House of Commons
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
1. What steps her Department is taking to improve standards in education in Nigeria.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
As discussed with you, Mr Speaker, and as Labour Front Benchers have been advised, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in Kuwait for an international conference on the humanitarian crisis in Syria. I hope that the House will accept her apologies for not being here to answer questions today.
Our education programmes in Nigeria have already reached 1.25 million children by improving the quality of education in 3,700 schools, and 6,800 more schools will be reached by 2014. We are supporting school-based management committees to make schools and teachers more accountable to parents, and we are providing training to more than 60,000 teachers.
Mr Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to Nigeria, where there are 10.5 million out-of-school children. Inevitably, we focus on the number of children at school, but given the pressures on teacher training, the infrastructure of schools, and the number of children in classes, can we also focus on the quality of the education that those children are receiving?
Lynne Featherstone
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work on the all-party group on global education for all. He goes to the heart of the matter, which is not just the number of children coming into school but the quality of the teaching. The statistics show that in Kwara, for example, only 75 of 19,000 teachers passed a test for nine-year-olds—that gives some idea of the scale of the challenge that we are facing. My hon. Friend will therefore be pleased to know that we have a new teacher development programme supporting over 60,000 teachers.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
In addition to the excellent work that DFID does in education in Nigeria, what more can the Minister do to suggest to the large number of British companies in Nigeria that they should also be getting involved in taking on responsibility in this respect?
Lynne Featherstone
My hon. Friend raises an important point. All UK companies have the opportunity to get involved and engaged. If he knows the names of the companies concerned, I would be only too happy to contact them myself.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
2. How her Department plans to reach its target of spending 0.7% of gross national income.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
The Government are committed to spending 0.7% of gross national income on development aid from 2013 and thereafter. The Department’s budget after the 2012 autumn statement adjustment, along with planned overseas development spending from other Government Departments, is set to meet this commitment.
Fiona O’Donnell
I thank the Minister for his answer. The Enough Food For Everyone If campaign has highlighted the value of investing in smallholder farmers: the men, or more often women, who already feed a third of humanity but are vastly under-resourced. Will the Minister confirm that as his Department’s budget increases he will increase funding for smallholder agriculture and support countries’ agriculture investment plans?
Mr Duncan
We give our full support to the recently launched If campaign; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to the launch herself. I do agree with the hon. Lady that this should be a focus of our activity, as 90% of food comes from smallholders in their own countries. Supporting them and the markets in which they work is a crucial part of the activity we wish to undertake over the next few years.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
The Minister may be aware that the International Development Committee is publishing its report on the Department’s annual report tomorrow. Is he prepared to consider different ways of ridding the world of absolute poverty, such as setting up a development bank or offering loans so that we can reach more people, particularly poor people in middle-income countries where we do not currently have programmes?
Mr Duncan
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that ingenious plug for his report and on the idea of a development bank. We remain open-minded and non- dogmatic about what we should do with our budget. What matters is what works. As always, we will study his report in detail and reply formally to any ideas in it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister has indicated that we will meet the 0.7% commitment. Will he also assure us that when that money is deployed, we will ensure value for money and, most vitally, that corruption is addressed, particularly in parts of Africa?
Mr Duncan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on all counts. Value for money and its proper evaluation are the principles by which we work every day. We focus a great deal on corruption, by which we mean the risk of fraud in the use of our funds and endemic corruption in the countries in which we work. To that end, we are publishing anti-corruption strategies for each of our bilateral countries, as recommended by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Now that we have reached the target of 0.7% of GDP, should non-governmental organisations and others not be focusing part of their attention on encouraging other G8 countries to meet that target? There is no point in our doing it if other G8 countries are not pulling their weight.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I visited the west bank and Israel with colleagues last December, where I saw evidence of the daily indignity and injustice that Palestinians face. A number of EU and UK-funded schools in the west bank are under the threat of demolition orders. What are the Government doing to ensure that our investment is not wasted?
Mr Speaker
I think that we need to relate the matter to the question of 0.7%, which the Minister will be dextrous at doing.
Mr Duncan
Of course, some of the 0.7% of GNI, which we spend so well, goes to the Palestinian Authority, whose finances are in some peril. We wish to support them and we urge other countries to do so. A two-state solution, which we all want to see, is not served by a weak and fractured Palestinian Authority.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The If campaign emphases that if other countries followed our example on the 0.7% target, enormous investment in small-scale agriculture and child and maternal nutrition could be delivered. Will the Government use this year’s hunger summit to state not only that other countries should meet the 0.7% target, but that they should spend the money on those priorities to address hunger and poverty?
Mr Duncan
There are many claims on the development budget, but as my hon. Friend says, such matters are a good and sensible call on it. They would be best served by other countries meeting the same sort of percentage commitment as us. The demand for assistance is almost insatiable, but so much good could be done if other comparatively wealthy countries followed our lead.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
3. What steps her Department is taking to improve food security in west Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
The UK is improving food security in west Africa through investment in agricultural research, innovative agribusiness, improving access to markets and supporting national food security plans. We work through country programmes in Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia, and international organisations such as the World Bank.
Ann McKechin
The Minister will be aware that the impact of climate change in that region has led to a dramatic fall in crop yields. What efforts is her Department making to secure global agreement on finding new sources of finance, so that countries in the region can plan properly for their future food supplies?
Lynne Featherstone
The hon. Lady points to the fragility of this area and its food security. Crises arise from chronic vulnerabilities that need long-term solutions. We are supporting multilateral efforts to promote resilience in the Sahel to ensure that its communities can deal with the shocks and do not face dire consequences in future. We are currently preparing a Sahel resilience strategy.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Food security in west Africa is indeed threatened by climate change. Does the Minister also agree that the Prime Minister’s insistence on addressing the property rights of the world’s poorest farmers tackles one of the underlying causes of food insecurity?
Lynne Featherstone
The Prime Minister is quite right. The work that we are doing to give land title to smallholders means that they have security and can work their land without it being taken from them.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
I join Members from all sides of the House in expressing my support for the If campaign, which seeks to end food insecurity and global hunger. One of the main causes of food insecurity is the illegal acquisition of large areas of land by investors. What steps has the Department taken to support good land governance in west Africa?
Lynne Featherstone
As I said just now, some of our programmes involve land titles for smallholders, and the UK welcomes the successful negotiation of voluntary guidelines on the responsible government of land tenure, fisheries and forests that was concluded at the Committee on World Food Security last year. The UK is working to promote transparency of land administration and security of tenure in a number of countries. For example, in Mozambique we are helping local communities to register their land, and we want to continue that progress.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
4. What assessment she has made of the proportion of GDP spent on overseas aid by the UK compared to equivalent spending by France and Germany.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
In 2011, the UK spent 0.56% of GNI on official development assistance, or ODA. France spent 0.46% and Germany 0.39%. As I said a moment ago, we will reach our 0.7% ODA target this year. At the June 2012 European Council, France and Germany recommitted to spend 0.7% of their GNI on ODA by 2015.
David Mowat
I thank the Minister for that answer. As we have heard, we are on a trajectory to meet the 0.7% commitment, but that determination is not shown by all our EU partners. Can the Government do more to encourage them to meet previously made commitments?
Mr Duncan
The priorities we set are shared by EU countries, and some states—Sweden and Denmark, for example—have reached 0.7%. Germany’s aid increased by 2.6% in 2011, and it has publicly committed to reach 0.7% after 2015. The Government strongly urge other EU countries to follow our lead, and commit to and reach 0.7%.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to pressure other European countries to meet their targets and reach 0.7%. When the UK meets that target, how much will be made up of non-departmental spend?
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a huge fan of his, but I wonder whether he agrees that there is something arbitrary about 0.7%. The United Kingdom has taken a lead in the world and shown the way, and we can also add in what our armed forces have contributed. Given the desperate and catastrophic state of the public finances that we inherited from the previous Government, surely the time has come to freeze overseas aid spending and devote some of that money to our hard-pressed armed forces.
Mr Duncan
The 0.7% target is a long-standing campaign, and my hon. Friend is right to say that to some extent it is arbitrary. Even if countries reach that target, it could be argued that it would still not suffice for the needs of the world. As a doughty defender of the armed forces, I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to spending 30% of our budget on countries that are fragile or at risk of conflict, which often means working with his friends in the armed forces. Even though 0.7% may be arbitrary, the results we get for the money we spend are not, and they are evaluated rigorously.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
5. What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Mali.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
9. What assistance her Department is offering to the Government of Mali.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
There is a serious humanitarian situation in Mali, with over 360,000 displaced people since March 2012. We do not give bilateral development aid directly to the Government of Mali, but we provide significant assistance to the region through the World Bank, EU and other multilaterals.
John Glen
I thank the Minister for that response. My constituents usually recognise the great contribution that our aid budget and programme makes, but they also have concerns about the effectiveness of that spending. Will the Minister confirm that in crisis situations, such as that in Mali, money is being spent effectively and will deliver massively good outcomes that I can be proud of?
Lynne Featherstone
My hon. Friend raises an important point. British people who support our aid and development programme need to know that money is being spent effectively and I can give him the assurance he seeks. Even in the crisis situation in Mali, agencies in receipt of our humanitarian support are tried and trusted, neutral and impartial humanitarian organisations with a history of effective operations in the most challenging of environments.
Mr Streeter
Is not Mali a tragic of example of instability and conflict rushing in where democracy breaks down, as so often happens? In this case, that has threatened Mali’s security. Does the situation not further underpin the importance of focused and intelligent aid to support democracy in the developing world?
Lynne Featherstone
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Where instability and conflict reign, into such ungoverned space come threats, not only to those in Mali but to the wider world, including the UK. That is why the territorial integrity of Mali must be protected, democratic government restored, terrorism dealt with, and the humanitarian situation addressed. My hon. Friend seeks assurance. We are providing considerable aid support through the UN, the EU and other agencies to promote increased economic resilience across the Sahel, including Mali.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Is the Minister satisfied with the distribution of aid in northern Mali, and particularly in those parts that have been retaken? Have the Government had any discussions with their French counterparts? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Far too many noisy conversations are taking place on the Opposition Benches. We are discussing extremely serious matters of life and death.
Lynne Featherstone
Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I heard correctly, the right hon. Gentleman’s question was about whether we can access those areas. Health non-governmental organisations are still operating in some hospitals and health centres in northern Mali, although NGOs and aid agencies have in some cases been forced to suspend their outreach work temporarily for security reasons. They want to carry out an assessment in the inaccessible areas. Humanitarian agencies are waiting to return to conduct those assessments so that we can respond to those needs. At the moment, they are pretty much confined to the accessible areas.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Although every country has its particular circumstances, everyone knows that the underlying problems that have led to the situation in Mali could exist in many other countries in west Africa. Will the Government agree to make an international effort on a long-term basis to provide support and development for countries in west Africa a major focus of their G8 presidency, and particularly of the summit in Northern Ireland later this year?
Lynne Featherstone
I appreciate that desire, but it is not possible to do everything at the G8 that everyone would wish us to do. However, the hon. Gentleman is right. The only solution in the end is a long-term, measured and intelligent political solution.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
6. What estimate she has made of the number of (a) internally displaced people in Syria and (b) Syrians displaced to Turkey and other countries; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
The UN estimates the number of people displaced inside Syria to be about 2 million. There are an additional 700,000 Syrian refugees in need of assistance in neighbouring countries, including 163,000 in Turkey, 228,000 in Lebanon, 222,000 in Jordan, 79,000 in Iraq and more than 14,000 in Egypt.
Michael Fabricant
The tragedy in Syria continues. Last night, we heard on the news of 50 young men found in a river near Aleppo, each with a bullet through his head. The UN says that 60,000 people have died so far in the civil war in Syria. What further steps, if any, can we take to resolve this terrible situation?
Mr Duncan
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently at the UN high-level pledging conference for Syria in Kuwait where, I can tell the House, she has just announced a further £50 million for the UN Syria appeals. Together with the £21 million she announced during her visit to Jordan at the weekend, it means that the UK has doubled its funding for this crisis. We are now providing nearly £140 million to deliver emergency assistance to hundreds of thousands of people in Syria and the region.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
More than 650,000 people have fled Syria and 60,000 have been killed since the conflict began. Serious food and medicine shortages, and freezing weather conditions, are making access to basic services increasingly difficult. The Opposition welcome today’s announcement to increase humanitarian assistance to Syria, but what steps are the Government taking to assist UN agencies and NGOs to provide access to Syria?
Mr Duncan
As the House appreciates, because of the security situation inside Syria the humanitarian effort is primarily UN-led and it is working through respectable non-governmental organisations. If we were there ourselves it could put that effort at risk, so this requires careful diplomatic consideration. We have to ensure that the flow of aid, and the protection of those who deliver it, is paramount and retained.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
In addition to her Syria meetings in Kuwait today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be attending the next meeting of the high-level panel in Liberia.
Charlotte Leslie
I thank the Minister for his answer. I had the privilege last night of attending a “Syria Speaks” event at the Southbank centre, where it was apparent how important the cosmopolitan secular nature of Syria is to the future stability of the country. What is the Minister doing not only to address the horrible humanitarian situation there, but to support the rich cultural heritage that is so important to its future?
Mr Duncan
My hon. Friend is right. Before the civil war erupted thanks to President Assad’s stewardship of his country, Syria was in many respects an example of religious harmony—I saw that for myself on a number of visits. It is a tragedy to see the country disintegrate, and there will need to be many diplomatic efforts to resolve the problems once the conflict has ceased.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his role today as joint acting Secretary of State—he has waited far too long and he is clearly enjoying it. This week the Prime Minister is co-chairing a meeting of the UN high-level panel on the future of global development post-2015. Last week, the Select Committee on International Development said that the Prime Minister needs to be clear about what he means by the “golden thread” of development. Will the Minister explain what is meant by the golden thread and, specifically, does it recognise that tackling inequality and supporting sustainable growth should be at the heart of future development policy?
Mr Duncan
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely right in his definition. Development is far more than just about handing out money; it is about draining the swamp of grievance and ensuring that in any country there is the rule of law, such as the property rights we were discussing earlier. It is only if we look at the whole picture of a country that we can properly achieve the development we want. The Prime Minister will be arguing that at the high-level panel, which he is co-chairing with two others.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
T2. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the huge difficulties in returning and reintegrating victims of human trafficking to their home countries. This is something with which his Department can assist, and I hope that he can tell the House that he is now looking to ensure adequate in-country funding for source country NGOs accordingly.
Mr Duncan
My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, and that is why we are assessing the practicality of giving support to NGOs that work in countries where we have no other Department for International Development presence, even though they may be based elsewhere. Our main focus is on tackling the practice of trafficking in the workers’ countries of origin, and we are currently designing a cross-Asian anti-trafficking programme, the purpose of which will be to equip vulnerable people with knowledge of their rights and the means to enforce them.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
T5. Yesterday’s failure to sign a Congo peace accord in Addis Ababa is very serious. [Interruption.] Will the Government carry out an immediate assessment of development projects in eastern Congo in view of the failure to resolve the situation on the ground?
Mr Speaker
Order. If Question Time is to be meaningful, questions and answers must be heard. We are discussing matters of momentous significance to the people concerned and it would show some respect if the House listened. Let us have a bit of order.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
T3. What is DFID doing to encourage funding applications from the small organisations and charities we all have in our constituencies which support schools, hospitals and other aid projects in the developing world, and which often provide excellent value for money?
Mr Duncan
DFID established the global poverty action fund to support UK-based, not-for-profit organisations across the country to improve people’s lives in the world’s poorest countries. So far, 102 grants have been awarded, and these are helping more than 3 million poor people across 30 countries.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
T7. Given the Government’s welcome support for the If campaign against hunger, is the Minister optimistic that the UK presidency of the G8 can tackle the corporate tax avoidance that deprives developing countries of so much badly needed revenue?
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
T4. What is being done to ensure that the companies of the world smell the coffee, as the Prime Minister wants, when it comes to developing countries receiving their tax income?
Mr Duncan
It is the policy both of our presidency of the G8 and of DFID more generally in our work in poor countries to get far greater transparency from global corporations and to ensure that they pay their fair share of tax and that they do so to the most appropriate tax regimes in which they work.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
T9. Given recent events, what additional help does the Minister propose to give to the people of Yemen?
Mr Duncan
The Friends of Yemen meeting is looming; we are supporting the social fund for development to meet urgent food and welfare needs; we are encouraging the Government of Yemen to set up an executive bureau for national dialogue; and we are ensuring that pledged funds can be properly disbursed so that they go to the projects that are so desperately needed.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Alison Seabeck
Is it right that a mother in my constituency may not, because of the Prime Minister’s bedroom tax—and as confirmed by his Minister—be able offer her son, serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces, either a home or a bedroom on his return from duty?
