House of Commons
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
1. What steps he is taking to safeguard native tree species from the threat of disease.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Last October I introduced a ban on the movement of ash trees, and as recently as last week I introduced tighter controls which require notification by importers of consignments of certain oaks, sweet chestnuts and plane trees, allowing plant health inspectors to target inspections.
I instructed Professor Ian Boyd to convene the independent taskforce on tree and plant health, chaired by Professor Chris Gilligan. I welcome its interim recommendations, which presented radical ideas to safeguard Britain’s trees from disease, and I keenly await its final report, which will be published in the spring along with the updated Chalara control plan.
Caroline Nokes
Hillier Nurseries, which is in my constituency, is the United Kingdom’s leading grower of trees, and one of the largest growers in Europe. Last year it supplied trees to the Olympic park. It is imperative for the control plan for ash dieback and other tree diseases to be robust and responsive, but what reassurance can the Secretary of State give the company that the Government will support a programme involving the breeding of disease-resistant trees?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend has asked exactly the right question. We know from scientific evidence that Chalara cannot be eradicated, but that there is likely to be a percentage of resistant trees. I have asked DEFRA’s chief scientist, Professor Ian Boyd, to work with experts in genetics, as a priority, to establish the best ways of identifying and developing the sources of that resistance. He began his work in December. We are also working closely with industry—including splendid companies like the one in my hon. Friend’s constituency—on an updated version of the Chalara control plan, to be published at the end of March.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The truth is that the Forestry Commission is in absolute chaos. A total of 530 posts have been lost, 60 of them—60!—in forest research. The Secretary of State has the gall to stand at that Dispatch Box and act as if the world is all right and what he is saying has put everything in order. That is not the case, and he needs to get a grip.
Mr Paterson
I think that there may have been a question lurking in the humbug somewhere. The fact is that we have enormously increased research on plant diseases. I pay tribute to all those in the Forestry Commission and the DEFRA agencies who conducted a totally unprecedented survey of the whole United Kingdom—2,500 pieces of land, each 10 kilometres square—and analysed where the disease had come from. We know that, sadly, it has blown in and that there is a genetic strain, and we will work with companies such as Hillier’s to find it.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
16. What role does my right hon. Friend think the public can play, not only in the response to ash dieback but in our wider approach to tree health?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his much more constructive question. The public can play a key role. We know that there is a genetic strain that is resistant; we have seen it in Denmark and Holland. Organisations such as the Woodland Trust can play a vital part in helping us to identify the trees that are resistant so that we can start to breed from them.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State may know of my interest as chair of the John Clare Trust, which runs a campaign called Every Child’s Right to the English Countryside. The likelihood of any child’s visiting any green space is halved in a generation. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), we need an army of people to go out into our forests and woods, to act as detectors of disease, and to help us to fight it. We need that army of people to go into the country’s green spaces and act in the same way as the membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, who are good at noticing any decline in the bird population.
Mr Paterson
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the way in which we will confront some of these diseases. As I have said, a number of trees are resistant, and it would be enormously helpful if the public became involved in searching for them. There are some 80 million ash trees in the country; officials cannot spot them all, but the public can, and that could be immensely beneficial. I pay tribute to the members of the public who paid a key role during the week in which we surveyed the entire United Kingdom.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the response to the recent floods.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
The Government are grateful for the response from our front-line emergency services, which were deployed around the clock, including during public holidays. The staff of the fire, ambulance, police and other rescue services, local authorities, the Environment Agency, the voluntary sector, and local communities worked tirelessly in response to the floods. The Flood Forecasting Centre consistently provided high-quality forecasting and was able to predict risks accurately, which enabled timely action to be taken on the ground.
Sheryll Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for the interest he took in the flooding that occurred in my constituency over the two weekends prior to the Christmas break. How can he best help communities in my constituency in the aftermath of the floods?
Richard Benyon
Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend contacted me during those severe floods and kept me informed. I was able to use the information she gave me in my discussions with the Environment Agency and others, and I am coming down to see for myself the issues in her constituency in the near future. We are better prepared for flooding events than ever before, but that does not mean we are in any way complacent. We learn from every flooding event, and I assure her and her constituents that we will learn and that if improvements can be made, they will be made. I will make sure that we are working across government to achieve the results that her constituents deserve.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
On 26 November, the Secretary of State told the House that he would consider targeted emergency funding for communities affected by flooding, such as those in my constituency. Will the Minister tell the House what he has decided to do?
Richard Benyon
The hon. Lady will be aware that a long-established scheme, the Bellwin scheme, is there to assist local authorities when their recovery costs rise above a particular threshold. I understand that a number of authorities got some funding over 2012 and some did not. I want to work with her and others to ensure that where we can help, we are doing so, and that there is a co-ordinated response to these devastating flood incidents. Nearly 8,000 properties were flooded in 2012, and we want to make sure we are doing everything we can to help them.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Hundreds of homes were badly flooded in my constituency last June, following a freak 36-hour rainstorm. Thousands of my constituents now face problems with flood insurance; I am told of excesses in the tens of thousands of pounds. May I emphasise to my hon. Friend, in his negotiations with the insurance industry and others, the importance to my constituents of finding a replacement for the flood insurance statement of principles as a matter of urgency?
Richard Benyon
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am coming down to his constituency to hear the concerns of his constituents. I can assure him that we want to achieve something better than the statement of principles, which does not cover all properties and has no element that affects affordability. We recognise that there are real concerns about this, including in my constituency, where insurance premiums are being hiked dramatically. We want to protect those on low incomes who are at flood risk.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The statement of principles runs out in June 2013. The Association of British Insurers considers the negotiations with the Government to be at crisis point and estimates that 200,000 people will be without insurance. What do I say to my constituents who are coming to my surgery asking me what they should do about insurance? This is in absolute disarray.
Richard Benyon
I entirely reject the idea that our talks with the ABI are at crisis point—nothing could be more different; they are progressing at a very high tempo. We are negotiating with the ABI, with meetings happening on a seemingly daily basis and at the highest level in government. We want to achieve something that is better than the previous Government negotiated with the industry. We are dealing with large international financial institutions. We want to get this right for the taxpayer and those at flood risk, and we are working hard to achieve that.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
Six communities in my constituency were flooded three times in 2012—in July, November and December—and people there are naturally desperate about what to do. I realise that there is no money, because of our high-spending predecessors, but can the Minister find any extra resources to put into flood defence and prevention schemes to help my constituents cope with what may happen in the future?
Richard Benyon
I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that we are spending a lot of money—£2.3 billion of taxpayers’ money—on what the Government should be doing, which is building flood defences. In addition, we are looking carefully to ensure that we are supporting all the relevant agencies, such as the Environment Agency, to ensure that watercourses are flowing and that we are addressing all the factors that contribute to flooding. I entirely understand the desperation that his constituents must feel as a result of repeat flooding events, and we are working hard to deal with those.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
3. How many properties were protected from the recent flooding by flood defence schemes.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
4. How many properties were protected from the recent flooding by flood defence schemes.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Environment Agency estimates that more than 22,000 properties in England and Wales that would otherwise have flooded in December have been protected through a combination of flood defences, maintenance work, storage basins and temporary defence measures. In addition, 183,000 properties were protected between April and November.
Damian Collins
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the Environment Agency’s flood maps are as clear and accurate as possible? When the Dymchurch sea wall was completed in my constituency, it took a considerable time for the benefits of the scheme to be known to home owners and industry.
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Environment Agency’s national flood risk assessment assesses the likelihood of flooding and that information should be transferred to insurance companies when the new data are available. I understand that local circumstances meant there was a delay in his constituency, but the map will be updated in April.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the Secretary of State for paying a visit to Upton upon Severn to see how the new flood defences protected the community through last winter’s floods. Will he consider carefully the business case and bid for flood defences for the market town of Tenbury Wells when they come to the Environment Agency later this year?
Mr Paterson
I enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to those in the Environment Agency, councils and other public services who worked so hard over Christmas and the new year. She is an indefatigable supporter of her constituents’ demands and the Tenbury Wells scheme is in play as part of the extra funding that is being made available, but I cannot make any announcements today.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
In government, Labour provided funding to protect 160,000 households from flooding over two years. This Government will take four years to protect the same number of properties. Why?
Mr Paterson
That is a slightly dotty question. Some flood schemes take several years to plan and this really is not a party political issue; schemes were built by the previous Labour Government from which we are benefiting now and we are building schemes now that will last for a generation. There are substantial schemes in play. The circumstances have been incredibly difficult because of the awful mess we inherited—we still have the worst deficit in western Europe—but despite that we plan to spend £2.1 billion to protect 145,000 properties. In the spending round in November we got an extra £120 million that will over time protect a further 60,000 properties. These are good schemes and the hon. Gentleman should support them.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
5. What progress his Department is making on negotiations with the Association of British Insurers to ensure that affordable home insurance against flooding is available to householders in Cleethorpes constituency and elsewhere.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
Constructive discussions with the Association of British Insurers on behalf of their members and with others about the future of flood insurance continue at the highest levels of government. A range of options are on the table and no final decisions have been taken. We need a solution that ensures affordable insurance bills for those at flood risk but does not place unsustainable costs on wider policyholders and the taxpayer.
Martin Vickers
The Minister will be aware that many residents of Cleethorpes and other towns live in areas that are designated as high risk by virtue of their postcode as a result of Environment Agency mapping even though they might not have flooded for 50 years or more. Will he take on board those concerns and bear them in mind in his negotiations with the insurers?
Richard Benyon
I entirely understand that frustration, but the Environment Agency now provides mapping down to a 50 metre by 50 metre square, which is a lot more accurate than using postcodes. Insurers sometimes take different approaches to assessing flood risk and, in addition to Environment Agency data, most companies will use past claims history. I urge my hon. Friend and his constituents to use their local Environment Agency office, which is, I think, in Lincoln, as it can provide details of individual properties that are at risk. That can be extremely useful for householders in their negotiations with an insurer.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister is working very hard to strike a deal with the ABI. However, the same answer was given at the last Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions pre-Christmas. Will the Minister update the House on what real progress has been made since then and on what the sticking points are?
Richard Benyon
I would love to be able to announce that a deal had been reached. As I have said before, I am afraid that we cannot negotiate these issues on the Floor of the House. They are sensitive—and market sensitive, too—and we want to ensure that when we come to the House we have a rock-solid case that is watertight and that will last for a long time. I know that this matter is a great concern to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and I am delighted that preparatory work has started on the flood scheme in Morpeth. The real comfort will not come, however, until his constituents have the assurance they need on insurance.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
How much does the Minister think premiums will rise by next year if he is not able to reach agreement with the insurance industry?
Richard Benyon
The real problem is that premiums have been rising pretty dramatically while the statement of principles has been in place. There is no affordability element to the statement of principles. We want to protect those on low incomes in flood-risk areas, and we think we have a method of doing that. We are at an advanced stage in negotiations; I will come to the House shortly, I hope, with details.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
6. What policies his Department is implementing to boost the rural economy.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
A £165 million package of measures from the 2011 rural economy growth review is helping rural communities. It includes support for five rural growth network pilots, which are expected to create around 3,000 jobs and 700 new businesses, and rural development funding. We are improving superfast broadband infrastructure in the remotest areas and boosting key sectors such as tourism. We are increasing export potential and unblocking barriers to growth by removing red tape.
Gordon Henderson
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s remarks, particularly those relating to broadband, because improving broadband reception in rural communities will help their economy. Is he as concerned as I am about the apparent reluctance of BT to pay its full contribution to funding the roll-out of superfast broadband?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I cannot think of any measure that we are undertaking that will do more to help a whole range of economic activities in rural areas. I had a meeting with Ian Livingston, the chairman of BT Group, the week before last. We also discussed the issue in Cabinet, and the Prime Minister himself chaired a meeting on it this week. This is an absolute priority for the Government. We are determined to reach the target of 90% of premises being connected to superfast broadband, with the remainder having a standard of 2 megabits. If my hon. Friend has data on issues affecting BT, he should write to me.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
17. Does the Secretary of State accept that, according to the Government’s own estimates, the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will take £250 million out of national rural economies and hit 14,000 workers in Wales? Will he listen to what people are saying outside the House about that abolition, and in particular will he listen to what is being said about it in another place, so that he understands the strong feeling that the proposal should be rejected?
Mr Paterson
I am afraid that I just disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The board is a dinosaur relic from 1948. The rural economy is now dynamic. Those in agriculture are skilled people—cowmen are like hen’s teeth, and skilled tractor drivers are in demand—and many of them are paid well over the minimum wage, which did not exist in 1948.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
11. In December, I was delighted officially to reopen the Trawden post office in my constituency, which has been modernised and has extended opening hours, thanks to investment from the Government. Will my right hon. Friend say more about what he is doing with Ministers from other Departments to support small businesses in rural areas, such as the Trawden post office?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As a previous secretary of the all-party group on sub-post offices, I wholeheartedly concur with and support what he says. Unlike the last Government, we have supported sub-post offices. There has just been an agreement on the subject with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department for Transport, and I talk regularly to my Cabinet counterparts about the benefits that rural post offices bring to the rural economy.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
If the Agricultural Wages Board is abolished, about £250 million will be removed from the rural economy according to the Government’s own figures. Prime Minister Thatcher never did it; neither did John Major, and the Minister of State signed parliamentary motions against the abolition—that was before the ministerial trappings trapped him. What does the Secretary of State say to the tens of thousands of lowest-paid farm workers who may face a race to the bottom in pay and conditions because, after a four-week consultation, he knows better than them?
Mr Paterson
I am just sorry that the Labour party wants to head back to the 1940s. I see a dynamic, growing structure in our rural economy. In contrast, will the hon. Gentleman join me in celebrating the £19 million investment by Müller Dairy in a butter plant that will turn 100 million litres of milk into 45 million tonnes of butter? That will stop import substitution and bring jobs to rural areas. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) should preserve his melodic tones for when he is on his feet, rather than in his seat.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
The coalition Government have brought a welcome fresh impetus to rural economic growth, but skills shortages are still a problem. Will the Secretary of State share with the House the benefits that the skills and knowledge framework fund of £20 million could bring?
Mr Paterson
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend back in her seat and now released to ask pertinent questions, such as the one she just asked. She makes a key point—that we will not grow the rural economy if we do not have suitably trained and skilled young people, and the measure she mentioned is vital in developing the right taskforce for the right jobs.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
7. When he last discussed with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the use of green fields for urban development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
In the normal course of business, I have regular discussions with ministerial counterparts in the Department for Communities and Local Government about a range of planning issues. The national planning policy framework sets out the Government’s approach to encouraging sustainable development and provides strong protection for the countryside. It is for planning authorities to consider how best to optimise development for economic growth, and such considerations will include green fields in their areas.
Sir Bob Russell
I recognise what the Minister has just said, but it does not appear to be what the planning Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), is saying. Will this Minister give me an assurance that green fields are an important feature surrounding our towns, and that brownfield sites must be developed before any of those green fields are built on?
Richard Benyon
I refer my hon. Friend to the excellent national planning policy framework, which DEFRA was closely involved in drawing up. The requirement to reuse land previously developed—brownfield land—is contained in paragraph 111. The best and most versatile land is also protected—national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and, importantly for my hon. Friend, greenbelt land as well.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
If a council decides to build all its housing inside the village and town envelopes, rather than on green fields used for farming, and a developer appeals to the Government, who is the Minister’s inspector going to back?
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman seems to ask me to conjecture on individual planning decisions. We have the national policy. All our local authorities will have their own policies. Where those policies are found to have been breached, the planning inspector will presumably point to that. We can go around the country and see some daft developments that have taken place over the decades. Too many houses have been built on floodplains or have been badly sited around small and large communities. We can all point to that. That is why a new planning policy which protects the countryside and green fields is being taken forward.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
8. What steps his Department is taking to deal with Schmallenberg virus.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
Schmallenberg virus is carried by vectors, including midges, which are difficult to control. Infection outwith pregnancy has minimal impact and the resulting immunity protects from the effect on offspring in the subsequent pregnancy. I understand that several pharmaceutical companies are developing a potential vaccine and these will require to be licensed as safe by the veterinary medicines directorate. Use of the vaccine will be for the livestock keeper to decide in consultation with their veterinarian.
Glyn Davies
The increasing devastation caused by the Schmallenberg virus is taking place at a particularly difficult time for the sheep industry, with unfavourable weather and rising costs. Will the Minister go further and give the farming industry some idea when the vaccine will be available, so that it can have some confidence in protection for future flocks?
Mr Heath
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact answer as to when the vaccine will be available. When a new disease occurs, companies can apply for a provisional marketing authorisation in the UK, and a rigorous scientific assessment process is required to ensure that any vaccine is safe. Once satisfied with this, the veterinary medicines directorate will grant a provisional marketing authorisation for that product. It is widely reported that one company has recently submitted a dossier of relevant information to the veterinary medicines directorate for its consideration.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Farmers will be very pleased that there is the possibility of a vaccine for the disease, but the Minister will know that the management of sheep varies considerably from the lowlands to the uplands. Will the Department be in a position to give advice to vets and farmers about how to optimise the use of the vaccine, depending on their management schemes for their sheep?
Mr Heath
I certainly hope that we will be in a position to do that. I also think that there are some key issues about flock management; the key is whether infectious midges are around at the same time ewes are in lamb. As I said, if infection occurs before the ewe is pregnant, that provides immunity, rather than disease, so we might also need to take into account synchronisation in production and in the tupping period. I am shortly to bring together representatives of the sheep and cattle industries and vets so that we can discuss some of these issues.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to assist the dairy farming sector.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
I am always happy to impart information, Mr Speaker; that is what Question Time is for.
I am encouraging early progress to implement the industry’s excellent code of practice. I am consulting on ways dairy farmers can strengthen their position in the supply chain through producer organisations, and £5 million of new funding has been made available to boost collaboration and growth under the rural development programme for England. I am encouraging the industry to explore new markets at home and abroad to help develop its long-term potential.
Heather Wheeler
I thank the Minister for his reply. I was disappointed to see Arla Milk Link’s recent milk price reduction of 0.23p per litre. Farmers were given just one day’s notice of the cut, but they would have to give between 12 and 15 months’ notice before being able to leave their contract. That is against the commitments made in the voluntary code of practice and runs counter to the good progress made in the past few months by other processors, such as Dairy Crest, which is based in my constituency of South Derbyshire. For the voluntary code to work, we must ensure that there is a level playing field—
Heather Wheeler
How does the Minister intend to ensure fairness for both my dairy farmers and processors?
Mr Heath
I understand that the Arla price reduction was triggered by its agreed price formula, rather than made simply at its discretion, but I appreciate the concerns about the timing of the announcement and compliance with the industry code. That is why at last week’s Dairy UK board meeting I pressed for all processors to get on with implementing the industry code in their farmers’ contracts. I reminded them that if the code fails to deliver the desired outcomes over time, I will consider legislating.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Last year, Compassion in World Farming investigated a random selection of dairy farms in Germany, Spain and Denmark and found recurring evidence of cows being pushed to their physical limits to produce high milk yields and being chained indoors by the neck, in some cases all year round. Will the Minister back Compassion’s call for specific European legislation to set minimum welfare standards for dairy cows across the European Union, as we have for pigs, chickens and calves, which would help to set a level playing field for dairy farmers in this country?
Mr Heath
We always need to be aware of welfare issues in farm animals. This country has nothing to be ashamed of in the standards we have, compared with those of many others. We continually press at European level for common agreement on levels of farm animal welfare, and we will continue to do so.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
18. Dairy farmers in Hazel Grove are on the front line of the spread of bovine TB from the south, and they are astonished that DEFRA will not release information about infected herds in their area. Will the Minister take a second look at the reply he gave to me in a written answer and meet my farmers to discuss the issue?
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
10. How his Department plans to encourage innovation in the dairy industry.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
We are already taking action to support innovation and to help the industry achieve its potential. I have launched a £5 million RDPE—rural development programme for England—dairy fund to boost competitiveness and help businesses grow. I am working with UK trade international experts to develop a dairy exports summit, offering support to businesses that see export as a route to growth. We are also putting £2.5 million into research on sustainable proteins for feeding livestock, including 15 projects for the dairy sector.
Guto Bebb
I thank the Minister for his response. Will he join me in celebrating the work of the Tesco dairy centre of excellence, a partnership with Liverpool university located on a working farm in the Wirral? The centre ensures that best practice guidelines are offered to the supply chains for Tesco, many of whom are located in Wales. It is a great example of how the supply chain can work for the benefit of the industry.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
Following the excellent work that the Government have done to secure the access of pigmeat from this country into China, for example, what work is the Minister able to do to encourage dairy processors to look slightly to the longer term in developing these markets, given that the more low-hanging fruit might be just to explore opportunities in this country?
Mr Heath
We continue to press all the opportunities that we can for export potential. Indeed, the Secretary of State was in Shanghai recently pressing for exactly what my hon. Friend is asking for, which is opportunities for dairy exports in China. The industry needs to grasp opportunities, when they are there, to develop new export markets and find the right products for the right place so that we can expand our industry.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
12. What progress he has made on creating long-term sustainability in the fishing industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
We are making good progress towards sustainable fisheries. We secured an excellent, science-led result in the annual fisheries negotiations, setting sustainable fishing opportunities for 2013. We are negotiating genuine reforms of the broken common fisheries policy to eliminate discards, require sustainable fishing rates, and introduce regionalised management. We are working to address over-capacity issues within the English fleet and supporting market-led initiatives to help fishermen to get the best return for their catch.
George Hollingbery
The Minister will be unsurprised to know that I have a question about recreational sea angling. What work has the Department undertaken to assess the importance of this sector to the creation of sustainable fishing, and thus to fishing communities?
Richard Benyon
I am very grateful for the co-operation of recreational sea anglers in a project that we ran last year to find out how many there are, their contribution to the local coastal economy, what they are targeting, and their huge value in being the eyes and ears of the natural environment. Recreational sea angling is a key part of our policy to support coastal communities and the marine environment.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the disgraceful over-fishing of mackerel by Iceland, leading to the Marine Stewardship Council removing mackerel from the list of sustainable fish, exposes the folly of the idea of repatriation of fisheries policies?
Richard Benyon
The Marine Stewardship Council has not delisted mackerel; another organisation downgraded it. It is certainly still right to buy British-landed mackerel—it is still a sustainable stock—but, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have serious worries about the activities of the Faroe Islands and Iceland in declaring a unilateral total allowable catch and not being willing to negotiate. We are working very hard to try to bring them back to the table, and we will use every measure we can. This is the most important stock for the United Kingdom industry, and most of all we want to protect it for the future.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
DEFRA’s focus remains on growing the rural economy, improving the environment, and safeguarding animal and plant health. As well as responding to events such as the flooding that affected the west and south-west of the country over Christmas, we continue to explore new ways of ensuring that we are able to deliver DEFRA’s priorities more effectively, placing our economy and environment on a sustainable footing. This ranges from triennial review of our delivery bodies—the Environment Agency and Natural England —to a new integrated system for common agricultural policy payments. We must strive for better outcomes through greater efficiency, integration and innovation.
Stephen Phillips
Given the devastating impact that bovine tuberculosis continues to have on our farmers, will my right hon. Friend update the House on the most recent assessment he has made with regard to the deployment of a vaccine in cattle?
Mr Paterson
Last week I met Commissioner Borg, the EU Health Commissioner, to agree a way forward for developing a workable cattle vaccine. A provisional timetable has now been agreed, and a copy of the letter outlining this to me has been placed in the Library this morning. It acknowledges the UK’s leading role in pressing forward on a cattle vaccine. and for the first time recognises that we are on course to deploy a vaccine. The legal and scientific process could take up to 10 years. In the meantime, we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to check the progress of this terrible disease.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I am in receipt of evidence showing that several horses slaughtered by UK abattoirs last year tested positive for phenylbutazone —or bute—a drug that causes cancer in humans and that is banned from the human food chain. It is possible that those animals entered the human food chain. Is the Minister aware of this?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
I understand that the Food Standards Agency carries out checks in slaughterhouses to ensure that equine animals presented for slaughter are fit for human consumption, in the same way as it does for cattle, sheep and other animals. In addition, the FSA carries out sampling and testing for phenylbutazone and other veterinary medicines in meat from horses slaughtered in this country. Where positive results for phenylbutazone are found, the FSA investigates and takes follow-up action to trace the meat.
Mary Creagh
I am not clear whether that was yes, the Minister knew, or no, he did not. Either way, I am astonished that he has not raised the issue. The public have a right to know. It is a very serious development. What steps will he now take to ensure that illegal and carcinogenic horsemeat stops entering the human food chain? Last week, when I asked about difficulties with horse passports, he dismissed my concerns. Will he now review his short-sighted and reckless decision to scrap the national equine database?
Mr Heath
I think that the hon. Lady misunderstands what the national equine database did. The records of horse passports continue to be retained by the passport issuing agencies. There is no difficulty in tracing the use of a horse passport, so to suggest that the national equine database was required to do that is simply erroneous.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
T2. One of the largest employers in my constituency is Edwards of Conwy, the makers of the finest sausages in the United Kingdom. It has recently won a significant new export order to Malaysia. What work can the Department do to ensure that this country’s fantastic food producers get as much support as possible to export our product?
Mr Heath
The one controversy that I will not enter into is the question of who makes the best sausages in the country, because it will never end. I congratulate Edwards of Conwy on its success and entrepreneurism. Export is a key way of creating growth and I am committed to supporting our farming and food and drink sectors in doing so.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T3. We are still waiting for an announcement on irresponsible dog ownership and dangerous dogs. When will we have that announcement and what will it cover?
Mr Heath
I can only say that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have published a consultation on the issue. We have received 27,000 responses and we have to do justice to them. We will make an announcement about the way forward soon and I am sorry that I cannot give a more explicit assurance.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
T4. What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the national wildlife crime unit?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
We believe it is a valuable tool in the fight against wildlife crime, not only domestically but internationally, where there is great and worrying evidence of large-scale organised criminality that is affecting the survival chances of some of the most iconic species. I am delighted that we, along with the Home Office, have been able to continue the funding of the unit and we hope that it will continue its great work.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
T5. Last year the Secretary of State said that there would not be a Commons vote on repealing the Hunting Act 2004. Will he reassure the overwhelming majority of the British public who support retention of the Act that there will be no vote at any time in this Parliament?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is declared coalition policy to have a free vote on this issue at the appropriate time.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
T8. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for launching the global food IF campaign yesterday. The UK runs a large deficit in food, so what can the UK do to increase food production and make its contribution to the global situation?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. When we talk about sustainable agriculture, we need to have in mind our need to feed not only the people of this country but the people of the world. We have to have a clear strategy on how to get to the point where every sector of agriculture in this country has not only maximum efficiency and effectiveness but sustainability.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
T6. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that cuts to the Food Standards Agency have not and will not compromise meat hygiene inspections or the agency’s ability to ensure that meat is legal and safe?
Mr Heath
I seem to have answered a lot of questions recently about the Food Standards Agency, which is a matter for the Department of Health, but I will soon be giving evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on exactly that subject, and I hope that I will be able to set out exactly what the FSA does and does not do. I hope the hon. Gentleman will look at that evidence session and the conclusions of the Committee.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
As a prelude to my hon. Friend’s much looked forward to visit to the Committee, will he assure us that there is less chance now of horsemeat entering beefburgers and other parts of the food chain, and that the checks on frozen and processed food are as strong as those on fresh food?
Mr Heath
I certainly hope that that is the case after all the publicity over recent weeks about what was done in Ireland, and that we can assure my hon. Friend’s Committee that the FSA is working effectively and in collaboration with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to ensure that every single abuse of the process is tracked down and dealt with effectively.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
T7. It took the Government nearly two years to respond to the original consultation on irresponsible dog ownership, and it is now 10 months since they announced their further consultation. Ministers are showing appalling complacency on the issue, and Members want to know when they are going to get their act together on it.
Mr Heath
Many colleagues behind me are asking, what about the 13 years of the Labour Government when nothing was done? I have already said that we plan to bring proposals forward soon. My noble Friend Lord de Mauley is working closely with the Home Office on a variety of associated issues, and we will make an announcement shortly.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his impassioned speech at the Oxford farming conference in defence of agricultural innovation. As we consider areas in which we might renegotiate our relationship with Europe, will he comment on the importance of a European framework that supports science and innovation in agriculture?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for his work in pushing for development of the agri-science sector. That was one issue that I discussed with Commissioner Borg last week, and we are determined to push ahead and examine every technology that could help advance our agricultural industry.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
At last week’s fisheries talks, the Scottish pelagic fleet took a 15% cut in mackerel quota, in line with scientific advice, to compensate for the overfishing of Iceland and the Faroes. What action will the Minister now press the European Commission to take, and when can we expect to see it?
Richard Benyon
I had a meeting with the pelagic sector yesterday, at which I assured it that we would take every measure that we possibly could. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the UK fleet has done the right thing despite the fact that the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was based on the activities of countries such as Iceland and the Faroes. I am absolutely with her, and we will do our best next week in Brussels to ensure that the Commission understands how important the matter is to Britain.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The second wave of city deal bids offers great potential to rural communities in wider areas. Has the Minister seen the Swindon and Wiltshire city deal bid so that he might consider whether that partnership offers a blueprint for extending the benefits of city deals into neighbouring rural economies?
Richard Benyon
I am really impressed with what is happening in Swindon and Wiltshire, and I want to use it as a model around the country. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T9. Will the Minister confirm that legislation to ban wild animals in circuses will be included in the next Queen’s Speech, or can we expect more delays on that important animal welfare issue?
Mr Heath
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in the debate on a private Member’s Bill on Friday, we will very shortly introduce a draft Bill. That will then be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and it would be quite wrong for Ministers to prejudge what further progress that will result in.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
1. What recent representations he has received on the implications of same-sex marriage for the Church.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)
The Church has had a series of discussions with the Government Equalities Office and officials over the past few weeks regarding the drafting of the Government’s Bill. There have also been meetings between senior Church representatives and the Secretary of State.
The Church of England’s position on the issues of principle were set out clearly in the published submission from the two archbishops last June. I understand that the Bill is to be published later today, and I would prefer to defer any further comment on the detailed drafting of it until Second Reading, which I understand will be soon.
Miss McIntosh
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he give an indication of the timetable that the Church would need in order to implement the rather complicated system envisaged in the Bill?
Sir Tony Baldry
That will depend largely on the timetable set out in the Bill, and my hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to clarify one important point. The Church of England is not asking for any special treatment or protection under this legislation; the issue is simply that the Bill should be drafted to ensure that the Church of England has the same freedoms as all other Churches and denominations to decide these matters for itself, and that, of course, must reflect the unique legal position of the Church of England.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Speaking as someone who had a heterosexual marriage celebrated and registered in church, I hope that the Church Commissioners will explain to Colin Hart, the self-appointed campaign director of the so-called Coalition for Marriage, that having unity and diversity is a good idea, and that nobody in the Church of England ought to be worried about same-sex couples having the same opportunities of marrying as those of the opposite sex.
Sir Tony Baldry
These are issues that we will each have to address on a free vote on the Bill’s Second Reading, which I understand will take place soon. It may be for the convenience of the House if I give a brief summary of the submissions made by both archbishops in response to the Government’s earlier consultation, so that there is no ambiguity about the Church of England’s position. In their summary, the two archbishops said:
“The Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable ‘all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.’ Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history…To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships. We also believe that imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.”
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
2. Whether the Electoral Commission is taking steps to make it easier for UK citizens resident abroad to vote in UK elections while ensuring safeguards against electoral fraud.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
UK electors overseas currently have two options to vote in certain UK elections: by post or by appointing a proxy. The commission has been calling for the Government to review the electoral timetable since 2003, and it therefore welcomes the provision in the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill to extend the timetable for a general election from 17 to 25 working days. That will give overseas voters more time to return their postal votes. The current security arrangements for postal vote applications will still apply.
Michael Fabricant
There are 3.5 million expats living abroad—1.5 million in Australia and the United States, 800,000 in Spain, and many, many more, yet only 1% are registered and get to vote.
Michael Fabricant
And as my hon. Friend says, that is shocking. Will the commission investigate precisely why we are in this appalling state of affairs, and explain what it is going to do about it?
Mr Speaker
Given the illustrious post held by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), I am not sure it is fitting to wave a pen at him.
Mr Streeter
I completely agree and I did feel rather intimidated, although it was only a cheap biro. My hon. Friend raises an important point that many colleagues on all sides of the House have raised over the years, and it is time for action to be taken. Any change in the law or procedure is obviously a matter for the Government and this House, not the Electoral Commission. However, I am persuaded by my hon. Friend’s rhetoric that more needs to be done, perhaps by conducting some qualitative research into why more Brits living abroad do not register to vote. I will make that suggestion to the Electoral Commission, and it will be up to that commission whether to take it forward.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
3. What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of ways in which religious education teaching could be improved and ensuring that teachers have an understanding of basic Christianity.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)
The Church of England’s board of education and diocesan education team share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend about the quality of RE teaching. The Church is working with the Religious Education Council and other national bodies to ensure that the profile of religious education remains high. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and that of the all-party parliamentary group on religious education, which does so much to highlight those issues.
Fiona Bruce
Does my hon. Friend agree that RE is important because it has a crucial role in the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children; a pastoral role in creating space in classrooms where they can safely explore ideas about some of life’s most profound challenges and values; and a role in promoting mutual tolerance and understanding? However, does he also agree that, for that to happen, we need good quality RE teacher training and support?
Sir Tony Baldry
I fully agree with everything my hon. Friend says. That is why we are concerned about the removal of postgraduate certificate in education places for religious education and the minimal amount of time primary teachers receive to address religious education in their training. However, rather more encouraging is the fact that student take-up of religious education at GCSE has been at substantial levels for many years. The number of people sitting RE exams demonstrates that young people are indeed curious about faith and religion.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
4. What the policy of the Church of England is on celebrating civil partnerships.
Sir Tony Baldry
The Church of England’s position remains as set out in the House of Bishops pastoral statement of July 2005. A working group chaired by the former Northern Ireland Office permanent secretary, Sir Joseph Pilling, is reviewing the Church’s approach to sexuality more generally and will submit a report to the House of Bishops by the end of this year. A private member’s motion seeking to authorise the registration of civil partnerships in Church of England churches is due for discussion in the General Synod in due course.
Mr Bradshaw
As the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of senior Church of England bishops have, in the context of the debate on same-sex marriage, expressed their support for civil partnerships, but would the Church of England’s opposition to same-sex marriage, and the distinction it tries to draw, be more credible and have more authority if it allowed Church of England parishes that want to conduct civil partnerships to do so?
Sir Tony Baldry
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well. Given the sensitivity of the issue, the most sensible thing for me to do is to ensure that his comments and those of any other right hon. and hon. Members are drawn to the attention of Sir Joseph Pilling.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
5. What assessment he has made of whether the informal discussions among General Synod members in February 2013 will lead to significant progress on enabling women to become bishops.
Sir Tony Baldry
I refer the hon. Lady to the letter from the secretary-general of the General Synod, which was placed in the Library of the House on 19 December. I understand that the working group established by the House of Bishops had a good first meeting on 3 January. It meets again next Wednesday. The facilitated discussions in early February will be followed immediately by a further meeting of the House of Bishops. I know that all concerned understand the urgency of the situation.
Diana Johnson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the document that was produced and put in the House of Commons Library shows no acceleration of the usual glacial way in which the Church of England operates? Does he also accept that in 2015 we could still find ourselves dealing with an unrepresentative laity stopping the Measure? Surely we can something more quickly.
Sir Tony Baldry
The hon. Lady is being uncharacteristically uncharitable. Anyone present at the meeting in the Moses Room with the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate would have been left in absolutely no doubt that the Church is determined to take the matter forward with all due speed and diligence. A working group was set up immediately and facilitated discussions will take place next week. It is important to try, as quickly as possible, to find a way forward that enables fresh legislation to be brought before the General Synod in July.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
6. What recent guidance the Electoral Commission has issued on ways of increasing participation in elections.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The commission undertakes public awareness work to raise awareness of elections and how to participate in them, including by encouraging people to register. Electoral registration officers and returning officers have a statutory duty to promote participation locally, and the commission provides guidance to help them to do so. The guidance focuses on ensuring that people know how to participate.
Hugh Bayley
Given the consequence of the experiment in individual voter registration in Northern Ireland, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the commission that those people who already have their names on the electoral register throughout the United Kingdom should have their names kept on the register until the time of the next general election so that they should be able to vote at that election?
Mr Streeter
Yes I do, and, more important, so do the Government, which is precisely why it is going to happen.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
One way to boost electoral turnout is to have candidates who are able to enthuse positively the electorate. Does the Electoral Commission have any plans to crack down on nasty, negative and dishonest campaigning?
Mr Streeter
In the many conversations I have had with the Electoral Commission over the months and years, this specific issue has not cropped up.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Given the situation in Northern Ireland that has already been referred to, where the current state of the electoral register is so bad that it is estimated that only about 70% of people who should be on the register are on the register accurately, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that lessons are learned from Northern Ireland and that efforts will be made in conjunction with the Electoral Commission there to ensure that something is done urgently?
Mr Streeter
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Lessons have been learnt from the situation in Northern Ireland, not least the fact that people who are on the register in summer 2014 will automatically be on the register for the general election in May 2015.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
7. What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that British Airways acted unreasonably in banning an employee from wearing a cross at work.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)
The Church of England welcomed the recent judgments from the European Court of Human Rights. The victory of Ms Eweida is a straightforward victory for common sense. In a free country, the wearing of symbols of one’s religious faith should be entirely uncontroversial. I do not believe that Christians, just because they are Christians, should have any greater rights than anyone else in the community, but certainly Christians, because they are Christians, should not have fewer rights.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Although Nadia Eweida won her case against British Airways, which I wholeheartedly welcome, a nurse lost her case regarding the wearing of a cross at work, something she had done for 30 years. The Right Reverend the Bishop of Exeter has described the laws as balanced against the rights of conscience and faith. Does my hon. Friend agree with those of us who believe that we still need to do more to protect religious freedoms and tolerance in the British workplace?
Sir Tony Baldry
Personally, I think the ECHR got the balance on religious symbols about right. While fully upholding the right of Christians and others to wear discreet religious symbols at work, this, like many other rights, cannot be an absolute. In the case of Ms Chaplin, we fully accept that the need for hospitals to preserve the highest standards of hygiene, and safety has to come first.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
8. What steps are being considered within the Church of England as to how the House of Laity may be made more representative of church congregations.
Sir Tony Baldry
Last year, the Synod voted to explore alternatives to the present system under which the House of Laity is elected by deanery synod members. I understand that the report, with options for change, will be discussed by the synod at one of its meetings this year.
Martin Vickers
I thank the Church Commissioner for that reply. The unrepresentative nature of the House of Laity is clearly holding the Church back, involving it in interminable, internal debates. Very few congregations are aware of the process of election and very few members of congregations get involved in election. Will he use his good offices to ensure that, as a matter of urgency, new proposals are brought forward?
Sir Tony Baldry
I think my hon. Friend’s comments will be shared by many throughout the Church, which is why it is exploring alternatives to the present system under which the House of Laity is elected by deanery synod members. I am sure that the comments my hon. Friend makes will be borne in mind when that report comes to be debated later this year.
Business of the House
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Succession to the Crown Bill.
Tuesday 29 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, followed by remaining stages of the HGV Road User Levy Bill.
Wednesday 30 January—General debate on Europe.
Thursday 31 January—Consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, followed by debate on a motion relating to the Liaison Committee’s report on Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 1 February—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
Monday 4 February—Second Reading of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 5 February—Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.
Wednesday 6 February—Opposition Day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 7 February—Debate on a motion relating to subsidies for new nuclear, followed by general debate on the closure of A and E departments. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 14 February will be:
Thursday 14 February—Debate on eating disorder awareness.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.
Yesterday’s Opposition day debate on the disgraceful blacklisting of trade unionists who raised safety concerns, along with other workers in the building sector, was very powerful. Members highlighted the devastating impact that the practice had on construction workers and their families across the country over many years. Although there is legal action by some of those affected, we still do not know the extent of the practice or who was involved, which is why we called in yesterday’s motion for a full inquiry to get at the truth. The Government did not oppose our motion yesterday, which we welcome, so could the Leader of the House ask the Business Secretary to make a statement quickly on what action Ministers will now take to stop this practice ever happening again?
This week the International Monetary Fund cut its growth forecast for the UK, and this morning its chief economist called for a reassessment of the Government’s fiscal policy. Moreover, December’s figures showed Government borrowing up 4% year on year. It is up because the Government’s economic strategy is failing, and it is hard-pressed families who are paying the price.
Yesterday in this House the Prime Minister was asked about food banks. The chief executive of the Trussell Trust said that his answer was “manipulating the numbers”. The number of people turning to food banks for support has increased by 90,000 since the election. This year it is expected that 250,000 people will need help from food banks to get by. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions obstinately refuse to visit a food bank to see for themselves the consequences of their failing economic strategy, so may we have a debate in Government time on food banks?
Ministers claim that the Government’s flagship energy efficiency programme, the green deal, will enable thousands of householders to take out a loan to make their homes more energy efficient. Having scrapped schemes introduced by the last Labour Government which helped to make thousands of homes more energy efficient, the Government have a new scheme, which has been months in preparation. Forty organisations are involved and 600 trained builders are on stand-by, ready to spring into action, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change admitted this week that just five households had benefited. The Federation of Master Builders had a simple explanation for this failing policy: it said that the Government had done too little, too late to promote the scheme. Given the recent freezing weather and the inevitable impact on people’s energy bills, could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the latest Government shambles?
Last week I warned that those on the increasingly fractious Government Front Bench were at risk of turning on each other. On cue, we had a petulant outburst from the Department for Education, when a Government source blasted the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), a former Education Minister, as a
“lazy incompetent narcissist obsessed only with self-promotion.”
I am puzzled by who the DFE source could be. It could not have been a civil servant or a special adviser, because what happened is clearly against the special advisers code of conduct. Who does that leave? Could we have an urgent statement from the Education Secretary to clear the matter up?
The Leader of the House has announced a debate next week on Europe. Ahead of that debate, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether enabling legislation would be needed for a referendum to happen? Could he also confirm that the reason why there has been no Government statement on Europe is that the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday was not announcing Government policy? In next week’s debate, therefore, will the Foreign Secretary be speaking for the Government or the Conservative party?
The Leader of the House will recall that, a little over a year ago, he and I both voted against an in/out referendum. It is not immediately apparent what seismic events have occurred in European affairs to prompt Conservative Ministers to have a damascene conversion on this issue. Two Government Parliamentary Private Secretaries were fired for voting in favour of holding an in/out referendum. Will those Eurosceptic martyrs now be reinstated to Government? Will they be reinstated now that the Prime Minister has joined the headbangers in obsessing about Europe rather than tackling the effects of his failing economic policies?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her further questions. I was grateful to her and other Opposition Members for giving the House good notice of yesterday’s Opposition day debate on blacklisting, following our exchanges at business questions last week. That certainly assisted the debate, during which the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) said that the evidence available to date did not merit a new inquiry, but that it would be a serious matter if new evidence came to light that those practices were continuing. He asked anyone with information about the practice continuing to get in touch with the relevant authorities. I echo that request.
The shadow Leader of the House asked about economic forecasts. Our forecast was set out in the autumn statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility. It was produced independently—something that was never done under the previous Government, who published their own manipulated forecasts. The International Monetary Fund has forecast that growth in the United Kingdom this year and next year will exceed that of the eurozone. So, notwithstanding the OBR’s statement that the crisis in the eurozone has been a “major drag” on performance in this country, given that that is our principal market, we are none the less able to expect higher growth than the eurozone.
We have discussed food banks at business questions, and I have said that I visited a food bank in Loughborough with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). The Prime Minister has also answered that question at Prime Minister’s questions on many occasions. I will simply reiterate that, on 9 January, the director of the UK food bank network said:
“I think the need has been there for a while. The growth in volunteers, and awareness about the fact you can get this help if you need it, help to explain the growth this year.”
The hon. Lady made no reference, of course, to the employment statistics that were published yesterday. They showed that employment is now at a record high, and that it increased last year by 552,000—the largest increase in one year since 1989. Time might not have permitted her to refer to the crime statistics published this morning, which show an 8% reduction in crime, year on year, to September 2012. That is extremely welcome.
The hon. Lady referred to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe. I fear that she did not explain what the policy of the Labour party was, however, but I think we know. The Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday that Labour was opposed to an in/out referendum. So, as we discovered last week, the right hon. Gentleman believes that powers should come back to this country from Europe, but he has no mechanism by which he would seek to achieve that. He also has no basis on which to ask the British public for their consent to such a settlement. I am afraid that the Labour party has a problem. It has no interest in a new vision for Europe, such as the one the Prime Minister set out yesterday. That vision is attracting support right across Europe, including from the Finnish, Czech, Dutch and Danish Governments. They recognise that what is required is a more flexible, more competitive and more open Europe that is democratically accountable. As Leader of the House, I believe that what the Prime Minister said about the primacy of national Parliaments in securing democratic accountability was most important. But Labour has no vision for Europe, no trust in the British people and no support for democracy.
My final point is that the shadow Leader of the House might have a small problem with democracy. There was a local government by-election in her constituency in the Wirral. In that by-election, sadly occasioned by the death of the sitting member, in Leasowe and Morton East—a ward Labour won last year by a majority of 318—Ian Lewis, the Conservative candidate won by a majority of 265 votes. On the same day, in the neighbouring constituency of Wirral South, in a by-election in Heswall ward, the Conservative Kathryn Hodson overturned a Labour majority and won the seat, pushing the Labour party, which held the seat last year, into third place.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that, from now on, questions and answers will relate exclusively to the business of the House for next week and the provisional business for the following week.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Leader of the House have any views on what will happen in next week’s local government by-elections following the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe? I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has granted a debate on Europe so that all the party leaders can make their position quite clear—with the Prime Minister saying we want an in/out referendum, the Leader of the Opposition opposed to it and the Liberal Democrats facing both ways.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It seems to me that next week’s business, including as it does a general debate on Europe, affords an excellent opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to set out the Government’s position—and in so doing, he may well refer to the Conservative party’s policies for beyond the next election. That should provide a real opportunity for the Conservatives to maximise the Conservative vote at any by-election.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Should we not have a statement today from the Home Secretary on the 16,000 immigration cases that have been found by the chief inspector of borders and immigration—in addition to the number of cases found last year—with boxes being found in all kinds of places, unknown to the UK Border Agency? When is the Home Secretary going to get a grip on the situation after nearly three years in office and stop blaming her predecessor?
Mr Lansley
As the hon. Gentleman should know, this is an historical problem. It would not arise now because the reconsideration of those rejected applications could not happen under the current policy. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has made it clear that this is being dealt with and that such a situation would not be allowed to arise again. As I have made clear in business questions before, the chief inspector of borders and immigration is equally clear that performance is being turned around. The Minister has said that he is not satisfied with the performance of the UK Borders Agency and the chief executive is not satisfied with it: they are taking every measure to ensure that it is improved in the future.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
May we have a debate on the mis-selling of interest rate swap products by the banks to small and medium-sized enterprises, on the speed with which these matters are being resolved and on the fact that businesses across the country are facing bankruptcy?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I know is a matter of concern for many Members that have small businesses across their constituencies. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I cannot recall precisely who is investigating the problem at the moment—it may be the Office of Fair Trading, but I am not sure.
Mr Lansley
The FSA—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for prompting me. The FSA is investigating the matter. As we have discussed at business questions before, it is important to try to help small businesses in the interim, but it is particularly important that the FSA pursues its investigation with rigour. I know it will.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s red lines on their negotiations with Europe? We know that the Prime Minister is going to take a tough line on this issue, but we do not know what he is taking a tough line on. Will he make a statement to clarify what the red lines are?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I announced a general debate on Europe next Wednesday. I know that one key aspect of that debate will be the Foreign Secretary setting out how the balance of competences review is under way. The Government are pursuing that now. The first set of reports covering four semesters has already been published and is open for consultation. I hope Members will have an opportunity to respond before February.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Tomorrow, I will be hosting an event at Warwickshire college with the Minister with responsibility for creative industries. This event is partnered by the Gazelle Local initiative and is spearheaded by the college’s principal, Mariane Cavalli. The aim is to create an entrepreneurial college, building on partnerships with employers, entrepreneurs and social enterprises, with the potential to make our colleges engines for growth. Will the Leader of the House commit Government time for a debate on how our further education colleges can collaborate better with businesses to prepare our young people for work?
Mr Lansley
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I welcome his comments about FE colleges getting together with employers in his constituency. Colleagues from across the House and I met the principals of FE colleges who visited Westminster yesterday evening to discuss just these issues. There are many opportunities now for FE colleges, which they are taking, to get involved, together with local enterprise partnerships, to maximise participation in apprenticeships programmes and work experience. What the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), recently said about traineeships adds to the opportunities for FE colleges to equip young people for work.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House may be aware of the tragic case of my constituent, the Indian student Souvik Pal, who went missing on new year’s eve in Manchester, and whose body was tragically found this week. The right hon. Gentleman may or may not also be aware of the huge publicity that this case has received in India. Taken together with the callous and brutal murder of Anuj Bidve in Manchester on Boxing day last year, there is now growing concern that Indian students and their families will be put off studying in the UK. May I ask for a statement or some Government action on this important issue?
Mr Lansley
I am indeed aware of these tragic and very disturbing cases, as I know the House is, and we share the concern that the hon. Lady expresses on behalf of her constituents. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was recently in India and had the opportunity to discuss with the Indian Government many issues, including students coming here, and was able to reassure them. However, I will talk to my right hon. Friend and see whether there is any further means by which she can provide the necessary reassurance.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
May we have a statement on departmental responses to letters? Despite 11 attempts over five months to get a response from the Treasury to a constituent’s query, I have so far failed. I very much hope that the Leader of the House can help to sort this out.
Mr Lansley
If my hon. Friend or Members across the House experience failures on the part of Departments, I hope Ministers will respond and take action. However, if I can be of any assistance, I will. I will certainly be in touch with the Treasury and will perhaps encourage my colleagues there to respond to my hon. Friend before they answer questions here next Tuesday.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give a rather positive answer to a question I asked last week about whether the debate on preventing violence against women could happen on the international day of action against violence against women, on 14 February. Can he say whether he expects the Backbench Business Committee to be allocated that day, so that I can see whether we might get our debate?
Mr Lansley
I if may, I shall simply smile delphically at the hon. Lady. These are matters that we keep closely in touch with the Backbench Business Committee about.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Ormiston Forge Academy in my constituency is using its new freedoms to develop innovative relationships with business to improve the teaching of science and other technical subjects. May we have a debate about how academies are using their new freedoms to improve the educational experience of children in such subjects?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I agree: it has been extremely encouraging to see the considerable progress that has been made, not least with academies and free schools taking such opportunities. For example, on EBacc take-up, in 2013 the number of pupils taking triple science will have gone up by 82%. That and other increases in the number of science students are very important for the future competitiveness and success of our students.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that a massacre of London’s police stations, including Wanstead police station in my constituency, is under way. Apart from anything else, it is funny that Boris did not mention it until his campaign was over and he had been elected. Given the number of closures that are in the pipeline, may we have a statement from the relevant Home Office Minister?
Mr Lansley
As the hon. Gentleman will know, consultations are taking place about police stations across London. Responsibility lies with the police authority and with the Mayor in his capacity as commissioner, but I will of course raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all the postmen and postwomen who have worked so hard to deliver residential and business post during the period of bad weather? May we have a debate on Royal Mail and the provision of 4X4 vehicles for rural areas, which would enable parts of Shropshire that have not received their post to start to receive it if the snow continues?
Mr Lansley
I share my hon. Friend’s appreciation of the postal service. My constituents and I have experienced no interruption in mail deliveries, which is important and welcome, and I congratulate Royal Mail on its work. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) whether the Department, or indeed Royal Mail itself, could tell my hon. Friend a little more about how Royal Mail is equipping itself to ensure that deliveries are not interrupted.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
When can we expect an announcement about future business in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?
Mr Lansley
Regrettably, I am not in a position to add to what I have said thus far, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman if I have any more information about the future business that is planned.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May we have a statement on motorway safety and the use of chevron markings? Many accidents occur because cars are travelling too close to each other, and the markings are a simple and cost-effective way of encouraging the keeping of safer distances between them. I have not been able to establish from answers to parliamentary questions whether there is a strategy for the provision of more markings. The M3 has none at all. I should appreciate the support of the Leader of the House.
Mr Lansley
I understand the benefit of chevron markings. There is a point on the M11, which I use a great deal, where they are very helpful in maintaining space in traffic, particularly as it is a two-line highway. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) whether my hon. Friend, and perhaps other Members, could be given more information about the road safety programme on the highways.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a debate on fair access to universities? Yesterday’s announcement that AS-levels would no longer count towards A-levels was greeted with almost universal opposition. The University of Cambridge, for instance, said that the change would
“jeopardise…a decade’s progress towards fairer access”.
Is not ignoring everyone’s views on a subject a particularly dangerous form of narcissism?
Mr Lansley
I am pleased to note that, having not managed to introduce his argument during questions on yesterday’s statement, the hon. Gentleman has returned to it now. I like to think that business questions give Members a second chance.
The University of Cambridge, part of which is in my constituency, has sought on occasion to use its own attainment test because of its lack of confidence in its ability to distinguish between candidates on the basis of A-levels. Yesterday evening I spoke to the principal of Hills Road sixth-form college in Cambridge, which used to be in my constituency, and which sends as many candidates to Oxford and Cambridge as any institution anywhere in the country. I am confident that, along with other routes, the retention of AS-levels, although they will no longer contribute directly to A-levels, will give that college an opportunity to demonstrate that its students have the capacity to excel at the best universities.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
May I echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) for a debate on science and technology, because 100 years ago Birmingham and the west midlands was known as the workshop of the world and in this century it must be the science lab of the world? May we have a debate on not only how we encourage students to study those subjects, but how we encourage scientists and technologists into the classroom to inspire them?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and I entirely agree with him. Our Government’s reforms to curriculum, qualifications, teaching and the schools system will support better science and technology education. They include: a strengthened mathematics and science curriculum; more rigorous key stage 4 qualifications; and, not least, attracting more graduates with the appropriate qualifications into teaching by offering bursaries of up to £20,000. We all know that the ability to teach science and maths effectively for students often depends on teachers having the appropriate specialist qualifications.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
As we do not appear to be overwhelmed with Government business, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the plight of disabled people under this Government? Like many other hon. Members, I am now receiving letters from disabled people who are in despair at the cuts they are facing. One gentleman wrote to me last week saying that he believes the answer for him is the introduction of voluntary euthanasia. Is it not about time we had a proper debate on these issues?
Mr Lansley
I am sorry if anybody should ever feel that, because it is absolutely not necessary. As the Prime Minister has clearly said, and as I have reiterated, the changes to benefits for disabled people, including the personal independence payments, will focus more resources on those most in need with disabilities. I also dispute what the hon. Lady said about the business. This week five Government Bills are being considered in this House and five are being considered in the other House—that is a busy programme.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May we have a debate on the use of police cautions? This week, we have had the case of a burglar who admitted 113 offences and was given a caution by Surrey police. Surely that is a totally inappropriate use of a police caution. That person should not have been seen at a magistrates court; somebody who commits 113 burglaries should be dealt with at a Crown court.
Mr Lansley
I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. Of course, we must be careful, as the Executive, not to trespass on the prosecuting decisions of the prosecuting authorities, but I will raise the points he makes with my colleagues at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the large number of bankruptcies, including the recent ones at Comet and HMV, and those at many small businesses up and down the country? Is he also concerned about the growing evidence of a big question mark over the ethics of the people who carry out the process and administration of bankruptcy? The way they work it means that they suck all the lifeblood out of what remains in the business and leave nothing for the creditors. May we have a debate on this corrupt process, which goes to the very top of some of our big accountancy companies?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I make no comment on his closing remarks. In this Parliament, we have legislated for a reform of insolvency practices. A review is under way to look at some of the ways in which the claims of creditors can best be met during insolvency. I share his concern where bankruptcies occur, but I would also point out that in the past year for which figures are available—I believe it was 2011—we had the highest rate of new business formation in this country for a long time.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My constituent Jason Durk was recently charged £60 for an urgent prescription that was unavailable from local pharmacies, apart from the hospital dispensary. The alternative for him was to visit accident and emergency, where he would have paid only £7.20. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on joined-up budgets in primary care to prevent this very unfortunate situation where somebody who was desperate to receive medical attention had to pay a ridiculous sum of money?
Mr Lansley
If I may, I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond to my hon. Friend on that point. There is a distinction between access to prescription medicines, which attract the normal prescription charge—my hon. Friend and the House will recall that some 90% of all prescriptions are free—and access to medicines that are supplied in an emergency, which attract a higher charge. That is not about a prescription but about the cost of providing medicines in an emergency.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), the Leader of the House might be interested to know that a written answer I received on 15 January showed that between 2010 and 2012 the number of days it took to receive a decision on tier 1 visa applications made from within the UK went up from 30 to 83. In the same period, the number of cases taking more than four weeks to process has gone up from 25,000 to just under 64,000—all while this Government have been in office. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Secretary or a Home Office Minister makes an urgent statement on that process, as those figures do not show the progress he mentioned earlier?
Mr Lansley
I will not reiterate the points I made earlier. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has made it very clear that he does not yet regard the performance as satisfactory, and nor does the chief executive of the UK Border Agency. I will of course encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department to find opportunities to update the House during questions and at other times about improvements in performance at the UKBA.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Yesterday in the European Parliament there were some important votes on reform of the common agricultural policy. That subject is important for producers and consumers of food. Will the Leader of the House set aside some time so that Ministers can set out their views and hon. Members can reflect their constituents’ concerns about this important matter?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend rightly says, that is important. He will know that as those measures make progress the opportunity to consider them will be offered to the European Scrutiny Committee, which will decide whether it should be debated in Committee or on the Floor of the House. We will have to wait and see, but reform of the CAP has been a continuing priority of this Government. As the Prime Minister’s speech set out yesterday, it is an illustration in one very important area of the importance of the single market and of how the single market must promote competitiveness, ensuring that not only producers but consumers get the best deal.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a debate on the challenges facing Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust? The Leader of the House will know from his former role that there is a question mark over whether the forthcoming review of services will result in the retaining of key services, such as a full maternity unit, at Furness general hospital. There is also a need for lessons to be learned about the great failings at the trust over recent years.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman is right—I am very familiar with the issues at the trust and had opportunities in the past to meet the staff and visit Furness general hospital. I will not venture any view about the outcome of the review, but I shall certainly ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health to correspond with him and give him an idea about the process and any emerging conclusions.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education has taken significant steps to reintroduce rigour into the examination system, yet my constituents will not necessarily benefit from that because of the devolved settlement and the different approaches taken in different parts of the UK. May we have a debate on the examination system to provide clarity and certainty to employers and universities who want to know the differences in the approaches of the various authorities around the UK?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point, not least because he speaks from a Welsh perspective. There was recently a debate in Opposition time on reform of the exam system, which provided an opportunity for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department to demonstrate that our reforms are replacing GCSEs with rigorous world-class examinations, for example. We are setting out to ensure not only that standards are set and maintained in core subjects but that our examination system and curriculum match the best in the world.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Ovarian cancer is called the silent killer, as its symptoms go unrecognised and spread quickly. We could save the lives of 500 women a year if our services matched the best in Europe. Can we have a debate on how to improve awareness of the symptoms among both women and GPs, so that we can catch this cancer earlier?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The disparity in survival outcomes for some of the main cancers is at the heart of the improving outcomes strategy for cancer that the Government set out; indeed, I set it out when I was Secretary of State for Health. I visited the very large-scale research project on ovarian cancer. From memory, I think 200,000 women formed part of that trial, which should soon—in the next couple of years or so—start to give us results that might lead to much better options for screening for ovarian cancer, and hence early access to treatment.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the long-standing problem of interference on licensed radio stations, particularly in London and south-east England, from illegitimate broadcasters?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend tempts me a little. He will remember “The Boat that Rocked”, a recent film that was in part about trying to suppress pirate radio stations. When I watched it with my wife, I had to confess to her that in the mid-1980s, as Private Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry with responsibility for the Radiocommunications Agency, I was the official sending teams out to shut down pirate radio stations. Happily, that is now Ofcom’s responsibility, and I will of course ask the chief executive of Ofcom to let my hon. Friend know what steps it is taking to ensure that the integrity of broadcasting on the spectrum is maintained.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Britain is now set to renegotiate its relationship with the European Union. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that a first priority in the negotiations should be to seek to withdraw from the common fisheries policy and re-establish Britain’s historical fishing limits? May I also suggest that in next week’s debate, the Government come forward with proposals on the common fisheries policy, and perhaps think about using the Norwegian model as a basis for the future?
Mr Lansley
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of next Wednesday’s debate on Europe to raise those issues. I know the Prime Minister referred, in his speech yesterday, to reform of the common fisheries policy as an issue, and included in that is the question of the balance of powers and competences. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will hear from the Foreign Secretary in that debate about how our balance of competences review, which will be conducted by the Government during this Parliament, will inform the renegotiation and allow us to secure some return of powers.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
In the Prime Minister’s speech on the European Union yesterday, he properly and rightly drew our attention to the importance of the single market, and said that it should include energy. I would say that the key theme should be competition and connectivity. Will the Lord Privy Seal have discussions with his ministerial colleagues to make sure that we have something significant to say on that soon?
Mr Lansley
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s view. Indeed, one of the most remarked-on things about the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday was that it was directed not just at Britain, but the whole of Europe. All of us in wider Europe need to create a more flexible and competitive Europe; that goes particularly for eurozone countries, whatever their needs may be in terms of integration in the eurozone. As for energy, when it comes to being part of a single market and meeting the 2014 deadline, delivering that kind of competition is exactly what we need to do to demonstrate the benefits of European Union membership.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Yesterday, my constituent Terry Renshaw came to London, alongside his more famous former workmate, Ricky Tomlinson, and other members of the Shrewsbury 24 group, to get the Government to consider releasing papers relating to their 1972 trial. May we have an early debate on the release of those papers, particularly as the Government signed an order this very month to prevent their release until 2022, which will impact considerably on the group’s ability to put to the Criminal Cases Review Commission the case for looking at the matter again?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter on behalf of his constituents and others. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to respond to him. I will also, if I may, take an interest in that response, because these are not issues with which I am very familiar, but I will be glad to see what she has to say on the matter.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Primary schools in my constituency have told me of the challenges that they are facing from the growing demand for places and the pressure that this is causing, particularly on capital budgets. I do not think that it is just a local issue. It is affecting primary schools up and down the country. May we please have a debate to discuss what is being done to ensure that schools can cope with the growing demand for places?
Mr Lansley
Yes; my hon. Friend raises an important point. The problem is not confined to his constituency. The number of live births in this country began to rise in 2001 and since then, through to 2011, there has been about a 16% increase, so we have rising rolls in primary schools. The Building Schools for the Future plans of the previous Government did nothing to help primary schools respond to that. My hon. Friends in the Department for Education have been doing that, and through the spending review we are making available £2.7 billion to target local authority areas needing to provide places. I know that my hon. Friend will have seen in the capital allocations particular emphasis on meeting basic needs in the education system, which of course includes areas where demography demonstrates that capacity of schools is not sufficient.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
May we have a debate on why the Prime Minister says in a Tory party advert that he plans to pay off the nation’s debt, when in fact the Prime Minister plans to increase the national debt by 60%, according to his own Treasury forecast—a percentage that would be larger than in any other European nation?
Mr Lansley
It gets a bit rich, doesn’t it—the Labour party talking about debt. The debt would have been so much worse if we had carried on in the profligate way of the Labour Government. We came together as a coalition Government recognising that in the national interest we have to reduce the deficit. We have reduced the deficit by a quarter. It is a programme set out by the Chancellor in his original Budget in 2010 and maintained ever since to eliminate the structural deficit. It is a formidable task. It will not happen in one year. It will happen by 2017, and from that point we will stop the growth of the national debt, which doubled under the previous Government.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Plymouth university, the city council and the chamber of commerce are all seeking to bid for the Government’s city initiative. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on how such Government initiatives are helping cities and towns such as Plymouth, where 38% of working people work in the public sector, and how that can help to rebalance the economy?
Mr Lansley
The initial city deals in the largest cities demonstrated how those can energise economic potential by bringing people together and allowing them to think not in terms of what local authorities, universities, chambers of commerce, local enterprise partnerships and central Government do individually, but to put all that together. I will not be parochial, but Cambridge is also submitting an expression of interest in the next round of city deals. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about whether we might find an opportunity for some of the cities that are coming forward with new expressions of interest in city deals to have, in effect, a shop window to say how they would use that flexibility.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In Hull North seven members of the Hooper family, including a disabled five-year-old child, will lose £80 a month because under the coalition’s bedroom tax, they are under-occupying their four-bedroom house. On 8 January, Hull city council told me that it had 73 one and two-bedroomed properties available for households needing a smaller property, but 4,700 tenants will be hit by the bedroom tax. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about the shambles that this unfair policy will cause up and down the country?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady and her party need to recognise that when, as I and many hon. Members know, very large numbers of people are seeking access to social housing and we have large numbers of under-occupied houses, it is necessary to do something about it. If the hon. Lady wants to raise the issue, she will have the opportunity at questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his colleagues on Monday.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Concerns have been raised in my constituency about problem gambling and the operation of fixed-odds betting terminals. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the impact of problem gambling on local communities?
Mr Lansley
There will be a debate on offshore gambling tomorrow, so if my hon. Friend is here and able to contribute he might find that it will be in order to refer to some of those issues. Although gambling is an important and legitimate industry, I entirely share his concern, and there are limits that we must be sure we understand and police. As he will know, some useful analytical research has been done to help to understand what impact changes in the legal framework for gambling might have had on problem gambling.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Payment protection insurance mis-selling appears to have spawned another abuse: people are being subjected to unsolicited texts, e-mails and phone calls. In addition, spurious claims then have to be defended by businesses, such as those in my constituency, which is putting them at risk. Is it not time we had a debate on the behaviour of claims management companies?
Mr Lansley
My memory is that the issue was raised in the Backbench Business Committee’s discussions, but I cannot be sure at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I might talk with the Chair of the Committee. I think that it might have scheduled the debate and that it has already taken place, but I just do not remember entirely. However, there are certainly important opportunities for us to debate that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 965, which is about using the extra revenue raised by the new 45p rate of tax?
[That this House notes newspaper reports that the top rate of income tax is expected to raise more money when it falls to 45 pence, not less, as fewer will avoid it; further notes that the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Treasury have estimated that £7 billion was lost when the top rate was raised by the previous administration to 50 pence; concludes therefore that when the economy recovers, any extra revenues gained from the rich by the cut in the top rate should be used to pay for lower taxes on lower earners, for example by restoring the starter 10 pence rate of income tax; and finally notes that a new generous 10 pence band between £9,440 and £12,000 would be worth at least £250 annually to British workers, and would lift everyone on the minimum wage at least halfway towards earning the living wage in cash terms.]
Will he consider having a debate on the subject so that we can see whether we could use the extra revenue to restore the 10p income tax rate and lower tax for lower earners?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I have seen that early-day motion—we have discussed it in previous business questions. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising it, including, if I recall correctly, during Northern Ireland questions. He is so assiduous in these matters that I think no Government Minister can be unaware of the point he is making. However, it is of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister yesterday acknowledged the If campaign on world hunger and confirmed that he wants to see the issue addressed at the G8 summit he will host. We also know that many other issues are being canvassed for consideration at the summit, ranging from tax evasion to the impact of speculation on commodity prices, climate change and banking. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he will ensure that there will be adequate debate in Government time in advance of the summit to address those issues so that they do not all have to vie with each other for hard-pressed Back-Bench business time?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes an important point. The House had an opportunity to debate global hunger yesterday in Westminster Hall, and I know that will not be the last opportunity. It might be for the usual channels, and indeed the Backbench Business Committee, to discuss how and when the priorities for the G8 summit, including, as he rightly says, the Enough Food for Everyone campaign, are debated by the House prior to the summit.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time on the success of our free schools policy? The Hindu free school in my constituency is heavily oversubscribed and the I-Foundation is now applying for a network of Hindu free schools across the country so that parents, if they wish, can choose a Hindu ethos for their children’s education.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am surprised that the Labour party appears to be openly sceptical about free schools, 79 of which have opened in little more than two years. They are playing an important part in increasing the diversity and character of state education. No doubt my hon. Friend has in mind the Avanti House free school in his constituency. I hope that it and other free schools will continue to demonstrate that they can create not only a more diverse and appropriate range in state education, but higher standards by responding directly to the needs and wishes of parents and pupils.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Last year, one of Lancashire’s best public schools, Queen Elizabeth’s grammar school in Blackburn, applied to become a state school under the Government’s free schools programme. If approved, this will mean that a school to which for years only the wealthy could send their children will be open to all, free of charge. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is a great example of the Government’s free schools policy in improving choice in education? May I therefore join other hon. Members in calling for a debate on the free schools policy?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is very encouraging that we do not have to see a binary divide, as it were, between independent education and state education, and to know that there is an opportunity for the very best to be available to pupils, wherever they come from and whatever their circumstances. I know, as he does, that free schools are part of that. In addition to the free schools that are already open in my area, 100 more are due to open this year, including one in my constituency.
Points of Order
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs orals earlier today, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), raised serious and valid concerns over the possibility of horsemeat treated with a substance called bute—phenylbutazone, a potentially carcinogenic substance—entering the human food chain. Those concerns have been raised by the Government’s own independent veterinary advisers as well. The Minister seemed unaware of the issue and did not respond to these valid concerns. Could you, through your good offices, in concert with the efforts that we will make, try to ensure that the Minister or the Secretary of State appears here on Monday, or at the very earliest opportunity, to give an oral statement and answer questions on this vital issue of concern to human health?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order. I know that he would not seek to draw me into a matter of contention, because that would be a wrong thing for him to do, and he would not knowingly do any such thing, I feel sure. What I would say to him is this: first, he has made his point; and secondly, the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House are present in the Chamber and will have heard his concerns. It is of course up to a Minister to decide whether he or she wishes to volunteer a statement, although the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of the House and a shadow Minister, will be aware that there are means by which Members can seek to engage Ministers in matters of interest to them and more widely.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. After the next business, we move on to a debate on voting at 16. Most Members of the House and most people outside were not able to watch the debate on that subject by the Youth Parliament. Would it be possible for you, Mr Speaker, or another occupant of the Chair to provide some time today information on the web link, if that is available for others to look at, so that they can see the young people’s debate on the subject that we are about to come to?
Mr Speaker
That is a very helpful point of order from the hon. Gentleman; I should not say that with such a note of surprise in my voice. I would want to be able to accommodate his request, although I cannot say for certain how quickly it can be done. He is right that the Youth Parliament had a very important debate on the matter, and it would helpful if there were wider access to it. I thank him, and we will try to oblige.
Bill Presented
Marriage (Same Sex Couples)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Maria Miller, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Eric Pickles, Hugh Robertson, Lynne Featherstone, Mrs Helen Grant and Jo Swinson, presented a Bill to make provision for the marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales, about gender change by married persons and civil partners, about consular functions in relation to marriage, for the marriage of armed forces personnel overseas, and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 126) with explanatory notes (Bill 126-EN).
Backbench Business
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Voting Age
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 119 / Noes: 46 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the age of eligibility for voting in all elections and referendums in the United Kingdom should be reduced to 16.
It is a great pleasure to follow the previous business. I certainly support same-sex marriage and look forward to giving the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill a good and safe passage through this House.
Today I am talking about another reform whose time has come—extending the franchise to 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds. There is widespread support for this proposed measure among parliamentarians from all parties. It is also supported by a wide coalition of youth charities, including the British Youth Council, Barnardo’s and the YMCA, as well as youth representation groups, such as the National Union of Students and, as the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) just mentioned, the UK Youth Parliament, which debated this very subject on these Benches under your chairmanship, Mr Speaker.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Those who listened to those young people debating the issue will know that they did not have to deal with all the dusty arguments that were used in the past to oppose votes for most men, any woman and people under 18. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the registration age for voting came down to 16, the average age for those registering to vote in a general election would be 18, because general elections do not come along every year?
Stephen Williams
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, I will make a similar point later.
This proposed constitutional measure is not in the coalition agreement, because there is a difference of opinion between the leadership of my own party and that of our fellow coalition members, the Conservative party. Because the motion is outside the coalition agreement, the Government will not introduce it. It is down to the rest of us as parliamentarians to deliver this particular change.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the age of adulthood is a mess in so many areas? It is possible to buy cigarettes at one age, drink alcohol at another and drive at yet another. Surely the answer is not just to look at what the voting age should be, but to tidy up the law and equalise the age of adulthood for everything.
Stephen Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I disagree with him and will explain why later. I do not think there is an absolute age at which young people acquire the rights and responsibilities for every single facet of their young lives. I think that it is appropriate to have different ages, and will come to that later.
Given that the motion is outside the coalition agreement, I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for granting me the opportunity to introduce this debate. I am also grateful to my co-sponsors from all parties in the House, particularly the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who accompanied me on one of the occasions that I made representations to the Committee.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly since I am one of the co-sponsors who, sadly, was not able to attend the bid to the Backbench Business Committee. Does he agree that a strong reason for supporting the motion is the evidence—I am sure he is aware of it—from countries such as Austria, where lowering the voting age has led to increased voter turnout, and that, given that voter turnout is something that we all care about, this proposal would be a very good way of achieving that?
Stephen Williams
The hon. Lady, whom I am delighted is one of the motion’s co-sponsors, makes a very good point. I will come to international comparisons later.
Just over seven years ago, on 29 November 2005, I was the last Member of Parliament to provoke a Division on this issue, and we lost by just eight votes. I think that the mood of the House and the country has now changed and that it is worth while to make another attempt.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I support this debate, but am passionately against the motion and will make a speech later. The fact of the matter is that too many people on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the argument exaggerate the level of support. Has he seen the recent polls in Scotland, which show there is no support for votes at 16 or 17?
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
That is rubbish. There is support—56% support it.
Stephen Williams
I will leave matters relating to Scotland to other contributors. If you permit it, Mr Speaker, we will hear from that corner of the United Kingdom later.
The case for lowering the voting age is usually made—the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has alluded to this—on the grounds of other rights and responsibilities that young people already have at 16 and 17. I will come to those later, but I would prefer to justify lowering the franchise age to 16 on the principal grounds that I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds have sufficient maturity and knowledge to cast a vote, if they want to do so. We do not have compulsory voting in this country, so we would simply be affording 16 and 17-year-olds the opportunity to vote if they wished to do so.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is setting out his case very well. I spent my whole life working with 16 to 19-year-olds until I came to this place, and my experience suggests that they are as good at making decisions on voting as the people who are assembled here.
Stephen Williams
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who leads me neatly on to my next point.
Although I have not worked in the further education sector, as an MP, and as a candidate and a county councillor before that, I have about two decades of experience of speaking to sixth-formers and those at further education colleges, and I have always been impressed by the depth and range of their knowledge both about matters that are purely about Bristol and about those that have global implications.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
When I visit further education establishments, people are intrigued and impressed by the idea of being able to vote, yet somehow when they leave further education they do not take advantage of that. We need to tap into their enthusiasm while it is there and get them into the habit of voting.
Stephen Williams
As I said, there is widespread support for the change in all parties, and there we have another revelation from a Conservative coalition colleague that there is growing support for it.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way to so many Members so early in his speech.
The hon. Gentleman’s motion refers to
“voting in all elections and referendums in the United Kingdom”.
Does he accept that if there are elections in one particular part of the UK—Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales—there may be a case for saying that the devolved legislatures should consider the matter? In the case of the Scottish referendum, for instance, the Scottish Parliament will decide on the age of the participants, because that decision has been devolved. Is the scope of the motion not too wide, and should not the place of the devolved legislatures be respected?
Stephen Williams
I and my party colleagues are fundamentally committed to the principle of devolution, not just to the nations of the United Kingdom but, from my perspective, through growing empowerment for local government and city regions. I would like local government to decide its own franchise arrangements. First past the post is a clapped-out, ludicrous system. In Bristol, where we have genuinely competitive four-party politics and all the mainstream English parties compete, Bristol city council ought to have the power to alter its electoral cycle and decide on its franchise. I am therefore fully with the right hon. Gentleman in believing in such subsidiarity in decision making.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling the motion and am delighted to be one of its supporters. Does he agree that registration is another issue that should be considered? Many young people, particularly students living in houses in multiple occupation, do not get themselves on the register and therefore miss the first opportunity to vote. With general elections every five years, it can be a long time before they have another opportunity. Starting at 16 would make it easier for them to get on the register earlier.
Stephen Williams
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will return to the composition of the franchise later and refer to the experience in Northern Ireland, which is ahead of the game compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Although I am not listed as a supporter of the motion, I would have been delighted to be, because I am fully in sympathy with it.
The hon. Gentleman’s point that the time has come for the change is pertinent, because citizenship is now taught in schools, and in Wales we have the Welsh baccalaureate, which lends itself well to the change. He, I and other Members go into schools and debate pertinent issues of the day on a multi-party basis. I want young people to make their decisions on those issues and go out and mark their cross in the ballot box. It is wrong to deny them that opportunity.
Stephen Williams
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, except the part about the cross in the box—I would prefer it to be a 1-2-3 arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman leads me on to the curriculum, which has changed markedly over the past decade. History and religious education are taught quite differently from when most of us studied them in school, which enables young people to understand their place in society and weigh up controversial issues. Personal, social, health and economic education has been introduced to the curriculum, as has citizenship. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) presided over an inquiry into the teaching of citizenship when I was a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, and it is now well embedded in schools, particularly in England and Wales, and has transformed young people’s knowledge of our democratic processes.
Stephen Williams
I see that the hon. Gentleman is now going to disagree with me.
Mr Sheerman
Yes, the hon. Gentleman was on that Committee with me when we looked at citizenship, and at that time citizenship was up and coming and thriving. Since 2010, however, partly through the policies of the Government of whom his party is part, we have seen a steep decline in citizenship being taken seriously and delivered, and it has been totally marginalised. Is he proud of that?
Stephen Williams
Tempted as I may be to go into that, this debate is about the franchise. I am trying to be as collegiate as possible, and I hope colleagues will do the same.
The teaching of citizenship, to whatever extent, has transformed the ability of young people to understand and engage with the political system. Indeed, the Hansard Society’s latest audit of political engagement—which I am sure we have all studied in great detail—offers the teaching of citizenship as an explanation for why, over the nine years in which it has studied public engagement in Parliament and politics, the only growth in an understanding of Parliament among the population was in the youngest cohort. When the society started its audit, only 17% of young people aged 18 to 24 felt that they had some knowledge about the workings of Parliament, but that has now grown to 31%. Some improvement is still needed, but that cohort is now broadly in line with the rest of the population.
