ensure that unnecessary death is prevented. A crucial measure to tackle sepsis when it appears is early treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics. My understanding is that once the bacterium has been identified, the treatment of choice is to have a more focused antibiotic, but rapid reaction is of the essence.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, every year sepsis kills 37,000 people and costs the NHS £2.5 billion. Can my noble friend please tell the House what research programmes are in place across the NHS into care pathways and diagnosis?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the department’s National Institute for Health Research is funding a range of research on sepsis, which includes a study into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early resuscitation protocols for emerging septic shock. Other examples include a trial of vasopressin versus noradrenaline as initial therapy; a study on how risks associated with nutropenic sepsis are conveyed to and interpreted by patients undergoing chemotherapy; and there is also a very interesting project on a point-of-care test for sepsis.
Finance: Peer-to-Peer Lending
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheatcroft
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of peer-to-peer lending on major financial institutions.
Lord Sassoon
Wait for the Answer—but I believe it is a good news story.
Peer-to-peer platforms are currently small in the context of the UK lending market but they are growing fast. It is too soon to assess what impact they might have on other financial institutions but, over time, we expect alternative forms of finance, including peer-to-peer platforms, to bring additional choice and greater competition to the lending market.
Baroness Wheatcroft
I thank my noble friend for his response. This positively being his last time at the Dispatch Box, I take this opportunity to thank him for all his work there.
Baroness Wheatcroft
Although there is a place for peer-to-peer lending, small firms really require lenders who understand their business, who can see them through difficulties as they arise, who understand what they need in the way of advice and who certainly will not pull the rug away from them at the first sign of difficulty. The Government are doing what they can to encourage lending to small businesses but can my noble friend tell me whether they are managing to encourage a longer-term approach?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s remarks. I certainly agree that we want diversity in lending. I do not believe that p-to-p lending will solve every problem but I think it has an important role to play. Alongside the money that BIS put in to support two of the p-to-p businesses only last week, through the Business Finance Partnership, BIS also put some money into funds managed by lenders that I think will probably fit more with my noble friend’s model. It is also worth noting that some of the new bank lenders, such as Aldermore, have been some of the biggest takers, relatively, of funds under the Funding for Lending scheme. I agree that diversity is needed.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, I wish the noble Lord well in his retirement. I hope he is retiring only from the Treasury. I have very much enjoyed our exchanges over the past two-and-a-half years.
Can he confirm that one of the many subsidiaries of the huge new Bank of England under the Financial Services Act will have the power to regulate in this case? When it is really a business-to-business matter—it is a big and growing business and I gather that some trade associations are already involved—can the Minister say whether it would be liable to tax relief and therefore part of a possible new tax avoidance scheme? Of course, that will be very different from one Peer lending to another, or one Baroness lending to another.
Lord Sassoon
As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who keeps me on my toes until the end. On regulation, we had some interesting debates in the course of the passage of the Financial Services Act but, on balance, I think it is appropriate that p-to-p lending comes within the FCA’s regulatory framework. We also need to look at the experience in places such as the US and ensure that regulation does not kill off what could be a very valuable contribution to lending. There are some issues on tax, which are the subject of ongoing debate between the industry and HMRC. We certainly do not want anything to stand in the way of the growth of industry. I do not believe that tax issues do that. There is a big, ongoing agenda of which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, identifies some of the key issues.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend for the careful way in which he has dealt with our questions and issues and wish him every success. How do the Government expect the banks to lend more money to small businesses if we are requiring them to hold more capital in the form of government bonds or deposits with the Bank of England and taxing them more by increasing the banking levy? Where are they going to find the money? Is there not a case for relaxing, in a counter-cyclical way, the capital requirements so that the money is there to get growth in our economy?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, these are critical issues. There is a fundamental trade-off between stability in the system, which clearly has to improve over what it was before the financial crisis, and the need to boost growth. The fact that the Financial Policy Committee at the Bank of England is up and running in shadow mode and is identifying the counter-cyclical tools that it will need is a very important new step in this area. The Funding for Lending scheme is, I believe, the most important sign of what can be done with the strength of the Government’s balance sheet. Lower funding costs are already coming in to wholesale bank funding, declining by over 100 basis points since June. One indication of the impact on consumers is that quoted rates on fixed-rate mortgages have declined by 0.3 percentage points since the Funding for Lending scheme has come in. However, I certainly agree that we need to be very attentive to this issue.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, yesterday the Opposition expressed their best wishes to the noble Lord on leaving the Front Bench. In the Treasury team, that Motion was carried by seven votes to one, and I am not quite sure whether I should confess to being the one. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed the cross-Dispatch Box jousting that we have had from time to time and I appreciate the Minister’s skill in replying—often, of course, defending the indefensible. Will he, on this occasion, give us real hope for the future? There is a possibility of very rapid growth of peer-to-peer lending. Is he certain that what will be in place is rigorous regulation of this developing sector? We obviously failed with regard to the banks in the past and there are a lot of anxieties about the new scheme now. This one presents particular challenges and I would like some reassurance from the Minister.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I would not want, on an occasion like this, to point out that the previous Government did not take any policy on p-to-p lending, but it was very small then. These lenders only got into business in 2005. The critical thing is that now, having handed the challenge and the responsibility to the FCA, we will see a draft plan very soon, certainly in the first quarter of the new year, as to what the framework for regulation will be. Draft rules will come in later in the year and, as I said earlier, it is very important that we get the balance right in providing an appropriate degree of regulation, not something that kills off what is likely to be a very fast-growing and important area of activity.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we have reached 30 minutes, and therefore Question Time is concluded.
Last night I made a business statement, and at that time I undertook to notify the House when a new date had been found for a debate on the Leveson report. The usual channels have met and have agreed that, in order to enable the debate to take place at the earliest opportunity, it will be rescheduled for Friday 11 January, which previously had been a non-sitting day, so it does not displace any business of any other Peer. Those noble Lords who were signed up to speak last night will be automatically transferred on to the list of speakers for 11 January and naturally will be notified of that by e-mail. Of course, if that date proves inconvenient for any noble Lords, they may withdraw their name.
Lord Peston
My Lords, I was puzzled by what was scheduled originally. Will there be enough time on the day that the noble Baroness has mentioned for Peers who have major contributions to make on this subject—and I mean major contributions—to make proper, lengthy speeches? I understood that yesterday they were to get between three and four minutes. You can hardly get to your feet and take a breath before you are told to sit down again. Will the noble Baroness assure noble Lords that they will not be told, “We all have to go home early on a Friday; therefore you cannot make a major speech”?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, last night I made a statement at 6.46 pm, going into some detail on the circumstances surrounding why it was necessary in the minds of several Peers taking part to delay the Leveson report debate. I do not propose to repeat the comments I made at col. 1522, where I explained why the business that had been scheduled had gone outside the range of time that would normally have been taken for Third Reading. That is better left for reading.
I gave undertakings to the House last night that we would seek a very early opportunity. In answer to several questions last night, I fully supported the view of those who wished to speak that they should not be hindered by anything other than the rules of the House in the Companion in so doing. Therefore, I can confirm that the normal process on a Friday is that we sit at 10 am. This will not be a time-limited debate. We shall follow the usual processes that we have with defence, economics and foreign affairs debates. It is in the hands of those who speak; they decide how long their speeches will be. No doubt, if they become a little overlong, those present may make that view felt.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, the noble Baroness last night informed us of the cancellation of this important debate, but said it was influenced by “a forceful delegation” who approached her. Can she give me the names of this forceful delegation, since they were the eiderdown brigade who prefer bed to debate? Does she also realise that, in missing the opportunity last night, this House has missed the opportunity to discuss the alternatives that there are on the Leveson issue, which are likely to be decided in the next week or so and before we have the debate? Does she also recognise that it has denied us the opportunity to discuss the latest issue of the Mitchell police affair, which is moving into charges of conspiracy between the Sun, the Telegraph and the police? It would have been a good opportunity, as Leveson recommended changes and the press refuse to accept them.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I was very ready last night to agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, said. I made that clear and I do so again today. He makes a forceful point. Of course, the usual channels had originally scheduled the debate for yesterday to reflect the view that it was important for the debate to take place before anything had been set in stone. However, in politics I understand that stone sometimes moves anyway in any Government, so it is not quite as we might think.
I certainly believe that we have found the earliest available opportunity. I understand that there are Members present in the Chamber today who were part of that delegation who came to see the Leader and me. As I mentioned last night, they were speaking on behalf of others as well. That was certainly the case. I was also aware, as I made clear last night, that other Members of this House would have preferred to go on into the late night—whether they brought their duvets with them, I am not too sure.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I think I have done as many all-night sittings in the other place as the noble Lord. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her decision. The Leveson report is immensely important to the press and public. It would have been completely absurd, and would not have done justice to the report, to start a debate with more than 40 speakers at 8 pm. Surely, as far as the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, is concerned—and on Leveson we tend to work arm in arm, if that is not too close a relationship—I do not think that a series of time-limited speeches in the early hours of the morning would have had any influence whatever outside this House. Therefore, it underlines the correctness of the decision taken by my noble friend.
Lord Soley
I want to speak very briefly because my noble friend Lord Prescott identified this matter. I happily put my name forward as one of the people involved. Without hesitation, I can say that this is not about eiderdowns, beds or anything else as I manage quite well with very little sleep. However, the reality is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, if we had had our debate yesterday my noble friend Lord Prescott would have been making his speech at about 1 am and it would not have been noticed—and it ought to be. That is why we have the debate when we do, when we can also respond to some of the things that have been said or discussed elsewhere.
Lord Cormack
I am sure my noble friend has made the right decision. Will the House still sit on Friday 18 January, as is currently the plan?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack for that question. I can confirm that the business of the House already set down for 18 January will proceed as normal. One of the considerations I had to take into account was that any scheduling of the Leveson debate should not displace Peers’ Private Members’ Bills because I know that Peers of this House value every opportunity to bring those Bills forward.
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) (No. 2) Order 2013
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft order laid before the House on 7 November be approved.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 13 December
Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Bill
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down for this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Public Service Pensions Bill
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, this Bill offers a rare opportunity to introduce primary legislation that pulls together a new common UK legal framework for public service pensions, and it is right and necessary that we do so. We must have public service pensions legislation that is fit for purpose and ensures that those who commit their careers to delivering our valued public services continue to receive guaranteed benefits in retirement that are among the very best available.
However, we also have an obligation to ensure that these generous arrangements are provided on a fair, transparent and sustainable basis. This Bill is based on the recommendations of the independent Public Service Pensions Commission, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, who I am delighted will be taking part in the debate today.
In June 2010, the noble Lord accepted an invitation from the Government to conduct a fundamental structural review of public sector pension provision and to make recommendations on pension provisions that would be affordable in the long term, fair to both the public service workforce and the taxpayer and consistent with the fiscal challenges ahead, while protecting accrued rights. This Bill fulfils the Government’s commitment to bring forward fundamental changes to public service pensions based squarely on his recommendations.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, for his significant role in bringing about these important reforms. His recommendations mark an important milestone in the history of public service pension provision, and we are extremely grateful to him for having undertaken this somewhat thankless task. I must also thank those in the other place for their work on the Bill to date.
As was made clear on Report in the Commons by my ministerial colleague the Economic Secretary there are some areas in this Bill that we are reflecting on further, following representations made in another place. For example, we are looking at the best way to reflect our commitment to member representation on scheme boards and at how personalised information is provided. As for the powers that would allow scheme managers to make retrospective changes to schemes, I am aware that this is an issue about which many feel uncomfortable and that the Delegated Powers Committee has also expressed concerns. The Government are considering their response to the Committee’s report, and we will return to that matter.
As we begin our consideration of the Bill, we must not underestimate the importance of what it is trying to achieve. We are in a world where people are living longer. While this is obviously an extremely important and welcome trend, we must face the consequence of this improvement on the costs of providing public service pensions. As well as looking at how to keep the increasing costs under control, we must also consider the fairness of the arrangements. I hope and believe that the Bill gets this important balance right.
The Bill is in one respect rather curious, in that many features of public sector pension schemes are not covered in detail. They will be set out in detailed scheme rules which will eventually come before Parliament in the form of negative resolution statutory instruments. What the Bill does is provide an overarching framework for all public service pensions schemes. This is not a new approach. The Bill before us today supersedes the Superannuation Act 1972, which followed the same principle. The reason for this is simple: detailed pension schemes are extremely complicated, will vary between different parts of the public sector and will need in some respects to change over time. They are much better suited to secondary legislation.
This inevitably means that many of the most important aspects of the schemes—for example, the accrual rates and the revaluation rates—are not in the Bill. The key principles which underpin public sector pensions and the way in which pensions schemes will be determined are, however, covered by the Bill, and I should like to turn to some of its principal provisions. However, I stress at the outset that the Government intend that public service pensions continue to set a high-quality benchmark and one to which many in the private sector could usefully aim.
The Government intend that public sector pensions should continue to be based on defined benefits. For many years, these have been based on an individual’s final salary. This has had a degree of inequity in that, per pound contributed to the scheme, those on high final salaries have received a greater return in terms of the pension that they have received. This Bill proposes that members’ benefits should be calculated on a fairer basis; namely, on an individual’s career-average earnings. By following this approach, low earners will no longer be expected to subsidise the benefits of higher earners.
The Bill links normal pension age to state pension age for most members. This will automatically track changes in longevity and protect the taxpayer from the associated cost risks. Historically, improvements in longevity have not been well managed, and the failure to do so in a timely manner has represented the single biggest risk to the future affordability of these pension schemes. The establishment of the link between public sector and the normal state pension age addresses this problem. As an exception to the link, a normal pension age is set at 60 for firefighters, police officers and members of the armed services in recognition of the unique characteristics of those public servants’ work. We want to be sure that these normal pension age provisions remain appropriate, which is why the Government intend to review the provisions as and when the state pension age changes. This will ensure that a consistent approach to pension age policy is taken across government as a whole.
Of course, normal pension age does not represent the age members must work until; rather, it is a point on which to base the calculations. Members can choose to retire earlier or later if they wish and, should they decide to do so, a fair adjustment will be applied to their benefits. The same principle applies in other pension arrangements—it is built into annuity rates, for example—and it is right that it applies to public service pension arrangements, too.
In addition to the longevity link, the Bill includes provision for an employer cost cap which will provide additional protection against unforeseen changes in the cost of public pensions. If the cost of a scheme rises, the scheme rules must set out a process for agreeing how they can be brought back under control. The cap may well in practice not be breached, but if it is, the Bill provides for a clear way of dealing with what could otherwise be an unacceptably high cost to taxpayers. In effect, the employer contribution to the scheme is being fixed within specified margins. Any change beyond those will result in benefits or member contributions being adjusted to bring costs back under control. Details have been made available in the House Library regarding the practical application of the cap and the Government’s intentions around the valuation procedures to be followed in the new schemes. These are new and important elements of the Government’s policy, and I hope that these papers provide useful clarification to the House.
As I said earlier, I emphasise that this Bill is not just about fairness to taxpayers; it is also about fairness to scheme members. This is why we propose transitional arrangements for members of most schemes who have less time than others to adjust their retirement plans. Those who were 10 years from their current normal pension age on 1 April this year may continue to accrue benefits on their existing terms; their pensions will be unaffected by the Bill—
Lord Naseby
I apologise for making an intervention, and I must declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, but I would like to tell my noble friend that in Committee I shall be moving an amendment to Clause 31, concerning the rights of the members of the PCPF and their appropriate protection in legislation. The Bill, as currently drafted, casts doubt in that it could be read as enabling IPSA, in relation to MPs’ future pension provision, to break the link between members’ accrued benefits and their final salaries. I wish to place that on the record.
My understanding is that we are going to have the Committee stage pretty soon after we come back. I hope very much that my noble friend and I can have a discussion on that amendment before we come to the Floor of the House.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am very happy to have an early discussion with my noble friend and look forward to debating any amendment that he may wish to bring forward.
As I was saying, we want public pension recipients to be reassured that, as a result of the provisions set out here, the new schemes will be administered and governed as effectively as possible. The new open scheme arrangements will ensure greater accountability and transparency through a common approach, an approach that will be independently overseen by the Pensions Regulator. The Bill builds on the regulator’s existing role and powers in relation to public service schemes and, as far as is appropriate, mirrors the existing approach to other occupational pension schemes. The regulator’s new powers will help public service pension schemes deliver good standards of administration and governance, ensuring that scheme costs and risks are understood and managed effectively.
All these changes demonstrate that the end of the current benefit arrangements and the creation of these fairer, more sustainable pension schemes are the right and proper way forward. It is right that public service pensions continue to set a good-quality benchmark for the private sector, and a race to the bottom in terms of pension quality must be avoided.
A consistent approach across schemes regarding consultation processes and the application of financial directions from the Government will also mean that members see unprecedented certainty about how their pensions are handled. It will no longer be the case that a member in one scheme can look over to another public service workforce and marvel at the myriad different quirks and anomalies within the scheme rules. There is some scope for variation to suit the needs of each workforce but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, recommended, this is a common framework which brings all these schemes together under one legislative umbrella.
We have said that we hope and expect that the new schemes that will be drawn up under this Bill framework will last for at least 25 years. Of course, no Parliament can bind its successors, but we have included in the Bill enhanced consultation procedures, both with those who would be affected by any significant changes and with Parliament, to ensure that there is a high hurdle to be cleared before any such changes could be made.
The approach we are following will apply across all public service pension schemes, including smaller public body arrangements. We are aiming to reform the pensions in those bodies by spring 2018, and there will be no exceptions. This is why I am pleased that the Northern Ireland Government have indicated their intention to maintain parity with the changes set out in this Bill when they bring forward their legislation. Likewise, I hope our colleagues in Scotland and Wales will follow suit for the handful of schemes where competence for pension legislation sits outside Westminster.
Finally, we have also taken the opportunity of the Bill to reconsider whether certain generous historical entitlements remain appropriate in the modern age. The Great Offices of State pension arrangements, which apply to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons, give unusually generous pensions to these office holders. The scheme will now be closed to new office holders. Future holders of these positions will be entitled to a scheme that is the equivalent of those available to Ministers, thus ending this historical anomaly.