The Prime Minister
I will happily look at the case that the hon. Lady mentions, but our reforms to housing benefit have a clear principle at their heart. There are many people in private rented accommodation who do not have housing benefit and cannot afford extra bedrooms. We have to get control of housing benefit. We are now spending, as a country, £23 billion on housing benefit, and we have to get that budget under control.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend welcome today’s news that university applications for UK universities are up 3.5% this year and at their highest level ever for disadvantaged students?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the figures released this morning. After all the concerns expressed about how the new way of paying for university finance would reduce the number of students applying to university, the number of 18-year-olds has actually risen and is now level with where it was in 2011, which is higher than in any year under the last Labour Government.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
In October, the Prime Minister told me that when it came to the economy
“the good news will keep coming.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 917.]
After last week’s growth figures, it obviously has not. What is his excuse this time?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, GDP in the third quarter of last year went up by 0.9%, and, as forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, it fell in the fourth quarter by 0.3%. [Interruption.] Only Labour Members could cheer that news. Is that not absolutely typical? He should listen to the Governor of the Bank of England, who said:
“Our economy is recovering, more slowly than we might wish, but we are moving in the right direction.”
The fall in unemployment numbers clearly backs that up.
Edward Miliband
What an extraordinarily complacent answer from the Prime Minister. Let us understand the scale of his failure on growth. In autumn 2010, the Government told us that by now the economy would have grown by over 5%. Will he tell us by how much it has actually grown since then?
The Prime Minister
There is absolutely nothing complacent about this Government. That is why we are cutting corporation tax, we are investing in enterprise zones and a million apprenticeships have started under this Government. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman what is actually happening in our economy: 1 million new private sector jobs; and in the last year alone, half a million private sector jobs—the fastest rate of job creation since 1989. That is what is happening, but do we need to do more, to get the banks lending and businesses investing? Yes we do, and under this Government we will.
Edward Miliband
Just for once, why does the Prime Minister not give a straight answer to a straight question? Growth was not 5%, as he forecast, but—[Interruption.] The part-time Chancellor is about to give him some advice. I have to say to the part-time Chancellor that he should spend more time worrying about our economy and less time worrying about how to divert high-speed rail routes away from his constituency.
Edward Miliband
He shakes his head, but what does his council leader say? “Your MP”—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Ellis, you are a distinguished practising barrister. You would not have behaved like that in the courts; do not behave like that in this Chamber. Calm yourself and be quiet—learn it man!
Edward Miliband
The part-time Chancellor is looking very embarrassed because he knows the truth.
Now, growth was not 5% but 0.4%, and a flatlining economy means people’s living standards are falling. The Prime Minister’s excuse is that other countries have done worse than us, so can he confirm that since the Chancellor’s spending review more than two years ago, out of the major G20 economies, Britain has been 18th out of 20 for growth?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me say on high-speed rail—which goes right through the middle of the Chancellor’s constituency—that we are proud of the fact that it is this Government who have taken the decision to invest, just as it is this Government who are building Crossrail, which is the biggest construction plan anywhere in Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about other European economies. The fact is that if we listen to the European Union, the OECD or the International Monetary Fund, they all point out that Britain will have the fastest growth of any major economy in Europe this year. But I have to ask him: what is his plan? We all know it; it is a three-point plan: more spending, more borrowing, more debt—exactly the things that got us into the mess in the first place.
Edward Miliband
I have to say, we have got used to that kind of answer from the Prime Minister. He promises a better tomorrow and tomorrow never comes. That is the reality, and he could not deny the fact that we are 18th out of 20 countries. We have done worse than the USA, worse than Canada, worse than Germany and worse than France because of his decisions. Last week the chief economist of the IMF said:
“If things look bad at the beginning of 2013—which they do”—
he was talking about the UK—
“then there should be a reassessment of fiscal policy.”
So after two years of no growth, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks he should do anything differently in the next two years?
The Prime Minister
First of all, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the managing director of the IMF. She said this:
“when I think back myself to May 2010 when the UK deficit was at 11%”—
when you were in office, right?—
“and I try to imagine what the situation would be like today if no such fiscal consolidation programme had been decided, I shiver.”
That is what the IMF said about the plans of the last Labour Government. Now, the right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of growth—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not acceptable to shout down either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. The public have a very low opinion of that kind of behaviour. Let us hear the questions and hear the answers.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of America and American growth. The fact is that our recession was longer and deeper than the recession in America. The biggest banking bust was not an American bank; it was a British bank. He may want to talk about tomorrow because he does not want to talk about yesterday, when the two people responsible for the regulation of the banks and the performance of our economy are sitting right there on the Opposition Benches.
Edward Miliband
It was once again a completely incomprehensible answer. I think basically the answer that the Prime Minister did not want to give was: it is more of the same—more of the same that is not working. He mentions borrowing. He is borrowing £212 billion more than he promised. Last week he told the country in a party political broadcast that he was “paying down Britain’s debts”, but the debt is rising and he has borrowed £7.2 billion more so far this year compared with last year. Will he not just admit: it’s hurting, but it just isn’t working?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a problem with borrowing, why does he want to borrow more? The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that Labour’s plans would basically add £200 billion to Britain’s borrowing. He has made absolutely no apology for the mess his Government made of the economy. His whole message to the British people is: give the car keys back to the people who crashed the car in the first place. They did not regulate the banks, they built up the debts; we are clearing up the mess that he made.
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman is borrowing for failure. And he is borrowing more for failure. That is the reality of his record. Here is the truth: they said they would balance the books; they have not. They said there would be growth; there is not. They said Britain was out of the danger zone; it is not. Is it not the truth that the Prime Minister has run out of excuses for the fact that, on his watch and because of his decisions, this is the slowest recovery for 100 years?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about failure; we are dealing with year after year of failure from the Labour party. They did not regulate the banks, they built up the debt and they had a totally unbalanced economy. What is happening under this Government is 1million private sector jobs, unemployment down since the election, the fastest rate of business creation in our recent history and a balance of payments surplus in cars. We are clearing up the mess they made. They are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past because they have not learned the lessons. That is why the British public will never trust them with the economy again.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Like the Prime Minister, I want to see a fresh settlement in Europe. British beer drinkers pay 13 times more duty than German drinkers, nine times more duty than Spanish drinkers and 10 times more duty than Italian drinkers. Will he take the Chancellor for a pint and tell him to scrap the beer duty escalator and do something for British pubs and British publicans?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend quite rightly speaks up for Burton. I remember visiting that great brewery with him during the last election. I am sure that the Chancellor will have listened very carefully to what he said. I think it is very important that we also try to support the pub trade in our country, and the Government have plans for that as well.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Q2. Thousands of my Blackpool constituents in poorly insulated homes fear sky-high cold weather bills. The Government’s green deal has 7% interest charges and only five households have signed up for it. How has the Prime Minister achieved that fiasco?
The Prime Minister
First of all, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the green deal, because it gives households the opportunity to cut their bills with absolutely no up-front costs. He should be encouraging his constituents to do that. It has only just begun. The energy company obligation—the ECO—also provides the opportunity to help to insulate some 230,000 homes a year, compared with 80,000 under Warm Front. Instead of talking down these schemes, he should be encouraging his constituents to take them up.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
Two men have drowned in stormy seas off Torquay in separate incidents this week, despite the best efforts of brave lifeboat crews and the co-ordination of the Brixham coastguard. How will the Prime Minister reassure local fishermen, who pay significant amounts of duty and taxes on their catch, that if the coastguard station is closed, the risks they take will not increase?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and this is a good moment to pay tribute to our coastguards and the incredibly difficult and dangerous work that they do. As he knows, the Government’s examination of the coastguard has not been about reducing the number of boats or active stations; it has been about the co-ordination centres and where they are best located. I think that that is an important point to make.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Q3. Why is the Prime Minister frightened to go and visit a food bank? Could it be that, if he visited one, he would see the heartless Britain that he is creating?
The Prime Minister
Only yesterday, I was discussing the matter with the person who runs the food bank in my constituency, which I will be visiting very shortly. He pointed out to me that the food bank was established five years ago, and it is worth remembering that food bank use went up 10 times under the last Labour Government. Instead of criticising people who run food banks, we should thank them for the work they do.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Q4. I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in praising all those who work in the search and rescue service. May I ask him to intervene personally in our battle to save the Portland search and rescue helicopter and ask his Ministers to come down to Dorset to listen to those who work in this life-saving service before it is cut? Repeated requests have so far been ignored, and I would have thought that a visit would be at the least courteous and wise.
The Prime Minister
I know that the former Transport Secretary and other Ministers from the Department have met my hon. Friend, and I am sure they will have listened very carefully to what he said. As well as paying tribute to the coastguard, it is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the search and rescue services across the country. Our reforms are aimed at improving average response times by 20%. That is why we are going ahead with these reforms, but I am sure Ministers will listen very carefully to what he said.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Q5. Since the Prime Minister came to office, unemployment in Dumfries and Galloway has risen by over 15% and youth unemployment has risen by 9%. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made reference to the Prime Minister’s words “good news will keep coming”, so will the Prime Minister be good enough to explain to the House and my constituents exactly what his definition of “good news”,is, especially in view of the shrinking economy at the end of last year, which will lead to further economic failure?
The Prime Minister
In Scotland, unemployment has fallen by 14,000 this quarter. It has fallen by 10,000 since the general election. The number of people employed in Scotland has actually gone up. One point that I think is important is that, because we have raised the tax thresholds, 180,000 people across Scotland have been taken out of income tax altogether. There is much more that we need to do, but I think that represents progress.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is now clear that the Syrian people would be much better off if China and Russia had not blocked effective action authorised by the United Nations. Will my right hon. Friend say what we are doing to try to help the poor people of Syria?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary has, like me, visited the Syrian border and seen the refugee camps for herself. Britain is, I believe, the second largest donor for aid and help into those refugee camps. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that one of the biggest things that could happen would be for the Chinese and the Russians to consider again their positions and recognise that transition at the top of Syria would be good for the whole of that part of the world—and, I believe, good for Russia as well. We should continue to work with the opposition groups in Syria to put pressure on the regime, not least through sanctions, and also provide aid and help for those who are fleeing.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Q6. Seaham school of technology serves a growing population and some of the most deprived wards in the country. It is dilapidated and in need of replacement. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the real reason for the latest and further 15-month delay in the proposed PFI-funded scheme in my constituency and others is that the banks, which continue to pay themselves huge bonuses, simply refuse to lend the money on the 25-year term demanded by his Education Secretary. Will the Prime Minister speak, in plain language—maybe in Latin—to the Education Secretary? Perhaps he might say, “Optamus schola nova”—we need our new school.
The Prime Minister
I will leave the Latin to the Mayor of London, if that is all right, but I will certainly have a word with the Education Secretary. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that school capital budgets as a whole are equivalent to what the previous Labour Government did in their early terms. The money is there. In terms of the banks, evidence now shows that the funding for lending scheme from the Bank of England is having an effect on lowering interest rates. We are reforming PFI, but we are also offering infrastructure guarantees—something that the Treasury has never done before—to help projects go ahead.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Q7. Nothing is more important in early-years education than the caring people who deliver it. Does the Prime Minister agree that raising the bar and elevating their status will help to add prestige to the profession, support parents and give children the best possible start in life?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the Department for Education, which yesterday published a series of proposals to expand the availability and affordability of child care while also ensuring that there is an offer of real quality.
When we look across Europe, we see countries that provide very good and very affordable child care, and there are lessons that we can learn from those countries. I suggest that the people who say that changing the ratios is wrong should look at the ratios in countries such as Denmark and France. We are coming into line with those countries: we too can provide more available, more affordable child care, so that people who want to go out to work are able to because they can find the child care that they need.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Today the Scottish Government accepted the Electoral Commission’s welcome proposals on the independence referendum, in full. Among them is the recommendation that the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments should jointly
“clarify what process will follow the referendum, for either outcome”.
Given that the United Kingdom Government and, indeed, the Labour party have called for full acceptance of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations, will the Prime Minister now give a commitment that he will work with the Scottish Government before the referendum to come up with that joint position?
The Prime Minister
I welcome the fact that the Scottish National party has accepted the findings of the Electoral Commission, because the commission was worried that the question was biased. It is good that the SNP has accepted that.
Of course we will work with the Scottish Government in providing information, but let me be clear about what we will not do. We will not pre-negotiate Scotland’s exit from the United Kingdom. It is the hon. Gentleman’s party that wants to break up the United Kingdom, and it is for his party to make the case.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Q8. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the 2 million-plus surge in net immigration under the last Labour Government has resulted in severe housing shortages, critical overstretch in our infrastructure, and a situation in which one household in 20 does not speak English? Does he agree that it is in the interests of all British citizens that we are starting to get a grip on our borders?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During the last decade, net migration to the UK was running at more than 200,000 a year: 2 million over the decade as a whole. That is the equivalent of the population of two cities the size of Birmingham. It was too far, it was too high, and the last Government bear a huge responsibility for not making responsible decisions.
We have made responsible decisions. We are dealing with, for instance, bogus colleges and bogus students, and the level of net migration has fallen by a quarter. While we welcome people who want to come here from European Union countries and work, we obviously need to do more to ensure that we take a tough approach to prevent people from abusing our benefits system. My hon. Friend the Immigration Minister is working very hard on the issue, and I think it very important for him to do so.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Q9. Last week, the Prime Minister described blacklisting as “a completely unacceptable practice”.Why is he still blacklisting food banks this week, by refusing to have the decency to visit them, listen and speak—[Interruption.] Government Members may find it funny, but thousands of families do not. Will the Prime Minister visit a food bank, and actually speak to the people who use them?
The Prime Minister
Maybe we need to modernise the system, so that a Member can receive a question from a Whip on a tablet or an iPad and change it as Question Time proceeds.
Of course I look forward to having discussions with the people who operate food banks and those who use them, but as I have said, use of food banks increased 10 times under the last Labour Government. I think that, rather than attacking them, we should praise the people who give of their time to work in those organisations.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
After a huge community campaign, Westmorland general hospital in Kendal has been identified as the potential site of a new radiotherapy unit. If we are to deliver that vital service to local people, we shall need flexibility when it comes to the tariff for radiotherapy fractions. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can achieve that?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about changes in the tariff. I will arrange for him to meet the Health Secretary to discuss the issue. I know from visits to Cumbria how important that hospital is to local people, and I hope that the issue can be satisfactorily resolved.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Q10. This week’s announcement about the second phase of HS2 was welcomed in Manchester and the whole of the north of England, but if the project is to have a real impact on the north-south divide, would it not make sense to produce one hybrid Bill, and to build north to south as well as south to north?
The Prime Minister
I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says. I am glad there is an all-party welcome for high-speed rail, and it is important that we get this done. The best way of delivering the legislation is for the Leader of the House to come forward with our plans at the appropriate time. I worry that if we change the plans for building the route, we will delay the overall project, and my concern is not that it is going too fast, but that, if anything, it is going too slowly.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Q11. Last week Graham Godwin was convicted in Gloucester of dangerous driving and of causing the death of my much respected constituent, Paul Stock, while disqualified, uninsured and speeding. Mr Godwin has multiple previous convictions for driving without insurance and while disqualified, and said that he was not subject to the laws of our land. The current maximum prison sentence for this crime is two years and my constituent’s widow, Mandy Stock, understandably believes that it is time for Parliament to recognise the danger caused by serial disqualified drivers and to increase the maximum sentence for dangerous driving. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Justice Secretary to look urgently at both these issues?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend can tell from the response his question has received that the concern he expresses is shared widely around the House, and, I would argue, widely around the country. The previous Government and this Government have both worked to try to increase some of the penalties associated with drivers who end up killing people through their recklessness and carelessness. I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend has said and arrange for him to have a meeting with the Justice Secretary. It is important that we give our courts a sense that when there are appalling, extraordinary crimes, they can take exemplary action. That is important in a justice system.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q12. On the subject of food safety, can the Prime Minister confirm that traces of stalking horse have been found in the Conservative party food chain?
The Prime Minister
Somewhere in my briefing, I had some very complicated information about the danger of particular drugs for horses entering the food chain, and I have to say the hon. Gentleman threw me completely with that ingenious pivot. The Conservative party has always stood for people who want to work hard and get on, and I am glad that all of my—all those behind me take that very seriously indeed.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend sets forth on his pacific mission to Algeria, will he, with his great historical knowledge, bear in mind that when Louis Philippe sent his eldest son to Algeria in the 1840s on a similar venture, it took a century, massive casualties, the overthrow of the Third Republic and the genius of General de Gaulle to get the French army back out of the north African desert?
Mr Speaker
Order. We want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer to this question.