Extra-curricular activities have also changed enormously over the past decade. The UK Youth Parliament debated in this Chamber and in the other place, as has been mentioned, and I should also mention Parliament’s own education outreach service, of which I am sure we have all had good experience. It has transformed the ability of school visiting parties, and the outreach programme in our constituencies helps schools that are not able to come to Westminster to understand how we make law and run elections.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I fully support the motion and hope to vote on it in the Division. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most offensive argument against this motion is that only some—not all—16 to 18-year-olds would want to vote in elections. Does not that holds true for all ages and demographics across the country? I find that the most offensive of all the arguments, and I know that all 16, 17 and 18-year-olds in my constituency fully support the measure under debate.
Stephen Williams
It is interesting how colleagues across the Chamber are neatly anticipating in their interventions the next points I will be making. We have never had an electoral competence test in this country, although I have heard people advocate one. We have all, I am sure, been canvassing and been outside the shopping centre or even the school gate, and rolled our eyes or walked down the path in despair after hearing opinions that may not have been that well informed from people in their 40s, 50s and 60s. We would never say that the franchise should be withheld from people just because they are stubborn in their opinions or have got a fact completely wrong. We do not have an electoral competence test for people aged 18 and over, so we should not apply it to those aged 16 and 17. Were we to have such a test, I think 16 and 17-year-olds would pass it with flying colours, but I could not have the same confidence for people who are much older than them.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have been in command of soldiers aged 16 and 17 who are desperate to go on operations but are not allowed to because this country considers them still to be children. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a 16-year-old should be able to vote—presumably to send our soldiers to war— but cannot go to war themselves until they are 18. Extraordinary!
Stephen Williams
I do not think it is extraordinary. As I said earlier to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I have no problem with having different ages for different rights and responsibilities. Some people disagree with me about that and want 16 to be the common age, but that is not the position I hold.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
One of my constituents had not reached his 18th birthday when he was killed in Afghanistan. What direction of travel should the Government be taking? If we are to protect our youngsters from being killed, we should not be forcing extra responsibilities on them when they should be doing their exams at school.
Stephen Williams
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he should compare giving a person the opportunity to vote—voting takes five or 10 minutes every five years, or every four years for council elections—with sending them to war. The debate is purely on the merits of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. Those who support that change believe they have the maturity to exercise that right and responsibility. I make no comment about other rights and responsibilities.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says it is a matter of people having the maturity to make such decisions, but not too long ago, the House, presumably with his support, voted to increase the age at which people are allowed to buy cigarettes from 16 to 18. If he and the House believe that people at age 16 are not capable of making a decision on whether or not to smoke, why does he believe they are capable of deciding which party should be in government?
Stephen Williams
We have heard four similar interventions from coalition colleagues, and I have the same answer. I do not believe there is an absolute age at which every single right and responsibility accrues. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, I agree that there are very good health grounds for tobacco control and for making 18 the responsible age for consuming a product that is harmful to health. I would say exactly the same about alcohol.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
May I say, through my hon. Friend, to our more doubtful colleagues, that the overwhelming reason is that youngsters at school are, in my experience, educated to be citizens and to play a full part? If we separate the date when they have the education and the interest is aroused from the date when they can register and do something, we lose them—bluntly—potentially for five, 10 or 15 years, or for ever.
Stephen Williams
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He was the first Member to attempt to make this change—in, I believe, 1999, when he was crushed by 400 votes to 36. I hope we will have a markedly different result today. He is right that this generation of young people have had all the educational opportunities to understand the democratic system, yet we continue to withhold from them the opportunity to put that knowledge into practice. We should not continue to withhold the vote from the best-educated generation of young people.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, one important point to make—I want to make it before the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) leaves the Chamber, because it relates to a point he made—is on under-18s dying when they go to war. Surely decisions on who goes to war and when affect 16, 17 and 18-year-olds. If they can die for their country, surely they should be able to participate in making the decision on whether their country, for which they are dying, goes to war in the first place.
Stephen Williams
I entirely agree with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. Mercifully, very few people die in modern warfare. Interestingly—I have looked at debates on the matter from around the world—the US originally lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 because of the Vietnam draft. The hon. Lady’s point has therefore been well made in other places.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
People gave many reasons why women should not have the vote, but for many years, women had the vote and were not allowed to go to war. To argue that certain people are not allowed to go into the theatre of war and therefore should not have the vote is somewhat false. Are hon. Members saying that women should not vote on going to war because they are not able to go into theatre?
Stephen Williams
The hon. Lady is right. As a student of psephology and political history, I know that all sorts of peculiar characteristics of the franchise have existed in various parts of the country going back hundreds of years. The debate is on removing another undue restriction on the franchise.
As well as being very well educated, this generation of young people also has the opportunity to be very well informed. For this debate, I reread Hansard from 1968, when the Representation of the People Act 1969 was first debated—I also reread it prior to my debate seven and a half years ago. Members at the time expressed their worry that young people aged 18 were not mature enough to cast independent judgment, and in particular judgment that was independent of their parents or older siblings. As the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) alluded to, those arguments have been advanced every single time the franchise has been altered. Going all the way back to 1832, different excuses have been made why particular sets of the population cannot be trusted with the right to vote. Similar things were said about the rights of women in 1918 and prior to that, and about poor working men.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I partly endorse what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Certainly, what I see when I meet 16 and 17-year-olds in my constituency at various schools and colleges supports the fact that they can make some informed choices. However, if we say, on health grounds and so on, that people have to be over the age of 18 to be able to make an informed choice about alcohol, smoking and pornography, we cannot dissociate the two—we have to be uniform.
Stephen Williams
I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here earlier when I answered similar points from his Conservative colleagues. I do not believe in a single age of rights and responsibilities. There are ages when rights accrue, but they happen before the age of 16. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is a barrister and will correct me if I am wrong, but the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 12, so we have different ages for a variety of rights and responsibilities. I see no reason why that is an impediment to extending the franchise to 16.
Stephen Williams
I am going to make a little progress. I have given way to everyone who has intervened for the first time, and I know many other hon. Members wish to speak.
As I was saying, these excuses have been used every time anyone has proposed extending the franchise, but in 2013 young people do not just have a good education, they have information at their fingertips via their phones and iPads. They are able to absorb information from all over the world in a completely different way to that contemplated by anyone back in 1968 when this House last debated and then voted to lower the franchise. Family pressure will always be there. We have all met people who say that they vote Labour or Conservative because their family always voted that way. Now, however, there are plenty of countervailing views not just in school or college, but in the bedroom and living room via the internet, where people can weigh up how they see the world and how they want to play their part in changing it, or indeed keeping it the same, if that is their political persuasion.
The longstanding justification for changing the voting age has been the range of rights and responsibilities that various Members have mentioned. There is a long list, from the right to drive a car, the right to join the Army or a trade union, and the right to receive benefits or pay taxes. The waters have been a little bit muddied in this area, partly because of my party being in the coalition, because young people on the minimum wage no longer pay income tax thanks to the fact that we have raised the income tax threshold. Of course, they still pay national insurance and VAT, so Jefferson’s maxim of no taxation without representation still stands.
Philip Davies
On that point, people pay tax based on their income, not their age. Presumably, massively talented child actors who earn an absolute fortune working on films pay tax on their income if it goes above a certain threshold. If an eight-year-old child star earns a fortune and therefore has to pay tax on that income, is the hon. Gentleman putting forward the view that that eight-year-old should be able to vote?
Stephen Williams
I advise the hon. Gentleman not to pick an argument with somebody who was a tax consultant before he became an MP. Such a person—Daniel Radcliffe or whoever else he was thinking of—would probably have that income held in trust by their parents until they reached the age of 16, or whatever the trust says, and the tax allowance goes with the parents. It used to be a classic bit of tax avoidance.
There are plenty of different ages where there are different rights and responsibilities, from the right to be tried in court for a criminal act performed from the age 12 onwards to receiving different amounts of minimum wage up until the age of 21. I think the most compelling comparison of all is the right to marry, which will be extended when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is introduced, and the age of consent to sex. Surely the act of bringing another human being into the world is much more fundamental than the opportunity to vote. If we think that young people are capable of being good parents at the ages of 16 and 17, surely they can have the right to go and vote.
Giving young people the right to vote would also rebalance the changing demographics of the franchise. We all know the power of the grey vote and the higher tendency of pensioners to turn out and vote. The Inter- generational Foundation has recently published an interesting report—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are very interested in the output of the Intergenerational Foundation, about which the hon. Gentleman will seek to advise us in a moment. We are listening to his speech with great interest and he has generously taken a large number of interventions, but I hope I can predict with confidence that he is approaching his concluding remarks, as a large number of other Members wish to speak and I am keen to ensure that they do.
Stephen Williams
Thank you, Mr Speaker. With that advice—not only to me, but to other colleagues perhaps not to seek to intervene on me—I will be able to get through the rest of my speech quite quickly.
The Intergenerational Foundation has published a report on the rise of what it calls the gerontocracy—to summarise, the fact that the will of the old is trumping the needs of the young. We have had all sorts of debates recently—about the winter fuel allowance and so on—that are characteristic of that. It is a statistical fact—there are many statistical facts in that report—that there are more 63-year-olds who are able to vote than 18-year-olds. However, this is not simply about the absolute numbers of older people who are able to vote. We also know that their tendency to turn out and vote is higher, while 18 to 24-year-olds under the current franchise have the lowest tendency to turn out.
That takes me back to an earlier intervention. One of the reasons why that cohort has a low tendency to turn out is that most people in that group miss the opportunity to vote when they turn 18. It happened to me—I was 18 in 1984, and so was not able to vote for the first time until the 1987 general election. Now that we have guaranteed five-year Parliaments, someone who turned 18 in, say, mid-May 2010 will be 23 before they can vote in the next general election. Lowering the franchise from 18 to 16 will bring down slightly the average age at which people first cast their vote, from their early 20s to about 19 perhaps. The idea that swathes of 16 year-olds will be deciding the election is therefore simply not true.
Lowering the voting age to 16 also makes it more likely that people will vote while they are in the stable environment of home and education. Voting is habitual. We know from various studies that if someone votes for the first time when they are just 18, they pick up the pattern of voting for later life. Lowering the voting age also makes it easier to register—a point made earlier. In Northern Ireland, where individual voter registration is ahead of England and Wales, 16 and 17-year-olds are now registered in school. Registering 16-year-olds would be quite easy to do and add 1.5 million to the franchise—about 2,500 voters in each English constituency and different amounts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
If my 2005 Bill had been accepted, the UK would have been a trailblazer, but not now. Austria, which has been mentioned, extended the vote in 2007. In German local elections, the Bürgermeister of Hannover can be elected by 16-year-olds, but those wishing to vote for the mayor of Bristol, which is twinned with Hannover, have to wait until they are 18. Brazil—the fourth largest democracy in the world—gives the right to vote to 16-year-olds and Argentina extended that right just two months ago. However, it is here in the British Isles that the most fundamental change has taken place: 16 and 17-year-olds are now able to vote in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, but it is in the devolved nations that the most profound change has taken place. On 4 July the Welsh Assembly voted to reduce the voting age to 16, and on 6 November the Northern Ireland Assembly did the same—but the power lies with us. Most profoundly of all, in the Scottish referendum, which I am sure we will hear about shortly, 16 and 17-year-olds will be given the right to cast their votes, in what I think will be a much more important referendum than the one we heard about yesterday—one that decides the future of the United Kingdom. If Scottish 16 and 17-year-olds can vote on the future of the UK, surely it would be untenable to withhold that right from their English, Welsh and Northern Ireland counterparts.
The genie is now out of the bottle. An old political maxim is “Trust the people”. We trust young people to be parents, we trust them to defend our country and we trust them with the future of the United Kingdom. Surely it is now time for us to trust 16 and 17-year-olds with the right to elect us to this House.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to take place. It is important, at this stage of this Parliament, and after so many years have elapsed since the hon. Gentleman’s original Bill, that we should have the chance to debate—and, I hope, to vote on—this important subject.
Like most Members of Parliament, I spend quite a bit of time visiting sixth forms and meeting members of school councils, and teachers and pupils. Just last Friday, I was at Roundhay high school in my constituency, where I met the politics AS-level group—a group of about 20 16 and 17-year-olds. We had a discussion for about an hour and a half, and it would have been longer if they had not had to go to a different class. The quality of the teaching and, more important, the quality of the opinions and the questions, was absolutely brilliant. That made me realise that I was right to co-sponsor the hon. Gentleman’s debate this afternoon. Listening to those 16 and 17-year-olds, I felt that they were well ready to make a decision about who should represent them in this Parliament, who should be the Government of the day and—something that we have perhaps overlooked—who should run their local authority. Local authorities are still important bodies in the lives of the young people in our towns, cities and regions. I felt reassured, listening to those young people.
I have been to many different schools, as we all have. I have visited Allerton high school, Allerton Grange high school, Carr Manor high school and Cardinal Heenan Catholic high school. I have listened to sixth-form groups in those schools discussing politics. They have asked me deep, searching questions about why I became a politician, what we do in this place and how that affects their lives. I feel that it is really time for them to have a chance to make their judgment, locally and nationally, in our elections.
Philip Davies
When the hon. Gentleman was in those schools, telling the young people how well educated, well informed and intelligent they were, and how they should be able to make all those decisions, did he also explain to them why he did not think they were intelligent, informed or educated enough to make a decision on whether or not to smoke?
Fabian Hamilton
I share the view of the hon. Member for Bristol West that there is not one age for everything. We allow our young people to drive at the age of 17, but not to vote at that age. Why are they deemed old enough to be in charge of a vehicle that could be a lethal weapon, but not old enough to vote? Why do we allow them to join the Army or get married at the age of 16, but not allow them to vote? There are different ages for different activities in our society. Also, protecting young people from the pervasive influence of the dangerous habit of smoking—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) wish to intervene on me again?
Philip Davies
It was the hon. Gentleman who was leading with his chin and telling us how well informed and well educated those young people were. They are either well informed and well educated, or they are not. If they are so well informed and well educated, surely they are more than capable of making a decision on smoking, too. We cannot say that they are well informed in one area but absolutely clueless about everything else.
Fabian Hamilton
I do not believe that they are clueless; a lot of young people are well informed. The issue of smoking and health is different from marriage, driving a vehicle or fighting for one’s country.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Could not the question of whether young people are well informed enough to make a decision about smoking be tested by giving them the vote, so that their representatives here could reflect what they thought on a range of issues, including their capacity to get a mortgage, an affordable pension or a job? All the decisions that we take here affect their lives, yet they have no say in those matters at the moment. The decision to smoke is just part of that parcel. The solution lies in giving them the vote.
Fabian Hamilton
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, if young people aged 16 were able to vote, perhaps their representatives here in the House of Commons might change their minds on smoking not being allowed until the age of 18.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Our colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) may have helped us a bit. The question essentially comes down to whether giving teenagers the opportunity to register to vote at 16 will do any harm. The answer is clearly no. Can it do any good? The answer is yes. On the point about smoking, only teenagers take it up: it is not an adult thing to do but a childish thing.
Fabian Hamilton
There is little I can add to the hon. Gentleman’s points. I agree wholeheartedly with them.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Before my hon. Friend moves on from this point, let me say that the issue is also about our behaviour and how we respond to young people’s concerns. We hear a lot about the grey vote, but we do not hear much about what younger people think or are worried about.
Fabian Hamilton
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is all the more important, now that we have an ageing population—as the hon. Member for Bristol West said, a much higher proportion of older people cast their votes—that we extend the franchise to 16-year-olds as well. As I said earlier, I believe them to be more than capable of making a judgment about who they want to represent them at the local authority level and at the parliamentary and governmental level.
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)—and he is real friend, not just in the formal sense—put forward a ruthless logic, but that logic leads to the question “Why not 14; why not 12?” Adopting his logic, where should we set the age for voting?
Fabian Hamilton
I would answer my hon. Friend—and he is a very good friend—by saying that we have to make a judgment, and that young people have to demonstrate whether or not they are able to make the sorts of judgments we expect in their choice of who they want to represent them. In my experience—and, I am sure, in my hon. Friend’s experience—a 14-year-old does not quite have the maturity or ability to make that judgment, whereas most 16-year-olds certainly do. The point was well made by the hon. Member for Bristol West—we will not have loads of 16-year-olds suddenly heading off towards the polling station when they become 16. In fact, the young people are more likely to be 17 or 18 when the election comes about—unless it is in local government, as many of our towns and cities have annual elections three out of four years.
The age may well come down to 14 as young people get more mature, but we are debating votes at 16. In that case, I think, as many hon. Members and most of my party colleagues think, that from 16 onwards young people are mature enough, bright enough and educated enough to make those judgments. [Interruption.] That is my view; I know my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has a different view.
Let me move on to the issue of school councils. I do not know whether many Members have attended elections for school councils or spoken to any school councils, but I have been invited, as I know have many Members, to meet them—including often to primary school councils, too. [Interruption.] I am staggered—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Shipley wants to keep on making comments from a sedentary position, I will allow him to make an intervention. Otherwise,I would be grateful if he stopped.
Philip Davies
If the hon. Gentleman is using school councils as an argument for extending the vote, he should remember that he himself said that they take place at primary school level, too. By that ruthless logic, I presume he is now going to advocate giving primary school children the vote.
Fabian Hamilton
I answered that point when I responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. My judgment, as a parent of three children and as someone who regularly meets young people, is that 16-plus is the age at which young people are mature enough to make the sort of decisions we expect when they cast a vote. I do not believe that that is the case for five and six-year-olds are, although they vote in some school council elections.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I would like to tell my hon. Friend about the young mayor of Newham, who has a £25,000 budget. In the most recent vote for our young mayor, 13,500 young people voted. That shows a thirst for engagement, and I think it is a thirst that we should recognise.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is precisely the point I am trying to make. I was coming on to talk about school councils, because I have been impressed by the enthusiasm for voting, and by the interest, knowledge and understanding of what happens in a primary or a secondary school and of what a school council can achieve. It is on a very small scale, but it is a very good start. As the hon. Member for Bristol West said, if people get into the habit of voting at that young age, perhaps we will see a much higher turnout at elections.
I want to take Members back to what was a low point in this country’s electoral history: the police and crime commissioner elections. I am not going to rehearse the reasons why those elections had such a poor turnout—in west Yorkshire, it was 13.7%—but I venture to suggest that if 16-year-olds had had the right to vote on 15 November, turnout might have been over 15%. That is still an absolutely appalling figure, but it would have made some difference. There was a thirst for and an interest in voting among young people—even in those elections, which were so badly publicised. Indeed, when I visited Roundhay high school last Friday, I was asked about the turnout of those elections and the reasons why they had taken place in November in the first place.
When I was at school—a long, long time ago, in the ’60s and ’70s—we studied a subject called civics. I know that that has since evolved, but I found civics very useful, and its modern counterpart, of course, is far more useful. The point about that subject was to understand the institutions of government, both locally and nationally. How many Members have had e-mails and letters from constituents—many such constituents are pretty mature, certainly well over 16 or 18—saying, “Dear Member of Parliament, I want you to do something about the state of the streets in my area”, or saying that they want them to sort out their council house, their property, or the windows? They believe us to be councillors, too. I even got an e-mail the other day from somebody that began, “Dear Councillor Hamilton”. She wanted me to sort out what was purely a local authority issue, and I had to point out that I have not been a councillor for 15 years.
My point is that if 16-year-olds were able to vote, the education they were receiving at school about our governmental institutions, about how our constitution actually works, would be far more pertinent and relevant, because the next year or the next month—whenever they pass the age of 16—while they were still studying, they could cast their vote in a local authority election that has a direct relevance to them, and now, of course, in the five-yearly police and crime commissioner elections, too.
We have an age of consent of 16. At 16, people can drive a scooter. At 16, people can fight for their country—[Interruption.] Sorry; people can join the Army at 16. At 17, they can drive a car. At 16, they can get married with parental permission.
Fabian Hamilton
Yes, with parental permission.
We had a youth Parliament in the city of Leeds, as many cities do. The awards were given in the banqueting suite of our Leeds civic hall, and they were handed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). The turnout was brilliant. The enthusiasm and support from parents and young people were absolutely magnificent. That told me that increasingly our young people are able to make a judgment about who they want in this House; who they want to run their Government, because that affects them; and who they want to run their local authority. I therefore urge this House to vote for votes for 16-year-olds.
Mr Speaker
I am calling the hon. Lady because only recently have Members on the Government Benches started standing, which is perfectly within their prerogative. I am saving them up.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I would quite happily have given way to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I really am looking forward to hearing what he has to say—and I suspect that I will disagree with every word of it. It is a shame not to be able to engage more directly before he says what it is I imagine he will say.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) for an incredibly thorough speech in which I think he mentioned every single aspect of why the voting age should be lowered to 16. I hope I do not simply repeat what he said. I fully endorse every part of his speech, during which he was very generous in giving way.
I want to focus on the constitutional issues that this subject raises. One reason we are having this debate is that two things have changed: the proposal to lower the voting age to 16 for the referendum in Scotland; and the new fixed-term Parliaments, which mean that voting takes place every five years and not before. The important point was made, but it is worth repeating, that that means that if an 18-year-old’s birthday happens to fall the day after the general election day, they will be 23 before they are able to vote. Nobody is proposing that we raise the voting age. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) referred to the things that people gain the right to do overnight, as it were, when they become 16, 17 or 18. The situation is totally different with the voting age, because people do not usually wake up on their 18th birthday to discover there is a general election; usually, the election will occur at some point during the subsequent five-year period. I doubt whether the Members who oppose this motion are making the case for raising the voting age, so we need to look at lowering the voting age to make sure that more young people can participate.
Engagement is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East spoke eloquently about school councils and citizenship classes, which the hon. Member for Bristol West also mentioned. We must be honest—the experience of citizenship classes is patchy. In some places, citizenship is taught excellently by dedicated citizenship teachers; in others, it is not so good. However, if we lowered the voting age to 16, citizenship, the importance of democracy and the role of political parties would be taught better at schools. It would encourage MPs, local councillors and other elected representatives to visit schools and make the case for why politics is important.
The counter-argument, which I hear quite a lot, is that politics should not be taken into schools. I totally disagree. Politics is important to 16-year-olds, just as it is to older young people. Politics decides what kind of schools we go to. Politics has ensured that there is access to free education for all. It is politics that meant that the school sports partnerships were abandoned. It is politics that decides what people learn at school—which classes are compulsory and which are not. In Derbyshire, the youth services have been seriously undermined; it was children and young people who were campaigning to keep their youth services open and active. This is straightforward politics, and it is good for young people to engage in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) mentioned the youth mayor in Newham. Let me give an example from my own constituency of young people taking responsibility. A budget was given to the school council at one of my primary schools, and after much discussion with the teachers, the school council decided to spend the entire £50 on rabbits. The teachers recommended that it not do so, pointing out that they would take a lot of looking after, but it decided to go ahead. Sure enough, they did take a lot of looking after, but those children learnt that if they make such a decision, contrary to advice, there are consequences, and that they had a duty of responsibility to those rabbits. I hope those rabbits are still alive—I have not visited them recently. Even though that is a small story, it demonstrates that if we give young people responsibility, they have to learn how to deal with it properly.
I also think that it is a matter of respect. We as parliamentarians should be saying to young people, “We respect you enough to allow you to make your own decisions about matters that affect you.” This is an important issue that concerns the widening of the franchise and human rights.
The United Kingdom is a signatory to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is shaking his head, but the convention states that when decisions are made that affect young people, they should have a say in those decisions. As has been pointed out today, we make decisions in the House about the age at which people are allowed to join the armed forces—as opposed to the age at which they are allowed to go to the front and lose their lives—and the age at which they are allowed to go to work and pay tax and national insurance. They can do those things from the age of 16 onwards. We make decisions that affect young people, but they have no way of voicing their opinions about what we do.
Mr Sheerman
As my hon. Friend knows, I interrupt her speech with deep reluctance, because we are on very good terms. She knows, however, that the UN convention is about the preservation of childhood. It contains nothing about the voting age; it is about preserving childhood as a precious space, a principle that has been entirely absent from the debate so far.
Natascha Engel
My hon. Friend and I have had long discussions about this issue. I do not disagree with him about the preservation of childhood—in fact, I entirely agree with him about it—but I also think that lowering the voting age to 16 will not encroach on people’s childhoods. What it will do is give them responsibility, which is very different from taking their childhood away. My counter-argument is that, although we make decisions here that affect the day-to-day lives of people aged 16, 17 and 18—and, in my view, those aged up to 23, because many people are knocking on 23 before they are able to vote—we have taken away their right to have a say in issues that affect them. That is what I find so deeply offensive and wrong.
The hon. Member for Bristol West made a strong point about the widening of the franchise. I think that this really is a matter of human rights. It is slightly different from the issue of giving the vote to women, but I agree with the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that the sky will not fall in if we give 16-year-olds the vote. The sight of a 16-year-old in a polling station putting a cross on a ballot paper—not one, two, three—should not panic people. This will not mean that the entire polling station is full of 16-year-olds; it will merely mean that younger people too will participate in the decisions that we make in the House. It is a shame that people are so fearful, and worry so much about 16-year-olds taking part in a general election.
The Scottish referendum will give us an opportunity to see how giving 16-year-olds the vote could work. Why should we not view it as a pilot? After 16, 17 and 18-year-olds have had their say in the referendum, we can look at how it went. I agree that the genie is out of the bottle once 16-year-olds are able to vote in a referendum, because after that it will be very difficult to say to them that they are to be denied a vote in the general election that will take place in the following year.
I have some sympathy with the view of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who has described this as an important constitutional matter. Issues were raised earlier about the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Each of them has voted overwhelmingly to lower the voting age to 16, but none of them can do so until we in this Parliament have made the decision for them.
I think it important for us to have this debate, and important for all views to be aired. However, I hope that when we go through the Lobbies, all of us—not just Labour and the Liberal Democrat Members—will vote in favour of seeing what happens in Scotland, and then lowering the voting age throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
Order. It may help the House if I explain that the debate is scheduled to end at approximately 2.15 pm, and that the Chair intends the Front-Bench winding-up speeches to begin at approximately 1.45 pm. As the House knows, there is no formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but a rough calculation suggests that a six-minute speech by each Member would enable the 12 Members who are seeking to catch my eye to succeed in doing so, and would allow all to contribute.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I will do my best to stick to that time scale, Mr. Speaker, because I am anxious for other Members to have an opportunity to speak.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). As she knows, I admire her greatly. On this particular issue, however, I am afraid that I cannot support her.
It is a topsy-turvy world that we live in, Mr. Speaker. Today I found myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—I had thought it very unlikely that I would ever find a subject on which I could agree with him, but I am delighted that we have finally settled on at least one—and also listening to members of the party of the nanny state on the Opposition Benches giving lecture after lecture about the benefits of giving people responsibility for making decisions about their own lives.
I have been in the House for eight years. For eight years I have sat opposite Labour Members who have lectured us on how we cannot let people take responsibility for their own lives. People cannot make decisions for themselves; the state must intervene and make the decisions for them. Yet, today of all days, we have been told that it is absolutely crucial for us to give people responsibility for their own lives and trust them to make decisions. I hope that the same pattern will be followed when it comes to other issues, and that from now on the Labour party will adopt the approach of trusting not just 16 and 17-year-olds but people over the age of 18 to make their own decisions on how they live their lives. If that is the only consequence of today’s debate, it will have been worth while.
I tried to jot down the arguments that I heard today for reducing the voting age to 16. A common theme emerged: Members had visited local schools, had spoken to 16 and 17-year-olds at colleges and in sixth forms, and had been so impressed by the quality of the questions that were asked and the opinions that were formed that they concluded that it was time to give those young people the vote.
Philip Davies
I would normally, but I want everyone to have an opportunity to speak.
Let me say from the word go that I spend a lot of time visiting schools in my constituency—primary and secondary schools—and that, in my view, some of the most challenging questions that a Member of Parliament is ever asked are asked by people who are at school. I have thoroughly enjoyed debates with very talented people of all ages in schools, some of whom have been greatly interested in politics and some of whom have had no interest in it at all.
As with so many other issues, the voting age is always a matter of judgment. There will always be exceptions to rules. There will always be 16-year-olds who have the deep interest and maturity that would enable them to make informed decisions when voting, and there will always be 18-year-olds who do not possess the same level of maturity and interest. There will always be anomalies of that kind. This debate is not about individual cases; it is about what we think should be the general principle. That is the judgment that must be made.
In my view, the argument that many 16 and 17-year-olds ask very intelligent, very searching questions and are able to engage in a sensible debate is not a sufficient argument for giving them the vote. In fact, I would contend that the most searching questions that I am asked as a Member of Parliament come from kids at primary school rather than from 16 and 17-year-olds. Primary school children tend to throw questions at us that we would never have expected, and which we have never heard of or thought of before. They catch us totally off guard.
Philip Davies
I would like to, but, as I said earlier, I want to give others an opportunity to speak.
The point is that although those young people are capable of asking very intelligent and searching questions, it does not immediately follow that we should give them the vote. If that were the basis on which we were making these decisions, I would have to agree to give seven-year-olds, eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds the vote because they ask some of the most searching questions. So it is completely spurious to trot that argument out as a way of saying that these people should be able to vote. This is not just about people’s education, intellect or ability to ask searching questions; it is about people’s life experience, too. That is what gives people the basis on which to vote. It seems to me that 18 is a far better cut-off point than 16. I am perfectly happy to concede that these are matters of individual judgment, but I believe that 18 is the right point.
The main point I want to make relates to this idea about people’s education and intellect, and how well-informed they are. Hon. Members have been telling us that that level is higher than ever. If this was a matter of principle, I would have more respect for their opinion. If they held a deep-seated principle that 16-year-olds have the education and information to make these informed decisions, I would have more respect for it, even though I might not agree with it. But that is not the case, because all the people who have so far advocated reducing the voting age to 16 are exactly the same people who voted to increase the age at which people could decide to smoke from 16 to 18. The point is that people are either informed or they are not—they are either educated or they are not. They are not educated on one matter of voting but completely clueless on everything else. They can either make an informed decision or they cannot. I agreed with increasing the age at which people could buy cigarettes to 18, because I believe that 18 is the right age at which to trust people to make such decisions. It is entirely logical to have the voting age and the age at which people can buy cigarettes at 18, because 18 is the age at which people should be able to make those decisions.
Philip Davies
I cannot give way because of the time pressures. It is completely illogical to say that people are so well-informed that they should be able to vote but they have no idea about whether or not they should smoke. People say, “Well, smoking is harmful for you”; the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) says that it is a matter of public health. But that is an argument for banning smoking altogether. If people wish to say that they want to ban smoking altogether, let them say that—but they do not do so. They say, “We want people to be 18 before they are able to make that kind of informed choice.” People have not been arguing for banning smoking; they have been arguing for raising the age limit to 18. The same should apply to voting as applies to smoking. It cannot be that one is suitable for 16-year-olds and one is suitable for 18-year-olds, as that is simply illogical. Therefore, it is not a matter of principle for people that 16-year-olds are able to make these informed choices; it is a matter of convenience.
There is nothing so nauseating and ridiculous as seeing MPs trying to court the youth vote—trying to appear trendy by wanting to pursue these sorts of youth matters. That is what this is all about; it is about MPs trying to look trendy and youthful in their constituencies. To be perfectly honest, it is rather pathetic. It would be better if they at least had some sound logic behind their views and really did trust 16-year-olds to make decisions—all decisions. What we have heard today is hon. Members saying that they believe that 16-year-olds are capable of voting but are not capable of making other decisions that affect their lives. Voting can be very harmful. I say to hon. Members that if the public ever decided to put the lot on the Labour Benches into government again, that would be very harmful to them. So it is not just smoking that is harmful when people make a bad decision at 16; voting can be a very harmful thing, too.
I believe that people should make a decision at the age of 18 on all these matters, be it whether to smoke, whether to drink alcohol and whether to vote. The people who take an opposite view have not yet persuaded me and they have not come up with any logical reason to support their belief that the smoking age should be increased from 16 to 18 whereas the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16. It is a nonsensical argument and I do not support it.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I speak in support of lowering the voting age because I start from the perspective that extending the franchise has historically always been a good thing and that in a democracy people should have the right to shape the decisions that affect them, unless there is a really good reason why not. My starting point is not, “Why lower the voting age to 16?” but, “Why not lower the voting age to 16? Why prevent people from voting until they are 18 or even 23, as in the case of some young people voting in a general election for the first time? My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) made that point.
I acknowledge that there are arguments of some merit against such a move, and I will spend a little time discussing them, because some young people themselves make those arguments. Recently, I went to talk to a large group of young scouts who had very mixed views about lowering the voting age. They were marginally in favour as a group, but many of them were against. Some talked about the problem of maturity, but far more of those young people talked about a lack of knowledge and the difficulty of gaining the necessary tools and information to make meaningful choices of political parties. That is why I agree with so many hon. Members that lowering the voting age should go hand in hand with good-quality citizenship education in all our schools. Also, so many young people have made the point to me that citizenship education should not be an afterthought or an add-on; it should be a high priority for schools in enabling young people to make those choices.
I want to go further than that, because I am a huge supporter of the UNICEF rights respecting schools programme, which some hon. Members may have seen in action and which is incredibly important. We have heard the argument, “Why stop at 16? Why not go earlier?” We have debated that, but from a very young age children can and should be involved in shaping the institutions and communities they are part of, thus having an impact on the decisions that affect their lives. I say to hon. Members who say that that somehow does not protect childhood that it is an active part of childhood; children are people—they are citizens—who live in communities and they are not atomistic individuals who should be seen only through the lens of their parents. The UNICEF rights respecting schools programme is incredibly important, because it enables children to learn about politics in an active and not a passive way; surely we want those sorts of adults in the future.
The argument that some people do not want the vote and that some will not use it completely misses the point. The point is that many 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds do want the vote and do want to use it. Hon. Members have referred to evidence from overseas, and, in particular, from Austria and Germany, which suggests that if young people start voting at 16—this is the crucial point—when they are still in formal learning, they continue to do so. The argument that 18 to 24-year-olds are less likely to vote therefore again misses the point. Now is a very opportune time to introduce this measure, because we are raising the participation age so that young people stay in some form of formal learning until 18. That is often advanced as a reason not to give young people the vote, but all the evidence suggests that it is in fact a reason to do so, as they will still be in formal learning and can be given the information and skills they need to make the decisions.
I agree that young people mature at different rates, and that is reflected in the different ages at which we allow people to do different things. I will not rehearse those differences, because we have had a great deal of discussion about them, but I wish to make two points. First, I do not believe that representation should be directly linked to taxation. Lots of people in this country do not pay tax, for whatever reason; unemployed people are one such example. I hope that most hon. Members would not agree with the idea that such people should not have the vote—that idea appals me. The argument that someone has to pay taxes before they are allowed to vote is completely spurious.
Secondly, the fact that young people mature at different rates surely cannot be a reason to say to all 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds that they are simply not allowed to vote. We have not always got right the ages at which we decide that people are mature enough to do things—in my view, the age of criminal responsibility is far, far too low in this country—but the fact that we are even having a debate about whether young people should wait eight years from when we hold them criminally responsible for their actions to when they are allowed to have a say in the criminal justice system that we are catapulting them into is completely wrong.
I argue for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to have the choice about whether to vote, not the responsibility to vote; voting is not compulsory in this country and I do not think anybody is suggesting that it should be. They should have that choice as we all do.
I say to hon. Members who have raised the issue of protecting childhood that I do not see any justification for saying that we somehow keep our children safer by denying them the right to be active members of and citizens in their communities. The idea that teenage girls on the streets of Doncaster would be protected by not being allowed to vote until the age of 18 strikes me as ridiculous.
Over the past few years, we have seen starkly how the decisions we make affect young people from an early age. Young people have taken to the streets to defend the education maintenance allowance, to oppose the rise in tuition fees and to occupy multinational companies that refuse to pay their taxes. Those young people are campaigning on issues that will not affect them—those decisions have largely already been taken—but they are taking to the streets to defend the rights of the young people who come after them and to make a case for the sort of society in which they want to live. They are highly political, optimistic, energetic and ambitious—we know that from the evidence—yet they have little say in the decisions we make.
Every time we delay decisions on issues such as care for the elderly, pensions, the environment and child care, we are storing up trouble for future generations. The decisions we make and those we do not make will have profound repercussions for the generation of young people growing up today. It will fall to them to solve the problems we create and I am appalled that they do not have a say in the decisions that affect them.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I am conscious of the fact that we have only just over an hour before the start of the wind-ups, so I shall keep my comments brief.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and although I disagree with her general argument, she made a very good point about the fact that even among young people there is no single view on the matter. I accept that many statistics show that a majority of 16 and 17-year-olds, when asked, suggest that they would be in favour of having the right to vote. That is not surprising, is it? At that age, young people want to get on in life and to get things quicker than the law allows. I am sure that if we were to ask them whether they would like to be able to go into a pub and buy alcohol, the majority would probably say yes.
It is encouraging that 16 and 17-year-olds are interested in political matters and the political process. I have no doubt that that interest means that many of them would like to vote, but we know from the turnout figures that very few 18 to 21-year-olds vote—often less than half. I do not say that that is a reason for not giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, because, as has been said, people do not have to vote. We do not have compulsory voting in this country.
Let me clear up one point made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about young people having to wait five years before they can vote in a general election. That is true for people who turn 18 the day after the last general election now that we have fixed-term Parliaments, but it was equally true in 1992 and 2005, when there were five-year Parliaments. In all areas of the country, there will be opportunities to vote in local elections before the next general election. Of course, millions of young people in metropolitan areas will be able to vote in elections three years out of every four. That is true of my constituency, as it is of the whole of Greater Manchester.
It has been mentioned that some countries have reduced the voting age to 16 or 17, but there are also countries where the voting age is higher. It is 20 in Japan and 21 in Pakistan and Malaysia, so there are international comparators where the age at which young people can vote is higher. There is an argument that making young people wait until they are 18 before they can vote shows how important and serious the act of voting is. The Youth Citizenship Commission examined the question of lowering the voting age in 2009 and found that it was not the main factor affecting engagement in the political process. It stated that
“the issue is not the principal factor in encouraging young people’s interest and involvement in politics and citizenship.”
Back in 2004, the Electoral Commission carried out a full review of the age of electoral majority and concluded that the minimum age for voting should remain at 18.
Stephen Williams
The Electoral Commission concluded at that time that the voting age should not be reduced, but said that it should be kept under constant review. That was nine years ago, which is why we are having this debate today.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point and congratulate him on securing the debate. It has given the House the opportunity to give the subject an airing, for which I am sure we are all grateful, whichever side of the debate we are on.
It is not that long ago in the history of this country that the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 and we are now debating whether to reduce it from 18 to 16.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way. I was one of the first beneficiaries of Harold Wilson’s Labour Government’s decision to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18. I was born in 1952 and voted in my first general election aged 18 in 1970—the first general election in which there were 18-year-old voters. It seems to me that all the arguments being made against reducing the voting age could have been and were made in the 1960s, and it is now many years later. The hon. Gentleman says that it is not very long ago, but I am old enough to have a senior person’s railcard now. It is about time we moved on and allowed younger people, who are better educated now than I was then, to vote.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he reinforces my point. If a decision was made to reduce the age of majority to 16, in three or four decades’ time this House would be full of people saying, “That was years ago, we ought to consider making it 14. People made that decision long ago and they are far away.”
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I apologise for missing the start of the debate, but I was in a Select Committee. My hon. Friend has already stated that if the age were reduced to 16, turnout would be very low. Does he think that adding a whole set of people to the electoral roll when the majority of them will not vote will in any way enhance our democracy? The simple fact that people cannot vote at that age does not stop them from being politically engaged.
Mr Nuttall
Indeed, there is nothing to stop a young person who is politically motivated from going along and joining Conservative Future—or, if they were particularly misguided, the equivalent group in the other parties.
I am conscious that I have used up my unofficial allocation of time, but I think I have made some points that give the other side of the argument. We do not want only to hear young people’s views. Millions of people in this country think that the age at which people can vote should remain at 18 and it is important that those arguments, as well as all the others, are heard today.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). As I think he knows, I joined the Labour party in Bury as a 15-year-old, and when I was 16 and 17, I spent my time doing my best to help dislodge his Conservative predecessor, who is of course now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—although the hon. Member for Bury North may think that that reinforces his argument and detracts from mine.
I shall be brief. I started thinking about this debate a few weeks ago, and came to the issue with a genuinely open mind. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I think said from a sedentary position earlier that he was worried about the squeeze on childhood. I will have to disagree with him. At 16, people can give consent to medical treatment, leave school and enter work, pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits, get married, change their name by deed poll, become a company director, join the armed forces, and become a member of a trade union. Given that there is already a long list of things that people can do at 16, it seems reasonable that they should also be able to vote.
Jonathan Ashworth
I would rather not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because the Deputy Speaker is keen for us all to get in.
In recent days, I have held a survey in my Leicester South constituency. Interestingly, apart from the over-50s, those who have taken part in my survey are overwhelmingly in favour of allowing 16-year-olds to vote.
Jonathan Ashworth
I understand that the respondents are arguably self-selecting, and it is not a scientific survey, but the results are interesting none the less. On the other hand, just for balance, there was a vox pop on Radio Leicester this morning, in which people said that they did not think that 16-year-olds would understand the issues or be interested. I have to say, as many other Opposition Members have done, that when I speak to year 11 groups, or to sixth forms, as I will tomorrow at Madani high school, I find that young people are very much engaged. They may not be interested in the cut and thrust of party political debate in this place, but they are certainly interested in the issues that affect them.
All my life, I have seen Chancellors of the Exchequer of both parties pull rabbits out of hats in the Budget statement in this place, and it is usually some sort of give-away to pensioners. Whatever party the Chancellor is from, the party members behind him cheer and wave their Order Papers. We do it because we know that we can put that give-away on our leaflets and in our direct mail, and we know that pensioners vote. I suspect that if 16-year-olds had the vote, we would be less cavalier about trebling tuition fees to £9,000, abolishing the education maintenance allowance, and levels of youth unemployment, because we would be worried about those young people having their say at the ballot box. It is entirely fair that they should. They do not all have to vote; we are talking about giving them the opportunity to vote.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) divides the House; I get the impression that he will. If it is the will of the House that 16-year-olds should have the vote, will the Minister think about allowing them to vote in next year’s European elections? Then we could look at the level of engagement, and at whether that galvanises people. Perhaps she will comment on that when she sums up. The proposal seems entirely fair and right; let us just get on with it.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. and good Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) for introducing the debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it. It is absolutely right that we should debate the subject. Like the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), I, too, was a beneficiary of the change in the voting age from 21 to 18. When I was 18, I could not vote, but by the time I was 21 I had got the vote, because the law had changed, and I cast my first vote in the 1970 election. It was an exciting moment. I went with my dad back to where we had moved from, and I felt the importance of being able to play my small part in that general election.
Ever since then, I have been persuaded that we need to keep asking ourselves whether young people are properly engaged in politics. I chair the governing body of a primary school, and of course there are bright and engaged youngsters in that school, but as some hon. Friends have said, nobody seriously thinks that they are yet sufficiently engaged and interested to be able to vote. I am the trustee of a secondary school; the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and others spoke about going to secondary schools and meeting youngsters, most of whom are really engaged, interested, informed and active. A couple of evenings ago, I was with some friends in my constituency. Their under-18 son was at the dinner table, and nobody could argue that he, doing his A-levels, was not as competent to cast a vote as many other people.
Hugh Bayley
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the habit of voting is usually learned young, and that the chance of getting a 30-year-old who has never voted into a polling station is small? If we had voting at 16, large numbers of 16, 17, and 18-year-olds at school or in higher education would feel peer pressure to vote, and might acquire the habit for life.
Simon Hughes
That, in a way, is my central argument, and I will come back to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West was kind enough to remind the House that I was the first person to introduce this proposition. I have checked; it was in Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill on 15 December 1999. Mike O’Brien, whom we all remember with affection, was the Under-Secretary of State, and he opposed the proposition on behalf of the Labour Government, although we reported that Paul Waugh of The Independent had written an article on the previous new year’s eve saying that the Labour Government were thinking about whether they should propose changing the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West was right to say that we did not get the measure through; the votes were 36 in favour and 434 against.
One of the then Minister’s strongest arguments was that a person could not stand for election until they were 21. That has changed; people can now stand in local elections when they are 18, and they do—and get elected. The discrepancy has narrowed. My key point is this: if we educate young people to understand the issues, as the House’s education department does, and as we do when we go into schools; if, when children are still at home, parents educate them on the issues; if, as colleagues in all parts of the House have said, we are keen for people to be more competent to make financial decisions when they leave school; if we want to make sure that young people understand how to apply for work, and look for training, a university or college, apprenticeships and so on, and have the information that they need; we should logically link that with the ability to see what the options are in life, and who makes those decisions.
Who decides whether a person can be housed locally? The local council, and therefore it matters who the local councillor is and whether they are likely to be responsive. Who makes the decisions in London about policing? The Mayor of London. A young person might have very strong views on the subject, and might want to do something to influence the decision of who becomes the Mayor. Who makes the decisions about licensing laws and ages, and about drugs? Parliament, and young people might want to influence it if they have very strong views on those issues.
The crucial point is the one that the hon. Member for York Central and I made. If we educate young people—we do it increasingly well with an increasingly bright cohort—and there is a gap of up to five years before they can apply what they have learned, what happens? First, when they can vote, they may not be at home; they may be struggling to find somewhere to live, and be moving around. Relationships are often all over the place. There are uncertainties to do with study, training and work. People then generally do not find that voting is a priority, because they do not have the stability that they had at school, college or home.
In the past, people voted much more often in the way that their family did Now, if young people are at home, it does not necessarily mean that they will vote the way their parents do, but they are much more likely to be encouraged to go to vote with their parents, and to be shown what to do. Some people do not vote because they do not know what to do, and they are terrified that they will be embarrassed when they go.
Fabian Hamilton
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those of us who are parents, whether in the House or outside, have a crucial role in ensuring, well before our children are 16, that they will have the understanding and ability to vote at 16, and that we can therefore play a part in making sure that votes at 16 work?
Simon Hughes
That is right, and I say to those Conservative colleagues who are nervous about the idea that of course we have different ages for different things; we will never get to a situation in this country where every right comes at 16, 17 or 18; that is unrealistic. However, it is often young people who are the most idealistic in the world—who want to change the world, and live out what they believe. If we start saying, “No, you can’t get involved at this age. I’m sorry, you’ll have to wait. You can’t do anything about it till you’re 19, 20 or 21,” by then the idealism may have gone and we will have dampened their enthusiasm.
We want more people to stand in political elections. All political parties, including the Tories, allow people to join and to vote at well under 18. At 15, I think, one can be a voting member of the Tory party, choosing the party leader. For heaven’s sake, let us realise that although not all the world has yet arrived at this conclusion, we must go on opening up opportunities to young people, not making them do anything, but giving them the opportunity to become the full citizens that they will be if they can exercise the vote in this country.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always difficult, knowing that one is going to be pretty much a lone voice on the Opposition Benches opposing the motion. I have to tell my colleagues that I have done it before and it is good for the soul, and I will probably do it again. May I make a confession? I used to be in favour of lowering the voting age. Then I became Chairman of the Education Committee, then Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee. It was my experience as Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee that changed my mind.
From the evidence that we heard across a range of inquiries, it became clear to me that we live in a world where childhood is being truncated and squeezed all the time. We live much longer. We are all going to live to 90 and goodness knows what age—I think it is predicted that children born now will live to 100. As a percentage of the lifespan, childhood is a very brief period. I want to celebrate childhood. I want children to be able to indulge in it and have a wonderful time. Childhood is about so many things—education, experience, learning, fun and being irresponsible in so many ways. I passionately believe that we should not squeeze childhood.
In my lifetime, childhood has been squeezed inexorably. Just look at the commercial pressures on young people today. Take advertising. Look at the pressures on children to conform—to buy the right trainers, to have the right computer and the right mobile phone. The pressure on childhood from the commercial world is tremendous. We as politicians have done pretty little about defending childhood from commercial pressures. Indeed, the one time I deeply fell out with my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) was when, as Minister, he allowed product placement on television. What do we drink? Coca Cola, because there it is on the screen. The commercial pressures on childhood have been extreme over recent years. [Interruption.] It may be hilarious that there is commercial pressure. I do not think it is hilarious. I think it is deeply worrying.
I have increasingly spent time looking at the very vulnerable children in our society. We should all reflect on how many young people were involved in the Jimmy Savile case and other cases, and on the gangs in our towns throughout the country. There is a famous case going through the courts at present and there have been many more over the winter where vulnerable girls—particularly girls, but sometimes boys as well—have been targeted. There are protections in our laws that take childhood through to 18. I know that we cannot apply that to everything, but 18 gives us a standard by which to judge how far childhood goes. Eighteen is the maximum age. Others have argued that people can get married at 16, but that is only with their parents’ consent.
I am in favour of keeping childhood. I am also in favour of keeping the protections of childhood. As we allow these to slip to a younger and younger age—
Mr Sheerman
No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman, who is a great friend of mine, made quite a long speech. I want to carry on making my case.
I believe that pushing childhood back makes many young children vulnerable at a crucial age. Those of us who have spent time with children—I have four children and oodles of grandchildren—know that they are very vulnerable between the ages of 14 and 18. We can wish that away or pretend it is not the case, but my experience as Chairman of the Education Committee and then of the Children, Schools and Families Committee has taught me that that is a very sensitive age for young people.
I understand where the motion is coming from. It is a fashionable cause at present. When the president of the Liberal party back in those days, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), made that speech and moved that motion, I remember that people said, “Oh, it’s only those trendy Liberal Democrats looking for young votes,” and I said, “No, no, he is a man of honour and he believes this for very good reasons.” My own party has been won over. The deputy leader of my party and others have become passionate about it. I opposed lowering the voting age being in our manifesto and believed it was wrong—again, because I believed it made the protection of children a lesser issue than it might otherwise be.
Mr Sheerman
May I put that point in context? I believe that part of the demand and the fashion of votes at 16 comes from the fact that our parliamentary democracy is in deep trouble. We know that only 65% voted at the last election and that 6 million people did not bother to register. We all know that the three main parties represented in this place have hardly any members in their constituencies—tiny numbers of people active in politics. I know that the Liberal Democrats have believed in proportional representation to do something about that, but we are all floundering around because there is something deeply wrong with the engagement in democracy in our country today.
The demand for votes at 16 is clutching at straws. I understand it and I do not deny that there are arguments for it, but I worry that it is a pretext for not looking at the deeply worrying decay of parliamentary democracy in our country. I hope this does not come to a vote. Everyone on the Labour Benches knows that I am a reasonable man. At the very least, I would like the Government to set up a commission on an all-party basis to look into the matter. If my concerns and worries about the protection of children are ill-founded, an independent commission looking at that might give me cause not to worry any longer, but I believe that the voice that has been silent in the House today has been one arguing for childhood, the protection of childhood and the value of childhood.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). I know what it feels like to be a lone voice, on the nationalist Benches. I totally and fundamentally disagree that allowing the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds has any impact whatsoever on childhood. The voice that we do not hear in the House is that of young people. If we give young people the vote, we will get to hear that voice, and it is a voice that I will welcome.
Pete Wishart
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman as we do not have much time.
I am immensely proud that it is Scotland that is leading the way in delivering the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that the Scottish National party Scottish Government are the first Government in the United Kingdom ever to allow our youngest people the vote. In our independence referendum 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to decide the future of our country, and that is absolutely right. This is an immensely exciting and transformative event and it is the right thing to do.
The Scottish National party has supported votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for decades. Winnie Ewing, who was our first Member of Parliament, spoke about the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds in her maiden speech in 1967. We believe that 16 and 17-year-olds have the biggest stake in our future and it is right that they have a say. I will not go over the reasons why 16 and 17-year-olds should get the vote, as those reasons have been eloquently put by several hon. Members. If people of that age can marry, pay tax and join the Army, they should be given the opportunity to decide the future of the country, and it is what the people of Scotland want, too.
Of the 26,000 people who responded to the Scottish Government’s consultation “Your Scotland, Your Referendum”, the vast majority agreed that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in a referendum. In fact, 56% agreed and 41% disagreed. Children 1st, Children in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Electoral Reform Society, the National Union of Students in Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Unison and Unite—all bodies that have an interest in young people and their welfare and rights—responded positively to the proposal to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in Scotland’s referendum.
We can allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum because of the Edinburgh agreement, reached between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, which passed responsibility on all issues related to our referendum to the Scottish Parliament. It is the first time we have had the opportunity to be responsible for a franchise for a national election—and, by God, we are going to use it.
The Scottish Parliament has already legislated to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in health board elections and in the crofting commission elections. Where we have legislative responsibility, we will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. Unfortunately, we do not have responsibility for UK elections. We are not responsible for the franchise for elections to the Scottish Parliament. We are not even responsible for the franchise for local government elections.
It has been ridiculously suggested that because we cannot allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in UK Parliament elections, we should demonstrate our right to allow young people to vote in our referendum. I am sorry, but we are for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. We believe that it is right that they should get the vote, and where we have responsibility we will allow our young people the vote. We will not be held back by some of the positions of the Westminster Conservatives. If we were to wait for the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to agree to 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote, we would be waiting a long time.
What are we going to do? The Scottish Government are going to bring forward a Bill to allow all 16 and 17-year-olds to register and vote in our independence referendum. We propose to accelerate the paving Bill, which will allow a canvass of 15 to 17-year-olds as part of the electoral canvass plan for 2013, not just the so-called attainers covered by the existing electoral canvass proposals. We are already working closely with electoral registration officers and other stakeholders to develop the legislation and the practical arrangements to implement it. We will guarantee and ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds have a vote in the Scottish independence referendum.
What has been disappointing about the debate on votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum is the attitude of parties and politicians who notionally support votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I respect the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), but his Liberal colleagues in Scotland have been what could only be called prickly, oppositional and generally grudging about trying to secure votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum.
In fact, our consultation showed that 17 Labour Members of Parliament objected to 16 and 17-year-olds getting a vote in the referendum, as did practically all the Liberal Democrats. I find that astonishing, and even shameful. If they believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all elections, why did they not support their right to vote in the referendum in the Scottish Parliament? It was immensely disappointing to see the Liberals, in particular, opposing and being prickly and difficult about securing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in our referendum.
The fact that 16 and 17-year-olds cannot vote in general elections has been mentioned, but we cannot do anything about that, because we do not have responsibility for extending the franchise in UK elections. Some have tried to suggest that we are proposing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for narrow party political advantage—what a lot of nonsense. There is no evidence to support that claim. In fact, one opinion poll conducted among 16 and 17-year-olds showed that a majority were in favour of remaining in the Union. To suggest that we are doing this for narrow party political advantage is absolute and utter nonsense. The attitude of some of the parties that notionally support votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum has been disappointing. They will have to account to 16 and 17-year-olds when the referendum takes place in Scotland next year.
Bob Stewart
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that 16 and 17-year-olds could be on a jury in a murder trial, for example? I am slightly concerned about that.
Pete Wishart
I do not agree with that. This goes back to the debate that has been well rehearsed and which we have heard so much about today. There are different ages of responsibility between the ages of 16 and 18. There are certain things that 16-year-olds can and cannot do, there are certain things that 18-year-olds can do, and there certain things that people cannot do until they are 21. We sometimes have to draw a line when it comes to these issues, but to say that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be able to vote when they have such responsibilities and such a stake in our society and community is utterly perverse, wrong and bizarre. Of course they should get the vote.
I am a sponsor of the motion and so will, of course, support it. I will continue to support every effort in this House to ensure that we get votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I make a plea to both the Liberal and Labour parties to stop their opposition to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish referendum and to please help us to deliver it to ensure that we have the first national referendum in the United Kingdom in which 16 and 17-year-olds can vote. Support us, help us, and we will deliver it.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), whose motion is supported by Members on both sides of the House, on securing this debate. A number of Members have suggested that it is timely, but I suggest that it is overdue. As we have been reminded, when the Electoral Commission said back in 2004 that the voting age should remain unchanged, it also said that we should look at the issue again in five to seven years, so by any account we are at least two years late.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) sought to diminish the debate by suggesting that those of us who were advocating this cause were simply trying to be trendy. Looking at those Members who have spoken so far, including myself, I do not think there is any chance that any of us will be mistaken for being trendy—[Interruption.]—with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy).
In preparing for the debate, I invited views from constituents. I want to share just one, from Simon Landau who had been out campaigning on the NHS. He said:
“I was very much struck by a young man carrying his baby son in his arms who came up to us on the stall... He was 17, doing his training at Catterick and was due to go to Afghanistan this year. He was interested in our leaflets and the petition on the NHS as he realised its critical importance to his family. He was also aware that he didn’t have a vote, and so he wondered whether he was allowed to sign the petition.”
My constituent’s observation was that the doubt ought to be removed. I thought about that young man. He is old enough to be concerned about the NHS, and rightly so, old enough to join the Army, old enough to have a baby, old enough to be married and old enough to pay tax and receive benefits. If he had chosen a different course, he would also be old enough to be a company director, to join a trade union and, indeed, to vote in trade union elections—another example of the Labour movement setting the progressive path—but he is not judged old enough to vote in other elections. There are currently over 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds exercising those sorts of responsibilities on a daily basis, and they should have a bigger say.
Opponents, including the hon. Member for Shipley and others, say that we restrict many things to 18-year-olds. He cited buying cigarettes, drinking alcohol and gambling. There is a common thread there: we tend to restrict to 18-year-olds the stuff that is bad for people. We do not really want to lump engagement in democracy in that basket.
Although I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol West that there should be varying age limits and thresholds, 16 is a threshold for a significant range of rights and responsibilities. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is not currently in his place, because I do not think that childhood extends to 18.
We should empower 16 and 17-year-olds not only because it aligns their rights with their responsibilities, but because it makes them more likely to participate in politics in the longer term. There is considerable evidence that the younger people are when they start voting, the more likely they are to stick with the habit. If young people do not get the opportunity to vote in a general election until six or seven years after their citizenship education—whatever efforts the Education Secretary is making to undermine that education—that gives the impression that their views are not valid. It gives young people time to feel excluded from politics, even before they have had the chance to express their political views. If people do not vote when they are young, they might never vote again.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) referred to our common experience of being beneficiaries when the voting age was reduced to 18. I am sure that many Members of the House at the time voiced exactly the same arguments that have been raised against today’s proposal: that 18 to 21-year-olds would not be mature enough to vote. I guess that the majority of us who benefited would disagree with that argument because we felt we were mature enough to vote, but I talk to many 16 and 17-year-olds in schools and colleges, and I have to say that they are more impressive than many of us would have been at that age.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest examples of that is the Youth Parliament debate that took place in this Chamber, which was absolutely exemplary?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes an important point that is confirmed by the contacts and engagement I have had with youth parliamentarians in Sheffield.
I can see why many in the Government might not want to extend the right to vote to 16, for very practical reasons from their point of view. Policies are often shaped in recognition of the power of the elderly vote, and rightly so—that is what democracy is about. However, young people have borne the brunt of this Government’s policies, with the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, the increase in tuition fees, the scrapping of the future jobs fund, turning the clock back with GCSE and A-level reforms, and much more besides. How differently those issues might have been viewed if 16 and 17-year-olds had had the vote. Just as with the elderly vote, that is what democracy is about. Because of their responsibilities, because they are affected by so many of the decisions made here and by local councils, and because we can trust their judgment, we should take the bold step of extending the voting age to 16.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) introduced this debate very thoroughly and left almost nothing new for the rest of us to say, with the exception of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) called out at one stage, “But this is not popular—have you seen the surveys?” This is not a matter of popular support; it is a matter of democratic principle. In practice, it can and does work elsewhere.
In this country we have 16-year-olds who can leave school, start work, pay income tax, receive benefits and tax credits, give consent to medical treatment, become company directors, join trade unions, join the armed forces, get married and enter into civil partnerships. We regard 16-year-olds as responsible enough to do all those things, but we do not regard them as responsible enough to vote. All those things are determined in law, decided by us as elected politicians. This means that we have about 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds who are capable of making and able to make decisions on those things, and capable of making yet unable to make decisions on voting. That leaves them without a democratic voice on many of the things that can directly affect them most.
I see this ultimately as a matter of citizenship. The discussion about lowering the voting age has a direct link with the citizenship education in our schools—the citizenship education that I am proud our Labour Government introduced in 2002 and deeply disappointed that this Government have now dropped as a requirement for academies and free schools and look likely to drop as an element of the national curriculum for other schools. I regard that as backward-thinking and a backward step.
I said that it is a matter of principle and practice. In practice, the evidence from elsewhere appears to be that lowering the voting age proves to be a good and not a bad thing. Austria did it five years ago, and the evidence appears to be that interest in politics among its young people has greatly increased. The evidence on their voting is that turnout is similar to that among other age groups, as is the pattern of voting. That should lead us to conclude that 16-year-olds are just as capable as adults of any other age of making such decisions and taking such responsibilities. Within Europe, it is not only Austria that has lowered the voting age; it has been done for some elections in Germany, Hungary, Slovenia and Norway, and of course people are looking to do it in Scotland.
The principled and the practical arguments are all pointing in the same direction—the direction behind this motion, which I regard as a case for change whose time has now come.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) on securing this debate. As a former youth worker, I agree with him on how important it is. I have to say to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that it is not “new and trendy”; we have been having debates about votes at 16 ever since I started to do youth work, which, sadly, I must admit was a considerable number of years ago. Leading youth-led organisations such as the British Youth Council and the UK Youth Parliament are very actively campaigning for votes at 16.
Last week I went to St James primary school in Daisy Hill in my constituency to present prizes for my Christmas card competition. I talked to the young people about Parliament and being an MP, and told them about this debate. I took a vote on whether they thought that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote. Interestingly, all but a handful of pupils thought that they should be given the vote at 16, but all the staff voted against, which I found quite sad. I told them that I would report their vote to Parliament today, as it is representative of the many young people I have spoken to about this issue.
A few weeks ago, I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs. This APPG is very different from the majority of APPGs in that different organisations bring in young people to debate issues with parliamentarians. I encourage many more of my colleagues to come along to the APPG. At that meeting, we debated votes at 16 and, again, the vast majority of the young people attending believed that the vote should be given to 16-year-olds.
Andrew Percy
Of course, the young people with whom the hon. Lady is engaging are those who are already engaged in politics. We have a huge problem in this country in that, sadly, the vast majority of young people are not engaged in politics. It would therefore be better to focus on the 18 to 24-year-olds who are not engaged, the majority of whom do not vote at the moment. We should get them voting and then we can extend it.
Julie Hilling
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe absolutely that if we start to encourage voting at an early age, where that is supported and people are educated about their rights and responsibilities, we can make voting a lifelong activity, and concentrating on 18 to 24-year-olds misses that huge opportunity. I will say a little more about that later.
Let me talk about some of the things that the young people at the APPG said. Yes, they are young people who are engaged. However, an important point about youth organisations and youth workers is that we actively go out to engage not only with those aspiring young people, but with young people from all walks of life to enable them to have their say in civil society. Carly stated that many young people are dissatisfied with local issues but struggle to know how to become properly involved in politics. She argued that there was a need for better education and noted that not all adults made arguments based on solid reasoning. Another young person stated that political apathy from some young people is not a valid reason to exclude those young people who are engaged, and noted that not all adults vote. Steve said that a lot of older people lacked an interest in political engagement and awareness but the same ideas about requiring a level of knowledge for 16 and 17-year-olds was not placed on people over 18. A number of young people argued that politicians are able to ignore their views because they do not have the vote, and compared the loss of education maintenance allowance and the increase in tuition with the protection of benefits given to the grey vote.
Some voices were raised against enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds. One young person felt that they should not be enfranchised because they do not have experience of life outside the home, but she was challenged by someone who argued that many people now do not move out of their home until they are in their thirties, so that is not a valid reason to stop them having the vote.
The main thrust of the arguments against changing the voting age was lack of knowledge, and very strong opinions were voiced, both by those in support of votes at 16 and by those against, for the need for effective citizenship education in schools. They also argued that it should be part of the Ofsted inspection framework to ensure that such education was being carried out in all schools in a good way.
I am sure that we have all knocked on the doors of people who do not vote because they do not know how to do so or who to vote for. I believe that we have a duty in a civilized society to educate people about their civil duties, including voting. If done effectively, that should increase turnout by all future voters.
Many schools already undertake a lot of activities, such as mock elections, at the time of general elections, but, sadly, that rarely happens each year, meaning that four cohorts can miss out altogether.
That encouragement to vote—enabling young people to understand the political process and to vote at 16—should be viewed as positive. Voting at 16 would instil a pattern for lifelong voting. However, whether or not we believe that the voting age should be lowered, we clearly should be doing more to educate young people and, indeed, older people about how and why to vote.
We can all bandy polls about and I want to quote an online poll from The Guardian, which found that 53% of people were in favour of lowering the voting age. Of course, if a more right-wing paper conducted a similar poll, it may well come up with a different answer, but one accusation that cannot be levelled against readers of The Guardian is that they are not deep thinkers who will not have considered the pros and cons of lowering the voting age.
Julie Hilling
I am sure about it. The Votes at 16 coalition says that
“16 and 17 year olds are knowledgeable and passionate about the world in which they live, and are as capable of engaging in the democratic system as any other citizen.”
These are people who are already seen as capable of voting for the leader of their respective political parties.
The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly has urged the Committee of Ministers
“to reconsider the age-related restrictions placed on voting rights in order to encourage young people’s participation in political life.”
I share those views about the passion, knowledge and ability of young people.
Of course, our three Crown dependencies—Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—have already given votes to 16-year-olds. Scotland will allow 16-year-olds to vote in the referendum, and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies have both voted in favour of votes at 16.
Some have argued that young people will not be able to make an independent decision and will vote the same way as their parents. Let us be realistic: it does not matter whether someone is 16 or 61, many people still vote the same way as their parents. I must confess that the first time I voted, I voted the same way as my mother, but I also have to say that I have never, ever voted the same way again. Our challenge is to educate and inform, so that people of whatever age can decide for themselves who to vote for and why.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and a passionate defence of young people’s right to participate in the process. Does she agree that it is important for parliamentarians to engage with young people aged 16 to 17? I am sure she would have been proud if she had heard young people from Trinity school talking on Radio Nottingham this morning about their views on votes at 16, and about how important it has been for me to speak to them, listen to what they have had to say, and to encourage them.
Julie Hilling
I absolutely agree. I do as much as I can to visit schools and I think it is incumbent on us as politicians to be part of that education process. The reality is that young people are passionate, informed and able to mount their arguments and participate.
Finally, given the number of rights and responsibilities that come in at 16, it is a significant age and I believe that voting should be added to that list.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I rise in support of the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and other hon. Friends and hon. Members. Some of the most passionate debates in the long history of this House have been about the extension of the franchise, including those on the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, the Representation of the People Act 1884, the removal of the requirement to own property in order to be able to vote, the extension of the franchise to women in 1918 and to everyone over the age of 21 in 1928, and, of course, in 1969, the extension of the franchise to everyone over the age of 18. Like those reforms, extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for all elections is a matter of civil rights. It demonstrates that, when it comes to participating in the democratic process, equality should be our prevailing principle.
Article 25 of the UN covenant on civil and political rights provides that every citizen shall have the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, including the right to vote by universal and equal suffrage. The motion fits squarely in that internationally recognised right.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend has set his remarks in an appropriate historical context. Would he care to recall to the House that wars have been fought over the principle of no taxation without representation?
Mr Bain
Indeed, and I will refer later to precisely how much taxation 16 and 17-year-olds have contributed in the past 10 years. Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that that is not the only criterion for citizenship, it is an important factor that should be put on the record in this debate.
In my view, extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds would boost our democratic institutions across the United Kingdom and help boost political engagement, too. Under the Representation of the People Act 2000, a young person who does not turn 18 until just after a parliamentary election would have to wait until they were nearly 23 years of age before they could cast a vote to choose a Government or elect their constituency Member of this Parliament or the Scottish Parliament. Evidence shows that the longer people wait to cast that first vote in a parliamentary election, the less likely they are to vote at all.
A 2010 Demos study showed that 16 and 17-year-olds in work or training had contributed £550 million in taxes to the UK Exchequer in the previous decade, but had no democratic say on how much tax they paid or on how the revenues they contributed should be spent. As has been said, 16 and 17-year-olds can serve as company directors, get married or enter a civil partnership, be members of our armed forces and contribute to and benefit from our welfare state. As the Power commission report said in 2006, reducing the voting age to 16 would reduce the systematic exclusion from democracy of tens of thousands of our young people and increase the likelihood of their taking part in political debate. The report dismisses the argument that overall turnout would fall as not being an adequate reason to oppose extending the franchise.
In Scotland, the section 30 order, which this House and the other place have debated and which is likely to be approved by the Privy Council within weeks, will permit the Scottish Parliament to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in the forthcoming referendum, so an important precedent will be set. It is for this House to complete the task and ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in all local and parliamentary elections and in future referendums that may be legislated for by this Parliament. It is absurd that 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland will not have the right to vote in the European elections next June or the next UK general election in May 2015, on either side of that critical referendum.
I believe that those in favour of extending democratic rights to 1.5 million young people in our country are on the right side of history.
Mr Bain
I am afraid that I cannot, because time is running short. Forty-four years ago, this House was among the first to support votes at 18. Today we have the opportunity to join progressive countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Austria in beginning the process of legislating for votes at 16. I urge this House to support the motion, to hasten a long-overdue change in our electoral law and, in doing so, to further the cause of equality.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). I simply point out that his historical list could also have included Catholic emancipation, which was a pretty significant battle in itself and faced many arguments.
The debate on this subject raises a range of arguments, and I do not intend to rehearse all the various things that young people have the right and competence to do at the ages of 16 and 17. We have heard a number of arguments against the proposal to change the voting age, but I support it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) on tabling the motion and on his record of fighting on the issue.
The arguments that we hear against the change seem to range from protecting democracy from childishness to protecting children from democracy. That is essentially what we heard today from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—that despite all the things on which we are letting children down, such as product placement and sexualisation, the one point where we can draw the line is by keeping the voting age at 18 to somehow protect their childhood. That is an argument of complete misdirection.
We should consider what reducing the voting age would mean for our democracy and for how people appreciate their status as young citizens. If we want 16 and 17-year-olds to identify themselves increasingly as young citizens, perhaps we should mandate, recognise and equip them as young citizens by giving them the right to vote, which is a basic thing. That is why I support the motion, just as I supported the proposal in the last Parliament.
We have heard a range of arguments as to why we should and should not make the change. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) made the point that the argument for extending the vote to 16-year-olds is not the same as the argument in the past for extending the vote to women. However, the arguments that we hear against it are pretty similar to those that were used against giving votes to women—they do not really want it, they are ill-informed, they would be too frivolous or giddy, they are distracted by other things, and if they do vote they will vote according to what somebody else tells them. Perhaps the danger is really that if they vote, they will not vote according to what somebody else tells them. Those are all the same arguments that were used against extending the franchise to women. The arguments for the change are not the same, but the arguments against are uncannily and disgracefully similar.
We even heard from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—this is my version, which might not be as good as that in Hansard—that we will have a whole load of people who cannot vote and will not vote. Who is he to say that they cannot and will not vote if we put them on the electoral register? They could have as much competence as he or I. Many political parties allow 16 and 17-year-olds votes within the party. People can become members of my party at 14 and vote in it at 16, and other parties allow young people to vote in internal elections, including for party leaders, at 15. Those elections have a pretty significant impact on the country, so if parties allow that in their own democracy, I do not see why people should not be allowed on the register at that age.
Members have mentioned various places that have already moved to allow, and I would mention that a constitutional convention has been established in Ireland by the current Government. It includes parties and non-party interests, including from Northern Ireland, and is examining the issue of reducing the voting age. It is considering a voting age of 17, because that is the age of consent in the Irish Republic. It is not considering an age of 16, because it does not want to open up another debate that might never be resolved, but I hope that the advance to 17 happens.
It is important to recognise that although extending the franchise will allow people to vote, of course many will not do so. It will mean that people have a chance of exercising their first vote at a better age. We have heard that fixed-term Parliaments will mean that the maximum age at which people could have their first parliamentary vote will be 23. If the change to 16 were made, that would mean that that age would be 21. That does not seem unreasonable or shocking to me. It would not be too radical or drastic, and it seems sensible.
The change would also increase the prospects of people casting their first possible vote, because more of them will be at or near home and able to do so. Having the voting age at 18 means that people are often away from home by the time their first vote comes up, and they have not thought about a postal vote, so they miss out. The change would help the integrity of the franchise by ensuring that it counts, and that is why I support it.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
We have had an excellent debate on whether 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds should have the vote. We have had a total of 15 speakers, and Members have made good contributions and put the case well. Of those 15, by my reckoning only three spoke against the change, and 12 made logical cases for the extension of the franchise.
I will not seek to mention all Members who have spoken—I hope they will forgive me—but I will single out one or two contributions. The debate began with an excellent and comprehensive exposition of the case for the extension of the franchise by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made a passionate case, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) gave us the benefit of her many years’ experience of working in the youth service. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) talked about his experience of visiting schools, which I am sure many Members can replicate, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) talked about the centrality of the debate and the fact that the concept of empowering young people is in the UN convention on the rights of the child.
My own view is that a strong case has been made for extending the vote to 16-year-olds. I was influenced by hearing about the Votes at 16 campaign back in January 2003. Since then, my support for the principle has grown stronger and stronger.
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend did not mention my speech, of course, and I do not blame him for that. Does he believe, and is it the official policy of our party, that adulthood begins and childhood ends at 16? Is that what he is saying?
Wayne David
That is not what I am saying. This is a Back-Bench debate, of course, and Members are more than able to express their own views. We are not making any broad-brush statements about when adulthood begins, but I am convinced, and I believe the Labour Front-Bench team are convinced, that there is now an overwhelming case for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
It is fair to say that the Power report of February 2006 was seminal in our developing that view. It indicated the shift of opinion that has gradually taken place. It considered why so few people, and fewer all the time, were willing to be involved in the democratic process. Among its recommendations was reducing the age of voting and candidacy to 16. It stated:
“Our own experience and evidence suggests that just as with the wider population, when young people are faced with a genuine opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful process that offers them a real chance of influence, they do so with enthusiasm and with responsibility.”
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend has just said again that there is an overwhelming case for the change. I think he is a bit of a betting man on the quiet, so let us have a bet. We will have a poll in Caerphilly and see how overwhelming the majority is for votes and the beginning of adulthood at 16.
Wayne David
I have simply expressed my view and, I believe, that of the majority of colleagues on the Opposition Benches. There is indeed an overwhelming case, and experience has shown that when more people engage with the issue, more become convinced that it is the way forward.
Wayne David
I want to make progress because time is short; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
As well as the important Power report, various other reports have been produced. Since the Power report was published, there has been more active citizenship in our schools, and more young people have become involved in the debate about issues that affect their lives. A number of Members have mentioned the success of the UK Youth Parliament, and I know many Members were genuinely impressed—some, indeed, were surprised —by the maturity and sophistication of its debates.
Wayne David
I am sorry but I must continue in order to be fair to the Minister and her response.
Like many Members I regularly visit schools and youth centres, and I am impressed by how young people want to engage in serious issues that affect their lives. Caerphilly youth forum in my constituency is an excellent example of how young people are being empowered, gaining in confidence and coming forward with strong, well-formulated views. I worked for the youth service for one and a half years and was responsible for helping to develop youth citizenship in Wales. Indeed, I was surprised and impressed by how the more I engaged with young people, the more willing they were to engage with important and complex issues, and by how sophisticated they were.
A number of Members have mentioned that the argument has already been won in the Welsh Assembly, which passed a resolution in July last year; in Northern Ireland; and—significantly—in Scotland, where the independence referendum will be held in 2014 and 16 and 17-year-olds will have a vote. Logically, if 16 and 17-year-olds are able to vote on such an important issue in Scotland in 2014, I suggest they would be equally able to exercise a vote in general elections as a matter of course.
A precedent has been set and I think it should be extended. It is worth noting that this is not merely a Scottish or indeed British debate; it is international. A number of countries throughout the world have embraced this forward measure—Members have referred to Brazil, Argentina, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Norway and many other countries, which are seriously considering how more young people can be given the franchise. A momentum has been established and the time is right for us to give serious consideration to how we can take the matter forward in this country.
If it is possible for 16 and 17-year-olds to consent to medical treatment, leave school and enter work or training, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits, pay income tax and national insurance, consent to sexual relations, change their name by deed poll, get married or enter a civil partnership, become the director of a company and join the armed forces, then logically, and in all fairness, they should have the right to vote.
Issues of concern, whether housing, education, the national health service, crime, youth services and so on, are of great concern to young people in this country. I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds are mature and responsible enough to exercise a vote in the country’s democratic system. It is an idea whose time has definitely come, and I sincerely hope that the House will look favourably on the motion.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
I am happy to take part in this debate, and I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) on securing it, and all hon. Members who attended the Backbench Business Committee. This important and interesting issue often captures the public’s imagination, and particularly that of young people. I add my support and respect for the UK Youth Parliament which also uses this Chamber and does such important work.
Barry Gardiner
I am glad that the hon. Lady has acknowledged the contribution of the UK Youth Parliament and its debates in this Chamber, and I wonder whether she would care to pay tribute to my constituent, Chante Joseph, who spoke in one of those debates and is in the Public Gallery today.
Miss Smith
I am pleased to know that such people are in the Gallery and engaged with this debate, and no doubt watching us on television. While I am at it, I will pay tribute to the Norfolk Members of the Youth Parliament who also came to this place for that debate.
Whether the voting age should be lowered to 16 is a question on which many Members of this House have passionate and strongly held views—indeed, often opposing views—and those have been expressed again during this debate. Some were pro lowering the voting age and some were against, but Members from all sides of the House interacted strongly and respectfully with each other—in particular let me single out the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and his powerful comments about much of the work he does for the protection of children outside of today’s narrow topic.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear on numerous occasions his personal view that there is merit in lowering the voting age, and his views are shared by many in the House. My party tends not to agree, although I am happy to concede that if my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) were in his place, he would show that there is never complete unanimity along party lines on this issue. My political interest began at age 16, when from my comprehensive school in Norfolk I tried to set up a youth forum for Norfolk—I suspect I might have been unusual in that degree of engagement. I accept that there are good arguments from all sides about this issue, although I am not persuaded of the merits of a change to the voting age.
Let me respond to the comments made by the Opposition Front-Bench speakers. I was interested to hear their arguments—as I was to hear those of other hon. Members —and to read comments by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on the internet. I note, however, that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) voted on the 2005 ten-minute rule Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West, and nor did the Leader of the Opposition or a single member of today’s shadow Cabinet. Although I hear that the Opposition’s views are growing stronger, I wonder what they did during 13 years of government if they did not find time to make that passion felt. A clear case for change is needed—
Wayne David
I am the first to say that this is an evolving debate. I am now convinced that the time has come for us to make the change, but a number of years ago I was not convinced. I think that the Government ought to move with the times and listen to what sensible people are saying.