In conclusion, I believe that the package of measures contained in the Bill will fulfil the legitimate and worthy aim of bringing about long-term structural changes that are in the best interests of members, employers and other taxpayers. This is sound, reforming legislation, which I hope will continue to command cross-party support. We must, however, get the detail—
Lord Whitty
My Lords, in everything that the Minister has said, he has failed completely to make a distinction between those public sector pension schemes which are unfunded and those that are funded—principally, the local government scheme. Can he give us a guarantee that he will address that difference during Committee, since the Bill and his speech do not adequately reflect that now?
Lord Newby
Of course, my Lords, but at the moment I am explaining the common elements of the framework that we are putting in place. At this point, the key thing we all have to have before us is that we are putting in place a common framework, within which all the schemes will fit. The Local Government Pension Scheme is obviously very different, in that it is funded rather than unfunded. There have been many discussions on it; I have agreed to meet the LGA and hope to do so between now and the first day in Committee. The Government are very conscious of the need to ensure that the benefits of current local government arrangements are not undermined in any way by this scheme. I certainly anticipate that we will be discussing aspects of the local government pension arrangements in some detail in Committee.
Indeed, I was about to say that we are committed to getting the detail right and to giving detailed consideration to all these things in Committee. We have to take this opportunity to set in place a sustainable future public service pension landscape. I look forward to our debates on the legislation, and I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson, I beg leave to take his place and make the initial response of the Opposition to the Minister’s speech, which I very much appreciated. We all recognise the need for further reforms to public service pensions. That does not detract in any way from the continuing need for public service employees to have good quality, sustainable pension schemes after what for many will have been a lifetime’s career in public service. In government, we established a framework to manage the changes in the demography of the UK—changes which inevitably impose a need for public sector pensions to reflect them. We all know of the increased longevity of our population and therefore we support the basic principle underlying this Bill.
The area of public sector pension reform has of course been recently and independently investigated in depth by my noble friend Lord Hutton of Furness, who I am delighted to see in his place. I look forward to his contribution to this debate a little later. The report which he produced has been broadly welcomed and has substantial acceptance from this side of the House. It is regrettable that the many sensible long-term reforms suggested by my noble friend have been disrupted somewhat by the Government’s sudden imposition of a 3.2% increase in contributions and a crucial switch in the indexing from RPI to CPI, all without any prior negotiation and without the benefit of falling within any of the recommendations in my noble friend’s report. That has somewhat queered the pitch and made life very difficult for those representing public sector employees.
Nevertheless, that does not alter the fact that we all recognise that this Bill is based upon sound principles and needs to be supported across the House. Of course, we understand the increasing cost of pension benefits caused by increased longevity. We also understand the range of proper concerns about the Bill raised by a number of trade unions and professional associations representing public sector employees. We share some of their concerns.
We are concerned that Clause 3 is couched in the broadest of terms that permit the Government to amend through secondary legislation public sector pension provision at any time of their choosing. I accept what the Minister said, that the complexity of public sector schemes and the differentials across them require amendment from time to time. In the Bill, there does not seem to be any clear limitation on the power that may be deployed by the Government and being carried through by SIs on negative resolution procedures. Clause 21(2) provides some attempt at control, but it is expressed as applying subject only to the negative procedure as a generality. We all know the limitations of the negative procedure.
That is hardly much of a fetter on the relevant authority, which will seek to make changes. Additionally, there is little to alert the many thousands of public employees who may be affected by the use of such a power. That does not sit easily with parliamentary scrutiny on what could be very significant issues for people in receipt of public sector pensions. The capacity of Clause 3 to enable amendment, by secondary legislation, to future pension statutes, not yet enacted, is providing an extraordinary measure of discretion to the Executive in an area where the goal, we are told by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is apparently
“no more reform for 25 years”.
Those changes, which will inevitably be necessary over a period of time, will be subject to limited scrutiny. Governance in this vital area of people’s lives requires a sturdier safeguard than the one that the Minister has identified, which is in the Bill. That is why, when we get to Committee, we expect considerable debate on this issue.
Furthermore, the capacity of Clause 3(3)(b) to allow retrospective change to pension schemes by way of secondary legislation is concerning. It raises real concerns that adverse changes may be visited on existing schemes, thereby undermining accrued pension rights. The Minister sought to give a categorical assurance that accrued benefits would not be affected. That is not quite what the Bill says, so we will again wish to press him in Committee on this crucial area. Although not wholly unprecedented conceptually, retrospective alteration sits a little oddly with the Government’s aspiration that there is to be no more reform for 25 years.
At Clause 21(1)(b) there is a degree of recognition by Government of the inherent undesirability of retrospection in this area in so far as retrospective regulation is subject to affirmative procedure where, in this limited area only, it,
“appears to the responsible authority to have significant adverse effects in relation to members of the scheme”.
The well-known problem with this approach, through secondary legislation, is that it is not susceptible to any amendment, leaving as the only possible response acceptance or rejection.
The Opposition do not see such a possibility of retrospection as either desirable or sound in this area. The Government will be aware that secondary legislation that serves to erode or remove accrued entitlements is very much the terrain where, among other grounds, Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be effectively deployed to challenge. Such a challenge would be based on the concept that the Government should not lightly interfere with individual’s property rights. That is what pensions are, of course; the accrual of pensions is the sacrifice of resources by the individual concerned and the placing of them in a pension. It is of the greatest concern that there should be any threat in this area. Surely public sector pensions should not be subject to the uncertainty and possible litigation that such retrospection invites. If the Government are opposed to creating such a situation, as one would hope, then this must be reflected in the Bill. The observations already made regarding the need for effective parliamentary scrutiny apply even more when the Government assume a power retrospectively to change or reduce pensions’ accrued benefits. Why, if no more reform for 25 years is intended, is such a power incorporated within the Bill without adequate safeguards? This is an issue that we are bound to address in Committee with considerable deliberation.
In relation to defined benefit schemes, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated in another place on 4 December:
“We do not intend to move away from defined benefit schemes in public services. Defined contribution schemes would not be the right kind of pension provision for many public servants”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/12; col. 770.]
That is a welcome commitment by the Government. Without appearing in any way to challenge the sincerity of such a statement by the Economic Secretary, though, is there not much to be said in favour of making that commitment clear in the Bill? It would demonstrate a resolve to support defined benefit schemes that the language of Clause 7 does not impart. We shall be looking to amend this aspect in Committee.
Similarly, regarding the provisions in Clause 11 relating to the employer cost cap, to which the Minister has made reference, that place this subject under Treasury direction, would it not be an improvement that consultation be a requirement prior to any such direction? The general obligation in respect of consultation at Clause 19 does not appear to cover this particularly significant part of the Bill.
Clause 9, in linking state pension age to normal pension age, which is set to rise to 68 years, is understandable in the light of improving longevity, and by and large makes proper exception for the Armed Forces, to which the Minister made reference, police and firefighters. Our concern is the insufficient flexibility in the clause to allow for those public sector employees, especially in the National Health Service, whose roles impose physical and mental demands well above the ordinary. Such staff should not always be obliged to accept an increasing retirement age, especially if independently reviewed evidence of capability shows later retirement to be inappropriate for specific groups. It is also desirable that reasonable notice be afforded prior to any rise in the pension age to permit proper planning for retirement. We hope to look closely at these aspects for amendment in Committee.
In relation to the local government pension scheme, Clause 16 creates possible unintended consequences. As the scheme is, unusually, a funded pension scheme, the use of the term “closure” could permit an interpretation with unfortunate consequences, such as the splitting of funds and crystallisation events. Smaller admitted bodies, normally with limited reserves, might similarly be affected, but potentially even more seriously, if the crystallisation of debt were to arise.
I appreciate that the Government have undertaken to look at this matter. It would be helpful to know whether the Government intend to tackle this issue in a forthright manner in the Bill, and avoid the potential for considerable instability within the Local Government Pension Scheme. We welcome the acceptance by the Government of the principle that scheme members should be kept informed of their pension rights and provided with an annual update.
We will want to scrutinise a proposed amendment that the Economic Secretary promised in another place earlier this month. Accurate and effective information is the objective to enable scheme members to know where they stand and to plan for their future.
On the issue of fair deal, the Government have stated a commitment to retaining the fair deal in respect of the pension rights of employees transferred from the public sector to the private. We do not, however, see any unequivocal reflection of that statement in the Bill. Clauses 22 and 26 are prayed in aid by the Government to support the fair deal policy, but it is very far from clear that those clauses offer any kind of firm commitment. Suggestions that contracts with independent contractors could incorporate the fair deal leave very much to be desired if the objective is its retention. Surely the best way is to make a stated commitment real by placing it in terms on the face of the Bill.
Ministers may argue that the fair deal need not be enshrined in statute, but in an area which can easily be the subject of litigation, we suggest that the time has come to provide both clarity and certainty. We do not, with respect, find ministerial assurances sufficient on this topic if those assurances are to form the basis of the next 25 years of public sector pensions. We shall seek to propose changes on this subject in amendments in Committee.
On the issue of Scotland, Scottish Ministers have been responsible for the negotiation and design of the LGPS in Scotland and have not been subject to Treasury approval. As the Bill proposes to extend provisions on normal pension age and the shift from final salary to career average benefits to the scheme in Scotland, should not the consent of the Scottish Parliament be sought for such extensions? I do not suggest that this is necessarily an issue of legislative competence requiring approval by the Scottish Parliament. Rather, taking account of the distinct approach of the Scottish scheme seems a reasonable means to proceed. We shall look also at this matter in Committee.
There remains one further issue, which as I understand it operates as an anomaly under the Bill. It concerns firefighters who are employed in defence establishments and who qualify for exemption from the normal pension age neither as firefighters nor as members of the armed services. If we are correct on this point, it would appear to be an oversight that we would want rectified. I would be pleased to hear any clarification the Minister might be able to provide, perhaps when he winds up in this debate.
To conclude, I wish to make clear that we accept the need for reform of public sector pension provision, as we expressed while in government. Where we differ from the Government’s proposals is that we consider that public sector employees deserve greater clarity and security than the Bill currently provides. It is for that reason that we look forward to a lively Committee debate on the Bill.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I can just about support the Bill, because it is in the right direction of travel. However, I do not think that the Government have got their policy on public sector pensions right. They most certainly cannot claim to have produced a lasting solution. I am profoundly disappointed by the policy that this Bill will implement.
I am not against pensions for public service employees. I fully support workplace-based pension provision, but I have great difficulty in supporting public sector pension arrangements that are disconnected from those in the majority of the economy—namely, the private sector.
Put simply, I do not believe that taxpayers should be asked to pay for public sector pensions on terms that are increasingly not available outside the public sector. There is no fairness in that. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, and his report, but I think that he was wrong to have landed his recommendations in a space that is not in touch with what is happening to pension provision generally. The noble Lord characterised alternatives to his recommendations as a race to the bottom, and that formulation has been used whenever his recommendations have been discussed. But that language grossly overstates the argument. The majority of private sector employees currently have no pension provision, although after auto-enrolment we hope that most of them will be in what is admittedly a minimalist version of a pension scheme, via the NEST arrangements. But no one, not even from the right-wing think tanks that I occasionally dip into, suggests that public sector employees should be levelled down to that. This is not an issue about racing to the bottom. The real issue is about the available issue of defined benefit pensions.
The facts are stark. In the last Office for National Statistics survey, 79% of public sector employees had access to DB pensions, while the figure is only 9% for the private sector. In 1995, there were more employees in open private sector DB schemes than in public sector ones, but the blow dealt by Gordon Brown's ACT raid added to other emerging factors, notably longevity, resulted in pension burdens that the corporate sector simply could not bear. Some companies have even been forced into bankruptcy because of the impact of their DB pension liabilities. In 1995, 4.9 million private sector employees were active members in open DB schemes; by 2011, this was just 0.9 million. This is the real background to public service pension reform. The reforms which are delivered in this Bill continue to give DB pensions to public service employees, and this is simply out of alignment with the rest of the economy.
There is, of course, a policy shift to a career average approach, rather than a final salary one, in line with the recommendation from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. This will put downward pressure on the costs of providing pensions to public sector employees, but mainly for the minority who have significant salary progression through their career. However, the public sector will still unambiguously be entitled to defined benefit pensions, which is beyond the grasp of the vast majority of the UK's workforce.
There are some good things in this Bill. The alignment of the pension age with the state pension age, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, is long overdue and welcome. The inclusion of judicial pensions, so long virtually a no-go area in pensions reform, is also welcome. Control of the costs and risks of providing public sector pensions must be at the heart of these reforms, and I welcome the cost control clauses. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, of a fixed-cost ceiling. It remains to be seen how robust the arrangements will prove to be in practice, if faced with very high cost increases, but I agree that it is well worth the effort to see if an automatic cost-stabilising mechanism can be made to work.
The most important measures, which will help to reduce the cost of public sector pensions, will come from other sources. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has already referred to these. By far the biggest financial impact will come from shifting pensions indexation from RPI to CPI. The fiscal sustainability report issued by the Office for Budget Responsibility this year shows that the vast majority of the forecast reduction in the costs of public sector pensions as a percentage of GDP comes from this source, from the shift to CPI, and calculates it as 0.4% of GDP benefit by about 2050.
The second most important contribution to reducing the cost burden on the public sector is additional member contributions. However this produces only about 0.1% of GDP and is a long way behind the contribution of CPI. All the rest of the changes facilitated by this Bill trail in behind that, accounting for around 0.1% of GDP. As I have mentioned, these cost reductions are not fully delivered until around 2050, according to the charts in the OBR’s report. Of course, massive modelling assumptions lie behind those figures. Without any sensitivity analysis, it is difficult to be certain about whether a long-term benefit will actually be delivered by the reforms in this Bill.
In the short term, however, there will be an increasing net cash cost of pensions, according both to the OBR’s figures and the Treasury’s public expenditure survey figures. An excellent paper for the Centre for Policy Studies by Mr Michael Johnson shows that the expected cash cost for public sector pensions over the three years to 2014-15 has risen by £10 billion in just the past year. This is cash that the Treasury has to raise from today’s taxpayers. This Bill should fight against the shorter-term real costs, as well as the longer-term implications of public service pensions.
Lord Hutton of Furness
I did not intend to interrupt the noble Baroness’s speech, which I was enjoying. However her last point is very important. If she is saying that the Government should reduce those additional costs that she just identified, the only way would be to interfere with the accrued rights of those pensioners. To do so would raise serious legal challenges. Does she advocate a policy of retrospectively amending accrued rights?
Baroness Noakes
Perhaps the noble Lord can wait. I will deal with part of the issue of accrued rights in a few moments. I said that the Bill should fight against this short-term cost as well as the longer-term cost because of the large and growing cash impact—which is a real impact that we can measure—set against the rather more esoteric longer-term modelled reduction expressed as a percentage of GDP. Given the assumptions embedded in there, those longer-term projections are not much more than conjecture.
Lord Flight
I thank my noble friend for giving way. The issue of funding the growing cash deficit is not necessarily about altering rights, but also about contributions for as long as there is a pay-as-you-go system.
Baroness Noakes
My noble friend is right. Nobody would pretend that the solutions are easy, but there are solutions other than altering accrued rights. The important aspect of needing to deal with the short-term cash costs brings us to the transitional provisions. I believe that the Government’s transitional provisions are nearly incomprehensible, certainly to those who have had to make the hard decisions about changing pension arrangements in the private sector. First, the Government adopted a classic short-term/long-term political fudge by giving protection to all those within 10 years of retirement. This is designed to buy off most of those who might work out how much it would cost them. Most private sector changes to pension arrangements come with transitional protections, but I have never come across a transitional protection extending to 10 years, as the Government have devised theirs.
Secondly the Government have adopted the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, of accrued rights and protected the final salary element of pensions for anyone who has accrued rights prior to the implementation of the changes. This is out of line with private sector practice where schemes are increasingly closing to further accrual, with indexation of accrued benefits rather than salary-based post-award dynamism. This makes a significant difference to the ultimate costs. All this adds up to a very disappointing Bill. At the very least, I hope that the Government will remain committed to resisting calls to dilute this Bill further.
I conclude by saying that I firmly believe that the total pay package for public sector workers should be comparable in the round with those available in the majority of the economy—namely, the private sector. This is fair. However, it is not fair for taxpayers to have to support the preservation of benefits in the public sector beyond those available to employees more generally, unless—and this is a big proviso—the value of those benefits is fully reflected in other elements of pay, generally in basic pay. I fully support the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, which stated that public service employers should,
“take greater account of public service pensions when constructing remuneration packages”.
I had hoped that this Bill would enshrine that requirement and its absence is yet another disappointment.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, this is a necessary Bill which addresses fundamental problems left largely unaddressed by successive Governments. Unlike my noble friend Lady Noakes, I believe that it is broadly successful in achieving a practical balance between the interests of the taxpayer and of those in the public service.
In many ways, the Government had no choice but to act. The cost to the taxpayer of public service pensions has been increasing at a truly alarming rate. The taxpayer cost of public service pensions has increased by a third over the past 10 years and now stands at around £32 billion annually. Without reform, this amount would rise by a further £7 billion by 2016-17 to a total of £39 billion. That is a 22% increase. The current scheme has failed to respond to the rising life expectancy of the population. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, as things now stand, highly paid workers get more for their contributions than those on much lower, steadier incomes. That is because final salary pension schemes benefit high fliers and those with big salary increases awarded near retirement. That is obviously unfair.
Overall, taxpayers have seen their contributions to public service pensions rise very significantly. For example, when the teachers’ pension scheme began, employees contributed 5% and so did the taxpayer. The figures now stand at around 6% and 14%. Although previous Governments have in fact made some attempt to sort out the situation, the fundamental problems still remain and these and the growing gap between private and public pension provision clearly make the current position unsustainable. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, said in his interim report of October 2010:
“It is my clear view that the figures in this report make it plain that the status quo is not tenable”.