The Prime Minister
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I am planning only to visit Algiers. I am sure he put down an urgent question at the time of the events to which he referred, and got a response.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Q13. Last week the Prime Minister said he was paying down Britain’s debt, but on his watch it will go up by £600 billion. Would he like to take this opportunity to correct the record?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear: we have got the deficit down by a quarter, and in order to get on top of our debts, we have to get on top of the deficit. That is stage 1 of getting on top of our debts. It is also worth reminding ourselves of of why we are having to do this in the first place. Who was it who racked up the debts? Who was it who racked up the deficit? Who was it who gave us the biggest deficit of any country virtually anywhere in the world? It was the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
If the Prime Minister agrees that the shortage of engineering skills is one of the greatest avoidable threats to our prosperity and security, and that the participation of women in engineering is scandalously low, will he encourage his colleagues to look favourably on the provisions of my Science, Technology and Engineering (Careers Information in Schools) Bill to inspire young people to take up the challenging and well paid careers in engineering, whether as graduates or apprentices?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look very carefully at the Bill that my hon. Friend puts forward. In the recent UCAS data, released today, one of the encouraging signs is that the number of people studying engineering and computer science has actually gone up quite radically. That is an early sign that the steps that have been taken over recent years—frankly, by Governments of all parties —to try to raise the status of and encourage engineering are beginning to have an effect.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Q14. The Prime Minister’s Government have just introduced two new taxes that will cost people wanting to build their own home between £25,000 and £35,000 per family. Why is he choosing to put a block on the aspirations of young people who want to build their own home?
The Prime Minister
We are encouraging people to build their own home and buy their own home, not least by the reform of the planning system, which has seen the planning guidance go from 1,000 pages to 50 pages. That is why we are also encouraging the right to buy. If Opposition Members want to help, they might want to talk to the Labour authorities that are continually blocking people from buying their council housing association homes.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Would my right hon. Friend like to congratulate an engineering company in my constituency, Lupton and Place, which has taken advantage of the capital allowances announced in the autumn statement and purchased a £1.3 million die-casting machine which will create six new jobs and deliver a component for Jaguar cars that was destined for the far east?
The Prime Minister
I certainly will join my hon. Friend in welcoming that investment. His experience in Burnley and the campaign he has been launching did have an effect in bringing forward these proposals on capital allowances. It is absolutely clear that a lot of businesses have money locked up on their balance sheets that we want to see invested, and I believe that these capital allowances are a good way of encouraging businesses to bring forward that sort of investment.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Q15. David Burslem is severely disabled and has a medical need for an extra room in his home. Why are the Government led by the Prime Minister taking £676 a year away from him in order to pay for a tax cut for the richest?
The Prime Minister
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have put in place a £30 million discretionary fund to help in particular cases such as the one that he raises, but we do have an overall situation where the housing benefit budget is now £23 billion. That is only £10 billion less than the entire defence budget, and it is not good enough for Opposition Members to oppose welfare cut after welfare cut, to propose welfare spend after welfare spend, while they realise that we are dealing with the mess they left.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that when the Leader of the Opposition talks about the economy, he sounds just like a Victorian undertaker looking forward to a hard winter? Does the Leader of the Opposition not accept that we cannot get out of a debt crisis by borrowing more money?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The fact is that the economy that we inherited was completely unbalanced. It was based on housing, it was based-on finance, it was based on Government spending and it was based on immigration. Those were four incredibly unstable pillars for sustained economic growth, and what we have had to do is a major recovery operation. That operation is still under way, but given the new jobs created, the private sector businesses that are expanding, the new people setting up their businesses, we are making progress.
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
Following yesterday’s announcement, will the Prime Minister adumbrate for the House the key differences between the hand-chopping, throat-cutting jihadists fighting the dictatorship in Mali whom we are now to help to kill, and the equally bloodthirsty jihadists to whom we are giving money, matériel and political and diplomatic support in Syria? Has the Prime Minister read “Frankenstein”, and did he read it to the end?
The Prime Minister
Some things come and go but there is one thing that is certain: wherever there is a brutal Arab dictator in the world, he will have the support of the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.]
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
We are, unfortunately, forced to live with them, but we can definitely do without them, so will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he will be taking seriously the Liberal Democrat Ministers who are queuing up today to resign their posts after voting against the Government in last night’s vote?
The Prime Minister
Clearly there is a very profound disagreement about this issue. I would say to everyone in the House of Commons who voted for an oversized House of Commons, and for unequal constituency boundaries that are both costly and unfair, that they will have to justify that to their constituents.
Points of Order
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you have had time to consider and reflect on the answer that you gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) yesterday in relation to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), whose nobility of character is, of course, beyond compare and legendary, as attested his bravura performance yesterday. But he cannot surely be called a noble Member of the House of Commons; it must be many centuries since any such appellation was permissible. Will you rule that, however noble the hon. Gentleman’s character, he cannot be referred to in here as the noble Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his exquisite point of order, of which I had no advance notice whatsoever. I, of course, recall the exchange yesterday and what I say to him is that it is possible to be both noble and to sit in the House of Commons. With particular reference to honorific titles, which I think is the matter he has in mind, my recollection is that the Modernisation Committee issued a report recommending the substantial reduction in the use of such titles. As a consequence, I understand the present situation to be that their use in debate is a matter not of order but of taste. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Speaker
I think that the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) has started a trend.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, the Care Quality Commission published a damning report on accident and emergency services at Queen’s hospital in Romford. The Government, as the Secretary of State for Health confirmed in an answer to me earlier this month, still intend to go ahead with the closure of the accident and emergency department at King George hospital in Ilford, in my constituency. May we have an urgent statement from the Health Secretary on the implications of the CQC’s report for that decision?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I hope that he will not take offence—because this is an extremely serious matter—when I say that he is 24 hours or thereabouts ahead of himself. I acknowledge that this is a matter of extreme importance to his constituents, and what he should do is ensure that he is in his place tomorrow for business questions, which will afford him, if he catches my eye, as I think he might, the chance to raise the matter with the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is in his place now and has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he should come back tomorrow and have a go in the proper forum. We will leave it there for now.
Housing Market Reform
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 157 of the Housing Act 1985 to extend the use of local occupancy clauses to certain urban areas with the permission of the Secretary of State; to increase the qualifying period of local occupancy clauses from three years to either five or ten years; to place a duty on the Homes and Communities Agency and local authorities with housing and planning responsibilities to promote co-operative and mutual housing options and report annually in this regard; to require the Homes and Communities Agency, local authorities and the Land Registry to identify land available for housing development which has not been developed and to publish a report on the available options for development of housing on such land; and for connected purposes.
For far too many people, the housing market is not working. Not enough homes are being built at a price that is within reach in many areas of the UK, particularly in London. The drastic cut in the budget for new affordable homes has unsurprisingly led to a considerable fall in the amount of new social housing. My right hon. and hon. Friends have set out a series of initiatives to build 100,000 more affordable homes, which I strongly support, but even if the Chancellor were to start listening and house building and construction were to begin to return to good health, it is questionable whether sufficient homes would become available to challenge the shortage of supply in key parts of the country at a price that more people can afford.
London is in danger of having a housing market that has priced out those who live and work in our city. It is already virtually impossible to envisage that someone on average earnings could afford to buy a property within the Circle line area and to live in it. In Westminster, average earnings were almost £43,000 last year, while average house prices pushed close to £800,000—a ratio of price to earnings of 18:1. The suburbs of London are heading in the same direction as house prices continue to creep up. In Harrow, where my constituency is, average earnings last year were £30,000, while the average house price was £309,000—10 times average earnings.
Although no set income is required to secure a 90% mortgage on an average property, the scale of difficulty facing people in the suburbs and inner London when trying to buy a property is revealed by the rough-and-ready guide offered by online mortgage calculations, which suggest that an individual income of around £80,000 or joint income of around £90,000 would be required to secure a mortgage of £280,000. That is a challenge for many families, to put it mildly, particularly in London.
This Bill would give urban local authorities the opportunity to create a more affordable market in the sale of former social housing by extending the use of local occupancy clauses, which were allowed under the original right-to-buy legislation. Under the original rules, local authorities in areas of outstanding natural beauty were allowed to include a covenant limiting the freedom of the tenant to sell on property that they purchased to people living or working in the area, so creating a second tier to the housing market in those areas that allows more affordable house sales and helps to ensure local people have the opportunity to get on to the property ladder at an affordable price in the area in which they have strong local connections. My Bill seeks to extend that exemption to other areas of the country where the huge rise in house prices has made a house purchase extremely costly.
Surely, helping local people who are not rich, who have lived and/or worked in an area for a considerable period and who are an integral part of their community to afford to buys, by allowing local authorities to designate sales of former social housing to be just for local people, was a sensible measure in the 1980s for those living in national parks and would be again now for many other areas of the country, particularly London. It does not alter the fundamental principle of the right to buy, which I have always supported, but it recognises the reality of the difficulties that too many people face in wanting to buy a home. Estate agents in national parks, where the exemption operates, are clear that it makes a significant difference to the price of some ex-local authority housing of between 5% and, in some cases, 30%—and typically between 10% and 20%. To qualify to buy such properties one has to have lived or worked or done both in the area for three years prior to purchase.
The exemption makes the price more affordable and essentially restricts the sale of some homes to people on lower incomes and those who have strong ties to an area. My Bill would increase the restriction to help more explicitly those who have a long-standing connection to the community that they live in. Clearly, such a change would need to be phased in, as new tenants move into new social housing and consider whether they want to buy the property.
The second part of the Bill deals with co-op housing, for too long the forgotten part of the housing sector. It makes up only 0.6% of the UK’s housing supply, compared with 18% in Sweden, 15% in Norway and 6% in Germany. Tenant-run co-op housing has especially good satisfaction rates, but co-op housing also offers additional options for those who are working, who want to get on to the property ladder and who cannot completely afford to buy their new dream home. My Bill would require local authorities to promote co-op housing options.
The Bill requires Government to consider afresh the problem of land banking by housing developers, where land is deliberately not developed, often because the developer is waiting for prices to rise. That slows the supply of affordable housing, and the undeveloped sites are often a considerable blight on local communities. If a developer does not want to develop the land, there are few incentives to change its mind, which in turn exacerbates the shortage of affordable homes and affects the amenity for local people.
The Barker review, initiated by the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), made an important contribution to that debate at the time, but recent work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and a review of the tax system by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and led by Sir James Mirrlees of Cambridge university have again focused attention on the issue. Their reports suggest options including a land value tax, amending council tax criteria and imposing levies on land identified for housing but not yet brought to market. Those ideas—there are others—are worthy of serious Government scrutiny, and I urge the Government to support the Bill to tackle the lack of incentives for housing developers to get on with development.
We need to make housing, particularly but not exclusively in urban areas, much more affordable than it is now. I believe that the measures in my Bill would help us to achieve that objective, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Gareth Thomas, John Cryer, Stephen Pound, Mike Gapes, Mr Andrew Love, Ms Diane Abbott, Ms Karen Buck, Jonathan Reynolds, Lyn Brown, Margaret Hodge, Jim Fitzpatrick and Nick Smith present the Bill.
Mr Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 129).
Europe
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Foreign Secretary to move the motion, I remind the House that, as will be clear from the Annunciator, in the light of the extensive interest in participating in this debate, I have imposed a seven-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of Europe.
The background to the debate, as the House knows, is that Europe faces greater change than at any time since the fall of the Berlin wall. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his speech last week—a speech that was well received in this country, by British business and in many quarters overseas—[Interruption.] I thought that would excite the House at the beginning. As my right hon. Friend said, there are three great challenges facing the European Union: the profound changes being wrought by the eurozone crisis, the lack of competitiveness in the face of a transformed global economy and the gap between Europe and its peoples.
This remains a difficult time for economies across Europe. Unemployment here is coming down, but elsewhere in Europe it is rising sharply. Europe faces challenges from surging economies of the east and south. On some predictions, by 2050 only Germany and the UK from Europe are likely to remain in the top 10 largest world economies. Growth elsewhere benefits us all, but we should be in no doubt that a new global race is under way and that financial market turbulence and the burden of debt make the path to recovery in Europe harder to climb. Europe has many fundamental economic assets but action is needed. As Chancellor Merkel has said, if Europe today accounts for over 7% of the world’s population, produces 25% of global GDP and has to finance 50% of global social spending, it is obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life.
Then there is the democratic disconnection between the EU and its peoples—a disconnection felt particularly acutely in Britain, for reasons I will come on to in a few minutes. The Eurobarometer survey conducted earlier this year showed that only 27% of Britons were very or fairly attached to the EU. The EU average is 46%, which is hardly encouraging.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary think that the road to recovery for the UK economy will be helped by the Prime Minister saying that the UK might be out of the European Union in four or five years?
Mr Hague
Often, the best judges on the economic side are the business organisations in the country. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that it supports the Prime Minister’s determination to negotiate a new settlement on the basis of a refocused relationship with Europe. The Institute of Directors has said:
“The Prime Minister’s approach is realistic and pragmatic… It is far better to deal with these issues than to shy away from them.”
The Federation of Small Businesses has said:
“Governments around the world need to do all they can to keep markets open and take barriers away.”
The CBI has said:
“The Prime Minister rightly recognises the benefits of retaining membership of…a reformed EU and the CBI will work closely with government to get the best deal for Britain.”
They clearly think such a strategy is in the interests of the British economy.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Did not Sir Roger Carr of the CBI also say:
“But the referendum builds in a degree of uncertainty and business never welcomes uncertainty.”?
Mr Hague
I am coming to uncertainty in a moment. Uncertainty has been a particular theme of some hon. Members and we need to address it, but the quote that I was giving the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) was from the director general of the CBI. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) wants to invite me to read a long list of business quotations—[Interruption.] Clearly, the Opposition do not want to hear from the other business people of the country.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept, though, that what business wants is to renew and refresh the relationship, not for Britain to withdraw? In particular, companies such as Tata Steel near my constituency, which are already paying 50% more tax in Britain than our European counterparts, are very concerned about the prospect of Britain withdrawing from the EU.
Mr Hague
Business does want to renew and refresh that relationship, and the only political leader who has put forward a plan to do so is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
For those reasons Britain should be at the front of the debate about Europe’s future to shape it and reform it, given that in the Government’s view, British membership of a reformed, competitive EU is strongly in our national interest. It is worth noting what the coalition Government have achieved to date. We have already democratised how we make the most important decisions of all on the EU by giving people and Parliament more control: the referendum lock in the European Union Act 2011 for the first time gives British voters the final say over any further expansion of EU powers. I am delighted that the Opposition have now stirred themselves from apathy and abstention to give support, belatedly, to the Act that we passed two years ago.
We have supported free trade agreements, with British efforts that helped secure a free trade agreement with Singapore and one with Korea worth up to £500 million a year to Britain alone. British negotiators helped to secure a single EU patent regime. All these support renewed economic growth and competitiveness across Europe.
Mr Hague
I will give way in a moment. I must make some progress. I am conscious of the time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Such achievements are of direct benefit to the UK and have been secured by a country able to influence and shape decisions among its partners. It is our responsibility, as one of the leading members of the EU, to press for the reforms that must happen if the EU is to succeed in this century: more competitiveness, flexibility, democratic accountability and fairness for countries both in the eurozone and outside it. All those will benefit the UK and the European Union as a whole.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is a great champion of enlargement and knows the importance of the freedom of movement of individuals. Is it the Government’s intention to put advertisements in the Romanian and the Bulgarian media saying that they do not want people from Romania and Bulgaria to come to this country? That is in the public domain; it has been mentioned. How does that square with the website of the British embassy in Bucharest, which encourages Romanians to come to work and study in the United Kingdom?
Mr Hague
I think that the right hon. Gentleman’s latter point relates to the GREAT campaign, through which we encourage people to visit the United Kingdom. We encourage people to come as tourists to the United Kingdom and so on. On the question of advertising, I have to tell him that we are very stingy about advertising because we are reducing one of the biggest budget deficits in the world, and the Government do not pay for much advertising anywhere around the world, so we do not at present plan to place the advertisements that he describes.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Prime Minister has pledged an in/out referendum. Therefore, in any future coalition discussions that might arise after the next election, would that be a red-line issue for the Prime Minister? Would there have to be an in/out referendum in the next Parliament?
Mr Hague
Despite having played a considerable role in the last coalition discussions, I can say that we are not actually planning coalition discussions for two years’ time. We plan, as most parties do, though not the right hon. Gentleman’s party, to win a majority in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has made the position on the matter clear. That is something that we would absolutely want to proceed with in any Parliament where we held office. Talking of which, let me give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for his role in the coalition Government and the work that he has done. Is not the strength of this country, past and present as well as future, that we are part of the continent of Europe, where we want to lead, that we increasingly have an English-speaking world, where we can lead, and that we have an empire, now an expanding Commonwealth, where there are huge opportunities? We are best placed if we exploit all three opportunities and do not suggest uncertainty about our commitment to any one of them.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Right at the heart of the five principles, as my right hon. Friend knows, was the insistence that the national Parliaments lie at the heart of our democratic accountability. In that context, does he accept that the movement towards ever-closer union had to be rejected and, furthermore, that it is vital that we recognise that there cannot be two Governments and two Parliaments dealing with the questions that arise in the context of the future of Europe?