Miss Smith
I hear the hon. Gentleman. As I say, we need a clear case for change and I will use the time available to me today to look at the facts surrounding the issue because I do not think the case is yet made.
Mr Sheerman
Will the Minister address the point that I tried to make in my speech—I was a bit of a lone voice—and my concern about the rights of children and their vulnerability if we take protections away when the beginning of adulthood, as sure as can be, is moved from 18 to 16?
Miss Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for pressing that point, and I will come on to deal with the fact that we do not have a single age of majority in this country. Hon. Members on all sides have debated whether we ought to have a single age and what it should be, and the debate has covered both axes of the argument. I was taken by the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—we should not be protecting young people from democracy.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) did indeed name me, but is not the point that although we may be debating the age at which people can vote, whatever our view on that we all want to see young people engaged? Opposing a reduction of the voting age to 16 does not make us any less in favour of wanting to get more young people involved in the political process.
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend makes part of my argument for me, for which I am grateful.
As I have said, we ought not to amend something as important as the electoral franchise without a clear case for doing so. I note that there are great divergences of opinion in wider society. Most studies and polls show that a majority of 16 and 17-year-olds favour lowering the voting age—perhaps that is not surprising—but the situation is not always clear. A 2009 YouGov survey of 14 to 25-year-olds conducted for the Citizenship Foundation, another organisation for which I am sure hon. Members have great respect, showed that a majority of that age group—some younger and some older than those in the category we are debating—opposed votes for 16-year-olds: only 31% were in favour, but 54% were against. That provides food for thought and gives hon. Members something to think about on the question of who is likely to say, “Yes, I’d like 16-year-olds to have the franchise,” and who is likely to come to other interesting conclusions.
Hon. Members have raised the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland.
John Healey
Does the Minister accept that the tenor of the debate has been that the case rests on principle and not on popular support?
Miss Smith
What the right hon. Gentleman says has merit, but we have heard all shades of the argument, including divergent opinions on principle, on great questions of practicality, which I will come to in a second, on what 16-year-olds can currently do in this country, and on how popular or difficult people find those things.
The Scottish Government have proposed that 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the Scottish independence referendum. That has come up repeatedly in debates, including in the debate on the section 30 order last week. The UK Government’s view is that the existing franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections ought to be used for the referendum. It is also our view that the franchise for the rest of the UK should remain unchanged.
I am familiar with arguments of both principle and practicality on the rights and responsibilities of 16-year-olds. Sixteen-year-olds can leave school, get a job and pay tax to differing degrees—I welcome the expert knowledge of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on that point. Sixteen-year-olds can pay tax on their earnings or expenditure, marry and join the armed forces, with parental consent—some hon. Members ensured that they mentioned that vital point.
In short, 16 and 17-year-olds contribute to society in a range of ways. All hon. Members welcome that contribution and would seek for it to be increased in terms of democratic and political engagement when the time is right. It is true that society allows a 16-year-old to do certain things, but society and Parliament believe that there are many things they should not be able to do, including smoking, buying alcohol or fireworks, and placing a bet.
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way, which is to her credit. I am not familiar with the constitution of the Conservative party, but I suspect 16-year-olds can join it in the same way as they can join the Labour party. In the Labour party, and, I suspect, in the Conservative party, 16-year-olds can take part in selecting their parliamentary candidate and in leadership elections, in which they are choosing a potential Prime Minister. If they can take part in those elections, why can they not take part in a general election? [Interruption.]
Miss Smith
The right hon. Member for Tooting suggests from a sedentary position that we ought to protect 16-year-olds from taking part in democracy—I suspect that argument has been made in the debate. As I said in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I see the merits of engaging younger people in politics. However, it is my job to answer for the Government, and it will not have escaped the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that we do not have a consensus on this policy within the Government. I make no bones about that—unless Mrs Bone is available.
Hon. Members on both sides of the argument have tried to exhaust the list of what 16 and 17-year-olds can and cannot do. The contents of the list change from time to time, but that is not the key to the debate, because the UK has no standard age of majority at which people move from being a child, with all the protections that entails, to being an adult. Instead, those rights and responsibilities build over time. People gain the right to do some things when they turn 16 and the right to do other things at other ages. They gain the right to vote the day they turn 18, although I note the argument of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who said that they cannot simply walk out of the door and vote at that point unless they are very lucky with their date of birth.
Hon. Members’ arguments have fallen today on the issue of competence, which is a difficult matter of principle. I will not go into the ins and outs of it because hon. Members have done so, and it is important that the voices of Back Benchers come through in a Backbench Business Committee debate.
As I have said, the Government welcome the involvement in politics of young people who are legally old enough to vote and those who are not. We are seeking to increase the level of political engagement among the youth of this country and to increase registration rates among them to ensure that they exercise the right to vote when they are able to do so.
Mr Sheerman
The Government have changed the emphasis on citizenship in schools—it has been pushed to the margins of activity in schools rather than being allowed to flourish.
Miss Smith
I will answer the hon. Gentleman but take no further interventions on that because I have little time. He is confusing the concept of activities in schools with the national curriculum, which are two different things.
We need to give young people a say in the issues and decisions that affect them. The Government have made that a key principle in our “Positive for Youth” policy and are engaging young people in the political process in a number of ways. The British Youth Council has received funding from the Department for Education to promote the voice of young people at national and local level. That includes establishing a new national scrutiny group of representative and elected young people to advise Ministers across the UK Government directly. I look forward to my first meeting with the group. The Cabinet Office is working with Bite the Ballot and Operation Black Vote to pilot different approaches to engaging directly with young people and black and minority ethnic groups in the UK, including in their schools, colleges and communities, to increase their understanding of both the process and relevance of registering to vote.
Hon. Members have argued that 16 and 17-year-olds ought to be able to vote in order to help engage young people at an early age in our democratic and political processes, but they do not yet convince me. I have not seen compelling evidence. The Youth Citizenship Commission, which the previous Government set up in 2008—no doubt it was part of their onward journey—considered ways in which to develop young people’s understanding of citizenship and increase their participation in politics. It also considered whether the voting age ought to be set at 16. In its summer 2009 report, it felt unable to make a recommendation on whether the voting age should be lowered. It suggested that there was a lack of evidence regarding the merits of votes at 16, and noted that there were vigorous views on either side of the debate, which we have heard in the debate. It said that it is
“of the view that the issue is not the principal factor in encouraging young people’s interest and involvement in politics and citizenship.”
That speaks for itself and sums up several strands of the debate.
Those findings were in line with those made five years earlier by the Electoral Commission in its 2004 report on the age of majority. The commission recommended in its report that the minimum age stays at 18 years. It also recommended reducing the minimum candidacy age from 21 to 18 so that voting and candidacy are the same—a number of hon. Members have made that point—and the change was duly introduced.
The evidence is therefore not clear cut. We should certainly continue to consider the question, and I welcome the role of the Backbench Business Committee in that. Perhaps the more pressing question is what we can do to increase registration and turnout in groups who can vote. Registration among young people is lower than among other population groups. Recent Electoral Commission research shows that 55% of 17 and 18-year-olds and 56% of 19 to 24-year-olds were on the register, compared with 94% of over-65s. Those figures are telling.
I also note that the turnout figures for 18 to 24-year-olds have been falling. At successive elections from 1974 to 1992, approximately a quarter of that group did not vote. That is important to know and something we all ought to take seriously and work on. There is clearly an issue about engagement, particularly with younger electors, which goes beyond franchise, and the Government are trying to address it.
We are introducing the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which I know we shall enjoy debating in the House next week. It will go some way towards changing the electoral registration process for the better by introducing individual registration. It will create a legislative framework to allow alternative channels for registration, such as online registration. The move from paper to digital will make registration more convenient and increase accessibility—a significant transition. We want to ensure that during this period we enable as many people as possible of all ages to register to vote. We know we need to go further than those changes alone. I mentioned that the Government are working with a range of organisations to seek to engage individuals and communities from all sections of society into the political process, and specifically to drive up registration rates in under-registered groups.
The Government are fully committed to doing all they can to increase voter registration levels, but, to return to the main theme of today’s debate, there is no silver bullet solution. Increasing democratic engagement is not solely the responsibility of Government. Politicians, political parties, electoral administrators, teachers, young people themselves and others in society all have a role to play in encouraging young people to register to vote, and then to actually use their vote in elections and referendums. We must provide people with compelling reasons to vote.
I pay tribute again to hon. Members and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this compelling debate, one in which evidence and principle have their place, and I hope we have done it justice today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To sum up for no more than two minutes, I call Stephen Williams.
Stephen Williams
The Backbench Business Committee wanted me to demonstrate that this topic was interesting and controversial enough to spark a debate. I think that has been proven beyond all doubt today, with more than 30 Members speaking, either through speeches or interventions. There has been huge interest, too, outside the Chamber on Twitter. There are lots of people in the Public Gallery today and I thank the British Youth Council for organising that.
Some hon. Members have said that those of us who are in favour of lowering the voting age are trying to curry favour or be trendy. In the 1968 debate, the word used was “groovy”. No one has ever accused me of being groovy, or even cool, to use the modern term. A serious point was made about consistency—whether certain rights should be granted at 16 or 18. Surely we can all agree that we should protect young people from the things that are bad—going to war or smoking, which will kill people eventually—and give them the opportunity to do something that is good: voting.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I respect, and indeed am rather fond of, talked about the commercialisation and sexualisation of children. What those of us who want this change are trying to achieve is democratisation for 16 and 17-year-olds. It has been done in many other countries. It currently exists for British citizens in Crown dependencies and will happen next year in Scotland, on the very future of our United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) summed up the views of all of us who want to see this change: there are principled and practical reasons that now all point in the same direction of allowing 16-year-olds to vote.
I have a Bill ready; it is published today. All we want to do now is test the will of the House and demonstrate to the Government that we want the time and the opportunity for the Bill to become an Act, so that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote.
Question put.
Holocaust Memorial Day
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of Holocaust Memorial Day.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for this timely opportunity to debate this important issue on the Floor of the House. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). All gave their support for this debate, for which I am very grateful. The number of colleagues who put their names to our application for a debate demonstrates the strength of feeling about this issue and a desire to examine proactively what the holocaust means to us as a society today, as well as the strength of personal feeling on this very difficult subject.
There have been Westminster Hall debates every year since 2008 to consider Holocaust memorial day, on 27 January each year. Sunday will mark the 68th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau by the Russian army, which liberated the concentration camp and the death camp. These debates are always well attended, and I look forward to hearing from many Members who will have their personal views on what this means to them. I would like to frame today’s debate in three ways: first, through personal experience and the experiences of my constituents; secondly, by examining why bringing this debate to the Chamber at this time is important; and thirdly, by exploring what we as policy makers do to confine this dark and turbulent collective history to the past.
We all know the story of the holocaust—we know about the working conditions, the gas chambers, murder on an industrial scale and the irony of “Arbeit macht frei”—but to know the facts is to know only the outlines, like reading a blueprint rather than walking around a building. The Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) both commended the fantastic work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, raising awareness in Prime Minister’s questions, and I would like to do the same. It was through the trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” project that I was able to visit the camp with schoolchildren from my constituency in 2011. I went knowing what Auschwitz was, but I left understanding what it means. What struck me most about my visit was that the 11 million who are estimated to have died were like all of us in this room. The lists of names, ages, professions and home towns built a picture of lives and told stories of living, breathing people with hopes and fears, just like our own today. I left feeling harrowed, but uplifted by the thoughtful, emotive responses of the pupils I had visited Auschwitz with. What is so effective about such projects is that the children returned to their schools to share their experiences with so many others.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate with others and thank him for giving way. Does he agree that the wonderful work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in getting across the educational aspect of this issue will ensure both that future generations understand the tragedy of the holocaust—what went on, the atrocities—and that it does not happen again, to any community whatever?
Graham Evans
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I totally, wholeheartedly agree with him. We cannot thank the Holocaust Educational Trust enough for the work it does on behalf of the whole country.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It must not happen again, but we are not guaranteed that it cannot happen again. If I am called to speak, I will demonstrate that it has happened again—and it will continue to happen—and we have got to try to stop it.
Graham Evans
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. Later in my speech I will come to how we all have to remain vigilant.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I joined the hon. Gentleman on that trip to Auschwitz, and I wonder whether he, too, remembers that final walk back up the railway track, and the profound effect that the visit had on those young people. We hope that it will be a lasting effect, and that they will always remember the graphic details of what happened to those people.
Graham Evans
I remember that time clearly. I remember being at Manchester airport very early in the morning with those 16 and 17-year-olds. On the way out, those teenagers were full of life, but I remember, too, that harrowing moment right at the end of the visit, and the silence as we were trying to light our candles at No. 4 crematorium. The roof of the crematorium had collapsed, as the Nazis had tried to destroy the evidence of the gas chambers when they were retreating. We were trying to pay our tributes by lighting candles, and I remember the silence as we did so. The students were distinctly quieter on the journey home as they reflected on what we had all witnessed. I will always remember that moment that I shared with the hon. Lady; it was an extremely moving occasion.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I should like to echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) in congratulating the Holocaust Educational Trust on the work that it does. I have also been reflecting on the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that such atrocities could indeed continue, but we can reduce the chances of that happening if we educate future generations. That is why the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, and of others who do similar work, is so important.
Graham Evans
The Holocaust Educational Trust is a fantastic organisation, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us all of that fact. We cannot speak too often about the trust and the fantastic work that it does. I have three young children, and I have tried to make sure that they are aware of these subjects, although it is not easy to talk to young people about them. The trust does that in a very professional and sympathetic way, however.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am pleased to be among the MPs who have co-sponsored today’s debate with the hon. Gentleman. The theme of Holocaust memorial day is “Reaching generations”. Does he agree that an important feature of that is the passage of time? The Holocaust Educational Trust does extremely valuable work in schools, but as time passes—the hon. Gentleman mentioned 68 years—it is important to record testimony. As each year passes, there are fewer and fewer living survivors, and if we are to learn the lessons from the holocaust before they fade into the distance, it will be important to record as much testimony as possible so that we can remain as vigilant as possible. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has just issued a warning: as much as we might believe that those atrocities should never happen again, the danger of them happening again has not gone away.
Graham Evans
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, and I agree with him. As people grow old and pass on, it is up to us, our children and our children’s children to ensure that their story is always told and never forgotten. When I was a little lad of 10 in my home town, I remember a Cheshire Regiment soldier who had been part of the liberation of Belsen telling me about the camp. I had had no comprehension of such things as a 10-year-old; I had always thought that we had been the plucky Brits who fought the war and beat the Germans. The idea of the holocaust had never occurred to me. I remember him telling me how he had been affected by coming upon Belsen as a 19-year-old British soldier, and how it had affected him for the rest of his life. Hon. Members might remember Jeremy Isaacs’ award-winning series “The World at War”, which came out in the early 1970s. Programmes such as those stay fresh in the mind because they used survivors from the camps and the genocide. It is important that they are still shown on television and on the internet. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East for making that very good point.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I should like to add to the tributes being paid to the Holocaust Educational Trust. Its “Lessons from Auschwitz” project was originally funded through a grant from the Treasury, which allowed the programme to be extended to Northern Ireland on one occasion, in which I took part. Is the hon. Gentleman aware, however, that a subsequent decision was made that the money should come from the Department for Education’s budget? That has resulted in the Holocaust Educational Trust having to busk around for money in order to continue to do work in the devolved territories, and the programme has not been available in Northern Ireland. If there is one place in the UK that could benefit in a particularly poignant way from learning the lessons from Auschwitz about prejudice, it is Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should look again at this matter, and give a UK-wide envelope of funding to the Holocaust Educational Trust?
Graham Evans
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He raises an important point relating to his constituency. My understanding is that money is available for students from across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, to attend Auschwitz. I believe that the Treasury has allocated funds for that exercise.
I have also been privileged to meet survivors and listen to first-hand accounts, but they are harder and harder to find as time takes its toll. As time goes on, it is essential that we work harder than ever to ensure that people remember the holocaust; we cannot allow it to become a remote and distant memory for future generations.
So why should this debate be taking place here in the Chamber today? Those who fail to learn the lessons of history risk repeating them. The holocaust was not the first genocide; nor, sadly, was it the last. That murder by the state on an industrial scale occurred in what was one of the most modern and, arguably, civilised nations in the world at the time. Anti-Semitism, homophobia and prejudice still exist all across the world. Wherever there is unrest, economic difficulty or social imbalance, it is human nature to search for a group to blame. As the global economy falters, those conditions exist across the world, in Europe and even in Great Britain today.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I have been to Cambodia and Rwanda, and what the hon. Gentleman has been saying is particularly worrying. Having seen those countries, and knowing the history of Europe, I cannot say with certainty that such things will not happen again. Today gives us an important opportunity to express our best hope that they will not, and to alert people to the dangers, but does the hon. Gentleman know of any ways in which we could act in a stronger, more robust, manner to lessen the chances of them happening again?
Graham Evans
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is only 15 years since the genocide in Rwanda, in the mid-1990s, when the whole world stood by and allowed it to happen. He is right to say that we need to remain vigilant in relation to Rwanda and other countries.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I am leaving in the next few minutes to go to Hungary, and I shall be speaking in the Hungarian Parliament tomorrow morning with politicians from five other countries about the statements made by the new party, Jobbik, which called in November for there to be lists of Jews rewritten by the Hungarian state, for purposes to be determined. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even today there are extremists who would perpetuate race hate, even among politicians in western European countries?
Graham Evans
I wholeheartedly agree. The hon. Gentleman must have been reading my speech, because I was about to come to that exact subject. I wish him well in Hungary; I am sure that he will be a fine representative for the whole House.
When we stop remembering our collective history, because we no longer have first-hand accounts from people who were there, or simply because it shows the unpalatable truth about how we can turn on a minority, we risk making the same mistakes. It is inevitable that they will be repeated. Evil men know that. Adolf Hitler knew it. He frequently referred to the Armenian genocide, which took place between 1915 and 1923, during the Turkish Ottoman empire. One million people were murdered and another million were displaced, but the memory of it had all but disappeared by the 1930s. The world had moved on, and the vigilance against similar events had all but disappeared. History, it appeared, could simply wash the blood away. Adolf Hitler knew that when he went to war against Poland and Russia: he thought that if he could win, he could commit mass murder and genocide throughout Europe—he thought he could get away with it.
My application for this debate came to the Backbench Business Committee in the wake of a surprisingly under-reported outburst by the deputy leader of the Hungarian party Jobbik. During a debate in the Chamber of the Hungarian Parliament, he demanded that a list be drawn up of every Jewish Member of Parliament, and Government Members claimed that their very presence posed a national security risk to the country. Such words should bring a chill to any rational person’s heart. The response by the Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, was impassioned. He said:
“as long as I am standing in this place, no one in Hungary can be hurt or discriminated against because of their faith, conviction or ancestry.”
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a telling case and raising important points. One critical issue is that we cannot let people believe that, with the ending of the war, all these attitudes suddenly went away. There were pogroms in eastern Europe after the second world war. Education is clearly the key to ensuring that future generations never forget what happened.
Graham Evans
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The moment we hear about such statements, it is up to us all—in this House and in similar democracies throughout Europe and indeed the world—to highlight them.
This aggravated anti-Semitic sentiment was not an outburst from a political outsider. This nationalist party received 17% of the vote in the 2010 election and holds 47 seats in a 386-seat Parliament. Some polls suggest that as much as 21% of the population would describe themselves as Jobbik sympathisers. It is estimated that some 600,000 Hungarian Jews died during Nazi occupation. We know—we learned when we visited Auschwitz—that 400,000 Jewish men, women and children were murdered there in 1944. Golden Dawn is Europe’s most recently successful far-right party, winning 18 seats.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is about to leave. As the Minister with some responsibility for this issue, I say formally that I was delighted to hear about his visit and that he has my full support.
Graham Evans
As I was saying, Golden Dawn is Europe’s most recently successful far-right party, winning 18 seats in the Greek elections last year. It feeds prejudice, using overtly racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic rhetoric, taking advantage of the crippling economic situation and civil unrest. It is worth taking a moment to consider that conditions there—having to repay a huge economic burden imposed by other European countries—are not dissimilar to those of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s.
What about here in our own backyards? We still live in a world of prejudice and violence, where one in five British Jewish students is a victim of anti-Semitism. A recent survey by the Union of Jewish Students highlighted that 20% of Jewish students have experienced—and a further 32% witnessed—anti-Semitism in the past academic year. Some academic institutions still allow groups with aggressive stances towards Judaism to take part in debates on campus, providing a platform from which to spread hateful sentiments inciting prejudice and even violence. We have come to expect liberal and considered views from our academic institutions. Students should not just learn but grow, and if these kinds of attitudes are not tackled head on at schools, colleges and universities, we will forfeit the moral compass for the future.
Just a few weeks ago, in my own constituency no less, a teenager was convicted of sending racially aggravated Twitter messages to a Jewish schoolboy. The individual referred to members of the Jewish faith as “creatures” and expressed his support for eugenics. This is a depressing state of affairs and it shows us that a great deal more must be done right here in Britain to look at how our culture finds a breeding ground for these sorts of beliefs.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one problem is an ideology of holocaust denial that, sadly, exists in many countries in the world and that feeds back through the internet and modern communications, distorting the debate and affecting some young people in this country? In that context, will he join me in condemning remarks made by the President of Egypt who denied the holocaust and said that it was a myth created by the Jews and the Americans? Those remarks were made before he became President of Egypt, but it is important for us in this country not to have double standards or pull our punches, but to criticise vehemently and strongly all those who foster holocaust denial internationally—in whatever position in whatever country, whether it be Hungary or in other parts of the world.
Graham Evans
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point; I agree with him wholeheartedly. I would distinguish between two camps: there is the more sinister type of denial, as exemplified by the comments of the Egyptian Prime Minister, and there is ignorance. I believe we can do something about ignorance, but we also have to take head on those more sinister politicians who want to deny that the holocaust ever happened.
The holocaust was not created by some faceless state machine, but by people from a society not so far away from our own who committed terrible acts against members of their own communities. It is for us to examine our society, both global and national, to address these vicious twists of human nature before we reach a breaking point like that again. When I visited Auschwitz, what struck me was that its architects were doctors, scientists and engineers. Global industries all have their fingerprints on the creation of Auschwitz and murder on an the industrial scale.
So what do we do now? It would be all too easy to hold a one-sided debate, pat ourselves on the backs for vociferously condemning the actions of the Germans in the 1930s and 1940s. We can all agree that the spectre of anti-Semitism, prejudice and bigotry is morally reprehensible, but that carries the risk of creating an apathetic view of the social mechanics that do not just lead to the holocaust but are set in motion before any genocide.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Having spent several months in Israel in my youth and about eight years here in the British Parliament, I abhor anti-Semitism, racism and “groupism” in all its forms. It seems to me that as democratically elected politicians in a liberal democracy, we have a responsibility to be careful with our own words in identifying groups of people—whether it be on a party political basis or a basis of heritage or some other characteristic. We must be careful with our words so that we do not forge groupism within our society, as it can very quickly turn into something far more insidious.
Graham Evans
I totally agree with my hon. Friend who, as always, makes a hugely valued point. The holocaust deniers sometimes try to detract from British bomber command and the terror raids it carried out to bring the war to a close in 1945. I remember speaking to a bomber pilot who said that if there had been a peace treaty in 1945 and if the Germans had come to negotiate for peace, the bombing would have stopped overnight. They did not want to kill women and children; they wanted to bring the second world war to a close. The moment it did close, the bombing was stopped. I do not think for one moment that if there had been a peace treaty, the gassing of Jews in Auschwitz would have stopped; it would have carried on while so-called peace negotiations were going on.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In his illustration, I think my hon. Friend was primarily referring to the bombing of Dresden. It is no coincidence at all that the person most responsible for massively exaggerating the admittedly terrible civilian casualties in Dresden was none other than the same David Irving, who was a principal holocaust denier.
Graham Evans
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. The Dresden bombing raid, right at the end of the second world war, was dreadful but the Tokyo fire raid in 1945 was far, far worse. More people were killed in that raid than were killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. All bombing of civilians is a terrible thing, but the point I am making is that the Nazis’ “final solution” was hell-bent on ring-fencing a group of people and annihilating them from the face of the earth. The “final solution” was not a decision made on high by a few, but a calculated move riding on a wave of ill will which swept across Europe—a wave which, lest we forget, also encompassed the United Kingdom.
I should like to recognise the good work that is done. The Treasury has allocated £1.8 million for holocaust education funding for the trips to Auschwitz, £250,000 of which is for an education development programme to equip teachers with the skills and resources to address this issue. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust has been mentioned several times, and I should also like to mention the Conservative Friends of Israel. I was privileged enough to go on a trip to Yad Vashem, the remarkable tribute to the holocaust.
Beyond first-hand accounts, we need to look at how to communicate and share information effectively. The internet provides a vast sea of information designed to educate and inform. It is a proactive source of opinions, but it also provides an instant platform for uneducated views and malicious misinformation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) alluded to earlier. We must seek to combat holocaust denial and racism wherever we find it.
As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to remain vigilant, to protect the right to live free from prejudice, no matter what creed, colour, faith or ancestry. I urge us all to take the time to look around us, to see where the spectre of prejudice rises. That may be at home, talking to schools, communities and the police. It may be abroad, working with the many all-party parliamentary groups providing us with links across the world and with our counterparts in the EU or in individual states. What we must not do is be passive. This is our future and we must fight for it. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. This House is full of good men, and women; we have to remain vigilant.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As Members will see, a number of people wish to take part in this debate. The wind-ups will start at half-past 4, so please be considerate of others when making your own speeches. I call Fabian Hamilton.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on having secured this timely and important debate. It is essential that we are reminded why we commemorate Holocaust memorial day this coming weekend.
I want to follow the excellent speech that has just been made with some recollections of my own and, if the House will indulge me—I will be as quick as I can—with some very personal stories that I have never before relayed in my nearly 16 years as a Member of Parliament.
I first visited Auschwitz in 1998. I represent the largest Jewish community in Yorkshire, in the city of Leeds. They live mainly in my Leeds North East constituency, where we have five synagogues and some 8,500 Jewish people remaining from the much larger pre-war community. I was persuaded to go, first, because I am myself Jewish and had never been to a concentration camp, but also because so many of my constituents felt that it was right to go that January day. So, at 2 o’clock in the morning, we set off from Leeds to Manchester—we could not fly at that time from Leeds—and then to Krakow. We chartered a plane and all paid our contribution towards the cost, and 24 hours later, we were back home. It was one of the most moving experiences I have ever had.
As I am sure other Members will relay this afternoon, and as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale so clearly and carefully put it in recounting the story of his visit, one cannot but be affected emotionally, and almost physically, by what one sees in Auschwitz-Birkenau. I thought Birkenau, in many ways, was more moving. Auschwitz has become a museum. It is well-preserved and looked after by the Polish authorities. The guides are professional and they give visitors a very clear story, sometimes, quite naturally, with a Polish bias. But on getting to Birkenau, one can see almost unspoilt—if I can put it that way—the horrors of that camp. There is the railway the hon. Gentleman described, that goes from the beginning—from that wall and that gate—right through to the crematorium and the showers: the gas chambers, which were partially destroyed. There are the huts, originally built for horses, which were imported from Germany and, so I understood from our guide, contained up to 1,000 people who were kept captive there. The facilities there were horrifying. The prisoners were treated probably worse than the horses would have been treated. The Nazis destroyed most of those huts, leaving—as other Members who have visited the camp will recall—a sea of chimneys, all in straight lines, where the boilers and fires were, to give some rudimentary heat in the depths of winter.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend’s moving contribution, but in many ways it reflects other moving contributions that I have heard from schoolchildren who have been on visits organised, very effectively, by the Holocaust Educational Trust, which has become an advocate of the importance of learning about the horrors of the holocaust. Is that not a tribute to the work undertaken by the trust, and to its public funding by both Governments? Long may it continue.
Fabian Hamilton
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Other Members have also mentioned the Holocaust Educational Trust. It was founded by my good friend Lord Janner of Braunstone, a former Member of this House, who has done so much to establish it and ensure that its work continues. It is because of the trust that so many young people have an opportunity to visit the camps at Auschwitz and Birkenau.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I, too, have been on one of those visits. When students return, they are very keen to share the information that they have gained. Students at a school in my constituency invited a survivor of the Kindertransport to speak to their peers as part of their project. Given that there will come a time when there are no more people left with first-hand experiences, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for us to continue to support the Holocaust Educational Trust so that it can continue its work when those survivors are no longer with us?
Fabian Hamilton
I agree wholeheartedly, and in a couple of minutes I shall say something about some of the survivors in my constituency. Sadly, they will not be with us in perhaps 10 or 15 years, and certainly 20 or 30 years. When the children with whom we visited the camps—thanks to the Holocaust Educational Trust—are in their 40s and 50s, there will be no survivors left to speak of their first-hand experiences. It is so important for those experiences to be shared down the generations, and for us to continue, enforce and support the work of the trust.
Mike Gapes
I am sure my hon. Friend is aware of an extremely moving film called “Shoah”, made by Steven Spielberg. Spielberg went around the world collecting the testimonies of survivors in many different countries. It was a remarkable piece of work that took a very long time. At least the film’s existence means that those people’s voices and faces are still there for future generations.
Fabian Hamilton
Let me pay my own tribute to Steven Spielberg for his work in preserving those memories. He is a very famous, world-renowned film director and producer who has done so much himself to ensure that those voices continue down the generations on film and in digital media, and it is absolutely essential that they do.
I did not visit Auschwitz-Birkenau again for 12 years, but the Holocaust Educational Trust asked me to go back with a school party just before the 2010 general election. I declined to go on that occasion because I felt that it would be very bad timing from my point of view, politically; not for the children, of course. However, one of my good friends in the House—I hope that he will not mind my mentioning this—is the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), with whom I was serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, and he asked whether he could join any visit that was organised or in which I was involved. I told him that if I was re-elected, I would organise a visit for the two of us and our wives, and that, indeed, happened in October 2010.
The four of us went to Krakow at our own expense, and hired our own guide, a young woman called Kasia. She had been doing the job for about 10 years, and I think that it had burnt her out. Although Polish, she was not Jewish, but just the experience of 10 years of guiding people around had made her into a very nervous person. I believe that she retired from the job subsequently. It can only be done for a limited time because the pain is so great. Even someone with no personal involvement cannot but be absorbed into what happened to those many hundreds of thousands of people who were victims of the Nazi persecution. We had a fascinating time. My wife had never been there before. She is not Jewish, but I am. We saw the photographs at the “reception centre”, which had not been there in 1998, but many hon. Members who have been subsequently will have seen it. We saw the pictures of the families that had been taken from the suitcases and from their belongings, and put on the exhibition boards at the exit to the so-called “reception centre”. My wife looked at them and what she saw were no relatives of mine but people who looked like my relatives—they looked like people from my family’s album—and she broke down in tears. That is a reaction that so many thousands of people, including many of us, will have had.
Just a few months after that visit with the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, I was asked by the BBC in Leeds to make a documentary. This is important, as it involved the HET and two young people, a young Muslim boy of 17 from Bradford and a young Jewish girl of 17 from Leeds. I was the adviser on the programme, and the BBC producer and interviewer was Liz Green, who runs a daily show on BBC Radio Leeds. This very unusual radio documentary was called “Moon and Star”, after the symbols of the two faiths. What was most fascinating was the reaction of those two young people, who could not believe what they were seeing. Their reactions were almost identical, even though the Jewish girl knew the history perhaps better than the Muslim boy. It was very hard to stop the tears towards the end of that documentary, when we were standing outside the remains of the crematorium and the gas chamber. We came back, and the programme was then edited, broadcast and syndicated. I believe it is available in all schools today, and I was proud to have been involved in it.
To take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), I would like to mention two holocaust survivors. I will then try to finish my remarks in order to let others contribute. The first is a gentleman called Arek Hersh, who at the age of 11 was taken off the streets of Lodz in Poland and to a number of different concentration camps. I met him first in my constituency and subsequently at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, which the hon. Member for Weaver Vale has mentioned. A room there was being dedicated to Arek Hersh, who survived five years in concentration camps. Hon. Members who have visited Yad Vashem will recall the recreation of the main square of the ghetto in Lodz. The most moving moment came when Arek, who had been lifted from that square, was standing in the reproduction of the square. I saw a man, by this time in his late 70s, in tears because he felt he was back there, aged 11—it was very moving.
Of course, as the guide said, when children, young people and adults were taken to the concentration camps they had a number tattooed on their wrist—many hon. Members will have seen these. Arek rolled up his sleeve and there was a number. His friend Yitzak, who lives in Jerusalem and who had been there with him, rolled up his sleeve to show the next, consecutive number. The two boys had shared a bunk together for five years until they were liberated from Theresienstadt in 1945. Arek Hersh now goes around Leeds, Yorkshire and the country telling his story—he is one of those survivors. He is now in his early 80s and he is still very lucid. If any hon. Member wishes to get in touch with him, I will give them his number, because he is one of those last survivors who is still able to articulate his experiences very clearly, in his beautiful Yorkshire-Polish accent.
The other person I wish to mention is Iby Knill, who is very interesting. I invited her here, with Mr Speaker’s permission, to talk to Members about two years ago. Unfortunately not many Members attended, so perhaps we did not publicise the talk well enough. She wrote a book called “The woman without a number” because she had not been tattooed. She is Jewish and was originally from Bratislava, although she escaped over the border into Hungary. She was captured as a political prisoner, and her experience is remarkable to listen to. She was in Auschwitz—she was in that camp in Birkenau—and she met some of the most evil representatives of the Nazi regime every single day. She volunteered for a slave labour factory because that was the way to prevent herself being starved to death. She was quite a fit young woman and she was a nurse. She got together with other young women who were in the medical profession and they all survived because they kept together as a group. She said, “If you allowed yourself to be picked off one by one, that was the route to an early death. But if you kept together and kept some solidarity, you generally kept alive—if you were very, very lucky.” She was lucky; she went there fairly late.
Finally, I want to mention members of my family, as I said earlier. I have never relayed this story in public before, although I have told one or two close friends about it. In 1985, my late father, who died 25 years ago next week, rang me up and said, “Fabian, I’d like you to come to Salonica with me this weekend.” I said, “Why, dad?” and he said, “I have just discovered that my aunt, who I thought had died in Belsen during the war, survived.” That was 1985, 40 years after the war. He was 63 and had last seen that part of the family when he was 14 in 1936.
We took the next flight to Salonica, which is where most of his family came from, and were met at the airport by a tall, elegant 93-year-old called Ida Uziel. Uziell is my family’s name, and Hamilton was given to my father during the war when he volunteered for the Special Operations Executive. Ida was very elegant and had survived Belsen with her daughter, Bella, and her granddaughter, who was three at the time. They were all there in the flat in Salonica to greet us and told us first hand their account of their lives in Belsen. It was staggering to hear. What was all the more moving was that they had lost all their original photographs and family mementoes, but my father had duplicates that he had brought along together with the family tree. We sat in Ida’s flat and looked through the different family relationships as we heard this first-hand account of life in Belsen—I had never heard such an account before and I was 30 years old at the time. We heard of the liberation by the Russians, their recapture by the Germans and their re-liberation by the Russians.
One story they told us was that they were, of course, starving. They were lucky as they had gone to the camp late, which was why they survived. A lot of people who were liberated at the time immediately ate whatever food they could—of course, that is the first thing anyone would do—but the family were lucky because they were with a doctor, who told them not to eat any dairy products as their bodies would not be able to absorb the fats and it would be very damaging, if not fatal. Sadly and ironically, people died from eating fats that their bodies could not absorb after years of starvation. I am glad to say that the Uziel family did not, as they took the advice of the doctor and ate bread, light food, vegetables and fruits and gradually allowed their bodies to readjust to the nutrition they had been denied for so long. I shall never forget that time. I am sad to say that Ida probably is no longer with us—she would be in her 100s if she was.
Just four months ago, I went to Paris to see relatives. I had recently met a cousin who I did not know existed until the July before last, when she contacted me. She did not know that she was half-Jewish—her father was Jewish but had never mentioned his background. He had survived the war by ducking and diving, weaving and dodging. I should explain that that part of my family had come from Switzerland to live in Paris in the 1930s. My grandmother lived in Paris throughout the war, but luckily she had a Portuguese passport and was spared persecution. Her brothers were not so lucky; one was killed, but the other two survived and so did her nephew, the father of the woman who contacted me last year.
That man, my father’s first cousin, is still alive and is now 88 years old. My second cousin, his daughter, told me that he had finally managed to obtain the death certificate of our mutual great-grandparents. I did not even know their names before, but they were called Raina and Isaac Sevilla. I have plenty of photographs of them in my parents’ albums. They had come to Paris from Switzerland and taken French citizenship. When the Nazis invaded Paris, and Paris fell, they were asked to register. My grandmother told me that the Nazis were very polite and said, “Please wear this yellow star. We just need to know who you are; we will not harm you in any way.” That was a lie, of course.
One dark night in early 1941, there was a knock on the door and Raina and Isaac Sevilla were arrested and taken to Drancy, the notorious clearing house for the concentration camps. They were taken away, never to be seen again, and we did not know what had happened to them until my cousin Peggy found a death certificate issued in Auschwitz concentration camp, which means that we know that that is where they perished. It was one of the most truly moving moments in my life, and I am now 57 years old.
As a result of the experience of my family, and countless thousands of Jewish families in this country, and all over Europe and the world, I take a passionate interest in more recent genocides—I know that other Members want to talk about them—especially the Kurdish Anfal. Last week, I was fortunate enough to chair part of a conference on the Anfal in Westminster’s Methodist central hall, and in February last year, together with many other hon. Members, I visited Kurdistan’s Administration in northern Iraq. There is huge similarity between what has happened to the Kurdish people in recent years, and what happened in the war to the Jewish people. We have to make sure that we do all we can to prevent that ever happening again. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance; we must always be vigilant.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) for securing the debate and, importantly, for ensuring that it was held in the main Chamber. It is important that a topic as significant as the holocaust be debated here, and not in an anteroom to the Commons.
Today, when attention spans are seemingly getting ever shorter, and our media seem to report items fleetingly, it is important that we stop and remember events such as the holocaust and subsequent genocides. I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, of which I am a trustee, and to the Holocaust Educational Trust for all the work it does in ensuring that at least once a year we pause, reflect, remember and hopefully learn the lessons of history.
I represent one of the most religiously and ethnically diverse constituencies in the country. Most people do not think of Finchley and Golders Green as particularly diverse—it is often thought of as nice, quiet suburbia—but 25% of my electorate is Jewish, 8% Hindu, and 7% Muslim. The borough of Barnet, of which my constituency is part, has the largest percentage of Christians of any London borough, and one of the highest percentages in the country.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust memorial day—“communities together: build a bridge”—resonates, because my constituency and Barnet are blessed with good community relations, but those good relations between faiths and various ethnic groups do not come easily. They take work, not just once a year, but day in, day out. That work is aimed at ensuring that we understand each other’s point of view, as well as our points of difference. Too often, ignorance allows division to fester and breeds contempt, and contempt means that people may all too easily become willing to turn a blind eye when others are singled out and denigrated.
Holocaust memorial day is always an emotional experience for me. As my constituency has a large Jewish population, I have met many residents who survived the holocaust, either having escaped on the Kindertransport or having otherwise fled Nazi persecution. I know of residents who have survived the death camps or lost family in them. I was especially pleased to see that one of my constituents, Freda Wineman, met the Prime Minister this week when he signed the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of remembrance. The personal testimony of survivors is crucial to ensuring that we do not forget.
I mentioned that Holocaust memorial day is emotional, but that is perhaps not for the reason people might expect. I visited Yad Vashem on a trip to Israel, and found that visit emotionally draining, so when I was invited to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau, I fully expected the experience to be equally emotional. I give credit and thanks to the Government and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for providing £2.1 million in funding for the maintenance and restoration of Birkenau, to ensure that it does not crumble into history.
When I visited Birkenau, the emotion I felt was not sadness but anger and rage. That took me by surprise. Murder and mayhem are all around us, and often the deaths that we hear of and see are the result of arguments or passion. Newspapers, television and cinema have numbed us to the violence, the killing and the bloodshed, but the reason I was angry is that it struck me that Auschwitz-Birkenau was cold, clinical and utterly efficient. Members may think this an odd comment: in some ways we lampoon the Germans for their efficiency, but on that day I thanked God for German efficiency, because they kept impeccable records. People may try to deny that the holocaust happened, but German efficiency was so good that we can point to the records of how many carriages came in, hour by hour, how many people were on the transports, and even the number of carrots used in the stews that barely fed the inmates.
Fabian Hamilton
Will the hon. Gentleman add to that list of efficient record-keeping the staggering fact that each person who was killed had a death certificate issued, as did my relative?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. When people were being killed on an industrial scale, the fact that the murderers took pains to issue death certificates is perverse and astounding, but it means that we have the evidence to point out to holocaust deniers and to say, “This cannot have been made up. Here is the evidence.”
Even during the last days of the war, when one might think that the Germans would be maintaining their resources on the fronts, they did not. They diverted resources from the fronts to maintain the killing machine, to ensure that the final solution was not impaired. That also fuelled my rage.
One of the things that particularly angered me was that Auschwitz-Birkenau murdered 1.3 million people— 1.3 million—yet we are told that no one noticed. So when the train drivers pulled back out of Auschwitz-Birkenau with empty carriages, no one noticed that they went in full and came out empty. When the local traders delivered food and supplies to the guards, did they not notice the people standing around in the freezing cold in the striped uniforms? We are told that no one noticed. That made me angry. No one noticed the thousands who went in but did not come out.
Next to the camp is the Polish town that bears the name Oswiecim, or Auschwitz. Before the war that had a population of about 12,000, of whom 58% were Jewish. The Jewish and non-Jewish population lived side by side harmoniously—Jewish bakers, synagogues, a whole range of shops which showed that there was a vibrant Jewish community living harmoniously alongside the non-Jewish population. The local council, much like my own council in Barnet, had Jewish and non-Jewish councillors working together for the good of the town, yet shortly after the war started, there were no Jews left in Oswiecim, not one, and we are asked to believe that no one noticed.
Words struggle to describe the horror of mass extermination, but words also cannot describe my anger at how people can simply turn a blind eye to the disappeared. Given that I have such a large Jewish population in my constituency, I asked myself whether I would have noticed if I got up one morning, walked down my road in Finchley and saw every other house suddenly empty—not just one or two, but every other house; one in two houses. Would I not have noticed? If the same happened in the local areas of Golders Green and Hampstead Garden Suburb, and every other house was empty, would someone not have noticed? Wouldn’t you have noticed? I believe people did notice, but they chose not to.
I believe fervently that we can bring communities together so that they see the person, not the religion or the colour. If we can achieve that and the theme of building bridges and bringing communities together, so that people see beyond the label, the seeds of division are harder to sow.
Many of us know from our constituency surgeries that when we sit down with people from a variety of faiths and backgrounds we find that they all have the same problems; they are concerned about jobs, education, crime and the future. Their backgrounds are irrelevant. They simply want to get on with their lives and live peacefully. For me, building bridges and bringing communities together is crucial. I spend a lot of my time on interfaith work, because I believe that if we can get beyond labels and get people to see that more unites us than divides us, we will reduce the risk of further genocides of the sort we have seen. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing the debate and on the passionate and knowledgeable way in which he spoke. The reason we are having this debate today is that we are approaching Holocaust memorial day, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, but people might not realise that it is a relatively recent commemoration, and indeed one that was decided by this Parliament. It originated with a private Member’s Bill introduced by Andrew Dismore, who at the time was Member of Parliament for Hendon. The Bill was enthusiastically supported by the whole House and led to the creation of Holocaust memorial day, a day on which the whole community focuses not just on what happened in the holocaust and ensuring that people know about it, but on learning the lessons of what happened. Both are extremely important.
On Monday evening I attended a reception in the House organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust, of which I am a council member. The trust was set up by two parliamentarians—Lord Greville Janner, who was a Member of this House and is now an active Member of the other place, and the late Merlyn Rees—because they wanted to ensure that the knowledge of the holocaust was known to new generations and that its lessons were learned by everybody. At Monday evening’s reception, I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) and The Times journalist Daniel Finkelstein talk about their families’ recollections and experiences in the holocaust. There was also information, in a very striking film, about the memories of holocaust survivors. They all told their powerful stories, in much the same way as we heard the powerful story today from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). The strongest message that came from those stories was that it was incumbent on future generations to ensure that people do not forget what happened and that they learn the lessons.
I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to the story of one particular survivor, Ben Helfgott, a very remarkable man. He spends most of his time talking to young people and others and working in the wider community to create good community relations and ensure that people know about the depravity of what happened in the past. He found what I think is an excellent way of communicating his life story and what happened. He was the guest on a very memorable episode of “Desert Island Discs” in which he told with great pathos—at times it was almost unbearable to hear—the story of what happened to him as a young lad and to his family. It was a compelling broadcast. I understand that Kirsty Young, in the middle of interviewing him, had to stop the recording to recover her composure. I commend that broadcast because I think that it tells, in a way that is very different from what we usually hear, what happened and the intensity, pathos and horror of Ben’s experiences. The important thing about Ben’s life is that he spends his time not just talking about what was bad and evil but working for good, and with a positive attitude to the whole of humankind. That is what inspires him.
I want to talk about what is happening now and what the lessons of what happened should be.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
In reference to the Holocaust Educational Trust, will the hon. Lady allow me to put on record my complete endorsement of the words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)? He drew attention to the fact that we have a gap in relation to the Lessons from Auschwitz programme, which does not apply in Northern Ireland. We need to work with the Holocaust Educational Trust to make that programme happen in Northern Ireland. I spoke to Members about this yesterday. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that the programme is very important, particularly in Northern Ireland, and that it should be available for people right across the United Kingdom.
Mrs Ellman
I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Reference has been made to what is happening in other countries in Europe, with the rise of the blatantly anti-Semitic Jobbik party in Hungary and the Golden Dawn party in Greece, which should give us growing cause for concern. In this country, yes, the situation is different, but there are still things that we should all be concerned about. The Jewish community in this country is a proud community of proud British citizens working hard as members of this society. However, there is unease. I commend the work of the Community Security Trust, which works within the Jewish community and, indeed, the wider community to identify anti-Semitism and prejudice against any other groups. In the first six months of last year alone it recorded 299 anti-Semitic incidents—a lot of incidents and a cause for concern. The trust does not only work with the Jewish community; it is now working with the Muslim community to show them the methods it uses, to ensure that anti-Semitic incidents and deplorable Islamophobic incidents will be recorded in a way that is seen as absolutely reliable by the police, who are then able to act. I commend the Community Security Trust for the work that it does. It is a remarkable institution doing excellent work for the whole community.
There is also the issue of rhetoric—the kind of anti-Semitism that its perpetrators often do not recognise they are carrying out. I say to people who, in arguments about any topic, refer to Jewish power, alleged Jewish influence or Jewish conspiracies, or use images such as Jews as snakes, that they should realise that they are reflecting anti-Semitic rhetoric. They should think about what they say, because when Jewish people hear those terms a little shudder is felt within most of us as we recognise that those are the words and images of the blatant anti-Semitism that was used in such a horrendous way by the Nazis. Some people do this through ignorance and simply do not understand what they are doing; others, I suspect, are not so ignorant. I say to those people: be careful of the words you use and the images you invoke.
I have tried to indicate the role that Members of this House and this House itself have played in trying to address problems of anti-Semitism and to ensure that the holocaust and its lessons are remembered. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who has done excellent work with his all-party group on anti-Semitism. I should also like to recognise the excellent work done by the former Member for Rotherham, Denis MacShane, who has worked unceasingly and tirelessly to expose anti-Semitism in this country and across the whole of Europe. His work should be recognised. Indeed, we are still using the information that he has provided.
We are here today, with the approval of the Backbench Business Committee, to mark this year’s Holocaust memorial day. Many events will take place this week and next week in London and across the country. Those events will involve all communities, not just the Jewish community, because the purpose of Holocaust memorial day is to ensure that the whole community continues to learn about the holocaust and its lessons. We must continue to work together to expose evil and to do right for the future. I hope that this House and its individual Members will continue to play their part in securing that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Seven Members wish to get in. If they speak for about eight minutes each, everybody will get a fair share of time and the winding-up speeches can start at 4.30 pm.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing this very important debate.
It is a great privilege to contribute to this important debate and I am delighted that it has become a permanent fixture in our parliamentary calendar. I hope that it will become a permanent fixture in the Chamber from now on. I think that we can all agree that continuing to reflect on the events of the holocaust, while also paying our respects to those who were murdered and to those families whose lives have been indelibly tarnished as a result, is a process that will never lose its significance. In so many ways, the holocaust stands alone in its sheer horror as a direct warning of the dangers of intolerance and prejudice when coupled with unchecked political power. Numerous events since have, of course, demonstrated that there are still lessons that we can learn today by reflecting on what took place under the murderous Nazi regime.
Marking Holocaust memorial day with a debate in this place should also serve as a reminder of the role that this country played, not just in finally freeing the world from fascist oppression, but in offering sanctuary to close to 90,000 refugees, including thousands of unaccompanied Jewish children and teenagers, fleeing Nazi persecution at a time when we were battling to ensure our own very existence. Offering assistance where it is genuinely needed, and can be given, is surely a guiding principle for any civilized nation and we can be rightly proud of our history in that regard.
I will mark Holocaust memorial day in my constituency tomorrow along with other elected representatives and am mindful of the opportunity it gives us to ensure that our country’s political process remains the beacon of equality and openness that it undoubtedly is. The lingering but persistent racial and anti-Semitic threats at the fringes of our political system should never be far from our minds, and that is something that the all-party inquiry on electoral conduct, of which I am a vice-chairman, is looking at. Maintaining best practice in electoral conduct by preventing racist and anti-Semitic campaigning and literature is a crucial aspect of the fight against intolerance. We in this country could doubtless be doing more to learn from other countries in order to ensure that that is done properly. We will be looking at that in the meetings of this important inquiry.
Holocaust memorial day is also an opportunity to focus on the struggle around the world to maintain freedom of conscience and religion. Vital work is being undertaken by the new all-party group on international religious freedom, led by Baroness Berridge, and on which I am proud to serve as the secretary. We thought that we would start by taking a long, fresh look at article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which, as I am sure many present will know, is the key cornerstone that underpins everyone’s right to follow the religion of their choice, to change their religion by choice or, indeed, to have no religion by choice. It is essential to uphold the right to think and believe freely, because without that freedom there would be no free speech.
It is extraordinary, however, how many countries across the world—some actual signatories to the universal declaration of human rights—fail to uphold article 18, either intentionally or because it proves too difficult. We will look at how article 18 still applies in the 21st century and how better we can ensure that it is properly implemented.
Of course, as many Members have said, good education is critical if we are to ensure that the holocaust remains part of our nation’s collective consciousness. I am delighted that the Government are funding the Holocaust Education Trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” project, which will improve awareness of issues facing the country’s Jewish community. The Government have also taken welcome measures such as making it a requirement for police forces to record anti-Semitic attacks. It is a great sadness that such attacks appear to be on the increase again.
However, we must also be vigilant on behalf of all communities. My local Muslim community was deeply upset when the mosque in Acton suffered an arson attack. I was able to help by contacting the local council to ask for security equipment, which was installed very quickly. Luckily, no great damage was done, but the senseless hostility, somewhere out there on the streets, that had led to the attack still caused considerable distress and concern.
Today’s young must be taught about the past so that they do not repeat it, and they must not be allowed to grow up unaware of the horrors that previous generations were forced to witness. History must therefore always have an important place in our education system, and not just lessons about the second world war—it must go further back, too. History shows that persecution of particular groups and religions spread through this country in waves on many occasions, and that the inclination to persecute people because they seem different is never entirely stamped out. It can easily resurface under different guises in different places and in different ways. Better education teaches us to be more aware of it and ready to stamp it out before it takes hold. That is the most important thing that we can still do for those who suffered in the holocaust. By keeping the memory alive, we honour those who died and can hope to safeguard generations still to come.
I finish by acknowledging that my own learning is far from complete in this regard. I have not been to see Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp for myself yet. It is a gap in my education that I intend to remedy.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I commanded a British battalion that lived beside Belsen. In fact, just to correct the record, it was my battalion, or parts of it, that liberated Belsen in 1945. When I was living beside Belsen in 1991-92, I was shocked when I visited the camp, because there are just rectangular mounds, about 100 metres square, and there is just a little sign in the heather that says, “Here lie 4,000 bodies”. Four thousand individuals.
I never thought for a moment that I would see something that would be akin to the holocaust, but a few months later I was ordered to take the first British battalion into Bosnia. At the end of October 1992, I watched with my soldiers 10,000 people trying to escape from the genocide that was occurring at a place called Jajce. They went past my camp. I told the soldiers to start counting, and I told them to stop counting at 10,000. I did not see death then. It was not long in coming.
It was particularly awful when the Bosnian Croats, the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Serbs went against one another. It was described by the United Nations as genocide, and I think one could actually call it a holocaust. On 22 April 1992, I was in the hills trying to stop a battle between the Croats and the Muslims. I had been directed to go there by the ambassador of the United Nations. A Bosnian Muslim commander said to me, “I’m not stopping fighting because people down in that valley are killing women and children.” I said, “I do not believe for a moment that women and children are being killed.” He said, “They are”, and I had a sneaking feeling he was right.
I went there, right the way through the village. It was a linear village about a mile long, and at the far end I deployed my soldiers on either side of the road in an extended line. I said, “Go through the village. Find out if anyone has been killed.” Every house was destroyed. I cannot remember now whether there were crosses on the doors or not, but there was a differentiation between houses. Some were Croat and some were Muslim. The Croat houses survived.
We found bodies—what was left of them. I found one whole family in the cellar: a mother, another woman, three or four babies burned to death, a father, and on the stairs outside, probably a teenage boy. We found what remained of them because they had hopefully been shot—I say hopefully because otherwise they had been burned before they died. It was horrendous. We buried 104 people in a mass grave: women and children, men. About 400 people were murdered in that appalling massacre.
It went on and a few days later I went to a place called Putis, which smelled really bad. There were some bloated pigs, and I then found the remains of what must have been men, although all I found were some boots with stumps of legs sticking out of them. Those men had not only been shot against the wall, they had been burned as well. It got worse. Back in Ahmici, which is where the massacre occurred, I picked up what I thought to be a black ball in the ruins and dropped it. To my horror, it was the head of a child. I have never forgiven myself for that.
A girl was brought to my house. Her name was Melissa Mekis and she told me what genocide is, and how fearful she was. We talk here about 6 million Jews being killed: 3 million men, 2 million women, 1 million babies or children. What we fail to get over is the sheer terror that must have gone through every single person that has faced the holocaust or such situations—the sheer terror of a mother with her baby beside her, going into the gas chamber; the sheer terror of Melissa Mekis.
This is what happened. Melissa Mekis was woken up at about 5 o’clock in the morning by her mother and father and told to dress quickly. She went downstairs and was told to go outside with her mother and father. Then she was made to lie on the ground with her brother, mother and father. In her words—my soldiers were bathing her and we were listening to the story—there was then a great deal of noise, and her mother, father and brother did not get up. She was put into a concentration camp, or a camp, and my present wife, Claire, who was then a delegate to the International Committee of the Red Cross, found her. Claire Podbielski brought her to my house and said, “You have room in this house; you can look after a child.” I said, “You must be joking; I am meant to be the commander of the United Nations forces.” She said, “Can I remind you of what you are meant to be doing? You are meant to be saving lives.” I agreed and so my soldiers looked after Melissa Mekis. They put a little cot between their two beds. Two days later, she did not want to leave them.
In my intervention earlier, I said that genocide continues—that the holocaust continues. It does. I also said we will never guarantee it will not happen again. It has happened again. We have instances of it happening again in recent times. By talking about the holocaust and illustrating those instances, we will hopefully reduce the chance of them happening again. God help mankind. It must not happen again.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
It is a great honour and a privilege to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who made an emotional contribution about his time in Bosnia, which I will refer to in my speech. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and other right hon. and hon. Members who helped to secure today’s debate.
On 25 October 2012, I joined students from Nelson and Colne college and Burnley college on a Holocaust Educational Trust one-day visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau. The day gave them and more than 200 other post-16 students from across the north-west of England a unique opportunity to learn what exactly happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau, to pay respect to those who lost their lives, and to explore the universal lessons of the holocaust and their relevance today.
On the first day, we visited Oswiecim in Poland, the town where the Auschwitz staff camp and concentration camps were located. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green reminded us, before the war 58% of the population of Oswiecim was Jewish. We then visited Auschwitz 1 to see the former camp’s barracks and crematoria, and the piles of belongings seized by the Nazis. Finally, we spent time at the main killing centre of Birkenau, where the day concluded with candle lighting and a period of reflection to remember the 6 million Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Roma, Sinti, gay, disabled and black people, and other victims of the Nazis killed during the holocaust. It was my first visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau and was all the more poignant in that it came just days before I joined members of the Royal British Legion in Nelson in my constituency to launch the annual poppy appeal.
Before being elected as an MP, I had the opportunity to visit Dachau concentration camp near Munich, which was the Nazi’s first. The one thing that strikes those who visit Auschwitz-Birkenau—it is the one thing most people comment on—is the sheer scale of the place. It was killing on an industrial scale, and not just of Jews, but of anyone who fell short of the Nazi ideal.
The holocaust may have been 60 years ago, but it is important that we continue to teach the lessons of it to the younger generations in order to fight bigotry and hatred today. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and others who have paid tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust and its fantastic work in the country. It is important to remember, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham reminded us so graphically, that man’s inhumanity to man still knows no bounds.
Before being elected as an MP in June 2009, I had the chance to visit Srebrenica—a much more recent example of genocide in Europe—where, in July 1995, more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed in just a 48-hour period. The killing spree took place in front of the eyes of the international community and Dutch UN peacekeepers.
I and a group of others helped out with a range of projects while living with local Bosniak Muslim families. We finished off a newly-built house for a war widow who wanted to return to the area she had grown up in. We refurbished an IT suite at the local secondary school, built a football pitch on a hillside and did other tasks, such as helping to chop firewood for an elderly women too frail to do it herself. While we were working there, we spoke to the widows of some of those murdered and to their children and relatives. We heard the survivors’ testimony and their stories remain with me today.
It was an extremely moving experience which has left a lasting impression. Fourteen years after the horrific violence that took the lives of 8,000 men and boys in Srebrenica, the work of rebuilding homes, lives and a way of life was still not complete. I am proud of the small contribution I was able to make towards that goal during my time there. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country still tilting uncertainly between its past and its future, and could slip backwards without sustained international attention. Now more than ever, it is vital that the international community does not forget about conflicts that many see as behind us in areas such as Bosnia. We have to keep supporting the country until it is firmly back on the track to lasting stability.
When people in Pendle say they are anti-war or against military interventions overseas—many do—they often forget the huge cost of us not intervening. It was right that we fought the Nazis in the second world war, not just to protect our own borders but to crush a dangerous ideology that led directly to death camps such as Auschwitz and to the holocaust.
I look forward to seeing how the local students who went with me to Auschwitz-Birkenau will communicate their experiences and relate them to things like the current challenges of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the UK. I hope that this will ensure that the holocaust is never forgotten, and that lessons are truly learnt, disseminated and acted on.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) has done the House a service by bringing this topic to the Chamber.
The Holocaust Educational Trust continues to do society a great service by enabling young people from schools up and down the country to have the experience of visiting Auschwitz extermination camp. I went on one of those visits a few years ago. I was a little bit reluctant to go because I had read rather more than was good for me about the holocaust at rather too young an age. I am glad I went, however, because it helped put to rest any doubts I might have had about the wisdom of taking people when they are so young to see such a terrible place. The way in which the trust prepared the young people for their visit in advance, and then debriefed them afterwards so that they could share their experience, ensured that the process was educational and probably life-changing, but not psychologically damaging.
What we have heard today has been evidence of the fact that although the scale of the holocaust against the Jews has not been reached since, the impulses behind it remain and other massacres have had a similar basis for being carried out and have been carried out. When my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) made a brief intervention earlier and talked about the importance of not defining people and damning them by the groups to which they belong, my mind went back to my days in Dynevor grammar school, Swansea, where I had an inspirational teacher by the name of Mr Graham Davies. He once told the class about a short, silent film—I have never been able to track it down—called “Prejudice”. I have never forgotten the theme of that film. It showed a group of schoolchildren in a playground. All of them were hopping around on their right legs and they seemed to get on very well, but at some point another child came into the playground and he hopped around on his left leg. Gradually, the viewer could see the members of the larger group ganging up against the individual who was different, and eventually they attacked and killed him. The film was simply called “Prejudice”. It had a lesson for me then and it has a lesson for us still today.
I want briefly to tell the story of two little girls who were caught up in the holocaust against the Jews. One was my cousin, Chana Broder, who got in touch with me back in late 2007 as a result of something in the press about my decision to resign my life membership of the Oxford union debating society because of its ill-conceived idea of giving a platform to the holocaust denier David Irving and to the leader of the anti-Semitic British National party. As a result of those two individuals being given that platform, I decided that the Oxford union debating society was not an organisation with which I wished to continue to be associated. My cousin Chana read something about it out in Israel, where she has lived for many years since the war, and got in touch with me to say that she was pleased I had done that. I thought about her story and decided to relate it in a previous Holocaust memorial day debate in this House. It bears relating once again, because that debate took place five years ago, at the beginning of 2008, and a lot of people present today were not in the House of Commons then.
The story is quite simple. It is the story of a small family in a village in eastern Poland called Siemiatycze—which we always anglicise and pronounce “Semiatich”—which was occupied initially not by the Germans but by the Russians, because when world war two broke out, less than a fortnight after the Germans had invaded from the west, the Russians invaded from the east, as hon. Members will be aware, and they carved up Poland between them. The Jews of that part of Poland occupied by the Russians were safe for the time being, but after the German invasion of Russia they were in the front line. I remember my late father telling me that the first time he knew that his family had had it was the only time he heard Siemiatycze mentioned in a radio broadcast, when he heard that invading German forces had reached that place.
Of our family—approximately 50 or so people living in that village—only five survived. Three of the five were Chana and her parents—that little family—and all the ones who survived did so only because they were sheltered and protected by Poles, at the risk of their own lives. Chana and her parents used to run a little village store. A family called the Krynskis, who were a very poor Polish farming family, used to come into the store—a convenience store, I suppose we would call it today—in the years before the war. Sometimes my cousins could see that they were rather short of the wherewithal to make the purchases they wanted to make and they would say, “Look, Mr Krynski, Mrs Krynski, take what you need and pay us when you can.” Little did they imagine that that simple act of charity would result in the Krynskis saving their lives when many other doors were closed to them, as they fled from the liquidation of the ghetto that was formed in Siemiatycze, preparatory to the extermination of the Jews. My cousin’s family lived for a year and a half in a bunker under a barn, coming out only late at night when it was safe to do so. The Krynski family gave them the sustenance to survive all that time, until the Russians overran the village of Siemiatycze once again and they were saved. They subsequently went to Canada, and then to Israel.
The sad part of the story is that, when people later tried to persuade Mr Krynski to come to Israel to accept an award for his heroism and that of his family, he decided that it was probably better not to do so, such was the continuing atmosphere of anti-Semitism in Polish society after the war. He felt that it would not be a good thing for him to go back to live there, having been rewarded for saving Jews. I know that Poland has moved a long way from those attitudes today, thank goodness, but that was the situation then.
My second story is of a young girl called Nina Karsov. She is a friend of mine. She and her parents were on a train being taken to an extermination camp. They came from Warsaw. Somehow, they managed to jump from the train. The mother was killed instantly, but the little girl, who was two, lay in the snow for quite some time until her father managed to make his way back to find her. He took her back to Warsaw, where they were separately sheltered, again by gallant Polish families. One day, there was a raid on the quarter of Warsaw in which the father was being hidden. In order not to give away the people who had been sheltering him, he raced across to another building, climbed to the roof and threw himself off so that he could not be forced to disclose the identity of the people who had sheltered him. Nina survived and was brought up by the person she calls her Polish mother. She is today a researcher in the House of Commons, working for me.
Those experiences all sound extraordinary, but they are not. By definition, anybody who fell under the spread of the barbarism of Nazi Germany and survived would have had to go through something like that. Those “ordinary extraordinary” stories affect different people in different ways. I am sure that, subconsciously at least, my knowledge of what happened to my family has motivated me always to take the view that it is folly for peaceful democracies to be weak while vicious dictatorships arm themselves and become strong.
Nina found herself being brought up in post-war Poland under the communists. Despite everything that she had been through, she nevertheless worked closely with dissident intellectuals such as Jacek Kuron. As a result, she was sentenced to three years in jail by the communists for standing out against what communism meant in post-war Poland. I am pleased to say that, as a result of a campaign by Amnesty International, which made her its prisoner of the year in 1968, she was freed after serving two years of her sentence and came to this country.
Those traumas involve large statistics, but they are carried forward through individual stories. The effects of those terrible deeds perpetrated on so many people in that era live on. They have knock-on effects; they affect other people and they affect the way we look at the world. I do not think there is any danger of our forgetting the lessons of those terrible times. Nina’s story is told in a book called “Monuments are Not Loved”. My cousin’s mother wrote a small book as well. It was called “Out of the Depths”, which obviously referred to the bunker under the barn in which they survived for so long in such difficult conditions.
We criticise the ways in which electronic media can be abused, but thank goodness those media can also be used to disseminate the truth. We know the truth about the holocaust; we know that there are lessons to be drawn. We will not all necessarily draw the same lessons, but thanks to debates such as the one we have had today and thanks to the work of such organisations as the Holocaust Educational Trust, people will be able to remember, to draw lessons and to take steps for the future so that we are better prepared should something so terrible ever loom on the horizon again.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I am pleased to have an opportunity to play a small part in raising awareness of the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust, which do a fantastic job of raising awareness and ensuring that lessons are learned about Nazi persecution and subsequent genocides.
Many Members have spoken in moving terms about their personal experiences. My interest in understanding more about genocide arose through visits to Rwanda. Members may be aware that there is a Conservative social action project, known as “Project Umubano”, in which I participated in 2008, 2009 and last year. Up to 2008, my career had involved running a business in my home town and my overseas visits had been limited to family holidays. I left school at a time when we did not do gap years. I had never been to Africa or to a third world country. When I applied to join the project, I knew very little about Rwanda’s history. I had vague memories of pictures on TV at some time during the ’90s, and I watched pictures of a conflict that, to me at that time, was in a distant country with little relevance to my life.
Before my visit in 2008, I started to read up about what had happened in Rwanda throughout 1994. The more I read, the more places I visited while I was there and the more accounts I heard of how the conflict had affected people, the more shocked I became and the more I struggled to understand how the world had stood by and allowed a genocide to happen.
I was particularly interested to hear the accounts of survivors, via the work of an organisation called “SURF”, which is the Survivors Fund. When, a couple of years later, SURF brought a number of survivors to Bilton school in my constituency, I was keen to go along to add my contribution about what I had seen and to hear more accounts from people who had lived through the atrocities, many of whom had seen their neighbours hacked to death. I was interested in ensuring that the message about genocide got across to the next generation.
That was what encouraged me to take up the invitation, about which many Members have spoken, to visit Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust, which I did last year. When the invitation arrived on my desk, I was prompted to accept, because I felt by then that I knew more about what had happened in Africa in 1994 than I knew about what had happened on my own continent during the second world war, which had affected so many of my fellow countrymen. Like other Members, I joined a party of students from Rugby high school at Birmingham airport for a flight to Poland. We then made the harrowing visit to the concentration camps.
I was particularly interested in the reactions of the young people I travelled with. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), I found that these usually chatty, vociferous and noisy youngsters became silent over the day, as they took in the magnitude of what they saw around them. We saw the massive number of people who were crammed into tiny buildings, and came to understand something of the arbitrarily imposed punishments. We walked around the sites of the gas chambers—the buildings having been blown up as the Russian army advanced.
My recollection of my feelings on that day is that I was surprised and almost felt guilty that my visit had less impact on me personally than I thought perhaps it might. I wonder whether that was because of the visits I had made to Rwanda and my awareness of the Rwandan genocide, which was much more recent—only some 15 years earlier. I recall visiting the Murambi Genocide Memorial Centre, where I saw the mummified bodies of victims whose Achilles heels had been slashed with machetes so they could not run away. As I finished my visit to Auschwitz, I felt that I could not be shocked any more.
That leads me to an issue that Members have raised this afternoon. As we start to lose the generation of people who were survivors of Auschwitz, the challenge for organisations such as the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust is how do we keep those memories alive. It is vital for us, as Members of Parliament, to encourage those organisations to ensure that as many people as possible are made aware of what happened, and that the atrocities I have seen in Rwanda and Auschwitz do not happen again.
I conclude by complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale on his diligence in arranging this debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important issue to be debated in the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May I remind Members that they have about eight or nine minutes each.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) for securing this debate. It was also a pleasure to join him at the Backbench Business Committee as a co-sponsor of it.
I was struck by the description that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) gave of perpetrators in Rwanda hacking victims’ Achilles heels to stop them moving. It is such events, seemingly tiny in the giant scale of these shocking atrocities, that make the point powerfully. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will clearly never forget the experiences he described. Such descriptions paint a real picture of just how “normal” and “ordinary” these dreadful things are, some of which happened within the last 20 years. That is why debates such as this are so important. Otherwise, we can easily forget; in some cases, it was many years ago.
I have been involved in all of these debates since the last general election, and I am very supportive of the Holocaust Educational Trust. To me, one of the strongest reasons for having such debates is not just that they remind us of the dreadful and shocking things that happened then, but that history keeps repeating itself. The work of the trust and other such bodies is very necessary; otherwise, the awful atrocities that still occur would probably happen even more often. We in this august Chamber must each year remind ourselves, and everyone in the UK who follows these debates, of what happened.
Like some of my colleagues, I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau a few months after the last election. To me, it seemed that I knew it well, because I had seen it in so many Hollywood films. That sounds bizarre, but that is the reality. Of course, I did not know it at all. As I walked around, the things that really struck home, as a number of Members have mentioned, were the mechanics: the orderliness of the functionaries; the fact that they kept expert notes; the fact that they diverted freight trains full of victims, while at the same time fighting a war to the death with the Soviet Union. It was literally insane.
Last night, as I was preparing for the debate, I was reminded of the great writer Primo Levi, whose work I read when I was a young man. As I am sure all Members know, he was an Italian chemist, a Jew, who had been in Auschwitz and who wrote about his experiences, and his general philosophical approach, a few times after the second world war. I was reading a couple of quotations last night to remind me of the books that had had a seminal impact on me when I was only a teenager.
Because he was such a good writer, Primo Levi was able to describe the organisation that was involved in a way that is so simple and yet so horrific. He wrote:
“Monsters exist, but they are too few in numbers to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are…the functionaries ready to believe and act without asking questions.”
That is the point. It appears that there are a certain number of complete monsters who are the dictators, who lead and who do terrible things, but who can do absolutely nothing other than annihilate people around them. They can do nothing on a grand scale without all those functionaries.
The reason I consider that so important is that I cannot accept, will not accept and never have accepted that we are all so pure and that we would do it differently, given that functionaries could behave in such a shocking way—ordinary, normal people like us and the people listening to our debate. Earlier, a Member mentioned the train driver who said that he did not see anything. That is ludicrous. If a driver sets off with 20 full freight cars behind him and leaves with nothing, he will obviously notice that. However, there is something within humanity that just shuts such things off. I do not know what it is, but I do not believe that that could not occur here. I do not believe that there is something that was just so much worse for people over there. The reason I mention that, and the reason the debate is so important to me, is that I believe that the more we in the Chamber can demonstrate the truth of just how ordinary that shocking behaviour was, the harder it will be for society to park it over there and say that it could not happen here.
Rwanda has been mentioned. I was born and brought up in Mombasa, in Kenya, which is a super country no more than a couple of thousand miles from Rwanda. Some dreadful things happened between the Kikuyu and the Luo only about a year and a half ago. Members may remember hearing the news of the explosion between them. One thing led to another, one group suddenly turned on the other, and bang! About 1,000 people were shot down. Houses were burnt, women and children were killed. I knew those areas really well, and for all I know, many years ago I may have met or walked past either some of the victims or some of the perpetrators.
The overall ugliness of genocide makes us want to turn away, as indeed we do. Even when I was preparing for the debate last night, I thought, “This is so wearying”. It is such a wearying, exhausting issue, because it is so horrid. Primo Levi also said:
“It is neither easy nor agreeable to dredge this abyss of viciousness, and yet I think it must be done, because what could be perpetrated yesterday could be attempted again tomorrow, could overwhelm us and our children. One is tempted to turn away with a grimace and close one’s mind: this is a temptation one must resist.”
That is one of the reasons that I was so determined to join my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale in seeking the debate. It is exactly the same reason that so many hon. Members have been flagging up today.
Dwight Eisenhower, the allied supreme commander, was, in many ways, an interesting soldier and politician—he was almost an anti-politician. He was known for being very unemotional and dry. When he heard about the camps he did not believe it at first, but after being told, he came to realise that they did exist. He told his aides and his chief of staff that he wanted to visit a camp, and not just to see it for his own eyes. He said:
“The things I saw beggar description…The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were…overpowering…I made the visit deliberately in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things”.
That is why today’s debate is so important and why I, like a number of hon. Members, will be attending a memorial commemoration in my constituency on Sunday—I look forward to it. It is taking place in a local synagogue. Only a small number of Eastbourne people are Jewish, but the synagogue and the group are strong. They, the Holocaust Educational Trust and the many other bodies around the UK and the world that keep commemorating this event and keep reminding us must never stop, and we must always support it. We must never turn away because, as my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said, if we do so, we simply will never have any chance of preventing those dreadful occurrences from repeating themselves again, again and again. Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and the HET. I always consider it a privilege to speak on this dreadful issue.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) for securing this debate, in which we have heard thought-provoking and thoughtful speeches from a number of hon. Members from across the Chamber.
When I was growing up, we had no education about the holocaust in school. I was fortunate, because I grew up alongside Jewish children, so I could hear at first hand some of the stories about the horrors that their families had gone through before the war, during the war and after the war when they were refugees. That is one of the things that is life-changing for most of us, because when we contemplate that systematic murder of 6 million people just because they were of the Jewish faith, we find that it is almost beyond our consciousness; we cannot imagine how any human being could contemplate doing that. We cannot imagine why a nation would not stop it, but they did not. The fact is that those 6 million people—they were all individuals—lost their lives for no other reason than because the most hateful political regime ever in history sought to exterminate them.
There are some life-changing moments that we all go through. I first visited Yad Vashem, the holocaust museum in Jerusalem, some 20 years ago, before the current museum, which is much larger, was in operation. I went as a tourist and I spent a full day there. The museum had already started capturing the testimonies of survivors of the holocaust on film; as we have said in this debate, so many of these people are, sadly, no longer with us and it is important to capture the testimonies so that we remember what happened. The museum had started to put the exhibitions together, and people could see the full horror of what happened to the Jews in Germany, not just during the second world war, but from the rise of Nazism in Germany. We could see how it all came about. We need to learn those lessons, because in many ways the rise of the Nazis started at the end of the first world war with the treaty of Versailles, which imposed such terrible conditions on Germany that it set the economic climate that allowed the Nazis to come to power and exert that power in the way that they did.
I represent a part of the country that, according to the most recent census, has the most concentrated Jewish population. As a result, I have had the opportunity to meet survivors, people who came by the Kindertransport and people whose families have related personal experience of what happened in the death camps and concentration camps. Sadly, they often do not even know where their relatives are.
I have now had the opportunity to go to Yad Vashem five times, and every time I learn more about the horrors of the Holocaust. I would recommend anyone going to see it first hand in Jerusalem, because there is no greater education. I have also had the opportunity of going with the Holocaust Educational Trust to Auschwitz-Birkenau and seeing, together with young people, the horrors of that place. Three things stood out for me. First, visitors walk across what is essentially a parkland. It is very peaceful and almost deathly quiet. The birds are not singing and there are the ponds where the Nazis put the ashes of the people they systematically gassed and then burnt. It is a terrible place.
The second thing is the maps, which show the systematic approach of transporting people from all over Europe to put them in a death camp and murder them. It is then that it comes across that it was not just a few evil people who did those things; there was a systematic approach and thousands of people were involved. Thousands of people were guilty of involvement and millions of people turned their backs and ignored the reality of what was going on.
The third thing that brings home the reality is the collection of belongings behind glass in cabinets: boots, shoes, spectacles and other things that were stolen from the people who came to Auschwitz and never left. It is very important to commemorate the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. They both bring to life the cold, hard reality of what happened.
Next week, there will be two great events in my constituency. The Chief Rabbi is coming to Park high school on one of his last public engagements before he retires and one of the students who came to Auschwitz-Birkenau is giving a lecture to other students at Bentley Wood school on Tuesday. Those things are vital. I hope the Minister will comment on the fact that it is vital to continue holocaust education in our schools and ensure that it is part of the curriculum for ever more.
Other Members mentioned the international aspects of rising anti-Semitism. Hungary, Greece and Egypt have been mentioned, but we should remember that every year marches take place in Latvia and Lithuania to commemorate the Waffen-SS, the exterminators who killed 750,000 Jews not in concentration camps but by wiping them out wherever they went. Today, those marches still commemorate those evil people and celebrate what they did. Such activity is on the rise yet again. On the Piers Morgan show on CNN, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denied the holocaust and said that it never took place. Here is the president of a country who denies the holocaust; we must always be fearful of people who deny the holocaust.
Closer to home, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) mentioned the rise in the number of anti-Semitic attacks. One thing she did not mention was that anti-Semitic attacks in London are up by 48% according to the figures from the Community Security Trust. We must be on our guard at all times.