I think the Government were right to take corrective action and have done very sensible things. It was eminently sensible to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, to review and report on the situation and to make clear remedial recommendations. It was eminently sensible to agree to implement those recommendations and to set out to negotiate with the trade unions in an inclusive, detailed and non-adversarial way. My right honourable friend Danny Alexander and Mr Brendan Barber deserve a lot of credit for this even if they probably will not get much at all.
There are lots of good things in this Bill. The lowest paid public sector workers are protected. There will be no increase in contributions for those earning less than £15,000 and no more than 1.5 percentage points for those earning between £15,000 and £21,000. All pension rights already accrued will be protected and there will be transitional arrangements for those who are within 10 years of their normal pension age on 1 April 2012. The taxpayer is protected from unforeseen changes in scheme costs by the employer cost cap. Linking the normal pension age to the state pension age, with some exceptions to which I will return later, is also a vital change.
But having said all that, some aspects of the Bill may be a cause for concern and certainly call for detailed discussions in Committee. I have five areas in mind. The first is the retrospective power in Clause 3 that has been mentioned by other noble Lords. Clause 3(3)(c) states that scheme regulations may “make retrospective provision”. This clause generated much discussion as the Bill made its way through the Commons, with some claiming that the Bill allows for the reduction of accrued pension benefits. The Government have said that this will not be the case. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in a speech to the IPPR in June 2011:
“We will honour, in full, the benefits earned through years of service. No ifs, no buts”.
Despite this, the issue was still controversial at Report stage in the Commons. There the Minister, Sajid Javid, said on 4 December in response to these concerns:
“I can tell the House that the Government do not have a closed mind on this serious issue … I can only reiterate that we are listening and do not have a closed mind. I am sure that the issue will be discussed in the other place, and we shall listen carefully then as well”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/12; col. 786.]
I think that this is the right approach and acknowledges that the issue is serious, that it is a cause of real and justified uneasiness and that it is unresolved.
The second area relates to the powers of the national boards, currently defined in Clause 5(1) as “assisting the scheme manager”. I know that many have argued that unless these boards have the power to recommend or even to direct, they have little real discernible purpose. I look forward to hearing the Government’s views on this in the debate at Committee stage.
Thirdly, there is the question of member representation on scheme boards. I think there is a strong case for having on the face of the Bill a requirement to have one or more member representatives. I was very glad to hear that the Government are reflecting seriously on this. Fourthly, there is the rather vexed question of whether the Bill is entirely in compliance with EU pensions regulations. I look forward to the debate, as I am sure does the Minister, on whether the LGPS is or is not in compliance with Articles 8 and 18 of the well known institutions for occupational retirement provision directive.
Fifthly, and finally, I have heard a very strong and compelling case for the inclusion of ambulance staff who are 999 responders, with firefighters, the police and the Armed Forces, among those who may retire at 60. I look forward to discussing that further in Committee.
I hope that the Minister will take these comments on board and reflect on them before Committee stage. If he does, I believe that it will help to make a good Bill even better.
Lord Monks
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee director of NOW:Pensions, an offshoot of the giant Danish Pensions Institute ATP, which now seeks to make a success of auto-enrolment in this country.
The growth of occupational pensions was one of the outstanding, if rather unsung, features of 20th-century Britain. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, there has been a relationship between the public and private sectors, in this case, with the public sector, along with some enlightened private companies, leading the way in pensions provision. Pensions spread after the Second World War, particularly in the 1960s, to white-collar workers in the private sector on a fairly general basis and then to more and more blue-collar workers in that same sector. Some missed out, including many women and part-time workers. It was not a universal progress. Some companies did not introduce this provision but many did. However, overall, there was substantial progress. Indeed, by the 1990s, the surpluses of pension funds were used to fund generous redundancy packages in both the public and private sectors and many employers took pensions holidays. However, all that seems a long time ago. As others have said, today, defined benefit schemes in the private sector are in full-scale retreat, are closed to new starters or are being wound up altogether.
This issue was looked at by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. We miss the noble Baroness who is not present as she is unwell. We all send her our best wishes for a quick recovery. Their report showed the paucity of provision in the private sector for many people. This matter is being addressed by the auto-enrolment programme to a degree: that is, the compulsory provision of pensions by all employers in due course with the auto-enrolment of employees in the scheme. We simply need this programme to work, and to work well, certainly much better than the stakeholder pension scheme which was the last attempt at dealing with the problem.
Why did we get into this mess? Gordon Brown was mentioned in dispatches by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but there was a range of issues that are now fairly clear. Actuarial revaluations were done rather suddenly; longevity rates—a very welcome development —increased; new accountancy rules highlighted pension liabilities in company accounts and the Maxwell scandal triggered some tightening of the rules. Legal and tax changes certainly played their part. Apart from those introduced by the Labour Government, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, made some changes which encouraged the sale of personal pensions—or should I say the mis-selling of personal pensions—on a pretty large scale. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, also made some changes which encouraged pensions holidays by employers.
A further factor was the practice of top managers establishing their own top hat schemes, which, not surprisingly, seemed to lessen their commitment to maintaining the scheme of their employees.
Lord Flight
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I would like to add two other factors. First, stock market performance has been weak for more than a decade—stock markets are generally lower than they were 10 years ago. Secondly, pensions became overburdened with obligations in the private sector, the costs mounting all the time. Financially, those have been two of the most important ingredients.
Lord Monks
I acknowledge that they were important, but it is just a pity that so many employers did not make provision for that when they took their pensions holidays. They did not put away for a rainy day—it certainly came, and it is still with us.
This brings me back to the relationship between the public and private schemes. There have been many like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who have been suggesting that because the pensions provision in the private sector, although not collapsed, has seriously receded, we should see some equivalent steps taken in the public sector. I am very pleased to see that the Government’s view was significantly modified during a series of talks with the public sector unions, which were facilitated by the TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has paid due tribute. Incidentally, Brendan retires at the end of the month, and I know the House will wish him well and record our appreciation for the job that he has done in many areas, not just in this one. I think those talks have been successful, particularly in the continuing commitment to defined benefit schemes across the public sector.
Then the talks move down to sectoral level, where the picture varies. Some agreements have been made, some talks are continuing, and we have some disputes in certain sectors. In the view of some of the public sector unions, the Bill uses legislation to make changes that were not acceptable in the negotiations. The reaction in the fire service, parts of the Civil Service and parts of the teaching profession bear this out at the present time. The inevitable reality for these groups of workers is that pensions are becoming more expensive and they could be unaffordable at the rates of contribution that are being charged for many staff. Retirement ages are increasing and the scope of the benefits is being cut. I hope that during Committee there will be an opportunity to look at the way these changes are going to affect particular groups of workers for whom it will be different according to, for example, the arduous nature of their job, as my noble friend Lord Davies mentioned at the start.
This framework has been sorted out nationally, and that is reflected in the Bill. However, the Bill has some problems which I hope that we can address. There is some unnecessary detail in some areas including revaluation rates where it cuts across some of the packages agreed at sectoral level. There is an omission in some cases of a full commitment to the Fair Deal policy for workers contracted out of public services. Where is the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, for a review of the link between the state pension age and the normal pension age in public sector schemes? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, expressed some assurances that had been made in the other place, which I hope will be put into effect when we get into the detail in this House.
The Local Government Pension Scheme is in many ways is a distinctive scheme, and I will want to pursue issues about its governance in Clauses 4 to 6. Again, some assurances have been given, and we will be testing in due course exactly what they will mean. One other technical area that could be important is scheme closure, which has the potential to trigger major changes in the local government scheme’s investment strategy. I hope that we can close down legal ambiguities in this area.
Some public sector workers will be paying more for their pensions and working longer before they are eligible to take them. For some individuals, that will be a bitter pill that will change their expectations of the future. However, I pay tribute to those in the talks who have softened some of the proposals by taking a diametrically opposite view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The pensions remain good, and we should continue to be proud of that. I hope they will provide an example to the private sector as they did in the early years of the 20th century about what its direction of travel should be.
I hope that the Government will take fresh note of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate and be ready to address them in Committee.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, as I will be speaking about the Local Government Pension Scheme, I wish to declare my interest as a vice president of the LGA and also a member of the scheme.
I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that he is going to have detailed conversations with the LGA about the Local Government Pension Scheme. As we have already heard, the LGPS is a funded scheme. Its members and employers pay contributions which are invested to meet the costs of paying benefits. The funded nature of the LGPS means that pension benefits are paid for by underlying investment funds and not general taxation. It is therefore unlike the rest of the public sector pension schemes, which are unfunded and paid out of tax receipts—that is, current workers’ contributions and taxes.
The LGPS is collectively the biggest pension fund in the UK and the fourth largest in the world. There are 89 funds in England and Wales holding some £145 billion in investments and assets, which is enough to pay benefits for over 20 years. The 89 LGPS funds in England and Wales are required under scheme regulations to undertake a valuation of the fund every three years setting the employer contribution rates for the following three years. This framework allows for local circumstances—for example, life expectancy—to be considered when determining the employers’ costs.
The scheme has a positive cash flow, with income from investments and contributions exceeding expenditure. Unlike other public sector pension schemes which work on a pay-as-you-go model, the LGPS has sufficient funds to cover benefits for over 20 years. Members contribute an average of 6.5% of pay to the scheme, with higher earners paying proportionately more—currently up to 7.5%—and there is also provision for the lowest-paid workers to pay a lower percentage of contributions, currently 5.5%.
Throughout the process of reforming the LGPS, the Local Government Association worked closely with the UNISON, GMB and Unite unions through the LGPS 2014 project board, leading to a scheme design which received overwhelming support from both employers and trade union membership. The Bill as drafted does not fully reflect this agreement and therefore, in my view, requires amendment. It does not reflect the unique nature of the scheme or the fact that the arrangements have been fully agreed by the unions and the Government.
The scheme regulation provisions contained in Clause 3 could see detrimental changes imposed on scheme members without agreement. This is not the case under current scheme regulations. If left unchanged, the Bill would undermine confidence in the scheme and provision for future benefits. The provision for retrospective changes, which could have a material detriment for scheme members, would be in stark contrast to provision in private sector pensions, which allows for consultation and agreement before introducing any such retrospective changes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, there are concerns that measures in Clauses 4 and 5 could impact on the transparency of the LGPS because there is no segregation between the scheme manager and the scheme board. For the LGPS, local boards are responsible for each of the individual 89 funds and are concerned with the effective and efficient administration of the scheme at local level. The scheme board would have concern for the scheme at national level, with a central focus to ensure efficient and effective overall management of the LGPS nationally. The scheme board and scheme manager being, in effect, the same committee would not promote good governance of the scheme and would not allow for effective separation of responsibilities at local and national level. Furthermore, the agreement reached between the unions, employers and the Government specified the need for a national board, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, in order to give it a national focus in line with the treatment of other public service pension schemes under the Bill.
There is a lack of clarity around the impact on fund valuations which are included in the Treasury’s scope within Clauses 10 and 12. This lack of clarity surrounds the apparent inclusion of both local fund valuations and the national notional model fund valuation within the control of Treasury regulations. Individual fund valuations are currently undertaken by fund actuaries under parameters set out in scheme regulations and assumptions agreed with the individual fund. It would be a marked change if such valuations were now to come completely under Treasury control. If the intention were to include only the notional model fund in the Treasury’s scope, the clauses would need to be amended to prevent future misunderstandings.
Clause 11 provides for the Treasury to set the scope, extent and methodology of cost management in the LGPS. It is difficult to see how the principles agreed in December 2011 for self-determination can sit easily with this clause. In contrast to the unfunded schemes, the agreement reached for the LGPS called for a separate cost management process and for the control of cost management issues to be the responsibility of the principal stakeholders of the LGPS. As a funded scheme, this is particularly important, given that funding of the LGPS is carried out independently of the Treasury.
In summary, although I acknowledge the need for the Bill to cover the LGPS, I remain concerned that it does not fully reflect and cater for the unique funded nature of the scheme or the agreement reached by the LGA and unions for the LGPS from 2014. That agreement received overwhelming support from employers and members alike, and the concern is that the progress made following agreement with the Government would be at risk should the Public Service Pensions Bill not fully reflect the unique nature of the LGPS among other public sector schemes.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I should declare an interest as I am in receipt of two public sector pensions—one from my university career and the second from ACAS. I have been involved in public service pensions since the early 1970s and I helped to establish a final salary pension scheme for non-teaching and support staff at the University of London in the mid-1970s. Many of the schemes established before that were administered by insurance companies, which charged significant administration fees and allowed the staff no voice. I mention this because I have direct experience of the world before a decent occupational pension was established. There was no consultation with staff and no transparency, and the insurance companies exercised powers that would make Henry VIII look like a wimp. Therefore, I do not want to go back to that world.
I should also say that I was president of NALGO in 1989. This was a lay member position. NALGO was one of the forerunners of the union UNISON, and I am grateful to it for briefing me on this subject.
Framework agreements were reached with most of the unions involved in the negotiations last year. The main objective is to make sure that some of the fundamentals are adhered to in this Bill—that Treasury powers should not undermine scheme arrangements or introduce retrospection. The trust of public sector workers, which has been shattered by having to negotiate two major changes in a very short space of time, should now be rebuilt. The Bill should not cut across negotiations which are taking place in the health service and fire service on normal pension age, and the unique features of the Local Government Pension Scheme should be recognised. I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, in what she said on that. Ministers have given certain assurances which are not reflected in the Bill, and I will be seeking to table amendments, if necessary, to try to make sure that those assurances become a reality.
The Bill is based on negotiations in England and Wales, and has not been subject to the same level of negotiation in Scotland. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to this and hoped that the Scots would come along, but my emphasis would be that the Scots should be given full consultation rights and that the Bill should be amended to maintain the powers of the Scottish Parliament to design and regulate the public service pension schemes that are devolved to Scotland. The Bill prescribes the design of Scottish schemes in a way that current UK primary legislation does not.
As has already been referred to, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, incorporated an assurance that:
“The Government intend to include provisions on the face of the … Bill to ensure that a high bar is set for future Governments to change the design of the schemes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/11; col. 1203.]
The wording of the Bill erects a much lower hurdle for scheme design changes than currently exists by introducing wide-ranging new Treasury powers, repealing relevant sections of the Superannuation Act 1972 and replacing them with limited consultation rights.
On retrospection changes, which have already been referred to, the Government indicated at the Report stage in the Commons that they do not have a closed mind on this issue, and that is welcome. Clause 3(3)(c) provides for enabling provisions which would allow scheme regulations to make retrospective changes. Although I do not object to that in principle, it is essential that regulations that have the effect of reducing accrued rights to pension benefits cannot be made unless the scheme members or their representatives agree to that change. The absence of such wording could undermine the commitment given by government that accrued rights up to the date the schemes are changed will not be reduced. This would ensure that workers in public service pension schemes enjoyed the same protection in relation to their accrued pension rights as exist for workers in the private sector under pensions law.
On the subject of retrospection, the Bill currently allows for pension revaluation rates to be negative, meaning that someone’s accrued pension earned to date can be negatively revalued if inflation is negative. This was not mentioned in the scheme negotiations and is a change from current practice whereby scheme revaluations can never be less than zero. This would have been a deal breaker in the local government scheme and Civil Service schemes where a revaluation of CPI alone has been agreed. No other pension funds outside those provided for in this Bill have the potential for negative revaluation and I hope the Government will be prepared to accept an amendment to ensure that a revaluation will never be less than zero.
On consultation and scrutiny, members should receive the same level of protection accorded to scheme members as that provided under the Superannuation Act 1972. It is essential to the spirit of the agreement that any future changes to the scheme design that are likely to have an adverse effect on members’ benefits are subject to meaningful consultation and at least require the affirmative procedure rather than the negative. There are a number of issues on governance which need to be clarified in the Bill and on these matters I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. There should be a clear separation of powers between scheme managers and scheme boards to avoid conflict of interest, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. There should be national and local boards for the Local Government Pension Scheme to ensure effective separation of responsibilities. Although there was a small amendment in Committee in the other place, it identifies only the structure of the local boards within the Local Government Pension Scheme and not the relationship between them and the national board. Once established, national boards must have explicit powers to make real recommendations to scheme managers, as they do now, otherwise they have little purpose. The Bill should clarify the advisory nature of such boards. Although I accept there was no agreement in negotiation about the number of member representatives on scheme boards, nevertheless the Bill should require explicitly that boards must include member representatives among their number.
I hope the Minister will give an assurance that all the schemes will comply fully with the European legislation—namely, the institutions for occupational retirement provision. The Bill sets the local authority as a scheme manager but does not say how that board is to be constituted. The current Local Government Pension Scheme is not compliant with Articles 8 and 18 of the European directive. Article 8 requires the legal separation of fund institution from any sponsoring employer. Article 18 requires pension funds to invest in accordance with the “prudent person” rule. That is, investments should be made in the sole interest of members and beneficiaries. Will the Minister agree to add sub clauses on compliance with Articles 8 and 18 of the EU directive and ensure that one of the pension board’s functions is to ensure such compliance?
The power currently in Clause 7 of the Bill, to replace defined benefit schemes, will undermine confidence in the negotiated agreement and we will have to come back to that in Committee. We will also have to return then to the issue of normal retirement age. The current wording of the Bill restricts the work currently being undertaken by the NHS Working Longer Review Group to make evidence-based recommendations. There is also no mention in the Bill to there being regular review of the link between state pension age and normal pension age, which was a specific recommendation of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. At the very least, ambulance service staff should be included in any exemptions.
In Clause 10 on scheme valuations, it should be made clear that Treasury directions should be subject not just to consultation but to the agreement of the Government Actuary. Also, the Treasury should be required to consult and to take into account the opinions of the existing scheme governance structures before making a direction. To do otherwise would undermine the role of scheme-specific governance structures.
Clause 11, as it stands, gives the Treasury discretion over how the cost cap is set. The negotiated agreement in local government ensures that control of cost management issues are the responsibility of the principal stakeholders of the scheme and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, this should be made clear in the Bill. The issue of Fair Deal has already been mentioned by other speakers and I simply wish to endorse this.