Mr Hague
I will come in a few moments, I hope, to the importance of national Parliaments playing an increased role in the decision making of the European Union. My hon. Friend knows from his close reading of the Prime Minister’s speech that he set out a vision of the EU as an explicit contrast to the vision of ever-closer union, so that is absolutely right.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has been extremely generous in giving way. Given that free trade agreements are currently an exclusive competency of the EU and that nothing can be more important than delivering new markets for growth and jobs, does he agree that if it takes the British Government to take a stand on renegotiation, and that brings speedier and more successful agreements to a conclusion, that is the right way?
Mr Hague
I am going to make a bit of progress, because I have not yet exhausted the list of the coalition’s achievements.
First, on banking union, we understood from the start the case for a single supervisory mechanism for the eurozone. We were clear that that we would not participate in it—and we are not participating. We suggested that the European Central Bank would be the best institution to take on this role—and it is taking it on. Crucially, we said we wanted safeguards for the single market—and we got them. The outcome of those negotiations was of fundamental importance, and it is proof that fair arrangements between eurozone and non-eurozone members can be achieved. That is a good precedent for the future, and it is something of a contrast with previous negotiations when the previous Government gave up £7 billion of our rebate for nothing in return.
On the multi-annual financial framework, we approached the November European Council open to reaching agreement. The deal on the table was not good enough, and that is why we could not accept it. We were not alone: the Dutch, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns and the Germans were all in the same position. We have established a group of 12 like-minded member states to push for urgent action on EU growth, and we have expanded that alliance, which advocates completion of the single market and less regulation. We have secured the first ever exemption of the smallest businesses from new EU proposals from 1 January this year, and we have persuaded the European Commission to review the body of EU legislation to identify existing obligations from which those businesses could be exempted.
As the Prime Minister said last week in Davos, we want Europe to succeed not just as an economic force but as an association of countries with the political will, the values and the voice to make a difference in the world. When that political will is there—
Mr Hague
In a few minutes, given that I have taken a lot of interventions already.
When that political will is there, we can make a decisive difference. That is clear in foreign policy. We have led the way with France on EU policy on Syria, and with France and Germany on sanctions on Iran. The flagship EU anti-piracy operation is hosted not at an EU operational headquarters—something that I have always opposed—but at the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood.
Those are some of things we have achieved so far. Looking briefly at the months ahead, a number of important issues are on the agenda. The multi-annual financial framework will be discussed again at next month’s Council. We are working closely with all our European partners—
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Hague
I will give away again in a few minutes.
We are working closely with all our European partners—those who are like-minded and those who are less so—to achieve a deal that is right for the UK and right for the EU. Our objective for EU spending within that framework remains clear: we want to see spending reduced and we will insist on at worst a real-terms freeze and at best a cut. The UK abatement is not up for negotiation, unlike under the previous Government.
Mr Hague
I will give way again in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman is a bit far down the queue.
On competitiveness, Britain has great advantages: one of the most competitive corporate tax rates in the world, Europe’s largest venture capital community, tax breaks for early-stage investment, and entrepreneur visas so that the brightest can come to the UK. We want the EU to help its members to succeed in the global race.
Mike Gapes
In his long list of achievements, the Foreign Secretary referred to like-minded partners. Will he take this opportunity to welcome the election of the new Czech President, Milos Zeman, who is a strong, fervent pro-European, which means that the Czech Republic now has a pro-European President and that the Government have lost one of their few allies in the former President of the Czech Republic, Mr Klaus?
Mr Hague
Of course I congratulate, and the Prime Minister will be congratulating, the new President of the Czech Republic. However, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic said last week:
“The scepticism of the British public is understandable...British voters’ feeling of remoteness from EU elites in Brussels is right. EU competitiveness is a Czech priority as well.”
So it is interesting to hear from the Czech Republic.
Andrea Leadsom
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s speech last week was right to set out a new vision for Britain in Europe, because it is Europe itself that is changing? That change is inevitable, and the Prime Minister is simply reflecting the inevitability of reforming the EU if it wants to become globally competitive once again.
Mr Hague
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to all the work that she, with many of our colleagues, has done on this subject. It is vital to shape and reform this debate. Europe has to change, and the UK should be at the forefront of arguing for that change.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary. What renegotiation do the Government really want to enter into, given that the coalition agreement refers to seeking only one treaty change, which is to stop the European Parliament going to Strasbourg? I gently suggest to him that even though I agree that that is as bonkers an arrangement as there can be, it is probably not at the top of his list of priorities for renegotiation. Is staying in or out of the European arrest warrant a priority for him?
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is well informed about these matters, the debate about the European arrest warrant is part of the justice and home affairs opt-out considerations. The Home Secretary has announced our proposals regarding a block opt-out and the negotiation of an opt-in to some of these requirements and arrangements. The Prime Minister has set out the principles for a future negotiation, and that is a wise thing to do. If the previous Government had set out the principle that the rebate was not up for negotiation, they would not have surrendered so much of it. If they had set out the principle that they were not going to agree to budget increases, they would not have agreed to such increases in so many negotiations. That is the right place to start.
Mr Hague
I will give way again in a few minutes, but out of respect to the rest of the House I cannot give way more than 10 or 20 times.
We will continue to lead the EU growth agenda with the aim of removing unnecessary regulations, particularly for small companies; deepening and widening the single market; liberalising trade; and, most importantly, seeking the opening of negotiations for a free trade deal with the United States, which would be a very considerable prize.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked me about enlargement, so I will say a few sentences about that. On 1 July 2013, Croatia will join the EU as the 28th member state. As hon. Members know, the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill has passed through this Parliament and is awaiting Royal Assent. We are long-standing supporters of EU enlargement, and we will play an active role in advancing it. However, the real burden of effort lies with the political leaders of pre-accession states. We want to see reinvigorated reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina, progress on Macedonia’s reform efforts and towards good neighbourly relations, new impetus in negotiations with Turkey, Serbia delivering on her commitments on Kosovo, and Kosovo delivering on her short-term conditions to move forwards towards a stabilisation and association agreement.
Mr Hague
I will give way to a couple of colleagues in a few minutes.
This is the immediate agenda, but we are living in a time of profound change, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) reminded us, and a new settlement will emerge from it. The settlement for the European Union should be a reformed one that is better for Britain and the whole EU. The Prime Minister set out the five principles of global competitiveness, flexibility, powers being able to flow back to EU countries, democratic accountability, and fairness. It is on the basis of that new settlement that we should give the British people the choice of whether we remain in a changed Union.
But these great questions are not just for Britain but for all members of the EU, so we all need to find ways of addressing them, building on what we have in common but respecting our diversity. We do not have a one-size-fits- all approach for all 27 member states now, because it would be unworkable. Far from unravelling the EU, flexibility could bind us more closely together, because flexible, willing co-operation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary; he is being very generous. Having represented the Government for two years in Europe, it is clear to me that we can best stand up for Britain’s interests, and sometimes achieve our objectives against all the odds, by building alliances and friendships and being right in there negotiating. How is he getting along with that enterprise?
Mr Hague
I have just pointed out many of the things that we have achieved. The reason we have had such strong support from Germany, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands on the EU budget is that we have built alliances. The reason that the EU patent regime has been brought in is that we have built alliances. I hope that that is well understood by Members from all parts of the House.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talks convincingly about the need for the reform of Europe being respected by many other member states. I met Japanese officials yesterday and they made the point that many Japanese investors who invest in this country support what the Prime Minister said last week and are keen for some of the EU regulations on their businesses to be lifted.
Mr Hague
Absolutely. Such people come to the UK because there are many cultural and linguistic advantages, and because of the corporate tax rate, which we are bringing down progressively. They want to see Europe reformed. There is no doubt about that.
Britain is not alone in calling for powers to flow back to member states.
Mr Hague
I will give way again a little later.
We have already achieved a considerable amount. We have ended Britain’s obligation to bail out eurozone members—an obligation entered into by the Labour party. We are keeping Britain out of the fiscal compact and working to reform the common fisheries policy, and we will achieve more. Like every other member state, we are working with partners to pursue our national and shared interests.
The national debate that we will have over the next few years must rely on an understanding of what the EU does well and what it does not do well; where it helps and where it hinders. The balance of competences review, which I announced in July, will give us a better informed and more objective analysis of these matters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) pointed out, the changes in the eurozone are raising questions across the EU about national sovereignty and democratic legitimacy. In our view, balancing the need for flexibility, competitiveness and a stronger role for national Parliaments will be central to the future success of the EU.
The European Parliament has an important role that is set out in the treaties and many MEPs do excellent work. However, over the past 20 years, member states have granted the European Parliament a dramatic increase in its powers through successive treaties, in the hope that it would address the growing sense of distance and disengagement among European voters. That manifestly has not worked. The question of democratic disconnection and accountability has not gone away. That suggests that we need a different answer. That answer will include a bigger and more significant role for national Parliaments, which are and will remain the true source of democratic legitimacy in the European Union. By according a greater role to national Parliaments, we will give practical effect and real force to the principle of subsidiarity.
Natascha Engel
These are all very general and nice principles that we cannot disagree with—we all want more fairness and diversity. What we want to debate today is the meat. We want to know what is the Conservative party’s vision for Europe, on which there will be an in/out referendum? That is what we want to debate.
Mr Hague
I am delighted to hear that Opposition Members support all these policies and principles, because many of them were not brought about while they were in office. I commend the hon. Lady for being dramatically clearer than her Front Benchers in her support for what the Prime Minister has set out. I will return to them in a moment.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talked about building relationships and support for our position within the European Union. I hope that he will remind our friends in Poland of the extraordinary championing of its right that Britain instigated, which helped it to enter the European Union and NATO. As mutual friends, we now look to Poland for a little reciprocation and for it to respect our position.
Mr Hague
All parties across this House have been strong advocates of enlargement, and successfully so. We remain strong advocates of enlargement. That is a commendable feature of our politics in this country. My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of our working with those countries in the future.
Mr Hague
I will not give way again for a few minutes.
All this country’s institutions and relationships, and the role that it chooses for itself in the world, ultimately depend on democratic consent. The undeniable truth is that the democratic consent for this country’s membership of the EU has grown very thin. That problem is not unique to Britain—one in every three voters in France’s recent election voted for parties that advocated leaving the EU—but it is particularly acute in Britain.
In the past 20 years, the EU has changed profoundly in nature and the British people have had no direct say in it. Under the previous Government, Europe changed and its powers expanded at an ever-greater rate, with the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, the last of which was put into force without any consultation with the voters whatever, either in a referendum or in a general election. The previous Government allowed the EU to be taken in a direction that the British people were uncomfortable with. They did not persuade the British people of the case for taking them there. They made a monumental mistake in preventing a referendum on the Lisbon treaty—a mistake that came from a lack of understanding about the nature of, and need for, democratic consent.
Mr Hague
I will give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
Ratifying Lisbon without consulting the people did real damage to the EU’s democratic legitimacy in this country. I remember one Labour Member agreeing with that point in the debates on the Lisbon treaty—the hon. Member for Vauxhall.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary should know that a majority of Labour voters support bringing back powers from Europe. Although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, we want to be friends with our European allies, talk to them and work with them, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the threat of a referendum makes it much more likely that we will get the real engagement that will satisfy the British public?
Sir James Paice
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. For many years, successive Governments have been bedevilled by the perception in many other member states that Britain is not completely comfortable within the European Union, which may or may not be true. He referred earlier to the importance of working with like-minded member states to get the successes that he has rightly listed. Is it not hugely important that this debate is couched in terms of finding a better way for Europe and Britain showing leadership in Europe, which has been lacking for many years, and that it is not presented as a cloak for disengagement from Europe, which some people sadly want?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend is quite right. That is why the Prime Minister’s speech made the case for benefits for the whole of the European Union and called for global competitiveness and flexibility to help people across Europe. That is the mindset with which we are approaching the debate.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome the approach that the Foreign Secretary has taken on a referendum. Will he give careful consideration to the request that the holding of a referendum in the next Parliament be entrenched through legislation? I believe that that idea has much support on both sides of the coalition, because I remember how angry the Liberal Democrats became in the last Parliament when they were refused a vote on an in/out referendum during the treaty of Lisbon, even though they are a little shy about remembering that today.
Mr Hague
Of course I hope that the concept of such a referendum will become entrenched, just as the European Union Act 2011 is now becoming entrenched through the belated acceptance of the Opposition. However, to entrench something, one must be able to get it through Parliament in the first place. My hon. Friend will know that what he is suggesting is not part of the coalition agreement. That is why it is our party’s proposal to have draft legislation and to legislate at the beginning of a new Parliament.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. His speech is painfully thin on detail and he has been asked for the beef, but can I ask him whether there are any fish in it? In opposition, the Conservatives made a lot of noise about the common fisheries policy, but they are strangely silent in government. Where does the common fisheries policy figure on the radar screen in what he is saying?
Mr Hague
I have already mentioned reform of the common fisheries policy, but there are many things to mention and that was the only fish I was going to throw the hon. Gentleman in this debate. As he knows, work to end discards and bring greater regional control over the common fisheries policy is important and a lot of progress has been made on the proposals now before the EU. That is the sort of thing we must carry through to success.
Mr Hague
To be fair to the House I must make a bit more progress and soon conclude.
There is every reason to ask the people and trust their judgment when changing one of the most fundamental issues in any democracy—that of who decides. That is what happens when powers over an area of policy are moved from a national to a European level, and why we have already passed the European Union Act 2011. It will be for each party to put forward its own proposals at the next election on how to deal with these problems. My view is that we want Britain to be a successful member of a successful European Union, but that cannot happen unless we have reform in Europe and fresh democratic consent. We must confront those facts.
Whether we want Britain to stay in the EU or leave, we should trust the people and put the decision to them. We should let the people look at the new settlement that Europe will have arrived at once the eurozone crisis has been further addressed, see what reforms have been achieved, weigh up the benefits and costs of Britain’s membership, and make a judgment about whether Britain should be in the European Union or out. The question of membership of a reformed Union in the coming years will be the right question at the right time and that is what we should put to the people.
Ms Stuart
I will attempt to be helpful and allow the Foreign Secretary to do something now rather than project very general aims for the future. National Parliament is important, but the accountability of those on the Front Benches is much more important. If he starts making decisions made by UKRep on behalf of the Government accountable in this House through the Europe Minister, he could make immediate democratic changes now.
Mr Hague
We have already made important reforms to accountability in the House, and when I appear in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee next week, our permanent representative from UKRep will also answer questions. I am open to further innovations.
Our approach is one of reform and referendum, and its alternative is to let the issue drift. Speaking of drift, I must say an additional word about her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Last week, on the day of the Prime Minister’s speech, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), said that a referendum on EU membership was not
“a decision you could or should take now”.
He also said:
“We’ve never ruled out referenda in principle”,
by which I think he meant that he was fairly certain that Labour’s position was uncertain.
The next day, after the Prime Minister had given his speech but before the Leader of the Opposition had pronounced on it, the shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said:
“I can’t tell you what the situation is going to be at the next election”,
by which I think she meant that she was absolutely certain that Labour’s position was uncertain. At Prime Minister’s questions the Leader of the Opposition was unfortunately uncertain that he was meant to be uncertain and said:
“My position is no, we do not want an in/out referendum”—[Official Report, 23 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 305.]
Never has such certainty created such uncertainty so quickly.
Mr Hague
No, this is quite an interesting explanation. Minutes later, on the “Daily Politics” show the shadow Energy Secretary adjusted her position: it was correct, she said, that at the next election the Conservatives would be promising a referendum and Labour would not, but she gave the caveat that that was the position “as it stands today”. More accurately, it was the position as it stood that minute because minutes later journalists were briefed that the Leader of the Opposition had meant to say that Labour did not want an in/out referendum now. Within half an hour, the shadow Foreign Secretary was back on the airwaves—a busy chap—to correct his leader and explain,
“our judgement is that to commit to an in/out referendum now is the wrong choice for the country”
but, he added, “we’ve never said never”.
If we look at the evidence, although we cannot be certain about the Labour party’s position, we can make an educated guess that although Labour will not call for an in/out referendum now, it might do so in future, and it is completely possible—but not certain—that it will be in its next election manifesto. I am waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to nod—
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
indicated assent.
Mr Hague
He is nodding. That is the position: it is possible, but not certain. If that is Labour’s position, it is the most uncertain position of all—they might have an in/out referendum, but they might not. The Labour party is against a referendum but not necessarily; it has adopted a position for the next general election that might not apply at that election. It is against uncertainty, but it is not really sure about it. I ask Labour Members to listen to members of their party, the shadow Cabinet or the leadership.
Who said:
“This is about democracy…it is about respecting the people. Successive generations have not had a say on the European debate. All parties have promised a referendum over the last couple of years. This will fester until a proper open discussion is allowed by the political class.”?
That was the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) who is meant to be in charge of policy in the Labour party. More recently, who said:
“I think at some point there will have to be a referendum on the EU. I don’t think it’s for today or for the next year, but I think it should happen...My preference would be an in or out referendum when the time comes”?
That was the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), a close colleague of the shadow Foreign Secretary. Most eloquent of all, who said:
“The European mandate that the Heath Government secured in the 1970s belongs to another time and another generation. I believe a fresh referendum on this will be necessary…a healthy means of re-establishing a consensus—among Britons…about Britain’s place in the world”?