The work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust is vital in ensuring that everyone understands the lessons, so that we never allow such a thing to happen again. Words are sometimes worth repeating, and I would repeat that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Unless we remain eternally vigilant, the Nazis and other people could come back and do it all again.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing this important debate, the most spellbinding that I have been party to in my short period—two and half years—in the House. We have heard incredibly powerful contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber. I shall say a few words about each of them in turn, if I may.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) made a moving contribution about his experience, and the experiences of his family and constituents who were holocaust survivors. It must have taken a lot for him to share those experiences, given that they were so close to home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) talked about the importance of communicating what happened and the need for ongoing vigilance. She cited examples of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, which is, incredibly, still going on today, and the need to continue to guard against it. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) reminded us of the role that this country played in offering refuge to people fleeing the Nazis, and in defeating the Nazi tyranny that led to the many horrors that we have heard about this afternoon. She stressed the importance of education and ensuring that we, as a nation and a society, continue to remember what happened.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke incredibly powerfully about his time at Belsen, and about seeing the mounds that were mass graves. He spoke about his period in Bosnia, where he saw thousands of victims and witnessed appalling atrocities. I pay tribute to him for sharing his experiences today. He spoke very movingly and powerfully about what he witnessed.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) spoke about his experiences visiting concentration camps, and about working with the victims and survivors of the horrors in Srebrenica. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) talked about the impact on young people of visiting the scene of Nazi atrocities. He took an important principled stand in resigning his membership of the Oxford Union when it gave the fascist David Irving a platform from which to spread his vile ideology.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) spoke about the genocide in Rwanda. It is incredible, really, that after the horrors of the holocaust in Nazi Germany, a genocide on such a scale could be repeated in relatively recent times. He talked movingly about speaking to survivors of the genocide in Rwanda.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) spoke very thoughtfully and thought-provokingly. He said it was essential for this place to guard against the normalisation of the horrors of genocide, and for us to remember that monsters are few. For atrocities to be perpetrated on the scale that they were, the acquiescence of functionaries is required. He also said it could happen again—it could happen here. It is worth reminding ourselves that Nazi Germany, which has been the focus of much of the debate this afternoon, was a sophisticated western civilisation when the Nazis came to power. Who would have thought that a “sophisticated” nation could perpetrate such horrors? Yet it happened. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastbourne for reminding us that it was not due simply to some monsters over there. It can happen anywhere, and we must guard against the normalisation of the horrors of genocide.
Finally, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke about how he heard at first hand from his friends in the Jewish community with whom he grew up about their parents’ experiences. He spoke about the incomprehensibility of what happened, and I share his view. To me, to all of us in the Chamber and to any decent-minded person, it is utterly incomprehensible that such horrors could be perpetrated. Again, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of education to ensure that those horrors are not repeated in the future.
I pay tribute to the 294 Members who have signed the Book of Commitment relating to the holocaust. It is an important statement of intent that almost half the Members of the House have signed that.
It is a triumph for democracy that, for the past six years, the House has hosted this debate, and it is a triumph for decency that Holocaust memorial day continues to attract significant interest since it was first launched 12 years ago this Sunday. Perhaps the most famous line of remembrance comes from Laurence Binyon’s poem, “For the Fallen”—“We will remember them.” Those words, captured most famously in the “Ode of Remembrance”, were written in the year that the first world war ended. That was about 25 years before the unspeakable horrors that took place in Nazi Germany, but they remain just as relevant today because today is about remembering the millions who suffered those barbaric deaths—the innocent children who must have followed their parents and grandparents, perhaps naive in their anticipation, but innately sensing that something dreadful was about to happen, and the knowing parents, so many of whom must have endured the unimaginable agony of foreseeing the most horrific fate that awaited them, as first their captors extinguished their hope, then extinguished their dignity and finally extinguished their lives.
But today, and every day since the true scale of the holocaust became apparent, has also been about learning. For if society cannot learn from the wrongs of the past, what hope does it have? That is why I echo the sentiments that we have heard from most Members applauding the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust. The work of that organisation is most worthy, not just because of the vitally important issue at its heart, but because of the extraordinary way in which the message is delivered. The strapline on the trust’s logo states: “Reaching Generations”.
Let us think about those words for a moment: “Reaching Generations”. It sounds aspirational, but the incredible thing about this most awful story is that it has reached generations. The contributions from a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East, and the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is not in her place, made that point. Ask virtually any child over the age of, say, 10 and many below that age, and they can most likely tell you more than a little about the holocaust. It remains relevant for our children in the same way as it is relevant for us, for our parents and for their parents before them. Was it the lowest ebb known in world history? Very possibly.
But we must not be complacent. Just because society knows what happened before is no reason to believe that it is not capable of repeating those wrongs in the future. We need look no further than the atrocities in Rwanda, Bosnia and Cambodia for proof of that. The painful truth is that we must keep remembering. We must keep learning, too, because the truth is that the dreadful crimes of the late 1930s and the 1940s were not restricted to Nazi concentration camps. Historical evidence suggests that in some areas there was collaboration, and in others there was just abstention.
Some people try to excuse the Nazi soldiers who enacted those awful crimes because they were just following orders. They might apply the same logic to the ordinary citizens who simply accepted it as part of their society, or the other nations outside Germany that simply turned a blind eye because a war was on, a point made by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). None of them is a valid excuse—an explanation, perhaps, but not an excuse. The moment we start excusing those who contributed to this—arguably the greatest atrocity for which the human race has been responsible—is the moment we lose sight of why we remember.
Even today, global society has not learnt all the lessons it should have learnt from the past. Let us think about three of the groups the Nazis targeted: people targeted because of their ethnicity, because of their disability, and because of their sexuality. Have we solved the problem of discrimination based on ethnicity? Have we ended discrimination based on disability? Have we got rid of discrimination based on sexuality? We have come a long way on all three, but the answer to each is, unfortunately, no.
The great worry is that in some areas discrimination is increasing. A black footballer might now be much less likely to be abused from a football terrace than he was 30 years ago, but incidents of Islamophobia, for example, are on the increase. That is why our job here today is not simply to agree that the monstrous acts that took place in Nazi Germany must never be repeated; we must be vigilant in preventing the circumstances that enable fascist ideology to grow.
There are not many issues that this House agrees on, but reaching consensus on this issue is the easy part. We should not simply pat each other on the back for agreeing on something on which it would be impossible to disagree and then move on to the next business. The hard part is providing the leadership when we go back to our constituencies, our communities, our towns and cities, our friends and neighbours, our colleagues, customers and clients, showing the leadership that proves that society can learn from its mistakes, that it can move on from its troubled past, but that it will always remember.
It is becoming even more important that we remember because the austerity that is currently gripping European nations has given a foothold for fascist extremists to peddle their insidious doctrine. The hon. Member for Harrow East touched on that when he talked about the circumstances that led to the rise of the Nazis in Germany after the treaty of Versailles. We must never make those mistakes again. We must remember to take steps to tackle the circumstances that provide a breeding ground for fascist and Nazi ideology.
Reaching generations is what the Holocaust Educational Trust seeks to do. It is what we should all seek to do. I take my hat off to the many voluntary organisations, community groups and local authorities that are supporting events in their areas to mark Holocaust memorial day. I know that is happening in my home city and constituency of Derby North, and I am sure that the same is true for every Member here today. I urge everyone in the Chamber and beyond to go back to their constituencies, write to those organisations, congratulate them on the work they have done and pledge their support now and for the future. Holocaust memorial day is vital to ensure that we remember and that we learn, and all of us in this place have a vital role to play in supporting that goal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)
Let me begin by adding my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) for securing this debate. Like the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), I am grateful for and welcome the contributions from Members in all parts of the House, which have been wise, insightful, powerful and moving.
My hon. Friends have raised many important issues. We began with the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who set the tone by expressing thanks, gratitude and praise for the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust—a body set up, as he reminded us, by a former Member of this House, Lord Janner. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) has, like many others, experienced a visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and he, like others, described his experiences there and his feelings of anger and rage.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who is a member of the Holocaust Educational Trust, reminded us about another founder of that body, Lord Merlyn Rees, whose memorial lecture was held on Monday; she referred to the powerful testimony of survivors who were there. She went on, very importantly, to express her concerns, as have others, about the rise of the far right and anti-Semitic organisations in countries such as Greece and Hungary. I take this opportunity to repeat my support for the attempts being made in that regard by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) with his forthcoming visit to Hungary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) reminded us that despite our being a largely tolerant society there is still, sadly, intolerance in our own country that needs to be addressed—a point rightly picked up by the hon. Member for Derby North. My hon. Friend also talked about the situation in other countries and the need to press for greater compliance with article 18 of the UN universal declaration of human rights.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke particularly powerfully of his experience in Bosnia, reminding us, as did others, of genocides that followed the holocaust. His first-hand experience of death and destruction and man’s inhumanity to man in Bosnia is sadly one that I, too, have had, because I was there during the height of the fighting, although not for anything like the same length of time. I will never forget my experiences there, and they influence me in the work that I do today. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) also talked about Bosnia and the need, even today, to tackle the evils of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) reminded us that the impulses, as he put it, which led to the holocaust sadly remain and have led to more recent genocides. I was particularly impressed by his reminders, through his own personal contacts, of the amazing stories of courage of people who sought to protect Jews from the Nazis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) spoke of another genocide—that in Rwanda. He also described his experience of visiting the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp with a group of students and the impact that it had on those students. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) reminded us that it could happen again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked of his life-changing experience on a visit, this time to the Yad Vashem museum, and the powerful film footage that he saw of survivors. He asked me a question about holocaust education remaining in our educational provision. It is, as he may know, part of the history curriculum at key stage 3. A major curriculum review is under way, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will listen to his views on the matter.
I know that we all share a strong desire to make sure that the flame of remembrance continues to shine strongly in our society. I was delighted that the 294 Members of Parliament who signed the book of commitment included the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Speaker, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside reminded us, Holocaust memorial day came about following a Member of Parliament’s visit to the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp with the Holocaust Educational Trust. So moved was Andrew Dismore, the former Member for Hendon, that in 1999 he proposed a Bill to introduce a day to learn about and remember the holocaust. Two years later, London hosted the first Holocaust memorial day on 27 January, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
One of the reasons why I first got into politics was that the British National party set up a recruitment meeting in a primary school directly opposite where I lived. The thought that extremism could still catch fire in our civilized society today, just as it did in an earlier civilized German society, was chilling and I resolved there and then to do what I could to make sure that it did not take hold in my community.
I remember visiting Prague during the Soviet era and visiting the Jewish Museum. I was struck by the starkness of the displays. The rooms were small and had just one black and white photograph on each wall. The images were so powerful that the memory has never left me. I have also been to Yad Vashem in Israel, which is a very different museum in terms of scale and impact. The rows of names of those lost in the holocaust are haunting and leave a lasting impression.
The holocaust is a reminder—the most powerful reminder of all—of the need not just to condemn the atrocities of the past, but to do everything we can as MPs, as people who have influence in our communities, to stop prejudice, hate and racism gaining a foothold.
When we think about these appalling crimes—whether they took place during the holocaust or other modern day mass atrocities—we see that the perpetrators of hate had one thing in common: they all sought to dehumanise their victims because of their race, religion and ethnicity. It was their detached hatred that enabled them to carry out unimaginable atrocities, and yet even in those dark times there was a glimmer of hope. There were individuals whose consciences would not allow them to pass by on the other side. They risked their lives to save Jews. Many of them have been honoured by Yad Vashem as “Righteous Among the Nations” for their actions.
In 2010 our own country awarded 25 British men and women the holocaust hero award in recognition of their selfless courage and humanity in saving Jews and other persecuted groups during the second world war. Since those initial awards, further acts of bravery have come to light and we will honour them in the coming months.
The tireless work of the Holocaust Educational Trust—rightly praised yesterday by the Prime Minister—and in particular its chief executive officer, Karen Pollock, have been key in ensuring that holocaust education is at the forefront of our efforts to ensure that we learn the lessons of the past. Holocaust education matters so much, because it helps to restore the names, memories and identities of those who suffered—not just 6 million Jews, but more than 1 million Cambodians, 1 million who died in Rwanda, hundreds of thousands who died in Darfur and thousands killed in Bosnia. Holocaust education helps remind us that behind the statistics were real people who lived, loved and laughed, who might have contributed untold wonders to our world, and who never dreamed that their days would cruelly be cut short.
Holocaust education is also about remembering those acts of courage and compassion that took place even in the midst of evil. It is about remembering that when we build a bridge between communities—fittingly, the theme of this year’s Holocaust memorial day—and when we celebrate what we share, we not only cast out the shadows of hate, but strengthen the bonds of our common humanity.
That is why we continue to support Holocaust memorial day and the work of the CEO of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, Olivia Marks-Woldman, and her staff. It is not just because it is about the act of remembrance, but because it is about getting out into our local areas and working hard to foster better relationships. This year I am pleased to hear that more than 1,500 activities will take place across the country to mark the day. I, like many others, will be wearing my badge and getting involved.
The support of the current and previous Governments for Holocaust memorial day is not all about building tolerance between our diverse communities. We have also committed £500,000 to the Wiener library to house the UK’s copy of the International Tracing Service archive, which holds the records of the fate of millions of civilian victims of Nazi Germany. We have committed £2.1 million to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation, to be used to fund ongoing restoration work. That will ensure the upkeep of the site for future generations.
As we have heard, we will also provide funds for the continuing “Lessons from Auschwitz” project for sixth-formers and their teachers. We will continue to support the work of the UK’s first envoy for post-holocaust issues, and that of the Anne Frank Trust UK to educate young people to challenge prejudice and discrimination and inspire them to become active and responsible members of their community. We are supporting a third-party reporting facility for anti-Muslim hate crime and an initiative providing support for victims of such crime.
That work is of immense importance. The fact is that we can never be complacent, especially as today we continue to see the growth of anti-Semitism on the continent, the continued scourge of anti-Muslim hatred, and racism rearing its ugly head in football. We can never stand aside when we encounter hatred of any kind, because as Primo Levi once said:
“Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it.”
We must always be ready to remind those who say it could never happen in a civilised place like this that the holocaust happened in the cradle of civilisation. It is our duty to ensure that it never happens again.
Graham Evans
The debate has shown the House at its best, and on behalf of the hon. Members who supported the motion, I thank each and every Member who has contributed so thoughtfully and compassionately. Some of the speeches drew on personal experience, some on the first-hand accounts that Members have heard and some on recognition of the darkest parts of the human condition.
I have been pleased to listen to the unifying voice of sombre memorial, the celebration of human spirit and the will to survive. I expected no less from hon. Members. I would particularly like to remark on the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). His experience reminded me of the old Jewish saying, “If you save one life, it’s as if you’ve saved the entire world”.
Vigilance is the only way in which we can protect future generations, both here in the United Kingdom and across the world. It is our duty to keep this specific event in our not-so-distant past in our memories. Unless we do so, we create a vacuum in which prejudice and bigotry can flourish, which is not a future to which I wish to condemn my children.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of Holocaust Memorial Day.
Worcester Further Education Colleges
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is a real privilege to follow such an important and passionate debate. As a historian and as a parliamentarian, I associate myself with the important points that were made in commemoration of the holocaust.
It is a great pleasure to be able to speak on a subject that is dear to my heart and of enormous importance to my constituents. I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for staying until the Adjournment to hear it.
In the week when we received job figures showing the lowest number of unemployed people, and young unemployed people, in Worcester since 2008, this matter touches on the skills that young people need to get into work and the opportunities that they have in our colleges. As a county centre for both education and industry, Worcester is fortunate in having a number of excellent educational institutions.
The Minister will be aware of my long-running campaign for fairer funding for our schools. Today, however, I want to focus on our colleges, particularly the two that provide opportunities for thousands of 16 to 18-year-olds in Worcester, the Worcester college of technology and Worcester sixth-form college. Although I appreciate that the debate is focused on further education, and that the college of technology is therefore the prime concern, I hope the House and the Minister will indulge me if I raise issues on behalf of both those important institutions.
There are similarities and differences between the challenges that the two institutions face and the nature of the capital funding that they require, but the illustration of those differences is an important point for the Minister to understand. She will be aware of the deeply lamentable record of the Labour Government on the capital funding of colleges. They presided in this area, as in so many others, over an enormous escalation of hopes and a catastrophic failure to manage and deliver. The sad story of the Learning and Skills Council, and its drive to replace functioning buildings with shiny new ones at enormous expense, is symbolic of much that happened under the previous Administration. Both Worcester colleges were victims of that saga.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and may I add Kidderminster college, where I serve as a governor, to that list of Worcestershire-based colleges? It also had a £40 million promise cruelly yanked away at the last minute after something like £150,000 of important college funds had been invested in feasibility studies.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Do you want to finish your remarks, Mr Garnier?
Mr Walker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which was intervened on, and I congratulate him on raising the case of his local college that was so cruelly treated by the last Labour Government.
Our sixth-form college in Worcester was promised a building programme that could have cost more than £30 million. It underwent substantial work in planning what it was told would be a complete rebuild, enabling it to expand its capacity and provide new and better facilities. It incurred costs of more than £200,000 in putting together a bid that would have been successful if the Learning and Skills Council had shown a greater degree of financial continence than the Government who presided over it.
With the collapse of the LSC, the school received not a penny. Not only were hopes dashed and promises broken, but ongoing repairs that should have been started were postponed and important maintenance work put off in the hope that a shiny new building would render it unnecessary. Problems that had helped to justify the need for a new building were made greater by the failure of the last Government to deliver on their promise. In short, it was a fiasco. Fortunately, the college of technology was not so far down the line with its plans and incurred fewer costs—only around £114,000. It, too, was encouraged to believe that at some point a magic pot of money would offer scope for new buildings and a move from a split to a unified site.
I am not sure whether the Minister has visited Worcester recently, but if she has she will have noticed that functional though they may be and although they occupy a magnificent site alongside our Norman cathedral in front of the River Severn, the buildings of the college of technology are far from being the most beautiful on the city’s skyline. I and many of my constituents hope that one day what the architect himself described as “functional concrete blocks” might give way to more elegant buildings, better suited to the role of inspiring minds. The college, recognising that a small up-front investment in bringing together disparate sites could reduce running costs and generate ongoing savings, hoped to make that happen, but such hopes were to be bitterly disappointed by the last Labour Government.
Some FE colleges elsewhere in the country received funding to replace nearly new buildings, but during the last term of the Labour Government, Worcester college of technology received no capital grants at all. Its principal, Stuart Laverick, described to me how
“the last Government’s inept management of the capital budget for the sector made the FE estates playing field very uneven.”
I regret that in his statement Mr Laverick, who is not known for being shy or retiring in defence of his establishment, may have understated his case. Our college of technology plays a huge role in providing skills for young people and adults, and in making people ready for work, yet it was left neglected by the last Government as their recession saw youth unemployment soar. Unemployment rose from 500 in December 2008 when the Labour Government announced the disaster of the collapse of their Building Colleges for the Future programme to a peak of 800 in August 2009—a peak to which, I am glad to say, it has never returned under the coalition Government.
I do not want to focus only on the past and the sad failings of the previous Government, but on what we can do, and what the Minister and her colleagues in the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Education have already done to help and the further steps they can take. There was good news for FE colleges in the autumn statement and the subsequent FE capital strategy, and a new £550 million investment programme has been announced for the FE estate. When rolling out that programme, I hope the Minister will ensure that lessons are learned from past mistakes.
There has been good news for many sixth-form colleges through the building condition improvement fund, which was wisely introduced to help some of those so let down by the collapse of the LSC. Investment received by Worcester sixth-form college under the coalition can truly be described as transformational. Faced with a crumbling exterior, leaky windows, wildly fluctuating temperatures, water leaks that were beginning to cause structural damage, and visible faults that were at risk of undermining the excellent academic work taking place, the management of the college did not sit idle. It put together well formulated plans to re-clad the building and invest in new windows and a new look over the space of two years.
The management discovered that, by using the approximately £1 million per year available from the building condition improvement fund and by planning carefully, they could cure many of the defects left by Labour neglect. The targeted investment of a reasonable amount of capital has enormously improved the energy efficiency of the building, and I am delighted that that means investment in a new heating system is now a viable option—in the city famed for its production of the best boilers in Britain.
The principal of the sixth-form college, Michael Kitcatt, wrote to me recently to set out some of the improvements. He wrote:
“As you know, the building was constructed in the early 1960s around a concrete frame and over the years, cracks had developed around the rendering which was enclosed by the frame. This was causing rainwater to penetrate into the ceilings and walls of the rooms. However, under the LSC’s capital programme in the middle of the last decade, we were encouraged to work on plans involving the building of a totally new College and demolition of the existing building. As a consequence, no money was spent on addressing the issues of the College building…The BCIF funding has been really valuable and means that, by the end of August we will have entirely overclad the building and replaced all the original windows. As explained above, the project has been undertaken for essential structural reasons in order to make the building sound and watertight for the foreseeable future. In addition, of course, the insulation installed and the modern double glazed windows have hugely enhanced our environmental efficiency. However, the project has also transformed the outside of the building aesthetically and we have had many positive comments from students, staff, parents and visitors about how good the outside of the building now looks, some even being along the lines of its looking like a new building.”
Of course, the principal would not be doing his job if he did not ask for more, and I would be failing in my job as his MP if I did not pass on his request. He goes on to say:
“In terms of continuing to address the issues of the building.... we are now working on [a project] to modernise the Science facilities and remove the temporary classrooms from the site. If we are to take this forward, however, we would probably need a funding scheme with more flexibility than BCIF has had so far, for example, the possibility of a two year allocation, giving greater certainty over the funding allocated and removing the need for all spending to take place in a single financial year.”
I can assure the Minister that if she or a colleague could take time to visit the college, they would see the very great need to upgrade its science labs, and the opportunities in doing that and removing the last remaining temporary classrooms on the site to reduce running costs. That would also raise the profile of science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, which the Government are doing so much to encourage.
As a member of the Business, Innovations and Skills Committee, I applaud the Government’s focus on STEM subjects and on encouraging rigour in the A-level system. Our sixth-form college has increasing numbers of students taking these vital courses. The Minister will be interested to note that enrolments in science and maths courses have risen from 1,074 in 2009-10, to 1,179 in 2010-11 and 1,239 in 2011-12. They reached a record 1,346 in 2012-13.
The college points out that the existing facilities are too small to accommodate the growth in demand and too outdated to maximise the benefits of the welcome increase in STEM enrolments with a commensurate increase in the student experience. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to its next bid for funding and to look at ways in which the BCIF programme could be made more flexible to allow greater investment over a longer period.
The college of technology has not been eligible for the BCIF, which was focused on the sixth-form college estate and not the further education sector. The college has, however, received a total of almost £400,000 in capital funding over almost three years of the coalition Government from the renewable grant and the capital works grant. That is in stark contrast to the complete lack of capital in the period from 2005 to 2010. It has been allocated a further £120,000 for the current academic year under renewal grant phase 3, and has bid for funding from the Skills Funding Agency’s enhanced renewal grant.
Regrettably the college’s last high-quality bid for phase 3 of the initiative, which I wrote to support, was not successful. The principal has pointed out that, in his own words,
“the feedback we received in relation to our recent bid suggests that officials are still not effectively challenging inflated projections and unrealistic growth assumptions. The information provided during the bidding process suggested that a relevant focused narrative rather than some spurious unsubstantiated inflated figures would be given more weighting. At Worcester we therefore focused on how what we were proposing was aligned to the Worcestershire LEP and Worcester City’s development plans and supporting economic growth while meeting quality, employability, apprenticeship and NEET agendas as well as hitting space saving and energy saving targets…We were informed that the narrative was strong but we scored only 1s rather than 3s because the narrative was not backed by data to show the impact on learner numbers and success rate figures.”
He pointed out that the criteria on which they were judged and awarded scores of 0 to 3 were not transparent, and it was not always possible to get feedback on what data would be required or what figures would hit the scoring thresholds. More worryingly, he went on to say:
“Worse was to come when we were told we scored a zero on the Disability Discrimination Act compliance question because the Worcester proposal did not add to this agenda because we were already fully compliant. So those who rightly committed their own resource to comply with the law get less points than those who have allowed their estate to remain non DDA compliant.”
I am sure that, as a Minister with responsibility for equalities, she will agree with me that it seems ludicrous for the funding criteria to encourage colleges to actually break the law, and that we should support those colleges that have prioritised supporting their most disadvantaged students.
I have written to the Minister with responsibility for FE colleges, the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), with some more detailed feedback from the college of technology. I will not ask the Minister to address each of its points today, but I ask her to take into account the serious concerns it raised about the last round of ERG funding and ensure that future funding is distributed fairly and transparently. The good news is that the Chancellor announced significantly more capital funding for the FE sector in the autumn statement. I know that as we speak the college of technology is working on a new bid. I am also glad that the Government have brought forward the date for resubmissions for round 3 of the ERG, and I hope that if the college submits a revised bid, it can be given a fair hearing. Such a bid would be particularly beneficial in its impact, as the college has now announced its intention to move its remote Barbourne campus into the city centre and thereby consolidate its estate. Not only does that make sound financial sense, but it will benefit the city centre economy by bringing more students into local shops and restaurants, and bring the many vocational students who study there into closer contact with the working world. I recently opened a high street salon owned and operated by the college of technology, which is providing apprenticeships and genuine work experience in a professional setting to young apprentice hairdressers. I have every confidence that its work-focused approach will benefit many of my constituents. The college’s major role in supporting apprenticeships will make a difference to the employment prospects of young people in the county.
I do not ask the Minister to promise the world, as the last Government did. I thank her for the investment that the coalition Government have already made in colleges in Worcester. I ask her to listen to the concerns that I have raised and look kindly on the bids that these two excellent colleges will be putting forward. I ask her to liaise with her fellow Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education to ensure that we make a little money go a long way and, after the fiascos of the past, invest in reasonable, high quality, skills-focused projects that will make a real difference. I extend an invitation to her, and any relevant Ministers, to visit these two colleges and to see both the excellent work they have already done and their sensible plans for future investment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on securing the debate, on his powerful advocacy of the value of having high quality further education locally for his constituents and on standing up for his college—as he said, that is his job—as his local college principals make the case for the funding they require.
Today, I am deputising for the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who is currently abroad on official business. I will of course attempt to address the points that have been raised. I have to admit, perhaps to the disappointment of the House, that my hon. Friend’s absence may well deprive us of an interesting discussion on the finer points of cricket, as I understand that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester are such passionate followers of the game. I will not attempt to stand in my ministerial colleague’s shoes on that particular subject as I fear I would not be particularly eloquent—I apologise to the House for that. Instead, I shall turn to the points that my hon. Friend has raised in his speech.
He extended a kind invitation to me and my colleagues at BIS to visit Worcester. I confess that I do not think I have ever visited Worcester, so I was unable to picture the areas he mentioned in his speech. Who knows, there may well be cause at some point for me to visit. If I do not visit the college—it is not in my portfolio—then perhaps there will be a range of post offices undergoing transformation.
On capital investment, as my hon. Friend knows and outlined, for decades, colleges were starved of the funding for capital renewal that both schools and universities enjoyed. It was therefore no surprise that when the Learning and Skills Council offered significant capital grants, the colleges jumped at the opportunity. Bids were encouraged, including bids to grow, with atriums, spas and other such luxuries. Promises were made without the funding being available to match them. Hugely expensive projects with poor cost controls delivered poor value for money in some of the projects that were completed, so the Learning and Skills Council ran out of money. Suddenly building projects were stopped, sometimes after huge expense on plans and with holes in the ground. It was not a happy time, as my hon. Friend eloquently explained—my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) also managed to contribute his experiences to the debate.
It is in that context, as well as the wider catastrophe of the public finances that we were bequeathed, that we are now rebuilding. We have been working hard to ensure that lessons are learned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester urged. Inevitably, one of those lessons is that we should have a firm focus on value for money, the physical infrastructure needs of colleges and the benefits that capital investment can bring to students, employers and the communities they serve. The approach is also coupled with a focus on affordability. This provides the background to how we have moved forward, set priorities for capital investment and given hope and a better sense of certainty to both general FE colleges and sixth-form colleges. I hope he will agree that since 2010, this coalition Government have done everything possible to rectify the disaster that the previous Labour Government left us. Indeed, between May 2010 and November 2012, we made more than £330 million available to the Skills Funding Agency for investment in the general FE college estate, with more than £120 million made available through the Education Funding Agency for investment in the sixth-form college estate, making a total of £450 million over that period.
My hon. Friend raised capital funding issues in relation to two important institutions in his constituency: Worcester technology college—the general FE college serving his constituency—which had issues around its recent unsuccessful bid for capital funding; and Worcester sixth-form college, which had issues relating primarily to the Department for Education’s building condition improvement fund. If I may, I propose to respond on the latter first, as I would like to cover the more substantive issues raised in relation to the technology college in some detail.
On the capital funding available to Worcester sixth-form college, my hon. Friend explained that his local college had made great progress already, with improvements to the cladding and structure of the building, and set out what else it was keen to do, with the science and other facilities. He made a good case for a two-year allocation approach, which would provide greater flexibility in build and delivery options. As I have mentioned, capital funding for maintenance in sixth-form colleges is provided annually by the Department for Education through the Education Funding Agency. However, I understand that the Department is currently undertaking a property data survey of the school estate, which is due to be completed later this year. It will inform wider thinking in that Department on the scope and options for longer-term allocation periods from 2014-15 onwards, which I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome. I am also happy to ensure that I draw the comments he has made about this issue on behalf of his sixth-form college to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Education, as I am sure they will be interested to hear what has been said, both by him and by the principal of Worcester sixth-form college, who I think was Mr Kitcatt—maybe if he is lucky, he will have a break in the next funding round.
Let me return to Worcester technology college and the allocation of capital funds by the Skills Funding Agency. It might be helpful if I explain the broad approach we took to capital investment in general FE colleges. Ministers set the priorities for capital investment. The Skills Funding Agency then consulted the sector on the detailed criteria for deciding allocations and took the sector’s advice on timing and process issues, to minimise burdens while ensuring a focus on value and impact. The agency then launched the various schemes, publishing the agreed criteria for all to see. The agency then offered advice to colleges, assessed bids and, with input from the sector, undertook moderation to ensure fairness. At the end of the process, the agency confirmed funding decisions to colleges.
Clearly, with all competitive bidding processes there are winners and losers. Of course I recognise and understand the concerns—such as those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and the principal of Worcester college of technology—about ensuring that those colleges that most urgently need capital funding support can get it. I also understand their concerns about the assessment process carried out by the Skills Funding Agency before grants were awarded, although I would say that the agency’s approach to capital funding has, by and large, served the general FE college sector well. As I have said, it was based, as such processes inevitably often are, on competitive bidding between colleges against a set of published, sector-endorsed criteria, with sector representatives involved in moderating the assessment of bids in order to ensure fair play.
I understand my hon. Friend’s point about the seemingly bizarre scenario in which points would be awarded for not yet having complied with disability discrimination legislation. I would say, however, that whether the situation involved access issues for students, health and safety issues involving asbestos, or issues relating to the basic structure of a building not being windproof or watertight, if there were a needs-based element to the criteria, issues such as those would be taken into account to some extent to ensure that the money was being spent where it was most needed. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, however; he certainly put it very well.
I am given to understand that Worcester technology college’s bid in the last exercise, announced in the autumn, was assessed as primarily falling short of the required standard in its description of the benefits to students’ education and of the area’s prospects for economic growth that would result from funding being awarded. That was obviously a great disappointment to my hon. Friend and to the college and its students, but I can only conclude that that was a reasonable outcome on the basis of the funding criteria then in place. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will want to ensure that his college is well placed to make further bids that will have a more positive outcome. He has certainly made a strong case for his college today, and I am sure that he will continue to advocate powerfully for it.
Cases such as that one, and those that other hon. Members have raised with the Minister on previous occasions, serve to underline the fact that we now need a change of approach in the capital funding of general FE colleges, and such a change was set out in the FE college capital investment strategy published on 6 December 2012. Our shared commitment to working with the further education and skills sector to help it to provide the best possible service to adults and young people is clear, as, indeed, is the £550 million of funding for general FE college capital projects that was announced in the skills investment statement, which was also published on 6 December.
Accordingly, we want all general FE colleges to feel able to help to shape the programmes and processes involved, so that we can most effectively manage and allocate public funds to those capital projects that need them most. My hon. Friend the Minister has already asked the Skills Funding Agency to continue working closely with a sector-led capital reference group to ensure that issues and concerns are known, shared and addressed. He is also keen to ensure that colleges have access to help and advice in developing their plans. I note my hon. Friend’s point about feedback, and it is important that good feedback should be given when bids are unsuccessful, to help plans for future bids to be developed.
On 14 December, the Skills Funding Agency wrote to all 60 colleges that had been unsuccessful in securing funding last time around, to set out the next steps and the options available to them. Today, I want to encourage Worcester college, and all colleges with an interest, to engage constructively with the agency and the capital reference group as we develop and implement our new FE college capital funding programme. It will be a more flexible programme that will include project development support, published time scales and the opportunity for colleges to resubmit applications that fall short of the standards agreed with the sector.
I say to my hon. Friend, and to the college whose interests he has so ably represented today, let us move forward rather than dwelling on the past. I am sure that he is nodding in agreement with that. I understand that, as a first step, Worcester technology college authorities are due to meet representatives of the Skills Funding Agency tomorrow to discuss the options available to them. I sincerely hope and expect that that will be an important first step towards ensuring that the college’s urgent capital funding needs are met before too much longer, and that it succeeds in gaining its fair share of the substantial new investment now on offer from the coalition Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Unmanned Air Vehicles
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angus Robertson
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many crashes there have been with the Elbit Systems Hermes 450 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in (a) the UK and (b) Afghanistan;
Mr Robathan
The Hermes 450 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle is not flown in the UK nor have there been any crashes in the UK.
Since 2007 there have been 11 Hermes 450 crashes in Afghanistan.
An end-to-end review for army unmanned aerial systems training has recently been conducted which reported at the end of September 2012. As a result, several changes have already been made to unmanned aerial systems training to increase airmanship standards in a number of areas, with further improvements to follow.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Robathan
The Hermes 450 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle is not flown in the UK nor have there been any crashes in the UK.
Since 2007 there have been eight Hermes 450 crashes in Afghanistan.
An end-to-end review for army unmanned aerial systems training has recently been conducted which reported at the end of September 2012. As a result, several changes have already been made to unmanned aerial systems training to increase airmanship standards in a number of areas, with further improvements to follow.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Freedom of Information
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. We may be suffering today from the fact that two progressive causes are being debated at the same time, in a rather curious upstairs- downstairs situation. Upstairs, in the main Chamber, the franchise and the voting age is being debated, and here in Westminster Hall we are considering an important constitutional issue: freedom of information. I am glad that the Minister is here to reply to the debate, as she used to serve on my Committee, and we look forward to hearing from her shortly.
Many of us campaigned for years for freedom of information and against excessive Government secrecy, believing that openness is an aid to better Government, as well as an enhancement of the rights of the citizen. It was a long and hard battle. In John Major’s time, we achieved a code of practice on access to Government information, but the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was the most important step forward and its introduction is very much to the credit of the then Labour Government. So it was rather surprising that the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said in his memoirs that he had been a “nincompoop” to introduce it and that it was
“antithetical to sensible Government.”
The Justice Committee repeatedly asked Mr Blair to appear before us to give oral evidence about his dramatic change of view, and we deplored his failure to do so. We did not think that it was entirely justified to use the House’s powers to compel his presence, although that was a possibility, but it seemed very strange that someone with such strong views and who played such a major role in this matter should not be willing to appear before us to explain his views.
However, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is always extremely co-operative in giving evidence to the Committee, told us that the Freedom of Information Act was Mr Blair’s idea and not his. We are all used to politicians, including Ministers and former Ministers, wanting to claim credit for things, but denying the credit for something as significant as the Freedom of Information Act seems a very strange thing to do.
To complete the chronology, I should mention the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which was passed under the present Government, because it extended the effect of the Freedom of Information Act to academies, to the Association of Chief Police Officers and all its public functions, to the universities admission body, UCAS, and potentially to a whole range of other bodies, too. So the extension of the role of freedom of information continues.
The Justice Committee and its predecessor Committees have been closely involved from the start of this process. We reported in 2004-05 on progress towards the then imminent implementation of the Freedom of Information Act; in 2005-06, we reported on the first year’s progress; and in 2006-07, we reported on the Labour Government’s plans to change the legislation in a restrictive way, mainly by the use of charges, which we opposed. The fact that the planned changes did not go ahead might have owed something to the transition from the Blair era to that of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).
In this Session, we carried out post-legislative scrutiny of the 2000 Act, after the Government had made their own post-legislative assessment in 2011. That is a model of its kind; it is the sort of work that needs to be done in post-legislative assessments. It was thorough, well supported by research and a great help to us in the work that we did. I am happy to say that the Government and the Committee have reached a common view on most of the main issues, although there are some significant points of difference.
Our report on freedom of information was issued in July 2012, after seven evidence sessions, and the Government responded to it in November 2012. In their memorandum, the Government reiterated the well known four main objectives of the Freedom of Information Act:
“Openness and transparency: to help open up public authorities which carry out public functions, both proactively…and reactively… Accountability: to make Government more accountable to politicians, journalists and the public; Better decision-making: an improvement in the quality of decision-making…because those drafting policy advice would be aware that they would have to be able to defend their reasoning… Public involvement in decision-making…public participation…and…greater public trust in that process.”
The first two of those things—openness and accountability—have been achieved, to significant extent. The third thing—better decision making—is quite difficult to decide on, not least because many other factors determine the quality of decision making. The fourth thing—public trust—was a pretty unrealistic aim from the start, and I will refer back to it later because it would be hard to say that it has been one of the consequences of the Freedom of Information Act.
I will start with openness and transparency. We drew a distinction between reactive openness in response to requests made under the Act and proactive transparency in the publication of information by public authorities. On openness, we concluded in our report:
“We agree with the Ministry of Justice that the Act has contributed to a culture of greater openness across public authorities, particularly at central Government level which was previously highly secretive… Our evidence shows that the strength of the new culture of openness is, however, variable and depends on both the type of organisation and the approach to freedom of information of the individual public authority.”
On transparency, we made the point that
“proactive publication…cannot substitute for a right to access data because it is impossible for public bodies to anticipate the information that will be required.”
The beauty of the Freedom of Information Act is that, ultimately, the public, not the public authority, decide what information is needed. However, that is not an argument against proactive publication.
The Act encourages proactive publication, and the Government have a transparency agenda driven by the Cabinet Office, which seems to take the transparency demanded by freedom of information provisions a stage further, by encouraging raw data to be released in an open and reusable format. I welcome and encourage that, but we concluded that the relationship between the two initiatives was a bit unclear. We called on the Government to take steps to ensure that the freedom of information regime and the transparency agenda worked together, including by examining initiatives in different Departments before implementation to ensure that they are effective, as well as by assessing the existing initiatives to ensure that they
“offer value for money and do not have unintended consequences.”
On accountability, the consensus of evidence to us was that accountability had certainly been enhanced. Many examples can be produced of ways in which, for instance, spending can be challenged effectively because the information can be obtained. That has not always been a comfortable process, not least for Members of this House and the other place—I will refer to some aspects of that later—but it is a necessary feature of the control of expenditure that it should not be concealed and that the public should be able to find out what taxpayers’ money is being spent on.
One important issue raised with us by the Information Commissioner was the potential for accountability
“to be undermined if the freedom of information regime did not apply to private providers of public services.”
I will come back to that point and how we intend to deal with it later in my remarks.
Then we come to improving the quality of decision making, which can be achieved not least by creating an awareness that there will be subsequent scrutiny of the decision-making process. We enter an interesting area, because part of the background to the publication of our report was a great deal of noise being made by former senior civil servants and Cabinet Secretaries about the threat to the safe space within which policy discussions take place and the possibility that the Act had a chilling effect, both on the decision-making process and on the extent to which that process was properly recorded. These were serious people making quite serious comments, and it created a fear that the Freedom of Information Act might be threatened by a revolt by top civil servants or former top civil servants against the scrutiny under which they had been placed.
We received a lot of interesting evidence on the subject. We took evidence from former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell and from Ministers and former Ministers. A lot of it was anecdotal, and views differed among witnesses about the Act’s impact on high-level decision making. The Constitution Unit, which did research on the issue, thought that the chilling effect was negligible or marginal, and it was difficult to find any real evidence for what was sometimes claimed. The Committee recognised the problem. At paragraph 154 of our report, we said:
“Freedom of Information brings many benefits, but it also entails risks. The ability for officials to provide frank advice to Ministers, the opportunity for Ministers and officials to discuss policy honestly and comprehensively, the requirement for full and accurate records to be kept and the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility, at the heart of our system of Government, might all be threatened if an FOI regime allowed premature or inappropriate disclosure of information. One of the difficulties we have faced in this inquiry is assessing how real those threats are given the safeguards provided under the current FOI legislation and what, if any, amendments are required to ensure the existence of a ‘safe space’ for policy making.”
We accepted that some decisions by the commissioner and the tribunal that information should be disclosed have challenged the extent of the safe space for policy making. We also accepted that case law was perhaps not sufficiently developed for policy makers to be clear enough about what space is safe. We called for clarification of the statement of policy on the use of the ministerial veto under section 53 of the Act. The Government refer to the veto being used in exceptional circumstances, but it seemed that it was being used in some cases not because the circumstances were exceptional, but because it was the only way to protect the safe space. We called for senior officials, if they are concerned about the Act’s effect, to state explicitly that the Act already provides for a safe space and for high-level policy discussion. There are provisions in the Act that do that, and there is the backstop of the Government’s willingness to use the ministerial veto if necessary.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for fairly encapsulating the arguments that we set out in our report. Does he agree that one problem that case law and the tribunals have set for those who want to guard the safe space is determining where that space exists in the process? From a reading of at least some of the judgments, it seems that the public interest test changes according to where a decision or document comes in the policy-making process. That is a problem for civil servants and Minsters alike.
Sir Alan Beith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a valued member of the Committee. It is true that the agreed extent of the safe space varies according to the stage in the process, but that is right and not unreasonable; some parts of the process require confidentiality more than others, at least for a period. One reason why I and the Committee were reluctant to use any other tool to deal with the problem was that we would be in danger of creating whole areas of restriction where they need not exist. The application of common sense and, as I say, the backstop use of the veto provide for a mechanism to deal with the issue that could be more widely understood. We certainly called on the Government, and we are calling on them now, to ensure that the position is fully understood in government and by officials.
The Government said in their response that they
“were minded to review and, as appropriate, revise the policy on the use of the veto…we propose to consider how the veto policy can be adapted both in terms of the process involved in its use and to offer greater clarity and reassurance on its ability to offer appropriate protection in addition to that which it provides in the context of information relating to collective Cabinet responsibility.”
There is always a political price to pay for using the veto. Any Minister who invokes it will be criticised, challenged and questioned, and rightly so. We have seen a number of instances recently, ranging from the devolution discussions to the Prince of Wales’s letters. No Minister can undertake such a course without facing pretty severe challenge—the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) knows about that from his own experience —and that is right, because such things act as a hurdle: politicians will say, “Do I have to do this? I’m going to get a lot of stick for it in the House.” That hurdle is one means by which we ensure that the veto is not lightly used, although it does have a purpose and a potential benefit.
In our report, we made an important point that tends to get overlooked. Frankly, there is much more likelihood of the most confidential and sensitive discussions, and the papers relating to them, being released in major public inquiries, such as the Leveson inquiry or the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, than through the freedom of information process. The ministerial veto does not work for Leveson or Chilcot, and thank goodness, because they dealt with very serious issues, and it is right that an exceptional process was used to probe them. People sometimes attributed to the Act the fact that some things were eventually, and rightly, found out, but in some of the most sensitive cases, that was down to the different processes, against which neither the Act nor ministerial vetoes provide any protection, and nor should they.
Mr Buckland
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Committee found, using the Australian approach of a block exemption for Cabinet papers might be superficially attractive, but it could, and probably would, as in Australia, give rise to litigation over what is meant by Cabinet papers? Even worse, it could be used as a device to avoid the freedom of information regime by wrongly classifying papers in that category.
Sir Alan Beith
My hon. Friend’s point conjures up the picture of a civil servant armed with a rubber stamp saying “Cabinet Paper”, which can be applied wherever there is a fear that something that they do not want to disclose will be disclosed early. The Committee concluded that a common-sense approach was the way to deal with the issue. All it requires is to be reinforced through clear advice and guidance to civil servants on how the veto backstop and the other provisions of the Act afford them some protection.
In our inquiry, we heard from the Constitution Unit that the Act had not had a significant effect in increasing public participation in decision making, and we saw no great reason to disagree with that finding because other processes that increase participation, such as consultations, fall outside the Act. As I indicated, however, there is little evidence that freedom of information has had a noticeable positive effect on public trust in the Government and other public bodies, and it was always unrealistic to expect anything different. In paragraphs 37 and 38 of the report, we say:
“Evidence of irregularities, deficiencies and errors is always likely to prove more newsworthy than evidence that everything is being done by the book and the public authority is operating well. In these circumstances, the expectation of a substantial increase in public trust…was always going to prove unrealistic… Greater release of data is invariably going to lead to greater criticism of public bodies and individuals, which may sometimes be unfair or partial”,
and I am sure that some hon. Members agree with that. We continue:
“In our view, however this, while regrettable, is a price well worth paying for the benefits greater openness brings to our democracy.”
I speak as someone who, among other things, was criticised in a newspaper article for having a toilet in his constituency office repaired at public expense, so that the staff could use it. I felt like asking the journalist whether he had been asked to contribute to the cost of maintaining the toilets in his newspaper’s offices at his own expense. However, we have to live with these things, and the benefits of expenditure not being concealed outweigh any personal cost that we pay.
Complying with freedom of information requests involves costs, but it can also create savings, which accrue from the disclosure of the inappropriate use of public funds or the fear of such disclosure. Section 12 of the Act provides that public authorities are not required to comply with the duty to publish information if the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit—£600 for central Government and £450 for other public bodies, which translates as 24 and 18 person-hours of work respectively.
We rejected proposals that what we regarded as more subjectively measured activities, such as reading and consideration time, should be included in the time to calculate costs, but we recommended a small reduction in that period. The Government took a different view in their response and said they would make “efforts to reduce burdens” arising from what they call the
“‘industrial’ use of the Act”.
They say that time taken to consider whether information should be released or to redact it before release should count towards the time limit. They say that they will consult on the change and will seek to develop a method of calculation that will be consistent across public authorities.
The Government say that the change will affect a low proportion of requests: 4% of those to central Government and 10% of those to other public authorities, but that is still quite a lot, perhaps more than 1,000 requests. We are concerned about that and particularly about the potential effect on local newspapers. My area has a unitary authority, and if a local newspaper wanted to follow up stories about several different local services—education, highways and social services—it could quickly fall foul of that aggregation. I should be grateful to the Minister if she thought carefully about that.
We examined charging, and we considered that it was not appropriate to go down that road. Any charge designed genuinely to recoup costs would deter genuine requests, and few kinds of charging would deter frivolous requests or, for that matter, what the Government call industrial requests. There are such things—industrial requests from large commercial companies who want to collect a lot of information and could afford to do so if there were charges; or requests from less well funded organisations, including small local newspapers, which are not going through a very profitable period at the moment. Those requests could be made in other ways. If a charging system were introduced, requests from private individuals might well be handed over to media organisations, in pursuit of a legitimate campaign, for example, to find out what was going on in government.
The Government agreed with us about charging, but they have said that they are considering charging people to go to the Information Tribunal. That would be a matter of some concern. I hope that the Minister can say more about it today. It has arisen since we published our report.
We said something about frivolous and vexatious requests. The folklore about the Freedom of Information Act tends to imply that all public authorities are completely weighed down by trivial, frivolous and vexatious requests. In practice, that is not so. A limited number of requests appear frivolous, and vexatious requests can of course be rejected, by following procedures that experienced public authorities use. We were told stories about applications for information about ghost sightings in the town hall and things of that kind, but it is not too difficult for the public authority simply to reply that it has no information at all on the subject. That is not a lengthy process.
Our view, again, was that it would be unwise to transform any aspect of the Act to deal with a problem that is not all that significant or serious:
“It is apparent from witnesses that frivolous requests are a very small problem, but can be frustrating. There is a case for adding frivolous requests to the existing category of vexatious requests which can be refused, but such requests can usually be dealt with relatively easily, making it hard to justify a change in the law.”
We gave considerable consideration to time limits and saw no need for any change to the 20-day response time within which public authorities must respond to freedom of information requests. However, we thought that time limits should be introduced for the public interest extension allowed under section 10 of the Act and that a further 20-day limit should be set in statute, which could be further extended in complex cases. The Government disagreed with us, preferring to rely on the Information Commissioner’s guidance and the code of practice under section 45, to ensure the timely completion of extensions and internal reviews.
We took evidence and made a recommendation on university research. We did not go along with the view of some people in the university world that universities should be exempted from freedom of information legislation. Universities spend a great deal of public money and carry out public functions. All those that are not wholly private in their funding are subject to freedom of information provisions. We think that should remain the case, but we recognise that there is a problem with the premature disclosure of continuing research projects. That has been dealt with in Scotland by different legislation, and we believe that there should be better protection, or pre-publication exemption, under section 22 of the Act, for research carried out by higher education institutions. There should be a dedicated exemption on the lines of the Scottish provisions. We are pleased that the Government have accepted the recommendation, and I should just like clarification of how that will be achieved.
I said that I would mention a significant problem, and it becomes more significant with each new announcement that the Government want to use the private sector as a major provider of public services. The problem is how freedom of information is applied to private organisations, commercial companies or, indeed, voluntary sector bodies that carry out public functions. There was some uncertainty about the interpretation of section 3(2)(b) of the Act, which provides that information held by a private company on behalf of a public authority with which it has a contract is subject to the Act, but other information held by such a company is not. It is quite reasonable that other information should not be covered—the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the commercial activities in the private sector of a commercial company—but there is a genuine and appropriate concern about what happens when such a company does what would otherwise be done by a public authority.
We favoured the use of contractual terms to deal with the issue, as currently happens in many cases. The body that commissions the services, whether a probation or health trust or a Department such as the Ministry of Justice, should ensure that the contracts that it writes will protect the access that it requires to all material relevant to potential freedom of information requests, so that it can respond to any freedom of information bid.
The Government have broadly agreed with that conclusion and have helpfully gone further by suggesting that they will amend the section 45 code of practice to encourage public authorities and contractors to provide information on a voluntary basis, going beyond the minimum covered by a request to an authority. It seems to us that that openness follows the public money, in just the same way as the Public Accounts Committee wants accountability for spending to follow the public pound, and that the best way to achieve that is not to put a commercial organisation in the rather confused position of being partially subject to FOI, but to put it under contractual obligations that, if it carries out a service on behalf of the taxpayer, it is obliged to the body that commissions it to provide the information.
The Committee will take further evidence in a couple of weeks from the Information Commissioner on the work of his office. We may then follow up some of the issues that I have outlined. We welcome his work and have a good relationship with him. It has long been the Committee’s view that the Information Commissioner should be an Officer of Parliament, like the ombudsman, the health ombudsman or the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is the situation in Scotland, with the Scottish Information Commissioner. That would underline the commissioner’s independence. I was struck by the fact that in yesterday’s debate about blacklisting, which relates to another side of the commissioner’s responsibilities—data protection—my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary stressed the fact that the Information Commissioner is an independent regulatory official, running an independent regulatory body, and not a creature of the Government. That, indeed, is how things work in practice. However, it would be much better to underwrite that position, by making the commissioner fully a creature of Parliament rather than, technically, as he is now, part of the governmental system.
When considering the overall impact of the Freedom of Information Act, we need to bear in mind something that kept coming up in different ways during the Committee’s proceedings. Since the Act was conceived and then passed, a significant change has affected the whole freedom of information issue: the explosion of internet use and the new opportunities created by it. That has made access to published information easier; it has allowed published data to be searched in ways that were virtually impossible with manual searching; and it has posed a challenge to the quality and effectiveness of some public sector databases. Kent county council has explained to us that getting its database to the point at which it could effectively be interrogated by the techniques that are now available would be a major and costly task. The internet explosion has also created internet- based mechanisms for making freedom of information applications, along with organisations devoted to assisting people to make such applications. We must keep the matter under constant review.
The Freedom of Information Act set out principles that we believe should apply to Government for all time, but precisely how we apply them and the context in which we do so are things that change, and the Information Commissioner’s Office has a significant role in assisting us with that. Because of its data protection responsibilities, the office happens to have a great deal of knowledge within it about mechanisms that are relevant to data protection and to freedom of information and how information is accessed.
More generally, our view is that the Freedom of Information Act has significantly enhanced our democracy. It is working well and achieving most of its main purposes. Rewriting or restricting it and reducing its scope, effectiveness and accessibility would be far too high a price to pay for the convenience of government.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a pleasure to see you chairing this session, Mr Hollobone. It is also a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who chairs the Justice Committee with great aplomb and ability. He has eloquently summed up the Committee’s work vis-à-vis scrutinising the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, although there will inevitably be some repetition, I hope that my remarks do not duplicate his too much.
The Act was the product of many years of campaigning, discussion and commitment from various political spheres. When the Act came into force in 2005, it proved, I believe, to be a landmark piece of legislation. I do not think that it would be hyperbole to say that the Act revolutionised how the public were able to engage with public authorities and with local and central government. It presented a radical development in the extent to which the public were able to engage, and I emphasise that because whether the Act has fulfilled that purpose is a matter of some debate.
In December 2011, the Justice Committee, of which I am a member, called for submissions to its inquiry into post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act. Those giving evidence were asked to consider whether the Act worked effectively, what its strengths and weaknesses were, and whether it was operating as intended. As our report sets out, the Committee received 140 pieces of written evidence and recorded oral evidence from 37 witnesses.
If we are to adjudicate on whether the legislation operates effectively, it is necessary to set out the primary motivation for introducing it in the first place. The Ministry of Justice’s memorandum on post-legislative scrutiny of the Act identifies four objectives: increasing openness and transparency, improving accountability, facilitating better decision making, and increasing public involvement in the decision-making process. In its evidence to the inquiry, the constitution unit based in University college London identified another objective—to promote better understanding of the Government’s decision making. The Committee broadly agreed with that delineation.
On the Act’s first objective, that of increasing openness and transparency, before the Act’s provisions came into force in 2005, information on decision making in central and local government and in other public- facing organisations was obtainable only through official documents and leaked information that had made its way into the press. By contrast, the new legislation provided for a statutory right to gain access to information held by public authorities, and placed a duty on the authorities to establish a proactive publication scheme that was subject to the approval of the Information Commissioner. It sought to make public authorities more transparent in a reactive sense, in that anyone would have the right to put questions to such an authority via an FOI request, and by encouraging a more general cultural change through proactively publishing information.
In our report, we quote from the speech made in the Bill’s Second Reading debate by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). He said, about the Act:
“It will transform the default setting from ‘this should be kept quiet unless’ to ‘this should be published unless’. By doing so, it should raise public confidence in the processes of government, and enhance the quality of decision making by the Government.”—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 714.]
In practice, of course, the proposed publication schemes did not work as the then Government intended. The duty to produce publication schemes in section 19 of the Act is accompanied by extensive guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office on what exactly would constitute a model scheme.
Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman touched on the role of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). We were all present, and we have lived through the development of the Act and are very familiar with it—those of us who were friends of it and those who were not. The now Lord Clark was the initiator of the Bill. The members of the Cabinet, including the right hon. Member for Blackburn, all signed every single word of the pledge. David Clark was then dropped and despatched to the House of Lords, and the right hon. Member for Blackburn has now given us several versions of his position on the matter. I have tried to coax him to say that it was the greatest thing that the Labour party ever did while in office. He has repudiated that. He has adopted it. He has changed his view. And he was the agent who tried to limit the whole Act. So I do not hold him as the flame bearer of that essential part of the Act, and I think that that will be the view of anyone who has had any dealing with the right hon. Member for Blackburn on the question of freedom of information.
Mr Llwyd
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has been intimately involved in this matter for many years and I defer to his greater knowledge. He will see from other remarks I shall make that although I usually hold the right hon. Member for Blackburn in high esteem, in this instance the hon. Gentleman is, I think, right. It seems, from some of the right hon. Gentleman’s utterances of late, that he is rowing like nobody’s business away from the mother ship on this issue, and I am not too sure why. Many people across the political spectrum have worked hard to get us even to where we are now. I do not attribute that progress to one particular person; it has been a joint effort by all the parties over a long period, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has played a pivotal role in that.
The view of many of those who gave evidence to the inquiry was that most public authorities had failed to make full use of the schemes into which they were supposed to enter. There was also much inconsistency across Departments. One of the principal reasons why so few schemes were successful, according to Dr Ben Worthy of the University college London constitution unit, was that technological advances have made proactive disclosure redundant. He said that
“one of the reasons why publication schemes have not taken off in the way that many had hoped is that it has been superseded by the internet search engine and the fact that people can find a way of asking a question rather than looking for the information.”
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has already touched upon that.
Whereas an authority or organisation may be selective about the data that are released through a publication scheme, modern technology, as we know, has allowed anyone with an internet connection to search for the information themselves. When the Act was drafted, it did not take into account the fast-developing nature of the world wide web.
Roger Gough, the cabinet member for business strategy and support on Kent county council, said that the notion of a publication scheme was “fairly antiquated.” The Information Commissioner’s Office is holding a consultation on the publication schemes, the outcome of which I am sure we all look forward to reading.
But it is not only the internet as a medium that has altered in the years since the Act was first published. Through being used to having information almost literally at the touch of a button, the public now expect more information more rapidly. For that reason, it is doubtful that the Freedom of Information Act has improved public participation in decision making. More often than not, it is those who are already engaged in public life, or those who are acting in a professional capacity, such as journalists and campaigners, who lodge FOI requests. Lord Falconer told the other place that the Act aimed to show citizens
“how government works—and to show them how decisions are taken.”
But as the constitution unit said in its evidence to the Select Committee,
“FOI is used by people already engaged in the political process, rather than bringing new participants into it.”
By contrast, for the vast majority of the UK’s population, and certainly for those under the age of 35, the principal means of obtaining information appears to be via the Google search engine. Here, too, we see why many believe that the Act was doomed to fail in increasing public confidence in public authorities. News stories disseminated online tend to sensationalise information and to focus on the negative aspects of any given story—no surprise there. One is unlikely, for example, to read a long piece online dedicated to congratulating a local council or organisation on its commendable bookkeeping.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Maurice Frankel, representing the Campaign for Freedom of Information, told our Committee that he had witnessed a surge in trust among those who directly seek information from public bodies but that the majority of the population were more likely to read the outcomes of freedom of information searches through the media.
Sir Alan Beith
On a point of order, Mr Hollobone, you will have noticed that the Division bell did not ring audibly in this Chamber, and I wondered if you could look into whether that can be put right. As it happened, it did not matter, because the motion in favour of extending the franchise to vote to age 16 won by about two to one, but I would not have liked to miss the vote.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Thank you, Sir Alan, for that point of order. The Clerk made us aware of the Division, but I will ensure that your comments are relayed to the appropriate authorities.
Mr Llwyd
As I mentioned, the Freedom of Information Act has developed—some might say radically—the extent to which the public are able to engage with the decisions made by public bodies. First, however, they must choose to engage.
Perhaps inevitably, the tendency of the media is to focus on the negative stories coming out of FOI requests; some say, which I believe could be true, that this may have led to a perverse incentive to hide information. The former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Gus O’Donnell, said in his evidence that he had experienced that at first hand:
“I decided to release, since I am not paid by anybody at the minute but I am a Member of the Lords, some hospitality information. I do not think anybody else does that. Surprise, surprise, you get a snidey press story in Private Eye as a result of this.”
The Select Committee, however, was very much of the opinion that the increased and, yes, sometimes unfair criticism of those in public life was a price well worth paying for greater openness.
To what extent has the Act facilitated decision making by public authorities and central Government? Regrettably, many witnesses thought that in trying to avoid the possible embarrassment of disclosure, fewer bodies were inclined to keep detailed records of meetings or to keep a log of policy information. Martin Rosenbaum, representing BBC News, argued that any change in culture brought about by the Freedom of Information Act had been inconsistent, and that the Act has done relatively little to advance transparency on account of the cumbersome nature of the FOI process. He said that
“the Act now enables us to obtain on a very crude level…facts and figures—how much was spent on this, statistics about the performance of public services and so on. The sorts of things that were harder to get previously now tend to be very easy to get, but what it has not produced, and the civil service is certainly very resistant to this, is internal discussion documents, policy discussion, minutes of meetings and so on.”
Witnesses spoke about the “chilling effect”, to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred, that has led to civil servants being less candid in their advice to Ministers, fewer external organisations being willing to submit information to the Government and fewer meetings being held with formal minutes taken—greatly damaging the official record. As Lord O’Donnell pointed out, that “chilling effect” not only impacts on the engagement of our own generation with decision making, but will make it increasingly difficult for future historians, too, to get an accurate picture of how decisions were made, as so little evidence will remain.
Other witnesses pointed out that that unintended consequence of the Act has the potential to weaken Cabinet collective responsibility, since many key decisions will not be made in Cabinet, where formal minutes are taken, but in safe places, be it on mobile phones or behind closed doors. On the other hand, it is imperative to draw attention to the fact that the Act contains safeguards against that problem—namely, exemptions to the right of access to information in exceptional circumstances, as well as other ministerial vetoes for when information is deemed too sensitive to release.
Sir Alan Beith
It is worth noting that there is, or should be, a countervailing pressure in the mind of any civil servant who might be tempted not to record a reservation that he or she had about a decision or counter-argument. Frankly, if I were a civil servant and thought that the record would not reveal that I had warned the Minister that a policy was fraught with danger, my response would be that that must be minuted so that it could be seen that I had warned that that could happen.
Mr Llwyd
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Not only is that based on sound common sense, I am sure that it often happens in practice. There is a counter-argument, as he rightly says.
The Committee did not conclude that such a chilling effect had come about as a result of the Act. The constitution unit has published research on the subject and suggested that its impact was insignificant, thus agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. Although the Committee decided against recommending any major change to the Act, we were mindful that Parliament is expected to pass legislation recognising the need for a safe place for high-level policy formation. It is difficult to determine when that space will be needed because, by its very nature, the evidence for when private discussions are used is patchy. Certainly, this right must not be exploited needlessly.
It has become increasingly common for minutes of private meetings and even text messages between Ministers and representatives of external organisations to be seized and published by inquiries into Government decision making. Both the Chilcot and Leveson inquiries were examples of that, and it would be highly regrettable if it led to fewer records being kept. Yet however private or embarrassing evidence may be, it is inexcusable for people to attempt to destroy or alter data to prevent their disclosure. That is why the Committee recommended extending the time limit on charging someone with this offence under section 77 of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office has seen evidence of such offences, but because of the inherent difficulties of charging someone within six months of the offence being committed, no one has yet been prosecuted. The Committee has further recommended that a higher fine should be available to the Crown court to reflect the gravity of the crime.
Of equal cause for concern, however, is the inadvertent destruction of records as a result of new methods of storing information. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) acknowledged that when the FOI Act was drafted, the Government
“had no serious conception about the internet, which was in its infancy.”
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield also commented on the associated changes to archive-keeping. He said:
“If you look at the archives that were created before there was even a 50-year rule, in 1958, they are very full. The 30-year rule is still very full indeed. I do fear that historians”
in future
“are going to have a much tougher time for two reasons. One is”
freedom of information,
“but there is also the digital revolution. It ceases to be a paper culture.”
One is put in mind of the BBC domesday project in the 1980s, when children conducted a survey of the UK to mark the 900th anniversary of the Domesday Book. The findings were stored on laserdiscs, which became obsolete within a few years. Although the material was saved after a laborious and costly process, the UK Data Archive faced heavy criticism for failing to preserve the material in an enduring format ab initio. The irony, of course, is that the original Domesday Book is still readable.
The Freedom of Information regime must be viewed in the wider context of information storage and retention. The internet is an exciting place in many respects. It is a vital educational tool, but it is also fast evolving. According to the National Archives, digital records deteriorate faster than paper records. The preservation of records is important for the accountability of officials, not just today, but for posterity. Indeed, many people—I am one —believe that one can educate oneself about the future from an understanding of the past. That is important.
On the whole, the evidence gleaned by the Committee was that the Act is operating fairly well. The costs associated with its administration are greatly outweighed, although not always, by the transparency and better accountability of those who make decisions that affect the public’s daily life. Freedom of information requests may lead indirectly to a reduction of costs because public authorities are now fully aware of the risk of exposure if they misuse funds. Although the Act has succeeded in its primary aim of increasing transparency and accountability, it is less clear whether it has facilitated decision making, and it has not gone far down the road of creating greater confidence in those of us who serve in public office.
In the light of the media’s tendency to sensationalise bad news, it was perhaps unrealistic ever to expect that the Act would contribute to greater public confidence in those in power. Individuals certainly have the tools to engage with decision making as a result of the Act, but those who choose to participate are usually those who have a professional stake in the outcome. The FOI regime offered enhanced democracy, but in the years since it was drafted, the parameters of public debate have shifted greatly, and internet search engines disclose information that the Government would rather keep hidden. The onus must be on Parliament and ourselves as individuals within it to face this brave new world and the challenges that technology inevitably presents.
Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I commend the work of the Committee and the contributions of the Chairman and now the membership; they have cheered me. I should declare an interest: I am co-parliamentary something-or-another for the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which has been a remarkable organisation over the past 25 years, and its guiding light, Mr Maurice Frankel, is an exceptional citizen.
I passionately believe in freedom of information. As a boy, I read Pope, who wrote
“What can we reason, but from what we know”,
and it is true. I always maintain that informed and intelligent citizens should have access to Government information that they, we, citizens and Members of Parliament pay for, so that they can play an engaged and informed part in the development of public policy and the things that affect us.
I will not go through the lengthy debates of many years ago. There are things that I object to, such as the Executive override, which has come into operation and was presented to the House of Commons by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) as though it was a Cadillac, with new bells and shiny things on it. I would like to see some things shifted and changed, but my remarks today will be focused only on something that has come to me through a constituent, a respected Mr Dale, in my local community. The concerns are about commissioning in the national health service and relate to the chapter in the report on contracting out. I wanted to deliver the remarks that would have been made much more eloquently by others on the concerns that I have about contracting out.
Other organisations are obviously affected as well. A bit of a stir has been made by universities, because of the anxiety that some are publicly funded and the information is held in a particular way. Outside organisations can even apply for their own materials of the university, because they are deemed to be in receipt of public funds and are therefore subject to freedom of information. However, I seek to discuss the national health service and the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Under the current NHS reforms, the new commissioning bodies—clinical commissioning groups and the NHS Commissioning Board—will be subject to the FOI Act. However, the private sector contractors with whom contracts are held will not be covered by the Act. The contracts themselves will contain disclosure requirements along the lines of those already found in the standard NHS contract:
“Where the Provider is not a Public Authority, the Provider acknowledges that the Commissioners are subject to the requirements of the FOIA and shall assist and co-operate with each Commissioner to enable the Commissioner to comply with its disclosure obligations under the FOIA. Accordingly the Provider agrees…that this Agreement and any other recorded information held by the Provider on the Commissioners’ behalf for the purposes of this Agreement are subject to the obligations and commitments of the Commissioners under the FOIA”.
Obviously, the term “commissioners” refers to the commissioning bodies.
Those provisions require some unpicking. The requirement that providers co-operate with commissioning bodies to comply with their disclosure requirements under the Act is circular. The commissioning body’s obligations under the Act are merely to disclose information that it holds itself or that the provider holds on its behalf. The real question is what information is held on the commissioning body’s behalf.
The contract itself specifies that various types of information are subject to FOI or have to be published or provided to the commissioning body on request. That includes information about the service specifications, prices and payments, numbers of patients treated, time taken to treat them, performance quality reports against a range of specific indicators, figures on MRSA and clostridium difficile infections, and reports on complaints, equality monitoring and certain other matters. There are also obligations to comply with NHS dataset requirements. In addition, the commissioning body may request any other information that it reasonably requires to monitor the provider’s performance in relation to the agreement. However, if the commissioning body does not consider that it requires particular information to monitor the provider’s performance, the information will not be available under FOI.
Let us suppose there are suspicions about the use of outdated, or potentially substandard, or even contaminated supplies by hospitals. For an NHS hospital, the Act could be used to obtain details of stocks of the product, analysis results, correspondence with suppliers, minutes of meetings at which the problem was discussed, concerns about the issues raised by staff and details of how they were handled, as well as information showing what measures were considered, why particular options were rejected and what was done.
Such information would not be available in relation to independent providers treating national health service patients. A commissioning body may take the view that it does not require that information to monitor the provider’s performance under the contract because it does not believe that there is a real problem, because it does not believe that the information sought by the requester would throw light on it, or because it already feels satisfied, from its knowledge of the provider, that any problem would be properly handled. In that case, it seems unlikely that there would be any contractual obligation on the commissioning body to seek the information or on the provider to produce it. In cases of doubt, we think contractors would be likely to vigorously oppose any attempt to interpret a contractual provision of that kind expansively.
A further problem is that key aspects of the Act cannot apply to contractors. The Information Commissioner’s powers relate only to public authorities. He cannot investigate a contractor’s claim that it does not hold or cannot find the information needed to answer an FOI request. His power to serve information notices, requiring public authorities to supply him with information required for an investigation, does not extend to contractors. He cannot serve a decision or enforcement notice on a contractor, or take action against a contractor that appears to be failing to comply with its contractual obligations to assist with FOI requests.
The offence that applies to a public authority that deliberately destroys, alters or conceals a requested record to prevent its disclosure does not apply to a contractor that does so to prevent the authority disclosing it in response to an FOI request. Once a contract has expired, any contractual disclosure requirement may lapse, so removing the right to information about past events. Even if the contract stipulates that disclosure requirement survives, it could only be enforced by a civil action for breach of contract against the contractor. The prospect of such action being taken for failing to assist in replying to an FOI request is highly implausible.
The FOI Act envisages that the contractors who provide a service on behalf of a public authority, which it is the authority’s function to provide, can be designated as a public authority subject to the Act in its own right. The use of that provision to make contractors directly subject to FOI should now be considered. Failing that, the Act should be reassessed in light of contracting out and amended to ensure that the public’s rights to information about public authority services and functions are fully preserved when they are provided by contractors. There is real value in that, and from the Government’s point of view, too. Confidence in the Health and Social Care Act, for instance, and the commissioning process would be reinforced.
There is a grave suspicion—this is what lies behind the idea about privatisation of services in the national health service—that there will be the opportunity for outside contractors and so on to pick and choose and that they will not be liable to provide to the public the basis on which they can judge whether a contract is appropriate. That is the whole purpose of freedom of information—that we can acquire the information that can give us the ability to make a judgment on the probity and priorities that operate within those who are essentially, if not totally in many instances, funded from the public purse. There is a direct link. They would not be in business without public moneys and contracts coming their way. That is why there is an urgency about making this point and examining this question. I commend it to the Justice Committee. Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for your patience.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The fears expressed by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), about the quantity of Members in this debate have been laid to rest by the quality of the contributions. We have had three outstanding contributions by Members who are quite expert on this subject. There has also been, among the three parties represented so far, a large degree of consensus. I hope that I can make the official Opposition a fourth party to that consensus and I hope even more that the Minister will join it when she replies to the debate for the Government. I say that because I agree with what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) said. I think that he said that freedom of information was the best thing that the Labour Government did. I had written down that it was “one of the best things” that the Labour Government did. Of course, if we were here to discuss all the good things that the Labour Government did, we would use up the rest of the time, but can we at least agree on that?
I am not surprised that we are still discussing the way in which the Act works 13 years after it was passed. It took five years for it to be introduced, and I think that that was probably right. It has taken eight years, judging by what the Select Committee says in its invaluable report, to bed in, and I think that that is also right and nothing to cause us concern, because, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, this is a major change in culture for Government—a major change to the way in which administration takes place in the public sector. It has affected, for the better, decision making, as well as the operation of the Government and the public sector.
Through the stance that the Select Committee has taken in its report but also by—if I can put it this way—flushing out the Government in their response, it has done a great service to advancing the cause of the Act and freedom of information. I find very little to disagree with on the policy issues dealt with in the report, although perhaps there is a slight degree of complacency in relation to some of the practicalities of the way in which the freedom of information system works—I have had some experience of that myself. More needs to be done to ensure that the existing system operates effectively, but before I come to that, let me just review where I think the parties are.
I looked at the manifesto commitments. The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto said that they wished to extend freedom of information legislation
“to private companies delivering monopoly public services such as Network Rail.”
That was on the same page as replacing the House of Lords with a fully elected second Chamber, but we cannot have everything.
The Conservative manifesto made no mention of freedom of information, but in some ways what it did say was more interesting. It talked about
“transforming the way the state goes about its business, using decentralisation, accountability and transparency”.
It says that
“we will bring the operation of government out into the open…we will create a powerful new right to government data, enabling the public to request—and receive—government datasets in an open and standardised format.”
It says, for example:
“We will…require public bodies to publish online the job titles of every member of staff and the salaries and expenses of senior officials”.
All of that resolved itself into one sentence in the coalition agreement:
“We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.”
What that throws up is a matter that the Chair of the Select Committee has already referred to—the difference between the voluntary publication of information and the ability of the citizen to request that information. There is general agreement that transparency and the publication of data is not only a good thing in itself, but can assist the process of freedom of information. Clearly, if more information is put into the public realm and if public authorities get into the habit of being transparent about the way they conduct themselves, that is not only complementary; it actively assists and removes some of the bureaucracy from freedom of information. However, the two things should not be confused.
It is interesting that the Liberal Democrat manifesto specifically referred to Network Rail. I had a meeting with the head of transparency for Network Rail—there is one—earlier this week, and they were gently trying to persuade me that, given that it has a proactive policy for being transparent, perhaps it did not also need to be subject to freedom of information. I do not want to put words into their mouth, because they did not go quite that far, but that was the gist of the discussion. Well, I disagree. I think that it is laudable if Network Rail has that aim, but that should not remove from it the burden of having to comply with the Act.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was mentioned. Some of the additions under that Act were simply consequential on other changes. Bringing academies into the same ambit as state schools is controversial, but it does not add much. I am sorry that we have not—
Sir Alan Beith
Of course, the hon. Gentleman would have complained pretty bitterly if we had not taken that action. He should be a little less churlish about the Protection of Freedoms Act, not least because, for example, it brought in the Association of Chief Police Officers, which was carrying out very significant public policing functions while also being a representative body for chief police officers. That extension was an extremely important one. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about Network Rail, which is a very ambiguous body, created originally under the previous Government, but we are only a coalition. We get some of our proposals through, but not all of them.
Mr Slaughter
I hope that, rather than being churlish, I am being balanced in saying that the Government—both parties in the coalition—have taken steps on transparency and that there is an impetus from at least some parts of the coalition to move forward the ambit of the Act. I have never been able to understand why, for example, council housing departments should be subject to it but housing associations should not and why the NHS should be subject to it but Network Rail, which is also a large public sector organisation, should not. We should be resistant to special pleading from organisations.
I addressed a conference of university officials some time ago, and freedom of information was a big concern of theirs—that is, not being subject to it. I will say a little more in a moment about the research, with which I do have some sympathy, but the idea was that universities should not be subject to it because, they were saying, it costs them money and they are relatively small organisations in the great scheme of things. I am not sure that is true, for a start, but the number of requests that an organisation receives probably bears some relation to its size and therefore to its means. I suspect that many of our universities are rather bigger than, say, some small district councils.
We should therefore resist special pleading. Where there are grey areas, we should err on the side of openness rather than exemption. In particular, we should look at the points that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made in relation to the increasingly blurred lines between the public and private sectors.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the shadow Lord Chancellor and my boss, made it very clear in his Labour party conference speech last year that the next Labour Government would extend FOI to
“cover the delivery of public services”,
such as prisons, schools and hospitals, by private companies and the voluntary sector. That must be right. It is right in any event, but the contractual roles that organisations —we know the usual suspects: Capita, Serco and G4S—are taking on not only involve huge additional powers, but often mean that whole areas of Government service, policy and decision making are devolved to them.
[Mr David Amess in the Chair]
I was talking to the Public and Commercial Services Union this week about the fact that it is envisaged that the criminal fines enforcement process—collection—be passed to a private company on a very long contract that delegates not only administrative, operational and decision-making powers, but some powers that until recently were judicial.
Mr Llwyd
What the hon. Gentleman says is right. The transfer of public functions to the private sector may not have been uppermost in people’s minds when the Act was drafted, but it is increasingly becoming an issue. Before we know it, much of the prison estate will be privatised, so, in that regard, it is absolutely crucial that FOI structures are in place.
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful, I agree and I hope that the Minister will address that point directly when she responds.
I shall leave that aside, because we could all discuss for a long time the types and numbers of organisations that we want to add. I would rather talk about the other two issues I mentioned: how the Act is operating and how the ongoing policy issues are being resolved or not resolved. The report deals with those matters well.
I have serious concerns about how the Act operates on a day-to-day basis. I am a prolific but I hope responsible user of the Act, so I can say from experience that the quality of service one gets varies hugely. Some organisations are good: they take matters seriously, provide comprehensive information timeously and obey not only the letter but the spirit of the Act. Many do not.
I shall give one example. It is not an extreme example at all; it is very typical. On 26 October last year, I made a request to my local authority. I was aware that it had delegated to itself, from committee to officers, the ability to sell off property as it became vacant, but it was not reporting it anywhere. Simple questions: how many properties have you sold in the past four years and what is the value of those properties? Every two or three weeks after the 20-day deadline passed, we chased them. Nothing was done. There was no attempt to comply with the Act—“You’ll get it next week.” “We’re very sorry. Don’t you have that yet?” Those were the kinds of faux-amateur ways in which it responded.
I am sure that I would not have the answers now had I not written to the chief executive earlier this week and said that I was going to raise the matter in this debate. The very straightforward answers arrived yesterday. They reveal that over that period, more than 200 properties were sold, at a value of more than £88 million, which, in the past two years, represented more than 10% of the total stock that had become vacant. Those facts and figures are important, not only because of the amount of public money involved, but due to the policy and human implications of disposing of good quality property that could be re-let, when 11,000 people are on the waiting list and many of my constituents are being moved out of London because it is said that there is no affordable accommodation. Those data should and could be available, not in 20 days, but in 20 hours.
That is a mild example. In other cases, I have waited over two years for responses. If a public authority does not wish to respond, it can find myriad ways not to do so. To give another example, we have a proportionately large number of free schools and academies in my constituency and I wanted to see the financial base on which they were funded, the capital grants, the costs they were paying for land and matters of that kind. Two years on, I still do not have that information. The excuses I have been given vary from commercial confidentiality to the notion that it would be embarrassing for those organisations, lest they are not successful, to reveal what their basis for bidding is at the time. They have even been based on tiny semantic points. It was not one of mine, but another request asked what a particular piece of land was sold for, and at the end of the process the response came back after months of delay, “Although contracts have been exchanged, there has not been completion, and therefore it cannot be right to say that this property has been sold.” I thought that was slightly disingenuous given that the people who bought it were building on the land at the time.
I will not take up the House’s time with my private grievances, but I use those examples to show that if a public authority does not wish to follow the Act, it can find myriad ways not to do so, which can range from using unqualified staff and devoting insufficient resources to deliberate obfuscation and devious avoidance. The problem is, as the Committee correctly notes, that there is no immediate penalty and the elaborate process of review is, again, often used to delay rather than bring justice.