There is much to be done. If the trust of public service workers is to be rebuilt, it is vital that the Government keep faith with the negotiated agreements by reflecting them in the Bill.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. I have worked in the pension investment management industry going back almost 40 years and, as a result, have been significantly involved in the pension sector. I want to talk about the 85% of public sector employees in schemes that are not funded, rather than the remaining 15% referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, who are largely local government employees.
This Bill is not just about pensions; it is about sorting out the public finances and, we must admit, fairness in society. I remember that many years ago I asked my economics master why people in the public sector were paid approximately 10% less, level by level, than those in the private sector. He replied that they generally had better pension provision and better security of employment. There was therefore an overall fairness to the situation. It should be noted that today pay level, layer by layer, is now some 10% higher in the public sector than in the private sector and there is a question mark as to why there should also be considerably better pension provisioning.
The problem for decades has been that contributions have been set well below the subsequent financial cost of meeting the pension payments to today’s retired workers. Pay as you go masks the true cost of labour and pushes the problem into the future. The legacy of successive Governments’ inability to implement the necessary reforms is now increasingly manifesting itself as a rising tax burden on the majority of people working in the private sector whose pension provision, as others have pointed out, has been severely ravaged and reduced not just under the Labour Government but currently under the coalition Government also. Following the reforms, most employee contributions will still be less than 10% of incomes. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made this point himself on 2 November 2011, in his Statement to the House of Commons, when describing the pensions that a teacher or a nurse could expect. He said:
“To earn the equivalent pension in the private sector… Both would require an annual contribution of around a third of salary”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/11; col. 928.]
Focusing on the liability is, in a sense, a red herring; it is a nebulous concept too remote from individuals’ day-to-day experience. Consequently it does not impose any meaningful political pressure. What matters is cash flow, cash cost. Today there is a rapidly growing and highly visible cash flow shortfall between contributions and pensions in payment which is immediately unambiguous. A prerequisite of pay as you go is that over time what comes in broadly covers what goes out. It is this that should provide the political pressure point which needs addressing and where the reforms in the Bill do not address this problem.
The cash flow in 2005-06 was an innocuous £200 million; it has grown rapidly since. It was £3.2 billion in 2008-09; it is forecast to rise to £14.3 billion in 2015-16 and £15.4 billion in 2016-17. If you take the actual cash flow shortfall in this last period and add the contributions being made by employers into employees’ pension schemes, the total being paid by the tax payer amounts to £32.6 billion, representing the equivalent of £1,230 for every household in the country. That means that nearly £4 out of every £5 paid in pensions to former public sector employees comes from taxpayers. Particularly surprising is the increase in the forecast shortfall between the two OBR reports, because the 2012 report includes the proposed cost-saving reforms. It might have been expected that the forecast shortfall would start reducing after 2014, when the reforms are due to be implemented, but, unfortunately, the opposite is expected to happen.
We all know the various causes of the shortfall: improving longevity, with the latest analysis indicating that people will live some six years longer than expected; a growing headcount imbalance, with fewer workers per pensioner and schemes maturing—PAYG works only if scheme membership continues to grow; and now the reality of Madoff economics in our public sector pension arrangements. The wage freeze in the public sector limiting contributions has also had an impact, while pensions in payment remain indexed to CPI. The coalition's last-minute concession to the unions to ensure that all those within 10 years of retirement will suffer no detriment to their retirement income means that at a stroke this concession vaporised the prospect for at least the next decade of exerting any significant control on the widening cash-flow shortfall. Finally, the inclusion of the Royal Mail pension scheme between the last two Budget reports added, from 2012 to 2013, some £1.5 billion per year to the forecast shortfall.
The reforms increase employee contribution rates by an average of 3.2% of income and are expected to raise an additional £1.2 billion in 2012-13, rising to £2.9 billion in 2016-17. This additional income is included in the 2012 Budget report but, alas, is dwarfed by the scale of the relentless increase in pensions in payment. Staring at one is the point that, if public sector pensions are to remain defined benefit pensions, there is an onus on employees to pay adequately for that arrangement, particularly given what has happened in the private sector.
Defenders of the status quo point out that with a pay-as-you-go framework, contributions are intended to correspond to the economic cost of employees' accruals and not to meet concurrent pensions in payment. That may be so but, in the mean time, public sector workers will continue to enjoy certainty of income in retirement, based on career-average wages, until the day they die, mostly paid for by 80% of the workforce in the private sector, almost none of whom will have such security. Furthermore, over the next few years, it will be become impossible to ignore the alarm bell that is the burgeoning cash-flow shortfall between contributions and pensions in payment. If we are to leave the system in place, I believe that one way or the other the finances will need to operate so that the cash-flow shortfall is minimal.
The coalition Government have justified their reforms on the grounds that they achieve a 40% reduction in the total liability, going down from 2.2% to 1.3% of GDP by 2061-62. This 40% reduction is significant but it is half a century away, which is far too late to address public opinion in the next few years and, as others have pointed out, we have no idea what GDP will be 50 years hence. We are already falling well behind the assumed GDP growth rate and early deviations compound. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, has made the point:
“What we've seen is how very quickly the assumptions which underpinned my assessments of the long-term sustainability of public service pensions have been shown to be too optimistic. That is going to affect the sustainability of public sector pensions in a negative way”.
It is time to consider a solution that will be lasting, affordable and fair. The coalition might start to prepare the public sector for a risk-sharing arrangement, such as an unfunded cash balance scheme, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, argued, for looking at a wholly DC framework. Personally, I think the latter is almost too difficult, largely because of the issue of paying twice. If the unfunded pay-as-you-go DC schemes are to stay in place, it is not fair that they will end up costing ordinary taxpayers more and more.
Finally, the Government might look at what has happened in Ireland, admittedly faced with acute economic problems, but this is a difficult world. It is a world where our public finances are unsustainable, if they continue with present deficits, a world where increasingly across the nation people expect the solution to problems to be seen as fair between one group of citizens and another.
Lord Hutton of Furness
My Lords, it is always a great privilege to speak in your Lordships’ House. I think we all feel that privilege and responsibility very acutely if we also feel a sense of parental responsibility towards the legislation. I confess that I feel some parental responsibility for this Bill.
A little context might not go amiss. We should all remind ourselves how significant a part public service pensions play in our savings culture in the United Kingdom. Today, it has been estimated that about 12 million people have a direct stake in a public service pension scheme. That is one in five of the total UK population. They are hugely significant. About 85% of those who are employed directly in the public service contribute to one of those pension schemes. In other words, they are doing exactly what successive Governments, we in this House and those in another place have urged employees to do for a very long time, which is to do the right thing, to act responsibly and to prepare for the time when they may no longer be economically active. They are making a sacrifice now to enjoy the rewards when they retire.
All of those things are really good and we should try to hold on to them in this debate. Most people in the public sector are saving for their retirement. As many noble Lords who have spoken in the debate so far have confirmed, that is not the case in the private sector today. The contrast with the private sector is pretty stark. Probably only about one-third of the private sector workforce participates in an employer-sponsored scheme of any kind and those numbers are going down—they are not increasing. That is a huge problem and even with that context, many in the private sector who are contributing are not saving enough.
Successive Governments have been trying to address this formidable challenge and my noble friend Lord Turner has done sterling work for the country in proposing the reforms he did a few years ago. I hope that we are now beginning to head very much in the right direction. Given the importance of public service pension schemes, in this House we should try to do all that we can to ensure their long-term sustainability. We also need to ensure their adequacy. We face a huge demographic challenge. I do not think that the price that we should pay as a society for becoming older is that more and more old people retire in poverty. We face that risk right now and I do not think that we should compound it by ill-thought-through reforms to public service pensions.
I hope it is clear to your Lordships' House that the Bill will help us to achieve those important public policy goals. I welcome the new legislative framework that this measure will introduce. I hope it will provide the necessary underpinning to secure the long-term future for public service pensions, which is a very important objective. As we all know, no legislation is perfect; we have not yet devised that sort of procedure. I say to the Minister, for whom I have very high personal regard, that the Bill is certainly not a flawless piece of drafting. Many who have spoken in this debate have highlighted those areas where there is scope for improving the Bill in its later stages in your Lordships’ House.
However, today we are debating the principles of the Bill, and these I can strongly support. So far, no one has mentioned what these principles might be, so perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a few important points that I think need to be made. I see these principles as, first, trying to find the right way to respond to the challenge of demographic change in a fair way, so that we strike a better balance between what employees pay and what taxpayers pay for these schemes. Secondly—this is a hugely important advance in the Bill—we need to ensure that the schemes themselves are fair to those saving within them; and that is absolutely not the case in the vast majority of public service pension schemes at the moment. Only the new Civil Service scheme is a career average scheme; the final salary schemes that make up the rest of the public service pension schemes are essentially unfair to the people we should be most concerned about—those in the public sector who earn the least. It is those people who earn the least in a final salary pension scheme who subsidise the pensions of those who earn the most. That is profoundly unfair, and this Bill will remove that unfairness from the public service schemes.
The Bill will also ensure that pension schemes are better governed in the future than they are now. This is not just a bit of process that we tend to get fixated by; it is a very important principle. Through better governance, there is a prospect that these schemes can command the confidence of both employees and employers alike.
Successive Governments have recognised the need for reform in this area if these pension schemes are to be sustained and supported for the long term. Costs have been rising dramatically in recent years, and it was clear in my report that that was set to continue for some time to come. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, referred to these increased costs in their contributions. It is true that the increase in these costs has been borne largely by taxpayers, not scheme members, and I took a very strong view in my report that that was an unsustainable benchmark for the future.
However, it is very difficult to think about short-term measures that we can take to reduce the inevitable rise in costs, because that rise is driven by a number of factors. It is driven largely by scheme members’ accrued rights and by the increasing number of people retiring from these schemes. Unless we are prepared either to reduce those rights or to further increase contributions to those schemes, this is a cost that we will have to manage as best we can. After the 3% increase in contributions that the Government have required scheme members to make, I doubt that there is a way of controlling these costs through further contribution increases unless we are going to drive hundreds of thousands of people out of these schemes altogether. That would represent not an advantage to the taxpayer but very much a loss.
The previous Government introduced higher pension ages for new entrants and cap-and-share arrangements to try to share risk more equitably between taxpayers and employees. I welcome all of those reforms. They were necessary and the right thing to do. However, in my two reports of 2010 and 2011, I set out in some detail why I thought that these important reforms had not gone far enough. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I do not intend to rehearse these arguments in any detail today. It was quite clear from the debate after the publication of my report that not everyone shared my analysis. That is a feature of our democracy and I have no problem with that. However, I did try to set out the facts as I saw them and to try to draw the right conclusions from them. For me, they pointed very strongly to the need for further reform.
I am glad that we have found a way to sustain defined benefits schemes into the foreseeable future—I regard that as a very big gain—and I am delighted that the Government did not take a slash-and-burn approach to solving this problem. That would have served only to impoverish future generations and would almost certainly have led to higher welfare costs. That would have been entirely the wrong thing to do. It would have undermined the personal responsibility that we have to encourage in the UK among all those in the workforce, whether in the private or public sector, to save for their retirement. I am glad that that is not the Government’s intention.
It was very clear from this debate and from other debates that people are beginning to recognise that public service pensions are far from being the gold-plated employee benefit that some people have claimed. I hope that today we can dispense with that myth. On the whole, public service pensions provide, on average, fairly modest retirement incomes. However, without reform there would be a danger of these costs eventually spiralling out of control. That would put at risk what I think is really important in this debate, which is the necessary public support to sustain these pensions over the long term. So again, I think that the Government have very much taken the right path in bringing this Bill forward.
That is all well and good. The principles are sound and robust and will withstand criticism from inside and outside the House. However, it is probably necessary, too, to refer to where I think the Bill needs further work. It is not a simple piece of legislation. There are a number of areas where I hope it can be improved during its progress through your Lordships’ House. One thing on which I reached a very firm view during the course of my commission, and particularly afterwards in the public debate that ensued, is that if we have any prospect of building support for pension reform, and if it is to command a strong consensus, it absolutely must be built on a solid foundation of trust and confidence in the nature of the changes and, equally, in the way that those changes will be implemented and delivered. I accept that this is what Ministers have sought to do in the clauses of the Bill, but it is here that I have the greatest concerns over the current drafting.
I have three concerns that I want to raise this afternoon. I have already stressed the importance of good governance and how central that is to building confidence and support for these schemes going forward. I welcome the establishment of the new pension boards. That was the instrumental part of my filed set of recommendations and it is absolutely the right thing to do. I am convinced, in particular, of the need for employee representation on these boards. This is not spelt out on the face of the Bill but it needs to be. We should remind ourselves that in private sector schemes there is a legal requirement for a third of the trustees to be employee nominations, and there is a very strong case for something similar for the pension boards that the Bill will set up. This is not a bit of window dressing; it is absolutely fundamental to good governance and the building of strong support for these schemes. Again, I have reason to believe that this is very much what the Government are thinking about, and I hope that somehow they can convert their intentions into the Bill, because that will do the Bill a lot of good and give it a strong tail wind. I think that would be important.
Many in this debate have raised the position of accrued rights and how they are to be protected. That was absolutely part of my recommendations. In my report I recommended that the Bill should contain a definition of what these rights are. We tend to assume that we know what they are. They are not spelt out anywhere in the Bill. We do not have a definition for the purpose of the public sector pension schemes of what an accrued right is. We all probably think we know that, but I think that if we were all asked what it was, we would all come up with a completely different set of understandings. For those in private sector defined benefit schemes, there is a statutory definition of these accrued rights in the 1995 legislation, and there would be some benefit if the Bill were to take a similar path.
The issue of how accrued rights are to be protected is important, too. We will not build confidence and long-term sustainability in these schemes if there is any sense that what you have paid for can somehow be taken away from you. That, I am afraid, is a possible interpretation that could be placed on Clause 3. So I do not believe that the Bill in its present form is quite good enough. The danger of retrospective changes to accrued rights would strike very much at the heart and soul of building support for the savings culture, and we should not allow that to pass unchecked.
Lord Flight
If the noble Lord thinks that the growing cash-flow deficit cannot be solved by increasing contributions and should not be solved by changing benefits, how is he going to solve it?
Lord Hutton
One of the great things about no longer being in government is that I can point to the government Front Bench—to people who can answer that question. I do not want to put words into the Minister’s mouth or the Government’s mouth, but they have set out their stall as to how they can manage and contain these costs. There is going to be an increase in costs—there is no doubt about that—but through higher contributions and changes to the indexation rules for public sector schemes, they have set out their strategy for managing that pressure on public spending. That is the Government’s concern. I think the noble Lord has more of a concern with his own Front Bench in this regard than with anything that I have proposed.
However, I accept that it is a big challenge. These are difficult things to wrestle with. To be fair to the Government, they have set their sights on ensuring an adequate level of pension benefits from these schemes and I support that principle. I do not think that there is an answer to the demographic challenge we face in simply stripping away further benefit entitlement from retirees in the public sector. The combined effect of both the changes that the Government, whom I was proud to serve, and now the changes that this Government have made has been to reduce the value of these pensions by about 25%. That is a substantial change. If we were to go very much further we would undermine the principle point and purpose of those pensions, which is to give people adequate income when they retire.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to a lack of public support for these schemes but I wonder whether that is so. I have never found anyone in the country who begrudged a soldier, sailor or airman a proper defined benefit pension. I never met anyone who did not think that police, firefighters and others did not deserve one. There is one job that is probably more important than anything else in our society. We entrust those who teach our children with a very great deal of responsibility and I for one do not begrudge teachers a defined benefit pension.
In relation to retrospectivity, the Government have a serious problem. We have to be mindful if there are to be DB schemes in the public sector. We know that there are fewer in the private sector, but those 2.6 million people in the private sector who still have access to a defined benefit scheme know for certain, because of the current law, that their accrued rights cannot be changed unless they give their consent to that change. The same rules should apply in the public sector. I do not believe that we can have a different set of rules in relation to accrued rights for people in public sector schemes.
Many people have spoken in this debate—this is my final concern—about how this Bill affects the Local Government Pension Scheme. It is fundamentally different in its characteristics because it is not just about contributions for employers and employees; it is about assets and the investment income that is produced. My concern about the Bill and Clause 16 in particular, with its reference to closure, is that it implies some sort of segregation between the Local Government Pension Scheme as it now is and as it will be post-2014. That could run the risk of a whole set of additional costs and complexities creeping in and we should try to avoid that.
Again, I know from studying proceedings in the other place that Ministers have made it clear that that is not their intention. As a good rule of thumb, if it is not the Government's intention, they should have that on the face of the Bill, because once this Bill reaches Royal Assent, which it will, how are pension advisers to reconcile the difference between what the Bill says and what a Minister may or may not have said in Committee in this House or the other place? That is a difficult set of challenges. If the purpose of this Bill fundamentally is to create a simpler, straightforward legal framework, we will have absolutely failed if we end up with a contradiction between what the Bill says and what ministerial intentions are.
That is all I want to say about the Bill. I am looking forward to working with the Minister and colleagues on both sides of the House in improving its detailed clauses as we make further progress with it.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief because I have been obliged to speak twice in this debate and I am quite aware of the tolerance of the House in that respect.
I have drawn sustenance from the debate in so far as it has been quite clear on all sides of the House that the basic principles of the Bill command assent and support. We certainly want to see effective legislation enacted but we have clear areas of anxiety. They have been reflected in several of the speeches made during the course of the debate. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for emphasising aspects with regard to governance. It is certainly an area that we need to look at quite carefully and there is no doubt that the Minister will be under considerable pressure to improve on the model that obtains within the Bill at present.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, have certain fundamental positions with regard to public sector pensions and the gold-plated nature and indulgence of the public sector in terms of provision these days. I think my noble friend Lord Hutton in his remarks indicated that in fact the average public sector pension is quite a minimal amount. It is not the case that we should point out to the private sector that there are enormous advantages in being in the public sector. There are not enormous advantages. One of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, emphasised was security. Where is the security when the Government are involved in several hundred thousand jobs being lost at the present time? Where is the security when in quite an arbitrary way the Government have indicated that the costs of pension contributions must increase? We all know the reasons for that, but that is not to deny the degree of reduction in resources that apply to those people, who are often on quite modest salaries in the public sector.