It is not often that I agree with Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool in the County of Durham and Foy in the County of Herefordshire—he likes his full title—but when he spoke he was, most unusually, speaking for the people of Britain. We will wait for the shadow Foreign Secretary to set out his party’s definitive position. If he does so with certainty, it will be very revealing, and if he accuses the Government of uncertainty, it will be very amusing.
The coalition Government have a strong record with many achievements to their name. We have a clear vision for Britain’s future in Europe. We want reform, and then a referendum with a real choice: in the European Union on a new settlement or out. I hope and believe that Britain will remain in the European Union under a fresh settlement with fresh consent. That would be in the interest of Britain and Europe. We are seeking not only an improvement in Britain’s position, but an improvement in the way the European Union works that would benefit all its countries. We need a focus on competitiveness, flexibility, less centralisation and better democratic accountability, and that would be a European Union that can succeed in the 21st century.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is, of course, courteous to welcome the Foreign Secretary to the Front Bench, and indeed back to Britain. I am sure it was more agreeable celebrating Hillary Clinton’s time in office last night than watching those on the Opposition Benches celebrate the vote he chose to miss.
The right hon. Gentleman’s speech was, as ever, amusing, but rather less enlightening in terms of its principles, and I will speak about that in a minute. This debate is taking place in the context not just of a speech made last week but of some figures. On Friday it was confirmed by the Office for National Statistics that the United Kingdom economy shrank by 0.3% in the last quarter, and last week we learned that throughout 2012 the UK economy did not grow at all. Unemployment is high.
Mr Alexander
No, it is important the hon. Gentleman listens. I will make a little progress and then I will happily take some interventions.
Unemployment today is high, borrowing is rising and growth is flatlining. The International Monetary Fund is worried, credit rating agencies are concerned, and the British public are anxious. It tells us all we need to know about the Government’s focus that against such a backdrop they chose to call a general debate in Government time not on the economy, but on Europe.
Daniel Kawczynski
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the economy shrinking over the last quarter. Does he accept that under the previous Labour Government there was an overdependency on exports to the European Union and huge neglect of various parts of the middle east and north Africa? The Labour party is responsible for making us overdependent on exports to Europe.
Mr Alexander
I hope for the hon. Gentleman’s sake that he misspoke in suggesting there was an overdependence on exports to the European Union. I certainly do not think that reflects the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will nod his assent to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. No, he has chosen not to nod. That is one all, and we are not off the first page of my speech.
Mr Alexander
I am keen to make a little progress and then I will happily take as many interventions as we can manage in the time available.
The Prime Minister, alas, seems more focused on the UK Independence party’s numbers than on the gross domestic product figures. When the priority should have been stability, investment and jobs, as Friday’s figures confirmed, he delivered a glorified handling strategy for Conservative Back Benchers, confirming that he is more interested in securing stability in the Conservative party than in securing stability in the economy.
Andrea Leadsom
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the EU is changing, and that the eurozone crisis has led to the point at which Britain simply cannot continue in the same way? Does he agree that, in order to safeguard our current interests, we must adopt change?
Mr Alexander
Of course change is coming to the EU and we want to see it. The tragedy is that Conservative Back Benchers prevent the Prime Minister from addressing those changes in a sensible, serious way and from advancing Britain’s national interest.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I heard very clearly the Opposition rule out an in/out referendum at any time, but I have also heard the right hon. Gentleman’s reluctance to say never. Will he explain in what circumstances he will go to his party leader and say, “Things have changed. We need an in/out referendum”?
Mr Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman missed the “Today” programme on Saturday morning, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke. The position I set out last week in the studios reflected the fact that we could not sensibly and should not make a judgment now. As I have said, Europe is changing. The timing, character and impact on Britain and our national interests of those changes is as yet unclear. That is not a party political position but simply the reality. I do not start from a prejudiced view towards the EU. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) published a book called “The Death of Britain?” in 1999. As far as I am aware, Britain still exists. In that sense, I am not sure that his concerns—[Interruption.] He seems uncertain because he is adopting the shadow Chancellor’s hand gestures. I hope he soon adopts the shadow Chancellor’s economics as well.
On economics, senior British figures, including Sir Richard Branson and Sir Martin Sorrell, warned that the Prime Minister’s approach risked creating damaging uncertainty for British business. The Foreign Secretary did his very best to use the expertly drawn-up brief from the Foreign Office to suggest that British business was rushing to endorse the Prime Minister’s approach last week, but he was careful to give a series of quotes that endorsed a process of reform—not a single quote welcomed the prospect of a referendum, which is the basis on which economic stability has been put at risk. The Foreign Secretary does not need to take my word for that. On 24 October 2011, he himself claimed that an in/out referendum
“would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time.”
For the record, since the Foreign Secretary made those remarks, it has been confirmed that the UK economy has shrunk by 0.3%, so perhaps he will take this opportunity to enlighten the House on how calling for an immediate in/out referendum creates, as he suggests, “additional economic uncertainty”, but committing to an in/out referendum years from now does not. The sound of silence speaks volumes. For all his best efforts today, we know that the origins, timing and content of the Prime Minister’s speech on the EU lay in the politics of the Conservative party much more than they lay in the foreign policy of the country.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend highlights the Conservative party’s difficulties, but does he agree with Ian Birrell, the Prime Minister’s former speech writer, who has said that the Prime Minister’s speech was the biggest gamble of his career? He also said that the Prime Minister is not only throwing a block of meat to the Conservative right, but giving them the keys to the abattoir.
Mr Alexander
Ian Birrell is an engaging and illuminating columnist, and his point on the lack of specificity in the Prime Minister’s speech is an important one. Of course, it is important to recognise that the Prime Minister did not wake up last Wednesday morning suddenly filled with a new-found democratic impulse; he woke up with the same headache he has had for years—a set of Conservative Back Benchers banging on about Europe. He used to oppose that.
Mr Douglas Alexander
I shall make a little progress before giving way.
The Prime Minister’s speech last week disregarded the greatest concern—I would argue—of the British people, namely the need for stability, growth and jobs. In truth, it was a speech that the Prime Minister did not want to give, on a subject he prefers not to talk about, at a time when no decision was required. Its primary aim was to try to deliver unity through the device of obscurity. That is why the Foreign Secretary’s speech was so illuminating.
Alas, I calculate that the Prime Minister’s speech managed to unite the Conservative party for less than 96 hours, at which point the papers were once again full of new plans and plots against him from within the Conservative ranks. Who can blame them?
Mr Alexander
I will make a little more progress.
Far from resolving the issue of Europe, the Prime Minister’s speech ended up prompting more questions than it answered. Those questions, alas, were singularly avoided by the Foreign Secretary in his speech today. Instead of setting out red lines for the negotiations or detailing the powers he wants to repatriate, the Prime Minister instead described five principles, about which we have heard more today, with which few hon. Members could disagree. I am happy to confirm for the Foreign Secretary—this might discombobulate Conservative Back Benchers—that the Opposition are happy to endorse the five principles. Foreign Secretaries have been advocating them for many years.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Which powers would the right hon. Gentleman like to be returned from Europe to this country?
Mr Alexander
The Opposition have said that reform rather than repatriation is how to achieve the change in Europe we want—[Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to finish? We have said that we will judge on a case-by-case basis the merits or demerits of where those powers reside. With respect, I should point out to him that the only power identified by the Prime Minister in his long and much trailed speech last week was a change to the working time directive. Is the Prime Minister honestly suggesting that the right of British doctors not to treat a patient when they have not been to bed for two days is the only power he is seeking to repatriate? Is he suggesting that, if he fails to secure that repatriation, he will recommend a no vote for the EU? That is the idiocy we were left with after the Prime Minister’s speech last week.
Mr Douglas Alexander
I will make a little more progress before giving way.
Let me read the principles so that the House can know just how crystal clear they are. The principles are competitiveness, flexibility, that power must be able to flow back to member states and not just away from them, democratic accountability and fairness. As I have said, the Opposition agree with those principles—I hope that does not cause great discomfort on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, to be fair, there is a degree of common ground between the Prime Minister and the Opposition on the need for change in Europe.
Mr Alexander
I have already let the hon. Lady intervene. As I have suggested to her, the real tragedy is that Conservative Back Benchers will not let the Prime Minister sensibly deliver the changes that we agree are needed in Europe.
Chris Bryant
Is there not an irony in the fact that the Government are able to come up with only one line on a power they would like to repatriate—namely, the working time directive? The working time directive can be changed. The Prime Minister could be fighting to change it, because it is a directive and a matter of qualified majority voting. If he wants to repatriate that power, he must get every single country in Europe to agree to the change. Is there not hypocrisy at the centre of the Government policy?
Mr Alexander
The Labour Government secured an opt-out on the working time directive, and that process of change can be advanced now rather than in many years ahead. It is significant that the Foreign Secretary, for all his skill as a parliamentarian, singularly avoided giving a single additional detail in his lengthy remarks today on what the Prime Minister was talking about.
Mr Douglas Alexander
Let me make a little more progress.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly talked about bringing back EU social and employment laws. On 15 November 2005, he said:
“I want, as a strategic imperative, to take back from the European Union social and employment legislation.”
He gave no qualification of that statement. The Foreign Secretary has often singled out the EU’s fisheries policy. He has said he “deplored” it, but was rather more measured in his response to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). The Foreign Secretary has also said that he has
“long argued that far greater control over fisheries should pass back to national and regional bodies.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 199.]
He has been equally explicit on justice and home affairs. On 16 June 2008, he said:
“The whole area of justice and home affairs…should be matters for individual nations.”
However, the Prime Minister seems to have misplaced his shopping list on the way to delivering his speech last week. All he said on the matter was this:
“we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.”
The words “employment law” did not feature in his speech; fisheries were mentioned only in passing; there was not a single reference to the common agricultural policy or agriculture; the word “repatriation” was never mentioned; and he did not even utter the term “opt-out”. He promised his Back Benchers chunks of red meat and instead delivered a text full of tofu. The reason he chose only to serve up the vegetarian option last Wednesday is that before, during and after the Prime Minister’s speech a couple of truths endure: the impression of unity can only be achieved through the device of obscurity, and the gap between what the Conservative Back Benchers will demand and what the European Union can deliver remains simply unbridgeable.
Ben Gummer
The right hon. Gentleman is proceeding elegantly, which is characteristic, but this is a general debate on the matter of Europe. We have a settled position on the Conservative Benches—[Laughter.] Well, we do, and we are still waiting and looking forward to hearing the opinion of Her Majesty’s Opposition, were they to come into government in two years’ time.
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman did his best to read the Whips’ brief with a degree of conviction, but the idea that there is a settled position is risible. The only attempt to try and find common ground is on the basis of obscurity. The Prime Minister cannot level with his Back Benchers, and he cannot level with European leaders. That is why he has tried to avoid making the speech for the past year. It is not that he does not have talented speechwriters, it is that he did not know what to say. He does not know how to reconcile the demands of his Back Benchers with the needs of the country, and the Foreign Secretary demonstrated the same thing today.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with the managing director of Abacus Lighting in my constituency, who told me that if the UK was to leave the EU
“this would make it increasingly difficult for Abacus to compete”?
Does he also agree with another MD in my constituency, from R and D/Leverage, who said:
“My belief is we should take a more active role in Europe…not as happens today, sit on the side lines and point out the shortcomings of the EU, thus irritating all of our EU member states”?
Mr Alexander
I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. She offers two views that are an authentic expression of the real concerns of British businesses. They are exactly the kind of businesses that are struggling to deliver orders and to secure the economic growth that the country desperately needs. The Foreign Secretary’s attempt to offer a credible account of how the prospect of a referendum will assist such firms was an abject failure.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman railed against obscurity, and with that in mind will he inform the House what he would like to see happen with the common fisheries policy?
Mr Alexander
We want to see some of the changes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned today, as distinct from what he has said on previous occasions, which was to suggest that the abolition of the common fisheries policy was the way forward. Incidentally, it is a great pleasure to be responding to a Scottish National party Member today, and not simply because we now have agreement on that issue. I was fascinated by his party’s response to the Prime Minister’s speech, because the hon. Gentleman will be aware—he knows the figures as well as I do—that Scottish exports to the European Union are worth approximately £9 billion. Scottish exports to the rest of the United Kingdom—including from his constituency, so he should listen—are worth approximately £45 billion. What was the response of the Deputy First Minister in her ill-fated speech in Dublin? She suggested that a referendum could cause instability and threaten growth. Why would a referendum on Europe, affecting an export market worth £9 billion, cause instability and threaten growth, but a referendum affecting an export market worth £45 billion not be a cause of instability? I have to say that when I heard the Deputy First Minister speak, I thought irony had left the building.
Mr Alexander
I will make a little more progress and then I will give way.
The Foreign Secretary had his fun today on the matter of clarity, but within moments of the Prime Minister ending his speech it emerged that he could not tell the country how he will vote in his anticipated referendum. He cannot tell us what people will be choosing to stay in or to stay out of. Crucially—this reflects the point I have just answered—he cannot tell investors whether the United Kingdom will be part of the world’s largest single market in four years’ time. I am sure that even the Government Front-Bench team would accept that in any negotiation, European or otherwise, there has to be give and take. However, the Foreign Secretary cannot or will not tell us whether his party would advocate a yes vote or a no vote at the time of any potential in/out referendum if they had secured only 50% of the negotiating objectives—or indeed 60%, 70%, or perhaps even 80%. That is partly because we do not know what the negotiating objectives are, and partly because the Prime Minister simply cannot answer, as his party would not tolerate his answer.
George Freeman
I am extremely grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way on that point. We all know that business needs certainty, and we live in uncertain times. Will he take this opportunity to be tough on uncertainty and tough on the causes of uncertainty, and tell us whether Her Majesty’s Opposition support the Government’s proposal to renegotiate and to put the solution to the British people in an in/out referendum?
Mr Alexander
We do not support the Government’s approach. We do not support the idea, when we have seen a 0.3% shrinkage in the British economy in the last quarter, that now is the time to call for an in/out referendum. We listen to the voices of businesses in communities across the country. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that economic stability should not be the priority, I fear that he falls into exactly the area that the Prime Minister used to define his leadership by opposing. Does anyone remember the days when the Prime Minister talked about modernisation? He used to say that the Tories were going to have a different approach to the health service, and then they delivered the biggest reorganisation that the NHS has ever seen—one that the chief executive said could be seen from space. Does anyone remember the time when the Prime Minister said, “We’re going to be a different kind of Conservative party. We’re not going to be the nasty party anymore. We’re all in this together”? Then they delivered a millionaires’ top-rate tax cut. Does anyone remember the time when the Prime Minister said, “We’re going to stop banging on about Europe.” Well, that is exactly what we have now from those on the Government Benches.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
The progress towards regional management of our seas under the common fisheries policy is a good example of an initiative taken forward by this Government that was started under the Labour Government. It is very progressive and shows that it is not necessary to withdraw from the EU to achieve reform. May I appeal to my right hon. Friend on behalf of one of the strongest constituencies—the farming and food production sector? They want strong leadership; they do not want uncertainty. They want us in the European Union not for the food or farming subsidies, but for entry to the European market, good standards of animal welfare and good standards right across the food sector. That is what I have been told, having just come from a reception with the Farmers Union of Wales and others.
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of sense. The point he makes about the conditions in which British farms want to compete and succeed extends beyond the agricultural sector—a more general point I will come on to make in relation to the single market.
Sir James Paice
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. He has made it clear several times during his speech that not only does he foresee change in the EU, but he wants it and believes it is happening—I am sure that is a common view. However, he is giving us the clear impression that he will accept that change, whatever it may be. The position of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which I wholly support, is that, yes, we want that change, and we want to direct and be involved in negotiating that change, but that we cannot at this stage say that we will accept the results of that change whatever it may be. If he wants to stop uncertainty, surely he should be making it clear that either the Labour party will accept the evolution of change regardless of what it throws up in the next few years and that we will still be in the EU whatever it may be, or that there may be a stage where he has to say, “We don’t like that, we’ll ask the people.”
Mr Alexander
Modesty aside, may I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has a look at the speech I gave at Chatham House? Frankly, it set out far more details of specific changes that we would like to see in the European Union than the Prime Minister was able to manage in his speech. We do not suggest that the status quo is what we will or should advocate. We want to see change in Europe. We also recognise that change is coming to Europe. However, there is a fundamental disagreement between this side of the House and that side of the House on how best to achieve the objective of change within the European Union.
Mr Alexander
I am keen to make a little more progress.