I hope I am not quoting out of context, but the Committee says:
“We were pleased to hear relatively few complaints about compliance with the 20 day response time. We believe that the 20 day response time is reasonable and should be maintained.”
I suspect that people are put off and do not go through an additional complaints procedure or use the process of internal review and appeal. I agree with the Committee that it is important that the process of internal review is also prescribed, so that what should be a method of redress is not used for further delay. I have taken cases to the Information Commissioner where that process has had to be gone through, and unfortunately, it can take one or two years—longer in some cases—by which time, saving the most important cases of national interest, the issue will almost certainly be dead. That, of course, is the objective of the defaulting party. I hope that there is more scrutiny, by Government and the Ministry as well as the Select Committee, of the simple procedural operation of the Act and whether its spirit and letter are in turn being obeyed.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills mentioned Maurice Frankel and the Campaign for Freedom of Information. I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The campaign is a fantastic organisation, which does more than anyone else to keep us on the straight and narrow. It notes that more than 44% of requests to central Government exceed the 20-day limit. That is poor, even when the correct process is followed. We could do much better.
I shall turn to some of the policy issues. I cannot better what the Committee said on the veto and the alleged chilling effect on policy development. The Chair would not put it in these terms, but the Committee has seen through those objections and does not recommend change. I hope the Government will follow that view. There is a risk, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd acknowledged, that people will try to subvert or get round the Act in many ways, and we have heard examples of using private devices or e-mails to keep things out of the public realm. The last thing that we want to do in response to that—we should acknowledge the problem and try to work out ways of challenging it—is to say, “Well, in that case, we should allow more secrecy, because that is the only way to get that balance right.” Those debates will continue, because the agenda is both moving and changing.
There are other issues, which I had hoped could have been put to rest, that the Government in their response have kept going and even revived. The first is the issue of fees. I appreciate that the Government have resisted that, which is right, and requests to cover their costs. None the less, they have introduced the possibility of fees at tribunal, which may be a slippery slope. Certainly, if a complaint has reached such a level, which is quite a challenge for any applicant to achieve, the issue of fees should be resisted.
The Newspaper Society, in its briefing for today’s debate, as well as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and a number of national newspapers, have tried to draw attention to the worrying fact that ways are being found to limit access by way of cost. Generally speaking, those are occult ways of doing it; it is not a head-on attempt to restrict. When I say occult, I am not referring to the ghosts and zombies in the Cabinet Office or in Leeds city hall. I am talking about ways that are, ironically, not open.
I have a number of questions for the Minister to answer. If the Government are thinking of reducing the number of hours beyond the marginal levels that the Select Committee proposes, what are those proposals and how can they be justified? Are they thinking of introducing the aggregate claim, whereby an individual or an organisation will only be able to put in a certain number of claims before hitting the cash limit? Moreover, in totting up the number of hours on any individual request, will the Government include thinking time? If they do, what is the rationale for that and where is the impact assessment that will show the effect that that will have? Maurice Frankel quotes an estimate that says that just the thinking time clause alone will affect 4% of requests to central Government and 10% of requests to other public bodies. Those are significant figures, but, as Maurice Frankel points out, that is based on the actual time spent and not on the estimated time, which of course could be a lot greater. Any one of those measures, let alone the aggregate of them, would have a significant effect on the number of requests that are refused on the grounds of cost, which is a route that we do not want to go down.
There is a general acceptance, I think, that there has to be a limit on costs. No one in this debate has said that the overall cost of the Act is prohibitive and I do not think that the Government have said that either. None the less, cost is a convenient way to turn down requests without having to justify things more thoroughly. As I have said, I have had every possible reason thrown at me. One very common one is commercial confidentiality, which is often presented in a nonsensical way. Let me give an example. There was a significant and controversial land sale in my constituency between two public sector bodies—part of the BBC estate was being sold to Imperial college. The whole matter was resolved; there were no outstanding issues and no ongoing negotiations. Yet both parties resisted requests on the basis of commercial confidentiality. We need to be more sceptical about some of the excuses that are used. I hope the Government will not be seduced by those arguments, and that we can have some clarity on that.
There is an argument when it comes to research. I do not accept the argument for exemption of universities, but, given what is happening in Scotland, it may well be that the Government are right on this. We want to protect genuine research, but we do not want to allow that to become a catch-all for refusal. We should consider exemptions very carefully. This is an area in which the Government, thus far, do not have a bad record.
The Minister will have heard me say very often, even in the short time that she has been in post, that the Government have a bad record on the citizen’s right to access justice and information. We have cuts in legal aid and the prospect of further cuts, the wholesale change to conditional fee agreements, a review of judicial review, and charges increasingly being introduced for courts and tribunal services. That is a poor record, and a signature of this Government of which they should be ashamed. Let us not add freedom of information to that catalogue. So much has been achieved over the past 15 years with a reasonable degree of consensus. We want to allow the citizen far, far greater access to information, and to change what has been very secretive government in this country, under all parties, into something that is genuinely open. That will be as beneficial to the Government as it will to the citizen, so let us not shy away from it now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed. I am grateful to the Justice Committee for its thorough work on the post-legislative scrutiny and to all those who contributed to its inquiries. I re-endorse the sentiments that have been made this afternoon in relation to my right hon. Friend’s great aplomb and his ability to chair the Committee.
The Government remain committed to greater transparency—the Freedom of Information Act is a key part of that—and we have been successful in our key aims of increasing openness, transparency and accountability. I agree with hon. Members that it is perhaps less clear how much of our secondary objectives of increasing trust and public participation have been met and that, to some extent, those objectives may not have been realistic ambitions. I agree with the Justice Committee that the Act has been a
“significant enhancement to our democracy.”
It is not perfect, but it is generally working well. For that reason, the Government are not proposing a radical overhaul.
Before turning to the specific issues raised by post-legislative scrutiny, it is important to say that we need to put them in the context of the Government’s wider transparency agenda. Since we came to power, we have published almost 9,000 data sets, covering a wide range of subjects connected to health, education, transport, crime and justice. In June 2012, we published the open data White Paper, “Unleashing the Potential”, which sets out how the transparency agenda can help to provide greater access to and the re-use of raw data. We have set up the Open Data Institute to promote innovation, using the data that the Government publish, and pushed strongly for more transparency internationally, including through the international Open Government Partnership.
I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government’s transparency agenda is no substitute for, and will certainly not diminish, the important work that is being done in relation to the Freedom of Information Act. As we take the transparency agenda forward, we will push for greater openness and accountability, so that people know what is being done in their name and with their taxes.
Proactive publication needs to be complimented by an effective system that allows the public to seek information for themselves about how public authorities do their jobs. That is why the Freedom of Information Act is so important and why we are taking a number of steps, following scrutiny, to strengthen and extend it.
We are reducing from 30 to 20 years the lifespan of some of the exemptions to disclosure in the Act. That reflects and is simultaneous with the changes that we are making gradually to replace the 30-year rule under which public records are released by the National Archives with a 20-year rule. We have made secondary legislation to begin that transition over a 10-year period, and it came into effect on 1 January.
We are introducing enhanced rights to access and reuse data sets under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A public consultation on a draft code of practice to help public authorities to meet those new obligations concluded on 10 January, and the provisions will be commenced shortly.
We are taking steps to extend the Freedom of Information Act to more organisations that perform public functions and to companies wholly owned by any number of public authorities. We have already extended it to all academies, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.
In our response to post-legislative scrutiny, we made it clear that we intended to conclude consultations with a wide range of other bodies, including more than 200 harbour authorities, awarding bodies, approved regulators under the Legal Services Act 2007 and 2,000 housing associations. Therefore, unless there is good reason for not doing so, we can extend the Act to any public function that they carry out. Our aim will be, where possible, to introduce secondary legislation over the next two years to implement the changes that we decide are warranted.
I am aware of some Members’ concerns about the position under the Act of contractors and other companies that provide public services. The challenge that outsourcing public services poses to transparency is real, and it is one that we have sought to address proportionately. We do not currently propose the formal extension of the Act to providers of outsourced public services. We prefer the Justice Committee’s recommendation that contractual transparency clauses be used and enforced to ensure that freedom of information obligations are met.
We strongly encourage public authorities and contractors alike to go further than the minimum requirements in the Act and voluntarily to provide more information. To that end, we will issue guidance that sets out the circumstances in which we want to see further information released. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and the shadow Minister raised powerful concerns about this issue, but I reassure them that if our proposals do not have the desired effect, formal extension of the Act can be considered and is always possible.
We have sought to balance the need for transparency with the need to minimise burdens on business and to encourage active participation by bodies large and small in the provision of public services. Some people might not consider that enough, but it is a light-touch, good approach requiring the co-operation of public authorities and contractors alike. As I said, however, if that approach yields insufficient dividends, we will consider what other steps we need to take to ensure accountability, and that includes formal extension. I hope that provides reassurance.
Let me now turn to the Act’s cost. Despite the many benefits that the Act has brought, we cannot ignore concerns about the burdens that it imposes on public authorities. That is especially important in the current challenging financial climate and at a time when more freedom of information requests than ever are being received. Central Government received 47,000 initial applications in 2011, at a cost of £8.5 million in staff time alone. Local authorities and other public bodies are also affected. We aim to focus our efforts on the disproportionate burdens placed on public authorities by what we call industrial users of the Act.
Mrs Grant
Whether or not I am over-stressing them, these matters will be considered in great detail through consultation, and there will be ample opportunity for others to have an input and become involved.
Our research indicates that a very small number of requests contribute to a relatively large proportion of the cost of freedom of information: 8% of requests to central Government cost more than £500 to answer and make up 32% of total staff costs. The Justice Committee recognised that issue in recommending a small reduction in the cost limit beyond which requests need not be complied with. We believe that would result in only the most minimal reduction in costs, so we will consider whether to go further.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised consideration time, and the shadow Minister raised thinking time. We recognise, of course, the practical difficulties in including such tasks, but they are worth considering to find out what might be done.
The introduction of fees for tribunals has also been raised by Members today, and we will certainly consider what we can do to recover the costs associated with the running of tribunals, but we do not think anything that we do will impede access to justice. We will also consider other ways to reduce burdens fairly and proportionately, including addressing where one person or group of people use the Act to make unrelated requests to the same public authority so frequently that it becomes an inappropriate burden.
I assure Members that whatever measures we ultimately decide to take, we will have regard to the need to reduce burdens without an excessive impact on transparency. An example of that is our decision in the post-legislative scrutiny response not to introduce new fees for answering freedom of information requests. To do so would both deter the legitimate use of the Freedom of Information Act and prove expensive for public authorities to administer.
The third key area addressed by post-legislative scrutiny was the protection afforded to highly sensitive information. The Government welcome and share the Committee’s conclusion that it was Parliament’s clear intention that the Act should protect safe space for policy formulation and Cabinet discussion. That issue has rightly been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I note his and other hon. Members’ references to the allegation of a possible chilling effect.
We agree with the Committee that the current system of protection in the Freedom of Information Act, including exemptions for the disclosure of information and the availability of the veto, has generally worked well. We share the Committee’s view that new absolute exemptions are not necessary. Although we are committed to transparency, so that any freedom of information regime can operate effectively, it is right that we keep under review the protection given to genuinely sensitive information. Effective government depends on the protection of the principle of collective responsibility and the ability of both Ministers and officials to provide advice freely, frankly and with candour.
We have announced our intention to review and, as appropriate, revise the Government’s published policy on the use of the veto. The policy is designed to assist where use of the veto is considered in respect of information that relates to Cabinet collective responsibility. However, no limitation in the Freedom of Information Act prevents the veto being used for other information. Indeed, the Government have concluded that its use was justified in other contexts on more than one occasion last year. Accordingly, we propose to consider whether the veto policy can be adapted both in terms of the process for its use and to offer greater clarity and reassurance on its ability to be used in appropriate cases that do not involve Cabinet-related information.
Other changes that we will introduce to improve the operation of the Freedom of Information Act will require a combination of primary and secondary legislation.
Sir Richard Shepherd
The whole purpose of the construct of the Act was that the final referee should be the tribunal, and that is what I think the Minister is talking about. The tribunal is now being used in a way contrary to our original understanding, which was that it was to be similar to the Supreme Court or the highest courts of appeal and look at the Government’s case when they refused information. Yet they are refusing information contrary to the tribunal’s judgment, and that is what causes concern to many commentators. As was rightly pointed out, the veto was used in a controversial case last year.
Mrs Grant
I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and to his points. The veto has only been used six times in eight years, so it is used sparingly and carefully. The veto is a proportionate measure, which is not being used except to protect sensitive information. We have said simply that we will review and revise it, but absolutely no decisions whatever have been made yet. We will publish any revision that we intend to make later this year.
We do not intend to introduce any new absolute exemptions, but we have listened to the concerns of the research sector and have agreed to introduce a new qualified exemption for pre-publication research information, to provide additional reassurance that such material is adequately protected from inappropriate premature disclosure. We have also listened to the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the time available to bring prosecutions under section 77 of the Act, where people destroy, alter or hide information to frustrate requests. We do not think that that is a widespread problem or practice, but it is unacceptable that anyone guilty of such an offence should be able to evade prosecution because the Information Commissioner has insufficient time to investigate the case.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the Information Commissioner reporting to Parliament. At the moment, we do not feel that making the Information Commissioner a parliamentary body is appropriate, because its work does not relate primarily to that of Parliament. My right hon. Friend also expressed concerns that FOI requests and internal reviews perhaps take too long to answer. We will revise the code of practice issued under section 45 of the Act to provide guidance on the time that should be taken to answer requests when the normal 20-day deadline is extended to allow for consideration of the public interest test and internal reviews. We do not believe, however, that the problem is sufficient to justify primary legislation.
The shadow Minister mentioned Network Rail, which is a matter of interest to the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury and the Department for Transport. There is no plan to extend the Act to Network Rail, but the scope of the Act will be kept under review.
The Government published our response to the Committee on 30 November. There is a great deal of work to be done over the coming months to work through the detail of our proposals and to consult where necessary. As that work is in its early stages, it is too soon to provide the further details that the shadow Minister requested this afternoon of the exact changes that we want to make, such as cost-limit and veto policy. However, I reassure him and other right hon. and hon. Members that we do not intend to waste time in taking our plans forward; they will see evidence of that in the coming months.
Sir Alan Beith
One thing that does not need to be tied in heavily with all the other things that the Minister is considering is the provision on university research. How does she hope to take that forward?
Mrs Grant
I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend with the exact detail about how that will be taken forward; he will hear from me shortly.
To conclude, my right hon. Friend Lord McNally said in the other place on 17 January last year that the Freedom of Information Act is
“robust enough to survive rigorous post-legislative scrutiny.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 548.]
The Justice Committee’s measured report on its operation, together with our response, demonstrates the accuracy of his view. As I said at the outset, the Freedom of Information Act has been a success in the accountability that it has brought. It has generally worked well. I believe that it will be further improved and will continue to make a valuable contribution to transparency and accountability.
Sir Alan Beith
I want to respond briefly and thank right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. The effort that we put into the report underlines the fact that Parliament and the Government need to carry out post-legislative scrutiny—and, as I have said, the Government did indeed carry it out for the Act. That is necessary to establish whether the laws that we pass do the job for which we pass them. For years, Parliament hardly ever carried out such scrutiny, but now we do it systematically. It is a good thing, as today’s debate shows, even if the proceedings were distinguished more for their quality than their quantity, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) felicitously put it.
Some important points were raised in the debate. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), my colleague on the Select Committee, made some important points about archiving and archive practice. We shall pursue that matter because the National Archives come under the Ministry of Justice, and therefore the Committee. We shall have further discussions about some of the relevant issues when next we meet representatives of the National Archives.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) has been a doughty fighter for freedom in general and freedom of information in particular, and he raised some interesting points about how the provisions for private contractors can be made to work. All the examples he gave should be covered by freedom of information. The only question is whether the contracting method will work as a way of dealing with them. I am sure that he, as an experienced business man, will recognise certain difficulties: it would seem inappropriate for example, for freedom of information to apply to a company’s deliberations about whether to bid for a contract. That is the company deciding in which direction to take its private sector work. However, once it is engaged on the contract, its quality of service, the disciplinary measures that it uses to maintain that quality, and all such things are freedom of information matters. We should ensure that the contracting arrangement can cover them. If it cannot, we shall have to think again about our approach.
Sir Richard Shepherd
The whole point, though, is of course that it is about the money. For instance, when private contractors bid they would also like to know what their rivals are bidding, and the secrecy behind that process conceals true costs and is not an impetus to competition. That point was made by Tarmac in the original discussions that Rhodri Morgan had long ago in the Justice Committee’s predecessor Committee. Tarmac’s directors were advocating that they wanted their contract details and their costs—in other words, their bidding prices—to be available, because they believed that their competitors were putting in false under-bids that they could not sustain and that would fall on the public purse. That, of course, was their argument, but there are good reasons why that information should be made public.
Sir Alan Beith
We have also seen the implications of all that in areas such as contracting for rail franchises. However, it is a difficult balance to strike: having a healthy private sector, which can also usefully take up Government contracts, and also having a Government mechanism that properly supervises those contracts and ensures that freedom of information requirements are met. We have suggested one approach to strike that balance. We hope that it can be made to work. However, if it does not, then—as the Minister herself conceded—we will have to think again about how we satisfy that fundamental requirement in relation to public services.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) also contributed by way of an intervention, although he is sitting on a Public Bill Committee at the same time. That seems to happen to members of my Committee all the time—the Whips think that members of my Committee are especially valuable members of Public Bill Committees.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, covered some very important points. In particular, he focused on some of the things that the Government have not yet decided. Clearly, as the Minister said, there is a lot of work still to be done. There still seems to be some uncertainty about how committed the Government are to measures that we have indicated may be difficult, but which the Government are interested in in an attempt to deal with what they see as the costs of freedom of information. We will be watching rather carefully this process of discussion that is going on from here, and I hope that the Minister will take very carefully into account all the points that have been made in this debate. On things that have a certain amount of urgency about them—I mention in particular the separate provision to protect university research—I hope that we will not find it necessary to wait for some general further measure in relation to freedom of information if other ways can be found of bringing things forward sooner.
I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Science, Research and Innovation Capital Investment
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
I am today setting out our plans for spending £600 million as part of our commitment to an industrial strategy for growth.
We have a broad, world-class science and research base in this country and this is clearly demonstrated in the research councils’ impact reports which are being published today. These reports illustrate the benefit to the economy and to society of the funding that we provide for science and research every year.
We identified eight key technologies to invest in, consulting with the research community and the Technology Strategy Board. To support these, the Chancellor announced £600 million of funding, mainly for capital investment, in his autumn statement. We have already announced how £28 million of this capital funding will be used to fund the National Composites Centre and £108 million will support the life science strategy through £38 million for the national biologies industry innovation centre, £20 million for regenerative medicine and £50 million for synthetic biology.
Today I am announcing details of how the remaining funds will be allocated.
£189 million of that funding will support big data. We will allocate a further £25 million to the highly successful National Space Technology Programme.
£45 million will support new facilities and equipment in areas of UK strength in advanced materials, including in high-performance alloys and low-energy electronics. In addition £35 million will create centres of excellence in robotics and autonomous systems in and around universities, innovation centres, science parks and enterprise sites.
£30 million will be allocated to create dedicated research and development facilities to develop and test new grid scale energy storage technologies. £25 million will build the Advanced Measurement Laboratory which will be a state-of-the-art laboratory for cutting-edge measurement research run by the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington.
Finally £65 million will be invested in our excellent research campuses with a further £50 million in transformative equipment and infrastructure to maintain the excellence of our research base.
In addition to this £600 million of capital funds, EPSRC are using existing budgets to make a £350 million investment in a new generation of centres for doctoral training. This is important as without highly skilled individuals in the workforce it will be impossible to bring innovative products and services to market.
I have also launched today a £l million competition funded by the Technology Strategy Board that will accelerate the development of robotics and autonomous systems in the UK.
ANNEX: Table showing breakdown of £600 million autumn statement investment in science and innovation*:
Big data and energy-efficient computing | £189 million |
Synthetic biology | £50 million |
Regenerative medicine | £20 million |
Energy storage | £30 million |
Advanced materials | £45 million |
Robotics and autonomous systems | £35 million |
Research campuses | £65 million |
Transformative equipment and infrastructure | £50 million |
National Composites Centre | £28 million |
Pharmavision | £38 million |
Advanced Metrology Lab | £25 million |
National Space Technology Programme | £25 million |
Total | £600 million |
*Figures in italics are new announcements on 24/1/2013. |
Change of Use: Promoting Regeneration
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The coalition Government believe that a swift and responsive planning system is vital for delivering sustainable development. We want to promote the use of brownfield land to assist regeneration, and get empty and under-used buildings back into productive use. Using such previously developed land and buildings will help us promote economic growth and still ensure that we safeguard environmentally protected land.
Mary Portas’s review called for the Government to ease the rules surrounding change of use. We agree. We are therefore increasing the scope of permitted development rights in order to facilitate growth.
Commercial to residential
In April 2011, we ran a consultation “Relaxation of planning rules for change of use from commercial to residential” which sought views on introducing permitted development rights for change of use from commercial to residential uses. Following that consultation we included a policy statement within the national planning policy framework to promote change of use.
Complementing this policy change, in the written ministerial statement of 6 September 2012, Official Report, column 34WS, I announced the introduction of permitted development rights to enable change of use from commercial to residential purposes. These new permitted development rights build on the policy set out in the national planning policy framework and will encourage developers to bring underused offices back into effective use as houses for local residents.
The new permitted development rights allow change of use from B1 (a) offices to C3 residential. They will provide badly needed homes for local people and will make a valuable contribution to easing our national housing shortage. By bringing underused offices back into effective use they will also help create jobs in the construction and services industries, and help regenerate our town centres and former commercial areas. These new homes will bring a greater resident population to our high streets, increasing footfall and supporting local shops.
In line with best practice on public policy, there will be a sunset clause, limiting the changes to three years and a review of the benefits from the policy at that point. This will provide Parliament with the opportunity to extend the policy indefinitely should it wish.
We recognise that, as with all permitted development rights, there may be unique local circumstances which should be taken into account. The chief planner is today writing to local planning authorities giving them the opportunity to seek a local exemption where this can be justified on economic grounds.
We will only grant an exemption in exceptional circumstances, where local authorities demonstrate clearly that the introduction of these new permitted development rights in a particular local area will lead to (a) the loss of a nationally significant area of economic activity or (b) substantial adverse economic consequences at the local authority level which are not offset by the positive benefits the new rights would bring.
Once local planning authority requests for exemption have been considered, the regulations for the new permitted development rights will be bought forward.
There will be a tightly drawn prior approval process which will cover significant transport and highway impacts, and development in areas of high flood risk, land contamination and safety hazard zones.
Getting redundant agricultural buildings back into use
As part of the 2011 growth review we undertook to review how change of use is handled in the planning system. We ran a consultation “New opportunities for sustainable development and growth through the reuse of existing buildings” in July 2012.
Following that consultation, I can confirm that in order to help promote rural prosperity and job creation, agricultural buildings will be able to convert to a range of other uses, but excluding residential dwellings. There will be a size restriction and for conversions above a set size a prior approval process will be put in place to guard against unacceptable impacts, such as transport and noise.
Flexibility for business uses
To enhance flexibility in the planning system, which can be vital when a quick response is necessary to support business growth, we will increase the thresholds for permitted development rights for change of use between business/office (B1) and warehouse (B8) classes and from general industry (B2) to B1 and B8 from 235 m2 to 500 m2.
Getting empty town centre buildings back into use
To create opportunities for new and start-up businesses and help retain the viability and vitality of our town centres, we will allow a range of buildings to convert temporarily to a set of alternative uses including shops (Al), financial and professional services (A2), restaurants and cafes (A3) and offices (B1) for up to two years.
We will continue to keep the operation of the use classes system under review to ensure it is as flexible as possible and promotes sustainable development. We are working to amend regulations as soon as possible and will publish a detailed summary of responses to the consultation shortly. A copy of the associated chief planner’s letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
Sporting Legacy
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)
I would like to update the House on progress with delivering the Government’s 10-point sports legacy action plan (my statement of 18 September 2012). This plan is a key part of the wider Olympic and Paralympic legacy programme being delivered by Government and its partners.
Since my last report, the December 2012 active people survey has reported that 15.5 million people aged 16 and over are playing sport at least once a week. That is 750,000 more than a year ago and 1.57 million more than when London won the Olympic and Paralympic bid.
Elite Sport
Elite Funding
In December, UK Sport announced £347 million funding to support our Olympic and Paralympic athletes prepare for the Rio 2016 games. This is an overall increase of 11% on the funding available for London 2012 (5% increase to Olympic sports and 43% to Paralympic sports). This record investment of Exchequer and lottery funding will be used to achieve our ambition to become the first host nation to win more medals at the next games.
World Class Facilities
The Olympic park was handed over to the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) on 27 November 2012. Good progress is being made on the transformation of the site.
In preparation for the reopening in July 2013, six of the eight park venues already have new operators in place. The LLDC has approved a deal between iCITY, the preferred bidder for the long-term lease of the press and broadcast centre, and BT, who will become the anchor tenant, using the facility to house its new BT sport channels. The project is expected to generate around 250 jobs as part of iCITY’s plans to turn the buildings into a world leading technology cluster, creating around 4,000 jobs.
An agreement was signed this month between the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and Moirai Capital Investments for the relocation of a shooting enclosure from the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, where it was used during the games, for use by the Paignton Rifle Club within a proposed sports development for Torbay council.
Further information on the relocation of other relocatable structures will be included in my next update.
Major Sports Events
Since the games, the UK has already successfully delivered:
UCI World Track Cycling Cup (Glasgow) | 2012 |
Gymnastics World Cup (Glasgow) | 2012 |
Since my written statement of 18 September, we have won the right to host the following major sports events in the UK:
BWF Premier Super Series Badminton (Birmingham) | 2013 |
FINA Diving World Series (Edinburgh) | 2013 |
Canoe Slalom World Series (Cardiff) | 2013 |
Gymnastics World Cup (Glasgow) | 2013 |
Wheelchair Tennis Masters (London) | 2014-16 |
IPC World Athletics Championships (London) | 2017 |
Community
Places People Play
Sport England has increased the funding for Places People Play by £15 million to £150 million.
Further investments include: another new large scale multi-sports facility, bringing the total to 13; a further 310 community sports facility projects, bringing the total to 1,042 (exceeding the 1,000 target 12 months ahead of schedule); and a further 54 playing fields have been protected and improved, bringing the total to 163.
An additional 16,786 Sport Makers have been recruited, bringing the current total to 38,957.
The Sportivate programme has given 140,555 young people the chance to try new sports, an increase of 41,686 since September.
Youth Sport Strategy (Whole Sport Plans)
Sport England announced their £493 million whole sport plan funding package for national governing bodies which will be used to continue to drive up participation, particularly among young people, and is given on a payment-for-results basis.
They have launched the following strands of the strategy: £40 million Community Sport Activation Fund for community organisations, charities and local authorities; £25 million College Sport Makers scheme, putting sport organisers into colleges; and £6.9 million Get on Track, the Dame Kelly Holmes Trust initiative to help disadvantaged young people develop life skills though sport; £5 million Get Healthy, Get into Sport to improve participation among those currently least active.
One hundred new Satellite Clubs, which bridge the gap between playing sport in school and in local community clubs, have been created, bringing the total to around 450.
Door Step Clubs are working with StreetGames to create sustainable clubs for young people in disadvantaged areas. They are currently in a £0.5 million pilot phase, due to report in March.
Join In
Join In will be receiving additional funding in 2013 to encourage people to participate in local sport and volunteer in their community, and will soon be announcing their plans to build on the success of last year’s 6,000 events.
School Sport
School Games
As of 15 January, 16,028 schools had registered to take part in the Sainsbury’s school games. In November, over 1,500 schools were rewarded with a school games kitemark (70 of which were gold level awards) in recognition of their commitment to increasing school sport and competition. Sheffield will host the next national finals in September 2013.
In November, school games athletes from across the UK competed in the Brazilian school games, winning 24 medals—16 of which were gold.
PE/School Sport
The Department for Education is responsible for school sport policy and is currently working on plans to improve school sport further. DCMS is working closely with the DFE to ensure our plans leave a lasting legacy of the London 2012 games. An announcement is expected in due course.
Disability Sport Legacy
Disability Sport
The number of disabled people playing sport has risen from 1.32 million in 2005-06 to 1.68 million in 2012. The 2012 figure is 65,000 higher than last year.
Paralympic funding was increased by 43%, to a record £70.2 million. In addition, 40 NGBs have detailed plans to make sport a practical choice for disabled people. Each of them will have specific targets to get more disabled people taking part.
In December, Sport England announced grants totalling £10.2 million from its “Inclusive Sport Fund” to 44 disability sport projects. In addition, the £l million “Active Kids for All” initiative was launched, promoting the inclusion of disabled children in PE and sport within mainstream schools by training PE teachers, and the “Battle Back Centre” in Lilleshall was opened to help the recovery of injured service people.
A Paralympic Legacy Advisory Group has been established to help drive Paralympic legacy forward and champion integrated Paralympic/disability-related legacy work across the Government and GLA’s legacy programme.
International Development
Work to bring together the International Inspiration Foundation (IIF) and International Development through Sport (IDS) charities is progressing as planned. The first meeting of the new merged charity is due to take place in February.
An interim evaluation report produced by Ecorys, published in November 2012, gives some very promising indications of the success of international inspiration, which has:
Trained 124,896 individuals as practitioners across 20 countries, including 28,530 young leaders;
Created 180 safe spaces for sport in five countries;
Overall, engaged and reached at least 11 million children and young people.
I will continue to provide quarterly updates to the House on progress with delivery of this plan.
Adoption
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
Today I am launching a new adoption strategy and announcing a package of funding for the adoption system.
“Further Action on Adoption” describes the national crisis in adopter recruitment and puts forward the Government’s proposals for addressing it in the short and long term. Copies of this document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The number of children approved by the courts for adoption has been rising steeply, with no comparable increase in the number of adopters approved. We have identified some significant structural weaknesses which undermine the effectiveness of the adopter recruitment and approval system. These weaknesses must be addressed swiftly and decisively in the interests of a significant and sustainable increase in the number of adopters. We are therefore proposing to take a new legislative power at the earliest opportunity. This would allow the Secretary of State to require local authorities to seek approved adopters from other organisations.
If necessary, we will use that power to reform the adopter recruitment system. However, we recognise that this is a radical step. If local authorities are able to bring forward alternative proposals that would deliver a similarly radical shift in the system’s capacity, then we will not need to use this power.
We want to see the system reformed for the long term, but we need short-term action too for children in the system now. So today I am announcing that the £150 million early intervention grant top-slice, which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government confirmed in announcing the local government settlement for 2013-14, will be returned in full to local authorities in the form of the adoption reform grant. This funding will help to secure reform of the adoption system. The adoption reform grant will be in two parts: £100 million of the £150 million will not be ring-fenced and will be available to local authorities to support adoption reform. It will enable local authorities to target funding at the entire adoption process and the specialist support children need. They will retain the discretion to use this funding to address their highest priority needs, such as the major backlog of children waiting for adoption.
The remaining £50 million will be ring-fenced. It will support local authorities to address structural problems with adopter recruitment, particularly the uneconomic fee that local authorities are charged for adopters approved by other authorities which is lower than that charged by voluntary adoption agencies. It will also help in the search for adopters willing and able to take children who are more difficult to place, and so tend to wait longer for new homes.
I have consulted local government to develop the details of this grant to maximise the impact of this funding, so that it reflects the challenges faced by local authorities and has a transformative effect on adoption services. Details of the formulae and allocations will be sent to authorities shortly.
I am also pleased to announce a new £1 million grant to the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies to enable it to pump-prime local voluntary adoption agencies to recruit more adopters. This grant will be available from February 2013 and will make it easier for agencies to take more innovative and collaborative approaches to adopter recruitment. Taken together, these measures should have an immediate impact on the capacity of the system to recruit and approve the adopters so urgently needed.
Adoption can give some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children in our society a far better chance of successful outcomes as they grow up. We are implementing a broad programme of reform to help ensure that all children for whom it is appropriate are adopted as swiftly as possible. We now need urgently to find more adopters to meet the needs of the growing backlog of children waiting for adoption and we need to provide them with effective support to help them do so. Today’s announcement will support short-term action and longer-term systemic change to help achieve that objective.
Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
The Informal Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 17 and 18 January in Dublin. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items were discussed.
The first plenary session of the interior day focused on migration for growth. The Commission supported the presidency’s paper noting the legal instruments currently being negotiated and the forthcoming legal migration directive on students and researchers. The UK outlined our successful efforts to reduce net migration while attracting the brightest and best, including in the student sector. A number of member states highlighted the need to ensure effective matching of migrants to jobs, tackling abuse and support for national populations to fill skill shortages.
Next, Greece updated the Council on progress on its action plan on asylum and migration. Greece reiterated the need for European solidarity in this area. The Commission stood ready to assist Greece, but asked that all member states consider how they could contribute. The UK noted the improved border management at the land border with Turkey but also the significance of the task. The UK committed to look at what more could be done and invited others to do the same. The presidency concluded that implementation of the action plan should now be of the highest priority and that the Council would return to the issue.
During lunch Ministers received an update from key agencies on the situation in Syria. Delegations expressed concern and continued to emphasise the importance of protection being provided in the region. On 21 December the UK announced £15 million in new humanitarian funding for the crisis, bringing our total contribution to £68.5 million.
In the plenary session on internal security and growth, Europol noted that citizens were coming into closer proximity with organised crime as the black economy grew. The latter had an impact on competitiveness. Europol would assess this in the next serious and organised crime threat assessment. Europol was, in particular, seeking to bolster its financial intelligence capacity and encouraged member states to do the same. The Commission noted the importance of tackling money laundering and seizing criminal profits and drew attention to: the directive on the confiscation of assets, the 4th money laundering directive, the directive on the protection of financial interests (PIF), and the upcoming anti-corruption package. Member states generally supported the presidency’s analysis of the links between internal security and economic growth.
Next the presidency explained its intention to hold an annual national missing persons day on 4 December. This would be complementary to the international missing children’s day held in May. The presidency said they would write to colleagues to seek views as to whether this should become an EU missing persons day.
The presidency scheduled an additional item to discuss the emerging situation in Algeria following the taking of hostages at the In Amenas gas plant the previous day. The presidency concluded that the security situation in the Sahel/Mali would be discussed at the March JHA Council with a focus on security issues arising for member states.
Next there was an update from Bulgaria on the Bourgas attack in July which killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver. The UK highlighted that if the Bulgarian evidence suggested the military wing of Hizballah was behind the attack, the EU must consider the designation of Hizballah’s military wing under the EU’s common position 931 terrorist asset-freezing regime.
Justice day began with the Commission presenting their package on insolvency which forms part of their “Justice for Growth” programme. They stated that the broadened scope would assist companies across Europe having greater access to a “second chance”. The European Parliamen t supported the proposal and the idea of partial harmonisation of insolvency law. The UK supported the proposals as being the type of measure that would support the functioning of the single market measure and the objective of allowing business a second chance when they fall into difficulty.
The presidency invited the head of the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau to present on Irelands proceeds of crime act and the Criminal Assets Bureau information exchange function. The presentation majored on the importance of civil procedure in asset confiscation.
The Council then discussed three issues relating to data protection: the household exemption, the right to be forgotten, and sanctions. The Commission explained the working of the regulation on all three points and argued that the right to be forgotten was not incompatible with the freedom of expression and that processing for journalistic or historic purposes were specifically allowed. The UK supported a broader household exemption than in the Commission proposal and advocated the use of a risk-based approach. The UK also supported appropriate deletion rights for data subjects, but voiced concern about unachievable expectations in the “right to be forgotten” and felt that the starting point should be the current directive. The UK thought national supervisory authorities should be given greater discretion in deciding sanctions. The UK called for the text to return to Ministers before any mandate with the European Parliament was agreed in Council. Many member states expressed support for the direction of work proposed by the Irish presidency, including a broader household exemption, a more practicable implementation of the right to be forgotten and a simpler and flexible sanctions regime.
Over lunch the presidency highlighted the need to address racism and xenophobia at political level, inviting the fundamental rights agency to present on their latest reports.
New Stations Fund
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I am pleased to inform the House that Network Rail is launching today the new stations fund, which will help towards the capital cost of opening brand new railway stations in England and Wales.
This fund will provide up to £20 million of additional funding to projects which are ready to be brought quickly into use for the benefit of passengers and the economy.
The Government are committed to improving the railways. Opening new stations can provide a boost to the economy and deliver longer-term benefits through improved access to the rail network and better connectivity for passengers.
Proposed new stations must already be at an advanced stage of development and be supported by the local authority, train operating companies and Network Rail. The £20 million fund will contribute towards the cost of scheme construction but bidders must also have available a portion of funding towards the project themselves.
Applications for funds will be assessed by a cross-industry panel. Because this fund is designed to support station proposals which are already well developed, we expect bids to be received by the end of February 2013 with a recommendation from the panel before the end of March 2013.
Operational Freedoms at Heathrow
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
Today I am announcing that the Government’s trial of operational freedoms at Heathrow airport will be ending a month earlier than scheduled, on 28 February 2013.
As the availability of the freedoms was staggered during phase 2, the early completion to the trial will be achieved by bringing forward specific tests scheduled for the final month of the trial into February, which will accommodate the space left behind by the early morning arrivals freedom being inoperable during the trial period.
I have sought advice from the UK’s aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is overseeing the trial and has confirmed that the rescheduling of these tests will not affect the quality of the evidence obtained. The revised end date will enable the overall analysis of the trial to begin sooner and support the Government’s objective, as announced in the autumn statement, to bring forward the consultation and final decisions by Ministers on whether an operational freedoms regime of some form should be adopted on a more permanent basis at Heathrow. I will make a further announcement on this in due course.
House of Lords
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education: English Baccalaureate Certificate
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider deferring the timetable for the proposed introduction of the English Baccalaureate Certificate in schools in the light of concerns raised by the Confederation of British Industry and other business leaders that the new examination system may not meet the needs of the United Kingdom economy in the 21st century.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash)
My Lords, the CBI recognises that the exam system is in need of a thorough overhaul. We share its view that the new system must meet the needs of business. We are considering all the evidence gathered through our public consultation, which closed in December, and we anticipate reporting the results of that consultation, including the timetable for introduction, early this year.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that reply and I welcome him to his new role. Given his extensive business background, does he not share the view of other business leaders that the new exams in 2015 risk causing serious long-term damage to our economy by downgrading skills such as engineering, computing and construction, and neglecting creative learning? Can he also confirm that it is the Government’s intention to issue pupils who do not pass their EBacc certificate with a certificate of attainment which, as anyone with experience in the state sector knows, will have no value at all with employers and universities? Finally, does he accept the overwhelming logic of putting the proposals on hold so that business leaders really can help to develop a respected, work-ready curriculum with exams that will enable young people to be successful in the modern world?
Lord Nash
My Lords, the point underlying this Question may be a little confusion about the stimulus to the system we have created through the EBacc and a broad and balanced curriculum. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are determined to ensure that all pupils study a broad and balanced curriculum so that they have the cultural capital to be able to compete both in this country and in the modern world. We have had to stimulate some behaviour through the EBacc because all the international evidence we have studied shows that successful international countries include these core academic subjects, and that stimulus has been extremely successful. Over the past two years, the proportion of pupils taking the EBacc has risen from 23% to 49%, and for those schools with a high element of free school meals, it has risen from 10% to 41%. However, we will also be exhorting all schools to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, as they are obliged to do and as Ofsted inspects for.
Lord Bichard
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the creative industries represent one of the most important sectors of the British economy? However, is he aware of the acute concern across that sector about the way the Government appear to undervalue the teaching and learning of creative skills, not least in the proposals for the EBacc? Further, could he use his considerable influence to persuade the Secretary of State for Education just once to make a public speech that recognises the importance of creative skills?
Lord Nash
The Government do recognise the importance of creative skills. As I have said, we are keen for all pupils to have the cultural capital that enables them to compete. As my old friend Sir Peter Lampl at the Sutton Trust has pointed out, 7% of the population of this country go to independent, private, fee-paying schools and get 44% of the top jobs. Some 4.9% go to grammar schools and get 27% of the top jobs, while the rest, 88%, get less than 30% of the top jobs. In order to enable our pupils to compete both in this country and internationally, they need a broad curriculum and they must have that cultural capital. However, I hear what the noble Lord says and I will take these matters away for consideration.
Baroness Walmsley
Does my noble friend the Minister accept that assessment only by examination at the end of the course discriminates against girls and some pupils with particular disabilities, who find that they can demonstrate their learning more effectively through coursework? If there is some concern about cheating in coursework, surely there is another way to deal with that problem, rather than just disposing of coursework as an assessment tool.
Lord Nash
As well as seeking views through our public consultation, we have also held focus discussions with a number of disability and SEN expert groups and are reviewing a wide range of views covering the proposals for all pupils. The assessment method should be suitable for the knowledge in schools, and be fair and practical. The noble Baroness is right to point out the potential for unfairness with coursework but I know that many schools feel that controlled assessment, which was introduced to combat parents doing their children’s coursework for them, is burdensome and takes up a substantial amount of time that could otherwise be used for teaching.
I will consider the point the noble Baroness raised about girls. Although many people believe anecdotally that coursework favours girls, the evidence is mixed. I know she is not suggesting that it is acceptable to discriminate against boys, who, after all, generally do worse than girls in many subjects.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, referring back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, can the noble Lord confirm that the Government received with enthusiasm Darren Henley’s recent excellent report on cultural education? If so, can he say how the Government plan to implement the report’s recommendations?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
I think it is the Conservatives’ turn this time.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the most common complaints from industry has been about the lack of employability of so many school leavers because of their lack of numeracy and literacy? Does he also agree that in the United States a lot of children are taught computer programming, whereas in this country we tend to teach technology as the use of technology, and that programming would be a great advantage?
Lord Broers
My Lords, I come at this from a slightly different angle. Can the Minister assure us that those students who go on to A-levels are no longer in effect forced to specialise either on the arts and humanities or on maths and the sciences, and that they will be required to carry a broader curriculum through their schooling?
Lord Nash
There is no requirement for that in this country but we are keen that all children have a broad curriculum through to 16, and that those who have not managed to make the C grade in English and maths who are going on to further education continue with their English and maths.
Welfare: Personal Independence Payment
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the proposed introduction of the Personal Independence Payment on the mobility of sick and disabled people; and of the omission of the words “reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a timely manner” from the text of the Regulations setting out the qualifying criteria for the payment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, the mobility component of the personal independence payment is designed to support those disabled people who face the greatest barriers to mobility. The principle that individuals must be able to complete activities safely, reliably, repeatedly and in a timely manner is integral to the assessment. We do not believe that this needs to be dealt with in regulations. However, we are looking urgently at whether it is possible to do this in a way that will achieve the outcomes that noble Lords and the Government want.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that, with one-third of disabled people living in poverty and an estimated 42% fewer being eligible for mobility support—many fearing that they will become prisoners in their own homes—his admission that under the new regime some disabled people will have their specially adapted vehicles taken away from them or offered to them to buy has caused widespread disbelief and considerable distress? Will he say how many repatriations will be involved and at least ensure that those four words he has referred to—“reliably”, “safely”, “repeatedly” and “timely”—remain in the regulations, as almost every single disability rights organisation in the country have urged him and the Government to do?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I recognise the strength of feeling around retaining those words, and we are very actively looking at how to put them into the regulations in a way that works legally. I am planning to update Peers next week, on 31 January, on exactly where we have got to. We are looking to incorporate them in regulations and have a device for doing it in that way.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, I am encouraged by my noble friend’s words. I am not an expert in anything much at all in this House but I am an expert in not being able to walk very well. I have form in this area because I have been through the DWP tribunal system, so this is one area that I know something about. Does my noble friend accept that if these words are not made statutory in some way or another, the number of appeals will rocket so much, and there will be such a period of uncertainty in so many ways for so many people, that it is not worth not putting in these words?
Lord Freud
My noble friend is, as always, much too modest about all her other capabilities. We are looking at this very actively and have clocked that there is great concern. It is not—and was not—our intention for people to be concerned about this particular area, and I hope that I will have a definitive approach to present to Peers in a week’s time, in plenty of time for the debate on the regulations, which will happen on 13 February.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, the Minister is on record as saying that not every PIP claimant will require a face-to-face assessment. In the case of autism, will the Government ensure that evidence is collected from professionals who know an autistic person well, before a decision is taken on whether a face-to-face assessment is needed? When one is considered necessary, can he confirm that the assessors will be fully trained to understand the communication difficulties associated with autism?
Lord Freud
My Lords, autism is, as the noble Lord points out, a really difficult area for people. It is difficult to understand and see sometimes, but we have a comprehensive training set-up for ATOS and Capita, which will be conducting the assessment. Clearly, each of those people will need to be approved by the DWP. Autism is among a group of quite difficult things to assess, and I personally take his point about its importance. The Government take his point and we will make sure that, when we give the approvals for that, it is one of the issues that is dealt with absolutely properly.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I am very disappointed that this issue did not come to the Floor of the House for proper debate. At the very least, the change to 20 metres should have been clearly stated in the consultation documents. The lack of consultation with disabled people and all supporting evidence from experts in disability access as to what distance enables practical mobility and participation mean that there is a real risk that this issue will be open to judicial review. Is the Minister willing to take that risk?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the change was made because there was great concern among disability organisations about the previous draft. The concern was that only people in wheelchairs would qualify for the higher rate—that was picked up by Parkinson’s UK, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Disability Benefits Consortium and the National AIDS Trust, among others. That is why the change was made. I admit that I would have preferred there to have been more consultation on the 20 metres, but there is no effective change in the number of people receiving higher-rate mobility allowance because of this change. I hope that noble Lords will accept my assurances on this. That change has made it clearer and simpler to operate this measure; it has not changed the numbers affected. Before we start reassessing people in 2015, we will have had a full independent review which will have gone through this issue, among others, by the end of 2014.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Motability, which I co-founded in 1977 with the late Lord Goodman. Today, we have more than 620,000 vehicles on the road, which is probably the largest fleet of its type in the world. I fully support the principle that the welfare state should help those most in need, and government are actively implementing that principle, but we must appreciate that uncertainty about the effect of these changes will cause considerable worry and stress for many disabled people and their families. As my noble friend the Minister is more than aware, and as has been spoken about today, there is concern among disabled people at the recent change from 50 metres to 20 metres as the distance specified in the regulations for higher-rate mobility allowance. As the timetable for PIP implementation has been extended, will the Minister consider providing further information on, and rationale for, this change—through seminars, for example—thereby maintaining the trust and confidence in PIP being developed?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have to accept that there was inadequate discussion of the changes and that there is inadequate understanding of them—just the concerns that I am hearing today underline that. I shall pick up the suggestion of my noble friend about further communication with the relevant parties and look at how best to do that.
Asylum Seekers: Support
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the basis for their decision not to increase provision for asylum support under Sections 4 and 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in 2012; and when they will decide on the level of such provision for 2013.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, there is no statutory obligation to carry out an annual review of asylum support rates and it would be wrong to raise expectations in this area given the current constraints on funding. However, we are committed to an approach to asylum support that is fair, balanced and reasonable. Rightly, no one who has sought our protection need be destitute while waiting for an application to be decided, but, if it is refused and the decision is upheld by the courts, we expect these people to return home.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am grateful for, but somewhat puzzled by, that Answer. If the purpose of the support is to prevent anyone falling into destitution, how can that support be reduced in real terms by 6.2% over two years without redefining destitution? Will the Minister commit himself to studying the evidence for destitution in the cross-party report on asylum support for children to be published next week and to take any action necessary to avoid destitution for all, especially children?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope that I can reassure the right reverend Prelate. There is an ongoing review of our approach to asylum support, which I expect to be concluded by the end of the financial year. That review will take into account the views of partners, including any recommendations set out in the report of the Children’s Society inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, due to be published next week, I believe.
I put on record my thanks to the right reverend Prelate for his involvement in the production of the report. As noble Lords might assume, any changes to the arrangements will be reported to Parliament.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Children. Is my noble friend aware that it is unreasonable and unfair not to uprate the benefits paid to asylum seekers in common with all other recipients of benefit? With respect to Section 4 support, how much is saved by having a different regime for those people compared to those on Section 95 support? Would it not be better if every asylum seeker was on the same level of benefit, to avoid driving those on Section 4 support into destitution, as has happened?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend makes a very good point. In the briefing that I had before answering this Question, I was surprised to discover that there were two levels of benefit. It is important to emphasise what I said in answer to the right reverend Prelate’s supplementary question: a review is going on and we should await that to see what recommendations it makes. It must be important to take on board the point that my noble friend makes.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, as we have heard, children are the most vulnerable and at their most vulnerable in asylum and immigration cases. In the coalition agreement, it was pledged to end all child detention for immigration, and the mid-term review states that that pledge has been kept. Up to October last year, 113 children have been detained, albeit some in the more family-friendly unit at the Cedars, but 41 were detained elsewhere. In October 2012, 16 children were being held in detention; there were eight in the Cedars and another eight in other centres, including Yarl’s Wood and Tinsley House which has not even been approved by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. Can the Minister confirm whether any children are today in detention, including in the Cedars?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, I cannot confirm that to the noble Baroness; I do not have the up-to-date figures. As she indicated, there is a clear drive by the Government to eliminate situations where children are kept in those settings and to find alternative ways to accommodate families so that children are not separated, if that is possible.
I should point out that the level of support for families in this country is far greater for a family of four, for example, compared with Sweden or Denmark. Indeed, if there is any sector where there is a lesser payment than elsewhere, it tends to be for single adults.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To come from a slightly different angle, so many of those from the European Union who come to the UK find themselves destitute here. What plans have the Government to publicise the availability of accessing national insurance payments that have been made in Poland, Estonia, or wherever, in the United Kingdom?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
As my noble friend rightly points out, this is a slightly different question. Indeed, those benefits are payable by the Department for Work and Pensions rather than the Home Office, but I am sure that I can communicate my noble friend’s suggestion to my colleague in that department.
Egypt: Elections
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that international observers are invited to monitor the forthcoming election in Egypt.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, we have raised international election monitoring with the Egyptian authorities. They have published guidelines for international observation for the forthcoming parliamentary elections. The Carter Center and the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa, both of which have been funded from the UK’s Arab Partnership for previous elections in Egypt, have also had constructive discussions with the Egyptian authorities. They expect to be allowed to deploy observers for these elections.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful for the response from the Minister. Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the Egyptian revolution, when the Arab spring arrived in Tahrir Square with people taking to the streets to demand democracy, social justice and equal rights. Does the noble Baroness share my disappointment at the way in which the new constitution was adopted, and does she agree that the flawed process makes it even more important that the elections to the first National Assembly are free, fair and transparent?
Baroness Warsi
Tomorrow is an important anniversary. The noble Baroness is right; it is two years since the start of the revolution. Of course we have some concerns as to how the constitution was adopted. Among other things, although the vote in the end may have been over 60%, the turnout itself was quite low at just over 30%. We also have some specific concerns about contentious elements within the constitution but we are encouraged by the fact that there is now a review process. Like the noble Baroness, I look forward to parliamentary elections later this year.
Baroness Deech
Does the Minister agree that monitoring elections is insufficient in itself to guarantee democracy? You cannot have a proper election without freedom of speech and freedom of communication, while not locking up journalists and allowing women to participate fully.
Baroness Warsi
The noble Baroness makes an important point. Democracy is not just about going to the ballot box and putting a vote in it. It is about ensuring the whole process around that by making sure that people feel that they can have their say; that political parties can operate freely; that all in the country can feel that they have a right to vote; and that there is commentary about different political opinions. I agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Chidgey
My noble friend will be aware that last week the Carter Center issued its recommendations for reforms, which are critical to Egypt’s electoral process. It is repeating calls for many of the reforms that it called for after the previous elections in 2011-12. Can my noble friend tell the House how confident or otherwise the Government are that the election observation mission that has now been sanctioned by the Egyptian Government will be any more effective in delivering a free, fair and transparent election process than previously, particularly in regard to the role of women and to voter education and information?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend is right that concerns have been raised by the Carter institute. It is one of the reasons why our Arab Partnership has been funding that institute. One of the main themes of the Arab Partnership, which was set up by the Government two years ago, is to engage in the democratic process and strengthen civil society to be much more vocal about concerns over forthcoming elections. We continue to engage with all authorities in Egypt. The Foreign Secretary was there in September; the Minister responsible for asset recovery, Jeremy Browne, was in Egypt only last week to speak specifically on that, and I hope to be visiting in February.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, what is the Minister’s assessment of women’s participation in the forthcoming election process, given the role that the women of Egypt played not only in Tahrir Square but subsequently? What representation can she make to ensure that the observers who come also include women from different parts of the world, so that Egyptian women can take some support from the idea that other women are also with them?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Baroness makes an important point. I can assure her that the Government have been raising the issue of women’s rights both in relation to the election and more widely, such as the way in which the rights of women have been drafted into the current constitution. I also assure her that in my discussions next month, women’s rights will certainly be raised. This Minister certainly does not need prompting to raise them.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Is my noble friend confident that there will be elections in Egypt this year or will it be yet another question of one man, one vote, once?
Baroness Warsi
I am always cautious when I stand at the Dispatch Box and say that I have absolute confidence that something will happen in another country over which I do not have any control, so I probably cannot give my noble friend that assurance. We were hopeful that those elections would take place within about two months of the constitution, which should have been around the end of February possibly. However, some concerns about electoral law have been raised, which have been passed to the judiciary. We hope that elections for the Majlis Al-Chaab will take place this summer. In relation to the upper house, that is functional.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation of the UK Copts, of which I am honorary president, to consider especially the question of the outright, institutionalised discrimination in the constitution against Egyptian Copts, who have faced executions and the burning of their churches?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord is aware that this is a subject that is close to my heart. In relation to my human rights brief, I have made it a priority. I hosted a ministerial conference earlier this week that focused specifically on the freedom of religion and belief. This sought to build consensus around the arising issue of religious intolerance. I will meet members of the Coptic church when I visit Egypt and will raise these matters.
Business of the House
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Olympic Games 2012: Legacy
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Mawson
To move that this House takes note of the role of communities, the arts and creative industries in delivering a lasting legacy to the Olympics, and of the lessons that can be learnt more broadly.
Lord Mawson
My Lords, as we enter 2013 we are all conscious that we will remember 2012 as the year of the Olympics and Paralympics, and be thankful for the many men and women from across this country who came together and made the Games the world-class success that they were. But it is now time to move on and focus on the longer-term legacy of this investment and human endeavour. For me, today, that focus on legacy must now be on east London, which hosted the Games and made them possible in the first place.
There is no doubt that the Games accelerated public and private sector investment in east London and inspired a generation of young people and adults. There is a great deal to build on, but to ensure that this positive impact is sustained and to stop our legacy from being the white elephant that it has become for many previous host countries, we now need to focus.
Over the past year, politicians and the media have shown us a carefully co-ordinated view of the Games and our society through the lens of a flattering telescope. Today, I want to share with you the view up the telescope—a perspective whose roots come from working in East London on the ground for the last 30 years; a local perspective, the view of a neighbour from the heart of the lower Lea Valley.
The first thing to say is that for those of us who live and work in the lower Lea Valley, the Olympics are not and never have been the biggest show in town. The Games acted as a very important catalyst and we have hailed them as a significant milestone half way through a 50-year journey in regeneration. This journey began over 25 years ago and was led by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who took the first tentative steps in arresting east London’s decline by creating the London Docklands Development Corporation and later encouraging the development of the Canary Wharf financial district. Through his bold vision the lower Lea Valley once again found its place on the global map.
Today, a new city—a new metropolitan district of London—is emerging in the lower Lea Valley. Many of us locally call it Water City, and here I must declare an interest as chairman of the Water City CIC. This city stretches from the developments in Greenwich and around the O2. It takes in City Airport, which is growing fast, and the accelerating global investment in the Royal Docks—which includes the Abu Dhabi national exhibition and conference centre, the Siemens Crystal and the Emirates Air Line cable car, the £3.7 billion of investment taking place in Canning Town and the business district at Canary Wharf, which may double in size over the next decade.
The scale of international investment in the lower Lea Valley is truly staggering. Ten minutes on the Jubilee line will take you to the Westfield shopping centre, which has had more than 48 million visitors since it opened. The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is a stone’s throw to the north-west—and here I must declare an interest as a director of the LLDC, where we plan to build five new villages and connect these communities into the surrounding area. Then, of course, a short distance to the west, in Hackney, you have Tech City: a significant growth area in modern technology whose tentacles are already starting to spread into both the park and the Canary Wharf districts.
Many of us locally call this colossus Water City because of the 6.5 miles of river and canals that surround London Docklands and connect the many pieces of this regeneration jigsaw. Water has driven our economy from the heart of the lower Lea Valley for over a thousand years. The time has come to capture the glorious history of east London’s trading past and to build a new city fit for the future, a city not defined by poverty and dependency, as in east London’s recent past, but by human endeavour and entrepreneurial spirit. We are in the moment: the biggest opportunity which we all must now grasp is to change east London for ever. The question is, how?
A clue lies in the £1 billion regeneration programme of work in Poplar where ground-breaking work has been done by the local housing company and its partners, which are starting to demonstrate in practice how you can work with local residents in housing estates to move us all on from the familiar dependency cultures and create enterprising communities focused on entrepreneurial and business activity, bringing together truly joined-up projects that start to connect health, education, housing and enterprise. This is the future.
For those of us living and working in the lower Lea Valley, the big story for us—barely noticed by the Olympic project—is the entrepreneurial culture that is growing among local people as communities embrace an enterprise culture in its many forms and move on from a dependency culture that is so often driven by the public sector institutions. As one example, when I arrived in east London 30 years ago most charities were suspicious of business. Today, the Bromley by Bow Centre, which I founded, has only 6% of its funding dependent on the public sector; most of our relationships as a local community organisation are with business. A part of this big story is the practical working relationships developing between major businesses and the social enterprise sector.
So, how do we similarly turn the rhetoric of legacy into reality? What needs to happen now to maximise this legacy opportunity and grasp the moment? First, we must start with the people and the place, not with the policy or strategy. The Olympics showcased what can be achieved when this latent energy and talent is harnessed. In my experience, communities and places often reinvent themselves organically from within, and the good news is that the conditions are now right: many local leaders and entrepreneurs are up for this journey in east London. There exists in east London a real opportunity for innovation: to explore, for example, on the first Olympic village what those key words in the Health and Social Care Act “enterprise”, “innovation” and “integration” might actually mean in practice. How do we explore them, and how do we prevent the procurement rules preventing us from doing innovation?
Secondly, we must now take the long-term view. Phase 2 of this 50-year regeneration journey is just beginning, and we have at least 25 years of focused hard work ahead of us. One of our problems in east London is the public sector endlessly restructuring itself around those of us trying to build fully engaged communities. We have too many good people coming and going in the merry-go-round of public sector structures. The recently defunct London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, for example, spent many millions of pounds on policies, strategies and plans, but actually built very little. We need to understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, describes in his excellent report No Stone Unturned, that the energy and drive in local communities does not come from Whitehall or necessarily from London government but comes from those already living and working there. But government needs to get behind these people and start showing active and sustained support. The GLA says that there will be no money in 2015, and some people are privately murmuring, “Let’s throw it all in the air!”. No. Let us stick with the project, talk with the private sector and work it out. All our experience tells us that we need consistent leadership in east London over the next quarter of a century. The job is not done: we are simply at the end of the beginning.
We all need to continue to focus hard on attracting business to the area. We need to get the international train stopping at Stratford station; we need to get a proper Thames crossing in place, a tunnel and a bridge; and we need to invest in new schools, university technical colleges and higher education institutions that will enable young east Londoners to grab hold of opportunity. In particular, getting University College London to Stratford will be another game changer for east London.
Thirdly, did you know that the lower Lea Valley is home to the largest artistic and creative community outside New York? I still fail to understand why the BBC did not decide to move a key component of its operation into the middle of this dynamic environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Ford, did so much to try and make this happen, but maybe my noble friend Lord Hall can revisit this opportunity as he takes the wheel of the BBC this year. This is a fantastic opportunity for a key cultural institution to have a base in this new and emerging dynamic area of London. Stop looking west: start looking east.
Fourthly, organic growth and partnership working is key to innovation. If the five Olympic villages are to become thriving and enterprising communities, and not just another group of soulless east London housing estates, then the public sector needs to see this new city landscape as a real opportunity to innovate and experiment on many fronts. It is not the public sector’s job to do everything for us, but it is its job to create enabling conditions.
A key component of the future of the lower Lea Valley is going to be science and technology, just as the valley was in the past the birthplace of modern biotechnology and the place where plastics, petrol refining and bone china were invented, and where perfumes, rockets and airplanes were developed. One project I am working on with Professor Brian Cox—I declare my interest—aims to connect science education to health and business development on the edge of the park, to help make London and the UK the best place in the world to do science. This illustrates the kinds of relationships between science, education and business that are starting to emerge among the next generation of young east Londoners.
There are concerns locally as we look forward as colleagues in the public, business and social enterprise sectors. Will large public sector bodies, which have a track record of missing opportunities in east London and messing up on the detail, kill the entrepreneurial spirit that is in east London today? We worry in the midst of this opportunity that government will not learn the lessons of what actually works on the ground and build on them, but that along the way—that through this 25-year-plus task—new Administrations will come along, reinvent the wheel around us, and the continuity that we now need to build thriving sustainable communities will be lost. This once in a lifetime opportunity in east London now demands that all political parties, whether in or out of office, use the time we now have to understand what works on the ground, build on it and back success.
Over the past three years I have chaired the All-Party Group on Regeneration, Sport and Culture, and during that time we have run a number of visits for Peers and MPs by boat into the lower Lea Valley. I think many colleagues have been surprised by the scale of the investment and the opportunities that now exist there. Sir David Varney, former CEO of Shell and chairman of O2, recognised on his trip that the valley has the potential to be one of the most significant business investment areas in Europe. But let us get the detail right. We need a joined-up narrative for the investment community across the world that has integrity and is deeply connected to the social, economic and demographic realities on the ground.
I hear lots of politicians quoting numbers and statistics on social housing and the like when they talk about legacy. That is all very well, but as those of us who live, work and have to build buildings there know, the key task now is to build sustainable communities which are defined not by ticking boxes but by diversity—by thriving communities who see that they have a life there for themselves and their children, and who will invest wholeheartedly in the place. It is about the detail of how you do this in practice.
Communities are about people like Leanne Doig. Leanne is a 20 year-old woman from Canning Town who has wanted to get into the construction business for as long as she can remember but was always told that she could not because she did not have what it takes—mainly that she was a girl and not a boy. She got her basic qualifications at college but her big opportunity came with an apprenticeship on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park for the transformation works. She says:
“I want to own my own Company and have loads and loads of women working for me”.
She also says:
“I’ve been brought up here my whole life and all people ever do is look down on east London … to have the Park will change things because it will give everyone a chance”.
That is the spirit of young east Londoners that we must encourage. Leanne is a young woman who is excited about her part of town. She has spotted the opportunities that the changes in east London are creating for her and her peers, and is grabbing them with both hands with energy and entrepreneurial intent. She understands that the route to equal opportunities is through practical hard work and inspiration. Is that not what the Games were all about? Why should regeneration be anything different? My question to the Minister is: what are the Government now going to do to help us grab hold of this bigger picture in the lower Lea Valley, to connect the dots and to learn from this new city rising like a phoenix in the East End of London?
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on introducing this debate and on the excellent speech that he made in setting out his vision for what needs to happen in the development of east London. Many of your Lordships know that few people know more about that area, or have contributed a greater personal commitment to it, than the noble Lord. I think that the only thing that he got wrong was the time. As he was speaking, I reflected on when I first got involved. In 1979, 34, years ago, Michael Heseltine and I flew over the dockland area. We looked down on 5,000 derelict acres, which were a couple of miles from some of the most valuable real estate in the world—the City of London—and made a great cry that something must be done. I had the privilege of taking through the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which set up the London Docklands Development Corporation, out of which flowed so much, including Canary Wharf.
I must declare an interest. For the past 18 years, I have been involved in the creation and establishment of ExCeL, which is now a world-class, international convention and exhibition centre. Kindly, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred to it as one of the key growth elements in east London. That is particularly satisfying because I agree very much with what he said about government bodies and public bodies coming and going. I am very proud that we built ExCeL. It was a private sector venture, without any great government subsidy. Most big convention and exhibition centres around the world are owned either by the city or the government. They usually lose money and are a charge on the ratepayer. I am very proud that ExCeL has established itself as a successful and valuable addition to the economy of London.
In our early days, it was a great battle to get recognition for east London. When I first talked about ExCeL, a lot of people thought that it would be somewhere near Southend. There used to be a great bias in favour of west London and the centre of London. In terms of the population and its distribution, the centre of London has now moved: many noble Lords will know that it used be at Hyde Park Corner, is now thought to be at Tower Bridge and is steadily moving east. A lot of people thought that it was rather inaccessible. One of the most valuable legacies of the Olympics has been the recognition by so many people of how easy it now is to get there. There was enormous investment by successive Governments, both the present and previous, in improving communications in east London.
ExCeL is now considered to be probably one of the best connected major venues in the world in terms of its communications given the proximity of the DLR, the Jubilee line and the City airport, not forgetting one of the most amazing attractive new ventures comprising the Emirates AirLine: that is, the cable car which runs from the O2 to ExCeL. I recommend it to any of your Lordships who have not been on it. I took my grandson on it during the Olympics and he insisted on going on it three times as he found it so enjoyable. However, the area has battled to get recognition. In this respect the Olympic legacy to which the noble Lord referred is very important.
During the Olympics, 1.5 million people visited ExCeL. The figure for the Olympic Park is even more substantial. In 2012, 5 million people visited ExCeL. An important element of these major success stories in east London is that we have made people recognise how accessible the area is and the quality of the facilities that now exist there. The area will create enormous economic benefit for London and considerable economic benefit for the United Kingdom.
ExCeL is now in the business of trying to attract major international conventions. London, with all its amazing attractions and facilities, was ranked 20th in the world in market share of big international conventions. I am proud to say that, given the number of bookings taken at ExCeL, we have already moved up to seventh in the world ranking. Given the quality of the other facilities that London offers, I cannot believe that it will not end up in the top four, with all the benefit that that would bring. ExCeL generates £1.8 billion worth of economic benefit a year. A recent PwC report said that 32,000 jobs are derived directly or indirectly from activities at ExCeL. We have latched on to an important industry in the world today: that is, hospitality and tourism. It is a major employer in all sorts of different activities and a major boost for the economies of those countries that can develop it. It offers considerable employment at a time of obvious concern about employment opportunities. I am not talking just about ExCeL but the whole tourism and hospitality industry in which the United Kingdom needs to have a share.
As regards the Olympic legacy, one of the things that people around the world noted was not just the quality of the facilities at the Olympics but the niceness of the people involved in them. The Games makers and the Games ambassadors did a wonderful job for London and for Britain. Until I came to prepare my speech, I did not realise that 40% of London’s population were born overseas. Therefore, whatever country you come from, you will probably find a few of your fellow countrymen in London willing to welcome you to the city, and that was the case with the Games. Indeed, the Games makers were almost as important as the quality of the facilities. That is one of the legacies that will undoubtedly survive and I hope that other parts of the country recognise it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and I have worked together closely in a number of areas, and we know how good the co-operation is between the different bodies—Newham council, the City airport, Westfield, Canary Wharf, Transport for London and the DLR. We know the people involved in those bodies and are on Christian name terms with one another. This legacy is coming together for the benefit of the people of east London and London as a whole. It is developing and has reached a critical mass. As the noble Lord said, it will take many years to go forward but the only way is up. I congratulate him on the contribution that he has made to help this legacy move forward.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has offered the House to reflect on the legacy of the Olympics. Like the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, I pay tribute to his extraordinary role, not only over the past 20 years but in the way he has seized the opportunities that the Olympics presented to go forward. That was clear in his excellent speech. He has agreed that I can extend the terminology of the debate very slightly to talk about our physical and cultural heritage, but I can also reflect on what he has said in that context about regeneration and the way in which that heritage not only formed some of the most powerful images of the Olympics but helped to show some of the opportunities available to us.
The Olympic vision gave essentially and crucially a defining and dynamic role to our heritage. I declare an interest as the chair of English Heritage. I was very impressed by the way in which the confidence in our culture, our creativity and our communities came across in those images and what they said to the rest of the world, not least in terms of community engagement. I start with the fabulous opening ceremony, which depicted the extraordinary sweep of history from ancient earthworks to the rural and pastoral scene, to the Industrial Revolution and to the National Health Service. It presented breathtaking imagery, which told us who we are, who we think we are and where we have come from. What I found most stirring was the dramatic demonstration that our present brilliance in the two critical creative industries of design and engineering, in which we have a global lead, is rooted in the genius of the Industrial Revolution, stretching from Brunel to Sir Tim Berners-Lee. We witnessed the extraordinary forging of the rings from the furnaces of the past and the creation of a beautiful, exemplary democratic torch, an illustration that our legacy must lie in our future with intensive investment in innovation, design and engineering, because that is what we are very good at.
The point is that we know how to do it. You have only to walk through St Pancras these days and look at the way in which the Kings Cross quarter is developing to see the extraordinary fusion of three centuries of engineering and architectural genius and the incorporation of the old and the new. We must think not only of London but of the images presented of the rest of the country. They include the mills and weaving sheds; the fragile and rather scarce industrial memories, which are becoming the powerhouses of the future; communities engaged in setting up local technical universities; vibrant arts centres; community enterprise; and high-tech industries. We hear no longer the clacking of the looms but the whizzing and whirring of brains in these places.
One aspect of our community legacy will be to ensure that our heritage is seen as something that serves the future—something to be picked up confidently at local and community levels as part of regeneration and industrial policy, as it is already doing in the East End. Indeed, English Heritage invested £1 million in one project, High Street 2012, which saw the restoration of buildings along Mile End Road and new listings along the route, involving children in identifying the most important buildings and drawing them, showing which meant the most to them in their community. That is an excellent legacy for the protection of the future
Above all, the Olympics connected with the reality of who we are and the diversity of our community—a country used to living in the light and shade of history. Everywhere people saw where they lived in a new light as they saw their reflection in the torch as it went through, whether it was at Stonehenge or in our medieval and historic towns. Who will forget the images of London, the three-day eventing in Greenwich Park or beach volleyball on Horse Guards Parade? Apart from the sheer pride in place— which is beyond price—the community benefits in other ways. First, it benefits, I hope, in the way in which heritage is viewed, valued and will be protected in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord King, said, we have seen the extraordinary phenomenon of joyful volunteerism, which I think, like measles, will spread to places that it may not yet have reached. I know that English Heritage will be taking advantage of that.
I turn specifically to the Cultural Olympiad and one of the projects in which English Heritage was involved, Discovering Places, a grass-roots campaign of live events, performances, online blogs and social media bringing together more than 250,000 people in this country to discover their local built and historic environments. These were pioneering partnerships. Of course, arts and heritage go together. There is no contest; it is not new. But the Cultural Olympiad broke down some of the barriers between culture, the arts, heritage and technologies. It encouraged risk, shoved out the boundaries and engaged on an innovative scale. It showed that there are innovative ways of bringing arts and heritage together in the physical framework, such as, for example, setting fire to Stonehenge. That actually worked all right. I could give many examples, but what I am trying to say is that the Olympics and Paralympics gave us a unique opportunity to showcase the monuments, the buildings and the beautiful places that are our legacy. That legacy would not have existed if our predecessors had not recognised that it was necessary to protect it. Part of the legacy should be to ensure that we understand and care for it, and protect it more effectively, so that it can serve the future more energetically.
I shall end by advising noble Lords that 2013 may be the morning after the party but for our cultural heritage it is the beginning of the party, as we celebrate in 2013 the centenary of the Ancient Monuments Act, introduced in this House by a Private Member’s Bill. The Act recognised for the first time that there are some physical remains of the nation’s history that are so special and so significant that only the nation itself can look after them properly to secure their survival and lay the foundations for a world class heritage protection system. That collection of 850 monuments all over Britain, cared for by the leading cultural institutions—English Heritage, Cadw and Historic Scotland—tell the story of the nation. This year we will be telling the story of the nation in that way, and I hope that noble Lords will enjoy it and join us in doing it. We are celebrating what our predecessors achieved, and we will be inviting those communities to step further into history. One of my hopes is that there will be increasing commitment in local communities to looking after their local heritage. Above all, I want that legacy and the Olympics this year, which made it so much more plausible, to show that we are neither tied to the past nor indifferent to it. We are very comfortable in making the old serve the new. Our heritage is not static; it is not separate from life but dynamic. It is something that we are not afraid to change. It is our competitive edge and we should build on it. That is something that we will owe to the Olympics as well.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on securing this debate.
The modern Olympic movement was created by Pierre de Coubertin, an amateur boxer, but also a part-time poet. The cornerstone to his vision in reviving the Olympics was to bring sport and culture together in one great festival. That, of course, was precisely what London did in 2012. Its Cultural Olympiad was a triumph, and here I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, who so brilliantly chaired the Cultural Olympiad board, Ruth Mackenzie, director of the Cultural Olympiad and Dame Tessa Jowell who was so pivotal in its original conception.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, I refer back to Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony—a beautiful, brilliant spectacular. It was complex, self-deprecating in its narrative, although not in its conception and execution, and deeply humorous. As well as a celebration of the entity that is the United Kingdom this was a showcase for our creativity and for our creative industries. Take James Bond, which is, first, the product of writer Ian Fleming; then of film makers, actors, special effects creators, costume and set designers, and those who make the costumes and sets. And finally, in Boyle’s dazzling tangle of fiction and fact, the fictional spy gets to meet the factual Queen and her corgis.
The ceremony also celebrated music, television and art, and how art and design come together in such wonderful creations as Thomas Heatherwick’s cauldron and, centre stage, literally, Tim Berners-Lee, the British creator of the world wide web. It was shot through with recognition of our creative accomplishments—and it was a huge accomplishment in its very self.
This debate invites us to take note of the role of communities. The Cultural Olympiad pledged to encompass thousands of local and regional events as part of our nationwide celebration—and it did. Martin Creed’s “Any Bell. Anyone. Anywhere.” was one of the Olympiad’s biggest community projects. At 8.12 pm on 27 July, almost 3 million people across the UK rang bells to celebrate the first day of the Games. They included individuals, communities and organisations; enthusiastic children; change-ringing experts; Big Ben; and the bells of the UK Parliaments and of British embassies across the world.
In all, 621 productions and projects resulted in 13,000 performances and events at 1,270 venues across the UK. There was street art and high art, hip hop and ballet. Everywhere, new audiences were introduced to the arts. LOCOG estimates that 19 million people participated in the Cultural Olympiad, and that 10 million people have been inspired to continue to take part in cultural activity. We are here to talk about legacy, and we must ensure that these people continue to do this. We must ensure that the fact that the strongest interest in the Olympiad came from younger audiences and ethnic minorities is not lost but built upon. We must ensure that the innovative new partnerships that creators forged online, and at local, regional and national level, continue.
We on these Benches welcome the Arts Council’s initiative of a creative employment programme of apprenticeships and paid internships in the cultural sector for unemployed 16 to 24 year-olds. We welcome the setting up of a creative people and places fund that will focus investment on parts of the country where people’s involvement in the arts is significantly below average. However, the most important thing is that we continue to create the creators. In this area we face not a jobs problem but a skills problem. The Next Gen. report published last year drew attention to the fact that our education system was not keeping up with the times, and in particular that the way ICT is taught in schools did not provide the appropriate skills. The good news is that the coalition Government listened. A draft programme of study for ICT, which from 2014 will include a computer programming option, has been developed, and last October the Secretary of State for Education announced bursaries of £20,000 for 50 top graduates to train as computer science teachers.
However central the understanding of technology has become to the creative industries, they are still underpinned by creativity itself. The creative economy needs creative employees—people who are skilled not just in computer science but also in art and other creative subjects. Darren Henley’s report on cultural education is another crucial element in delivering a lasting creative legacy. The Secretary of State for Education greeted the Henley review with huge enthusiasm. The government response to the review, published last February, stated that a national plan for cultural education would follow immediately. The last time I asked when this would happen—because despite the “immediately”, it still has not—I was told that it would be at the beginning of this year. Will the Minister assure me that this is still the case and therefore that publication is imminent?
There is concern about the lack of a sixth strand to the EBacc that would cover creative subjects. It was argued that this was not necessary and that there was plenty of room for them in the curriculum. But it is all about perception. Grayson Perry stated:
“If arts subjects aren’t included in the EBacc, schools won’t stop doing them overnight … By default, resources won’t go into them. With the best will in the world, schools will end up treating arts subjects differently”.
There is evidence that this is already happening. A participant at a recent Westminster Education Forum described how he had,
“spoken to many headteachers who are cutting subjects from their Key Stage 4 curriculum in order to feed into the EBacc … So … now the school is saying, geography is in the EBacc, drama isn't, we really, really recommend you do geography, or in some cases you have to”.
For us to continue to excel we must place creative subjects at the heart of our education system. If a sixth strand to the EBacc is not to be, I am sure that the Minister will agree that action must be taken to ensure that head teachers do not treat creative subjects as second-class. Grayson Perry’s prediction must not be allowed to come true.
Dame Tessa Jowell said in 2008 that the 2012 Olympics presented,
“a rare chance and a real opportunity: to deepen and widen engagement with culture in all its forms”.
The Cultural Olympiad delivered this. We must ensure that the Olympic legacy lasts.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I declare my interests: I was involved in LOCOG until the end of the Games and have been recently appointed to the London Legacy Development Corporation alongside the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who I thank for tabling this debate.
I am delighted to be talking about the legacy of the Games but, for once, not about sport. Sport is still really important and I will still keep campaigning for good school sports, but much effort is expended, not least in the media, on measuring participation figures and debating appropriate levels of physical activity and what elite sport is going to look like in the 1,289 days to the Olympics and 1,322 days to the Paralympics in Rio. That is okay. Through the Games, I was introduced to a much wider constituency of people. I found that people from culture were not different; we had very similar aims of inspiring people to do something different. We must continue this communication.
I was involved in the bid from 10 years ago because I wanted to consolidate the Paralympics in the UK, and I think that we have achieved that. I was in Madrid last year with the Foreign Office, and members of the bid team there told me that they had very strong evidence to prove the economic advantage of just being a candidate city, let alone of winning the Games. There is also strong evidence for that from other cities.
When I went to Stratford for the first time in 2004, I found it almost impossible to imagine how the Games could happen. An integral part of the bid in 2005 was showing the amazing history, culture and art that is the UK. I will never forget the moment when the noble Lord, Lord Coe, stood in front of the IOC and asked the children in the audience who had come from the East End of London to stand, in order to show the world what we meant by diversity.