I was also grateful to my noble friends Lord Monks and Lady Donaghy for identifying crucial areas in the Bill about which there is real anxiety among those who know the representations that have been identified by trade union negotiators. We must take these points very seriously. I am sure that the Minister will do so. Of course they identify particular areas on which the Bill at present does not command a great deal of assent across the country, which is essential. I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Donaghy for emphasising the issue with regard to the Local Government Pension Scheme in Scotland.
As was pointed out, in the past all arrangements were on the basis of full consultation and participation. There is an arbitrary quality about the way in which this is expressed in the Bill, which the Minister has an obligation to respond to.
Most of all, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hutton for participating in this debate. He has proposed a report that has given us the basis on which to consider very seriously what we all recognise is a fundamental issue with regard to public finances and public provision. We are as one with the Minister in wishing to see aspects and principles of the Bill achieved, but my noble friend identified crucial areas in which the Bill falls far short of what is necessary to win the confidence of the nation, and it is on that basis that the legislation will become effective.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today. It is a great pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, twice. It must take him back to his time as a Minister. No doubt he is sorry that he will not be speaking twice more often in the coming months.
At the outset, I must say that while I will try to deal with as many points as I can, I almost certainly cannot deal with them all. We will have ample time in Committee to look at them all. I also declare an interest. Although it is more than 30 years since I resigned as a civil servant, if I live long enough, I will be in receipt of some pension for my time there, although I do not think that anything that the Bill does will have an impact on that. That is a good segue into talking about retrospective powers, about which much concern has been expressed.
There is a lot of suspicion about this that is misconceived. Pensions legislation has historically contained such powers, which have been seen to be necessary for the lawful and efficient operation of the scheme. They are generally used for minor and technical changes, for rectifying errors and making changes for the benefit of members. The intent of the Bill is simply to allow for these minor changes. There is no sinister intent.
There is concern about the broadness of existing powers in the Bill. I should perhaps explain that at the moment there is no set standard of protection offered across the current schemes. That is why we have not carried across the protections in retrospectivity that can be seen in the previous legislation, such as the Superannuation Act 1972. We have also been clear that taking forward the most extreme of these—member consent locks—for any retrospective changes is not the way forward and it would not be right to do that.
However, we understand that there is a considerable strength of feeling on this issue reflected not just in today’s debate but also by the Delegated Powers Committee. We will therefore further consider the provisions of the Bill to make sure we are striking the right balance between the protection of members and the efficiency of the scheme. I hope that gives some reassurance to noble Lords.
The noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, asked about the local government pension fund and the possible crystallisation of liabilities if the fund is closed. We believe these concerns are unfounded. We set out in detail in another place why Clause 16 does not have that effect. It only prevents members of the local government schemes accruing further service under current terms unless transitional protections apply. The existing funds will continue in respect of service prior to and following the reform of these schemes and the crystallisation of liabilities does not arise. I hope we are able to reassure people fully on this in Committee.
There has been an exchange of letters between the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and Chris Leslie. The letters were copied to Sir Merrick Cockell at the LGA. Subsequent correspondence with Sir Merrick should really put the matter to rest. I think it may be of benefit to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate if I circulate that correspondence. It is technical but pretty conclusive.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked why the Bill contained reference to defined contribution schemes when the Government do not intend them to replace defined benefits schemes. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, there is already a defined contribution scheme—the partnership scheme—operating within the Civil Service. It is a small scheme with only a few thousand members but it needs to be covered. Secondly, although the Government have absolutely no intention to change the basis of the schemes, it makes sense for a piece of legislation, which we hope has a long life itself, to allow flexibility in the future if there are unforeseen changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, was concerned about limited parliamentary scrutiny on the Treasury powers. I agree that, as a general principle, a negative resolution instrument does not give you much scope for scrutiny. However, they are not like normal statutory instruments as there will have been a very considerable degree of formal negotiation outside Parliament. I think it is fair to say that Parliament has never seen its role as being to decide on the detailed components of pension schemes. In that respect we will simply continue on the same basis that we have up to now.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, asked about the Scottish Government’s consultation. The overall principles in the Bill are very much based on those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, and his recommendations were, I think, accepted by the Scottish Government. They accept the generality of our proposals; in terms of more detailed consideration, the Chief Secretary has written to Scottish Ministers inviting them to propose amendments if they feel the provisions of the Bill are not suitable for the Scottish pension scheme. So far, no such amendments have been proposed. Any regulations made by Scottish Ministers will be subject to the procedures in the Scottish Parliament,
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about MoD firefighters. MoD firefighters are in the Civil Service Pension Scheme at the moment. They will have their pension age linked to the state pension age to ensure consistency within the scheme. The Bill does not move any groups from their current schemes. Indeed, these MoD firefighters have always had different terms and conditions from other firefighters. This already includes a pension age of 65 for new joiners as a result of changes implemented by the previous Administration.
I turn now to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight. They both drew very heavily on Michael Johnson’s paper for the CPS which looked at the cash flow implications of the proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, dealt extremely eloquently with the question of whether the Civil Service and public sector pension schemes should now, because of their cost, be moved to a newer lower level. I do not want to reiterate his points other than to say in as clear terms as I can that the Government have set their face against defined contribution schemes and are proposing a reformed version of defined benefits schemes.
It is obvious, and nobody disputes it, that the Government are topping up member contributions to fund pensions. This is extremely expensive but it is not surprising. Longevity is increasing and in recent years the size of the public sector has shrunk. I suspect this is a development that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, probably support. However, one of the consequences is that the inflow of member contributions has fallen as numbers have fallen. We have taken steps to remedy this by rebalancing contributions—saving nearly £3 billion a year by 2014—and as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, pointed out, the total reform package is projected to save £430 billion. It may be over the next 50 years but it is a very significant sum. The employer cost cap means that we cannot have a runaway cost here without formal legal requirements to deal with it through reformed contribution levels or lower benefits.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, felt that the transitional provisions were too generous. There are going to be transitional provisions of some sort. We have taken the view that they are a balanced package. Although people within that transitional phase will get the same pension that they would otherwise have got, they will be paying more for it. They are not completely unaffected.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made a number of points including retrospection, which I have covered. He asked about the local government pension scheme and, in particular, whether it was in compliance with the relevant IORP directive. The Government believe it is fully compliant with Articles 8 and 18 of this directive. We believe this compliance is achieved by the high standard of legal security that applies to LGPS funds and benefits. LGPS benefits are guaranteed by statute, not the existence or levels of any funds. There is no risk to members and no means by which local government employers can access pension funds or entitlements. I suspect that that is one of the many aspects of the local government scheme that we will want to clarify in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Monks, brought his considerable experience to bear in his contribution. I join him in congratulating Brendan Barber on the role which he played in this scheme. Those negotiations, which led to agreement in principle along much of the framework, were crucial in getting us to where we are today. I join the noble Lord, Lord Monks, in wishing Brendan Barber well for his retirement.
The noble Lord asked specifically asked about Fair Deal, as did other noble Lords. Perhaps I may deal with it because it is very important. The Government are committed to reforming the Fair Deal policy and formally announced their intentions for newly transferred staff back in July. We agreed to maintain the overall approach to Fair Deal but to deliver it by offering access to public service pension schemes for newly transferred staff, which will ensure that those transferred staff will continue to have access to good-quality pensions while helping to remove the barriers to plurality of public service provision. We recently published a formal response to the Fair Deal consultation, with further consultation questions and draft guidance. In the light of the details that emerged from the original consultation, it is appropriate to do some further policy work on contracts retendered under Fair Deal that were let under previous Fair Deal arrangements. We are currently considering how the new Fair Deal should be implemented. A start date for the arrangements will be announced in due course.
Fair Deal has always been a non-statutory policy. The new requirements will be reflected in contracts before public services are tendered, and I see no prospect of this Government moving away from their commitment to providing newly transferred staff access to public service pension schemes. However, it is important that we consider fully the views of stakeholders, including those who will be affected, through further consultation before making a final decision on the issue. It would be inappropriate to include Fair Deal in the Bill until all the policy detail is worked through.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, gave us the benefit of her very considerable experience on local government issues. I do not intend to deal in detail with her points now other than to say that I hope to talk to the LGA before we reach Committee and that we will look very carefully then at all the points that she raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised a number of important points. We have one thing in common if nothing else. The noble Baroness is a former president of NALGO. As a boy, I benefited from NALGO because my father was an active member in the Yorkshire Electricity Board branch and we used to take our family holidays at NALGO conferences. I have particularly fond memories of one in Brighton where I got as a present—because he had been given it—a particularly gaudy, purple Biro, which, as a seven year-old or whatever I was, I treasured very greatly.
The noble Baroness slightly overdid it when she said that trust had been shattered as a result of these negotiations and what we are putting forward. As we have heard in the debate, there is not absolute unanimity that everything that we are doing is the best. There are many people who wish that we were being a lot less generous. We think that we are striking the right balance. The noble Baroness asked whether the bar was high enough. Again, it is a question of balance. It is quite tricky to set a very high bar because no Government can bind their successor. We are trying to make it more difficult to make changes. It is quite important to get agreement, as I believe there is, between the parties that there should be no thought at present other than that this should be a persisting scheme and that it should last for at least 25 years. Politicians come and go, but all we can do is make our position as clear as we can and do what we can in the legislation.
The noble Baroness asked whether the Government Actuary should have a more decisive, rather than advisory, role. I am advised that the Government Actuary believes that his role is advisory—that is the nature of the job—and does not want to have in essence a quasi-policy or an actual policy role because that would bring him into the area of public debate, which he believes would be inappropriate.
The noble Baroness asked about the Bill providing for the Treasury to direct how local authority pension fund valuations are to be undertaken. Clause 10 provides for the Treasury to specify how scheme-level valuations are undertaken. This is quite distinct from the valuation of local authority pension funds, which are provided for under Clause 12 instead. Local authority pension fund valuations continue to be a matter for the scheme actuaries. Treasury directions will not apply to those valuations.
The noble Baroness pointed out how under Clause 5 there appeared to be no separation of the scheme manager from the pension board. The clause allows for scheme regulations in the LGPS to establish pension boards that are entirely separate from any existing local government committees. It also provides for them to be combined if that is what is wanted. This is a matter for scheme-level discussions. We are committed to establishing a national board in the LGPS in England and Wales and will consider what is needed in the Bill to deliver that.
Until the last minute or two of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, I thought that my only comment was going to be, “I agree with Lord Hutton”. I think that I nearly agree with him in his concerns about employee representation, accrued rights and the LGPS at Clause 16. We will come back to him. It is not in the nature of Ministers, far less Treasury Ministers, to give Christmas presents, so I shall not do that at this point, but we will come back to those points, I hope in a positive and generous spirit, in the new year.
This is, as everybody agrees, an important and much needed Bill which will put public service pensions back on a sustainable and affordable footing. Although the Bill itself does not directly implement the reformed pension schemes’ designs, it provides a sensible framework for their creation. The Bill’s measures on cost control and monitoring, and those to improve standards of governance and administration, go further than previous legislation on public service pensions. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived: EUC Report
Lord Boswell of Aynho
To resolve that this House considers that the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (COM(2012)617, Council Document 15865/12) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the 6th Report of the European Union Committee (HL Paper 87); and, in accordance with article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the Parliaments to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European institutions. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.
Afghanistan
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am repeating a Statement made in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on Afghanistan. Let me once again pay tribute to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan. Theirs is a difficult and dangerous job; they operate in the most demanding of environments, displaying courage and heroism on a daily basis.
Since operations began in 2001, 438 members of our Armed Forces have made the ultimate sacrifice, 11 since my right honourable friend the International Development Secretary made the last quarterly Statement on Afghanistan on 13 September. In the face of such sacrifice, we should be in no doubt about why we are operating in Afghanistan. It is for one overriding reason: to protect our national security. Atrocities on the scale of September 11 2001 must never be allowed to happen again.
We seek an Afghanistan able to manage its own security effectively and prevent its territory from being used as a safe haven by international terrorists to plan and launch attacks against the United Kingdom and our allies. This is an objective shared by our coalition partners in the ISAF and by the Afghan Government.
We in NATO fully support the ambition of the Afghan Government to have full security responsibility across Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Our strategies are firmly aligned. The phased process of transition of security responsibility, agreed at the Lisbon summit, is well advanced and on track.
In accordance with ISAF planning, by the end of 2013 we expect that UK forces will no longer need to routinely mentor the Afghan national army (ANA) below brigade level. This is a move up from our current battalion-level mentoring. It is a reflection of rapidly improving Afghan capacity and capability, and in line with the Chicago milestone.
As the Prime Minister recently announced, a progressive move to brigade-level mentoring will also allow us to make further reductions to our force levels from the 9,000 we will have at the end of this year. Our current planning envisages a reduction to around 5,200 by the end of next year. This number is based on current UK military advice and is in line with the NATO strategy agreed at Lisbon and the emerging ISAF planning. It also reflects the real progress being made in Helmand. We will keep this number under review as the ISAF plan firms up and other allies make draw-down decisions in the new year. Let me be clear; this reduction is possible because of the success of the Afghan national security forces in assuming a lead role.
Across many parts of Afghanistan, security is already delivered by the Afghan national security forces. Today the ANSF have lead security responsibility in areas that are home to three-quarters of the population, including each of the 34 provincial capitals and all three districts that make up the UK’s area of operations. Across Afghanistan, the ANSF now lead over 80% of conventional operations and carry out 90% of their training. They set their own priorities, lead their own planning, and conduct and sustain their own operations. By the middle of next year—marking a moment of huge significance for the Afghan people—we expect the ANSF to have lead security responsibility for the whole country.
This national picture is replicated in Helmand. The ANSF are now firmly in charge in the populated areas of central Helmand, with increasing ability and confidence to operate independently. As the ANA’s confidence in its own ability grows, it is showing an appetite to conduct Afghan intelligence-led raids and we are focusing our advisory effort accordingly.
The focus of our assistance to the ANSF is increasingly switching from company-level activities to mentoring at battalion level. Kandaks from the ANA’s 3/215 Brigade in Nad-e Ali and Nahr-e Saraj have already moved on to the new model, working alongside the UK-led Brigade Advisory Group, and further Kandak advisory teams will be in place shortly. The reaction of the leaders and commanders at all levels in 3/215 Brigade has been one of pride based on self-confidence. This phased transition has allowed the UK-led Task Force Helmand to reduce its footprint significantly. Since April, nearly 50 permanent British base locations have been closed or handed over to the ANSF.
While progress on security has been real and meaningful, partnering is not without risk. The attacks on our forces, including so-called insider attacks perpetrated by rogue members of the ANSF, remind us how difficult this mission is. We are working at every level to suppress this threat. However, we are clear that we will not allow these terrible incidents to derail our strategy or our commitment to the Afghan people.
The insurgents remain committed to conducting a campaign of violence in Afghanistan. They continue to represent a threat to the future stability of the country. The ANSF, supported by the ISAF where necessary, are taking the fight to the insurgents and pushing them away from the towns, markets, key transport routes and intensively farmed areas towards the rural fringe. As a result, the Afghan-led security plan is increasingly able to focus on disrupting the insurgency in its safe havens.
While we cannot be complacent, the picture as a whole is of an insurgency weakened. Enemy-initiated attacks have fallen by an average of more than 10% in those areas that have entered the transition process, demonstrating that the Afghans are capable of managing their own security. More importantly, the geographical pattern of enemy-initiated attacks shows a significant reduction in impact on the local population.
While our combat mission will be ending in 2014, our clear message to the Afghan people remains one of firm commitment. On the security front, at the Chicago summit in May the international community agreed to provide funding to support the continued development of the Afghan national security forces in the years after 2014. NATO has also agreed to the establishment of a new, non-combat mission after transition completes. The UK will support this, including through our role as the lead coalition partner at the new Afghan national army officer academy.
In terms of supporting the Afghan Government as a whole, the Kabul conference in June sent a clear message of regional engagement, and at the Tokyo conference in July $4 billion per year was pledged to meet Afghanistan’s essential development needs. The UK’s combined funding commitments from Chicago and Tokyo are almost £250 million a year.
For the value of this support from the international community to be fully realised, the Afghan Government will need to address the corruption that remains rampant and could become a real threat to the long-term stability of Afghanistan. The Afghan Government now need to deliver on their commitments through the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework (TMAF) to establish a legal framework for fighting corruption, improving economic and financial management, and implementing key economic and governance reforms, including elections.
Democracy is taking hold in Afghanistan. Not in the same shape as here in Britain, but Afghan voters can look forward to a future of their choosing, rather than one that is imposed on them. Afghan women enjoy a level of participation in their society and its politics that few could have envisaged even half a decade ago. DfID will continue to provide funding and support to further advance this agenda.
In Helmand, the process of local representation has seen marked improvements. Voter participation during 2012 for district community council elections in the traditionally challenging districts of Sangin, Nahr-e Saraj and Garmsir has been impressive by comparison with levels during previous presidential and parliamentary elections in the same areas. October’s announcement of the 2014 presidential elections is another important milestone in Afghanistan’s history. Many challenges remain, but an inclusive and transparent electoral process will be a real sign of progress.
Ultimately, the best opportunity for a stable and secure Afghanistan for the long-term lies in a political settlement; one that draws in those opponents of the Afghan Government who are willing to renounce insurgency and participate in peaceful politics. Any process will, in the end, require the Afghan Government, the Taliban and other Afghan groups to come together to talk and compromise. We appreciate how difficult this is for the respective parties, so we are working with our international allies to help bring all sides together—in particular, through the engagement of Pakistan in the process. Our aim is to generate confidence and dialogue. Our message to the Taliban is that reconciliation is not surrender; it is an opportunity for all Afghans to sit down together and help shape their country’s future. Common ground can be found, focused on the need for a strong, independent and economically viable Afghanistan.