Of course there are differences between our parties’ approaches on what those changes should include. My judgment is that the reason the Prime Minister was unable last week to set out the changes he wanted to see, beyond the change in working hours for junior doctors, was that the brittle façade of unity to which he is aspiring will crack—indeed, will disintegrate—as soon as he starts to get into the specifics, whether on employment law, social policy, fisheries policy, or a wide range of other issues. I commend the speech I gave, because it details changes in policy. We want to see Europe moving towards growth, and specific policies within the Commission to advance growth, rather than the approach taken in recent years. We see some institutional changes that are required. Of course there are other areas that we will look at, and they are set out in the speech. It is a matter of regret, however, that the Prime Minister felt unable even to match the shadow Foreign Secretary in the level of detail he could provide in his much-trailed speech last week.
One other point on which there was only obscurity last week was that of timing. The Prime Minister seemed unable to be clear on the most basic issue, because it remains uncertain whether treaty change will even happen on the time scale he suggested. At present, no intergovernmental conference is planned for 2015 and most EU Governments now claim there is no need for a big treaty revision for years to come. The only certainty, therefore, is more uncertainty delivered by the Prime Minister.
After both the Prime Minister’s speech and the Foreign Secretary’s speech today, we have been left with a commitment to an in/out referendum on a repatriation agenda that is unknown, within a time frame that is uncertain and towards an end goal that remains wholly undefined. In the debate in the House in 2011—when, incidentally, the Foreign Secretary voted alongside me in the Division Lobby—we argued that to announce an in/out referendum in these circumstances would not serve Britain’s national interest. Our position remains: reform of Europe, not exit from Europe.
Labour recognises, as I have sought to suggest, that the need for EU reform did not begin with the eurozone crisis, which is why our agenda for change must address the need for institutional, as well as policy, reform. That means tackling issues such as how to give national Parliaments more of a say over the making of EU legislation and delivering credible proposals for reform of the free movement directive and family-related entitlements at EU level.
The most immediate focus, however, must be on changes that promote and create jobs and growth. That is why we have consistently called not just for restraint, but for reform of the EU budget. The budget might be only 1% of GDP, but it could be better used, with a greater focus on securing growth and continued reform of the CAP. Alongside reform of the budget, we have argued for a new position of EU growth commissioner and a new mechanism better to assess the impact of every new piece of EU legislation to promote growth across the EU.
Protections for the single market and revival of the prospects for growth should be Europe’s priority for change, but to support and defend the single market—this was the point I was alluding to earlier—we must first understand how the market works. The internal market involves more than simply the absence of tariffs and trade quotas at the border. Common regulatory standards covering issues such as consumer rights, environmental standards and health and safety rules are not simply additions to the workings of the single market, but the basis on which it is built.
That means that a credible growth strategy for the UK as part of the EU cannot, and should not, be pursued on the basis of cheap labour, poor labour standards, poor safety standards and environmentally shoddy goods. If European partners, such as the Germans and the Dutch, can compete in global markets with high European standards, why do some Government Members claim that Britain cannot do so? The Opposition understand that the real agenda on certain Government Benches is not only to bring powers back, but to take rights away.
The Government’s approach threatens the directives on parental leave and agency workers and could mean that they no longer apply in the UK. On the working time directive, it is right that we have the opt-out negotiated by the last Labour Government, but what is the Government’s position? They cannot tell us whether they oppose every aspect of the working time directive. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will nod or shake his head. Does he support the maintenance of four weeks’ paid holiday entitlement?
Mr Redwood
Are there any powers or changes that the EU is currently seeking or likely to seek in the future that the right hon. Gentleman’s party would regard as unacceptable?
Mr Alexander
First, that would be a matter for negotiation, and secondly the changes we can envisage to the eurozone in particular do not involve significant additional transfers of powers from the UK to the EU. Indeed, as we heard at length from the Foreign Secretary, if there were a significant transfer of power in the future, it would trigger the referendum lock legislated for in this Parliament. I hope that that offers some comfort to the right hon. Gentleman that, in any circumstances, if there were a significant transfer of power, the referendum lock would be considered. Frankly, however, it is far from clear that the changes envisaged at the moment—on the deepening of the eurozone—would involve any significant transfer of sovereignty from the UK to Brussels.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I am reluctant to interrupt my right hon. Friend, because he is making such salient points, but obviously one of the meat-eaters on the Government Benches wanted to interrupt him. My right hon. Friend’s analysis should have been done by the Foreign Secretary. Is it not a matter of deep sadness that the Foreign Secretary, who knows about Europe and its significance to this country, has been driven into a corner by the ultra-right in his party? Is it not time he stood up to them, as we would, and challenged them over their idea of breaking away from Europe and bringing down the nation?
Mr Alexander
I yield to no one in my admiration for the Foreign Secretary, but he is in a difficult position: he is trading on his past Euroscepticism. In order to maintain his position with his Back Benchers, he has to effect the same persona that suggested we had nine days left to save the pound about 4,000 days ago. He is an intelligent man, however, and he has learned in office that Britain’s interests are served by being part of the EU. He cannot be too explicit about the changes he wants to see, however, because it would compromise the support on his own Back Benches. Nevertheless, I fully endorse my hon. Friend’s point; the right hon. Gentleman has learned in office, and that is why his points about Britain standing taller in the world as part of the EU are probably heartfelt.
Mr Alexander
We were clear during the passage of the Lisbon treaty that there should be an enhanced role for national Parliaments—indeed, in my speech last week, I contemplated whether we could strengthen the yellow card procedure with a red card procedure. I see a greater role for national Parliaments being contemplated in the future, therefore; it is certainly one of the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary might be minded to articulate, if he felt able to be explicit, but alas he has taken a Trappist vow of silence.
The debate about Britain’s place in Europe, for all the importance of talking about the economy, stability and jobs and growth, is about more than economics and labour markets. Fundamentally, it is about the kind of country we are and the kind we aspire to be. In a century that many have taken to calling the Asian century, the Labour party is clear that the case for EU membership remains strong. Indeed, if the mechanisms for co-ordinating approaches at EU level did not exist, there would be significant calls for them to be created in today’s world.
Over the past 50 years, the case for Britain’s place in Europe has been based on its ability to deliver peace and prosperity. Today, the EU is also an indispensible vehicle and instrument for amplifying our power. That is certainly true economically, but it is also true in trade. We have discussed today the EU free trade agreement. Is it not ironic that the Prime Minister’s No. 1 ambition for his presidency of the G8 this year is an EU-US free trade area? What could more eloquently speak to the fact that, in any of these international organisations, we stand taller and speak with a louder voice as part of the EU than we would outside it?
Whether in economics, trade, defence, foreign policy or the global challenges around development and climate change, Britain’s interests are strengthened by being part of the EU. It gives us a weight collectively that on our own we would lack. It is not a matter of outdated sentiment or even of party ideology; it is a matter of simple arithmetic. In an age when countries are the size of continents, our membership gives us access to, and influence over, the world’s biggest trading bloc, prising open new frontiers that would otherwise be unreachable by the UK. In an age of common threats that permeate national borders, membership gives us the power of collective action and pooled resources.
For the past 50 years, Britain’s foreign policy has rested on two key pillars—a leading role in Europe and a powerful partnership with the US. Let us be honest: both those foundations are at risk, with a US Administration increasingly pivoting towards Asia, and an EU in which the UK could potentially marginalise its future role. It is a time when Britain must navigate a careful course, and the priority must be to make Britain a leading force within Europe as part of an increasingly multi-polar world. Rather than seeing power and decision making contracting to the G2, in a world where all the decisions are taken in Washington or Beijing, Europe, with Britain leading within it, can work to build a G3 world. Instead of focusing on a future agenda for Europe, the Prime Minister has sadly chosen to push a familiar but vague agenda: to bring back powers and roll back protections. At a time when the rest of Europe is preoccupied with future reforms on the big questions—about currency, continued pacification of the European neighbourhood and the projection of European power globally—the British Government have chosen to focus their efforts on looking back rather than looking ahead.
Even after the much delayed speech last week, the truth remains that—as we have seen again today—on the issue of Britain’s membership of the European Union, the gap between the minimum that Conservative Back Benchers will accept and the maximum that the EU can deliver remains unbridgeable. With a divided Government—and, indeed, a divided Conservative party —it therefore falls to Labour to make the hard-headed, patriotic case, founded on the national interest, both for Britain in Europe and for change in Europe, and that is what we will do.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House that there is a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, with immediate effect.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
Time does not permit me to analyse the shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech, except to say that I think that he has misjudged the mood not just of the House, but of the whole country.
A lot can change in a day in politics. The Prime Minister’s EU speech, given in his capacity as leader of the Conservative party, was a landmark speech that has resonated far and wide. It was probably the most cogent argument for the European Union that most of us have heard in recent times. Of course it will have its critics, but leadership always does. The House should be in no doubt: this was leadership not just of Britain, but of Europe as a whole. Some of Britain’s fiercest critics, on both sides of the in/out fence, are now congratulating the Prime Minister on leading the agenda.
Just a few weeks ago, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs had what it thought was a private meeting in Berlin with the political editor of Die Welt—a leading German newspaper. A few days later, we were slightly surprised to find a full account of the meeting in The Times, under the headline “Gone is the time when David Cameron had new ideas for Europe”, in which that journalist said:
“Turkey is becoming more relevant to discussions on the future of Europe than Britain.”
However, after last week’s speech, the same journalist wrote:
“Mr Cameron has staked out an excellent position…Britain is setting the European agenda.”
German journalists have much in common with their British counterparts.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
Given what my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has just said and having reflected on the shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech, does he share my surprise that the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to put what he clearly believes is a compelling argument for Britain’s place in a reformed Europe to the British people?
Richard Ottaway
I quite agree. My hon. Friend makes her point well.
For far too long, the debate about the EU has been polarised. Now we have a course of action that recognises British Eurosceptism, but keeps us at the table using our influence. Of course Britain continues to have its detractors. The French Foreign Minister said:
“You join the football club, but once you are in, you cannot say, ‘Let’s play rugby’”,
but he misses the point. We are not saying that we want to do a Webb Ellis, picking up the ball and running with it; we are simply asking whether the offside rule is working properly. Also, we have allies. Like us, the Dutch want to reform the EU. They are shortly to produce a report on the repatriation of powers—a document that has a familiar ring to it. Reform will be tough, but it is necessary. There is now a widespread recognition that the EU is not working as it should. That was admitted in an excellent piece in The Times today by Guido Westerwelle, the German Foreign Minister. He clearly expresses his support for reform across the board, arguing that it should be on an EU-wide basis. I agree.
Mr Redwood
Is not the problem that we thought we were joining a football club and now there is mandatory synchronised swimming?
Richard Ottaway
Yes, but my point is that it is an exaggeration to say that we are trying to play a different sport. We are trying to take a fresh approach. It is the multi-tiered approach that I think is most likely to win the day.
Richard Ottaway
I will not give way. I have had my two shots, and I do not get a third.
Clearly, we need different arrangements for those countries in the euro, those that are out and those in transition—a group that I suspect will be around for a long time. Call it multi-tiered or an inner and outer group, or whatever, but we have long been at the point where a one-size-fits-all approach is over, and Europe knows it.
The case for sticking with the EU hinges on three main plus points—trade, the single market and diplomacy—and another often forgotten aspect: peace and security. Britain’s trade with the EU is a major success story. Almost half the UK’s exports go to the EU and 51% of imports come from the EU. We export more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China put together. Global success is to be found in single markets. Let us look at the economies of the USA, China, Brazil and India—all single markets with a common currency and common language. The EU single market—a British invention of Margaret Thatcher—has significantly increased EU prosperity since its inception in 1987. We need to be part of it.
Then there is the diplomatic clout that membership of the EU brings. In trade, combating crime and terror, fighting fundamentalism, liberating markets and addressing climate change, we have a strong voice at the table. Within the EU, the UK, together with France, leads Europe’s defence policy. I am proud that our intervention in Mali shows that, when the going gets rough, Europe can count on Britain to step up to the mark.
Some people have called for us to have the same status as Norway, as a member of the European economic area. I do not accept this. If it means stepping to one side and letting others dictate the terms of trade, that is not gaining sovereignty but losing it. We have to be difficult, but stay in.
It is interesting to reflect on Mrs Thatcher’s defining Bruges speech of 1988, in which she rejected the centralised, unaccountable, federal Europe of Jacques Delors. She said:
“The European Community…must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all its members.”
Far more importantly, she went on to say:
“Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”
I could not put it better myself. Indeed, her words seem rather tame compared with some of the language that we hear today. But the peace dividend that Europe brings still remains uppermost in my mind.
At last week’s Chatham House seminar, the French commentator pointed out that between 1870 and the second world war, France and Germany fought each other three times. In the same period, Britain fought two devastating world wars. In the period since, we have lived in peace. I was born in May 1945, as Europe lay in smouldering ruins. I am part of a generation that has rebuilt that Europe. I have enjoyed a life of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Now is not the time to jeopardise all that we have achieved. The stakes are high, but I believe that we can reach a new agreement with our European partners, and I believe that the people of Britain will back it.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to speak in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I want to focus on the important impact that the European Union has on growth, investment and jobs in the north-east of England and my constituency of Sunderland Central. I was extremely concerned last week to hear the Prime Minister stating his support for an in/out referendum on our membership of the European Union. His announcement weakens our negotiating position and creates uncertainty in the markets and in industry, which will impede investment and thus jobs and growth. The timing of his announcement could not be worse. Last month in my constituency there were just under 4,000 people unemployed, 34% of whom had been unemployed for over 12 months. As the threat of a triple-dip recession looms large over our country, the Government’s priority should be ensuring stability, investment and growth.
This is a crucial time for areas such as Sunderland, yet with his speech the Prime Minister is creating volatility and undermining investment in the region. His announcement will mean years of economic uncertainty, deterring potential investors and destabilising the vital economic recovery that is critical for areas such as mine. The Prime Minister’s focus should, and must, be on our economy, rather than on pandering to his Back Benchers.
Nissan is a great success story for Sunderland. The plant there employs almost 7,000 people, and for every person directly employed by the company, another four are employed throughout the UK. The Sunderland plant is the company’s most productive factory in Europe. Nissan has invested a huge amount in Sunderland: some £3.6 billion since 1984. Only in December, it committed to building another car at the Sunderland plant, involving £250 million of extra investment and creating 280 new jobs. I worry about whether a multinational company such as Nissan would have made the same decision if the future of the UK’s trade relationship with the EU looked set to change.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Lady remember all the forecasts that her constituency would lose all that investment if we did not join the euro? We did not join the euro, and Nissan has put more in.
Julie Elliott
That is not the same point. We are not discussing the euro. We are discussing something far more fundamental to our country: the continuation of our membership of the EU.
The business stability needed to invest in car manufacturing is about long-term business planning. How can a company such as Nissan make long-term assessments of where to base its operation when access to its major market is put at risk by the threat of withdrawal from that market? Pulling out of the EU could result in a 10% tariff on car imports into the EU market, which would severely damage the UK car manufacturing industry and might prompt it to relocate. Across the north-east, 140,000 jobs depend on EU trade, of which more than 60,000 in Tyne and Wear and more than 8,000 in the city of Sunderland are EU-dependent. It would be misleading to suggest that all those jobs would disappear overnight if Britain withdrew from the European Union, but many of them would be lost over time, because the area would be at a competitive disadvantage.
In addition to jobs supported directly by the single market, there has been a substantial amount of investment in the north-east from structural funds to support employment and job creation. Between 2007 and 2013, £196 million was invested in the north-east through the European social fund to promote skills and employment, as well as €375 million through the European regional development fund to support regional competitiveness. Our involvement in the EU has delivered proven jobs and growth. That is something that we should be proud of and that we should protect.
Let us not forget the benefits that our EU membership has brought to British workers. Our membership has introduced employment rights, through the working time directive and other measures. The directive has delivered the right to at least one day off a week, the right to four weeks’ paid holiday a year, the right not to work more than 48 hours a week if a person does not wish to do so, and the right to a 20-minute break if they work more than six hours. Before I came to the House, I worked for almost 20 years negotiating with employers on behalf of the members I represented. I learned that we get the best deals when we negotiate from a position of strength. That is a simple principle, but it is an important one.
The Prime Minister’s announcement has seriously weakened the UK’s bargaining position. I agree that the European Union requires some reforms, but the Prime Minister cannot demand reforms while he is hovering in the doorway and threatening departure. Our EU neighbours will not be blackmailed, and as their allies and friends, we should not attempt to do that to them. When Labour was in government, we were able to negotiate flexibilities in the Lisbon treaty by working with our fellow member states and assuring them that our future lay in the Union.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants to remain in the EU, but with this announcement he is leading us even closer to the exit. This uncertainty for businesses, for markets and for investment opportunities will be extremely damaging for our country and for regions such as mine that rely, to an extent, on the EU for jobs and growth. His policy of wait and see is just not good enough; it is a wait that we simply cannot afford.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The ultimate question that lies at the heart of the five principles that the Prime Minister set out in his speech is about our democracy, because everything ultimately depends on the fact that we agreed, in the European Communities Act 1972, on a voluntary basis, to accept the legislation that came out of the Council of Ministers when it made decisions. Those decisions are increasingly made by qualified majority vote now.