I asked Kate Allenby, an Olympian as well as a teacher, about the effects that she had seen from the Games. She said, “The linking of arts and culture through the tool of Boyle’s opening ceremony and the torch relay evoked a new, incredible level of interest amongst our school children. It demonstrated the power of being uniquely British—opening a gateway for children to explore and be inquisitive about who WE really are and where WE really come from”.
As I was leaving the presentation after the speeches in 2005, a member of the Paris bid team stopped me and said that we had done one thing that they had never expected from us—show emotion.
Obviously there has been a lot of talk about venues. It was right to build temporary venues; they may have cost more in the first place but will save money in the long term. Now that the Games are over, it is important to consider how Queen Elizabeth Park blends into and defines the local community, and this is what I hope the LLDC will do. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, is passionate about this, and I strongly support his work. The park cannot be an oasis that isolates or displaces the local community. In the lead-up to the Games, much time and thought was given to the employment of people from the host boroughs, diversity and procurement, involving people from every background. This work is not massively high-profile or of much interest to the media, but it needs to continue now that the Games have moved on.
As an athlete, I moved in and out of cities, often not spending much time there. My first Games were in Seoul, which bid for the Games because it was about showing vitality and that it was a modern city and was technologically up to date. The organising committee sold the Olympic village and media centre a year before the Games for $264 million but the Paralympics had a different village, as there was concern that people would not want to live where all those disabled people had been. However, they did sell the village on. Many disabled people at that time were begging on the streets, and the Games gave them the opportunity to change their lives. It was sad, however, that many of the Paralympians who we saw compete were not able to carry on their career after 1988. This cannot be said of Britain.
Barcelona was more publicly known for its regeneration, but by 1993 33% of the village was not sold. Athens was about reorganisation, and as athletes we were simply grateful that the village was built and finished, or at least nearly finished.
Sydney was about tourism, and was my first experience of bids. I was part of the Manchester bid, and it did not matter that we had years—I think around 60 years—of data to show that in spring Sydney had significantly more rain than Manchester did in summer. All they had to do was hold up a picture of the Sydney Opera House and a beach, and we lost. Actually, possibly they had to do a bit more than that.
The Beijing Games helped to change the city. In 2000 it had 392 hotels and 80,000 hotel rooms. This had risen to 800 hotels and 180,000 hotel rooms by 2008.
These days I am pleased to say that, beyond sport, the Cultural Olympiad is expected to add significantly to the prestige and prosperity of the Games. Through 2012 I was delighted to see projects, funded through Unlimited, that celebrated the work of deaf and disabled artists on an unprecedented scale.
The Women of the World event organised by Jude Kelly at the Southbank had sessions on all aspects of sport for the first time. I met artists who learnt the benefit of being physically active. Unfortunately, the one project that I was not able to be involved in was very interesting—it was using my spinal X-rays to create art.
Much of what I want to highlight could never be described as a creative industry, but it may be the start of inspiring others. After the torch relay, many people have approached me and said that this inspired them to join local groups, to contribute back to the community and to look at culture in a different way. There are several groups of Games makers and London ambassadors but one, the Spirit of London 2012, helps local groups find volunteers for other projects. This is community spirit at its best and what the big society should really be.
In the past 18 months I have visited many schools, either in person or through the power of modern technology on my computer. They embrace not only sport but art. I have been sent pictures, collages, models and boiled eggs dressed as athletes, Games makers and performers; I have been sent essays using the Games as an inspiration. That was not just before the Games, this is happening now. Who knows who will go forward from these people to form an integral part of future creative industries?
I was also reminded by Kate Allenby of the quilting project, where thousands of local organisations joined together to send each and every athlete who came to London 2012 a memento of their time in London. I had a beautiful cushion sent to me by residents of a care home. Who can forget the guerrilla knitters of Saltburn depicting every Olympic and Paralympic sport on the pier? The Games makers were stunning in themselves, but if you looked carefully you could see “knitteds”. Many knitted Games makers were proudly being carried, and I have one on my desk. It was started by Liz Gibson, who made the first one and then made the pattern freely available to anyone who wanted it. I met one young man working at Heathrow Airport as a Games maker who knitted his own, complete with full accreditation. For those who could not knit their own, others helped out. I met many young people who, because they had seen the knitteds, suddenly decided that they wanted to learn to knit so that they could make one of their own. These are not the big projects we associate with the cultural Olympiad, but they are really important.
On a personal note, the Paralympic Games gave me the opportunity to fly through the air on a high wire. “Terrified” is the only word I can use. I have been asked more questions about that than about sport. For me it will never happen again, but it will give inspiration to young people who think it can.
The Games were a magical moment to be celebrated and were so much more than sport. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that this is the start, not the end.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has done both this House and the Government a great service by introducing this debate. If one looks at the place of the east end of London in the history of our country over the past 50 years, it would be true to say that, until recent years, no one comes out of it with any great credit. It has been one of the great unobserved areas of our country. Happily, that is changing and will continue to change, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater made clear.
The second reason I wanted to be here today is to pay a personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. He is the epitome of what has caused the change in the east end of London. He is rightly recognised around the world as one of its foremost social entrepreneurs, and he can point to overwhelming evidence which lends great credence to what he has said to us today.
In the time that is available, I want to concentrate on only one lesson. That does not mean the others are not important but colleagues have already addressed them. I want to look at that part of the Motion which refers to lessons that can be learnt more broadly and concentrate on only one. We can talk about a lasting legacy and occasionally get the feeling that the Government, the public or local government have the responsibility for it. It is none of these. Trust the people. They have the ideas and the aspirations, and in the east end of London they have the multicultural base on which to build and develop.
This is a good forum in which to say that it is a mistake to believe that lasting legacy is solely or, indeed, overwhelmingly guaranteed by the spending of public money. It is much more important than the spending of public money. The lesson I would like to draw from the Games as a foundation for lasting legacy is that which we have learnt from my noble friend Lord Coe and the then Mr Deighton. It is the lesson of leadership. We rightly celebrate the athletes and para-athletes and we rightly celebrate those who worked on the ground to make the Games an enormous and impressive spectacle and such a happy occasion. But there needed to be firm leadership and a broad-based understanding of what constitutes leadership, in that it is not all in the public sector or the private sector. It is a sensitive combination for the common good. That leadership is frequently not as available in our society as many of us would like, so I want to thank the people who had the responsibility for organising and delivering the Games on time and on budget, neither of which is inevitably the consequence of activities in our nation.
However, Government and Ministers have a role to play in all this, but it is not the role of providing exclusive leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, is perhaps the most sterling example of the fact that you do not have to look to Government to lead renaissance and change. I would like to suggest that the role Ministers should play is that of—if I may use a rather inelegant colloquialism—banging heads together. It is to say to people, “Your mindset is wrong. Your locality cannot move forward unless you address the mindset”. Those who are involved locally find it hard to do that, so they need guidance from outside. Sometimes Ministers need to move in to resolve turf wars which hold up progress on the ground. Sometimes they need to move in and say, “I understand your focus on the detail, but actually the bigger picture is this, and this is what we should be doing”. Sometimes Ministers need to say that the relationship between Government, local government and the private sector is simply not good enough and needs to be changed.
What we have learnt from the Olympics is that change creates challenges. I would say to Ministers and to my noble friend: in case you think there is nothing for you to do, take all of your colleagues down to Bromley-by-Bow and let them see what has emerged from virtually nothing. It is one of the most impressive displays of social entrepreneurship anywhere. We are focusing on the European Union these days and it is more impressive than anywhere in the Union. The question to be asked is this. What head-banging needs to be done to enable Bromley-by-Bow to move even further ahead and to see that being replicated across the whole of the Lower Lea Valley? Stratford station is sitting there. Perhaps my noble friend would like to encourage one or two of his colleagues to ensure that the station is actually used, and used properly. I declare an interest because I was the Secretary of State with responsibility for the Channel Tunnel and the building of Stratford station.
We are talking about how the Olympic stadium might be used in the future. It might get tied in to football. It ought to have some tie-in to athletics, and maybe a little head-banging needs to be contemplated by my ministerial colleagues, and the encouraging of more investment in the facilities. The private sector can provide the money but sometimes it needs a little bit of help from Ministers to clear the ground to enable that money to be spent effectively.
My lesson for the legacy of the Games is that we ought to focus on and encourage real, sensitive, community-led leadership.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for introducing this debate. I begin by declaring that I was heavily involved in monitoring the delivery of the 2012 Games on behalf of the London Assembly. Throughout that time, my main concern was the Olympic legacy. The bid promised that,
“the most enduring legacy of the Olympics will be the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit of everyone who lives there”.
We must do everything possible to ensure that that promise is kept. However, this regeneration will not happen by itself. It requires proper planning and execution. It also requires some government funding. Without this, we will be at the mercy of private developers.
The focus of the legacy plans is the Olympic Park, the Lower Lea Valley and the surrounding communities, which are set to become an important area for business investment. The regeneration of this area provides an opportunity for innovation and engagement with local people, but the Government must help rather than hinder this process. I say this because, whenever a big idea or large-scale scheme is being launched, all tiers of government have a tendency to reinvent the wheel by setting up a new organisation to deliver it. Time and again, we end up with cumbersome bureaucracy and fail to use the expertise of people on the ground. Ministers and the Mayor of London should not get involved in the detail but should set out a clear vision and then leave the implementation to experienced people who understand the needs of local communities and businesses.
A good example of that principle in practice is the work of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, which owns and operates three Olympic venues: the White Water Centre, the VeloPark and the Hockey and Tennis Centre. The authority uses a tried and tested business model for sports venues, which allows it to make profits while remaining focused on the needs of local communities. This business model encourages the widest possible range of visitors, including both grass-roots and elite use. It is a very innovative authority. When it won the bid to build the White Water Centre for the Olympics, it decided also to build an easier course for the general public. This has become a huge commercial, sporting and social success, with visitor numbers and income more than double the original estimates. The authority’s programme for the VeloPark will include a mix of first-timers, schools, major events, leagues, races and sessions for a variety of groups: the over-50s, disabled people and women-only activities, because women are greatly underrepresented in cycling activity.
I have highlighted the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority because it illustrates very well what can be achieved when government sets out a broad strategy and then leaves it to people who know what they are doing to get on with it. This principle should be applied to other legacy projects.
However, there are real challenges. The work done by the Arts Council in developing an arts and cultural legacy is a good example. Some really excellent arts projects were delivered in the run-up to and during the Olympics but, sadly, very little of this was designed to appeal to people living in disadvantaged communities, who are seriously underrepresented in the arts. This is largely because the Arts Council is relying on the usual partners instead of working with people on the ground who understand the kinds of activities that appeal to local people.
The problem is not achieving a legacy but achieving the right kind of legacy. The transformation of the Olympic Park is well under way. But in the present tough economic climate, some major challenges must be addressed to ensure that local people get the range of homes, jobs and business opportunities they were promised. The provision of the right number and type of affordable homes, for example, requires some very difficult decisions by the Government and the Mayor of London. It is essential to maximise the number of affordable homes and to invest in high-quality schools and health facilities for the residents, but these needs will have to be balanced against the availability of grants and the requirement to repay to the National Lottery the funds generated from Olympic Park land sales.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that we need international trains to stop at Stratford, and we also need a new Thames crossing in east London. The Government must invest in local infrastructure to boost private sector investment in the area. Most importantly, we need government at all levels to lay out a clear and cohesive vision, to stick to that plan and to allow experienced people on the ground to deliver it without undue interference. This will give the private sector the confidence to invest. It will also invigorate the greatest resource in the area: the local people and communities whose entrepreneurial energy has already driven so much change in east London.
William Ewart Gladstone asserted the principle of “trust in the people, qualified by prudence”. I suggest we do the same.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I thoroughly enjoyed the Games and felt very proud indeed to be a Londoner. I would question only whether we took seriously enough the commitment to deliver a multilingual Games, and consequently whether we have short-changed ourselves on this aspect of the Olympic legacy. I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages. I thank everybody responsible for the most brilliant staging of Shakespeare in other languages at the Globe as part of the Cultural Olympiad.
My contention is that if, as Olympic hosts, we had made more connections between the official language services during the Games and language teaching in schools, we could have matched young people’s enthusiasm for the Games with an injection of new enthusiasm for learning foreign languages, and perhaps even seen an increase in the number of teenagers sticking with languages after the age of 14.
This is such an important legacy issue because the lack of language skills in the UK is currently damaging our economy and competitiveness. The employability and social mobility of our young people are seriously limited as they compete for jobs in a global labour market. Employers are recruiting from overseas because neither school-leavers nor graduates from the UK have the language skills, and the cultural knowledge that goes with them, to meet the needs of business. Robust evidence shows that lack of language skills is a barrier to export growth.
Of course, the irony is that London is the most multilingual city in the UK and Newham is the UK’s most multilingual borough. Dozens of local schoolchildren could have easily spotted the embarrassing mistake on the sign at the entrance to the Olympic Park, which said “Welcome to London” in various languages but the Arabic section was written back to front. This faux pas in an otherwise hugely successful international event led to Britain’s inability to cope with foreign languages being ridiculed not only in our own media but in press stories in the US, South Africa, China and the Middle East.
I first asked an Oral Question about the steps the Government were taking to prepare for a multilingual Olympics in December 2008. Of course, it was a different Government then, although I do not believe that the present one would have taken a significantly different line. The Minister of the day told me that the Government,
“are working to ensure that the Games leave a lasting legacy of language development”.
He also said that,
“we will need to draw on the vast range of communities that can offer language skills to the wide variety of visitors whom we will receive”.—[Official Report, 16/12/08; col. 731.]
Unfortunately, this proactive attitude was not really followed through. We even had to rely on the French embassy to help to fund a translator for the announcements in French during the Games. Why could that not have been part of the mainstream budget? It would even have been a great challenge for local schools.
There were several language projects but LOCOG seems to have regarded them as marginal. The Welcoming the World programme helped more than 60 companies with translating signage and training staff, but its funding from the LDA ceased in April 2010 and LOCOG declined to pick it up. Similarly, the Routes into Languages programme and the Capital L group worked with schools and colleges on the importance of languages and the opportunities offered by the Games. However, again, their funding ran out and they found very little support from LOCOG.
The Get Set programme might tell a different story, and I should like to ask the Minister specifically whether he can give me an update on the Written Answer that I got on 13 December 2011. I was told that LOCOG’s education programme, Get Set, included a small number of modern foreign language applications and that an annual evaluation was being conducted. I should be interested to know—later in writing if the Minister does not have this with him today—what, if any, positive results were generated.
What I know of the language services during the Games seems to have worked well—for example, the fact that the first tier of drivers for the IOC and Olympic family was allocated according to language skills, and personal observation reported to me suggests that this was effective. On the other hand, it was very difficult to find out what else was being done and whether community resources were being tapped. I was told that the chief interpreter and the head of language services for the Games were too busy to meet the all-party group, even though the noble Lord, Lord Coe—chairman of LOCOG and surely busier than either of them—was kind enough to come to one of our meetings. I am very grateful to him for that.
I hope that both the noble Lord, Lord Coe, and the Government will now ensure that the importance of language skills forms a clear part of the official report on the London Games, as well as featuring in any vision or strategy for their legacy. I fear that an opportunity was missed to showcase London as a richly multilingual venue, even though we know that this is a major factor for global companies deciding where to locate their headquarters. More than 200 languages are spoken by schoolchildren in London, yet most of their languages are not formally taught, examined or accredited, despite being badly needed in the field of public service interpreting in courts, hospitals and police stations. In 2008, the then Minister told me on the Floor of the House that his department wanted,
“to ensure that the Olympic Games provide an opportunity to show young people in the area the advantage of developing language skills. That is what we are seeking to achieve”.—[Official Report, 16/12/08; col. 732.]
Can the Minister tell me today to what extent the Government judge this to have been achieved and how it will be followed up in future?
To conclude on an optimistic note, I spoke to several volunteers in the Olympic Park who told me that they were now off to learn Portuguese so that they could volunteer again in Rio.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on bringing this debate forward. What attracted me to it was that broad lessons will be learnt from this, one of the primary lessons being that you can bring people from different, often self-defined, groups together and make them work effectively.
The first point at which I really had doubts about the process of doing this, but knew that the challenge was there, was at a dinner I was asked to many years ago, which first brought people from the arts world to speak to people from the sports world, at the start of the planning. A few parliamentarians were there as well. As the discussion got going, after people had swapped pleasantries during the meal itself, I felt that I was looking at a sort of peace conference between the Martians and the Venusians, where they were talking together for the first time. The look of total blank astonishment when it was actually suggested that they might have matters in common was quite comical. However, it was also ridiculous, because they do have very similar attitudes.
At grass-roots level, what is the difference between somebody trying to get a play together—finding the people for it, getting somebody to run the finances, organising it and finding venues—and somebody trying to run a sports team and get people to training and to turn up on time, and get coaches together and run the finances? It is exactly the same dynamic going on. The fact that they were brought together to create one thing that worked well is one of the broad lessons that can be taken on into the future: you do not have to just talk to your own people about your own subject. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, suggested this in terms of planning: certain people, such as central government and local planning, must learn to understand and trust each other. It is something that must happen.
The Games have shown us how to bring these two together. They have also probably shown us the limitations of this at the moment. The Cultural Olympiad was very important, because something other than just the Olympics had to bring people in. Effectively, I felt that the Cultural Olympiad was a little like a Christmas present: it was that very important, enticing bit around the outside—the wrapping—that made it look good and gave you the buzz and excitement beforehand. The fact that there was something going on was very important: the Olympics were happening and there was something coming. That was so important to the general feel of the Games for such a long time. However, it was not the Olympics themselves. The hard core was the sport. If we can take that model, for instance, when sport provides some wrapping for a cultural event, we will at least have achieved parity between these two worlds. We must look at how we integrate them to bring more of the same process.
We have talked about the creativity of the opening and closing ceremonies for both Games, which was one of the aims of the Cultural Olympiad. However, unless it goes beyond saying, “Wasn’t it great?”, which we have all done and which I did when I saw them, you have failed to work on the initial steps that have been taken here. We learnt to do it in the planning. The political parties had a common goal in the preparation and planning—or rather they learnt and then continued to remember that they had a common goal—which is why the bid was successful and why we were able to take it forward without the normal position in politics of simply opposing and backing, to make sure we had something coherent in the planning stage. That is what allowed us to win in Paris.
Unless those outside the core activities are prepared to buy in, and buy in to something that they do not regard as their own, we will have lost something here. We gained something very important: the chance to say that it is not just somebody’s—ours or yours—but co-operation at various levels. Learning to buy in to something that you do not have control of is probably one of the signs of growing up. I hope that both the arts and sport have done some growing up and seen that the world is slightly bigger than just them. There is always a temptation to say, “Mine” and not talk.
Lord Birt
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for prompting this insightful and multifaceted debate. Every aspect of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics was a triumph and a tremendous credit to all who led those fine ventures from beginning to end, not least in our House and not least the noble Lord, Lord Hall, who is with us today. The bid itself was hard won—but well won. The gigantic infrastructure and arena construction programme was a model of successful implementation. Once the Games started, the outstanding achievements of our Olympians and Paralympians were a testament to not only individual talent, application and determination but, as we know, to skilful investment choices, to the professionalism of the coaching and to the rigour of the performance management.
The opening and closing events were sublime; Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony was his masterpiece, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, eloquently expressed earlier. As an event, it was audacious and deeply British. It captured our history and the transition from a picture-postcard, pastoral Britain to the very crucible of the Industrial Revolution. It reminded the world of the sports we have invented and of our writing tradition, from Shakespeare to James Bond to Harry Potter. It conveyed Britain’s unsurpassed contribution to modern popular music.
The opening ceremony held some delicious surprises and two of the best jokes ever, starring Rowan Atkinson and, unforgettably, Her Majesty the Queen. The stage management of the event, with a cast of thousands, was awesome and effortlessly smooth. The design, whether the amazing, inflating industrial chimneys or the use of the lighting tablets, was spellbinding, producing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said earlier, breathtaking imagery. All in all, as I said, it was a triumph.
One part of the overall legacy was that these Olympics defined all that is best in Britain at this moment in time; and they bound us all together, unashamedly proud of our Britishness. This very British staging of the Olympics also had, for me, some unexpected consequences. On holiday in Italy a few weeks after the Games, I was struck by the sight of innumerable young Italian men and woman wearing union jack T-shirts. In Sri Lanka recently, I noted exactly the same. In Paris in the autumn, wandering along the Boulevard Saint-Germain, I spied in the window of an upscale shoe shop an array of vastly expensive velvet slippers—not my kind of thing particularly—one pair of which had a beautifully stitched union jack as its main motif. Surprised and curious—I used to be a journalist—I went in and inquired of the manager whether there was any demand for such ostentatiously British wares among the citizens of Paris. He told me, and he insisted on this, that it was by far the hottest-selling item in his shop and that all the buyers were French. President de Gaulle, of whom I have just read an excellent biography, will be turning in his grave.
In Beijing just a few weeks ago, I happened to have lunch with a group of young Chinese journalists who volunteered, unprompted, how much they had enjoyed the opening ceremony—I promise that I did not prompt them in any way. One young woman journalist giggled and observed, “You British, you are gentlemen. And you are funny”. I thought that that was not a bad epitaph. She paused, then declaimed roundly, “Mr Bean!”. At which point, the whole table laughed uproariously, all remembering Mr Bean’s hilariously disruptive, and wholly unexpected, appearance as a London Symphony Orchestra keyboardist during the opening ceremony. We can surmise that every aspect of the Olympics and, above all, its opening, was a powerful statement about Britishness, not just for us but for the rest of the world, and that this statement will bring the United Kingdom many benefits in multiple spheres.
One lesson that I take away from it all is that our extraordinary success as a country in creating and funding national institutions such as the Arts Council, our art schools or the BBC, which husband and nurture our most creative and innovative talents, has a payback well beyond the edification of our citizens. Another lesson is that, with both a challenge and a deadline on the one hand and a governance structure on the other that brings together and unites the political parties, we can be creative, rigorous and disciplined, and achieve extraordinary things.
What a contrast there was between the dizzy heights of the Olympics and the Paralympics that we all remember so well—the unity that we all experienced—and the immediate gloom of a prolonged economic crisis, in some part of our own making, and of a decaying national infrastructure. What a contrast, too, with a reminder of our inability to develop a fit-for-purpose national air hub, one of our main economic lifelines to the rest of the world. The Olympics and the Paralympics showed that if we can find effective ways to combine and assemble our best talents, and if we can set aside our poisonous and disputatious political culture, we truly can as a nation achieve absolutely anything that we set out to do.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I want to mention the green legacy of the Games. The big space of the legacy park in east London presents us with an opportunity to create a green lung for that area. It could be a place where urban wildlife thrives and an outdoor classroom for many of the schools in the area. I hope that woven into the design will be the spaces, and even the messy areas, that wildlife needs—for example, along the edges and on the riverbank—and the sort of meadows that the London Wildlife Trust has developed so well. The trust’s membership demonstrates that just as many people who are interested in all these things live in that part of London as anywhere else. In fact, urban wildlife can be more thrilling than rural wildlife because it is often in much greater proximity to us, so we can see it better—indeed, going back to Lambeth the other night, I met a fox not a half a road-width away and it was quite exciting.
The green legacy is important, but I want to talk about one particular aspect of it—one particular community that had to make a big sacrifice for the Olympic park and one very special space that was lost. I shall say why the promises that were made when that sacrifice happened need to be kept. The space that I am talking about is the Manor Garden allotments that used to be beside the River Lea. The land was given before the First World War by Major Arthur Villiers, who bequeathed it for use in perpetuity by East End families, whom he saw as being in great need of allotment space because their diet was so poor. In the Second World War, the allotments became a model for the grow-your-own Dig for Victory campaign. There was some hope at the beginning of the development of the park that perhaps the allotments could be kept, with their 100 year-old apple trees and fig trees, as a model of Englishness—because allotments have a lot to do with what Britishness is. The community that ran the allotments, the Manor Gardening Society, was a very good model of community, being mixed in age, background and ethnicity, but it was brought together by a common interest in growing food. However, the difficulties in keeping the allotments where they were were considered too great and they were relocated temporarily but with a crucial promise that, when the compulsory purchase order was granted, they would be given a space in the legacy park that was equivalent both in size and quality once the Games were over.
Now we are into that period of looking at the legacy. The space that has been offered is split between two different sites. Although the area is exactly equivalent in size to the former allotments, it does not have any of those margins around the edge of the river bank. In theory, this is more provision than the society originally had, but that is only if one counts the actual allotment space and not the surrounding wild land verging on the plots. It is that combination of both allotment land and land for wildlife that can create symbiotic biodiversity, meaning that pollination takes place, that people are concerned about the wildlife and that you can create a very living green lung. We need to ensure that. I hope that the members of the corporation who are here today will take this back and think about it. The Manor Gardening Society has struggled on through its relocation. It has been difficult. Some members gave up because they could not travel as far as their temporary plots. However, its waiting list has grown.
That brings me to another issue that needs to be solved. The offer of replacement allotments now appears to be only to individual plot holders, not to the society as a whole. The society is the embodiment of a particular community interested in growing. It would be a shame if as vibrant and historic a community as the Manor Gardening Society did not have its rightful place in the park. I have talked to Mr Dennis Hone about that, and he was kind enough to write back to me. He said:
“The commitment was to individual plot holders at the time and the LLDC will continue to work with those plot holders who wish to return”.
My question is: why would the LLDC want to micromanage that? Earlier in the same letter, he says:
“The ODA has worked closely with the Society on the detailed design of the legacy allotments which is something the LLDC has continued”.
On the one hand, the LLDC agrees that the society has a role to play and has extended the community space available but, on the other, it wants to deal only with individual plot holders. That may seem a detail but given the effort across London, from bodies such as the London Food Board under the terrific chairmanship of Rosie Boycott, that has gone into spaces where Londoners can grow food, and considering the effort that the Department for Education is putting into the Food for Life initiative so that schoolchildren understand about growing food, that detail must be got right for the legacy of the park. If we are interested in children having an all-round healthy lifestyle and in tackling issues such as obesity, this detail is extremely important.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on securing this fascinating debate. I also declare interests, as I leave the Royal Opera House and head towards the BBC, as a board member of LOCOG and chair of the Cultural Olympiad board. I should point out that the Cultural Olympiad board has been asked to continue, to guide and draw action from an assessment being carried out by Liverpool University. This is due by Easter, and we will then take recommendations to the Government. However, I want to share what I think are some of the lessons from last year.
First, as has already been mentioned, one of the most striking aspects of the London 2012 festival was the level of participation. At every event, from the spectacular Fire Garden at Stonehenge to the UK’s biggest celebration of dance, the Big Dance to Unlimited, I saw how people of all ages and backgrounds seized the chance to be part of something creative, ambitious and big. We put events outside and in public places, and the audiences, large and diverse, found them. We wanted free events, and it paid off: 19.8 million people took part; 80% came for free.
Here is the rub: overall, 38% of those taking part were under the age of 24. This to my mind shows the immense appetite for culture among the young. One of the legacies must be to secure future opportunities for participation in culture for both young people and those who commonly feel excluded from the arts.
The festival also used the fact of the Games to highlight how good we are at arts and culture. About 40,000 journalists were in the UK to cover the Games, which meant that we could secure publicity for arts and cultural organisations both here and across the world. For example, the Cultural Olympiad programme in the West Midlands alone secured media valued at £11 million. That underlined the huge value of linking large-scale events to the arts and the importance of linking into similar nationwide events in the future, such as the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. By the way, the arts also need to work in close collaboration with agencies such as VisitBritain, building the importance of the arts and culture in tourism.
As has been said, Britain saw something that it liked about itself during the summer and during the festival. The world saw the strength of our arts and culture and why Britain is such a fantastic place to visit. However, as we all know, the artists and leaders who made it possible, such as Stephen Daldry, Danny Boyle, and many others came originally from the subsidised sector. Indeed, the festival could not have happened without the commitment of the publicly funded organisations—museums, theatres, galleries, opera houses, concert halls, and so on. Their financial strength over a long period gave them the security to create the ambitious commissions that we saw in the festival. Stable investment in the arts must be sustained if we are to maintain that legacy. With every £1 of public subsidy for the arts generating £4 of earned income, it also makes financial sense to do so.
To my mind, the festival underlined the strength and economic value of our cultural industries and the importance of nurturing creative talents in future generations. I am still really impressed by the way that the Tate, working with CBBC and the animators Aardman—the people who produced Wallace and Gromit—offered 34,000 children the chance to learn how to animate and create a film, “The Itch of the Golden Nit”. The film has already won a children’s BAFTA and a place in the Guinness Book of Records for the largest creative team ever. I guess that we will have to wait 20 years to judge its true success: to find out how many lives we changed and how many new animators and filmmakers the project created.
I know that the House has recently debated the EBacc, but I briefly add my view. The arts must remain at the heart of the national curriculum to allow all children, regardless of their background, the chance to develop their creative talents and contribute in future to our world-leading arts and creative industries. One day, we will look to a new generation to create an event of a magnitude to rival London 2012. Let us give them the skills to do so.
The Cultural Olympiad also gave us a chance to show the value of a creative education in helping young people to find jobs. Inspired by the work that we have been doing at the Royal Opera House, where 1% of employees are apprentices, the festival offered unemployed young people in the host boroughs apprenticeships in the arts. Forty per cent of the participants had secured a job by the time the scheme ended. That is why the Arts Council decided to fund a comparable, national creative employment programme. That alone could be an enormous legacy of the Cultural Olympiad, and one that demonstrates how much we achieve by investing in the creative talents of children and young people.
The festival also highlighted something key about the role of the BBC and the media more broadly. From the beginning, it was vital that the BBC, as a public broadcaster, was at the heart of the Cultural Olympiad. It delivered collaborations and coverage of exceptional scale and quality. It built, for example, on the World Shakespeare Festival, which was an extraordinary achievement, to create its largest ever education project. In the Radio 1 Big Weekend, it gave young people from Hackney and the East End the chance to work with their musical heroes and learn production and backstage skills. By the way, as I found out, it was a fantastic, exhilarating weekend.
The Cultural Olympiad showed how the BBC, working with cultural organisations, world-class artists and public and private funders can teach creative skills and transform the life chances of young people. It also underlined how important the media—in particular the BBC—are in fuelling public appetite for the arts.
One amazing example of that from last summer was The Space. This digital platform, funded jointly by the Arts Council and the BBC, gives people wherever they are a chance to experience the arts directly online. You could enjoy a private view of the Goldsmith College degree show or hear, if you wanted to, the Stockhausen helicopter string quartet as it played above Birmingham. There were many other rich, amazing events. It is clear to me that The Space and other digital innovations like it have immense potential for promoting the arts and giving people direct access to artists, performances and art. It is a profoundly important development, which comes out of the cultural festival.
I have always believed strongly that world-class art and culture should be available to everyone. Out of the many excellent things that the Cultural Olympiad did, fulfilling that goal is by far the team’s proudest achievement. I shall pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said by remembering that, as we proved in that summer, if we bring everyone together—whether it is through sports, arts, tourism or whatever—we can achieve great things.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I first declare my interests as a council member of University College London and a trustee of the Barbican Centre Trust. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, along with other noble Lords, on not only initiating this debate but constructing one that can be so wide-ranging in its subject matter. I also congratulate the noble Lord on his passion for regeneration in east London.
My second motive is to say how delightful it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hall, who gave us such an interesting description of his work as chairman of the Cultural Olympiad board. I congratulate him and Ruth Mackenzie on all the work they did in constructing the London 2012 festival, which was so well captured in the book of photographs that many of us have received thanks to the noble Lord. I think the last time that I saw the noble Lord, Lord Hall, was at the aquatics centre when he was giving out medals and I was giving out flowers—there is a job for everyone in this world. I wanted to congratulate also Danny Boyle. I have a whole list of other really fantastic people, such as Stephen Daldry and Mark Tildesley, who were all involved in the various opening and closing ceremonies for the Olympics and Paralympics. Many of us have spoken about those ceremonies today but their impact on us all, nationally and internationally, has really been quite phenomenal. They will be memories that we have for all time.
As far as the festival is concerned, it had nearly 20 million visitors and there were more than 25,000 artists from all competing nations—what an achievement. One of the most inspiring occasions, which my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter mentioned, was in being part of the 3 million taking part in Martin Creed’s work when we all stood there at 8.12 am on the opening day, ringing whatever bell we could find to hand. That was participation writ large. We all look forward to the evaluation, which the noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned of the festival and the Cultural Olympiad but there can be no doubt that the evaluation’s conclusions will be extremely positive.
Ruth Mackenzie was quoted as saying after the festival:
“All of our partners want to know what happens next in economic and cultural terms”.
There are promising signs in terms of local legacy. The Arts Council said that from 2012 to 2015 it plans to invest more than £49 million into national portfolio organisations in east London; I note the caveats of my noble friend Lady Doocey there. The London Legacy Development Corporation has agreed an arts and cultural strategy, due to be launched this year, which uses Olympic and Paralympic momentum to motivate, raise aspirations and promote cultural activity. There is also the new Legacy List, of which the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, is a trustee. It is a charity,
“dedicated to making creative connections between people and the future Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park”.
During the festival, of course, an incredible number of diverse and potentially competing interests were brought together to create a phenomenal cultural menu for audiences around the country. It is this legacy of creating partnerships which we need to maintain in the future, particularly in east London.
The Barbican Centre was able to provide an unparalleled variety of events during the London 2012 festival. These were not just for the City of London. The organisation has worked for a long time in east London and the Olympic events took the City beyond its boundaries to work with communities in Hackney, Shoreditch, Tower Hamlets, Bethnal Green and beyond. In recognition of that commitment the Barbican has been asked to mount, with the east London artistic partnership Create, the weekend to celebrate the public reopening of the Olympic park in July. That work continues as part of the Olympic legacy. The Barbican Centre and the Guildhall School are now working closely with the east London boroughs to discuss the formation of a partnership which could drive forward an integrated, comprehensive programme of creative learning.
There are many other positive developments on a national level, especially in the skills area. My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter mentioned those. The Big Lottery Fund is establishing a trust to build on the social and community aspects of the Games legacy. There is the extension of the creative employment programme that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, did so much to create at the Royal Opera House. There is the creative people and places fund and the creative apprentices programme. We have also had funding announced in the Autumn Statement for creative skills through Skillset.
Local and national aspects are important but there is a global dimension here, too, as the mayor’s cultural strategy recognises. The UK has the largest cultural economy in Europe and the creative and cultural industries represent one of our economy’s greatest success stories. We must take advantage of the opportunities provided by cultural tourism. As the noble Lord, Lord King, mentioned the arts, museums and galleries are a vital part of the UK’s offer to tourists. Then there are the overseas trade opportunities. As the DCMS said in its recent evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee:
“The success of the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games has focused the world’s attention on the UK’s creativity. UK Trade & Investment … plan to build on this by helping UK companies, including those involved in the delivery of the London Games”.
I welcome all this but it needs to be put together effectively. There needs to be co-operation between VisitBritain, the Arts Council and the British Council to pull that together.
What are the additional challenges? There is the continuing question of access to finance. The Creative Industries Council recently produced a report by Ian Livingstone. This excellent report highlights the scale of the challenge. How are the Government going to take those recommendations forward? We also have the EBacc, which my noble friend mentioned extensively. I entirely agree; we had a debate on that subject only last week and the feeling within this House was quite unanimous. Then we have the issue of the resourcing of the DCMS and the budget of the Arts Council. The DCMS co-ordinated the successful bid for the 2012 Olympics and oversaw the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Paralympics, but its funding has been cut.
Meanwhile, businesses must be able to capitalise on their involvement in the games. Suppliers must be allowed to promote their work for the Olympics or similar events but, at the moment, the terms and conditions do not allow the businesses in those creative industries to publicise that. All those suppliers were promised a long time ago that that would be settled. Finally, there is, I hope, the great prospect of another London 2012 festival if the Cultural Olympiad board recommends that to the Secretary of State, which I very much hope it will.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, I, too, salute the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and commend his consistent leadership and advocacy for all the communities in the East End of London. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hall, on the Cultural Olympiad.
The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games were won with the promise to promote inclusion, with a vision to deliver new opportunities for some of the poorest and most socially excluded neighbourhoods in the capital, transforming the heart of east London. London’s five legacy commitments included increasing opportunities in sports and jobs, to showcase the diverse communities and transform the East End. In the end, the UK spent £9.3 billion of public funds on the 2012 Olympics. A majority of the public quite rightly believe that this has been a worthwhile cause. Had the Government not intervened, the Games would certainly not have happened.
Of that £9.3 billion, £1.7 billion has been used for regeneration and infrastructure, opening up London to the world. Five villages—4,000 homes—will be built in the vicinity of the Olympic park, relieving pressures on local housing and providing more jobs in the area. We need to allay fears that local residents may be forced out of east London, as happened to many living on the edges of the River Thames and in Canary Wharf during the Olympics development. Here, dreams of access to good-quality and plentiful low-cost housing and local jobs, promoted at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, remain unfulfilled for most local graduates.
In Tower Hamlets we welcomed the Olympics with an open heart. There has been a dramatic improvement to the infrastructure of London and the East End. I welcome the Games’ legacy and its reflection of Danny Boyle’s extremely energising and imaginative vision. Its inclusivity embraced our health service and innovations. It saluted our music, and his tribute to our creativity was inspiring and gracious. Olympic flames beamed our joy and expectations across our country and the world. Yet the prospect for the citizens of the five boroughs was not just that we were hosting greatest show on earth, as it was regarded by some, but also that its legacy would be more than just the park, a few thousand homes, and some jobs in the service and construction sectors.
Our expectation was that the legacy, addressing severe inequalities in one of the richest cities in the world, would be transformational for jobs, and increase skills and opportunities, so much so that there would be a reverse in the inequalities that have separated east London from the rest of the city for perhaps a century. Tower Hamlets has one of the highest rates of youth and graduate unemployment in London. Bethnal Green and Bow has the highest level of child poverty in the UK, with more than 50% living in poverty. From the bottom of my heart I welcome the promise of the legacy to boost long-term employment and improve skills in our boroughs. This should not be just for jobs in the hospitality and security sectors but also for the broader development of jobs in the IT industry. Most importantly, the management structures of the institution delivering that legacy should visibly reflect these boroughs’ populations.
The populations of the five boroughs are blessed with countless entrepreneurial men and women, whose talents make east London a vibrant community, contributing silently to the creation of this new city in the East End about which we are proudly talking. The East End is often reported as having some rough edges, with immigrants having settled in waves among the white working-class locals who have been living there for generations, but Bangladeshi communities in Shadwell and Whitechapel, the African and Caribbean communities in Hackney, and the Turkish, Kurdish and orthodox Jewish communities in Dalston have all contributed to creating strong identities, championed by the bid itself. The curry capital and Banglatown are as much loved as the 24-hour bagel shop, with the Shoreditch yuppies bringing with them, of late, new outdoor cafes, night clubs and little boutiques, now dotted around Spitalfields market, enlivening the area in the spirit of Danny Boyle’s depiction.
The shooting in August 2011 of a young black man by police in north London triggered the worst rioting across the capital for 30 years. Chaos raged between rioters and police in Hackney. Many people looted shops shamelessly. Experts have reminded us that the riots are a reminder of the deep-seated prejudice and division in many parts of our cities, and I accept that the Games could not have an impact on many of those who over decades have felt most marginalised; nor will a few cultural events and projects engage those who have suffered the long-standing effects of racism, and are at the bottom of the pile in the education system—unemployed, disengaged and alienated. The disfranchised from Bethnal Green, Dalston and Stratford are witnessing the developments and seeing outsiders moving into new houses, claiming jobs that they are not qualified to take.
The legacy board has a tough job in aligning some of its strategies to the needs of those in the community who have been born and live within the reach of the park, and who may feel that they have no place or sense of ownership in their institutions. I hope that in building the legacy, the board will ensure the proper and serious involvement of a wide range of individuals and organisations, so that the final outcome reflects the culture, aspirations and experiences of those who understand, and live in, the broad cultural diversity of our communities. These include Mary Swenham, a local businesswoman, Shamim Azad, a local poet, and Joleeda Ali, a film maker. These are women who have contributed to making the communities what they are. What is the Minister’s assessment of such women and of their contribution to making a real legacy for the community?
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, asked for consistent leadership. I agree. A narrative that speaks the language of our young men and women, and a vision that translates and reflects their experience and culture, are a must for a successful legacy. The Games have conquered the imagination of our communities and inspired the whole nation. The legacy must do so too.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on securing this important debate and his comprehensive opening speech.
Any consideration of an Olympic legacy that does not give a high priority to children will be seriously flawed. Childhood lasts a lifetime and what we deliver for them today at the early stages will influence their lives for ever. In the Government’s legacy plan, one of its five aims is to inspire a generation of young people to take part in local volunteering and in cultural and physical activities. The role of the arts and creative industries in delivering a lasting Olympic legacy should be to inspire a generation of children, as well as young people, to take part in the arts.
Every child should be able to take part in the same artistic activities that we enjoy as adults, but truly to share in that same experience and reap the benefits they need not only their own books but plays, films and music, created for them by artists who know how to fire up their imaginations. This is a vital part of their growing up and a preparation for their adult lives. The arts and creative industries must do more for children than they do for adults. Children should not just be expected to sit and watch. The creative industries have to put on plays for them but also give them opportunities to put on their own plays. They should not just publish books for them but also encourage them to write their own stories and poems through competitions and campaigns, such as the ones set up by Booktrust.
The creative arts have to bring children into museums and art galleries, and let them paint, draw and have hands-on participation. They should be brought into concert halls, where they can make music and dance. Children need twice as much to stimulate their fresh, impressionable minds and to create that wonderful feeling of experiencing things for the first time. But more often than not that is not the case.
In a debate last year, I spoke about the freedom of information request made by the charity Action for Children’s Arts. I am a patron of this charity and declare an interest. It showed that most of the UK’s major arts organisations spend far less on producing work aimed specifically at children—in most cases only around 1% of their total budget—than they do on work for adults. With a heavy heart I say that today, of the £337 million in grants that Arts Council England will give next year to the 688 organisations that it supports, just over 2% will go to organisations producing work specifically for children. Fifty-one organisations will receive grants ranging from £1 million to £25 million but only one of them, London’s fantastic Unicorn Theatre, produces work exclusively for children. What kind of legacy will this type of policy produce?
Children need more, yet we give them less. They depend more than any other population group on services in their local community, services provided by charities as well as local authorities. That includes after-school clubs, nurseries, parks which offer sporting activities, such as those provided by the Mappin Group’s parks and community project, music clubs, such as the World Heart Beat Music Academy, and of course libraries, many of which are being threatened by cuts.
“Please sir, I want some more”, but Oliver’s plea was turned down, and that is when the real problems started. In the current economic climate, asking for more is particularly difficult. Where is it to come from? Children’s arts organisations are often underfunded and understaffed. They lack the time and expertise to go in search of funds from the private sector. They are wholly dependent on public funding and, like Oliver, are apt to find themselves at the mercy of the beadle.
Last year, the Action for Children’s Arts conference called for arts organisations and the arts funding system to put children first. I am making that plea once again. For if we really want to secure a lasting legacy from the Olympics, we have no choice but to put children first. Action for Children’s Arts has two proposals to make: first, to create an Olympic legacy working group, made up of leaders from the arts and creative industries, with a brief to identify ways of integrating work for children into the output of their organisations; and secondly, that arts funding bodies be asked to evaluate the extent to which their existing policies for children encourage artists and arts organisations to create original works for this age group. So I ask my noble friend: will the Government support these proposals and, if so, what practical steps will they take to facilitate them?
All children need beauty around them, but those from disadvantaged backgrounds, whose lives revolve around gang and drug culture, do not have any exposure to creativity, so they need it more than ever. They need to be able to channel their energy creatively, artistically and positively to feel that they belong and have a part to play in their community and their society, giving them the opportunity to create a legacy that they can pass on to their own children. Surely this is what we all want for all children, so let us make sure it happens and that we do not miss this opportunity that the successful London Olympics have given our great country. A nation is judged by the way it provides for its children, the future. We must not let them down, so let us give children more.
Baroness Billingham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, is to be thanked for and congratulated on bringing this topic to the House for debate today. When we look back at last summer, we remember Britain transformed from passive to active in both sport and culture. It became ever more evident that the pledge made when London won the bid was a promise that the nation demanded that we keep. It subsequently became more evident that it could be achieved only if key players worked in collaboration with each other. That is why this debate is so crucial. Are we satisfied that the collaboration is working? Are we confident that the legacy will be delivered?
I began by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his initiative. Now I thank him for the way he began this debate. His personal statement laid down a blueprint for all other contributors to follow. He was positive, critical and creative. His experience and expertise were there for all to see. We are incredibly fortunate to have others here with us today who have shared their knowledge, world-class expertise and vision of the cultural future with us. A galaxy of stars has brought us a shimmering debate. As a footnote, I must also acknowledge the contribution made by outside contributors; the briefings came thick and fast. They were all helpful and significant, and we are most grateful. I learnt an enormous amount from them.
The role of the Arts Council is important in the realisation of the legacy and for Britain’s international reputation. It pledged to invest in the arts and cultural experiences that will enrich people’s lives. Between 2011 and 2015, £1.4 billion of public money from the Government will be invested in the project, and a further £1 billion has been pledged by the lottery. In March 2013, there will be a full evaluation of the London festival—other noble Lords have mentioned this—and we await that publication with enormous interest.
East London has been debated here very fully today, and it remains a strategic priority for the Arts Council. The noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Mawson, and many other noble Lords reminded us that the transformation would not have happened without the Olympiad. It is all the more welcome as east London was a deprived area that was desperately in need of regeneration. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, shared with us her unique engagement and regeneration experiences and demanded the right kind of legacy. How we agree with her. We also welcome the apprenticeships and paid internships in the arts sector, which were mentioned by many noble Lords. They are invaluable at a time of such high unemployment. Innovations in music and dance schemes offer great opportunities. Many areas are committed to this initiative, and foremost among them are the Royal Opera House and the London Symphony Orchestra. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, spoke about educational opportunities, and she was quite right. With such internationally renowned contributors, many others will surely follow. My noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, spoke inspiringly about the opening ceremony, as did other noble Lords. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, who is to be congratulated on his new appointment, will ensure that it is screened regularly, just to keep in our minds what a wonderful moment it was when we looked in disbelief at those great nurses dancing around and all the other things that we witnessed and identified with as we retaught ourselves a history lesson that all of us should remember. This debate has been unique in the all-star line-up who have spoken today. They have shown us what is being done and what can be done. It is a message that must be widely spread.
So why I am still left with a sinking heart? Why does the political cynic in me have misgivings about the legacy? Why, even after today’s uplifting debate, do I feel a bit like Ruth amid the alien corn? Quite simply, it is because the Government’s ill considered actions with regard to local authority funding and the inexplicable actions of Michael Gove put all these things in doubt. As to the first, local authority funding has been slashed. Clearly, at a time of economic stress that would not be unlikely, but what is clear is that the funding reductions have been cynically targeted at Labour councils, often in areas of high deprivation, to such an extent that libraries, theatres and museums are under threat. Much has been said about the fine city of Newcastle. We await with trepidation the outcome of those negotiations. These are people centres. We have talked about them this morning, and it is vital that people have access to cultural activities all over Britain. All the good work being done, as we have heard today, will be undermined by unfair funding, and the legacy should be felt by everyone in Britain, not just by those in east London.
As for Michael Gove, much has been said already in this Chamber and in the press. His proposals, yet to be finally published, could totally dismantle grass-roots sport and culture in our state schools. I remind noble Lords that these schools educate 94% of our young people, but Michael Gove’s proposals threaten to tear the heart out of primary and secondary schools. His curriculum proposals spell doomsday for our next generation of young people, and for the hopes that the legacy so clearly brought us. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, reminded us in a powerful speech that we must put children first. Children must be introduced to sport and the arts at the earliest opportunity. We must ask why Michael Gove is ignoring that fact. No amount of outside enrichment can compensate for state schools devoid of ring-fenced funding and the provision of properly trained teachers. Michael Gove chooses to ignore all this.
Though I regret those negative observations, I am convinced that the legacy is literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; others have said that. All of us must demand a review of national policies that would deny us the rightful outcome. By working together, we can indeed succeed.
Finally, thanks are due to all participants. All have shown their commitment. It has indeed been an outstanding debate.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is a privilege to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and particularly to acknowledge his pioneering work in east London. He was one of the earliest proponents of bringing the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games to east London. How grateful we all are.
We are also fortunate to have in their places today in your Lordships’ House Members who have made outstanding contributions to the Games and their legacy. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her continued inspirational work on sport, disability and the planning and legacy of the Games, the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, for his leadership on the Cultural Olympiad, and my noble friend Lady Doocey for her work in ensuring a legacy for London. It would also be most remiss of me not to acknowledge the supreme efforts of my noble friends Lord Coe and Lord Deighton in masterminding the Games, which made their country so proud.
This debate allows us to maintain attention on securing the most enduring legacy from the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. The legacy is wide ranging. Indeed, the International Olympic Committee president has already said that London provided a legacy blueprint for future Games hosts. The Government are committed to its delivery.
On communities, the Games provided a focus for people across the United Kingdom to come together, reinforcing so much that we all share. The torch relay was the first indication that people in every part of the British Isles were taking the Olympic spirit to their hearts. That was raised very movingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Alongside the staff, the organising committee and its partner organisations, legions of volunteers and our superb Armed Forces ensured that the Games ran like clockwork. From July to September, up and down the country, communities came together to cheer on their sporting heroes.
London 2012 made people proud to be British and to be part of their local community. We want to ensure that people continue to have opportunities to come together. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said: collective activity, involving the public, private and voluntary sectors, and leadership and decision-making at the local level create the conditions for people to live in vibrant and successful communities.
My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater raised London regeneration in terms of ExCeL and the contribution to the economy. I am particularly mindful of the comments raised by my noble friend Lady Doocey on bureaucracy. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, spoke most powerfully about what has happened and will happen in east London. The redevelopment of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park will offer iconic visitor attractions alongside new homes, schools, businesses and open spaces. I say to my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer that green lungs are vital; I speak as a very keen gardener.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that of course business enterprise is important. It is important that business men and women play their absolutely essential part in economic recovery and regeneration.
The Government are committed to improving sport participation figures, which are encouraging. Sport plays a key role in bringing communities together and there are many initiatives. Sport England’s Places People Play programme has already provided local sports clubs with grants to improve and upgrade facilities. I say to my noble friend Lady Benjamin that children are of course absolutely key, and sport of is one of the great joys of being a child. Nearly 60,000 people have signed up to volunteer in their communities to help fellow local residents to get involved in sport. The Government and the Mayor of London’s office have set up the Paralympic Legacy Advisory Group to ensure that the Paralympic legacy is strong. Through Sport England, £1 billion will be invested over the next five years in the youth and community sports strategy to encourage all to take up sport.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, the Government will shortly be announcing plans which acknowledge the important role that sport plays in our schools. Physical education will remain a compulsory part of the curriculum at all four key stages of education.
On volunteering, I shall never forget the spirit and humour of the volunteers last summer. The Games have shown what a huge impact volunteering can have and how personally rewarding it can be. Volunteering is inspiring, contemporary and exciting, and a key part of community life. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in her inimitable way, referred to knitting.
It is important that those who are new to volunteering or inspired by the Games are given similar encouragement and opportunity. Since the Games, Team London ambassadors have continued to provide a warm welcome to visitors during major cultural and sporting events. The charity Join In is aiming to build on its achievements in 2012 with a new programme for 2013. The decision by the Big Lottery Fund to use its share of funds generated by the sale of the Olympic village to set up a UK-wide Spirit of 2012 Trust is very welcome. It is no surprise that the Commonwealth Games 2014 in Glasgow received more than 10,000 volunteer applications within the first hours of advertising its own plans.
Married to a sculptor on the council of the Society of Portrait Sculptors, I need no rehearsing as to the importance of the arts to our culture and our nation. The UK delivered the largest nationwide cultural festival ever staged and the most ambitious of any Olympic Games. The noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, with the Cultural Olympiad board and its director Ruth Mackenzie and her team, led this celebration of the UK as a centre for cultural innovation and creativity. The many public and private sponsors and supporters who worked together to ensure its success deserve our considerable thanks. As the noble Lord, Lord Hall, observed, nearly 20 million people attended events across the country, from Big Dance to Bandstand Marathon and bell-ringing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, drew attention to heritage. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, drew attention to languages and skills and, indeed, Shakespeare—but I fear I will have to write to her about her earlier Parliamentary Question. Of course, foreign languages are one of the core academic subjects of the English baccalaureate.
Public awareness of the festival was high, particularly among younger age groups and minority ethnic groups. The “Unlimited” series of commissions—29 commissions of work by deaf and disabled artists—ensured that the shift in the UK’s perceptions of disability was seen in culture as well as in sport. As with the delivery of the Cultural Olympiad, the cultural legacy of the Games is one that the Government want the sector to lead, with support from government. They have asked the Cultural Olympiad board to look at further options to maximise the legacy of the Cultural Olympiad. As the noble Lord, Lord Hall, said, these proposals will be received in March.
As regards the importance of arts and culture within education, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hall, and my noble friends Lady Bonham-Carter and Lord Clement-Jones, the English baccalaureate is a core set of academic subjects that gives students the broadest possible opportunities to progress. It is designed to leave around 20% to 30% of time in the curriculum for pupils to take other subjects. The importance of creative subjects such as art, drama and music is fully recognised as part of a broad curriculum. The Department for Education is currently considering how to ensure that high-quality qualifications are available in these subjects. I know that my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter mentioned the word “imminent” but I am told that the word I can say is “soon”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, referred to arts funding. Protecting all arts funding while cutting public spending in other areas is simply not an option. None the less, the Government are committed to supporting art and culture. Overall, £2.9 billion will go to the arts over the life of this Parliament; £1.9 billion will be in direct government funding and more than £1 billion in lottery funding.
Our country has the largest creative industry sector in the world on a per capita basis. The sector exports almost £9 billion-worth of services. The artistic and cultural success of the Games offered a very specific opportunity to promote the UK’s excellence across the creative industries internationally and at home. The coverage of the Games delivered a worldwide advertising campaign for the creative industries of the UK.
As was highlighted by many noble Lords—although I particularly want to mention what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, my noble friends Lady Bonham-Carter and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt—900 million people watched the opening ceremony. They witnessed our excellence in theatre, music, screen, art, heritage and storytelling. I shall never forget Thomas Heatherwick’s spectacular Olympic cauldron, which was magnificent. How proud we were to see its assembly and its fulfilment during the ceremony.
The challenge now is to translate that into more international business and growth for the UK. We aim to generate £13 billion of benefit to the UK over the next four years from additional sales and inward investment, and from attracting 4.6 million extra visitors. The GREAT campaign promotes Britain and British business as part of Creativity is GREAT in key markets around the world. UKTI will continue to champion our industries and help them to secure global opportunities.
We had some intriguing suggestions on lessons learnt from noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Birt. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, of banging heads together is particularly fine—perhaps, I should say, by Ministers. However, the success of the Games was not by chance. It was due to stable and consistent leadership, meticulous planning, cross-party support, as the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, so rightly advised us, and the public and private sectors working together. The thoughtful speech made by my noble friend Lord Addington dealt with that very well and powerfully. What we have learnt from the Games will be embedded as we take the legacy forward.
We should not lose sight of the fact that London 2012 was, from the outset of the bid, the first legacy Games. We should be proud of what has already been achieved. We are at the beginning of the legacy journey. We must focus on delivering an enduring legacy nationwide. The Games will be remembered as a summer of excellence for Great Britain. They should also be remembered for helping to shape and foster our future communities and culture for the national good. That means inspiring a generation to contribute to their communities in innovative ways. My noble friend Lady Benjamin rightly highlighted the importance of children. Clearly, they are the future of our country and it is our responsibility to ensure that what happened last summer is part of their legacy and that they gain considerable benefit from it.
It also means building on the United Kingdom’s identity as a centre for cultural innovation and the new audiences engaged by the Games. It means capturing the success of creative companies in delivering the Games and translating this into new business at home and abroad. A great deal of work will be going on in Brazil but it is encouraging that British companies to date have won 60 contracts for the Sochi Winter Olympic Games and already £7 million-worth of deals in Rio. We must now build on these successes and I am sure that there will be many more opportunities.
We have made an excellent start. I hope that we will ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, will not have her heart sinking. I believe that many people across the piece are working extremely hard and effectively to ensure that the legacy is as strong as our nation deserves. As many of your Lordships have said today, it means continuing to work in partnerships in all sectors—public and private—and within communities. Those are the places where our goals can be achieved.
We have learnt that the world thinks more positively of us as a nation after the Games. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, took us through some interesting country and territory as to where the union flag is now placed, but I think that what he said has very much been reflected across the globe; namely, that we are seen as a warmer country, a friendlier country, a country that came together and a country that is at ease with itself. I also suspect—one can be quite moved about this—that we feel rather differently about ourselves because of the Games, which is one of the most powerful legacies that I have picked up. The Games have taught us once again that we can, as has been said, deliver great things of national importance and beyond when we, the British people, come together.
Lord Mawson
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. We are at the beginning of the next stage of the Olympic project when legacy must be our focus. The contributions today have helpfully opened up the issues that we must now all grasp. I cannot possibly respond to all the points that have been made and some of them are not in my area of expertise but perhaps I may offer a few thoughts.
I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord King. ExCel is a clue to what needs to happen more widely in east London. I agree with him that east Londoners are very nice people. I welcome the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, about the importance of culture and heritage, and that it needs to be a living culture. It is good to have the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on the legacy board with me and I very much look forward to working with her. In due course, she will become clear about how little I know about sport. I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, and his point that legacy is not just a government responsibility. Legacy is more important than just spending public money. I agree with him on the need for leadership and careful thought about what constitutes leadership. We will always be thankful to the noble Lord for his leadership when he intervened nearly 20 years ago in a turf war in Bromley-by-Bow. As a direct result, 1,000 flowers have bloomed.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that government should not constantly reinvent the wheel and I agree with her comments about the Arts Council. In my view there is a major problem as regards the mindset of the Arts Council. I welcome the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. My daughter tells me that people all over Cuba are now wearing union jack shirts. I also welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I agree that we need to encourage wildlife in the park and I will look into the allotments issue.
We welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hall. East London is a creative hub of international significance and I know that he understands that. I also welcome the challenge that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, set for the noble Lord, Lord Hall, to ensure that the BBC keeps reminding us of this important moment in time.
I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, for his response to the debate and I look forward to working with him as we move forward in east London. I thank him for meeting me before the debate and for taking such a keen interest in the issues we face in east London.
The opportunities to extend and deepen the legacy in east London and to stimulate further investment are considerable. The opportunity to create thriving and sustainable communities is very real but this will not happen by magic. If the present procurement systems are left unchallenged, they are quite capable of simply repeating past mistakes in east London and wrecking many more people’s lives. Let us together grasp the moment. The Games have left us with an opportunity to create a world-class legacy that countries hosting the Games in future will all want to come to see.
Arrangement of Business
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the next debate is another timed debate. I invite Back-Benchers to keep their contributions within the 10 minutes allocated to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has a few minutes at the end in which to reply.
Nuclear Disarmament
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ramsbotham
To move that this House takes note of the prospects for multilateral nuclear disarmament, and the contribution which Britain could make.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, at the start of this debate I would like to beg your indulgence if I break with tradition. Today is a sad day for the House because, during this debate, my noble and gallant friend Field Marshal Lord Bramall, with whom I had the privilege of serving in the Royal Green Jackets, having both originally joined the Rifle Brigade, although at different times, will make his final speech on its Floor. Few people have contributed more, in so many ways, to the life of the nation than my noble and gallant friend as Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Lieutenant of London, President of the MCC and, for the past 26 years, an active Member of this House. He made his maiden speech on this subject and I look forward to hearing again the views that we share, and which he has long and consistently expressed with his customary vigour and clarity.
I hope I may also share a personal memory that I suspect he may have long forgotten. Almost 53 years ago, I first played cricket under his captaincy on our regimental ground at Winchester. Towards the end of the match, I hit the biggest six of my life, and, if I shut my eyes, I can still see the ball soaring over the trees at the edge of the ground. However, as I walked towards the pavilion, not out, I was taken aback not to be welcomed by my captain but rocketed for playing such an irresponsible shot when we were fighting for the draw that we had achieved. With such commitment to the cause, it is no wonder that he became Chief of the Defence Staff. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking him for his many contributions and wishing him and Averil every good fortune in the future.
In 1998, General Lee Butler, one time commander of the United States Strategic Command, said:
“I see with painful clarity that from the very beginnings of the nuclear era, the objective scrutiny and searching debate essential to adequate comprehension and responsible oversight of its vast enterprises were foreshortened or foregone”.
The reason why my noble friend Lord Hannay and I tabled this debate was precisely because,
“objective scrutiny and searching debate”,
on both the prospects for multilateral nuclear disarmament and the contribution that Britain could make have, for too long, been conspicuous by their absence from the agendas of successive Governments and both Houses of Parliament. This unwillingness to encourage both was exemplified by the Answer to the Written Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, on whether the Government,
“will publish their Trident review; and, if so, when”?
The Written Answer states:
“The Trident Alternatives Review will report to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in the first half of 2013. There are no plans to publish either the report itself or the information it draws upon due to its highly classified nature. It remains too early to speculate about what it might be possible to say publicly about the conclusions when the review has been completed”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. WA 301.]
Yesterday, the chairman of the Cabinet Office Trident review committee, Douglas Alexander, in an interview in the Guardian, lifted the veil somewhat by confirming that the main factors being considered, far from being highly classified, were very much ones that deserved scrutiny and debate. Furthermore, if noble Lords read the debate on the nuclear deterrent held in the other place on 17 January, they will find not only open discussion of the factors for and against the need for, or possible alternatives to, Trident, to which I will return later, but mention, by a former soldier, Crispin Blunt MP, that:
“We owe it to ourselves to think rather more deeply about this matter than we have done in the past … to review the policy properly, and as openly as we can”.
He refers to the lack of an undertaking to publish meaning that,
“there will therefore be no opportunity for us to examine the costings”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/13; col. 1118.]
Of course, some details of every weapon system must remain classified and there is more to replacing a so-called independent nuclear deterrent than cost alone. However, what concerns me and many others is the reluctance of successive Governments to examine the criteria that should guide the choice of any nuclear weapon system. Our original deterrent was procured during the Cold War and, given the capability of our then presumed opponent, Trident was a credible replacement for Polaris in the late 1970s, if we were to convince the Russian Politburo that a pre-emptive attack on the United Kingdom would risk a nuclear response involving unacceptable damage to the territory and people of the Soviet Union. However, we are not at war now, except in the eyes of those who accept the assertions of George W Bush and Tony Blair that we are involved in a “war on terror” and a “war on drugs”, whatever those two terms mean. No one in their right mind can think that Trident is a usable or appropriate weapon against the Taliban or al-Qaeda, so why the unwillingness to allow scrutiny and debate on an issue that affects us all?
These criteria, as with any weapon procurement, must begin with the operational requirement and include two questions of national self-interest. First, who is it that we are seeking to deter from doing what? Secondly, what level of capability is required to achieve that effect? Military choices alone cannot provide the answers to these because nuclear weapons with the destructive power of Trident are instruments for influencing the behaviour of political leaderships, not for achieving results on the battlefield.
We sit at nuclear disarmament tables not least because of our possession of nuclear weapons. However, as with France and China during the Cold War and other states that have acquired them later, we do so conscious that we are a bit player compared with the two nuclear giants, the United States and Russia. Like many others, I am absolutely at one with President Obama’s commitment in his famous Prague speech of April 2009,
“to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”,
in other words, global zero. Like him, I do not pretend that that can happen overnight and accept that the road to that end is paved not only with good intentions but with the opposite as some states without nuclear weapons contemplate changing their status. Like him, too, I recognise that although global zero requires those with nuclear weapons to give them up, achievement requires nations without them to play their part by encouraging those contemplating acquiring them not to do so.
One reason why my noble friend Lord Hannay and I sought this debate now and not earlier was that we hoped that we would have some indication of the nuclear disarmament intentions of the recently elected President of the United States. Sadly, we will have to wait for his State of the Union address on 12 February to hear more than a speech about fiscal cliffs and gun law. However, because the prospects for multinational nuclear disarmament are so inextricably linked with the position of the United States, I propose to comment briefly on the current framework within which any chances of their being realised are debated, conscious that others, including my noble friend, who are more expert than I will expand on individual aspects in more detail. Here I thank and commend Ian Cruse for his excellent Library note, which I am confident noble Lords will find useful, not just in this debate but in what I hope will be subsequent debates.
Leaving out the efforts to achieve a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the Middle East, which is a separate although related subject, I echo the hopes that others have expressed that the president will move quickly to make progress on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty without waiting for Russia to respond; that he will re-energise focus on the United States disarmaments commitment contained in the 2010 non-proliferation treaty action plan, conscious that the 2015 review conference is getting ever nearer; that he will take an active lead of the P5 plus one negotiations over Iran's intentions, conscious that opportunities for compromise are draining away and Israel's position remains crucial; that he will use a commitment to nuclear disarmament to unblock the stalemate over agreeing a programme for the current United Nations Conference on Disarmament, particularly over the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; and finally, that he will encourage the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, originally negotiated by the Conference on Disarmament in the 1990s. Inevitably the prospects for achieving multilateral nuclear disarmament, to which all these have important contributions to make, will depend on every nation, whether it possesses, is thinking of possessing or does not possess nuclear weapons, agreeing to that aim after careful assessment of national self-interest.
As far as Britain's contribution is concerned, the credibility of its position depends as much on our past record as on our perceived intentions. For example, I have no doubt that our role in banning cluster munitions had a decisive influence in encouraging other nations to refuse to ratify a United States attempt to modify that treaty for entirely the wrong reasons, or that that influence could also be applied to making progress with the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.
I suggest that it is on our decision on whether to replace Trident with a similar system capable of taking out Moscow that our real credibility in the eyes of the world will rest—a credibility that is bound to include appreciation of the thoroughness of our decision-taking. Although the 1970s decision to replace Polaris with Trident was based on careful examination of the criteria, the same was not true of either the Labour Government's 2006 White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent, or the coalition Government's 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review or, as far as we can determine, the current Trident alternatives review. The 2006 review resulted in the decision to retain the minimum deterrent capability necessary to provide effective deterrence and work multilaterally for nuclear disarmament, while acknowledging uncertainty about possible future threats that included a major direct nuclear threat to the United Kingdom, threats from states with more limited nuclear capabilities, or threats from nuclear terrorism. Proof that all the criteria had not been properly assessed was provided by the declarations that no distinction would be made,
“‘between the means by which a state might choose to deliver a nuclear warhead … whether by missile or sponsored terrorists’”,
and that,
“a state identified as the source of the material could expect a proportionate response”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/13; col. 1106.]
However, there was no specification either of how that state would be identified or what was meant by “proportionate response”. The Strategic Defence and Security Review, endorsing that decision, added that use of nuclear weapons would only be considered,
“in extreme circumstances of self defence, including the defence of our NATO allies”.
What do I conclude from all this? In terms of the context in which multinational nuclear disarmament is being debated, there is no doubt that 9/11 changed the nature of warfare in a way that is likely to shape the demands on every national defence strategy for years to come. The task of a defence strategist includes determining whether military force should be used at all, and, if so, with what weapons. Nuclear weapons, with the potency of Trident, were appropriate weapons in Cold War strategy but are not appropriate in the post 9/11 world. Defence strategists also have to consider current circumstances that may affect the achievement of any national aim. In this case, I believe that insufficient attention is being paid to the ever-increasing threat of cyber warfare. Cyber weapons can not only disarm an adversary before he has even begun to fight, but render sophisticated armouries and even nuclear deterrence obsolete. Furthermore, as has been proved in Estonia and Georgia, cyber weapons threaten every aspect of a nation's existence, and therefore defence against such attack must be a major requirement of every Government. As an aside, just I regret that the cost of what is essentially a political weapon—the nuclear deterrent—is now laid on the defence budget, because of its inevitable impact on required military expenditure, I hope that the same mistake will not be made with cyber, which affects not only the governance but the economy of the country.
Therefore, if progress is to be made with the United Kingdom's published position with regard to multilateral nuclear disarmament, and if Britain is to make a credible contribution to achieving that aim, my plea to the Minister is that she will recognise the unease and suspicion created by the Government's apparent reluctance or refusal to examine all the criteria associated with continuing our possession of nuclear weapons and denial of objective scrutiny and searching debate, and undertake to enable a proper debate on the conclusions of the Trident alternatives review, in government time, when those are published. I beg to move.
Lord Bramall
My Lords, as, for various reasons, this is my last speech in your Lordships’ House—the last, I believe, of close on 200 personal contributions over the past 26 years—I hope that noble Lords will be indulgent over my being given dispensation to deliver most of this speech sitting down because of my difficulty in standing without full back support for more than a few moments.
I have selected this most timely debate—moved by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, whom I thank for his very kind and generous remarks—to make a final contribution for two reasons: first, because there can be no more important question facing this country than the vexed one of nuclear weapons, and in particular our country’s own nuclear deterrent; and secondly, because in my maiden speech, made in March 1987, I reminded noble Lords of the positive contribution that the possession of nuclear weapons had made to Europe in terms of its stability and an unusually long period of peace, for the simple reason that no prize that might have been gained by military means would have been worth the risk of possible nuclear retaliation.
In those days of the Cold War I therefore fully supported the generally accepted philosophy—I might almost say theology—of the deterrent, and believed that because the prize was no less than the domination of Europe, it was—just—a credible faith. On this I disagreed with my more distinguished predecessor as Chief of the Defence Staff, the late Lord Carver, who I then thought was ahead of his time. I say this because, not having had any emotional antipathy to the useful possession of such weapons, it gives me, I hope, slightly greater credibility if now, a quarter of a century later when things have moved on, I want to deal with the practicalities of nuclear weapons and their future rather differently.
For now, with the Cold War over, the world has changed significantly, both politically and in terms of its conflicts, and is likely to continue to do so. I now feel that it is possible—indeed, I would say essential—to look at the whole question from an entirely different point of view. I shall therefore ask three different but closely related questions. Perhaps I might now be allowed to continue while sitting down.
The first question, from a military point of view, is whether we still need the successor to Trident which the Government presently seem to have in mind. Will it be able to go on doing the job it is supposed to do under any relevant circumstances? To this I believe the answer is unquestionably no. For all practical purposes it has not and, indeed, would not deter any of the threats and challenges—now more economic than military—likely to face this country in the foreseeable or even longer-term future. It has not stopped any terrorist outrage in this country nor, despite America’s omnipotent deterrent, did it prevent the very traumatic 9/11. It did not stop the Argentines trying to take over the Falklands, nor did any nuclear deterrent stop Saddam Hussein marching into Kuwait or firing missiles into Israel. Nor indeed, in a now intensely globalised and interlocked world, could our deterrent ever conceivably be used—not even after a serious hostile incident which it had presumably failed to deter—without making the whole situation in the world infinitely worse for ourselves as well as for everybody else.
For all practical purposes our deterrent has never been truly independent, and if this country had not had a national deterrent over the years dominated by the formidable balance of terror between the USA and the old Soviet Union, it would certainly not be seeking to acquire one now. I see no reason why these circumstances should change, because conflict is moving inexorably in an entirely different direction. Indeed, even that often-quoted justification for such a status symbol—a seat at the top table—has worn a bit thin, with prestige and influence more likely to be achieved by economic strength, wise counsel and peacemaking than by an ability to destroy en masse. Against that background, this country does not need and really cannot afford the very large extra expenditure needed to set up and maintain an ever ready, invulnerable successor to Trident, particularly when all the really usable and frequently needed forces and agencies, so vital for the real security of our country, are still deprived of the resources they require.
Secondly—and particularly as in the gracious Speech the first of only three small, rather opaque references to defence was a determination to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation—I ask how we could possibly make any positive contribution to the current dialogue, and ultimately, one hopes, to a widespread reduction of nuclear weapons, if the only example we set is to be a wholly negative one, by going ahead with possessing for ourselves such an excessive capability for at least another 40 years, and at the same time claiming, however fallaciously, that for a country like ours it is the only way that we can guarantee our security in all circumstances. I imagine that that line of argument is not lost on those who may now wish to acquire such weapons for themselves.
Other countries may not necessarily follow our example if we were to start to run down our own white elephant and be seen to be stepping further down the nuclear ladder. However, to encourage them in the completely opposite direction, to follow our particular stance, seems to me to be very irresponsible for a country such as ours, which rightly has aspirations to be a leader in international affairs.
However, my third and final question is whether, in the real political world we live in, can this Government politically afford not to be seen to have the best nuclear weapon that money can buy? Even if they were mindful to take a rational step, could they really defy any populist feeling which could so easily, and certainly would be, whipped up by those ever keen on contriving a row on key issues—and there could be no issue more key than this—that somehow the Government, however inaccurately, were giving away Britain’s ultimate guarantee of homeland security, while at the same time, heaven forbid, the French may be—probably would be—holding on to theirs? It may therefore be politically easier to let a successor to Trident go ahead despite the many and considerable down sides.
Nevertheless, ever an optimist, I believe that there can be a sensible way of getting round this impasse and giving the Government the opportunity to get off the hook. For instance, they should give urgent consideration to adopting a more practical, realistic and, I hope, cheaper way of keeping at bay or warding off any likely threats to the integrity of our nation and the safety of our citizens, which at the same time would be seen to be giving a lead in the active non-proliferation dialogue. I believe that there are a number of convincing and capable ways of achieving this, some of which may be expanded on by other noble Lords.
To begin with, we should recognise that in today’s world we do not need to have a nuclear-firing submarine at all times to demonstrate an effective deterrent capability. Periodically one boat would have to be at sea for training purposes, and at others a submarine could be put to sea at short notice if the threat to us or our vital interest was perceived to have increased. This variable state of readiness would still maintain some useful sense of uncertainty and could even, at times of particular tension, actually appear to enhance our commitment and resolve. Some useful economies would arise from a system of reduced readiness which might even, by adding to the time span of the existing Trident, go some way to assuaging any lingering electoral doubters. Even more importantly, it would allow a breathing space in which to perfect—hand in hand with improved intelligence, both satellite and terrestrial—a more relevant, economical and useable system, and therefore to allow work on the replacement submarines exclusively for Trident’s successor to be cancelled or at least reviewed.
I would hope that this stepping down from the no-longer-credible immediate response nature of our current nuclear stance could be implemented in a way that persuaded people that it was both a sound and progressive step, designed not quixotically to re-prepare for the last war, but to present a better balanced, more relevant defence programme. Moreover, by making a further and significant contribution to the general dialogue for multinational nuclear disarmament, which everyone seems to approve of, it could even enhance the value of our counsel in international affairs and as a key member of the Security Council.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I do not think that I can say anything more strongly than the speech we have just heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. It shows how great will be our loss in not having his company and advice on this most important of issues. We are all deeply in his debt for once again so frankly speaking truth to power, as he has done all his life, and for his illustrious and remarkable military career, starting with the Military Cross and going all the way up to becoming Commander-in-Chief of the British Land Forces and also—something which I want to mention on personal grounds—his distinguished action as Colonel of the 2nd Gurkha Rifles. I mention that because my son-in-law, who died earlier this year, was a junior officer in the 2nd Gurkha Rifles. He served in Hong Kong and in that neighbourhood, including Malaya. Over many years he told me that nobody was more admired by the Gurkhas than the Field Marshal, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who did so much to help and assist them in their deep dependence on this country and their deep service to it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for whom I have immense respect, for initiating this debate. I hope that I will show not excessive trepidation in drawing attention to two things that he said with which, with the greatest respect, I cannot agree. First, he said that there had been no willingness to review or publish thoughts about, and details of the work being done on, the review of Trident. That is not true. I have in my hand the mid-term review of the coalition. It states:
“We will complete and publish the review of alternatives to Trident”.
That statement cost some members of the coalition quite a lot. It was quite a battle to get those words in—but they are in, they are part of the mid-term review and they will be respected.
My second point to the noble Lord is that the person who was the subject of a long interview in the Guardian on Monday was not the shadow Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the distinguished Mr Douglas Alexander, but Mr Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Few people in the Government could know more about the cost of Trident and, if I may say so, could have made as acute, perceptive and distinguished a contribution to the debate as he did. Anybody who reads it will know why I say that. It was an extraordinarily candid piece.
Thirdly, I refer to another contribution in the Guardian. It was made by a former Minister for the Armed Forces, my friend Nicholas Harvey. He was an excellent Minister and he wrote a very candid and frank article in which he cast as much doubt on whether it was wise to go ahead with Trident as a former Minister possibly could. He spoke in terms as eloquent and forceful as those of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
I will turn quickly to some of the issues. First, the structure of control and governance over nuclear weapons has essentially rested on treaties signed by the so-called P5—the recognised, official nuclear powers. One of the first treaties set up the IAEA, which is a major inspector of nuclear weapons developments. The second, which sadly has never been ratified by the United States, was the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. The third was the attempt to get a fissile material treaty that would cut off fissile materials. That would mean in effect that it would become almost impossible to develop further nuclear weapons because no fissile materials would be fed into the process. The final one, which I mention in passing, was the attempt to bring about a tougher inspection system, of which the additional protocol is at the heart.
I believe very strongly that the President of the United States, in his re-elected second term, will be determined to proceed further, and as far as he possibly can, with these crucial treaties. Already there is evidence from members of the President’s staff that he is utterly determined to do that. There is also stronger evidence in his remarkable appointment of a new Secretary of State, Senator Kerry, to succeed the excellent Mrs Clinton; and, secondly and perhaps even more significantly, in his appointment of Senator Hagel as Defence Secretary. It was a most unexpected appointment. Senator Hagel has had the courage to speak out against any military action against Iran, and to say quite a few things that echo what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said about the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, and the fact that therefore they should not be used except in the most extreme circumstances. The appointment of these two gentlemen, both of them highly controversial in American politics and not likely to be totally welcomed by all members of Congress, is clear evidence of what the President intends to do. I believe that he will take matters as far as he possibly can, with the support of his allies—that is important—in the next four years of his presidency.
I will go back for a moment to say something about each of the treaties. The CTBT has long been resisted by the United States, and equally by other countries including China. It is critical that we should try to pass it now. Secondly, the START agreement was passed by a very narrow majority in the US Congress. It opens up the prospect of major reductions in nuclear arsenals. The treaty has been passed but not yet implemented. If it were implemented, we would see a dramatic decline in the arsenals of nuclear weapons that—here I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—serve no useful purpose at all and tend to decline in effectiveness over the years.
The Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty has been blocked for the past few years at the conference on disarmament in Geneva by one country: Pakistan. That is very serious and we need to think very hard about ways to get around that. Since Pakistan’s major fear is not Russia or China but India, I will say that the whole world owes a huge debt to the present Prime Minister of India, Mr Manmohan Singh, for flatly refusing to retaliate after the Mumbai and Delhi terror attacks. It is one of those moments in history when one has to be grateful, for the safety of the whole world, to just one brave politician. He was exactly that in refusing to retaliate against a major attack on Mumbai. Nobody knows who made it, but many people suspected a body in Pakistan. Thirdly in the list of treaties, there is a real chance that we may be able to move ahead also on the additional protocol now signed by a number of member states of the IAEA. This is absolutely critical if we are to have effective inspection.
If there were time, I would love to turn to a number of other, very serious issues: for example, China’s commitment to the no-first-use doctrine, which although helpful has acted as a block to much of the thinking about nuclear weapons and about the way in which we might develop an effective system of controlling them. However, I will echo the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in saying that we live and move in a very different world from that of 30 years ago. As the noble and gallant Lord eloquently said, there is very little point in having nuclear weapons, and certainly in having nuclear weapons continuously at sea. Our main fears are of terrorism or possibly a serious accident—to both of which a nuclear deterrent is irrelevant.
The other main point to make about the new developments, many of them in the laboratories of the United States armed forces, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, they are moving towards cyberwarfare and increasingly precisely targeted weapons, including some of the conventional weapons that today terrify Russia. Russia is scared stiff that the United States is rapidly overtaking it in terms of conventional warfare. Therefore, it depends increasingly on nuclear deterrence, which in many ways is becoming irrelevant.
I will end my remarks by saying that for many years between the wars—this is relevant to the discussions we will have in the coming year about the First World War—there was a deep belief in France that the Maginot Line was an unassailable and invulnerable defence. Right up to the beginning of the Second World War, the French military continued to believe in the Maginot Line, which lasted a matter of days and was then gone. Like the Great Wall of China, it was a deterrent that did not work. I suggest strongly that we should look to the developments in cyberwarfare, which are terrifying, and at developments in robot warfare, of which we have the example of the drone, which is used increasingly in Pakistan and Afghanistan and is likely now to be used in west Africa, in countries such as Somalia and other out-of-control states, and ask whether Trident is relevant, and whether nuclear weapons are relevant.
I will conclude with a final thank you that deserves to be part of this debate. One of the listed speakers is the noble Lord, Lord Wood. For some time he was an adviser to the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Mr Brown gets a lot of criticism, but with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Wood, he probably took greater steps in reducing to its bare, effective minimum the British nuclear deterrent, in working on verification and in seeking to get wider agreements to reduce the power of nuclear weapons, as far as this could be done. It is appropriate and right that we should remember that we owe him something for that substantial contribution.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I very much appreciate the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in tabling this debate. It has attracted the attention of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who is making his final speech, as, we find with some regret, he described it. I, too, would like to mention not only the noble and learned Lord’s distinguished record from the D-Day landings through to being Chief of the General Staff at the time of the Falklands, but the fact that he is a neighbour in Crondall. One day he said to me, “I don’t know. You’re called Lord Lea of Crondall. Why aren’t I Lord Bramall of Crondall?”. I think the answer is that no one else around the place has a name like “Bramall” but there are plenty of Leas around, and that makes me Lord Lea Crondall, so I am sorry about that.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has been on a sort of odyssey, if I may call it that. I will not say that it was a conversion on the road to Damascus, because Odysseus had to deal with new changes in the climate on his way back to Troy or wherever he was trying to get to. It is interesting how someone can be a senior serviceman and Member of this House for 25 years and still be fresh for new analysis. We all know the relevant quote from John Maynard Keynes in the economic field: “When the facts change, I reconsider. What do you do?”.
In many ways the noble and gallant Lord’s odyssey was paralleled by someone who influenced me very much. I refer to Lord Garden, a former nuclear bomber pilot and the author of a book on nuclear strategy, who sadly died some years ago. He made an analysis in a publication by the Royal United Services Institute when he was Liberal Democrat defence spokesman in the Lords. He was arguing for leaving the decision on replacing Trident as late as possible. Incidentally, he attracted me to become involved in the group that he set up and chaired for some years, the All-Party Group on Global Security and Non-Proliferation, which is now chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who we look forward to hearing from later in this debate.
I shall refer to three points made by Lord Garden. First, he noted rather ruefully that the UK retains some leverage in the process of non-proliferation while it has some weapons, so you have to have some weapons to be involved in non-proliferation. I say “ruefully” because he was more than hinting at the Alice in Wonderland quality of the logic that we are all trying to grapple with.
Secondly, he noted that the opportunity costs of other conventional capabilities are considerable and that the lack of knowledge about conventional needs and available resources so far in advance argues for decisions at the latest possible stage. In a week when we have seen what has happened in Algeria, I think that the truth of the trade-off of conventional, non-nuclear ways of dealing with threats could not be better put.
Thirdly, he noted:
“Nor is it clear that such systems could contribute to our security needs beyond deterring indeterminate future nuclear threats. The constraints of the NPT would cause further complications”.
I find it hard to disagree with that and I cannot think of anyone in this House who would disagree with that. That shows that we have come a long way in the thinking of two very distinguished former military people from the rationale that we bomb Moscow and kill 10 million people as long as they bomb London and can kill 10 million people here.
The Trident replacement study clearly has to be distinguished from the main gate study. Sometimes I wonder whether there is confusion in some minds over what the Trident replacement study is. It certainly does not mean, “Do we replace Trident?”. I think that people are confused about what it means, but it just means looking at what the alternative ways are of delivering nuclear missiles. I can put both the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, right. It is partly my fault that I did not draw this to the noble Lord’s attention. There is nothing wrong with what the noble Lord said about the Written Answer in December but it was only late last week that ordinary mortals saw the text of the coalition agreement, which refers to a decision to publish the report of the alternative review. It was not in the public domain before then. It was announced separately in the House of Commons, even later than the coalition mid-term review at the end of last week, that the review will be published in May this year.
We know that there is a double meaning of “alternatives to Trident”, but at some point we must turn to seeing how this relates not just to alternative ways of using a nuclear warhead but to alternatives to Trident itself. The question arises of how this fits in with multilateral disarmament or a multinational contribution to the non-proliferation process. Common sense would suggest that a contribution to a multilateral process would be along the lines of, “If we do this, will you do that?” That is what normally happens, from being at school onwards. That is what a trade-off is. However, I have not seen any sign of such a proposition, let alone a trade-off in practice. We are told that it is perfectly logical for there to be twin tracks: the track of the nuclear powers looking at their weapons systems and the track of non-proliferation. The trouble is that the non-proliferation industry has become exactly that—it is self-perpetuating and could quite happily go on without anything much being done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, tried to make the case for saying that quite a lot was being done under the treaty and that it was not just a question of people flying around to conferences. The fact is that there is a great danger in letting the present position drift. I refer to the case of Brazil, which has forgone nuclear weapons on the grounds that it believed what it was being told—that we would respect our commitments under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. If it thinks that it has been duped and that its agreement was not worth the paper it was written on, that will be very bad for world relationships.
Then there is the argument that we cannot really do anything much of substance. That means that we independently put our nuclear weapons system on the table but the French will not do anything at the same time. This is tantamount to saying, “If the French have got one, we’ve got to have one too”. I can understand our friends across the Channel needing a Gallic symbol—I nearly said a phallic symbol, although it may be that as well. As with two tribes in the South Sea Islands some years ago, it is there to be worshipped. It is never to be used, of course, but it is nice to be seen dangling from the long room roof. However, that is not satisfactory in the present world as a rationale for having Trident.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who is the chairman of the All-Party Group on Global Security and Non-Proliferation, is a great expert on this issue. He will no doubt tell us about the non-nuclear zone in the Middle East. In all of this, that is where I would put my finger on something being very urgent. Huge importance should be attached to the problem of inspection within the regime and the role of the IAEA. When some of us were in Vienna—I have got a long history of being involved with the IAEA for various reasons—and were discussing Iran, it seemed to me that the nuclear powers wanted to push the IAEA procedures to one side. However, we have to recognise the use of the proper procedures in the treaty obligations to which we have signed up and not make things up as we go along.
I look forward to consultation on the main gate decision. Can the Minister say what kind of timescale for consultation there will be on that decision? I do not think anyone in the Chamber would happily contemplate that decision being taken by default.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, as your Lordships will recognise, this topic has its periods of interests and enthusiasm, but there is an inevitable disconnect— perhaps not unintended—between being an advocate for multilateral disarmament while actively planning to remain in the nuclear club.
I have never doubted that the interests of this country are best served by remaining a member of that nuclear club and being a nuclear power of credibility. Many arguments have been put forward from the original decision immediately after World War II to become a nuclear power; to retain and, as required, update the credibility of that power. I also never doubt that the primary purpose is not for war fighting but for deterrence, although the worth of that deterrent posture and power have to be maintained and reinforced, particularly in times of stress.
Some may argue that when budgets are tight, and conventional defence means are underfunded, expenditure on the nuclear deterrent, both in capital and in running cost, could be of greater value to the national interest if devoted to conventional requirements. Nevertheless, legacy nuclear costs will still have to be met, and these will not be small. However, virtually all experience of the initial funding of the national deterrent is that it would be financed outside the defence budget, though for convenience and oversight it soon became a part of the overall defence vote.
Were a Government ever to undertake to match defence funding to some outside measure—for example, as a percentage of GDP—and to stick to that undertaking over a period of years, then perhaps the relative values of nuclear or conventional capabilities could be more fairly related to each other in financial terms. Lacking that commitment, the arguments for a deterrent posture have to be related not so much to the funding but to the widest possible interests of the country.
That is not merely to the deterrent threat which it might pose to putative opponents but to the influence it has in the field of friends and supporters. It is noteworthy that the arguments against our deterrent seem to rely on foreseen events, many of which have been mentioned today, rather than on the unforeseen, which all of us will recognise happen from time to time. Speeches and diplomacy—worthy and as important as they may be—lack the same punch that comes from a country with the ability, if required, to defend its interests vigorously or to mount expeditionary effort in the national interest.
If this analysis is accepted, or even only partially accepted, then what real credibility do a British Government have to take the lead in any renewed effort on multilateral nuclear disarmament? That is not to dismiss as worthless the efforts of many who try to gain momentum for this topic. It is important that the alternative view is heard and debated and tested against the current, shall I call it “wisdom”, of today’s leaders.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on his initiative in launching this debate. I join him in congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on his trenchant and well argued views on this and many other defence topics. The noble and gallant Lord has not been averse, after deep thought and consideration, to coming out of the nuclear closet into the conventional cauldron. It is a penchant for some Field Marshals and I, for one, think no less of them for their revisionist stance. However, I remain a nuclear champion for this country.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I remind the House of my entry in the register of Lords’ interests. I am honoured to follow the cogent and well argued speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. Much what he said I agree with, but in a qualified way. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Hannay of Chiswick, for securing the debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on introducing it with such an interesting and comprehensive speech. I associate myself fully with the tributes to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. As I was listening to him, it reminded me of my time as the Secretary of State for Defence, when I was not nearly as happy sometimes to hear him speak in your Lordships’ House as I have been today.
As we await the State of the Union address it is relevant to remind ourselves that some progress has been made since President Obama’s speech in Prague in 2009. Arguably the new START treaty and the nuclear security summits are the high points of this progress. However, it is undoubtedly the case that the steam has gone out of this agenda, which we all espoused and cheered to the echo at the time of Prague, and we watch US/Russia relationships sour, for a number of reasons, with some worry.
Although global stockpiles of nuclear weapons are down dramatically since the end of the Cold War, today there are more nuclear-armed states and some of the weapons are in the hands of the most unstable regimes and regions in the world. Today Iran appears to be on track for a nuclear weapon, and it was announced yesterday that North Korea is planning a nuclear test. Pakistan is increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal and its plutonium production and appears to be pursuing smaller warheads for missiles aimed at India. Despite Fukushima, plans for expanded civil use of nuclear power remain. Widespread dispersal of enrichment technologies will make it more, not less, difficult to secure and control nuclear materials in the future.
Some say the dangers of the current environment and their uncertainties strengthen the case for our continued reliance on nuclear weapons. In the short term, I agree with them. I was partly responsible for the decision to renew the UK nuclear deterrent in 2006 and I still do not support the unilateral abandonment of an independent UK deterrent. However, this is not 2006 and relevant factors have changed even since then, as has their significance. It is becoming clear that deterrence as a cornerstone of our defence strategy is decreasingly effective and increasingly risky. As nuclear technologies spread, it will be more difficult, not easier, to prevent acts of nuclear terrorism. In 2006 I believed that our deterrent could play a role in deterring nuclear terrorism by threatening any state known to support it, but as the sources of material used for terrorism multiply, it will be more difficult to pinpoint the state responsible. If one cannot do that, one has no target for a credible threat of retaliation.
Cyber attacks are more commonplace today and they will grow both in number and in intensity. Attribution of the source is difficult, if not impossible. Where one cannot attribute an attack to a source, again one cannot deter with a threat of massive retaliation. That is not to say that nuclear weapons are irrelevant to all 21st century challenges, but it is to say that they offer less of an insurance policy against the challenges we will face in the future.
Further, I invite noble Lords to reflect on recent research into the climate change impacts of even a small nuclear exchange, let alone the effects of one between superpowers. Since 2006, new scientific research has revisited the nuclear winter theme. The research, employing more sophisticated climate models, stresses the devastating climate effects that would follow the use of nuclear weapons. A major use would be suicidal. It would so alter the climate and, as a consequence, our agriculture that the attacker’s population would starve to death, even without any nuclear retaliation. Even a smaller nuclear exchange, for example, between India and Pakistan, would produce global temperatures colder than any experienced in the last millennium, with massive impacts on agriculture affecting up to 1 billion people, particularly in China and the United States, causing economic damage and huge political instability around the world.
If we want to be secure against nuclear and other threats, we have to think more creatively than our current reliance on deterrence implies. We have to shift the emphasis away from the threat of massive retaliation to prevention of nuclear catastrophe and resilience in the face of any attacks. On the nuclear side, we must plan for the unthinkable, but prevention is our main route to safety. Fewer nuclear weapons and materials in the world must be better than more of both. Those who argue the opposite are dangerously overconfident about our ability to keep control of nuclear weapons and materials, particularly in the face of terrorists’ ambitions. Prevention means a number of things. First, we have to get and keep better control of the world’s nuclear weapons and materials. It is essential that the nuclear security summit in the Netherlands is ambitious. This is an issue for continued leadership attention. It is important that world leaders reaffirm their commitment to continue this process, and talk of the meeting in the Netherlands being the last of the series is foolish.
Secondly, we have to cap the problem by making progress towards a fissile material cut-off treaty. The issue of such a treaty cannot be allowed to languish in the conference on disarmament any longer; it has been there for far too long. Thirdly, it is essential that President Obama and President Putin meet and pursue a follow-on deal to the new START treaty as soon as possible. The US needs to show flexibility on missile defence, agreeing to share more details because that is the key to unlocking the door to further nuclear reductions and a deal in which the US could agree to reduce the warheads it holds in reserve and Russia could agree to cuts and more transparency about its non-strategic nuclear weapons. Fourthly, we must never miss an opportunity to tell both the US and China that they have a solemn international responsibility to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
Fifthly, we have to work harder to strengthen the grand bargain at the heart of the non-proliferation treaty or risk losing it. We are becoming dangerously complacent about it. All states have a responsibility here, but the nuclear weapons states bear a special responsibility. Successive Governments have reduced the number of warheads in the UK arsenal, but we need to do more. Formally, we are committed to the like-for-like renewal of Trident and the operational posture of continuous at-sea deterrence. The Government and all Members of this House need to reflect further on this position. Are we telling the countries of the rest of the world that we cannot feel secure without nuclear weapons on continuous at-sea deployment while at the same time telling the vast majority of them that they must forgo indefinitely any nuclear option for their own security? Is that really our policy? If so, do we expect the double standard that it implies and indeed contains, to stick in a world of rising powers?
The non-nuclear weapon states signatories to the NPT committed themselves to non-nuclear status only in the face of a commitment by the nuclear weapon states to pursue disarmament. Some of that disarmament must come through multilateral negotiation and agreement, but some of it can come through independent action, as in the case of several rounds of announced reductions in the size of the UK nuclear warhead stockpile, none of which we negotiated with anyone else. The time is now right, in my view, to change our posture and to step down from continuous at-sea deterrence. This would demonstrate that nuclear weapons are playing less and less of a role in our national security strategy, and along with the reductions in stockpile numbers we have made, it would strengthen our ability to argue internationally for the kinds of measures I have outlined in this speech.
There are those, I know, who will argue that we have already done enough, that it is time for others to act and that, in any case, such measures will have no impact on the actions of the Irans and North Koreas of this world. They may well be right. Certainly, some states must be confronted with firm international action and other states must also step up and take their responsibilities more seriously if we are to avoid the worst. If a disastrous nuclear incident does occur, it will not be all or even partially the fault of this country, but what consolation will there be in the blame game the morning after London has been devastated by a terrorist nuclear attack? What consolation will there be when we cannot secure incontrovertible evidence of the source of the attack and therefore cannot use the nuclear weapons we have on continuous deployment, even should we wish to? What will the value of our insurance policy be then? Where will the consolation be if even a small nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan has the kind of climatic effect I described earlier? The choice is not between one risky and one risk-free future. There are no risk-free futures on offer.
The primary purpose of our policy must be to ensure that we never suffer the consequences of a nuclear attack. At this stage in our history, nuclear deterrence still has a residual role to play in achieving this objective, but the character of 21st-century threats means that its shelf life is eroding. To achieve our objective, we now need to shift the emphasis to the kinds of measures I have talked about—on to reducing the chances of any nuclear weapon ever being used anywhere. That means the relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons reductions, a relentless strengthening of nuclear security and non-proliferation regimes, and a decreased reliance on nuclear weapons for national security by all, including ourselves.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, earlier this week I asked myself why a debate of this importance has attracted relatively few noble Lords to speak in it. Is it because the debate is seen as one really for the big boys with military, defence or diplomatic experience, who can easily examine these complex issues and get their minds around the treaties? Having heard the quality of the speeches in the debate, I would have to say yes, and I am sure that the speeches to follow my own will doubly prove the point. However, I am afraid that it is also because many of your Lordships are stuck in a time from before that at which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has arrived. I explored this view anecdotally at the Long Table on Tuesday, when I asked many of my neighbours why they were not going to speak today. The answer volunteered was that nuclear weapons have kept the peace since World War Two and there is nothing more to say on the subject. I am glad that the noble and gallant Lord has again made such a powerful speech today and I hope that Members of the House will read it. In a way, I wish he could have done a warm-up to encourage more debate. I am sure that the Trident debate will help as it progresses, because it will force people to engage with the issue.
I want to spend a little time talking about why parliamentarians really must get more involved in the debate. In this House we have tended to put nuclear matters rather in a silo. We have had debates on the strategic defence and security review, but there is no real place for these issues to be discussed in those. We barely mention them in debates on European defence matters because, of course, they are not a European competence. However, today is the day and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on securing the debate. It is one in which, as parliamentarians, we all need to engage because traditional nuclear deterrence means targeting major centres and aiming to destroy cities and civilian populations. That is one of the reasons why the organisation Mayors for Peace has such a vibrant and growing world-wide membership.
The legality of the nuclear deterrent is now highly questionable and is exactly the sort of issue that the legal minds in your Lordships’ House should start to examine. In the rest of the world, the non-nuclear states are becoming more convinced that nuclear weapons are contrary to international law. The International Court of Justice ruling in 1996 said that,
“the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”.
Since 1996, that argument has been gaining ground. Already whole regions of the world are declaring themselves nuclear-free zones—regions that are likely to be future forces in development and growth and therefore much more powerful, such as Latin America. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, mentioned Brazil in particular. He is right. Countries in these nuclear-free zones are going to start questioning why the P5+1 are not taking seriously their obligations under the NPT. Other nuclear-free zones include south-east Asia, central Asia and Africa.
I meet many parliamentarians from these regions through the international organisation Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament—PNND—which exists to facilitate dialogue on these issues. It has just published a handbook. The handbook is not a route map or a document espousing one particular policy or solution any more than a recipe book is a definitive guide to what you must eat, but it is a toolkit of what parliamentarians can do within the scope of international treaties and in their own domestic situations to make a nuclear world safer step by step. If those steps lead to a nuclear convention and nuclear zero that will be terrific, but there are many steps we can—and should—take before that.
The handbook aims to enable us as legislators and scrutinisers of our Governments to do a better job with regard to the nuclear weapons debate. I welcome it because it is quite intimidating to speak in a debate where everyone else is such an expert, but I feel that we have an obligation to get more involved. As the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon says in his introduction to the PNND handbook:
“The rule of law is coming to nuclear disarmament, and parliamentarians have important contributions to make in advancing this historic process … Yet disarmament and non-proliferation can also appear to legislators as remote from daily concerns”.
I hope that as the debate advances on whether to renew Trident—and whether nuclear weapon possession is even legal under international law—the next debate of this sort in your Lordships’ House will attract speakers to the point where it is a two-day debate.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on bringing this debate to the House today and the way in which he introduced it, not least because he gave us the opportunity to hear the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as well—I am appalled if it is to be the last time; I certainly hope it is not—in what I think impressed the whole House as a deeply felt and most impressive contribution to the debate.
Having said that, and while some have some background in this area, I hope that my noble friend Lady Miller will not feel the least bit inhibited. She is absolutely right that a lot more Members should take part in this very important debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, the whole issue should be examined more deeply.
By virtue of the office I once held, I was faced with what seemed at the time to be a pretty unrealistic situation, as I was shown a target map of the Soviet cities that were to be taken out in total annihilation. It never seemed very credible at the time. We are discussing something that there has been no occasion to use in the past 65 years, since it was invented. As my noble friend Lady Williams said, one should not underestimate the significance of the end of the Cold War.
I remember a meeting in No. 10 when John Major was Prime Minister, when President Yeltsin came over and we talked about how we could help the Russians recover their nuclear weapons that were scattered around different parts of the Soviet Union, which they did not have any adequate way of recovering. We made various secure containers available to help them in that.
At the same time I received some very interesting advice in my brief about the work that was being done to enable nuclear material suitable for warheads to be turned into fuel for nuclear power stations. I am delighted to see, in the excellent brief that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, the very real US-Russian co-operation that is going on. The US is spending $1 billion on helping the Russians to combat the spread of nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union. In their joint Megatons to Megawatts programme, they are turning highly enriched uranium into lightly enriched uranium for use in power stations. They have already converted nearly 20,000 warheads’ worth of nuclear material into fuel, making it unavailable for use in warheads. I understand that there is a bit of a freeze and some tension in the US-Russian relationship at the moment, and in the interests of the whole world I hope that that is not too long-lasting.
It is against that background that one looks at the future as vividly described by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. It is of course an extraordinarily dangerous world, and we can only be reminded of that by the upheavals that have happened, all so rapidly, barely in the past couple of years. The whole of the Middle East has gone into spasm: Libya; the appalling carnage in Syria at present; the issue of whether Iran is developing a nuclear weapon; Israel, with the CIA assessment that it has 300 to 400 warheads, and the question, after its election, of whether it may or may not decide to make any use of them; and obviously the situation in Yemen, Somalia and, now, Mali. The issues that we face include terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, piracy and cyber threats. However, against none of those do nuclear weapons look like God’s gift to solving the problem. It is against that background that I look on the present situation. It is certainly not obvious to me that there is any longer a need for a major nuclear system based on 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week availability. None the less, it is an unstable world and my judgment is that we would be wise not to abandon totally some nuclear capability, not least because one looks at Iran, North Korea and the development by Russia, and I think by Pakistan as well, of non-strategic nuclear weapons, which is obviously a very dangerous development.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, the blockage to this has really been the political judgment. Can any political party in this country go to the electors and say, “We have dismantled the basic, fundamental, ultimate defence of our country”? That is the challenge that we face and that has to be addressed. As to whether it ultimately gives us top-table credibility, in the current world we live in, top-table credibility comes from being available to help with peacekeeping and conflict resolution, and in having Armed Forces that are able to exist, co-ordinate and co-operate with the new high-technology and highly sophisticated systems. We know that, in any co-operation with the United States, there are very few countries now that can do that.
Against that background, the cash pressures are very much an issue here. I think that our place at the top table would be more threatened by committing ourselves to a system for 40 years or more that may mean, in what are likely to be pretty stringent economic times for the foreseeable future, that we are less able to contribute in the United Nations and under United Nations leadership in some of those other roles than by whether we can say that we have these very substantial weapons, which we have never had occasion to use. Our position and the need to play our part in the world means we must now review this very carefully as it comes forward—I am glad it is Danny Alexander and not Douglas Alexander who is leading this particular exercise—to see whether we can find an alternative way forward that preserves our defences adequately but not at quite such an appalling expense.
Lord Judd
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a trustee of Saferworld. Along with others, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for having made this debate possible. It is always particularly telling when people with such a strong military background speak out in the way that he has spoken out today. I also want to say how moved I was by the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. Ever since coming into this House, over 20 years ago, I have admired his contribution almost without limit. He speaks with the firm authority of a former Chief of the General Staff but he also speaks with great enlightenment. I shall never forget his speeches before we went into Afghanistan and before the Iraq war, and I wish they had been taken more seriously. The House will miss his wisdom and experience.
Disarmament and arms control are essential elements in an effective defence policy. So-called irregular, and indeed terrorist, activities underline this, and Afghanistan, Mali and Algeria are all recent examples. The easy availability of dangerous and lethal arms makes arms control all the more imperative. Light arms, vehicles, spare parts and, more sinisterly, the biological, chemical and crude nuclear possibilities are all part of this. Nuclear waste from civil industry is highly relevant. The international arms trade must be under constant scrutiny. Sadly, the prevailing culture seems still too often to be that arms exports are an important part of our export drive and should be debarred only when there is some overriding reason for doing so. Surely, the culture should be that, in our highly turbulent and unstable world, arms and ancillary equipment are highly dangerous and lethal exports which should be permitted only to the closest firm allies in whom we have total confidence or for very specific controllable reasons of international security and defence. Confidence about end-use and potential end-use is essential.
Because of the introduction of the nuclear, biological and chemical dimension of all this, I hope that noble Lords will permit me to say a word on the arms trade treaty negotiations. The final conference, after failure to agree in July 2012, will be in less than two months’ time. If that conference again fails to deliver a treaty, the issue will return to the UN General Assembly in its current session, where the assembly as a whole will take over, with the possibility of voting a treaty through. The methodology in negotiations has been to proceed by consensus. However, this must not be allowed to become a treaty at any cost. That would not be a success—quite the reverse. It must be effective and curb irresponsible transfers. In other words, it must uphold the original purpose of the ATT; it has to cover a comprehensive range of arms and ancillary equipment; and it has to include ammunition. Upholding human rights must be a key part of it all. The Government, like their predecessor, have played a dynamic lead role in emphasising all this and in taking the conference forward. It would be tragic if they were to weaken and fall at the last fence. A treaty must of course meet the challenges of Syria.
Specifically on multilateral nuclear disarmament, the need is urgent. There is growing evidence of pressure for still more proliferation. There are the issues of Iran and Israel. The non-proliferation treaty has as a cornerstone the firm commitment of existing nuclear powers to pursue nuclear disarmament themselves. Our nuclear policy must at all times be, and be seen to be, consistent with that. How do we influence constructively if we are perceived to be moving in the opposite direction? To argue that our own nuclear weapons are essential to the defence of the realm can be provocative and positively encourage others to use exactly the same argument. It has been powerfully argued that nothing would better promote nuclear disarmament than for us to announce the intention not to replace the Trident system, to abandon continuous at-sea deterrence, to mothball our submarines and to put them on the negotiating table as a challenge for all to abandon nuclear weapons. I strongly believe that the case and need for, and relevance of, a new Trident have never been established.
There are other practical steps that we can take. We can reduce patrols, thereby lengthening the life expectancy of submarines and pushing off the need for replacement. We can further reduce warheads, demonstrating that numbers can be very small but still effective. We can step up our proactive diplomacy and technical co-operation around the P5 process. It is going slowly at present. The Chinese are blamed, but more could be done to find out from them what they require in order to have confidence in the process. We could take Russian concern and apparent paranoia more seriously. This paranoia harms our own security as well as the prospects for arms control. We have to address more convincingly their concerns. We could open up Britain to inspections that mirror the US-Russian transparency in the new START process. Why do we have to be more secretive than the US and the Russians? Indeed, we could have our own bilateral arrangements with Russia. Central to the current considerations by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister on all this is which systems will provide more flexibility to move further forward on disarmament and which will not.
It is essential to remember that the UK has said it believes that a nuclear abolition treaty will one day be necessary and is desirable. Surely now is the time to go beyond William Hague’s May 2010 declaratory posture; for example, by adopting a policy of no first use—that is, negative assurances—Trident is then for use only in deterring a nuclear strike. We could then recommend to the P5, alongside China, that they agree a no-first-use treaty. No first use would be an important confidence-building measure for the wider community of non-nuclear armed states. It would enhance the spirit of the NPT and be an important and concrete step along the long road to nuclear disarmament.
We could also build on the UK-Norway warhead dismantlement initiative by commissioning studies on how the UK could in practice move from being a nuclear weapons state to a non-nuclear weapons state. We could then share these studies with others in the P5 and encourage similar studies by them. The transition to being a non-nuclear weapons state would of course require extraordinary legal, political and practical measures. The international community would need high levels of evidence and confidence to be convinced not only that the UK had disarmed but that the change was genuine and absolute and that it would not reconfigure its nuclear arsenal in future.
Long ago, when I was Minister of State for the Foreign Office, I had some responsibilities in the sphere of disarmament. One of the issues that always concerned me—and I do not think that it concerns me any less now than it did then—was that, because of the complexity of the issues, there was a great temptation to get involved in an intellectualised process in which good minds, as it were, played chess with each other. I am a crude politician when it comes down to the point. The issue is: do we believe that a disarmed world would be safer or more dangerous? Do we believe that a nuclear disarmed world would be safer or more dangerous? Clearly, a nuclear disarmed world would be a much safer place in which to live. Our job is to think about how we do it, not to prevaricate and look at all the difficulties.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, the topicality of the subject we are debating today can surely not be doubted. The re-election for a second term of President Obama, who so electrified a global audience with the vision he set out in his Prague speech of a world eventually free of nuclear weapons, together with the changes in the top leadership of three of the other four officially recognised nuclear weapons states—China, France and Russia—present an opportunity as well as a challenge to those who wish for progress along the road towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
However, we need to recognise that the landscape of 2012 was pretty bleak. There, I entirely share the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. The euphoria provoked by the Prague speech and the new START agreement between Russia and the US faded. Neither NATO nor Russia made any meaningful progress towards reducing and eventually removing tactical nuclear weapons from the front line in Europe. The failure at the end of the year to implement the agreement to convoke a conference on a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the Middle East has merely stored up problems for the future. We are entering a new and extremely dangerous phase in the efforts to handle the attempts by North Korea and Iran to break out from their obligations under the non-proliferation regime.
There are lots more causes for alarm and concern than there are for complacency, which makes the initiative of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham in obtaining this debate—I shared a little in the effort to get that agreed by our fellow Cross-Benchers— the more laudable. I also take this opportunity to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for his contribution to this debate and to so many other debates in this House.
As has invariably been the case so far, any further moves towards multilateral nuclear disarmament have to begin with the United States and Russia, whose arsenals still far exceed those of all other nuclear weapons states—both recognised and unrecognised—put together, and which also still far exceed any conceivable requirements to ensure their security.
The initial auguries are not good. The Russians, in particular, show little appetite for further reductions. Much, I feel, will depend on the first meetings—let us say, the next meetings—between Presidents Obama and Putin and whether they can find a way out of the impasse on ballistic missile defence, where the Russian position has often appeared to be as intransigent as it is unconvincing; but where President Obama was rather hamstrung on handling this matter in the period leading up to his re-election.
If those US-Russian difficulties can be overcome, the stage will have been set for a widening of the multilateral effort to include the other weapons states, including us. It is surely, therefore, high time now to prepare for that stage. In that context, the now regular series of meetings between the five recognised weapons states will surely need to assume a more operational significance and scope. I hope that the Minister can say something about the Government’s plans and aspirations in respect of the next P5 meeting. Surely the P5 offers the ideal forum in which to discuss the content of a fissile material cut-off treaty, which all five of those present have publicly supported. The P5 could also seek ways to get around the deadlock in the conference on disarmament over even starting negotiations on such a treaty, for which Pakistan alone is responsible.
The postponement of the Middle East conference on a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone may have been understandable, but simply to drift towards the next Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2015 without holding such a Middle East conference is surely a thoroughly bad option, likely to please only those who covertly wish to see collapse of the NPT regime. Since such a collapse is very much contrary to our own national security interests, I hope that the Minister will be able to say how we, as one of the joint conveners of that middle eastern conference, are planning to proceed from now onwards.
The greatest immediate challenges in the nuclear field lie, of course, in the handling of the cases of Iran and North Korea. Neither presents any particular cause for optimism. The negative consequences of taking pre-emptive military action against either country still seem far to outweigh any conceivable benefits, whatever one’s view of the morality or international legitimacy of so doing. That points to major efforts being required to revive the search for diplomatic solutions, which will also require some willingness to compromise on both sides of the very tense relationships over those two countries. In the case of North Korea, the search for compromise would seem to require some meeting of minds between China and the United States. In the case of Iran, it seems that what is lacking is some direct channel of communication between the Iranian leadership and the US Administration. Do the Government share that analysis and, if they do, are they conveying those thoughts to those most directly concerned?
I wish I felt that the handling of these vital issues of nuclear policy came a little higher up the Government’s foreign policy agenda than they seem to do. When, for example, did the Prime Minister last address them in a major speech? I think the answer is that he has not ever done so. When did the Foreign Secretary last address them in a major speech? I think the answer is: when the Government published their Nuclear Posture Review in the summer of 2010. It surely is high time that that gap was filled.
It is of course quite correct to underline the fact that Britain has the smallest arsenal among the nuclear weapons states, but that is not an excuse for inertia. What thought are we giving not just to the size and configuration of our nuclear deterrent, but to its alert posture in the very different international circumstances from those for which it was originally designed? Here I join with all those in this debate who have questioned the validity of the “continuous at sea deterrence” doctrine, which so far has governed our nuclear policy. I, too, was dismayed when I saw the Government’s reply to the Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, about the Trident review that is being undertaken and their intention not to publish any part of it. I was therefore delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, drawing my attention to the fact that in the coalition’s mid-term agreement it seems to have moved on from that. I hope that the Minister will be able to make that very clear in her reply.
I have to say that for people like myself who support a continuing British nuclear deterrent, although not necessarily of the same nature and scope as the existing one, it is very disheartening if we are told that we are not grown-up enough to have a serious debate about this and to see what underpins the Government’s decision-making on it. Of course I understand that aspects of that will not be suitable for publication, but that is not to say that the broad strategic considerations cannot be set out on the table and debated among us without words such as “unilateralist” being flung around.
Finally, because this has been mentioned by several other noble Lords, I would like to say a word about the false argument that Britain’s permanent membership of the Security Council of the UN somehow depends crucially on our possession of nuclear weapons. That is simply not the case; it is totally unhistorical to suggest that it is. When the five permanent members of the Security Council were established under the UN charter, only one had nuclear weapons. China, the last of them to join, did not have them for another three decades. The link is really not there. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, put his finger on it when he said that the sustaining of our permanent membership depends infinitely more on the role that we play in peacemaking, peacekeeping and conflict prevention, and matters such as that, than it does on making this false linkage with nuclear weapons. As I have said, I am not a unilateral disarmer. I am not suggesting that we should give up our nuclear weapons, but is important that we keep them for the right reasons and not for the wrong ones.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton
My Lords, like other noble Lords I regard it as a privilege to be present at the last speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. His presence here, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, reminds us of the contribution that Chiefs of Staff and other soldiers, or people of military training, make to this House. For that reason a chamber like this is not easily found in any other legislature.
In this debate I speak as a dinosaur. I became interested in the question of disarmament and nuclear weapons in 1954, when I was briefly the secretary of the British delegation to the sub-committee of the Disarmament Commission. How optimistic we were in those days. We were led brilliantly by a lost leader, Sir Anthony Nutting. We had with us M Jules Moch, one of the most brilliant and eloquent French socialists. We also had Governor Harold Stassen, who had been a presidential candidate in the previous United States election. We also had the spiky and bureaucratic presence of Mr Gromyko and Mr Malik for the Soviet Union, but they were not as bad as they are sometimes cracked up to be—or, rather, cracked down to be. On one occasion, in May 1955, when I was there, the Soviet Union accepted the British and western disarmament proposals. This was an alarming moment for us. We had to reconsider everything about which we had been talking for a long time.
The Soviet Union also made the interesting observation that there were circumstances beyond international control that could not be guaranteed by any imaginable inspection agency. We had suspected this since an article on the subject had been written in the Spectator the previous autumn by the distinguished physicist Sir George Thomson. No one took much notice of it and we continued our deliberations.
I remember those occasions in the mid-1950s for several other reasons. There was a preoccupation with interweaving the question of nuclear disarmament with that of conventional disarmament. We put forward the idea that before we took any nuclear disarmament steps of our own, we would insist on a one-third cut in Soviet conventional forces. That was one important element. Another was that we talked a great deal about a control and inspection agency, which, even if it was not perfect, would be a great deal better than anything that we had at the time. If there were ever to be the kind of nuclear catastrophe that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, mentioned, our minds would come round immediately to the idea of something similar.
The United States began the Cold War with a proposal for the complete international ownership and management of nuclear activities. There was to be no distinction between peaceful and military uses. Both would be organised and owned by an international control agency that would have the unique capacity to deal with nuclear possibilities. That seems a very idealistic and improbable concept now, but I think that if there were to be a catastrophe, we would probably find ourselves going back to all sorts of interesting ideas that were rejected because they were considered impractical in the past.
What happened—I make no bones about citing something that happened over 60 years ago—was that at the end of the world war, there was a great deal of pressure among United States scientists to devise some method of putting the genie that they had unleashed back in the bottle. First, Dr Oppenheimer devised a scheme that was made political by two distinguished United States politicians, Mr Dean Acheson and the head of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Mr David Lilienthal. The scheme was for complete international ownership of nuclear weapons. It was thought that the controllers would remain happy because they would have something to do. They would not just be checking that people were not making mistakes but helping to develop the nuclear industry of the world. That was put forward as a United States proposal by Mr Truman in May 1946, and the spokesman was the improbable figure of a businessman called Bernard Baruch, who was a great friend of Winston Churchill, as was Mr Truman. This scheme was considered to be the best way of scientists making up for what they had done by creating such a dangerous world with nuclear weapons.
It is not certain, fortunately, that there will be any kind of breakdown that would justify such extreme reconsideration. After all, gas was not used in the Second World War, although when people talked about war in the 1930s, it was thought likely that it would be used. Indeed, the self-control of states in not using nuclear weapons has been one of the striking elements of international politics since 1945. Nevertheless, it may happen. There may be a catastrophe and, if so, we should be prepared to take extreme measures afterwards to organise a method of survival.
Lord Wood of Anfield
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for a provocative and quite brilliant contribution today. It makes me wish I had heard all his contributions over the previous 25 years or so. I offer him my best wishes for the future.
There was a time when the ambition to make progress in disarmament was considered a sign of naivety in international affairs. I am pleased to say, as this excellent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has demonstrated, that this is no longer true and that the commitment to multilateral disarmament is shared by those of all parties and no party.
This is as true internationally as it is of the debate in Britain. To quote President Obama, the ambition,
“to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”,
has in the past few years come to enjoy support from American Administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Presidents of the Soviet Union and of Russia and the Global Zero campaign’s advocates, who include a roll call of distinguished figures from dozens of countries.
It is worth reminding ourselves why multilateral disarmament is so vital to the world’s safety and security. First, the end of the Cold War marked the expiry of Cold War security doctrines that relied so heavily on nuclear weapons, in particular the American-Soviet deterrence doctrines. Deterrence of course remains crucial, but relying excessively on nuclear weapons to do the deterring is not only more hazardous, but less effective in a world where the threats we face are changing in character, where states still threaten but, increasingly, not only states threaten.
Secondly, the international community’s commitment to multilateral disarmament is the corollary of its determination to prevent nuclear proliferation. Maintaining minimally sufficient arsenals, inside an international legal framework that has verified constraints on nuclear weapons, is the only way to combine national security needs with a minimisation of the risks of proliferation. Reversing our reliance on nuclear weapons globally is integral to preventing their proliferation into dangerous hands. However, there is a moral pressure point here, too. If we demand that states without nuclear weapons commit to never having them, possessor states have a duty and self-interest to take the necessary steps towards co-ordinated disarmament. It is the bargain at the heart of the non-proliferation treaty, and as concerns about North Korea, Iran and nuclear terrorism increase, its logic becomes more, not less, compelling.
Over the past 25 years, I am proud to say that Britain has been a leader both in its own unilateral actions and internationally. We have eliminated two complete weapons systems. We are the only possessor country to have a deterrent based on just one system. We have reduced the number of warheads by 75% since the end of the Cold War, so that we now have less than 1% of the global stockpile. We have led the way on nuclear security through our global threat reduction programme, which has helped nearly 20 beneficiary countries so far. We are world leaders in innovation in the development of proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycles and in proposals such as a generalisable nuclear fuel guarantee. I pay tribute to this Government for continuing our leadership on reducing dependence on nuclear weapons with their decision to reduce the number of operational warheads and reducing our overall stockpile.
That is a strong moral lead, and it puts the UK in a position to be a demandeur with our allies and beyond, and to make real and continuing progress in multilateral disarmament. As Malcolm Rifkind said last year at the Munich Security Conference, momentum is everything. 2009-10 was, as many speakers have said, in many respects a period of optimism. There was the innovation of the nuclear security summit cycle; a new START treaty and the NPT Review Conference in 2010. However, that momentum has now stalled. Optimism about further progress in US-Russia disarmament discussions is hard to find. Progress on the outcomes of the 2010 NPT conference has been limited at best. The attention of the possessor states is rightly focused on the dangers posed by Iran, North Korea and others, but the price has been a further detachment between the twin goals of non-proliferation and multilateral disarmament. Meanwhile, there is the continuing backdrop of China, India and Pakistan focusing more on expanding and modernising their nuclear weapons capacity than seeking to limit it.
It is not our responsibility alone to prioritise regaining this momentum, but it is our responsibility. With the start of the second term of President Obama’s Administration, we have a chance to try to restore American focus on this issue, too.
What needs to be done? I think the challenges lie in four different areas, and I ask for the Minister’s view on the Government’s plans in each. First, we need to restore energy to building the architecture of treaties and regimes that breed confidence, and that attempt to bring as many states as possible into the net of international legal obligations around nuclear weapons, nuclear material and nuclear security.
Specifically, we have slightly less than two years to show concrete progress on the range of commitments under the NPT Treaty before the 2014 PrepCom meeting. What are the UK’s priorities? The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty still awaits the signatures of eight countries that hold nuclear technology. Key to this is the United States. President Obama has said that he will pursue ratification with the Senate. Can the Minister reassure us that we are using our relationship with the White House and State Department to ensure that he lives up to this commitment?
I also ask the Minister for her assessment of the prospects of two other initiatives. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned, the postponement of the Helsinki conference for a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons suggests bleak prospects, but I hope that she can provide some silver lining. What are the prospects for the elusive fissile material cut-off treaty? They should have improved since President Obama reversed the Americans’ long-standing problem with verification methods. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out, Pakistan is a stumbling block here. Will the Minister say what pressure is being brought to bear on the Pakistani Government?
Secondly, we need to continue momentum in measures to increase nuclear security. This is crucial to confidence-building, perhaps more than anything else, and is key to unlocking progress on both the non-proliferation and the disarmament fronts. The nuclear security summits cycle has been one of the best developments in recent years. The summits have led to important first steps in areas such as safe disposal of highly enriched uranium. Britain has led the way in this area—in research work, in international assistance to other states, and in transparency by opening up to review missions from the IAEA. Will the Minister confirm that the UK is on course to meet its commitments for the next nuclear security summit in Holland and outline its agenda for that summit?
Thirdly, we need to build on the real achievements of the START treaty signed in 2010 by Russia and the USA in significantly reducing the numbers of deployed strategic warheads and missile launchers, and in achieving some progress on monitoring and inspections. That treaty looked for a while as though it would be the prelude to further milestones on US-Russia co-operation on disarmament. As many speakers have said, sadly, that has not materialised. What does the Minister think is a realistic ambition for phase 2 of the START process? How can the UK play a supporting role in helping to bring that about?
There is one area in particular where I believe there exists widespread support for a major breakthrough; namely, the goal of NATO and Russia removing all tactical nuclear weapons from combat bases on the European continent. Attachments to legacies of the Cold War with little or no credible deterrence capability drains valuable resources from an alliance facing up to new kinds of threats, such as those potentially in north Africa. The Global Zero Commission, which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, along with Malcolm Rifkind, David Miliband and others, has supported so vigorously, has called for the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe to be the next disarmament priority. Do the Government share that view?
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I am listening very closely to the noble Lord’s setting out of the policy of the Opposition. Given that the British nuclear deterrent, as has already been pointed out, is about the smallest of any of the nuclear powers, does he believe that the next step for this country would be to look again at continuous-at-sea?
Lord Wood of Anfield
The noble Baroness has interrupted just as I was about to come to that issue. There are also issues around Britain’s own deterrent which have been widely discussed today. We must ensure that disarmament activity is conducted in a transparent and verifiable manner. That is why the previous Government initiated their work with Norway on verifiable warhead dismantlement, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and hosted the first P5 consultations on disarmament in London in September 2009. The dangers of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and insecurity around nuclear materials should make us more determined than ever to achieve co-ordinated disarmament but they also continue to justify our retention of the minimum capacity needed to achieve our deterrence objectives. Coming to the noble Baroness’s point, we in this party have said that we are open to examining any new evidence since our review of Britain’s nuclear weapons arsenal in 2006 and we will consider its findings alongside other studies, such as the cross-party BASIC Trident Commission, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Browne, to see if there are credible alternatives.
In our view, that examination should have two priorities—capability and cost. With that in mind, we look forward to the publication of the Trident Alternatives Review, which Danny Alexander tantalisingly said this week,
“will set out a clear, credible, compelling, set of arguments for alternatives”.
He flagged up that there may be seven or eight alternatives in the mix. Will the Minister clarify how open her part of the Government is to the alternatives that might arise from that?
Lastly, there is a group of more conceptual although equally crucial issues around the doctrines that make up our security concepts. I appreciate that there are limits to what the Minister can say on UK thinking on these issues but perhaps she will say whether the Government are alive to making progress on defence concepts that are less dependent on nuclear weapons and whether NATO is planning to address this issue in any way.
John F Kennedy remarked:
“The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution”.
He also said:
“Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment … The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us”.
That was more than 50 years ago at a time in history that now seems a world away. But it was a time that was, if anything, more ordered in terms of nuclear security than the one we live in now. The nuclear era in the wake of the Cold War is much more hazardous and more economically burdensome. The goal of a world free of nuclear weapons may seem a dim prospect at the moment. But just as the difficulty of preventing nuclear proliferation should inspire us to redouble our efforts to contain the spread of nuclear technology, so the difficulty of maintaining momentum on multilateral disarmament should inspire us to be leaders among nuclear weapons states in the future.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on securing this debate on a hugely important issue. We have benefited greatly from the noble Lord’s expertise and, indeed, from that of all those who have spoken today, and none more so than the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I take this opportunity to express my sadness at his announcement that today is the last time he will speak in the Chamber. However, I hope we will continue to see him. I am privileged to respond to him in his final debate.
I must admit that I feel very much like my noble friend Lady Miller in responding to a debate surrounded by many speakers with so much expertise, some of whom have been involved in negotiating many of the treaties about which we have spoken and in preparing many of the documents that have been referred to today, and who have great expertise on the battlefield. My own lack of expertise in this area made me question my ability to respond to noble Lords today, but I will try to do so. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wood, for the work that he has done in government in moving down this path and for acknowledging the role played by this Government in that area.
The UK has long been committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Successive Governments have played, and continue to play, an active role in helping to build an international environment in which no state feels the need to possess nuclear weapons, but, sadly, we are not there yet. While there continue to be significant risks of further proliferation and other states retain much larger nuclear weapons arsenals, successive Governments have been clear that the UK will retain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of our security. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for his supportive words, and my noble friend Lord King for his wise words.
In 2007, Parliament debated, and approved by a clear majority, the decision to continue with the programme to renew the UK’s nuclear deterrent. We set out in the 2010 strategic defence and security review that the Government will,
“maintain a continuous submarine-based deterrent and begin the work of replacing its existing submarines”,
which are due to leave service in the 2020s. This remains the Government’s policy. The Trident Alternatives Study referred to by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is intended to help the Liberal Democrats to make the case for alternatives to this system, as agreed in the coalition programme for government. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked whether we needed a successor to Trident. It is too early to speculate about the conclusions of The Trident Alternatives Study. The study is ongoing and is due to report to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the first half of this year. As we announced in the Government’s mid-term review, an unclassified document will be published in due course.
The current international environment raises—
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am sorry to have to ask the Minister to clarify a point, but the interchange with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was not based on the supposition that the review was a review of alternatives to having Trident at all but was, rather, a review of alternative ways of delivering a nuclear warhead. The noble Baroness has just implied to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that it is also open to looking at alternatives to having a nuclear capability. I do not think that that is quite right. Perhaps she will consider that part of a later consultation on the main-gate decision as to whether we will go ahead at this point with a total replacement of Trident.
Baroness Warsi
I think those considerations will probably take place after the next election.
The current international environment raises significant challenges for global disarmament. The greatest barriers remain insecurity and uncertainty, both of which, sadly, there is no shortage of in many parts of the world today. The risk of proliferation, in particular—in North Korea and Iran, of course, but there are also the implications of the technological and information advances that make the spread of knowledge and materials easier—has been a growing concern.
We have heard during this debate some grounds for pessimism but also, I hope, some grounds for optimism. We have moved from living in a world of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, standing to fire at a moment’s notice during the Cold War, to a world in which the major nuclear weapons states have significantly reduced their arsenals, have stopped targeting them at anyone and have reduced their operational readiness. More recently, in 2010 we saw the signing of the new START agreement between the United States and Russia, holders of the largest nuclear stockpiles by far. Under that treaty, both countries agreed to reduce the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers by half and to limit the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a figure nearly two-thirds lower than that agreed in 1991.
In the same year we saw the agreement of the first ever Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty action plan, in which all 189 signatories reaffirmed their commitment to the treaty and committed to making tangible progress towards our shared goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Under that plan, nuclear weapons states all committed to making concrete progress on the steps leading to nuclear disarmament, including reducing the overall global stockpile and reducing further the role and significance of nuclear weapons in our military doctrines. Next year we will set out publicly how we have made progress on this action plan.
The UK continues to lead from the front. We take this issue extremely seriously. First, having led by example through our own actions, we are working to help build the trust and mutual confidence between states needed to achieve multilateral disarmament. We play a leading role across efforts to put in place the practical building blocks that will support that disarmament. Secondly, we are working with the international community to make it as hard as possible for others to develop, produce or acquire nuclear weapons. The UK’s own record on nuclear disarmament is strong.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is right to say that fewer nuclear weapons must surely be better for all. We have greatly reduced the number of our nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War. For almost 20 years now, our nuclear weapons have been de-targeted and placed on several days’ notice to fire. We have built on that strong record, announcing in our 2010 strategic defence and security review that we are reducing our requirements for operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120, reducing our overall stockpile to no more than 180 and reducing the number of warheads on board our submarines from 48 to 40 and the number of operational missiles to no more than eight. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that our policy is to have the minimum credible deterrent and that the UK would consider using nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence, including the defence of our NATO allies.
We have shown considerable leadership in reducing our nuclear weapon holdings and in increasing the transparency around them. We have demonstrated what is possible. This is a key part of our contribution towards building the right environment for multilateral disarmament. But of course unilateral actions will not produce the results that the world expects and demands. It is only through moving forward together, through balanced and reciprocal disarmament, that we will achieve a world without nuclear weapons. We can achieve this only by building trust between states that will convince all of them that they can safely disarm.
That is why the UK instigated a dialogue among the P5 states in London in 2009, when we reaffirmed our unconditional support for the non-proliferation treaty and engaged in meaningful dialogue—as mentioned by the noble Lord opposite—aimed at building the mutual understanding needed to help us take forward our shared disarmament commitments. Since then, we have held further dialogues, in Paris in 2011 and Washington last year, and met in between to discuss disarmament issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked what future plans we have. The P5 will hold a fourth conference, hosted by Russia, in April this year. In the NPT preparatory committee, discussions as to its format are ongoing. In order to maximise the value of this ongoing dialogue, it will be important to maintain momentum at that next conference. We will need to be able to demonstrate progress across a range of issues, especially on our plans to report on the commitments we all made in the 2010 NPT action plan. It is an issue on which the international community is looking to the P5 to provide a lead, and the UK will be at the heart of the efforts to achieve this.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also asked what Her Majesty’s Government were doing to help achieve the Middle East weapons of mass destruction free zone. The Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt, made a statement on this issue on 24 November last year, in which he said:
“The British Government supports the objective of a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East. We regret that it will not be possible to convene a successful conference to be attended by all states of the region as planned in 2012. More preparation and direct engagement between states of the region will be necessary to secure arrangements that are satisfactory to all”.
He continued:
“We support the convening of a conference as soon as possible. We endorse fully the work of the Conference Facilitator … to build consensus on next steps ... We will continue to work with our fellow convenors (the US, Russia, and the UN), with the Facilitator, and with countries of the region, to meet our undertakings to convene a conference on this important issue, as soon as possible”.
Building confidence between nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapon states is equally important if we are to find a realistic route towards global disarmament. To that end, we have been conducting groundbreaking work with Norway on the verification of warhead dismantlement, which will be a crucial aspect of any future global disarmament regime. This initiative has been the first time that a nuclear weapons state has engaged in such an open way with a non-nuclear weapons state on such a sensitive issue.
Both we and Norway have learnt a huge amount through this initiative about how nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states can work together effectively in pursuit of our shared goal. We have shared what we have learnt so far with the P5, and with a range of non-nuclear weapons states, and we will continue to share developments as we move forward. Building on this first, we are also working with Brazil to develop a disarmament-focused dialogue. The UK is unique among the P5 in launching such initiatives with non-nuclear weapon states. It is a crucial part of our contribution towards building the right environment for multilateral disarmament.
As well as improving collective trust and understanding, we need to continue our efforts to make it as difficult as possible to develop and produce nuclear weapons, particularly by those who pose a threat to global security. On this the UK is making a strong contribution. We have signed and ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty. Indeed, we were, along with France, the first to do so. We are vocal campaigners for the entry into force of the treaty, and we will continue to take every opportunity to urge all those who have not yet signed and ratified it to do so. We continue to actively support the need to negotiate an international fissile material cut-off treaty, which would put an end to the future production of the material needed to make nuclear weapons. We are firm supporters, too, of nuclear weapons free zones, which literally shrink the geographical space within which nuclear weapons can exist.
The UK has signed and ratified the protocols to three nuclear weapons free zones, in South America and the Caribbean, in Africa and in the South Pacific. We support the objective of a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East, as I have already mentioned, and we continue to push for the convening of that conference. The UK is also active in seeking to reduce the risk of proliferation from the civil nuclear sector, and strongly supports a universal safeguards system to uphold the NPT’s non-proliferation regime. The IAEA’s comprehensive safeguards agreement and additional protocol should be the universal verification standard for all NPT state parties. We continue to urge all those who have not yet done so to sign and ratify it.
The risks of proliferation are all too real. The international community was reminded of this following North Korea’s most recent satellite launch on 13 December, which enabled it to test ballistic missile technology and violated two UN Security Council Resolutions. Its continuing efforts to sell dangerous proliferation-sensitive technology to other countries must also be a focus for our efforts. We, with our E3+3 partners, continue to pursue negotiations with Iran. We remain fully committed to the ongoing diplomatic process and to finding a peaceful, negotiated solution that leads to full compliance by Iran with UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors’ resolutions. Urgent, concrete steps need to be taken by Iran to allow progress. In 2012, the E3+3 met Iran four times to discuss its nuclear programme. Despite frank and lengthy discussions, significant differences remain and the Iranian position remains intransigent. We hope that Iran comes to the next round of talks ready and willing to take the steps needed to address the international community’s serious concerns.
The risk of new states acquiring nuclear weapons is grave—but so, too, is the risk of sensitive knowledge and materials falling into the hands of non-state actors. The UK played a key role at last year’s Seoul nuclear security summit and remains committed to shaping the direction of global nuclear security. Our G8 presidency will see us chair the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. This 25-country partnership channels around $2 billion per year to programmes to counter proliferation risks. In 2012, UK contributions helped secure 775 bombs’ worth of fissile material in Kazakhstan; create new jobs for 3,000 former Soviet Union weapon scientists; and, through collaboration with the IAEA, deliver physical protection upgrades and nuclear and biological security training around the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Wood, referred to the CTBT and asked about our campaign for the entry into force of the treaty. We will continue to take every opportunity to urge all those who have not yet signed and ratified it to do so. We continue actively to support the need to negotiate an international fissile material cut-off treaty that would put an end to the future production of the material needed to make nuclear weapons.
The noble Lord, and my noble friend Lady Williams, referred to Pakistan. I assure them both that we continue to press Pakistan to end its block on the start of negotiations in the conference on disarmament, and will continue to work with partners in the conference to find a solution that will allow us to take forward our commitments under the 2010 action plan. The UK remains committed to shaping the direction of global security. We fully recognise the importance of the nuclear security summit process and are working closely with local partners in laying the groundwork for what we want: an ambitious 2014 summit.
The noble Lord, Lord Wood, also asked about CASD. The Prime Minister made it clear that CASD remains the backbone of our deterrence posture. It ensures a constant, credible and capable deterrent against threats to the UK’s vital interests and to our NATO allies. As my honourable friend Philip Dunne stated in the Commons last week, by being continuously at sea the deterrent maximises our political freedom of manoeuvre in a crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, asked about the main-gate decision. I note his point, but a decision on this has not been made. I will write to him if we have any further information.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked about the relevance of a post-Cold War nuclear deterrent. There are still substantial nuclear arsenals, the number of nuclear-armed states has increased rather than decreased, and there is a significant risk of new nuclear-armed states emerging. Several countries that either have nuclear weapons or are trying to acquire them are in regions that suffer from serious instability or are subject to significant regional tensions, so there is still the potential for a new nuclear threat to emerge despite the end of the Cold War.
We have never claimed that our nuclear capability is an all-purpose deterrent. The UK has a wide range of policies and capabilities to deter the range of potential threats that it might face, including terrorism and cyberattacks. Not all capabilities are relevant to all threats.
The UK strongly supports the goal of a world without nuclear weapons and is active in helping to build the international environment that we hope will deliver this. We have shown considerable leadership in reducing our own nuclear weapons capabilities and in offering reassurances about the very limited and discrete circumstances in which we may contemplate their use. We have been instrumental in efforts to build the trust needed between nuclear weapons states to make progress multilaterally; we have led the way among nuclear weapons states in engaging with non-nuclear weapons states to try to take positive, concrete steps forward; and we are firmly committed to putting in place the practical building blocks that will support multilateral disarmament by making it as difficult as possible to develop and produce nuclear weapons. The CTBT, a fissile material cut-off treaty and the strengthening of non-proliferation and nuclear security regimes are all areas in which we work. Our contribution towards the goal of multilateral disarmament is and will continue to be strong. We will take every opportunity to pursue our resolute commitment to a world without nuclear weapons.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and I thank most warmly all those who have taken part in the debate. Anyone coming here and listening would have realised that this House gives the lie to the suggestion that we are not grown-up enough to be able to take part in this debate. The quality, content and understanding in what has been said show me conclusively why it is so important that the expertise in this House is deployed during this consideration of one of the most important questions that we face. It is clear that everyone in this House is committed to the cause of multilateral nuclear disarmament. I did not hear anyone suggest that the first thing to do was just to wipe all nuclear weapons off the map and take a unilateralist line. That is not practical politics and it is not sensible.
However, I was glad that a number of issues were raised during the course of the debate, which covered many points that are concerned with the review of alternatives to Trident as well as with the current position. For example, I am glad that the issue of continuous at-sea deployment was questioned, which is not just a question of practicality but also must be included in any question of the cost and development of the future weapon, quite apart from its efficacy. I am glad that the possibility of more precision weapons was represented. I am also glad that the question of cost came up, because in this connection I have always been a follower of the advice given to me by my late master, Field Marshal Lord Carver, that there are two definitions of affordability. One is, “Can you afford it?”, and the other is, “Can you afford to give up what you’ve got to give up to afford it?”. That has extreme relevance in this situation when we are considering what we need to conduct ourselves in today’s world rather than the Cold War world, compared with what we have to spend on the Trident replacement.
I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King, for reminding us of why we have our seat at the table and what is actually needed to have a seat at the top table tomorrow. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for correcting me. I have to admit that I have not read the coalition mid-term agreement, and I am very sorry that I got the wrong Alexander. I will apologise personally. I shall remember the connection with the Maginot line with considerable interest.
I think that I will be reflecting the mood of the House if I conclude by paying tribute to my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall, whose last speech was memorable for the verve and clarity to which I referred at the start. We are going to miss him, and his contribution was tremendous. I know that his influence will live on.
As I say, I am grateful for what I have found an enormously interesting, instructive and, as I hope the Minister will agree, very valuable debate. I hope that she will follow this up by allowing us to have a further debate, particularly when the alternative review is published.
European Banking Union: EUC Report
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on the European Banking Union: Key issues and challenges (7th Report, HL Paper 88).
Lord Harrison
My Lords, some 20 years ago I led a vote in the European Parliament for the Monetary Sub-Committee, and included among my group was Pierre Moscovici, who is now the Finance Minister of France. It was a vote to approve Alexandre Lamfalussy as the new president of the European Monetary Institute, the forerunner of the European Central Bank, of which Mario Draghi is now the distinguished head. In my middle-aged enthusiasm, I then issued a press release that declared, “Europe’s new bank manager elected”. It met with a quiet voice in the world urbi et orbi.
Now, however, I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on the report of the European Union Committee entitled European Banking Union: Key Issues and Challenges, and I wonder whether I was right. The report is based on work undertaken by the EU Sub-Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs, which I chair. The report was published in December, immediately before the banking union proposals were discussed at the European Council, and we were pleased to have the opportunity to inform the Government of our views as negotiations commenced. I thank Greg Clark, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, not only for listening to us beforehand but for reporting to us immediately afterwards.
Our report was based on evidence received from a stellar cast, including representatives of the banking sector, economic experts, think tanks, the German ambassador to the UK, the vice-president of the European Central Bank and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. On a visit to Brussels in October, the committee also met with senior MEPs, the chairman of the European Banking Authority, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Michel Barnier, and the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. The committee was also assisted in its work by Professor Eilis Ferran of the University of Cambridge, who acted as our specialist adviser for the inquiry. I thank all our witnesses, who contributed so richly to the inquiry, as well as Stuart Stoner, our clerk, and Rose Crabtree, the policy adviser to the committee.
One of the characteristics of the euro area crisis has been its oscillation between periods of relative calm and moments of febrile crisis. One such crisis happened in June last year. Concerns over the systemic link between struggling banks and indebted sovereign states came to a head. Spanish 10-year bond yields had reached a euro-era high and recapitalisation of its seriously indebted banking sector seemed inevitable.
European leaders, so often criticised during the crisis for their lamentable lumbering tardiness, at last sprang into action. At that month’s European summit, they agreed that the European stability mechanism rescue fund could recapitalise banks directly rather than via sovereign states. The only proviso was that an effective single supervisory mechanism of euro area banks had to have been established under the authority of the European Central Bank. At the same time, President Van Rompuy was asked to take forward,
“a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union”.
That was the genesis of the so-called “banking union”, by which European leaders sought to restore much-needed credibility and stability to the euro area banking system.
The single supervisory mechanism proposals were duly published by the Commission in September, but the further steps towards banking union initially envisaged by President Van Rompuy—a single European resolution scheme and, in particular, a single European deposit insurance scheme—were quickly put on the back burner because of the fears of Germany and some others that they would mark a too pronounced step towards debt mutualisation. Our committee expressed regret that the Van Rompuy model was so quickly undermined.
In the light of this change, our report necessarily focused on the first element of banking union—the single supervisory mechanism. We sought to address a number of the key questions. Was it appropriate for the European Central Bank to take on a supervisory role? What would be the impact on its governance structure? Which banks should be directly supervised by the ECB? What accountability mechanisms were needed? What would be the impact on non-euro area member states, and when could such reforms be realistically and reasonably introduced?
Our conclusions were as follows. We noted the worldwide trends, including here in the UK, towards combining supervisory and monetary policy functions in one institution. In our view, giving supervisory responsibility to the ECB was indeed the only viable option. Yet this would create a significant concentration of power in one institution. Again, it was vital to ensure that there was no conflict of interest between the ECB’s twin tasks of exercising monetary policy and the supervision of the banks. The ECB needed to be fully accountable for its supervisory role, including to national Parliaments, and I am pleased that the vice-president of the ECB came before my committee to report on the proposals.
We believed that it was unrealistic to expect the ECB to engage in intensive supervision of all 6,000 euro area banks, yet the crisis has demonstrated that it is not just the largest institutions that can pose a systemic risk, as exemplified by Northern Rock in this country. We concluded that, while the ECB would concentrate on the day-to-day supervision of only the largest and most systemically important banks, it should retain the power quickly to assume responsibility for the supervision of smaller banks as and when required. However, this model could work only if there was close and positive co-operation between the ECB and national supervisors, and I would ask the Minister whether he could comment on that necessity.
One of the key features of the banking union proposal is that non-euro area member states should have the right to participate, but this presented significant dilemmas. How could non-euro area participating member states enjoy equality with euro area member states within the ECB decision-making process, and how would all this impact on those member states that wished to remain outside the banking union, of which of course the United Kingdom has declared through the Prime Minister that it will be one? He has said that,
“you do not need a banking union because you have a single market; you need it because you have a single currency—so Britain should not, and will not, be part of that banking union”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/12; col. 699.]
Yet banking union has profound implications for the UK. We were particularly concerned about the impact on the European Banking Authority, the regulatory agency tasked with developing the single rulebook for financial services throughout the European Union. We feared that a dominant ECB could undermine the EBA’s authority in defending the EU-27 and the single market—in particular, given the likelihood that banking union participants would caucus around a single position advocated by the ECB inside the European Banking Authority’s decision-making process. This raised the spectre of the United Kingdom being consistently outvoted in setting the rules by which the financial sector operates. Given this threat of marginalisation, we urged the Government to do all that was necessary to ensure that the City of London’s leading position was not imperilled and that the integrity of the single market was not compromised. At the very least, the European Banking Authority’s voting arrangements had to ensure that it was able to defend the interests of the single market as a whole.
The Commission’s proposals as originally drafted failed sufficiently to address several of these concerns and it was clear that it had been constrained in its drafting by the need to avoid treaty change. The original plan had been to reach agreement on the package by the end of 2012. In light of the weakness of the legislation, this struck us as wholly unrealistic. Even the revised aim of agreeing a legislative framework by the end of 2012 seemed extremely ambitious.
We were therefore pleasantly surprised when the news broke after our report was published that a deal had been struck, which, the Government assure us, “will preserve the EU’s single market and protect the interests of those remaining outside the banking union”. The commitment to break the vicious cycle between banks and sovereigns was reasserted, as was the intention to bring forward in 2013 a single resolution mechanism proposal. A “double majority voting” principle was agreed whereby decisions in the EBA will be subject to a majority of both participating and non-participating member states in the banking union. The Government have also pointed to the so-called “non-discrimination clause”, which, they argue, “guards against any restriction of the UK’s role as a financial centre in the single market”. That is all very promising but, as ever, the devil is in the detail, and I would ask the Minister to respond to a number of questions.
In recent days, Mario Draghi, Christine Lagarde and Barroso himself have all suggested that the euro area may have turned a corner and the worst of the crisis may be over. Yet we have seen in the past that when the crisis appears to ease, the foot can all too easily come off the accelerator of improved supervision. Last week the Financial Times reported that the commitment in Brussels to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns and to take forward proposals for the single resolution mechanism may be weakening. Can the Minister confirm this? What update can he give us on the deal agreed in December? Is everything on track? When will the single supervisory mechanism be operational? What is the likelihood of the further steps towards banking union coming to fruition in the near future?
I also have some questions on the detail of the December deal. The new voting rules in the EBA will be subject to a review only if and when four member states remain outside the banking union. What update can the Minister give us on the position of the other nine non-euro area member states? How likely is it that they will choose to participate, thus triggering a review of the voting mechanisms? What will the UK do in such an eventuality? How does the Minister respond to the scepticism about the double-voting mechanism expressed to my committee only last week by Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times? In his view:
“The idea that the entire eurozone could agree that this is how we are going to handle the banking industry in order to preserve the currency union and the UK then pipes up and says, ‘We do not like it because it will affect the City’ … in polite terms they are going to say, ‘Go away’”.
The consequences of all this for the UK will be profound, and we warn the Government against undue complacency. Pleased with the deal they may be, but they must continue to be vigilant to the risk of these steps towards integration for the single market and the UK’s place within it.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to comment on the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday. He said that the single market was the core and the “essential foundation” of the European Union—which I very much agree with—and that Britain must remain at the heart of the single market. He also cited the December deal on banking union as illustrative of the sort of safeguard needed to ensure that the UK’s access to the single market is not compromised.
However, the question of a referendum, which has been dangled in front of us, worries me considerably. In the case of the 1975 referendum, the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, asked the then Foreign Secretary, James Callaghan, to go round and get the assurances of other capitals in the community that that was all right. The second problem is that referendums are a newfangled way of dealing with the assessment of public opinion in this country. It begins to take away from the tried and true parliamentary approach that we have had for so long in this country—an example of which is the very report that is before your Lordships this evening—when those who have some expertise assess the matter to be presented before the British people. We need to be very cautious about changing what are tried and true parliamentary approaches.
I look forward to the speeches that are to come and I am sure that all sides of the House look forward to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I beg to move.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and his admirable presentation of his sub-committee’s report. I also want to congratulate him on the way in which he has handled his chairmanship of that sub-committee.
I want to focus initially on two of the major issues in the sub-committee’s report. The first relates to what the noble Lord has already referred to as the incomplete nature of the EU proposals for a banking union. The committee had pointed to the need for the single supervisory mechanism, proposals for which were published in September 2012, to be joined by a common resolution mechanism and a common deposit insurance scheme.
The single supervisory mechanism was agreed by heads of government at the December European Council meeting but will not, as I read it, be operational until some time in 2014. The Council also called for work on proposals for directives on recovery and resolution and on a deposit guarantee to be accelerated so that the directives could be agreed by the end of March 2013, enabling the Commission to bring forward a proposal for a single resolution mechanism in the course of 2013. I must say that that timetable seems remarkably optimistic and I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that point. Parenthetically, I suspect that the two different timetables were deliberately chosen so that the German voter would not be scared off.
Another major concern of the Select Committee was that the UK should secure a mechanism that would ensure that the eurozone members would not be able to dominate the non-euro members. Initially, there was understandable scepticism about the Government’s prospects of achieving this, so we should congratulate the Government on having achieved substantial progress on it. As Commissioner Barnier said in a speech just after the December Council meeting:
“According to the new voting modalities, any EBA decisions will have to be approved by a majority of countries outside the Banking Union”.
I am always fascinated by the use of this term “modalities” in a European context because it does not really tell you anything about what the mechanism actually is. However, looking at other material, it would appear that this requirement for approval by a majority of countries outside the European banking union will be contained in amendments to the European Banking Authority’s regulations, so that there is a clear legal basis for it there.
That is just the key decisions in the EBA. What about other decisions? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Greg Clark, in his letter to my noble friend Lord Boswell, said that the double majority, “will also apply to key decisions including those relating to binding technical standards that will apply to firms across the single market”. He says that this is a, “supplementary requirement to existing voting arrangements”. Can the Minister clarify this? I have not seen anything that indicates how this supplementary requirement is actually inserted: what is the legal mechanism that brings this supplementary requirement into place? Furthermore, Greg Clark says that this will not be a permanent arrangement because the requirement will be reviewed if there are four or fewer euro states.
Commissioner Barnier’s speech says that it was the UK, the Swedes and the Czechs who sought a level playing field in the December meeting. That puzzles me slightly. Is Barnier’s list complete? I would have thought that we had more than three supporters on that and am particularly curious about the position of Denmark.
Our committee, in accordance with its usual practice, confined itself strictly to the banking union and considered that in a consensual manner. It did not go into other developments and related matters that might be slightly more controversial, but I shall tiptoe into those areas where the committee refrained from treading. Banking union itself will not be enough; it will need a fiscal union and an economic policy union. These matters are coyly mentioned in the December Council conclusions as,
“further integration of the fiscal and economic policy frameworks”.
Eventually, these will require treaty change. However, probably at an earlier stage, by one means or another, it will require what the Germans call a transfer union. At the moment, how and when that will kick in is shrouded in mystery, but it will have to. Some of us had the pleasure of meeting the Bundestag’s EU committee here a few weeks ago. Its chairman emphasised to us that Germany was prepared to accept the burdens that would flow from the banking union and, in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Flight, said that he recognised the balances that had accrued through the “target” system.
On all these matters, my doubt is principally whether the safeguards that our Government have achieved can be sustained. For those who believe in “ever closer union”, the achievement of that goal must now be focused on the eurozone, with the non-euro countries either a temporary expedient or a long-term aggravation.
If the euro survives and if the “outs” move to being “ins”, as most of them are obliged to do, it is probable that the views and interests of the ins will dominate the operation of the single market. Unless our safeguards are embodied at treaty level, it is difficult to see them surviving generally—and certainly when the review kicks in after the number drops to four. How we then respond will depend on what we think is the value of the single market, a market with which we have an adverse trade balance, which takes a minority and declining share of our exports while imposing costs on our global business activity, and which, we must remember, is even now a social market rather than what most of us in the UK would call a free market.
My other doubt is whether the Council and the Commission are heading in the right direction. Many years ago, when I had the pleasure of being a member of Sub-Committee A, we did a report on the euro 10 years on. This was before the credit crunch struck. In preparation for that report, we spent a fair amount of time with witnesses on the possible vulnerabilities of the euro—of course, very little of this went into the report because it was essentially speculative. Those who gave opinions to us generally agreed that the eurozone could be vulnerable if struck by a serious, asymmetric shock. The crisis which followed was such a shock. I remember one witness who mentioned this possibility also saying that we must remember that a country can take a lot of hurting. He explained this by reference to Italy, where, in the 1860s, the Mezzogiorno, or the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies which it was before that, was rapidly integrated into the new Italian state on terms which left it locked into poverty and low development in contrast to the prosperous north. Even 150 years after that integration, there is no sign of that uneven relationship changing. Today, there is the prospect of the European Union’s Mediterranean countries becoming effectively an enlarged Mezzogiornio, in a crisis which was caused partly by the euro but from which the euro prevents escape.
I would say to those pressing for banking union and the other unions that flow from it, “Don’t reinforce failure. Don't subject the social fabric of the Mediterranean countries to this awful strain”. They, and maybe some others, too, need a better model for the future.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and his committee for this excellent report on the European banking union. In doing so, I make one or two observations in general about the European Union Committee and its reports. I can see in the Chamber five brave people who were not involved in the report of the committee, when our debates can attract, as we know, an attendance of perhaps 450 a day. It saddens me to see debates on reports of such significance to the lives of people, both men and women, in this country so poorly attended. I am extremely glad that the chairman of the European Union Committee is in his place, because I wonder whether the House might consider debating reports from Select Committees on scrutiny days so that they attract wider dissemination, wider knowledge sharing and greater attendances. My gender, which represents more than 50% of the people of this country, is equally affected by the implications of banking union and the financial crisis, and it saddens me that we do not seem to have in this Chamber the interest in these issues that we might have. I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, last night, who has all the expertise to be able to add to debates of this kind. Of course, she is on leave of absence. I was meant to speak in the earlier debate on nuclear non-proliferation until I noticed the composition of the speakers list for this debate and decided that it was important that I bring my non-expert knowledge, but some voice, to it as a priority.
Roughly a year ago, we were debating the break-up of the eurozone in this Chamber. At that point, it appeared possible that the scale of the problem, the lack of its recognition among some eurozone members and political inertia, combined with institutional sclerosis, would lead to a Greek exit, with the potential for Portugal, Spain, and Italy to follow. In this Chamber, we were divided between those who believed that the demise of the eurozone altogether was nigh and those who, such as us on these Benches, could imagine a winding road ahead but recognised the determination within the leaders of the eurozone countries to avoid that catastrophic outcome.
We are still on that winding road, but the pointers for the way ahead for the eurozone are clearer. What has been less clear this afternoon is where the United Kingdom is going. While a significant part of the European Union is negotiating deeper integration, the result of which is not yet evident, I find it difficult, apropos the Prime Minister’s landmark speech yesterday, to consider a referendum in response to a treaty that may not happen and may not ask anything of the United Kingdom.
Within the eurozone, the landmark event was last year here in London, when the Governor of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, spelt out the message that the ECB would do “whatever it takes” to save the euro. The outright monetary transactions bond-buying programme saw immediate reductions in bond yields to which Spain and Italy were subject, and signalled that the institutional changes so badly needed were finally to be addressed.
The committee’s report highlights the important areas for change before a single currency zone can be stabilised. It is also clear that the United Kingdom’s vital interests are at stake, irrespective of whether we are in or out.
The first and overarching priority is to address the so-called death spiral born of the interdependence of banks and sovereigns within the single currency. For those participating in the eurozone, the price of stability will be the loss of sovereignty, with all the political implications that that brings. So although progress towards creating a federal structure in banking has been kicked off with the creation of a single supervisory mechanism, there is, nevertheless, a loss of momentum on a common resolution authority, or indeed a common deposit protection scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned. That impasse has been attributed to the German electoral timetable; and people suggest that we will not see moves to resolve other institutional questions until after September 2013. I am a little pessimistic as to the pace of progress even after that. I fear that the emergence of slow growth in late 2013 and the relief that the crisis is abating, will act as a drag on action necessary for stability to be consolidated.