The future of Afghanistan can be seen in the increased level of economic activity across the country. Bazaars that had been deserted are re-opening and commercial investment is evident in the towns. Basic public services are available to increasing percentages of the population. Nevertheless, Afghanistan, although rich in culture and natural resources, remains one of the poorest countries in the world—a legacy of 30 years of conflict. Its people are proud and hospitable, yet they have suffered unimaginable brutality and deprivation.
Over the last 11 years, we have been helping to ensure that Afghanistan’s past is not inevitably its future. As we move towards full transition at the end of 2014, it is clear that there remain huge challenges ahead for the Afghan people. Our combat mission is drawing to a close but our commitment to them is long term. Progress is clear and measurable, and our determination to complete our mission and help Afghanistan secure its future remains undiminished. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the other place by the Secretary of State. These updates on the situation in Afghanistan provide us with a welcome opportunity to express again our continuing appreciation of the bravery and commitment shown by our Armed Forces. It is also a sombre opportunity, particularly as we approach Christmas and prepare to celebrate it with our families, to remember and reflect on the sacrifices made by members of our Armed Forces who have lost their lives or suffered life-changing injuries, whether physical or mental, in the service of our country.
The commitment to success in Afghanistan runs deep on all sides of the House, and while we on these Benches will scrutinise government decisions we will support the intentions with which they are made. Afghanistan has seen significant but not irreversible progress. Al-Qaeda has been dispersed, we have overseen elections, the army and police forces are being trained and the rule of law is evolving. None of these tasks, however, can be said to be complete. There are immense challenges to overcome. Facilitating free and fair presidential elections, tackling green-on-blue attacks, improving the representativeness of the police and the army, developing an education system and, above all, helping to deliver political reconciliation are all issues which necessitate our commitment up to and beyond 2014.
We all want to see our troops home as soon as possible and we welcome today’s announcement. When will the Minister be able to tell us which units will leave and from which part of Helmand? We are all concerned about the continuing risk to UK personnel who will remain, so can he say whether any force protection capabilities will be drawn down as a consequence of today’s announcement? Can he give an assurance that the full current range of facilities and amenities available to our forces in Afghanistan, including medical facilities, will continue to be provided for our remaining Armed Forces once the reduction in the overall size of our forces in Afghanistan commences?
The Minister spoke in general terms; however, can he be more specific about how the capacity of those departing can be sufficiently replaced by Afghan forces? Can he give the House more detail on the capability of the Afghan forces, specifically on what capacity they have in providing an air bridge, aerial surveillance and intelligence? He told us, in repeating the Statement, that 3,800 of our forces will leave by the end of next year. Does he currently envisage most remaining until the end of the fighting season and does he now expect the remaining UK forces, post-2013, to be withdrawn throughout 2014 or to remain until the end of combat operations?
Can the Minister say whether he envisages any circumstances that might lead to the decision announced today being changed or reversed? The co-ordination of the military coalition is essential, so is this part of a synchronised set of announcements? Once the reduction in our Armed Forces in Afghanistan begins, will our remaining forces continue to undertake their current roles and responsibilities—albeit on a scaled-down basis—or will the roles and responsibilities of our Armed Forces change from what they are at present?
There are currently some members of our Reserve Forces in Afghanistan. Will it be the intention to continue to deploy Reserve Forces as our Armed Forces in Afghanistan are reduced, or will members of our Reserve Forces no longer be deployed once the reductions start? Can the Minister also say whether all those who will be returning from Afghanistan, whether in 2013 or 2014, will be exempt from any future tranche of compulsory Armed Forces redundancies?
While the focus is rightly on withdrawal, it is also necessary to consider the post-2014 military settlement, which was referred to in the Statement. The Chief of the General Staff is right when he says that our commitment to Afghan institutions must be long-term, but we need more clarity on the nature of that commitment. Can the Minister therefore be more specific about the role of non-combat personnel? Is it current thinking that our trainers will be embedded with the ANSF and, if so, who will have responsibility for force protection?
It is still unclear how many UK forces will remain post-2014 or from which services they will be drawn. When will the Minister be in a position to give us greater detail on this, as well as on the UK’s equipment legacy to Afghanistan? I appreciate that firm decisions may almost certainly not have been made on these aspects, but if he is able to provide some more detail it would be extremely helpful. I accept that if he is able to do so, it may well be in writing subsequently.
We all know that a long-term settlement for Afghanistan will be achieved through politics rather than just military might. There have been recent reports of a “road map to peace” from Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, outlining plans for talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban early next year. What confidence does the Minister have that such talks may indeed take place, and can he say whether he believes talks between the Taliban and US officials will recommence in Qatar in the new year? Can he also comment on the significance of Pakistan releasing a number of Afghan prisoners, and whether he sees that as marking a potentially significant shift in the Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship?
One of the main measures by which we will judge progress in Afghanistan will be the progress of women, to which the Minister referred in repeating the Statement. Sadly, a detailed recent UN report showed that Afghan women remain frequent victims of abuse. What efforts are the UK Government making, beyond those that the Minister referred to, to ensure that women’s safety does not deteriorate once ISAF forces have left? In particular, what are the Government doing to bring more women into the political process, the police and the judiciary?
Finally, as we enter what I believe to be the 12th and penultimate year of UK combat operations in this bloody but unavoidable conflict, there will rightly be lessons and consequences from Afghanistan. The time will also come for us to reflect as a nation on how we mark in a lasting way our commemoration of the fallen and injured. I look forward to the Minister’s replies about how NATO achieves withdrawal while maintaining the stability that so many have fought for. We need to get this right, since none of us has any intention of there ever being another conflict in Afghanistan.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, in the lead-up to Christmas time, I join the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in remembering all those who serve in the Armed Forces and all those who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. We remember particularly the members of the Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan now and their families. I agree with the noble Lord in commending their bravery and commitment.
I agree that we face a huge number of challenges to overcome. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his and his party’s support for our intentions and for the thrust of the announcement today. We are in Afghanistan to protect our national security by helping the Afghans to take control of their own. We are not trying to build a perfect Afghanistan, rather one that does not again provide safe haven for international terrorists.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me a number of questions. I may not be able to answer them all, but I will endeavour to write to him. The first question was about the number of units replaced. Planning continues to refine the detail of our force levels throughout 2013, but our drawdown will be gradual, responsible and in line with operational needs. As ANSF capability continues to improve and it takes on increasing responsibility for its own security, the focus of our efforts will gradually shift from one based primarily on combat to a training, advisory and assistance role. By the end of 2013, we expect that UK forces will not need routinely to mentor below brigade level, and this will allow us to reduce our military footprint in central Helmand accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about the capability of the Afghans. I know that a number of noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords have been to Afghanistan and seen for themselves the huge progress that the Afghan forces have made. I have been out there four times now. Each time I see substantial progress.
Developing the ANSF is obviously a key part of our strategy. It has an essential role in providing security and governance in Afghanistan. Transition of security to Afghan control, as agreed at the Lisbon conference in 2010, is well advanced and on track to be achieved by the end of 2014. Seventy-five per cent of Afghans now live in areas where the ANSF has the security lead, including all 34 provincial capitals and the three districts that make up Task Force Helmand. By mid-2013, we expect all parts of Afghanistan will have begun transition and the Afghans will be in the lead for security nationwide. This will mark an important milestone in the Lisbon road map.
Building the capacity and capability of the ANSF will allow the Afghans to take increasing responsibility for their own security. While it has been critical to achieve the quantity of forces required, work continues to ensure that the quality of the forces steadily improves. There has been real progress since the NTM-A was established in 2009. The capacity and capability of the ANSF have improved significantly over this time. It is deploying in formed units, carrying out its own operations and, as the transition process demonstrates, it is increasingly taking responsibility for security in Helmand and across Afghanistan.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about capabilities in particular. Artillery, close-air support, medevac, intelligence, surveillance and bomb disposal are areas in which we are working hard to try to build up capability. He asked me if there is any chance of today’s announcement being reversed. A lot of discussions are going on between us and our ISAF allies, but I am not aware that there will be a reverse on this. He asked me whether this is synchronised with our international allies. We have regular and routine discussions with a number of our NATO and ISAF allies on our force levels in Afghanistan.
On the specifics of our drawdown plans in 2013, we have spoken to a number of our key ISAF allies and to the Afghan Government. With our allies, we remain firmly committed to the strategy and timescales agreed at the NATO Lisbon summit in 2010 and to the principle of “in together and out together”. This announcement is entirely consistent with what we have previously said about our force trajectories in Afghanistan, and there should be no cliff-edge reduction at the end of 2014.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked if the role of our Armed Forces will change. As we work with the Afghan forces we will be taking much more of a mentoring and less of a combat role. He also asked me about reserves. As part of our overall drawdown plans, a small number of reservists, who would have expected to deploy to Afghanistan in 2013, will no longer be required to serve there. Reservists still form an important part of our deployment planning and will continue to play a crucial and valuable role in the mission in Afghanistan. The Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 requires employers to re-employ reservists when they are demobilised. As the reservist has to be re-employed, there is no reservist entitlement to compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about our future commitment to Afghanistan. The UK and the international community are committed to Afghanistan for the long term. The Prime Minister has stated that we will maintain a relationship with Afghanistan post-2014 based around trade, diplomacy and military training. We are clear that in 2015 the UK contribution will not take the form of a combat role. After the end of 2014, we will have some service men and women there to ensure that all of our kit still there—we hope most of it will come back—comes back. We will have troops on the ground helping the Afghan national army officer academy and getting it off the ground. No decisions about the numbers have been made, but as the noble Lord rightly surmised many discussions are taking place.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me whether the Taliban could be persuaded to return to the Qatar negotiations. I cannot answer that. I will write to him. There was also the question about Pakistan releasing prisoners. That country is key to the future of Afghanistan, and it is important that we have positive discussions with Pakistan.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about women’s rights. The British embassy in Kabul will continue to monitor threats of violence towards human rights activists, with a particular focus on women. Where appropriate and useful to do so, the embassy will issue statements condemning violence and will raise concerns with senior interlocutors in the Government of Afghanistan. Embassy staff will maintain a regular dialogue with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and other leading human rights and civil society organisations, offering support, sharing views and building understanding.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I join my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in their tributes to our Armed Forces.
We welcome the significant drawdown that is planned for 2013. Can my noble friend reconfirm that our forces during 2013 and 2014 will be focused increasingly on training and mentoring and less on combat missions?
There are four questions that I would like my noble friend to answer; I appreciate that he may well prefer to write to me rather than answering at the Dispatch Box. First, he referred to the discussions with our allies. Does he have any idea of the percentage reductions in the US forces during 2013, compared with our reductions? Secondly, there is no mention in the Statement of equipment withdrawal. Will he indicate the latest thinking and timing regarding our equipment withdrawal? Thirdly, allied military expenditure clearly represents a significant percentage of Afghanistan’s GDP—something like 15%, I believe. Is the Minister aware of any efforts being made by the international community to stimulate or encourage the Afghan economy post-2014? Fourthly, and the Minister will probably prefer to make this statement in writing, will he please confirm and make a clear statement on the Government’s attitude and responsibility towards interpreters and their dependants, where quite clearly we have a considerable degree of moral responsibility?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I reconfirm to my noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford that more and more members of our Armed Forces will take on a training and mentoring role. As the Statement said, 80% of operations are now led by the Afghan national security forces. I have been out there and seen for myself the mentoring and how successful our Armed Forces and our allies are in training up the Afghans.
I will write to my noble friend but, in answer to his questions, so far as I am aware the US forces’ reduction discussions are still taking place. I understand that the Prime Minister spoke to President Obama yesterday, but I will write to my noble friend on this as I am not aware of the exact figures.
Equipment withdrawal is an issue that has come up a lot in the House. We are making quite good progress on the different routes through which equipment would be withdrawn; it will not just be through Pakistan or the northern routes. Obviously some would come back directly by air, while some would go directly by air to countries in the Middle East. A lot of work is going on regarding this issue. Decisions about gifting and what to do with equipment will be made on a case-by-case basis, using the principle of operational priority and value for money to the UK taxpayer. We are reviewing our policies of gifting to ensure that any gifted equipment is appropriate and follows parliamentary, Treasury and National Audit Office rules, but obviously a number of bits of kit will be gifted. Work on managing the recovery of UK equipment is under way. Redeployment began in earnest, and as planned, on 1 October.
My noble friend asked me about efforts to stimulate the economy post-2014. I know that the international community, as the Statement said, has donated a great deal of money to the Afghan Government for that very end, and DfID has a number of different initiatives in Afghanistan.
With regard to the attitude towards interpreters, I have the line on that somewhere, but I assure my noble friend that we stick by our interpreters and will do everything to safeguard their security.
Lord King of Bridgwater
Does the Minister recognise that there will be general agreement in this House, and widely in the country, that 11 years at this level of military commitment in Afghanistan is quite long enough? I welcome the announcement of this withdrawal since the real threat to our national security, which was Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, has long since ended. We should pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives and the enormous number who have suffered life-changing injuries in this very long campaign.
Is the most important part of this Statement not the recognition that it will not be by military means but through political discussions that a better future for Afghanistan will be achieved? I welcome the content of the Statement regarding the efforts that will be made in this respect. That will be very important, if the political discussions move well, as we move towards the extremely difficult exercise of withdrawal of men and materiel from that area. The noble Lord leading for the Opposition referred to the fact that we have been there before and our withdrawals have often been the most difficult part of the exercise. I hope that that will not be repeated in this situation.
We are now committing ourselves to considerable financial support. The Prime Minister said that we are in for the long term, but nothing could be more damaging to that than if there are continuing allegations of corruption. We are aware that certain UK funds ended up in real estate development in Dubai in the hands of certain private individuals, and any suggestion of continuing corruption would be enormously damaging to the national will to continue to support the Afghan people and to carry on the work that has been carried forward so far with the courage, resilience and good spirit of our Armed Forces.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is now time that our Armed Forces started to come back. We have done a very good job in building up the capability of the Afghan national security forces. As my noble friend did, I pay tribute to those members of our Armed Forces who have lost their lives and to the large numbers of members of our Armed Forces, as we heard in a Question earlier, who have had life-changing injuries and wounds. As my noble friend said, it is not just by military means that Afghanistan will end up in a better place. I know that those in the Foreign Office and our ISAF allies are in deep discussions with the Afghan Government and Pakistan. As my noble friend said, we are certainly in this for the long term, and we must do everything possible to try to get on top of the corruption.
With the leave of the House, I will answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lee about the interpreters. People who put their life on the line for the United Kingdom will not be abandoned. Locally engaged Afghan staff working for our Armed Forces and civilian missions in Afghanistan make an invaluable contribution to the UK’s efforts to help to support the spread of security, stability and development in their country. We take our responsibility for all members of staff very seriously and have put in place measures to reduce the risks that they face. Precautions are taken during recruitment, and staff are fully briefed before taking up employment about any risks involving their work. We regularly encourage staff to report any security concerns immediately. We follow an agreed cross-government policy in considering cases of intimidation or injury on a case-by-case basis. This policy ensures that we take into account the individual circumstances of each case and allows us to decide a proportionate response.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, in the absence of any political settlement after 2014, security will be essential to international development, as it is at the moment. What conversations has the MoD had with DfID about the overlap of funding? There will be projects that are close to defence, such as the Sandhurst-type academy, and other, more general humanitarian programmes that will need protection. What provision has the MoD made for that? I have one further question: the road into Pakistan now being open, will some collaboration on the defence front be visible at the time of the handover?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I must make it clear to the noble Earl that our Armed Forces will be out of the combat role in Afghanistan at the end of 2014. Any security for international development efforts will be the responsibility of the Afghan national security forces. We are confident that we have built up their capability to take this on. It is still early days. There is a lot of discussion still to take place about how we can develop all these very important development initiatives that will be taking place in Afghanistan.
I think some equipment has started to leave Afghanistan for Pakistan to make its way home—not a lot, but it will start to flow quite soon. Obviously, as I said earlier, relations with Pakistan are key to the future of Afghanistan.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the Minister replied to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord King. I ask him what work will be done for the many post-active-service service men and women and indeed ex-service men and women around in the country in 2013 and 2014. I am told that those who suffer a life-changing experience sometimes have trouble adapting to civilian life and end up in trouble with the police. Is there any way that the MoD could provide a service so that those whose behaviour brings them to the attention of the police can be referred to the MoD for the support that they need? Some of those—not all of them, I appreciate—who end up in trouble have suffered enormously because of the work that they have done on our behalf.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very important point. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, asked a similar question earlier on. This is a really important issue. I want to take it back to the department and dwell on it. I will write to the noble Baroness when I have had a chance to consider it.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his civil replies to the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, on the question of interpreters. Can he confirm that in Afghanistan these people and others who have served our forces will be treated no less generously than those who were in a similar role in Iraq? I think in most cases it will involve either compensation or refugee status in this country, but in all cases will the Government endeavour to make sure that Afghan families are not split up as a result?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I said to my noble friend, people who have put their life on the line for the United Kingdom will not be abandoned. We will honour that commitment.
Viscount Slim
My Lords, I would first like to thank the noble Lord for his great kindness in keeping your Lordships appraised of matters of defence and the meetings that he has within the MoD. This is a new development and it is much appreciated by everybody in your Lordships’ House.
I would like now to come down on to the ground and talk for two seconds or so about this land line. In a withdrawal, people become very defensively minded. I myself have been in one or two. It is vital that we keep the offensive spirit going during this period. Many attractive items will go out on the land line which the Taliban would like to get their hands on. The same goes for Bastion. Therefore it is not only defence of the convoy, but a proper offensive force that is going to disrupt any attack at all that is made. In Afghanistan, even in the old days, when there is a very attractive target those who are disagreeing among the tribes can come together. They might well think of this. In this event, one would be dealing not with the couple of dozen who were infiltrating into Bastion. The force levels of the Taliban—and there are quite a number waiting—would give us something to think about. The offensive spirit has to be maintained to disrupt the problem as it comes. I hope that, in planning the withdrawal, the ground air support that the army needs so much will not be thinned out to a state where it is not at full strength and in support of our forces. Withdrawal is very difficult and dangerous. The best way to handle it is not to be defensive-minded all the time and to retain a proper offensive force.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his kind words about the briefings. These are two-way briefings. I learn a lot from noble Lords who have a lot of experience, like the noble Viscount, of Afghanistan and other areas. Certainly I, my officials and the military who attend these briefings have learnt a great deal. I am very grateful for what the noble Viscount said.