The 1971 White Paper—the basis on which the legislation went through, albeit by only six votes—categorically stated that there would be no erosion of British sovereignty in this House, and that it was vital that we retained the veto, not only in our national interest but in the interests of the European Community as a whole. That remains fundamental because, in a democratic nation faced with the pressures for federalism that people are seeking to impose from outside, it has to be right that the Prime Minister has taken the decision to challenge the nature of the structure of the European Union. He went to the heart of the issue when he rejected the notion of ever-closer union, and I commend him for that. I also believe profoundly that we must bring this programme forward rather than waiting until 2017. For reasons of uncertainty, of practicality and of principle, we should have a decision during this Parliament, not during the next one.
Mr Cash
I will make one further point before I give way.
I have just come back from Dublin, where, in my capacity as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I met the other 27 national chairmen. There was no doubt whatever in the statement made by the chairman of the Bundestag’s European affairs committee that, as far as he and Germany were concerned, delay was unacceptable. We also know, from listening to him and to the German ambassador, that there will be no cherry-picking and no negotiations of the kind that are being contemplated. The French take a similar view; I have had meetings with them, too. The reality is, therefore, that there is a serious requirement to make the decisions earlier rather than later.
Mr Redwood
I quite agree with my hon. Friend’s central point. Does he agree that the reason that we have this tragedy in Britain over our relationship with Europe is that more than 100 vetoes in important policy areas were given away at Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, against the wishes of the loyal Opposition in this House and probably against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people, who were never consulted about the way in which their democracy was taken away and trashed?
Mr Cash
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will add another point. The recent analysis by VoteWatch Europe, which has been through every decision taken by the Council of Ministers in the past three years, demonstrates that in 91.7% of votes taken in that forum, the UK Government—under the aegis of UKRep and through the Council of Ministers itself—have voted in favour of the proposals in question. That is effectively a forced consensus, because we have only 8% of the votes in the Council of Ministers. When I hear Ministers and others talking about the degree of influence that we exercise in relation to qualified majority voting, I say yes, we have to have alliances, but we know that if others are not going to be in alliance with us, we will not get the kind of result that the British people deserve.
Ultimately, this is about one fundamental question. It is not just about the word “democracy”; it is about democracy in action and its impact on the daily lives of the people of this country. The reality is that someone goes into the ballot station, votes in secret and casts his or her vote based on a manifesto in which they are told what the party in question is offering them in a general election; that is what democracy is all about. When they cast their vote, they expect the legislation to follow what they have been promised. The reality is that, under this system, the whole of Europe is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, with riots, unemployment and the rise of the far right. Let us face it: we have to get real. The fact is that it is not working. That is why our debate is so important.
Michael Connarty
I am grateful to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. I have always wanted to ask him this question, so that he can put his answer on the record rather than provide it in a private conversation with me. Is he likely to campaign to come out of the European Union and, if so, on what terms? I want to know, and I think the Foreign Secretary wants to know, on what basis the hon. Gentleman will campaign and vote to come out of the European Union.
Mr Cash
I am grateful for that intervention for a very good reason. One of the reasons why I believe it is right for the Prime Minister to insist on the “in or out” question is that now, after all the agonising over all these years—including the Maastricht rebellion, for example, which I was able to participate in and lead at the time—all these things have culminated in this referendum. We have fought for a referendum. Precisely because the question is “in or out?”, it raises the question of the European Communities Act 1972 and whether the British people, having voted in the ballot box, should be expected to receive legislation that comes automatically into law when they might not in fact agree with it. That is the problem: that is why I believe we must have the right question, but it must also be at the right time. As far as I am concerned, if that democratic principle is not upheld, I will vote to come out, because the democratic principle is the fundamental issue for the British people, many of whom fought and died for this country.
I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) refer to the fact that he was born in May 1945. I was born on 10 May 1940. That was the day on which Churchill became Prime Minister, and it was over the question of whether or not Britain would be able to govern itself—and much more besides. I follow the line Churchill took about being “associated but not absorbed” with Europe. That is the fundamental question.
In addition, on the economic front, let me make this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and I wrote a pamphlet about a positive way forward for the single market. We believe that there is a positive way forward for Europe, but that what is happening at the moment is that Europe is creating instability by this concentration on a compression chamber when there are all these diverse countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said, “one size fits all” does not work. We must have an association of nation states. I appreciate that that challenges the centralisation that has gone on for so long in Europe, and I appreciate that it challenges the democratic deficit. I appreciate, too, if I may say so, that this would increase trade, increase opportunities and help to liberalise the rest of the world in the global marketplace. All these things have to be examined, as we move forward in the debate that has now started.
Given the dysfunctionality of the European Union, the determination to repudiate the idea that we should have a referendum is astonishing. The French had two referendums—I took part in both of them in France—and we did incredibly well in Denmark, too, where there were several referendums. There was a referendum in Ireland and in Holland. Who on earth are these people to turn round to us in this country and say, “We can have referendums, but you can’t”? It is beyond belief.
Wayne David
Just so we can be absolutely clear, when would the hon. Gentleman like to see the referendum in this country being held?
Mr Cash
I would like to see it before the European elections. I believe that that is where the focus on the European question will be at its best. Then we can expose the position of the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Labour Opposition at the same time. The reality is that the British people deserve to have that vote.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
“The eurozone is clearly in crisis, and to pile on that uncertainty the further uncertainty of a referendum on leaving the European Union, when half the foreign direct investment into Britain comes from the rest of the European Union, and half our exports go out to the rest of the European Union, would not be a responsible action for Her Majesty’s Government to take.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 55.]
Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Foreign Secretary in a debate on Europe in October 2011. What has happened since then to change Her Majesty’s Government’s mind?
Change in the Government’s mindset was accelerated on that evening at the end of that debate because 81 Conservative Members of Parliament voted against their own party. That created the kind of uncertainty with which the Prime Minister cannot live—uncertainty in his own position and uncertainty in his ability to keep his leadership in place and his party together. That kind of uncertainty has taken priority over any concerns about the uncertainty over the economy that the Foreign Secretary mentioned in his speech a couple of years ago.
Party management over national interest is now the Prime Minister’s priority, because he knows that there are three parties forming the coalition: the Lib Dems, the Conservatives and the Eurosceptic wing of his own party. We end up with a commitment to a referendum in four or five years’ time. We do not know what the question will be because we do not know what the Prime Minister will be able to renegotiate with the EU.
Nick de Bois
Will the hon. Gentleman set the record straight, since his Front-Bench team still leave me confused? Will he let his constituents know: does he or does he not support giving the British people a choice in a referendum?
Phil Wilson
As I carry on, the hon. Gentleman will find out exactly what my position is; I will answer his question in due course.
With the Prime Minister being the arch-negotiator he is, he has decided to put in the next Conservative manifesto the terms he will be seeking, thus revealing to the entire world his negotiating position before the negotiations actually start. The Prime Minister has said that he will put his heart and soul into achieving a yes vote to stay in the EU, but will he still do that if he does not achieve what he has laid out in that Conservative manifesto at the next election? Will he then push for a no vote, or will there be an arbitrary threshold that says the Prime Minister will push for a yes vote only if he achieves 80% of what he wants, or 60% or 20% or whatever? All this because the Prime Minister faces the uncertainty of what his Back Benchers will do on the EU. It has become a kind of fetish that skews reality and it will not be sated until we leave the EU—without any regard to the consequences for the UK.
The Prime Minister believes his speech will soothe his truculent Back Benchers, but I’ve got news for him: his Back Benchers can see the EU exit door ajar, and they will push and push at that door until it is fully open and they can march through.
Phil Wilson
I do not have much more to say, but I need to cover the earlier point and I know this debate is oversubscribed.
We are left with a Prime Minister whose renegotiating position is “If I can’t get what I want; I’ll stop playing and take my ball home”. If he does that, he will be isolated in his negotiations. While this is being played out, the economic uncertainty faced by millions of families up and down the country continues. About 3.5 million jobs rely on the EU, 6,500 of them in Sedgefield, 28,000 in County Durham and 141,000 in the north-east. Companies such as Nissan are big exporters to Europe.
Phil Wilson
I want to continue.
Hitachi Rail Europe is to build a train-building factory in Newton Aycliffe. It is called “Hitachi Rail Europe” for a reason: it wants to export trains and rolling stock to Europe. I would have thought that it wanted not uncertainty but clarity going forward.
No party is opposed to the principle of a referendum, but I do not believe we should undermine British investment and British jobs for years to come just to satisfy the needs of the Tory party. Offering a referendum in five years’ time when we do not know the question, do not know the result of negotiations and do not know whether those negotiations will be completed in that time is like a general telling his troops “We will launch a surprise attack in five years, but we do not know where and we do not know when.”
Uncertainty is the enemy of investment. I do not believe that this is right, at a time when the economy may fall into a third recession in two and a half years. The Government’s position will not lead to a Great Britain if we continue in this way; indeed, we are going down the road towards achieving nothing more than a little Britain.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It was Winston Churchill who said that we should learn to trust the people. For far too long, the British people have believed that European matters are decided by a cosy political elite from which they feel completely excluded.
Let me say to Labour and Liberal Members that they have nothing to fear from putting their arguments to the British people. Listening to some of the speeches made by Labour Members today, I wondered whether they lived in the same country as I do. I hear what the British people are saying, and they have said to us regularly, for a very long time, that they want their say on European matters.
I have enormous trust in the good sense and wisdom of the British people, and in their ability to know what is in the British national interest. Conservative Members are proud to be sending this question back to the people, because we think that the people are grown up enough, wise enough and sensible enough to make a decision that is in the British national interest.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a matter of fact that every increase in our integration with Europe has come about under a Conservative Government. We joined under a Conservative Government, and we signed the Single European Act under Margaret Thatcher. What has changed in the Conservative party in terms of giving the people a say, which it clearly has not done in the past? The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Single European Act was the key piece of legislation that took powers away from Britain and transferred them to Brussels.
Andrew Selous
Treaty signing took place under a Labour Government. It was a Labour Government who promised the British people a referendum on the constitution—as did the Liberal Democrats—but transformed it into the Lisbon treaty, which they signed into law before the general election, thus denying the British public a choice. The then Conservative Opposition were drawing up legislation to offer the people a referendum, which could have taken place had the Lisbon treaty not been signed into law before the election. Conservative Members have been consistent in wanting to allow the British people to have their say on these matters.
We believe that the changes the Government want to see in Europe are in the United Kingdom’s interests, but—and this is vital—we also believe that they are in the interests of the European Union. We should bear it in mind that 47% of our trade is with the European Union, and that the ability to trade with a market of 500 million people, with a GDP of £11 trillion, is not an insignificant matter.
Car manufacturers are free from paying tariffs of £900 million because we are in the European Union. Every Range Rover that we exported to the EU would carry a tariff of £6,000 if we were outside it. One in 10 jobs—3.5 million—depend on trade with the European Union. Of course those jobs would not disappear completely if we left, but the fact remains that there are significant economic interests of which we need to be very mindful. The United Kingdom is the largest recipient of foreign investment in the European Union, and the Foreign Office believes that in 2011-12 about 111,000 jobs were either created or safeguarded because of investment in this country.
We have already heard about the Chinese, American, Japanese and Indian car manufacturers that have been moving to the United Kingdom. We also know from an analysis of 147 decisions made by finance firms that 47% of those firms said that they came here because of access to the European market. It is beyond question that half our trade is with Europe, and we recognise that that trade is vital for the UK economy.
Of course the Government are rightly determined to increase our trade with the growing markets in Asia, Africa and South America, and we have experienced some success. So far we have increased our trade with India by a third, and our trade with China by a fifth. The EU South Korean free trade agreement that we negotiated has already increased our trade with South Korea by 32%. Dorset Cereals, for instance, has experienced a sixfold increase in its trade with that country. We need to put all those developments on the record, so that the British people can make a dispassionate decision about what is in the British national interest.
The Vauxhall van factory is in Luton, very close to my constituency, and some of my constituents work there. The factory recently secured a 12-year contract with Renault to extend production of the Vivaro van. I do not believe that General Motors would have given it that contract if the United Kingdom had been outside the European Union. There are other van factories in Europe to which it could have given the business.
That is the positive side of the argument, and people need to hear it, but we also need to recognise that European regulation is hurting British business. For instance, a firm in Leighton Buzzard called ProEconomy, which does highly effective work in eradicating legionella throughout hospitals in the United Kingdom, recently experienced enormous difficulty in obtaining European Union authorisation and approval for copper and silver ionisation. The science is perfectly safe and the Health and Safety Executive is entirely happy with it, but because of the cost of obtaining EU approval and the length of time that it has taken, ProEconomy, along with a similar firm in High Wycombe, was almost put out of business. I am very grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), for the action that he has taken to help those firms.
That is one example of European Union interference going too far and causing difficulties to firms. Another involves a small haulier in Leighton Buzzard who used to transport two vehicles on his trailer up and down the country, but who has been put out of business because of a transport regulation that this country did not want and the Department for Transport opposed.
I have raised both those issues with my right hon. Friend Minister for Europe, and I am grateful for his help, but I wanted to put them on the record to demonstrate that we need a balance. We must realise that there are instances in which we should say to Europe, “You are hurting business, not helping it. Your regulation is heavy-handed, and it is causing us difficulties.”
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is clearly raising some serious points, but the question that will be posed by the Prime Minister in the referendum is an in/out question. If the hon. Gentleman failed to secure change in regard to any of the issues that he has listed, would that lead him to vote no?
Andrew Selous
What I have been saying—I hope that the House has followed the logic of my argument— is that of course there are powerful reasons for our membership of the European Union which are connected with trade, jobs and investment, but there are also some negatives, and there is a massive democratic deficit about which the British people are speaking very loudly to their elected representatives.
We have embarked on the beginning of a process. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is conducting a “balance of competencies” review, a cost-benefit analysis which I think could have been given a slightly snappier title, but which is examining all the areas of EU business with the United Kingdom. I have tried to set out the economic case. I have spoken positively about jobs in my constituency, and I have also spoken about some European Union regulation that is harmful to business in my constituency.
I want the best possible deal for the United Kingdom, but also for Europe. I want us to be able to compete with Asia, Africa and the growing markets in the middle east and South America, which are forging ahead in a more competitive manner, and are leaving European business behind. We are starting out with a series of negotiations: we are starting out by trying to put right things that the Government, and many of our constituents, believe are wrong.
I end my remarks by returning to what I said at the beginning. I say this to Labour Members: “I understand your concerns, but you must have confidence in the British people. Trust your constituents.” They are absolutely capable of deciding what is in the British national interest, and they are saying to us very loudly and clearly that they are fed up with being excluded from this debate, whether by Labour or Conservative Governments. They want their say, and they are entitled to it, and I am proud and pleased that under my party and this Government they will be offered that choice.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister’s much anticipated and delayed Europe speech of last week, announcing an in/out referendum after the next election, was an unnecessary gamble. It was a Machiavellian gesture, seeking to placate the increasingly frustrated Tory Back Benchers, as the Front-Bench team tries to manage party disquiet over Europe and the realities of coalition government. At best, it is a diversion and kicks Europe into the long grass; at worst, it will undermine investment into the UK, creating uncertainty and weakening our relationships with other EU member states. That is not a desirable place for the Government to be in if they are serious about renegotiating competences.
What we need is a clear vision and policy on the UK’s role in Europe and what sort of Europe the UK should be fully involved in. In general, I believe it is the role of politicians to make informed judgments and generate policies that are in the interests of our constituents and the general public, and I am therefore generally opposed to the use of referendums, except on strictly constitutional issues.
Mark Hendrick
The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I am about to say.
It is conceivable that any Government, either Labour or Conservative, would be drawn into negotiating a new treaty some time after the next general election in 2015. There may well be an inter-governmental conference at that time, especially given the state of the eurozone, and it may be necessary to have an agreement on fiscal rules, in particular between Germany and France, written into a treaty. Such a treaty would therefore be likely to come after any IGC. Given our experience in respect of the Lisbon treaty and the clamour from the popular media and the general public to hold a referendum, I believe it would be difficult for any political party to go into that election without committing to a referendum if there is to be treaty change.
The Opposition clearly accept the possibility of a referendum, given our commitment not to repeal the referendum lock legislation, which will trigger a referendum in the case of any attempt to transfer powers from the UK to the European Union or, indeed, to move to a position of enhanced co-operation in any one of a number of areas. I welcome the fact that we have not ruled out the possibility of having a referendum as part of our policy mix for the next election. Given that the Government have not made clear what their negotiating positions will be, and on what issues they would wish to push in the unlikely event of a Conservative victory at the next general election, our position is sustainable. It is a reasonable, measured response to an unreasonable movement in the Conservative-led Government’s policy.