Let me address why it is so important to proceed with a complete federal settlement to underpin the single currency. At the time of the Maastricht treaty, serious academic work was undertaken in the UK on the experience of the United States in the early operation of a single currency there. The American example still stands us in good stead today, and suggests why, if the eurozone is to succeed, it will have to become more like the United States. In doing so, I draw on an excellent paper from the Centre for European Reform, What a Banking Union Means for Europe, which I was very glad to see this morning included in the Library briefing pack for this debate.
As the paper points out, the US has undoubtedly had a faster and stronger recovery from the 2008 financial crisis than that seen in the eurozone economies. Part of the reason for that is that the decentralised state-level institutions in the eurozone states have actually served to amplify the initial shock from 2008, transforming a financial crisis into an existential crisis for the single currency. Without a federal budget, fiscal forbearance for banks is made on the basis of national considerations and political risks. The mutualisation of deposit protection makes free-riding more likely, so it does not exist, and the bonds of solidarity between states are naturally weaker than they are in the US, despite its federal diversity.
Significant key functions are now recognised across the board, even here in the UK, as being necessary if we get a banking union and then, eventually, fiscal and political union within the eurozone. The first, as the committee recognises, is to break the death spirals within the eurozone whereby individual states are pushed towards insolvency by bank rescues, being completely at the mercy of financial markets with higher and higher borrowing costs. Ireland knows the lessons of this well, which is why it is so keen to use the European stability mechanism’s funds for direct recapitalisation of its banks’ legacy debts. It will be interesting to see how this argument sits with the German taxpayer.
The other unresolved issue is the lack of a eurozone authority to restructure or wind up banks that run into difficulties. In the US, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation does this; since 2008, it has wound up more than 450 insolvent banks in an orderly manner. Within the eurozone framework, zombie banks continue—thanks to cheap ECB funding—so while we have a road map for single currency stability, there is still much detail to be worked on.
Let me turn to some of the issues that engage United Kingdom interests more directly. It was instructive to read the response from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Greg Clark, to the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, regarding the committee’s concerns. The Government should undoubtedly be congratulated on their success in negotiations at the December Council. We have progress on the institutional relationship between the ECB and the EBA and, significantly, we have achieved solid protections in respect of the voting rights between the “ins” and “outs” when decisions are taken in the EBA. I recognise the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, and I note that Mr Clark does not give complete reassurance, as there is still no clarity about what will happen if and when there are four or fewer “outs” left in the system. However, that is some way away and, in my view, we could not have got a better outcome at that point last month. We also did well to gain agreement on the memorandum of understanding securing the co-ordination of cross-border banking supervision.
However, we in the UK will also be affected by events beyond our control as we go forward. Just this week, we have seen moves towards the establishment of a financial transaction tax for 11 of the eurozone members. This came about as a result of the enhanced co-operation, which will now leave us without a say at the table as the shape of this tax is negotiated—with significant implications for eurozone banks that operate out of the City of London. While some Eurosceptics might be pleased at the potential gains for the City of London, particularly if the actual proposals result in driving trading in shares, foreign currency or derivatives out of Frankfurt and Paris into London, I would warn that there are dangers, too.
It is entirely feasible that the regulation might be sufficiently light touch, with a very narrow focus on individual share transactions, not to result in any greater business for the City. What is seen now as an obstacle to growth—the FTT—might have no adverse impact at all but bring revenue gains to the participating countries. Alongside this, we would have the scenario of the UK being seen as an uncertain bet, with the spectre of its referendum. City institutions may well consider it more worth while to be based within a recovering and more stable eurozone.
The overarching issues for both the United Kingdom and other EU and eurozone countries are the looming recession in most eurozone states, the seemingly never-ending austerity, with its record unemployment—never experienced before—and, most urgently, the loss of competitiveness in relation to emerging markets. These problems on their own, if taking place against the kind of recessions that we have experienced before, would have significant effects. However, taking place as they are against a backdrop of political uncertainty and shaky political resolve about seeing the thing through to its conclusion, they do not augur well for a speedy resolution to the eurozone crisis. That does not remove the responsibility for the UK to play a positive, engaged and compromising role if we are to see it though.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, I spoke about the noble Lord, Lord Harrison’s, committee’s report—I am a member of the committee—on 17 December, immediately after the European Council that discussed banking union. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, himself could not take part in the debate in this Chamber. I paid a well deserved tribute to his chairmanship, and also to the role played in the committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. In the light of the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, I should also have paid tribute to the role played by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hooper, Lady Maddock and Lady Prosser, in what is an extremely strong committee in which I feel privileged to serve.
In what I said then I spoke of general issues concerning banking union and the European Council’s ratification of the decisions reached in ECOFIN. I do not intend to talk about that any more, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, spent Christmas with the relevant Hansard entry of 17 December, cols. 1388 to 1391, at his bedside, and that every time that he had difficulty falling asleep he read my limpid language. I want to talk this time only about the impact on the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom financial services industry.
The Government declared victory in the European Council on 12 December and the Prime Minister referred again to that victory yesterday, when he talked in his speech about his success in,
“securing protections on banking union”—
protection, that is, for member states that choose not to be members of the European banking union. My concern today is to try to establish just how secure these protections are. I want to make a couple of general points first, and then I want to put three specific questions to the Minister. They are questions which are pretty obvious really, and they cover exactly the same territory as the noble Lords, Lord Harrison and Lord Trimble, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, took us into. So there will not be any shock or surprise.
I shall take my general points first. First, if we were to leave the European Union, the sort of protections that the Prime Minister was talking about are written on water. We would have no say in EU legislation, regulation and supervision if we were not members of the EU. I entirely agree with what the Prime Minister said yesterday about the impossibility of seeing the United Kingdom in a Norway or Switzerland situation. I think it is very important to recognise that the sort of protections that you get in the single market require you to be a member of the European Union as well as the single market.
Secondly, I worry that the possibility of our leaving the European Union could have a chilling effect on the City. The City has critical mass, of course, in a way that no other European financial centre does. We have not seen entities flee the City because we are not in the eurozone—at least I have not; I do not believe that there has been much—but nor have we seen, until yesterday, a British Prime Minister raise the possibility that he might, in a referendum, recommend our leaving the European Union. That is the logic of what he said yesterday—that it is conceivable that he might. The new settlement he seeks depends on our convincing every other member state either that they buy our prescription for “fundamental, far-reaching change”, or that they agree that we may have carve-outs, specific to the UK, from existing EU treaties to which we have previously signed up. Either of these is quite a tall order.
Therefore it is at a minimum conceivable that the new settlement will not be available, or that it will be so small and so trivial that the Prime Minister’s party will mock him if he says, “This is a new settlement”. Where then does he go? He was not prepared to acknowledge the logic of his position yesterday when Nick Robinson put the question to him. My worry is that foreign investors may draw their own conclusion. I do not know how big this effect will be, and I may be exaggerating the risk; but in this House we have all, when talking about Scotland, agreed with the Government in their criticism of Mr Salmond for delaying his referendum until October 2014, because of the chilling effect on inward investment of the uncertainty created and prolonged for two years. We have now created for the United Kingdom as a whole a precisely similar uncertainty, which is actually more existential for the financial services industry which we are talking about in this debate. I do not know how valid the point was when it was made about Scotland, but to the extent that it had validity when the Government made it about Scotland, they should be acknowledging it when it is now made about the United Kingdom as a whole.
The protections that the Government secured seem to be threefold. First, the non-discrimination clause states 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”.
I think that that is an achievement. I agree with that. I think that what the Government said about it is correct. It is worth having, although it says nothing more than is in the treaty. It is worth having because we have cases in the European Court of Justice on precisely this point. It will have some beneficial effect in those cases. What goes without saying is often best said. So I regard that as an achievement.
Secondly, we have established the principle of,
“symmetry of treatment between the ECB”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/12; col. 102WS]—
and other supervisors. I am not really sure what that is worth. I do not think that it is worth very much, because whatever the principle, the ECB will be a very big beast on this stage. It is going to be a very big supervisor. There will be only one other very big supervisor, and that is the Bank of England. I think that the text that we have not seen—that has not been drafted, that does not yet exist—of the proposed memorandum of understanding between the Bank of England and the ECB is probably much more important than a European Council text enshrining this principle.
The third protection—the really big protection, the one that has been spoken about by every other speaker in this debate—is the double majority, the requirement for 50% or more both of participants in banking union and of non-participants in banking union, subject to review if the number not participating falls below five.
Hence I come to my specific questions to the Minister, and there are three. First, how many member states have, like the United Kingdom, declared that they definitely will not be part of a banking union? I think that it is only the Czechs so far. Is that right? Secondly, how many of the non-eurozone 10 have declared that they definitely will join? I think that it is four. Is that right? Thirdly, what view do the Government take of the likely decisions of the others—four, if I am right, but I do not know whether I am or not?
It is really very important for reasons that previous speakers have given and because we know that the ECB intends to ensure that the majority group in the EBA speaks with one voice. That is what the ECB’s opinion says, so retaining a viable minority group matters, and if the review clause is triggered, we all know what will happen. The matter will then go into the Council where, by definition, we will not have a blocking minority. I ask because, given the risk that the only strong protection secured in December—this one—falls away, it really is important for the City to know how many friends we have. Is the number going to fall below five or not?
Lastly, and briefly, market practitioners will make their own decisions about all these things. European Council and ECOFIN conclusions and ECJ cases are all very important and keep people like me very happy, but they do not actually determine what the market does. As, us apart, the eurozone becomes over time more coterminous with the European Union, we need to think about what perceptions market practitioners will have. Will they believe that it is plausible that the majority eurozone group, plus the extra members of the banking union who are not members of the eurozone but are candidates and postulants—pre-ins—to the eurozone, will conclude for all time that their major financial centre should still be offshore, in our country? Will they believe that the ECB will be willing to allow non-euro-area resident entities here in Britain to have free access to its free discount facilities? Will practitioners believe that they might be wise to reduce their counterparty risk by relocating into the eurozone? I do not know, but I am speaking of the possible perceptions of market practitioners.
Insisting on our rights in the single market is absolutely correct. Going to the Court when we think that these rights are under attack is absolutely correct. I am sure that we can play a good defensive game. But markets will make their own judgments. Financial services can relocate very fast, far faster than any other industry. That is one reason why I am so worried about our increasing isolation in Brussels, and about the signal that we have sent this week. The Channel is getting wider so quickly that I fear the movement may be visible from Tokyo, Beijing and New York. We already know that our friends in Washington have seen it and worry about it. I think that we should all worry about it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I pay tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. He has always been a very genial and capable chairman. I am particularly grateful to him for the fact that we now seem to be getting before our committee rather more representative witnesses, who on occasions represent the majority of the British people. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who I enjoy having on our committee—we have our differences but they are always agreeable ones—I am not going to speak too much about the Prime Minister’s speech as my noble friend Lady Noakes has a debate on it next Thursday, to which I hope to contribute. All I would say is that it is a very clever speech. Rather like the Old Testament, there are bits in it which suit absolutely everybody. It does not really matter whether you are a Europhile or a Europhobe. There is something in the speech to keep everybody happy.
On our report, I do not know how many people have actually read it; certainly not an awful lot of action has been taken on it. We must be well aware that the single supervisory mechanism has been adopted, but an awful lot of other things that were heavily recommended in our report have not. I refer particularly to the recovery and resolution directive, which is possibly equally important, if not more so. Of course, the intention was that it would be introduced at the beginning of this year. I now gather that the Dutch and others who see themselves as picking up the tab for ECB intervention into banks have backed off. They do not want to get involved in that anymore. They are going back on earlier undertakings, which is rather typical of how the EU operates most of the time. It takes two steps forward and one step back, and if everything gets rather difficult or if things, as it seems to believe today, are looking rather better, it is a wonderful excuse to do nothing. If that is the EU of which we all want to be part, that is fine, but it certainly does not seem to be the answer for the United Kingdom. Earlier this week, we had some witnesses who described the state of European banks as they now are: they are European in life but still remain national in death.
We are now in a very significant situation. The problem with the EU is that it does things, with enormous reluctance, only when faced with a very major economic crisis. You merely have to lurch from one crisis to another before any difficult measures are taken. There may be people in this House who are dreaming of the day when Europe moves towards much greater integration but it is quite difficult to see how that will happen. It also seems quite clear that it will happen only when there has been one crisis after another.
In 2011, the Prime Minister called for the “big bazooka”. He wanted a major move made that would stabilise the sovereign debt crisis in the EU. What happened? Absolutely nothing happened and things got worse and worse. Interest rates on Club Med debt went through the roof. It became such a crisis that eventually the Germans agreed that Mario Draghi should make his statement that he would do anything necessary to stabilise the eurozone. At that stage, the markets calmed down. It was only because it took that long for German agreement to come through and, by that time, confidence had been undermined all over the eurozone. Sovereign debt was getting completely out of control. Investment decisions were being put on hold. When you get that across a large economic area such as the eurozone, you see the economy moving into recession and things getting very much worse.
I always get a wonderful narrative from my son-in-law, who is German and works for a German bank in London. He says that Merkel is playing a fantastically clever game. She is delaying like mad and restructuring the economies of countries in the eurozone. But what she has actually done is bring recession across the whole of the eurozone. Germany itself is now in recession. That does not strike me as being statesmanship. It comes as no surprise to me that she has just lost some Länder elections in Germany. I will be quite surprised if she wins the general election in September of this year. I do not think that there is much to be happy about with the way in which the eurozone is performing at the moment.
Earlier this week, our witnesses said that eurozone bank indebtedness would disappear like the snow in the sunshine once we had economic growth in the eurozone. There are two problems with that. First, we have absolutely no idea of the scale of bank indebtedness in the Club Med countries in the eurozone. However, we know that we are reaching a situation where a number of countries—because they are faced by serious social problems—have said that their banks cannot repossess properties and throw people on to the street. That means that people in those houses stop paying their mortgages because they cannot afford to do so. The next thing you have is moral hazard when someone says, “Well, hold on, my neighbour is not paying his mortgage repayments because he can’t. But I think I won’t pay mine either, although I can”. That leads to a very major problem in the banking sector because all the mortgages are going wrong and you are talking about sliding property prices anyway.
I agree that economic forecasting seems to have gone a bit wobbly right across the board, but if there is any consensus it is that there will be absolutely minimal growth in the eurozone for the next two years. I do not think there is any point in looking much beyond that. However, two years is a long time to have no growth and no relief on this side of things. For that reason, the banking crisis is certainly not over. If the ECB is not going to make itself liable for bank debt, another banking crisis will lead to a sovereign debt crisis and we will be back in much the same situation we were in a few months ago.
There are also serious questions about how much freedom the ECB has to buy sovereign debt. Officially, it is not allowed to print money and the Germans are desperate to try to keep a hold on how much money the ECB spends. They want to pass resolutions in Parliament before very much more money is extended to the ECB. We must accept that, although the recovery and resolution directive has not gone through, there probably will be a crisis which will eventually force it through. Then we will have a very interesting situation. There has been a lot of comment in this debate already about whether we are covered by a double lock voting system in the European Banking Authority. But, come on, let us live in the real world. In the real world, the executive arm will be the ECB, which will make up the rules as it goes along. I do not think that it will constantly refer back and say, “We have a crisis on our hands. Is the EBA happy that we can do this, that or the other?”. I think that the guidance that will come from the EBA will be extremely broad in anybody’s language and that the ECB will become very much more powerful as it goes along.
We also have the problem of what on earth we do about democratic accountability. It is not going to be a very satisfactory situation when the ECB moves in on a large bank and says, “This thing is going absolutely nowhere. Its liabilities are appalling. We must lay off half the people, break it down and get it into a more sensible state”. That will not be a popular move when thousands of people are put on the street. You can imagine that at that point the local politicians will all say, “This is nothing to do with us, you know. It is the ECB that is doing this. We don’t like to mention it but it is the Germans standing behind them”. That is the sort of situation you are going to get. If you have no democratic accountability—there is absolutely none as regards the ECB—you will have some very serious problems when things start to go wrong with banks. This is all far from being satisfactory and does not bode well at all for those eurozone countries which desire this great process of integration.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The problem of democratic accountability is very real, as described, but I think that everybody is well aware of it. Certainly the European Parliament is extremely well aware of it, which is why it is linking the two texts. The ECB text is nothing to do with the European Parliament but it will not agree it until it has agreed the EBA text, which is to do with it. I am sure that it will insist on some sort of democratic accountability provision being built in.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I wish that I shared the noble Lord’s confidence, but I do not. I cannot see where this democratic accountability is going to come from because at the end of the day the EBA is the only thing that has any democratic accountability, and if it is laying down broad policies and the executive action is being taken by the ECB, that is where the rub is going to come—with the executive action being taken by the ECB. Perhaps something will happen, but there does not seem to be much sign of it at the moment.
We will face crisis after crisis, which will merely prolong the uncertainty and the general conditions that we have in the eurozone today whereby people are still very reluctant to invest in this area and stagnation seems to be continuing. Resentment will increase. Everybody says that we need a completely integrated fiscal union in the eurozone. Well, come on. You will have a growing problem with the Germans resenting massive transfers of money to the Greeks—to talk in extremes. The Germans will not allow those transfers of money to take place without enormous conditions being placed on the Greeks. The Greeks will all riot in the streets because they will say that the terms under which the money is being transferred are too stringent, and the Germans resent giving the money. Is this the sort of Europe we want to live in? Already we are beginning to see very extreme parties appearing in Greece. Everybody goes on about the fascists in Greece, but you have to bear in mind that the communists are much bigger than the fascists and much more likely to win the next election. Either way, we are seeing very extreme parties emerging.
Then we have the Prime Minister’s speech and the idea that we should have a referendum in 2017-18 on whether we should be in or out of the European Union. If the eurozone is going absolutely nowhere and is no better than it is today, as many people think will be the case, I cannot see this country ever voting to stay within the European Union.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, it has happened more times than I can recall since I have been in this House, nearly two and a half years, that I have had the pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, or he has had the task of following me. Although I rarely agree with him about very much, it is a great pleasure to debate with him. However, I did agree with two things that he said this afternoon. First, I share his view that the ECB, in practice, is likely to have a dominating and increasing intellectual influence on the EBA. Secondly, I very much agree with his characterisation of the way the European Union makes progress as two steps forward, one step back. Although he probably would not agree, I think that is a very sensible, sound and prudent way of advancing in difficult territory, and I am very content that that has been and continues to be the process. Had he put the order the other way around, I would have very much disagreed with him, but his judgment and mine are very much the same in that way.
I want to add my own word of tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and to everyone on the committee for having brought forward a very interesting and timely report. I want to address just two of the issues on which the committee focused in drawing up that report, and then to say a few words about the position of the British Government. First, I recognise that the testimony that the committee received was rather conflicting. A very important and fundamental issue is whether it is right to have the monetary authority—in this case, the European Central Bank—as the supervisory authority for the banking system. It seems to me that it is right. There is often said to be a conflict of interest between financial stability and monetary policy. I see it not so much as a conflict of interest but of objectives. It is not the sort of conflict that can be eased or solved by separation of responsibilities. On the contrary, it is the sort of conflict that can be made a great deal worse by the excessive separation of responsibilities, because if there is a problem and in difficult times the supervisory authority feels it necessary in the interests of financial stability to provide more liquidity to the market, for example, or to support a particular bank by replacing deposits that may be fleeing elsewhere, or otherwise, that decision would immediately have monetary consequences and could be implemented anyway only by the central bank.
The central bank needs to be brought in—inevitably, it must be brought in—and the earlier the better. What is more, the central bank is in a very good position because of its open market operations, because it can see to what extent banks are varying their levels of deposit with itself, and because it knows about any drawings through the back door by banks in its area of responsibility. It is in a very good position to see whether liquidity problems are emerging for institutions in their area. Therefore it seems to me extremely important that the supervisory authority and the central bank should work together anyway. The idea of having two different directorates within one institution—the ECB—responsible for stability and for monetary policy seems to me a very good solution. I personally have the greatest confidence that, if there is a difficult decision to be made—as there will be, inevitably—it should be Mario Draghi, a person in whom I have the greatest confidence, who has the responsibility of making that decision.
The other issue that I want to address, which was dealt with in the committee’s report at some length, is whether it is desirable or acceptable for the banking industry come in in stages. Only the first stage so far has been agreed. Of course, it cannot be certain that there can be any agreement with the second or third stages, the first stage being the supervision regime and the second and third stages being retail deposit insurance and resolution procedure and mechanism. Clearly, it is not ideal; it is not the way one would wish these things to be, but I think it is a reasonably acceptable situation on a temporary basis, and a good deal better than nothing. I am glad that we have the process going.
I have to say that I think the Germans are not being rational. Maybe the Germans, and the Dutch, are resisting a European Union-wide resolution and retail deposit insurance system simply because if there were a problem and a run on the banks in one member state because in that particular context depositors no longer had confidence in the credibility of the retail deposit insurance system, and if that confidence depended entirely on the credibility of the national Government, unsupported elsewhere in the EU, there would inevitably be a systemic crisis. Similarly, if it was necessary for a particular member state to recapitalise the banks, and that task was out of proportion to the financial resources of that particular member state, that would engender immediately a sovereign debt crisis for that country.
What is more, such a crisis would never be limited to one member state. There would be knock-on and systemic effects for the whole of the European Union. If Greece went down, we know that there would be effects elsewhere, or if Portugal went down again there would no doubt be strong effects in Spain. The consequences of that would be that German and Dutch banks—to take the examples of the two countries that are resisting the logic of the banking union, which I think they are—would find that they are making great write-offs of their assets that were exposed to these particular markets and deposits with those banks, and so on. They could be supported only by their own banks, which would have to be recapitalised by their own national Governments.
The cost of such a bailout would be enormous and vastly greater than any credible drawing in respect of one, two or three particular institutions on a retail deposit insurance scheme. I think that the Germans are being quite illogical about this. They are not looking at the matter in the long term or in the round. No doubt intellectually they might agree with me, but they find themselves under political constraints. I hope that with the various events that are in the pipeline in the coming months they will find that it is politically possible to do what I think is the rational thing to do.
I now want to say something about the position of the British Government in all this, which seems to be perfectly ludicrous, if I may say so. I understand that they see the banking union as a good thing for others but not for us. That immediately is a slightly suspect argument, and one wonders why it is the case. I looked at the committee report to see what the British Government’s analysis of the national interest was, and why it was not in our interests to join the banking union if it made sense for other people. There is no such explanation in the whole document. I shall read what passes for an explanation to the House. Paragraph 129 states:
“The Government have repeatedly stated that the UK will not participate in the banking union proposals, on the grounds that the measures logically flow from monetary union and are designed to secure the success of the single currency”.
That is a quite unconvincing argument. If someone buys a car, a pharmaceutical product or a piece or electronic gadgetry, he is not worried about who the product was originally designed for; he is worried about whether it is suitable for him, and whether it will work for him. That is the argument that needs to be addressed, but it has not been addressed by the Government at all.
Lord Marlesford
Surely what the noble Lord has just been saying is precisely the reason why the British Government do not want to join the banking union. They are saying that there must be mutualisation through the European Central Bank and the banking union of the debt of banks in the euro area. Is he really suggesting that it would be sensible for the British Government to share in that liability, and that if, as he described graphically, there were to be a run on one of the banks in Greece, we, too, should have our share in picking up the pieces?
Lord Davies of Stamford
Indeed, I am suggesting exactly that to the noble Lord and to the House. It would be very much in our interests to do so, for the reason that I thought I had explained. Perhaps the noble Lord did not follow my argument, which was that if there were a run on the banks in a member state, left to itself it could engender a systemic crisis that would be far more costly to us, because British banks would write off a very large portion of their assets as a result of collapses elsewhere. In order to restore those banks to financial viability, we would need to recapitalise and support them in ways that would be much more expensive than the likely cost of any contribution to the system. I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I believe that we should have interventions such as this, so I will give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Marlesford
In that case, why did the American banks not recapitalise the British banks that went bust?
Lord Davies of Stamford
It is obviously necessary, if we are going to get involved in any kind of obligation of this kind, to make sure that we come under the same supervisory authority and that everybody works according to the same rules. That is palpably not the case with us and the United States.
The position of the British Government is clearly that they are not interested in making a dispassionate and functional analysis of the national interest in this area. If they were interested in doing so, it would have been quoted in the report and we would all know about it. They have simply decided that on party political grounds, because of the need to conciliate the Eurosceptics in the Tory party—we know that this is the way the country’s foreign policy is now being run; it is being bear-led by the Eurosceptics—it is impossible to do the rational and sensible thing, so they have simply excluded a priori any possibility of our joining the banking union, even as a participant that is not a member of the euro. A large number of countries will join on that basis—almost certainly a good deal more than the four that have already announced they will. I expect that every east European country other than the Czech Republic to come into that category. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, very convincingly argued, that would cause great problems for us. It is absurd for the British Government to say that one of the major difficulties here is the voting system, because the problem would be resolved if we were part of the system, and at least one of a minority of nine or 10.
If we do not join the banking union, there are only three logical possibilities. I do not think that any Member of the House will want to argue with my logic, which is very basic and elementary. The first is that we have a supervisory system that in practice simply tracks that of the ECB; we will do exactly what the ECB does in its area of responsibility, for example in matters of licensing, authorisation, intervention and guidance to banks. That would mean that we were de facto part of the system, with the important difference that we would not be part of the decision-making mechanism and would not have the kind of influence within the system that otherwise we would have had.
The second possibility is that we adopt a supervisory system that is somehow stricter and more severe than that adopted on the continent by, for example, the Republic of Ireland under the ECB. That would mean that banks here would find that they were at a competitive disadvantage doing their business out of London as opposed to doing it out of Paris, Frankfurt or somewhere else. That would not be a very intelligent thing to do.
The third possibility is that we adopt a regime of supervision that is lighter and more complacent than that adopted by the ECB. In the short term, that might attract institutions that do not like the stricter regime on the continent, but in a crisis we would be much more exposed because we would have a lesser degree of credibility. It would be considered that our institutions and banks were less safe and sound than those across the Channel, or indeed across the Irish Sea. That, too, would be a bad day’s work for the country. We would face a situation in which either we would have no advantage at all, but the disadvantage of not having the influence that we ought to have and that is commensurate with the importance of the City, or we would be otherwise disadvantaged either in competitive terms or in our ability to withstand crises. That would be a profoundly bad day’s work for the country—and it is exactly the day’s work that this Government have done. I deprecate it very strongly indeed.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, because, whatever other interests and policies he has in his mind, he is always a very robust, fervent and positive European. We need more of that in this country. I am glad, too, that in recent years the Labour Party has become much more positive on Europe following the passage of the Lisbon treaty. That is a very good development for this country. It can emulate the good example of the Liberal Democrat party as being always in the vanguard of the pro-European position—patriotic Britishers, of course, but also enthusiastic Europeans, and those two things can go closely together.
Yesterday the Prime Minister made his sad speech—actually, it was not a sad speech but a sad occasion. One has to acknowledge that there were some good bits in the speech and, as my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom said, he tried to appeal to everyone, and in that sense was quite clever. However, it was a sad occasion because he has unleashed for himself a number of very disturbing things, depending on how they develop in future, that are going to destabilise British politics significantly. I will return to those themes in my concluding remarks.
Many good things have been said so far about the EBU report. I shall refer to it briefly but that is not to decry its quality. In fact, we in this House are used to having reports of high quality from the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees. I am going to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, deliberately by saying that this report is outstanding. I thank him and his sub-committee members for having created this excellent report.
It highlights, in a disturbing and worrying way, the acute complexities of the architecture of the system. A number of significant members, led, I suppose, by the United Kingdom, which, in a way, is the largest of them, are not going to be involved in this important developing system and framework. That is a matter of great concern, and the sooner we have the courage to align ourselves with these proposals, the better. That may take some time, and of course nationalism raises its ugly head all the time and we have to contend with that. My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom would not admit this or agree with me but, as a result of being driven out of the exchange rate mechanism in 1992—that hugely humiliating moment under a Conservative Government—the United Kingdom was subsequently very scared of the euro, afraid of the single currency, nervous as hell about what it might develop into and always looking for things to go wrong.
The fact that the report looks at the way in which this new system will control the banks—the clearing banks, the joint stock banks, the commercial banks and the other banks—in the eurozone area is an outstanding achievement. I want to quote from what was said by President Van Rompuy, but first I will give way to my noble friend.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does my noble friend accept that if the United Kingdom were in the eurozone today, with the deficit that we are running and the debt levels that we have, we would be in intensive care?
Lord Dykes
I do not agree with that, and anyway it is too theoretical even to consider. By the way, our deficit is £100 billion and we have a free-floating currency that has now been devalued about eight times since the war, either formally in the marketplace or informally. It is interesting to measure and to see where that got us when we were kicked out of the exchange rate mechanism by market forces, when the Treasury was for a moment probably the worst ministry of finance in Western Europe. It has not carried on being like that—it recovered and has produced some very good decisions since then—but that was the lamentable position at the time.
President Van Rompuy, who met the committee, is quoted in the third paragraph on page 57 of the report as saying that,
“the EU was in a better place than a few months ago. No-one was now speaking about imminent eurozone collapse. Although the problems had not disappeared, things were ‘on the right track’ but the EU might ultimately need to give Greece more time”,
which is a very fair point. In the preceding paragraph, he also said that he had to remind the committee that these member states—sovereign member states, all of them—are very lively democracies, so it takes time to reach these decisions. So, although people complained about the process being slow, the slower it was, the better the structure that was emerging, as I hope the Minister will agree.
In the third paragraph of the summary, the committee states,
“we welcome the publication of the Single Supervisory Mechanism proposals as a significant first step towards banking union. We agree that the European Central Bank, to be given ultimate supervisory responsibility for every euro area bank, is the only organisation with the necessary credibility and authority to take on this role”.
When the Minister comes to sum up, will he deal with that matter and the concern that the committee expressed about the concentration of so much power and its practical effects on the institutional banking market place?
In paragraph 3 on page 7, the report states:
“Although the Government have made clear that the UK will not participate in a banking union … the UK’s decision not to participate, should not and need not adversely affect London’s position as the leading financial centre in Europe, nor undermine the single market. The strength of this argument may soon be tested”.
That is quite an ominous point and I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on that matter.
I repeat my warm thanks for a truly excellent report. It has helped a great deal in taking an immensely complicated subject further. In his distinguished opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, set an admirable precedent by referring to yesterday’s referendum decision and so on. I should like to conclude by making a few points on that in this debate.
It was a sad day for the reasons that I have suggested and the effects will be very disturbing as time goes on. I am very glad to see that the Deputy Prime Minister, quite rightly, established a different position—that there might in future be a need for a referendum depending on the outcome of any negotiations, but to threaten one now, when no negotiating posture is being created and there are many years to go before we reach the end year of this decision-making suggestion, will create a great many difficulties and uncertainty, particularly in the business world. There have been many comments to that effect.
It is sad that we have got ourselves into the position of being the bad member of the club. It is a great pity. It is rather foolish of this country to lecture other countries on the crucial importance of competitiveness and efficiency in their economies when we have a terrible statistical deficit in our own trading and do not have a very strong economy. To suggest to the Germans that they need to improve their economy in comparison with English examples is going too far. I wish I did not have to say that, but that is the reality of the situation. The Germans remain modest about their economic achievements.
The sheer awkwardness of examining the subjects in this report while not being in the eurozone will come out more and more as time goes on. If we could only restore our courage and become a mature and enthusiastic member of the European Union, it would be very good for this country.
There were some interesting points made in the press yesterday about Mr Cameron’s speech. In an article today in the best newspaper in the country—the Guardian, of course—Martin Kettle states:
“Cameron’s speech was not brave. It was reckless. The brave stance yesterday was Ed Miliband’s, sticking to Labour’s practical pro-Europeanism and refusing to follow suit. Instead, yesterday marks the moment when Cameron’s pragmatic centre-right political project finally bent the knee to the ideological fantasy about Europe that still grips the Tory party”.
Anthony Hilton, who has been a long-standing supporter of the euro and the eurozone and now feels that the eurozone has passed the danger point—after all, it has never been a weak currency; it has always remained a strong currency despite the crisis and it is only that there were four or five weak members of that currency which had to have assistance provided by collective action—says in today’s Evening Standard:
“If Cameron thinks these concessions”—
to what I believe he used to call the head-bangers—
“are going to appease his lunatic fringe and calm things down, he might equally consider applying to be Prime Minister of the planet Zog. The sad reality of his capitulation to Eurosceptic pressure is it virtually guarantees that Tory backbenchers and their media acolytes will talk about nothing else between now and an election which is still two years off”.
Of course, they might be tempted to cite the Irish as saying that it will be a good occasion, they are quite relaxed and will go along with it, but that is not true either. I quote the Irish reaction in today’s Irish Times, where Arthur Beesley says that,
“it is readily acknowledged in official circles that the British debate and uncertainty over its EU membership have clear potential to destabilise European politics and create friction with other member states”.
Finally, I shall quote my right honourable friend in the other place, Sir Menzies Campbell:
“This was never about the UK; it was always about Ukip. The declarations of satisfaction which came from the Tory right immediately following Mr Cameron’s speech were disturbing for those of us who are supporters of European engagement. Mr Cameron’s speech had nothing to do with Britain’s place in Europe and everything to do with his leadership of a bickering and divided party. Tory leaders of the past who have had to fight sections of their party over Europe have found it an unrewarding experience. Mr Cameron is fated to be among their number”.
I regret that because I think that in many ways Mr Cameron has been an excellent Prime Minister and a very personable senior political colleague, so it is a great shame that he has allowed himself to be put in that position.
As my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom said, there is to be a major debate in this House next week on the decisions that were announced yesterday and the future outlook, in which I hope to take part. I shall therefore leave it at that for the moment, but it is part and parcel of everything that we will examine in our Select Committee and its sub-committees. It is all about the huge complexities of Britain remaining a bad member of the club and refusing to co-operate in these matters when co-operation is absolutely essential.
Lord Flight
My Lords, perhaps I may take the House back to the European banking union proposals and start with my own tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, as an enormously courteous and conscientious chairman of our committee. At least for me, I allowed myself to go to Brussels, feeling slightly worried as to whether I might be contaminated by doing so. Two things struck me during the visit. The first was that President Van Rompuy is a much more impressive and determined person than I had perceived previously and, to my mind, he will have had considerable influence in persuading Germany at a crucial time that it was not a good idea to allow, encourage or force Greece to leave the euro. Secondly, I cannot resist teasing the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. While we were wandering around the buildings he said to me, “The trouble is that none of the young people in the Foreign Office want to come here any longer because they know we will not be members in five years’ time”. I thought that that was quite an interesting little judgment.
I want to make two further general points. The first is that while the single market sounds wonderful, what we really want, please, is single market free trade. I know from my own commercial career that a great deal of the single market serves the interests of the large players in their sectors and is highly uncompetitive. Wide access is a fair point, but to my mind the single market needs a really good dose of free trade if it is to achieve what it is supposed to achieve. Secondly, I want to make a point about the City of London and its business. It is becoming increasingly global and is not just an adjunct of Europe. The impression I am being given by various European operations in the City is that you would have to have an EU that was very protectionist and was even threatening to impose capital controls for it to be uncomfortable for people in London. If you had an EU which was doing that, I think that people would not want to put money there anyway. I am not complacent about the position of the City of London and I well remember many people warning that if the UK did not join the euro the City of London would collapse. But, of course, nothing like that actually happened.
On the European banking union, the first question to ask is: how important are these proposals, what are they about and what has given rise to them? I have to say that they do not address the real underlying problem, which is that of different levels of competitiveness, or the point made by my noble friend Lord Trimble, the risk of locking less competitive areas into permanent depression, which has happened in the deep south of America as well as in the south of Italy. The solution to that is not necessarily internal devaluation, when that is what I call gold standard austerity. In the big debate about what to do about the competitiveness issue, common banking supervision is somewhat peripheral.
To the extent that banking supervision is important and relevant, I thought it was supposed to be getting banks better regulated, with a view to the ECB managing the extent to which the ESM fund was used to bail out banks where necessary. Now it seems we are being told by Germany that that is not wanted and it has to be sovereign states that bail out their banks when they are in trouble and maybe the sovereign states will be helped by the ESM fund. That is entirely contrary to the principle of trying to separate the problem of the banks and the state rather than compounding the two problems. It is pretty important in terms of the underlying objective as to how this is going to be resolved.
I have two more points about supervision. First, I am not entirely clear how much of the banking system it is going to cover. It looks as if it will be only the large banks. There is a slight danger of moral hazard there. The German Landesbanken, the savings banks that control about €2,500 billion, seem not to be part of it, and lots of other smaller banks will be left to their local central banks. I make the point that I think others have made: Credit Anstalt, which started some rather nasty banking developments in the past, was a small bank. It is almost as important that small banks are regulated well as for large banks to be regulated well.
When it comes to deposit insurance, as Martin Wolf said when we interviewed him, Germany does not want to have to pay a penny more than it absolutely has to. I am rather doubtful that deposit insurance will develop if there is a free-riding risk. You may have similar principles as to how it operates but I think it extremely unlikely that you are going to get a system where each country in the eurozone is there to cover the risks of the others.
What about the UK and banking union? As we were considering the first point, I was struck by how considerably it reminded me of the Financial Services Bill, which we were debating here in Committee, and there was a quite extraordinary similarity between the proposals for the PRA as a sensible supervisor rather than regulator of the banking system and the proposals for what the ECB would be responsible for. Indeed, to whatever extent there was open discussion, it is absolutely clear to me that the two go hand in hand—nothing wrong with that at all—and that the Bank of England will be sensibly collaborating with the ECB, as it has for a long time, in trying to get the best of banking supervision both in London and on a pan-EU basis.
The point has been made, but it is important, about the extent to which the Government did a good deal in terms of the voting powers for the EBA. It is the EBA that lays down the rules so it is pretty important. I think it is probably reasonable. We have to have only four countries left that are not participating, which is fairly unlikely, and three have already indicated that they are unlikely to participate.
Others have made the point—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—about the lack of ECB accountability, which is crucial in a world of gold standard austerity. Rather cynically I make the point that when people in southern Europe find that the funds from Germany are not flowing in transfer payments in the way that is expected as the quid pro quo, that is going to become extremely difficult politically. The ECB will have to make a real effort to make itself accountable. Then you have the big issue as to whether it is going to be accountable to national parliaments or to the European Parliament. I think that citizens still look much more to their national parliaments.
I have not got a grain of criticism of the proposals, which seem pretty sensible in the main. I see them, in the future, rowing quite sensibly and practically—not negatively—in tandem with what we hope will be much better banking supervision by the Bank of England than we have had from the FSA. However, the real underlying purpose does not look as if it is being addressed. It should provide a mechanism for managing bailout funds from the ESM for the banking system but it does not look as if that is going to be on the agenda.
Lord Desai
My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Harrison for an excellent report. I shall not talk about either Mr Cameron or the UK but want to concentrate on the banking union. One question I want to pose is why the eurozone members thought, in the middle of the crisis, that a solution to the problem was a banking union. If you think about the financial crisis, both the US and the UK had a banking union—they were each a single banking union—but it did not prevent a collapse. Having a single banking regulatory authority, in our case the FSA, did not prevent the collapse. It is very good that structures are created but we ought to ask whether those structures actually do the job they are supposed to do.
I remember in your Lordships’ House about two years ago, or maybe more, sitting in a discussion about the European system of financial supervision. A huge structure was set up for a banking authority, an insurance and occupational pensions authority, and a securities and market authority. It is obvious that none of those things helped when the crisis came—or they certainly did not make any impact in preventing anything that happened. We are now adding another institution and, as noble Lords have pointed out, there will be problems in respect of the overlap between the EBA and the ECB.
The basic problem here is that we are only slowly understanding the nature of the euro, which, in a sense, is a private currency. It is not a national currency, such as sterling or the dollar, where Governments have more control over money creation. Euros can be created only if the ECB is approached by a commercial bank that gives collateral, sovereign debt or something else, and counterpart money is created. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, it is like a gold standard but without the Californian or Australian mines suddenly adding more gold to the total supply. In particular, the strong deflationary character of the euro was understood only when the crisis started. Until then, nobody quite understood what the euro was all about. It is a currency for which there can be no democratic accountability, because the whole Maastricht treaty was designed, on the lines of the Bundesbank’s authority, to have the central bank immune from any democratic control, which was thought to be the standard of monetary responsibility.
I think the ECB is a marvellous institution—right now it is the only institution which is working at the eurozone level, and it did a splendid thing by having its outright monetary transactions authority save Spain from seizing up. However, we have to understand that we have created a currency in the eurozone which will be permanently deflationary. Unless you break the Maastricht treaty and allow the ECB to directly monetise sovereign debt, it will remain deflationary.
As far as I can see, something miraculous will happen to our competitiveness, but, by and large for the next 10 years or so, the eurozone will be stagnant. It will be more or less a 0%-to-1% growth-rate economy. Let us remember that Napoleon looked at a map and said, “There is China; there’s a sleeping giant; let it sleep”. Well, that is going to happen to the eurozone. I am not a Eurosceptic—I am a great admirer of the EU—but this is what we have constructed for ourselves. Let us remember that, in the gold standard, you could thrive only with extremely flexible labour and commodity markets; now, you cannot.
As many noble Lords know, the EU is not a genuine single market as yet and we are still waiting for the Lisbon treaty recommendations on flexible markets to be implemented. In that context, a deflationary currency has a problem. One of the problems facing the banking union, as the report quite properly points out, is that you cannot envisage the ECB looking after 6,000 banks. The ECB will look after the big players, especially those which have cross-border operations. It will be like the Premier League—I think the previous speaker said something about the Premier League council. The problem here is that you will have to be the national supervisory authority of those banks to concede power to the ECB. There will also be macroprudential problems. Those large banks will also have connections with smaller banks within their own territory, which will then be supervised by their national authorities. It is not clear that co-ordination between national authorities, which will be guarding the smaller banks, and the ECB, which will be guarding the larger banks—the hub-and-spoke idea that people are talking about—has been worked out as yet. You will therefore have to devise a set of engagement rules between the various national regulators and the ECB, because, as far as I know, the national regulators need not legally be subservient to the ECB—they may be, but they will not be. That is going to be a substantial problem.
Along the way, in a deflationary climate, there might also be mergers and consolidation. Those 6,000 banks will not remain 6,000 banks; we will probably see consolidation. I wish that we had fewer banks in Europe than we have right now, because if you have got a single currency, why do you need so many different banks? It is not clear to me how the ECB will deal with the trickier problem of the dynamics of consolidation, mergers and acquisition and still maintain its authority as a regulator.
Where the issue will finally come to a head is in whether banking union will help the recapitalisation of banks which could possibly fail. When in June 2012 the proposal was made to speed up banking union, the idea was that it would somehow make it easier to recapitalise banks. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, pointed out, there are difficulties about that, because we lack in the eurozone a genuine pooling of risk. Governments are not willing, so far, genuinely to pool risks. They would rather that each Government look after their local failing banks and recapitalise through issuing more sovereign debt, which the market may not want to buy at any reasonable price.
If so, what happens to the larger banks which are being directly supported by the ECB? Who will bail out the larger banks? We then go back to the national rule. I do not think that Deutsche Bank will fail, but if it was about to, would that be Germany’s or the ECB’s responsibility? Would the money come from the European stability mechanism? How will that be done?
The banking union throws up a number of interesting issues. We are still in the early days. It is not at all clear to me that, having said, “Let us have a banking union”, all problems are solved. The problems of the banking union are just beginning.
As I do not want to speak for more than 10 minutes, all I can say is that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is there to give us the next report when things get worse—or better.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I begin with two personal points. First, I declare an interest in that the think tank that I chair, Policy Network, has in the past received support from the City of London Corporation. Secondly, it is a pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, my brother-in-law, to the Front Bench opposite. Therefore, there will not be an excess of partisanship on this occasion on my part.
As always, it has been an interesting debate, not least because of the final contribution from my noble friend Lord Desai, which I am still trying to absorb. My noble friend Lord Harrison began the debate with an admirable summary of his report. As usual, one wishes that the country was governed by the committees of your Lordships’ House rather than by the prejudices of its Executive, because we would be much better governed. It is an admirable report.
An interesting, rather off-the-wall point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. It is something on which I have long reflected: why is discussion of Europe such a male-dominated subject? That is not something that we should discuss at length today, but we have to take it very seriously if the pro-Europeans want any chance of winning a referendum, so thank you to the noble Baroness for raising that issue.
I want to make three points. First, on the state of the euro itself, I believe that adjustment is on the way. Things are a lot better than they were. The question is whether what is occurring is socially and politically sustainable. I do not think that it will be without more fiscal flexibility. Nor do I think that it will be sustainable without considerable debt write-offs, particularly after the German elections in September. There will have to be an element of a transfer union to make the position of the mezzogiorno of the south, which the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, mentioned, sustainable. That will require further steps towards banking union, particularly in the case of Spain, because there is such an obvious link between bank debts and the sovereign debt position.
My second point is on the Britain in Europe debate. Banking union is the fourth major institutional development since the euro crisis started from which the United Kingdom has stood aside. There was the European stability mechanism, the euro-plus pact, the fiscal compact and now the banking union, which was agreed in principle in June 2012, and which the British urged the eurozone to get on with. Indeed, I think George Osborne first recommended it as long ago as January 2011. He was very foresighted about that, but it is something from which we have chosen to stand aside.
If you read what this is about, while in the British debate it is presented as a measure to rescue the single currency, in the continental debate it is about the creation of what is called a financial market union. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed that out. In the British Government’s view, this is all part of a clear narrative in which the eurozone is integrating and we have to establish a new kind of settlement and relationship with the members outside it; that is the British Government's narrative. However, the real question is: to whom does this narrative apply, other than the United Kingdom? How many other euro-outs share this conception of the British narrative? I might ask the Government what their view of that is.
That is a crucial point, first, in informing a view about the sustainability of the safeguards that the Government obtained on the banking union in the December 2012 summit. Secondly, it is fundamental to whether David Cameron’s essential assertion in his speech yesterday—that the core of Europe is the single market—is right. For most members, however, will it actually be the single currency? This point is fundamental because it is a question of whether we are going along with the support of other euro-outs, to try to negotiate a balanced relationship between outs and ins, or whether we are just making a case for special treatment for Britain, which will be far more difficult to negotiate.
The third point I want to make is about the position of the City of London. These are not just intellectual exercises; we are talking about something that is fundamental to our national interests. I have long believed that the UK is overdependent on financial services and I support the whole concept of rebalancing the economy towards manufacturing. My noble friend Lord Mandelson’s comment was right; there has been too much financial engineering and not enough real engineering. I agree with all that. However, the City is a crucial national interest and the financial centre of the single market. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that it is global and very resilient but it has benefited a lot from the single market in Europe—particularly from the opening-up of the financial single market, a lot of which occurred under the previous Labour Government.
Of course, no one worried about this at the time because it was the era of light-touch regulation. No one worried about the financial imbalances that were building up between countries and the lack of cross-border regulation. Well, the banking crisis changed all that and the Government recognised the need for regulation at EU level. It was a good thing that the Conservative Government, including Chancellor Osborne, accepted when they came in what Chancellor Darling had already agreed to: the establishment of European regulatory agencies.
Lord Flight
Could I just make this point to the noble Lord? The investment management industry, in which I spent 40 years of my career, has still failed to penetrate the EU. There are a variety of cultural and other barriers, but a lot of American firms came over thinking that Europe was like America and that all they had to do was have offices. If one looks at how much money the London retail funds business has got from the EU, it is still pitifully small.
Lord Liddle
I agree that things vary from sector to sector but one of the reasons why so many foreign-based banks are in London is because it is the financial centre of the single market.
The point is that the banking crisis has changed the way that we thought about the City. It has made regulation absolutely essential. The euro crisis has made banking union essential in order to break the link between sovereign debt and the fact that nation states have had to underwrite their banks. It raises difficult issues for us in the UK. As long as we see ourselves as being outside the single currency, the centre of the European financial market will be remote from the core of the banking union. There is also the block vote problem: if regulation is concentrated through the ECB, we could be outvoted.
The UK made a disastrous attempt in 2011 to try to tackle this problem of what to do. This was at that year’s December summit, where a paper was circulated late at night without prior consultation with anyone. Full of complex detail, it had at the top the horrible word “unanimity”. Basically it was asking for unanimity on questions of financial services. Not only was this tactically maladroit, it was strategically misguided. If the sincere wish of the British Government is to deepen the single market in the European Union, we cannot go around demanding unanimity on a specific UK interest, because every other member state will demand unanimity on an interest specific to it.
That is why the proposals of, for instance, the Fresh Start group are extremely worrying. They do not demand unanimity but in cases of financial services they do demand use of the Luxembourg compromise and they talk about emergency brakes. If you believe in the single market, you cannot put forward such things in the European Union. I should like to hear from the Government that they have no intention of pressing for the Luxembourg compromise or emergency brakes in this area. This would be so damaging to Britain’s interests in pressing forward to the single market.
However, the Government achieved a notable success in December with the acceptance of the double majority principle. I agree with my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford that, for protecting our position, this is a lot better than nothing. Yet I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who asks how robust this is and whether it will last.
First, this double majority applies only to the banking agency, which is about the implementing regulations, and not to ECOFIN, which draws up the legislation. So we do not have a special position there. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is right that the ECB will be the big player in this and the EBA a weakly staffed and resourced organisation. How do the Government intend to deal with that? Thirdly, there is the question of time limitation. How many euro-outs, which are actually banking union-ins, will there be? If there are a significant number of euro-outs who will be banking union-ins, how long do we think that this special double majority arrangement will last?
There are alternatives. I am not saying that this is what the Labour Party would propose but, as my noble friend Lord Davies said, we have not had from the Government a proper cost-benefit analysis of what the alternatives might be. Did they look at how, as a euro-out, we might be a member of the banking union and whether it could be made to work? Could we have built on the model of the European Systemic Risk Board, of which the president of the European Central Bank is chair and the Governor of the Bank of England is vice-chair? Could we have used that as an umbrella? The Government have a duty to look at all the possible alternatives here because this is an issue of such vital importance to the future of the City. The fear that a lot of us have is that for reasons of ideology and prejudice, the UK has opted for very much a second-best, possibly a third-best, solution that would be gravely damaging to our interests in the long run. I will be grateful to the Minister if he can deal with some of these points.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and the European Union Committee for the report and for the typically thorough work they undertook before they drew up their proposals and thoughts on the European banking union. As we made clear before, we believe it is vital for the UK that financial stability is restored to the eurozone, and these proposals set out ambitious reforms to help achieve that. Their potential impact is significant in the UK as well as in the eurozone, and it is important that they are properly scrutinised and that the issues they give rise to are properly debated. So I am grateful for the committee’s efforts and for the chance to do just that today.
As noble Lords are aware, the Government support proposals to establish a comprehensive banking union in the eurozone and have been engaging positively in the negotiations. Achieving a genuine economic and monetary union and restoring stability within the eurozone will require a comprehensive set of measures, including a single supervisory mechanism, risk mutualisation plans, such as mutualised deposit guarantees, a common fiscal backstop and a common framework for rescuing eurozone banks. These measures together will help to break the dangerous, and mutually destructive, link between indebted countries and unstable eurozone banks by mutualising financial risk across eurozone countries.
The December Council meeting marked a significant point in the negotiations to establish a single supervisory mechanism and, importantly, as we have been discussing, the Council agreed a number of safeguards for the single market which will ensure that neither the City nor the UK will be marginalised. A number of noble Lords have referred to some of them, but I hope the House will not mind if I set out some of these protections.
First, the ECB will have a duty to have regard to the unity and integrity of the internal market in performing its supervisory tasks. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that that may not be a new duty, but it is quite helpful to have it reiterated. Not only that, it will also be subject to an 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 ECB will be required to agree a bilateral memorandum of understanding with the UK—by which we mean the PRA—setting out how it will co-operate in discharging its supervisory tasks, so we can look forward to a constructive and collaborative supervisory dialogue underpinning the robust supervision of cross-border firms and activities throughout the EU. The way in which the supervisory authorities in the UK and the EU work together now, not least the ECB and EBA, is through close, professional working. It is not done in the spirit of two mutually opposed forces coming together on a day-to-day basis with different views. They are technicians, very often, trying to deal with common, difficult, technical problems, and that has infused the discussions to date.
In December, there were two important decisions on parity within the single market, which mean that the PRA and ECB will be operating on equal terms. The Council agreed the principle that the ECB’s supervisory powers should be analogous to those available under Union law to national supervisors in non-participating member states. Powers and decisions of the EBA, for example in cases of binding mediation in the event of disputes between supervisors, will apply equally to the ECB and other supervisors. So the ECB has no special status.
Perhaps most importantly, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the Council agreed that key decisions in the EBA will be made by a double-majority voting system. Therefore, although we hope that the EBA will continue to be driven by consensus, with votes very much the exception, the voting arrangements will ensure that all member states, whether or not participating in the banking union, will continue to have a meaningful voice. In practical terms, where the EBA votes on a standard which applies to firms throughout Europe, this will require the support of those in the banking union and those outside it. Not only will the usual qualified majority apply, but a majority of the group of non-participating member states—which, of course, includes the UK—will also have to support any proposal.
A number of noble Lords have expressed support for these protections. It is fair to say that even if the Council had not actually read the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, it did address a number of the other issues raised in it. First, it clarifies the scope of ECB supervision. It establishes robust governance arrangements in the ECB which separate the performance of the ECB’s monetary policy and supervision tasks. These arrangements will also ensure that those non-eurozone member states which choose to participate in the SSM will have a voice in decision-making. We should not think that separating those two elements of what the ECB does is too difficult a job. That is, broadly speaking, what we are going to be doing with the Bank of England, the PRA and the other bodies that we have just established here. It is eminently doable. The way in which the EU and the ECB are setting about doing it looks perfectly reasonable.
The Council decision also confirmed that the EBA will ensure a geographical balance in its appointments. On this point I need hardly remind noble Lords that the UK plays a leading role in the EBA and currently holds one of the six seats on its management board, which is based in London.
While the Government are broadly content with the outcome of the December meeting, noble Lords will be aware that negotiations are ongoing. However, I assure you that we are working hard to ensure that the final agreement continues to reflect these points. As for the next steps, negotiations concerning the recovery and resolution directive are similarly active. I will come back to those shortly.
However, proposals relating to the second and third pillars of the banking union—the common resolution mechanism and the common deposit insurance scheme—have not yet been issued. We recognise that the decisions relating to the funding of any resolution mechanism and deposit insurance scheme are politically difficult, particularly within participating member states, and decisions relating to debt mutualisation and common fiscal backstops are more difficult still. None the less, in the context of a banking union for participating member states, the UK supports these concepts in principle. Having said that, we cannot provide more detailed views until the proposals have been published, although of course we take note of the points that members of the committee have raised in their report and today.
On the specific points raised by noble Lords in their speeches, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, was the first to raise the question of the concentration of power in the ECB, which I have spoken about in part. As I have said, there is an analogy with the Bank of England to a certain extent. For clarity, although there are 6,000 banks within the eurozone area, the ECB proposes to directly supervise on a continuing basis probably a couple of hundred of them. However, it will retain the power to go in if there is a particular problem, where a national supervisory body may be thought by the ECB not to be dealing with an issue adequately.
In that respect the noble Lord, Lord Flight, used the analogy of the ECB’s role being a bit like the PRA as opposed to the FCA in the UK. It is not a direct analogy but there are some relevant comparisons. We think that the system we have set up will be robust. If that is the case, in principle, the one being envisaged here also should be. The problem is that it is a multiplication of the kind of problems that we had here when the crisis struck. When everything is going well, you can make things work. But, here, we had a real problem with managing a financial crisis because two or three individuals could not make the system work.
We hope that we have changed the system to make it less dependent on individuals but when you have a system involving a minimum of 17 national supervisors and a super-supervisor, as it were, no one in their right mind would think that dealing with a crisis will be easy. In particular, by definition, no one will have been through it before, so they will be learning on the job. That is an inevitable consequence of doing anything new. The ECB is working very hard to put in place systems which it hopes will be very robust in stressful times.
The noble Lords, Lord Flight and Lord Trimble, asked about what is happening next and whether the steam has gone out of the negotiations. We are very confident that the steam has not gone out of the negotiations in terms of the SSM. The Irish have got this as one of their top priorities during their presidency. We are hoping that relatively soon there will be the final agreement on the regulation which will underpin these changes. We hope that the SSM will be operational by March 2014, which, in anyone’s view, is as quick as one could reasonably expect.
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, was the first to raise the dread word “referendum”. He described it as new-fangled. I have very fond memories of the 1975 referendum. However, I remind him that the Government have legislated for referendums to take place on European matters in the UK when significant changes are due to take place. That was before the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday. I am delighted that next week the House will have the chance to spend considerable time talking about this matter; not least because it enables me to say today that I am not going to talk about it because the House will have considerable time to talk about it next week. As noble Lords can imagine, that is a considerable relief.
Among other things, the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, asked about the timetable on the recovery and resolution directive, which is obviously of huge importance for the whole of the EU. Again, these are one of the priorities of the Irish presidency, which is looking for an agreed approach in the first quarter of this year. Member states, including ourselves, are actively and positively engaged in these negotiations. We strongly support this timetable as it is essential that all member states need to get a common set of credible tools and powers to deal with resolution and recovery as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, was worried about the male-dominated nature of the debate. I think that this gets back, in part, to the male-dominated nature of the financial services sector, which will take a long time to sort out. However, as other noble Lords have pointed out, on this subject, we have some extremely eminent female economists and knowledgeable women in your Lordships’ House. I hope that they will speak in future debates.
The noble Baroness referred to bond yields and breaking the debt spiral. I think that I can give her more than a glimmer of hope in terms of bond yields. The bond yields of Greece, Spain and other countries under stress have fallen significantly. In Greece, they have fallen by one-third over the past two months. This is a very big shift in the right direction as far as they are concerned. Bond yields now in the vast bulk of the eurozone, even among the difficult economies on the periphery, are at a sustainable level.
The noble Baroness referred to the financial transactions tax and asked whether this could damage London. The Government’s view is that we have no intention of joining the FTT. We do not believe that it will have a deleterious effect on London, quite the opposite; however, I have severe doubts as to whether the FTT will ever raise anything like the funding that is envisaged for it. I remind noble Lords that we already have our FTT in the City on shares; it is known as stamp duty, so this concept is not totally unknown to us. However, it has to be said that the City is very keen for us to abolish it and believes that there would be significant economic benefits if we did so.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as always, asked a number of very specific and penetrating questions. He asked how many countries will remain with us in our “out” group, and what they have said so far. Their attitudes are, like ours, dictated by their domestic debates. Some have confirmed that they will not join for now, some have confirmed that they are unlikely to join in the long term and others have said that they intend to join at some point. However, given that the eventual package is not known, we do not think that it is wise for us to give names at this stage because it would be unfair to say that all those countries have formed an absolutely settled view about what they are going to do. As noble Lords say, if the number of “outs” falls, there will have to be a review and we are confident that we will be able to secure a sensible voting arrangement going forward. However, we do not envisage that we will be in that position for some considerable time, if at all.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he help me? In the cases where countries have declared a position, will he write to me and set out what that position is? I drop my third question, which is: what is the Government’s assessment of where those who have not declared are likely to go? However, my first two factual questions are the following. What are the public positions? Where there are public positions, will the noble Lord write and let me know what they are?
Lord Newby
Yes, of course. It will not be a comprehensive letter in the sense that not all the countries have expressed a position, as I said, but one or two have and we can collate those relatively easily.
The noble Lord referred, as I did in my introductory remarks, to the importance of the MoU between the Bank and the ECB. We agree with him that it is crucial in setting the tone for the supervisory relationship. The Bank and the FSA are already working with their ECB counterparts and both sides, as it were, are keen to ensure that we have a robust approach to supervision of cross-border banks and cross-border financial services activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, was the gloomiest voice in the debate. I would like to comment on two of the points that he raised. The first was about accountability and the extent to which there is a democratic deficit. The ECB is accountable to the European Parliament and the European Council. National parliaments of participating member states will be able to hold it to account through questions. I think that for the foreseeable future national parliaments will play a larger role in terms of the profile of the accountability than does the European Parliament, given its low profile. This debate here is an example of the kind of thing that one hopes would be happening across the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, raised a number of issues and came up with three logical outcomes in terms of our supervision compared with that of the ECB: either we do what it says or it will be more or less strict—I paraphrase the noble Lord. That is slightly misleading, given that we are working towards a common rulebook. So the supervisory approach will be broadly common. For example, the recovery directive is one way in which there will be a broadly similar approach across the EU, with or without the banking union.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am very grateful for the Minister’s comments. Of course, the rules themselves—such as those relating to liquidity ratio, capital ratios, capital adequacy and so forth—will be set up by the EBA, and there will be a common rulebook. However, supervision is about how strictly the banks’ activities are looked at, and that affects authorisation, licensing and review of the asset quality of the banks concerned. In these areas potentially there will be very considerable scope for a difference of approach by different supervisors. That is exactly what I meant by more and less strict approaches.
Lord Newby
To the extent that there will be, in effect, two major supervisors—ourselves and the ECB—I think that the MoU will help in that respect.
The noble Lords, Lord Dykes, Lord Flight and Lord Liddle, all talked about the role of London and what the impact of this will be. Undoubtedly for many companies, particularly financial services companies, the City is their entry point to Europe and to capital markets more generally. Regardless of whether they are successful in actually trading in Europe to the extent that they want, that is undoubtedly the way it is seen. It is very important that we work extremely hard, as we go forward, to make sure that the single market is embedded and strengthened and that we protect the City at the same time. I would love to have a long debate with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about the future of the eurozone economy, but I fear today is not for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked whether we had looked at being a member of the banking union. The truth is that once we had decided that we were not going to join the euro, that was off the table. All parties have agreed in recent years that joining the euro is not for the UK at this time; sadly, that is where we find ourselves. I agree with the noble Lord that there is a real problem about social and political consent for the austerity packages across the EU. Nevertheless, in some countries—Ireland is probably the best example—there is a real sense of a corner having been turned and major new foreign investment in that country, which suggests that foreign investors also think so.
The Government support comprehensive banking union in the eurozone, and we will do what we can to promote its development while safeguarding the UK’s role as a regional and global banking centre. We look forward to being informed and influenced by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and his committee.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, I thank all Members who have spoken this evening in what I think has been a stimulating and enlightening debate. I am very grateful to the Minister for promising to write to us on those points that he has not had time to take up. At one point I began to worry when I was accused of being “genial” and “courteous”; but, on a lighter note, I must say that I began to think of the power and persuasiveness of our report when one noted Eurosceptic wandered into the Chamber and, so persuaded by what he heard, came and joined the Labour Benches.
I will finish on two comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, identified. The first is the, perhaps, paucity of contributions from the distaff side of the House. I can tell the noble Baroness that the austerity seminar that our committee is holding next week will feature Vicky Pryce, not only to speak on financial services but also to report on Greece. The other point made by the noble Baroness that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, identified, which is hugely important, is that these matters are not European; they are British and European. Every report we ever write has a large section on how the United Kingdom will be affected by what is going on within the European Union. It is time that we in this House took these matters seriously and that we had debates at appropriate times for all Members of the House to respond. I close with that hope and thank everyone for contributing tonight.
Green Deal Framework (Disclosure, Acknowledgment, Redress etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Verma
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 December 2012 be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)
My Lords, the Government are today bringing before the House amendments to the Green Deal framework regulations. We have been further developing the framework over the past few months, in readiness for the full launch later this month. This has resulted in a number of SIs being developed and laid before the House. These changes are necessary to optimise the legal framework and are taking advantage of learning we have already gained.
However, before we begin to debate, I would like to take the opportunity to speak about the Green Deal—the transformational energy efficiency programme. I am delighted that it will be going live next week, unlocking unprecedented opportunities for both consumers and businesses alike. The Green Deal will provide a stable, transparent and long-term policy framework which consumers can trust and in which businesses can invest. It will allow consumers to pay for some or all of the cost of energy-saving property improvements through savings on their energy bills. The Green Deal can be used to lever in billions of pounds of private investment to improve the energy efficiency of UK properties. It will empower small and medium-sized businesses to enter a new market as well as offer consumers more choice and innovation than before. There has already been interest from industry in getting involved in the Green Deal and it is exciting to see a steady stream of participants becoming approved and using the Green Deal quality mark prior to launch on 28 January.
We already have 462 installer organisations registered, and 2013 is already off to a flying start with local authorities playing an active role in helping to kick-start our “go-early” initiative. The Government have supported this by providing £22 million to stimulate early demand for the Green Deal in seven core cities and to help other local authorities drive energy efficiency-boosting initiatives. Our cash-back scheme, worth £125 million, launched on 14 January will reward households taking early action to improve their properties through the Green Deal. Households making a number of improvements could receive more than £1,000, and £2.9 million will be spent on a communication campaign that will help to build understanding and trust in the Green Deal.
I will now introduce the statutory instrument that will form the basis of our discussion. We are making a small number of amendments to the Green Deal framework regulations which, subject to the outcome of today’s debate, will come fully into force on 28 January 2013. The framework regulations create an authorisation regime to regulate the conduct of Green Deal market participants and ensure that consumers are protected. They cover conditions that must be met when a Green Deal plan is established and how it should be disclosed. The amendments we propose will make enhancements to the Green Deal framework. We have increased the frequency of some reporting requirements from annually to monthly for all Green Deal participants. These include the number and value of plans, cancelled plans, and the number of resolved and outstanding complaints. This is to ensure that we can monitor compliance to protect customers without imposing undue burdens on business and to protect the reputation of the Green Deal itself.
Other changes enable us to streamline key processes. We are improving the clarity of our complaints system by defining when a complaint should be directed to Green Deal assessors and when to the providers. Further to ensure effective policing of activity in the market, Green Deal accreditation bodies have been added to the list of organisations that can report a breach of regulations by a participant to the Secretary of State.
In addition, an important technical update is being made to the circumstances under which an energy performance certificate must be updated by the Green Deal provider or customer. These include where an energy efficiency measure has been removed, where the provider has changed and where the liability of the bill payer to make payments has changed. This update will ensure that customers and businesses have access to up-to-date energy efficiency information for their property.
The regulations will help to improve the energy efficiency of homes across Great Britain, reduce our carbon emissions and, crucially, help households to manage their energy bills. I commend them to the House.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. As we have said on previous occasions, Labour continues to support the objectives of the Green Deal as a vital part of energy demand reduction and energy efficiency improvements for meeting greenhouse gas emission targets and achieving energy security and climate change mitigation.
With little time before next Monday’s launch of the Green Deal, the Government must react swiftly to urgent criticisms of the costs of the scheme to potential consumers. Up-front charges, high interest rates for finance, and penalties, are all increasing the reluctance of households to take up Green Deal plans. At a time of rising energy prices, falling living standards and stretched budgets, the Government must not allow scheme charges to undermine the confidence of consumers in going ahead with very necessary home improvements. Not only would a successful Green Deal cut long-term energy bills for households, it would reduce the nation’s energy demand and save the planet from excessive carbon emissions.
The amending framework regulations are accepted as part of the refining process to improve the operation of the Green Deal, with provisions regarding energy performance of buildings certificates, reporting requirements for the progress of the Green Deal and provisions regarding enforcement. We expect further amending regulations—I hope they will be few in number—as the Green Deal rolls out and experience is gained. The Green Deal has been a long time in gestation, and we will all welcome the official launch next week on 28 January. After raising a few points on the regulations, perhaps it would be an opportune time to reflect on the Green Deal and ask the Minister for her forecasts and assessments, and for us to pass comments, with constructive criticisms, on the likely uptake outcome.
The regulations regarding the energy performance of buildings certificates are largely technical and non-controversial. They will help to make sure that information following Green Deal plans is up-to-date and accurate. Schedule 2 of the regulations lists the new monthly reporting of information requirement for Green Deal providers. This will greatly assist in monitoring the progress of the Green Deal and will provide necessary statistics for analysis. However, one of the most controversial aspects of the Green Deal concerns cancellation charges and penalty charges for early repayment. It is generally regarded as one of the key parameters influencing the consumer’s final decision on whether to go ahead with a Green Deal plan. If these charges are disliked completely or labelled disagreeable, it may well be that the Green Deal plan may not be taken up. Why are reports regarding these questions not part of the monthly requirements? Will the Minister clarify that paragraph 1(g) of Schedule 2, on page 7 of the regulations, which specifies,
“the total number of green deal plans cancelled in the previous month”,
refers to plans already started?
Perhaps I might suggest some additional reports, for example of the total number of Green Deal plans proposed but not taken up. Another report could be of the total number of cancellation charges levied, together with the average fee. On the issue of amounts repaid early, covered in paragraph 1(f), could a requirement be included to monitor the number of early repayments bearing charges, and the average charge?
On the cancellations, it would also be useful to know what element or measures in a Green Deal plan of many actions were not going to be proceeded with. Does the Minister agree that this information may be critical in assessing consumer confidence? Will she look at how this could be added to the regulations, which, by convention, are not amendable? If she rejects this requirement, how does she propose that this controversial aspect will be monitored? Information must not just be for business-gathering purposes; it must also inform policy and help corrective action.
The Minister in the other place, in response to my honourable friend Luciana Berger, said that penalty charges could happen only when a Green Deal provider would make a loss as a result, and that the onus is on the provider to prove the case. Where is this in the regulations? How will the provider make the case? To whom will the current consumer have a course?
Another controversial aspect concerns up-front fees. When Labour raised the cost of assessments with Ministers during the passage of the Energy Act in 2011, Ministers replied that it was expected that companies would not charge for assessments. However, from a Guardian newspaper report, it appears that Ministers are wrong. Consumers will face charges of up to £150 as an assessment fee, whether or not they take out Green Deal plans. The report states that British Gas will charge £99 for its experts to go into homes and judge what measures, such as fitting cavity wall insulation, would be most appropriate for each property. Two of the companies contacted by the Guardian say that they would refund the full assessment fee or part of it if works were carried out by them. Does the Minister accept the YouGov poll that found that 51% of consumers concerned about up-front costs rated them the biggest obstacle to making energy-efficiency improvements to their homes?
The third element of the regulations concerns improving the clarity of the complaints process by imposing sanctions and including the Secretary of State in the process, yet the regulations do not say what the sanctions are. Will the Minister clarify whether they have been included elsewhere and that it has escaped me? It is important to know and agree what powers and sanctions are being given to the Secretary of State. In a debate on these regulations in the other place, the Minister stated that he believed the expected cost to be £335 per complainant to the ombudsman, and that the costs would be borne by the Green Deal provider. Will the Minister confirm this figure and say whether there would be any judgments at all whereby the cost or some part of it ended up being paid by the complainant?
Will the Minister clarify the process of consultation? Were the measures in the regulations consulted on with the public in a discrete fashion and in a discrete consultation process? I have read the Explanatory Memorandum, which seems to suggest that the regulations have arisen from consultations and events generally from November 2011, closing a year ago on 18 January 2012. Will the Minister please clarify?
A few further considerations arise from the debate on these regulations last Monday in the other place, and indeed the Minister has echoed those remarks. In his opening remarks, Greg Barker, the Minister in the other place, said that things had already got off to a flying start in October with the Go Early initiative. Is this the initiative that resulted in just five assessments? Is this the initiative that highlighted problems in the software for assessments? Will the Minister confirm whether the Minister in the other place was correct to state, as she indeed has done today, that £22 million had been provided to stimulate early demand in seven core cities? In the press release a figure of £12 million was put forward. While a test or pilot is to be recommended, this seems to be a soft launch. Was there a reason why the important city of Liverpool was excluded from this list?
The Minister in the other place went on to speak about the cashback scheme, worth £125 million, launched on 14 January. I am surprised that this is a government scheme when, according to Ministers, “the market will provide”, and other matters seem to be a commercial matter for the Green Deal Finance Company. Already this scheme seems to have been amended. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether the £1,000 maximum level referred to has indeed been lifted and that, with a budget of £125 million, it really is the early-bird scheme? Will Liverpool be excluded from this?
A third element in the opening remarks of the Minister in the other place and of the noble Baroness concerned the £2.9 million budget for a communication campaign about public relations. The Minister in the other place admitted that it was not a huge amount in the scheme of things as it would be used in a focused way. Can the Minister clarify what will be its focus?
The Minister in the other place mentioned that the firm Freud had been retained. Does this mean that the Government did not go out to open tender for this contract?
In previous debates we have all acknowledged the ambitious plan and the huge difficulties that the Green Deal faces. Unlike a commercial operation, the Government have to do their thinking aloud as they make the regulations to set out the parameters on which commercial companies must make this a success. However, this allows the Government to hear when we offer advice and give warnings. I am not sure that they are listening well enough when it comes to the influence of certain aspects of the take-up of the Green Deal plans on consumers. We have debated previously the influence of the interest rate on whether consumers assess the Green Deal as a good deal. Against a bank rate of only 0.5%, 7%, or even 6.9%, does not seem a good deal, especially when it will, in effect, double the amount of repayment over a 25-year period. This is a completely different circumstance to a short-term payday loan and, like a mortgage, there is the security of the loan being advanced to improve property on a state-sponsored scheme.
In a debate on Monday, the Minister acknowledged that my honourable friend Luciana Berger was right: we need a competitive interest rate. Today the Sun has badged the scheme “Green plight—Flagship eco loans a ‘rip off’”. The Minister said that DECC and the Green Investment Bank are putting money into the Green Deal Finance Company. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how much the department is putting in and what this amount is being spent on? Can she confirm that the Green Deal Finance Company is a not-for-profit body in response to government encouragement, and that the interest rate is subject to government approval and will not be available elsewhere on the high street? Am I correct to expect confirmation of the interest rate tonight?
I have taken up a great deal of the House’s time but, just prior to the launch of the Green Deal, perhaps I may mention that there are further features still causing anxiety, such as the interplay between the Green Deal and the ECO, whereby any lack of uptake in the Green Deal could become compulsory under the ECO. There are still also questions over the golden rule and possible mis-selling fears.
I would like the Minister to answer as many as possible of the questions raised and not be sidetracked instead into further reflections if her time is pressing. Can she commit that her department will look at these issues and place any missing answers in the Library of the House? If she has further time, it would be a useful moment just before launch to get the Minister’s future expectations on her department’s figures for take-up over the coming years, the number of future job creations and what will constitute success in her eyes for the Green Deal.
I am sure we will return again to these points and others, such as the role smart meters could play, but I wish the Minister a successful launch next Monday.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his very warm welcome of the Green Deal. I expect he will be by my side when the launch goes ahead next Monday. The invitation is there for the noble Lord to join me, as it is for the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord has posed a huge number of questions and I have tried to note down as many as possible. However, the likelihood is that I may have to write to him on some of them.
I shall start by responding to the noble Lord’s point about high interest rates. As he will be aware, the rate is to be set by the Green Deal Finance Company and no doubt will reflect a safe and competitive level. The rate has not yet been confirmed, but I expect that to be done in the next day or so. The noble Lord will have to wait just a little longer for a response to that question. However, I take on board his point that the rate has to be competitive. That fits in with our wish to try to ensure that we meet the golden rule, which he rightly raised—namely, that no bill payer should pay more than what he or she is currently paying. That is absolutely the right way to look at this.
The noble Lord asked about early repayment penalties. Perhaps I can reassure him that we have also looked closely at these. I can tell him that the repayment formula and the penalty compensation payback are based on the consumer credit legislation that is in place, and we are not doing anything different from what is already in the marketplace.
The noble Lord asked about the forecast for take-up rates of the Green Deal. I would say to him that it has been very promising and there is a great deal of interest in it. However, as he recognises, we are proceeding with a soft launch because we want to ensure that people understand what the Green Deal is and that all the systems needed to deliver it are fully tested and in place. The noble Lord is right to say that when the Green Deal is taken up, many households will see a great difference in their energy consumption and it will impact on their energy bills—something which I know, like me, he is keen to see come down.
The noble Lord asked about monthly reporting, and we agree that this is an important element. The industry and providers have also welcomed it. He listed a number of other things that he would like to see included on the monitoring list. I may have to take those queries away simply because I was not able to write down all his points quickly enough. I shall read the report and come back to him with details of what is already part of the monitoring that has been put in place.
On the point about whether a householder who takes up a case will have their costs attached, I can assure the noble Lord that that will not be the case. If a complaint is lodged, it will be dealt with by the providers, and through DECC we will find ways of ensuring that a householder is not penalised.
The noble Lord mentioned the £125 million provision for early take-up; the cashback facility. We are expecting keen interest and we think that the £125 million for early take-up is a good way of encouraging people to take advantage of the scheme very early on. Perhaps I can link the rest of the work that we have been doing with our core cities to the £22 million referred to by the noble Lord. He referred to the fact that a newspaper had reported that it was £12 million. We have given out £12 million to seven core cities; we expect Liverpool to be added to the list of core cities. That is the £12 million, but another £10 million was also provided to local authorities outside the core cities to promote demand—hence the £22 million.
The noble Lord spoke about the expectation of job creation. We are very positive that this will generate up to 60,000 jobs in this sector, up from the 26,000 that are in place at the moment. We see this as a very positive scheme. I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, who has, by and large, welcomed what we are doing with the Green Deal.
The noble Lord asked about the assessment costs. This is a market-based mechanism and we expect a range of models to develop. Some providers may offer assessments that have no upfront costs; others may charge, but it will be up to individuals whether to go with the first assessment or to shop around. This is something that all consumers do anyway. We encourage shopping around so that the consumer gets the best deal possible.
The noble Lord asked about the sanctions that the Secretary of State could impose. Of course, this very much depends on the circumstances. There could be a financial penalty on the provider, a compliance notice, or the withdrawal or suspension of authorisations for providers, assessors or installers. There are a number of safeguards that the Secretary of State has the power to use.
The noble Lord also asked whether Freud Communications was appointed through competition. The simple answer is yes, there was a competition. Freud was the preferred bidder.
The noble Lord asked a number of other questions that I physically was not able to note down. I am sure that the officials in the Box will have taken note of them. On those, I ask the noble Lord to allow me to write to him and put a copy in the Library. Overall, going through my own list of what I was able to note down, many of the points the noble Lord raised have been answered. I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome of this SI and I commend—
Lord Grantchester
I thank the noble Baroness for attempting to answer so many quite detailed questions at very short notice. While we have this opportunity before the Green Deal is launched, perhaps I can tempt her to reflect and share with us how her department views success—what does success of the Green Deal look like? That would be really interesting to understand before it starts on Monday.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, if I had a crystal ball I would be able to tell the noble Lord lots of things. My own view is that, having talked to consumer groups and the industries within the sector, this is going to revolutionise the way in which people think about how to make their homes much more energy-efficient. It is about raising awareness. While we are rolling this out, we are very keen to ensure that consumers take control and have responsibility over what happens in their own properties. This approach is much more holistic. It is not just about short-term planning on, say, loft insulation; it is about looking at the whole property. I think consumers will be quite encouraged that this will be a long-term gain for them and their properties, and of course on their bills.
On that note, if I have satisfied the noble Lord, I commend these regulations to the House.