The noble Viscount made a very important point about the drawdown of equipment. We have had a number of discussions about that. We are on the case. I can assure the noble Viscount that it will be properly defended. There will be ground air support and whatever else is necessary to make sure that we get these attractive bits of kit out.
Lord Lyell
Will my noble friend first accept my congratulations and thanks for what he has given us today and, as far as I can remember, over the entire campaign in Afghanistan, or at least most of it? The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, has said virtually everything that I would want to say, but my noble friend will know that the House of Lords defence group receives marvellous professional and detailed briefings on a constant basis from my noble friend. Could I possibly look at one more accountancy-style problem that will almost certainly be affecting my noble friend? Of course we want to bring back—and will bring back—the brave men and women, the forces and the equipment. Please will he accept that when everybody is safely back here we on all sides of the House want to see that they are first of all appreciated and that all the work that my noble friend spoke about this morning at Question Time in medicine, health and above all welfare is continued? I hope that he will be able to do that in 2013. I thank him, his officials and each and every person who is in Afghanistan.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words. In return I commend him for all the work he does as secretary of the House of Lords defence group. He asked whether we will ensure that the work of our Armed Forces is fully appreciated. As he knows, all the brigades that return from Afghanistan are invited to march into Parliament. They march in through Westminster Hall, have their photograph taken, and then go downstairs for tea—which invariably ends up as drinking a lot of beer as well as tea. I have spoken to a lot of the officers and other ranks who come in, and they appreciate it enormously. They feel that what they are doing in Afghanistan is fully appreciated by Members of Parliament who send them out there.
Local Government: Provisional Finance Settlement
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would like to repeat an oral Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Statement is as follows:
“I should like to make a Statement on finance for English local authorities for 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The autumn Statement sets out how the coalition Government are putting our public finances back on track after the catastrophic deficit left us by the last Labour Government. Local government has shown great skill in reducing its budgets. Committed local authorities have protected front line services. Little wonder, then, that at a time of retrenchment, satisfaction in council services has gone up. This year’s settlement will see council expenditure fall in a controlled way. English local government accounts for £1 of every £4 spent on public services; it spends £114 billion, which is twice the defence budget and more than the National Health Service. So this settlement recognises the responsibility of local government to find sensible savings and make better use of its resources.
It marks a new settlement for local government, based on self-determination and financial independence, a move from the begging bowl to pride in locality. It begins the biggest shake-up of local finance in a generation. We are shifting power from Whitehall direct to the town hall. From April, authorities will directly retain nearly £11 billion of business rates instead of returning them to the Treasury. Striving councils will benefit by doing the right thing by their communities; if they bring in jobs and business they will be rewarded. Similarly, the new homes bonus remunerates councils for building more homes. Next year, the bonus will be worth more than £650 million and more than that in 2014-15.
Under our reforms, an estimated 70% of local authority income will be raised locally, compared to a little over half under the current formula grant system—a giant step for localism. The start-up funding assessment, which gives each council a share of the funding, confirmed in the Chancellor’s autumn Statement, will see £26 billion shared between councils across the country, with the smallest reductions for councils most reliant on government funding. We consulted local authorities on the settlement over the summer, and we have listened to what they told us. They told us that there should be less money held back from the settlement, so we have reduced the amounts that we are setting aside for new homes bonus, for the safety net and for academies funding. In total, that means an additional £1.9 billion for local authorities upfront in 2013-14.
Local authorities also told us that they wanted a stronger growth incentive. We were happy to respond, so we have made the scheme more generous, ensuring that at least 25 pence in every pound of business rate growth will be retained locally. The settlement leaves councils with considerable total spending power. The overall reduction in spending power next year is just 1.7%. A small number of authorities will require larger savings to be made, but no councils face a loss of more than 8.8% in their spending power, thanks to a new efficiency support grant. As the name implies, to qualify, councils will have to improve services. It is unfair on the rest of local government to expect them to subsidise other councils’ failure to embrace modernity. But this settlement is not about what councils can take—it is about what they can make. The settlement continues protecting fire and rescue as a blue light emergency service. Today, we have announced £140 million of capital grant money to fire authorities.
Predictably, the doom-mongers have been consulting their Mayan calendars, issuing dire warnings of the end of the world as we know it on Friday—a billion pound black hole in the local budgets. Some have shamefully predicted riots on the streets. Nostradamus need not worry, because all those Malthusian predictions have come to naught. Concerns that the poorest councils or those in the north would suffer disproportionately are well wide of the mark. The spending power for places in the north compares well to those in the south. For example, Newcastle has a spending power per household of £2,522, which is more than £700 more than the £1,814 per household in Wokingham. We have also maintained the system of damping, whereby government sets a floor below which council funding will not fall. This year’s average grant reduction for the most dependent upper tier authorities will be less than 3%, compared to 8% for the wealthiest. That is more support and protection than last year.
I can also confirm today that local authorities will be able to use the receipts from assets sales raised from 2012-13 onwards to fund outstanding equal pay claims. On top of what I have announced today, the Secretary of State for Health will in due course be confirming public health funding for local councils. In his autumn Statement, the Chancellor recognised that the sector has risen to the challenge. That is why, unlike most of central government, local government was exempted from the 1% top slice next year, worth approximately £240 million to councils. But as we look to 2014 and beyond, local government needs to continue finding better, more efficient, ways of doing things. There remains scope for sensible savings; with the exception of a handful of authorities, nobody has got to grips with procurement. More can also be done to share offices and services, cut fraud and provide more for less.
I have also asked the outgoing chief fire and rescue adviser, Sir Ken Knight, to pinpoint practical ways in which to help fire and rescue authorities to save money and protect the quality and breadth of frontline fire services. It is disappointing that the shadow fire Minister has signalled his opposition. That has been noted.
Today, true to my Yorkshire roots, I have published 50 Ways to Save, setting out practical ways for councils to save money, big and small. But it all adds up. If councils merged their back offices, like the tri-borough initiative in London, they could save £2 billion. Procurement fraud costs taxpayers almost a billion a year. Councils are sitting on £16 billion of reserves. Councils are not collecting more than £2 billion of council tax. Better property management could save £7 billion a year.
We have also announced today that further savings will be made by the abolition of pensions for councillors. Councillors should be champions of the people, not the salaried staff of the town hall state. Today’s guide gives more power to the elbow of the public to challenge crude cuts and champion sensible savings. Next year’s exemption will give local authorities time to put their house in order, but let us remind ourselves what this is all about. It is about safeguarding vital public services; protecting families and pensioners; and ending the something-for-nothing culture. That is why, despite financial pressures, we will continue to support, for the third year running, those who insulate residents from further council tax hikes. We have set aside an extra £550 million for local authorities to support council tax: £450 million over the next two years for the freeze and £100 million for council tax support will be available in the new year.
All councils have a moral duty to freeze council tax. It doubled under Labour. It became unsustainable; we have cut it in real terms. Just to be clear, this year’s freeze grant goes into base for the spending review period and has the same status as every other item in base. Those who would prefer to carry on with increases and see residents miss out should be ready to answer to their local taxpayers and not dodge them by setting the increase just below the threshold. For next year, we have set the referendum threshold at 2%. I will also introduce flexibility to support small district, police and fire authorities that have kept council tax low for years. My right honourable friend the Local Government Minister has set out the details in a Written Ministerial Statement. This is democracy in action: if you want to hike taxes, put it to the people. I would contrast the action we have taken to freeze council tax with the new housing tax being introduced in the Republic of Ireland. Tackling the deficit helps to keep taxes down. If you deny the deficit, taxes on everyday families will rise.
To those who want to play the politics of division, let me say this. This is a fair settlement, fair to north and south, rural and urban, shire and metropolitan England. But this settlement is also a watershed moment. For the first time in a generation, striving councils now have licence to go full steam ahead and grab a share of the wealth for their local areas—to stand tall, and seize the opportunities of enterprise, growth and prosperity.
I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. From my perspective, its credibility was undermined almost from the start by the assertion that:
“The Autumn Statement sets out how the coalition Government are putting our public finances back on track”.
If “back on track” is an environment of little growth, increasing debt and the IFS suggesting another £27 billion of so far unspecified cuts, I wonder how much of the cuts will come from local government—a worry indeed. I detected more than a few smiles around your Lordships’ House with the assertion that the Government are,
“shifting power from Whitehall direct to the town hall”.
We shall remind the Minister of that when we debate the Growth and Infrastructure Bill in just a couple of weeks. As ever, with this Statement, the devil will be in the detail, which we have yet to peruse in depth. We ought also to have the opportunity to have a full debate here when we have gone through the detailed figures. The Statement covers details of funding under the new system of business rate retention, and we will need in particular to examine the impact on council tax baselines, tariffs and top-ups, business rate holdbacks, the treatment of the early intervention grant, the topslicing for academies as well as public health funding—although I understand that this is outwith the Statement—and the RSG settlement itself.
As for the latter, for 2013-14 this will presumably utilise the whole of the central business rate share—and more. Can the Minister confirm that? The noble Baroness will recall debates during the Local Government Finance Bill about updating data used in the revenue support grant. Can she say what, if any, are the key changes to the methodology and data sets used in comparison with preceding years? This is particularly important because it is understood that the data will remain fixed between resets of the business rate retention scheme. Can the Minister confirm this? In anticipating this Statement, we should remind ourselves of the recent past and, indeed, the present. The Government have already imposed swingeing cuts on councils of 28%, with central Government grant reduced over the current spending review period.
This is all part of passing responsibility for cuts to services to local authorities and communities. We will have to see how much more is cut as a result of today’s announcement, but the LGA estimated a further £1 billion for next year. Is it right? The Autumn Statement, of course, announced a further reduction of £445 million for 2014-15. Many local authorities have been pushed to the brink, with their long-term viability in question. We know that the poorest areas are shouldering the greatest reductions. Between 2010-11 and 2012-13, the 10 most deprived local authorities are having their spending power reduced per head of population by eight times as much as the 10 least deprived authorities in England. Will the Minister reassure the House that this ratio has gone down, not up, following today’s announcement? The 50 councils worst affected by government cuts will receive reductions of £160 per head on average, despite having on average a third of children living in poverty. By contrast, the 50 least affected councils received a £16 per head cut on average, despite child poverty rates of 10%.
Although the Prime Minister described local government as officially the most efficient part of the public sector, this Government have made bigger and earlier cuts to councils than any other part of the public sector. This front-loading of cuts has made it harder for councils to cope and has hit front-line services hard. The LGA forecasts a rising funding gap, starting this year and growing to over £16 billion by 2019-20. What is the Government’s assessment for this period and how will that gap be closed? This year, we enter new territory with local council tax schemes, business rate retention, top-ups and tariffs. We hear the Secretary of State’s strictures about councils’ responsibility to keep council tax bills down, but the reality is that hundreds of thousands of people—working families on the lowest incomes—will be brought within the scope of that tax, possibly for the first time. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, it will be a “poll tax mark 2”.
If the 10% cut in council tax benefit support is to be endured, it must surely be right that the 10% reflects actual costs. Will the Minister say on what basis the grant has been allocated? Is it the case that, although at national level the total grant has been made available on the basis of the latest data, with claims having gone down nationally, the allocation to individual authorities is to be based on 2011-12 out-turn data, which for some will have gone up? Why is there this approach, other than because it advantages the Treasury at the particular expense of deprived areas? How much of the transitional grant—the pot of £100 million—is not initially expected to be called on by local authorities? Will the Government commit to recycling any balance to local authorities, especially those whose claim levels have increased during 2012-13?
Another issue which we debated extensively both during the Welfare Reform Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill was the demise of the discretionary Social Fund and the transfer of responsibility—but with no formal duties—to local authorities for provision otherwise met through community care grants and crisis loans. How much has been included in the proposed settlement for this and on what basis will this be communicated to local authorities? Under the Local Government Finance Act 2012, there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to specify the basis on which relevant authorities will make or receive payments under the tariff or top- up provisions. What is the basis of this calculation?
Today’s Statement brings little festive cheer to local authorities and to the individuals, families and communities they seek to serve. Local authorities will continue to innovate, address the awful choices that this Government impose upon them and play their part in fostering growth when the Government have vacated the field. Frankly, local authorities deserve better.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. Having been in his position, I appreciate that it is quite a task to respond quickly to a Statement after it has been made. The noble Lord addressed a huge number of detailed questions, with some of which I shall try to deal, but because I do not have in my head the figures he asked for, I shall make sure that questions I cannot answer now are dealt with.
It would be fair to say at the outset that while there is great questioning, particularly from the other side, about the reduction in grant, if the noble Lord’s party had been in power, it would have done exactly the same. We know that when the previous Government were coming to an end, they had already made provision for a substantial cut in local government grant for precisely the same reason. They were going to have to deal with the deficit they had generated but responsibility has now passed to this Government in their place. Therefore, I think it would be better if we could get that on to a more equitable plane.
The Government are shifting the responsibility for running local affairs on to local authorities. However, they are shifting not only power but also resources. I do not think that the noble Lord made any acknowledgment of that. Local government has asked for a long time to be able to retain the business rate. Although I appreciate that it cannot retain all of it, it will certainly be given the opportunity to retain at least 50% of it. That will be an encouragement to generate business and business activity because the more business local government has, the more it can grow and the more business rate it has to retain locally.
I was asked about the updating of data between resets. Data never stand still entirely so while the resets, the tariff and top-ups will remain, there will be some adjustments to data, but not such as to upset the resets that have been laid down this year.
The noble Lord referred to swingeing cuts. Local authorities hold this very much in their own hands now. As I said in the Statement, we have pointed to a number of ways in which local authorities can still make savings, including coming together and pooling resources and making adjustments in that way. Therefore, they should not be faced with having to make enormous cuts to services. We have also prevented any of the reductions in grant exceeding 8.8%. There is considerable variety across the country as regards the formula and the amount of spending power that each local authority has.
I know that we will discuss this matter further and more detailed questions will come up, but the Local Government Finance Act laid down the basis for tariffs and top-ups, which the noble Lord asked me about. Top-ups are based on a 92.5% level of finance, so local authorities expecting more than a 7.5% figure automatically get a top-up. The tariffs will be set against those councils that have more than the expected allocation of resources.
To go back to the data, the data updates will include population, so they will be changed if that varies. A range of data updates were set out in this summer’s technical consultation, which I am sure the noble Lord has read closely.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. Perhaps I should thank the noble Lord for enabling her to do so. This is the first time that I can recall this happening for many years, so we must thank the Opposition for this very welcome Christmas present.
I declare my interest as a councillor in the London borough of Sutton. I gather that I must now declare an additional interest as a member of its pension scheme which I joined at the age of 60, by which time I had more than 30 years’ council service which did not count towards the pension.
I also thank the Minister, and through her the Secretary of State, for the very welcome recognition of all that local government has achieved in reducing its budgets, and that it is, indeed, the most efficient and effective part of the public sector. In view of that, does the Minister agree that local authorities would be much better advised to learn from each others’ good practice than to take any notice at all of the Secretary of State’s 50 top tips from the TaxPayers’ Alliance?
Will the Minister say a little more about the new efficiency support grant and the criteria that local authorities will have to meet to qualify for money from that grant? What sort of money we are talking about?
Finally, can she give any indication of when the Secretary of State for Health will announce the public health funding, which is crucial to many local authorities in finally setting their budgets?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his contribution. I also thank him for acknowledging that we recognise that local government is efficient—at least most of it is, although some is not. As regards the 50 areas of good practice that my right honourable friend in the other place has produced, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is correct: local authorities can learn from each others’ good practice, and there is good practice. There is good practice already across the piece where people are sharing services, chief executives and back office services and are procuring together. However, this applies to by no means all local authorities. This is where they need to learn from each other.
The Local Government Association has in its midst councils that are doing this and organisations within councils that are setting these good examples. I agree that local authorities can do good practice, but what they need to do is to bring it together and work together as much as they can.
The new efficiency support grant affects a very small number of councils above the 8.8%. I will let the noble Lord know the exact amount of it, but it is there to help them bring down their expenditure. Regarding public health announcements, we are still waiting for those but I cannot tell my noble friend when they are going to be announced.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Newcastle City Council not in receipt of a council pension. I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister to explain the relevance of the comparison of Wokingham to Newcastle, given that, for example, the rate of unemployment in Newcastle is four times that of Wokingham. Does she not consider that there may well be a greater spending need in Newcastle and authorities like it than in councils in the Royal County of Berkshire, such as Wokingham, Windsor and Maidenhead, which has also been adduced in support of the Government’s position?
Secondly, given that the Secretary of State is so exercised about reserves, what are the Government proposing to say to the Greater London Authority which has added 60% to its reserves—£585 million in the past year—while at the same time receiving £27 million of damping grant? What will she say to Surrey County Council, which has received £40 million of damping grant, which it put into its reserves and added further amounts to it? Is this a matter of concern, and if so what will the Government do about it?
I have two other questions, the first of which is: will the Government reconsider their position on the cost of appeals against rating valuations for business rates, which at the moment they propose not to finance, even in respect of appeals relating to the period before the new business rate regime comes in. The Government, having had the money, apparently do not intend to contribute to the cost of any successful appeals. What is the logic behind that?
Finally, in relation to council tax benefit and the grant that is to go to local authorities, why have the Government chosen to ignore the most recent figures of benefit claims for the current year with the result that, in Newcastle for example, an anticipated 10% reduction will probably translate into more than 14% because of the failure to use the most recent figures. If it is too late to alter that figure for this year, and I hope it is not, will the Government at least use the most up-to-date figures for the remaining years of the settlement?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, let us start with the reserves. The Government have a very firm position on this. They recognise that local authorities need reserves; indeed, in the current economic situation, they may have to call on reserves to help them deal with some of their finances. However, there are local authorities that are sitting on enormous unallocated reserves, and those are the ones that the Secretary of State believes ought to be challenged. Where local authorities are sitting on vast sums, they should be looking at how best they can use them to support their expenditure.
Regarding the cost of appeals, within the business rate retention scheme an allowance will be made for appeals that are already in the pipeline. Those that will come subsequently are a different matter and they will have to be dealt with at that time. The 10% reduction in council tax benefit is there to help with efficiency; to ensure that local authorities administer this in the best way that they possibly can; and to ensure that any system they set up can, if necessary, be supported by other reductions within their council tax budgets.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I welcome the Statement by my noble friend and the fact that it places a great emphasis on getting the housing building market going. Has my noble friend seen the statistics produced by the National House-Building Council in the past week, which suggest that new housing starts in the north-east of England, for example, are at 3,048 for the first nine months of this year? This represents an increase of 25% on the same period last year, and an increase of some 47% on the same period in 2009. Will this not funnel through the new homes bonus programme to provide important additional revenue streams to councils in the north-east? In the past few days, the House Builders Federation has said that planning applications and planning permission granted for new homes have increased by 36% on the previous quarter. For further clarification, has my noble friend’s estimate of the £650 million that will be provided through the new homes bonus next year taken account of that welcome news?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for pointing out good news relating to the housing figures. We have been very aware—everybody else in the House will be aware—that a lot of the economy needs a boost and much of that boost will come from housing and housing construction. I am very pleased about the figures in the north-east, which is perhaps one area in the country where we particularly need to see new housing—not only to ensure that there is housing but because it will stimulate the economy even more in that part of the world.
The new homes bonus is part of the funding stream. It is not ring-fenced but it does relate to the number of houses that are being built and so would add to local authorities’ revenue. If the number of planning permissions has increased in the north-east as well, that is good, as there has been a lot of criticism that planning permissions are somewhat slow in being granted. Therefore, I thank my noble friend for those points.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Statement, although it did not give me much comfort. Can she tell the House what advice she has for the London fire authority? I think that potentially up to 17 fire stations in London could close, and up to six of those would be in south London—Woolwich, Downham, New Cross, Southwark, Peckham and Clapham. As a south London resident, I wonder where a fire engine would come from if you needed the fire services in the future. What words of comfort does the Minister have for the fire authority and what are we going to do about this?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the fire authorities are in the same position as everybody else in that they are having to make economies, but they have been pretty well supported. The noble Lord will know that the fire authorities have benefited from the protection in the formula used to set the base line, which used an existing adjustment to provide top-ups for the fire and rescue relative needs formula. That helps in the rural areas. The metropolitan fire and rescue authorities overall, which of course do not include London, are seeing grant reductions of 7.2%, but London has had a reduction and the noble Lord has to make up his own mind about how to deal with that. As I pointed out in the Statement, a review by the retiring chief officer is taking place, and I am sure that that will produce something useful.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a recipient of a small local government pension.
I should like to raise two issues with the Minister. The first concerns the tri-borough initiative in London and the basis for the statement that if councils merged their back offices, as in the tri-borough initiative, they could save £2 billion. Can the Minister circulate further details of that calculation? It is extremely important. In Tyne and Wear, where the number of residents amounts to just a little over 1% of the population, that would imply a saving of more than £20 million, which could be spent on, for example, keeping libraries open and improving services. Therefore, any information as to how that might be achieved would be helpful.
Secondly, I support the comments from other noble Lords concerning the council tax support grant distribution and the fact that the DCLG is not taking account of benefit caseload changes since the end of the 2011-12 year. I suggest that there is a case for using the unallocated transitional grant to assist councils that have faced higher caseload and cost figures in recent months, and I believe that there is a very strong case for using final outturn caseload figures for 2012-13 in the grant figure for 2014-15.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I am very happy to ask the councils involved in the tri-borough initiative to let us have full details of the savings they hope to make. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest as having been a member of at least part of that tri-borough arrangement many years ago. However, they are very clear that they have made tremendous efficiency savings and, more than that, that they are much more efficient. As a resident of that tri-borough, I can say that they certainly demonstrate that. I shall certainly see that my noble friend receives those details.
I believe that the benefit caseload for this year is based on the figures for 2010-11 but I shall let my noble friend know if that is not correct. I shall need to write to him regarding the final outturn for council tax.
Baroness Donaghy
I thank the Minister for her Statement, although I realise that she is not responsible for the rodomontade contained within it. Does she appreciate that the word “need” does not appear once in the Statement? Would she also like to comment on the word “grab”, which does appear? However, there is no reference to the fact that 800,000 working people are going to be worse off under the council tax benefit arrangements or that, at the same time, better paid people—although it is not, strictly speaking, her departmental responsibility—will experience a tax cut. Would the Minister like to comment on the fact that the Statement may contain some of the truth but not all the truth?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I gave the Statement to the House I must accept responsibility for it. I therefore take responsibility for the word “need” not appearing and the word “grab” appearing once or twice; whether this would be my way of putting it I am not sure. The noble Baroness makes the point about the 800,000 people; again, those are the figures that appear in the Statement and I am afraid I cannot comment on them further.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that Malthus would be happy to be coupled with Nostradamus. To follow the previous question, it is quite clear there can be savings if local authorities combine. What precisely are the Government doing to encourage the sharing of facilities and resources to provide better services and save money at the same time? Have the Government done a detailed study on this and could we have some facts and figures in the Library?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the Government have been espousing this situation for several years and discussing it with the Local Government Association. I have addressed various elements of local government on the need to make efficiency savings and had discussions with groups of local authorities, which are already coming together to see what can be done. I am not sure there are any helpful figures I can give my noble friend. The only thing I can do is reassure him that this is very much government policy which has been promulgated to local government and that many areas of local government are already carrying it out and demonstrating that it is a valuable way of making efficiencies.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, can the Minister say when she thinks Sir Ken Knight will report on his chief fire officer review?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, he has been asked to do it and I suspect I can provide the noble Lord with the date the inquiry is to start.
Lord True
My Lords, as no one else has, can I thank my noble friend for the transfer of the business rate to local authorities? We debated the matter in this House and many of us feel that it needs to go further. This is however a very important reform for which I thank the Minister. Will she restrain her right honourable friend in some of his remarks about reserves? For many of us reserves are the schools of the future and this issue needs to be looked at carefully. As one who joined local government when no allowances were paid, I would ask whether there will be legislation on this announcement about pensions for councillors, many of whom surrender work—sometimes all work—in order to fulfil a public function. Will that legislation cover other forms of elected representative?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. He will know that we discussed in the Local Government Finance Bill that, as the economy improves, we hope to extend the percentage of revenue that can be maintained by local authorities as a result of the business rate retention scheme. We have touched on reserves already and I accept, as does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that reserves in moderation are an important aspect of local government. Where reserves are allocated against particular projects, that is acceptable, but there are a number of local authorities sitting on very substantial sums of money which they could use to support their revenue responsibilities without having to say they do not have any money. Local government pensions were dealt with in a Written Ministerial Statement that came out a couple of days ago. I suspect it will need secondary legislation but I need to confirm that.
Motion to Adjourn
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. That is something that is said every day that the House sits, but it is very special at this time of year. It is customary, and my privilege, to pay tribute to our staff on behalf of the whole House. The staff have supported us throughout the year. They do so with great professionalism and dedication, which I know is recognised and appreciated by us all.
This is also an opportunity to put on record our particular thanks to long-serving members of the staff who have recently retired or who are about to do so. I would like to begin by acknowledging the work of Mr Allan Roberts, who retires as Counsel to the Chairman of Committees at the end of next month. His office goes back more than 200 years and was originally established to provide legal support for the Lord Chairman’s responsibilities for private legislation. We now see few private Bills compared with those early days when the construction of canals, turnpikes and railways was at its peak. In modern times, the House’s need for legal services in other areas has continued to grow. We have seen much of that quite recently. Mr Roberts now leads a team of three lawyers which, as well as dealing with private business, also provides advice to the Clerk of the Parliaments and other parts of the House administration and to committees on very diverse topics such as statutory instruments, ecclesiastical measures, delegated powers and Bills.
I know that the House will miss not only his considerable professional skills, but also his sound judgment and his quiet dedication to supporting us in our legislative work. The respect in which we all—both Opposition, Cross Bench and the Government—hold the Delegated Powers Committee has, for many years, been in large part due to Mr Roberts’s measured legal advice. We wish him well in his retirement, which I understand should afford him the chance to follow even more closely the fortunes of—this is a football club I do not usually make reference to but I will this time—Tottenham Hotspur Football Club in which he takes a keen interest.
I would also like to thank Rosemary Mannering, who is retiring after 25 years working in the House. Rosemary started work in the Public Bill Office in 1987, but for the past 15 years she has worked as a committee assistant, supporting the Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee. The Committee Office has had a particularly busy year supporting our increased committee activity and we owe a great debt of gratitude to all those who work, usually of course behind the scenes, to make all that possible. Our Select Committees are so rightly praised as the jewel in the crown of the work of this House. Rosemary is regarded with much affection by all those who have worked with her and I understand that many clerks and chairmen have had particular cause to thank her for her scrupulous attention to detail and thorough proof reading, something which I cannot do. That has prevented such infelicities as “daft legislation”. Hey ho. Good luck to those who will continue her dutiful work. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in wishing Rosemary all the best for her retirement, which will certainly be starting in the right way with a visit to the Tate’s excellent pre-Raphaelite exhibition.
Finally, I would most warmly like to thank Peggy Vega Byatt whose friendly service in the various bars around the House—that sounds awful but we know what we mean—will be familiar and welcome to all of us. What may be less well known is that Peggy started working in Peers’ Dining Room in 1974, which means that she has clocked up a very impressive 38 years of service. I understand, therefore, that in the case of many hereditary Peers, she has served multiple holders of the title in the family along the way. I am sure she has trained them well and I am sure we wish her all the very best in her retirement and in her relocation to Spain with her husband. I understand that she plans to visit when she returns to the country on holiday, and we look forward to seeing her back around the House, I hope, before too long. She really is a very special person in this House, and I know that many Peers have taken the opportunity over the past weeks and months to make a personal statement to her of how much they have appreciated what she has done and how we really will miss her.
All that remains for me to do is to wish all Members and staff of this House a most restful and enjoyable Christmas. Before this House adjourns, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the Opposition Chief Whip, will wish to speak, and that the deputy Convenor of the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the Convenor, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will also wish to make their contributions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government Chief Whip for enabling us all to pass on our good wishes to our staff and our thanks for their long and active service in your Lordships’ House. At this time I always like to put on record my thanks to our catering staff, cleaners, conservators, police, secretarial support, librarians, and maintenance and security staff, because I know that they work very long hours on our behalf and do a fantastic job.
I, too, want to make particular reference at this time to three members of staff for their long service. The first is Elaine Morgan, who was a committee assistant in the Committee Office, and was also formerly a higher personal secretary to the Law Lords Office. Elaine had 23 years of service and has retired this year. She initially worked in the House of Commons—the other place—joining the Parliament Office in 1989. In 1998 she was promoted to higher personal secretary in the Committee Office. In January 2002 she was transferred to the Judicial Office, electing to return to the Committee Office in 2009, when the Supreme Court was established. She was highly regarded by all of her colleagues in the Committee Office, who miss her conscientious attitude to her work and her kindly and supportive manner. Elaine was one of the pioneers of flexible working among House of Lords staff and for a while worked on a week on, week off basis. She plans to start her retirement apparently with some home improvements—well, good luck to her; it is a very noble cause—but is also looking forward to having more time to pursue her hobbies of sailing, cycling and walking. She also hopes to do some voluntary work for local organisations in and around Chichester harbour in the very fine county of Sussex.
The second member of staff I want to pay tribute to is Simon Jones, who has been an executive officer in the Printed Paper Office for much of the past 30 years that he has worked here, and he has only recently retired. He joined the House of Lords in 1982 as a clerical officer in what was then the Record Office and is now, of course, the very well regarded Parliamentary Archives. On promotion to executive officer, he moved to the Printed Paper Office in 1990, where he covered the front desk, which he enjoyed very much. In 1992 he was one of three staff on a small team assisting the staff adviser to check the grading of staff right across the House’s employ. In 1996 he transferred from the Printed Paper Office to the Law Lords Library, and in 1999 he moved back to the Printed Paper Office, this time to deal with office supplies, photocopiers and the mechanics of making the office function well. That post was transferred to the Facilities Department in April of this year, and Simon retired on 27 October. Outside work, Simon’s interests include film-making, photography and art. He plans an extended break in New Zealand during 2013. Colleagues commenting on Simon’s hard work said that he was always helpful, unfailingly polite and an incredibly helpful and courteous colleague, and I am sure that all Members of the House who came across Simon would agree with that.
The third person I want to make reference to is Richard Jacques. This is a rather sad one because Richard passed away this year very unexpectedly. He was a doorkeeper and joined the staff here in 2003 following a very long career in the RAF. Doorkeepers tell me that he was very watchful and mindful of the health of colleagues in the House, particularly Members of the House. During his time in the RAF, Mr Jacques was highly trained in the field of medicine, and his final years in the RAF were spent at RAF Lyneham as part of a tactical medical team flying all over the world to bring casualties back to the United Kingdom —no easy task.
Sadly, Mr Jacques was found dead at his home in Lyneham at the end of September. I know that everyone in the House who knew Mr Jacques was saddened by that, especially his colleagues.
I know that three other Doorkeepers are leaving the employ of the House; Mr Duff, Mr Benny and Mr Dryden. They are all formerly Metropolitan Police officers. It is not my intention to go on at length about their great service here, but I know that we will all miss them. Their good humour, their wit and careful and watchful eye keeps us all in good order and ensures that the House functions as it should.
It remains to me, too, to say a word of thanks to all Members of the House for their tireless work and to pay tribute to the Government Chief Whip for the courteous way in which she conducts business. I pay tribute to her work in the usual channels. I wish everyone else in the House a happy Christmas and all the best for the new year.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to associate ourselves with the tributes paid to staff. This is one of the few occasions on which we all come together and speak with one voice. Visitors marvel at the courtesy, help and often humour they receive from the time they enter Peers’ Entrance to the time they leave. We thank our staff for the service that they provide throughout the year.
Many will continue in their role for years to come. Others may retire after a long service and, in some cases, sadness prevails for those who die unexpectedly while in service. I pick out two individuals among many. We remember Latifa Zounagui, our Senior Housekeeper in the Department of Facilities. Latifa joined the House of Lords as a housekeeper in February 1986. She was promoted to Senior Housekeeper and given the area of the Principal Floor that included the offices of Black Rod, the Chairman of Committees and the Director of Facilities. This high profile area demanded keen attention to detail and the team led by Latifa proved itself to be up to the job and highly professional.
Latifa worked at many State Openings providing assistance in the Peeresses Retiring Room with many and varied requests. Latterly, at her request, she became the team leader at Fielden House where she continued to lead a highly motivated team providing excellent services to Members and staff alike. She retired from the House of Lords in March 2012 after 26 years of service. We wish her a very happy retirement.
The other person, who unexpectedly died earlier this year, is Steve Chamberlain. Mr Chamberlain was the Reprographic Officer in the Parliamentary Archives Department. He joined the staff of this House in 1985. He died suddenly in service in July. He had been a digital imaging technician in the Parliamentary Archives since 1984. His job was to create copies of historic records for use by the public, staff and Members—an essential part of any research service.
Cheery and modest, Steve took great pride in his work and moved from paper and microfilm to digital photography during the course of his career as technology changed. He was always willing to help other colleagues or advise the public on their record-copying needs in the archives search room and his genial presence and contribution to the office life are very much missed by his colleagues in the archives. We join his family and friends in this sad loss.
We say to all our staff that we appreciate what you do to enhance the reputation of your Lordships' House. Thank you and we wish you all a very happy Christmas.
Lord Laming
My Lords, on behalf of colleagues in the Cross-Bench Group, I am very pleased to be associated with all that has been said in the well-deserved tributes to the staff of this House. There are many customs in the House of Lords, but surely none is more worthwhile than occasions such as this when we have the opportunity to thank the staff for the part they play week in, week out in the service of this House.
The staff constantly demonstrate a commitment to the success of this House. Their hard work is matched by their thoughtfulness, professionalism and great courtesy; and, whether we meet them day by day or they work behind the scenes, they should know that their help and support is always of immense value to us all. Put simply, we are most fortunate in the quality and dedication of our staff and it is right that we should take every opportunity to acknowledge this and to thank them for what they do.
I am pleased to have the honour of making special mention of three former members of staff who served this House over many years—each with a job of great importance, but which may not have brought them into contact very often with your Lordships. The first one is, I fear, a source of great sadness. Desmond Asiedu, who very sadly passed away only last week, was an enormously popular kitchen porter. He was very highly thought of by everyone in catering and retail services. Throughout his years in the House he was known for his impeccable manners and good nature, as well as his excellent standard of work. He was very conscientious in all his duties and was always willing to carry out any task asked of him. In 2009, in recognition of his contribution to the catering department, Desmond was rightly voted employee of the Session, which was testament to his dedication and the very high regard in which he was held by all his colleagues. He will be greatly missed and we pass sincere condolences to his wife and daughters for their sad loss.
Next I refer to George Newton. He started working for the House in July 1990 as a senior general assistant and was promoted to head storekeeper in 2001. He was a very popular and hard-working member of the catering staff. He also thoroughly enjoyed his free time—I am told that he lived life to the full—and he has now retired to Yorkshire to be with his family and friends. We thank him and wish him a long and happy retirement.
Then there is Mohammed Zounagui who started in June 1992 and worked as an assistant chef for many years before being promoted. He worked in the main kitchen and latterly in the River Restaurant, where he started work each morning at 6.30 to prepare and cook the breakfasts that are most popular with pass-holders from all over the Parliamentary Estate—I see them often but at a much later hour. He retired in October to be with his family and friends. As with others, we wish him a long and happy retirement.
All that remains for me is to add my own personal thanks to the staff as a whole and to Members of this House for the courtesy that they show towards me and the help they give me throughout the year. I wish you, and them, a very happy Christmas.