I envisage the EU developing in such a way that there will be a hard core of countries that form the eurozone and an outer layer of countries, some of which will want to go into the eurozone and others, like the UK, that do not. Talking about the repatriation of powers to the UK does not serve the interests of people in the UK, as co-operation in Europe is more beneficial. Therefore, a future Labour Government should look at having powers of enhanced co-operation in new areas, so that an EU of 27 states can progress without the deadlock that the need for unanimity can bring. We should also look at how we might apply that to the outer layer of countries, one of which would be Britain, so that those countries that wish to go ahead with initiatives could do so without being held back by others.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if the Tories get their way, the electorate will be faced with a loaded question? There will not be a status quo option on the referendum ballot paper; instead, the choice will be between less Europe and no Europe.
Mark Hendrick
In the unlikely event of the Conservatives winning the next general election, it is not clear that they would succeed in getting any of their shopping list of demands. They will want change in much of the social legislation. The working time directive has been mentioned, as have holiday pay and health and safety at work, and they might also wish to focus on measures such as the European arrest warrant and some justice and home affairs issues. There will be a long shopping list to placate Tory Back Benchers, therefore, but if, by some chance, the Tories win the next election, there will be huge disappointment. The situation will be the same as the Labour party faced under Harold Wilson in the 1970s: there will be a huge split in the Conservative party, leading to its being out of office for a long time—after all, it took Labour 18 years to be re-elected to office following that split in our party.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman think it was more damaging to run out of money and go to the International Monetary Fund or to offer people a referendum, as that Labour 1970s Government did?
Mark Hendrick
The right hon. Gentleman knows that none of the money offered by the IMF was used by that Labour Government. It was there as a back-up.
The Conservatives do not want a social Europe, with working time protection, holiday rights and health and safety regulation. The single market is about the free movement of goods, capital, services and labour. The right of workers to move around freely in the European Union is as important as the rights of capital, goods and services to do so. I have always supported the free movement of people whose countries are members of the EU. With the imminent accession of Romania and Bulgaria, we should seek to extend full rights to workers and not object to their having equal freedoms to other Europeans. Some 50% of the Polish people who originally moved to the UK following their country’s accession have now returned, because of the economic condition of our country under the current Government. The rest are making a valuable contribution to the British economy.
We know that every country’s economic fortunes are cyclical. Our economy is bad at present, in part because of the irresponsible policies of the current Government, but it will get better at some time in the future. Therefore, it is important that we continue to take workers from other countries; after all, 2 million Britons work elsewhere in the EU.
Mike Gapes
My hon. Friend mentioned people returning to Poland. In part, that is because, as a consequence of Poland’s membership of the EU, its economy has been growing much faster than ours.
Mark Hendrick
That is right. Many Poles are returning to Poland with money in their pockets and are growing businesses there. The Poles will be customers for many goods and services produced in this country, so these events are mutually beneficial; there is not one-way traffic in respect of who benefits.
The European Union is not simply a one-way transfer of sovereign powers; it is about pooling sovereignty, so the sovereignty that resides centrally is worth more than the sum of the constituent parts. That gives the European Union power in what is a global economy, so we can ensure that we get the best deals in trade and can project our influence in a world increasingly dominated by economic powerhouses such as the United States and China.
As 50% of our trade is with the EU, exiting the single market would have devastating consequences for our economy. In other areas, such as justice and home affairs, we have had great success; the European arrest warrant is one example of that. When the current Government or a future Government set out their shopping list for renegotiating competences and our relationship with Europe, Labour Members need to put our case for a social Europe and a Europe of security, where justice and home affairs measures play a crucial role in ensuring international co-operation to fight common enemies, such as drug trafficking and terrorism.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary says this is about arithmetic. That is true, but it is about much more than that. It is about geography, too—after all, Britain is in Europe—and it is about culture and history, because we are a European nation. Let us play our role in strengthening a united Europe for all the peoples of Europe.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I welcome this debate, allowing us to reflect on the Prime Minister’s speech of last week. I also welcome not only what he said, but the considered and direct way in which he said it. He is to be congratulated on his straight and direct approach. Politicians must be clear; they are the architects of their own downfall when they are not. Whatever people’s view of the content of that speech, there can be little ambiguity regarding the Government’s approach to Europe in the future. For too long there has been a tendency for politicians to hedge with supposedly clever words, enabling a later get-out, almost as though they wish to be all things to all men. By golly, we had a wonderful example of that today from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
Albert Owen
I do not think the Prime Minister could have been any clearer when he said he was going to give a cast-iron guarantee on the Lisbon treaty—and he failed to do so. Was the hon. Gentleman alluding to the Prime Minister?
Mr Binley
In keeping with a tradition first established by Labour—so we will not go too deeply into that question.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister rejected the ploy of not straight-talking last week, and spoke directly to the British people in terms they could understand. He also dealt plainly with the “R” word, and he was right to do so.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister has been straight-talking, but he will not say what the red lines are in the negotiations and how he will handle them. He also will not give a commitment on how he will vote in a referendum if he does not get what he actually wants. What is straight about that? Is it just a political fudge for the Back Benchers in the Tory party?
Mr Binley
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been involved in business negotiations. Business people start by saying they will negotiate, then think about how they will negotiate, and then undertake those negotiations. That process is occurring at this very moment, I hope. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with my answer, and that I can make some progress.
The starting point for this debate, on which almost everybody is agreed, is that the present arrangements are going to have to change. The pressures within the eurozone will require a greater convergence than the current sticking-plaster approach allows. Increased integration among eurozone member states will require a new settlement, and that will include a new settlement for those outside the zone, too.
It may not be necessary to create a new treaty, although I would put money on the fact that the Germans will want one, but another quick political “fix” is no way to put right the fundamental issues that have confronted the single currency. There may be a need for a more centralised fiscal eurozone, and that means there is no place for Britain. It means at least a two-tier Europe, and that could raise its head before the next election. We need to be doing the contingency work now, to be prepared for that possible outcome. I assume that such contingency work is under way, but I look appealingly to the Minister for Europe to assure us on that point.
When Europe looks to achieve that new settlement, it is right that we should present a positive vision for our own future. The Prime Minister has outlined the principles which will underpin the approach to those discussions, and the outcome of the negotiations will determine his approach to the referendum—which, incidentally, I quite look forward to. This debate is an opportunity for the House to provide some further detail on what we want the Prime Minister to achieve in those deliberations.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason the Prime Minister is right to set out the referendum commitment is that no attempt to renegotiate will be taken seriously unless that sanction is clearly in place?
Mr Binley
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and, of course, he is absolutely right. One clearly does not enter into renegotiating a relationship without giving a bottom line. That seems to me to be eminently sensible. [Interruption.] I again point out to Opposition Members who know so little about business that it is a business practice.
It is right to attempt to create a new settlement, and I share the Prime Minister’s view that the overriding purpose of the European Union now is to secure prosperity. I have heard a lot about Nissan. Sadly, Nissan got it wrong. It built motor cars for the European Union, and what has happened to the European market? That is one of the problems we face when we cannot trade globally, and that is why we want to create a new situation, allowing us to talk to the wider trading world.
The shift of economic power over the last decade or so has been immense. New consumer markets have emerged in many parts of the world, and Europe’s demographics and regulatory posture are not configured in our favour. One of the most important priorities in these negotiations —I again look appealingly to the Minister—is that they deal mainly with economic and trade matters, because that is where we started with Europe. The fact that we have allowed such discussions to proliferate is one of the problems we face.
I also want to confront those who argue about uncertainty. The eurozone is facing an existential challenge, and unprecedented levels of uncertainty still abound. The relationship between eurozone and non-eurozone member states is in a considerable state of flux. Trends in popular opinion in this country show increasing frustration at the nature of our existing arrangements with the institutions of Europe. Maintaining the status quo without any regard to what needs to change in future will create far greater levels of uncertainty than anything else. In his speech last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged that point. He said that we need to move forward, and I welcome that view.
The Prime Minister was right to state:
“The future shape of Europe is being forged.”
The challenge of a new world of eurozone and non-eurozone member states needs adequately to be addressed —for the sake of both sets of parties. We need to do more to position ourselves to succeed in the global village, with a proactive and helpful approach to global trade.
Today, Europe is not working. The Prime Minister wants to put it right, and to engage the consent—thank the Almighty!—of the British people. If he succeeds, then we will have arrangements that suit our needs and interests, and that serve the wider ambitions of the wider continent. I believe that this will be a compelling message across Europe. I look forward to the Minister’s assurances on the matters I have raised, which are important in this unfolding debate.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) referred on a number of occasions to the UK and not to Britain. I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary, who talks about “Britain, Britain, Britain”, seems to have forgotten that we are part of the United Kingdom. So I thank my right hon. Friend, but that is probably as much as I am going to be thanking him for. I am here to say on behalf, I believe, of many Labour voters, the majority of the British public and the majority of my constituents that what the Prime Minister said about a referendum, our changing relationship with Europe and the need to bring back powers from Europe is absolutely right, and those comments have been welcomed by the country. I am genuinely disappointed that my party is going to take a little bit of time before, inevitably, it comes round to saying that we want a referendum.
Normally, it is just a few of us who put forward the “Eurorealistic” case in such debates, but it is great to see that today quite a number have come along to put forward that view, which I welcome. I remember when there were just a few of us here and we were supporting the Government in putting in place their EU lock. We said it was right that we should be saying that if any more powers were going back to Europe we should have a referendum. I am sorry that Labour Front Benchers were not in favour of that at the time, but I am delighted that we have changed our mind and are now supporting that.
I know that before the European elections my party will without doubt be saying that it wants us to have a referendum, because that is a basic tenet of democracy. We know that the European Union—the Common Market to which we signed up all those years ago—has changed so much. We have seen many changes and the British public never got the chance to say what they thought about them. We had promises from Members on both sides of the House that there would be a referendum, but we never got that referendum.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the major change in our relationship with Europe was the signing of the Single European Act in 1986 by Margaret Thatcher?
Kate Hoey
I perhaps differ in that I do not take that tribal attitude to the matter—I want to do what is best for our country. I do not care who made those decisions; my party made terrible decisions, as did the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats always make terrible decisions on Europe. I do not care who did it—it was wrong. I voted against the Maastricht treaty, as did many of us way back then. We were right in everything we said at that time and everything we said about joining the euro, which of course my Front Benchers did have the right view on, and our Government rightly did not join it.
Let us remember something about the people who are now all doom and gloom about what would happen if we had a referendum, and we did not get enough powers back and voted to come out of the European Union. These people are saying that that would be the most catastrophic thing that could happen, but they are the very same people who were wrong earlier—the Richard Bransons of this world and the other top business leaders who, for their own particular interests, have always been in favour of more integration. They were wrong then and they are wrong now, and the British public know that.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very good point. I wonder whether, like me, she is an aficionado of the Danish political drama “Borgen”. The first episode of the second series just a few weeks ago had that memorable line, “In Brussels, no one can hear you scream.” Does she think that it is not only in Brussels, but in the office of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that nobody can hear the British people scream?
Kate Hoey
The reason I support the lancing of the boil, as many people have described getting this matter out in the open, is that we need to have that debate; we need to be able to listen to people and we need to deal with the arguments from Members on both sides of the House about whether it is crucial that we stay in the EU. It would not be such a terrible thing if we came out of the European Union; we would have a much more confident future looking to Asia and the rest of the world, and looking back to our heritage of the Commonwealth. We could do that, but until now the ordinary person in this country has felt that nobody has listened to them.
We have now begun that debate, and I would like it enshrined in legislation in this Parliament that whatever happens and whoever is in government—I hope that my party will be in power after the election—the referendum will go ahead. The only way we are going to get these powers back—the only way we will get the fisheries policies and the common agricultural policy changed—is by showing that we mean we want the power back and by being confident enough to say to our European allies and our European friends, “We do not like the structure of the European Union. We do not like the way it has shaped up. We want to change it.”
I was reading an article today that I suggest all hon. Members should read, even those who do not normally read the Daily Mail. It was written by Andrew Alexander and it goes through the details of how we got to where we were when we joined the Common Market and how our leaders—Ted Heath, the former Prime Minister, and all our negotiators—gave in, gave in and gave in. What Mr Alexander is saying, as I am, is that we should have the confidence to say, “No, we are not giving in, as they want us almost more than we want them. They need us more than we need them.” If we were able to go out and make that case, we would be able to get a huge amount of those powers back.
If those powers are not going to give us the feeling that we have taken things back into our country and if we were out of the European Union, we would still be able to have all the social policies that we have opted for. We could have our own social chapter—we could do it here. We do not have to be told that we have to do it in Europe. This Chamber is where we should be making the laws for this country and this is where I believe we will ultimately win back that power.
Although it may take just a little longer than I would have liked and we will not get the referendum for a few more years, I am pleased that we have finally reached a position where, between now and then, we will be able to ensure that the case is heard and that people will be listened to. We are actually here to promote democratic views in this country, and people will now be listened to. I believe that my party will go into the next election making sure that it trusts the British people; if we did not trust the British people to have their say on the future of this country and of our relationship with Europe, that would be quite disgraceful. I have confidence that my party will change its view, just as it has changed its view on a number of other issues on Europe.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
First, may I commend the Prime Minister on his fine speech in London last Wednesday? After signing the treaty of accession in 1972, Edward Heath said that the ceremony marked
“an end and a beginning”.
Now, our Prime Minister’s speech must mark the beginning of the end of our current relationship with Europe—it is a promise that, if we win the next election, the British people will decide whether we remain part of a reformed European Union, and it is long overdue. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will reconsider his position. Instead of rubbishing a referendum, he should listen to many of his Back Benchers, who actually welcomed such a measure.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
More than 4,300 people are on jobseeker’s allowance in my constituency, which is 300 more than last year. More jobs than that—some 5,000 in my constituency and 32,000 across Teesside—depend on EU markets, so surely the Government should be concentrating on protecting and promoting jobs, instead of blighting our country with talk of an in/out referendum.
Mr Turner
We should do both—that is the point.
Of course, the Liberals, once again, find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. Their reason for dodging the Lisbon referendum in 2008 was that they were in favour—so they said—of an in/out vote. Their leader said:
“It’s...time for a referendum on the big question. Do we want to be in or out?”
That was their attempt to persuade the public that they wanted a referendum, but by 2010 they had changed their minds yet again. The fact is that they believe in giving more powers to Brussels, rather than fewer. Why are the Liberals afraid of asking the people what they think?
In 1975, we were asked:
“Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?”
I was in the minority, as I voted no. However, I believe that if the British people had known what the Common Market was to become, almost everyone would have voted no.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman be so good as to explain to the House the evidence for the assertion he just made?
Mr Turner
It is only my guess—that is all it is—but it is a guess that I will explain to hon. Members. Since that vote, the European experiment has taken on a life of its own, consistently demanding more and more from the UK. We must reverse that trend or leave. I fully support the measures already taken by this Government in cutting an ever-expanding European budget. Previous Governments have given more and more money that belongs to British taxpayers—and for what in return? Was it to be told that we do not have the right to protect our natural fishing stocks against Spanish trawlers that ignore the rules, or that we must be left vulnerable to unrestricted migration from across Europe, including the expected influx from Bulgaria and Romania at the end of this year? The EU says we can do nothing to stop it. To quote Lord Denning, Europe is
“like a tidal wave bringing down our sea walls and flowing inland over our fields and houses”.
It directly affects the sovereignty of our nation and it is time to turn back the tide.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even in the unlikely event that his party wins the next election, we will still have a period of four years or so of uncertainty when investors will not know whether they should invest in this country?
Mr Turner
Of course it would be better if these things were done more quickly, but we must persuade Europe to change. If it does, okay; we must offer it that chance.
I am never very biddable when it comes to voting for further controls or regulations from Europe; neither are some of my esteemed colleagues on the Government Benches—nor, indeed, are some on the Opposition Benches. We do not vote against the Prime Minister to be awkward, but because we sincerely believe that our relationship with Europe must change and because we know that many of those whom we represent agree with us. If that change does not happen, the people must be asked whether we should be in or out.
Mr Redwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamentally undemocratic point is that if we legislate through Europe, we cannot reverse it on our own, whereas if we legislate in this House and get it wrong, or if the Government were to change, it could be repealed the next day?
Mr Turner
My right hon. Friend has made the exact point that I was about to reach. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister can renegotiate our membership and come to an agreement where we do not have to contribute so much and get so little. We need only one fundamental change in our relationship with Europe: full sovereignty must lie with the United Kingdom. That would mean those of us elected to this House would be truly answerable to our constituents. I know that the Prime Minister will keep his promise on a referendum. If renegotiation does not mean that sovereignty will be returned to Britain’s shores—I am sorry, to the United Kingdom’s shores—a referendum is the only option left. The issue is sovereignty.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is a fine orator but today, apart from quite an amusing bit at the end of his speech, he gave the impression that he would rather have been anywhere other than here. He certainly gave no clue why this issue has driven such passions in politics over a long time.
Let me make one or two fundamental points. There is a fundamental truth: the driving forces of anti-Europeanism are fear and pessimism—fear of meeting the challenges of the 21st century and pessimism about our country’s role in the world. Many Eurosceptics would like us to believe that they are patriots, but their actions tell a different story and show a deep belief that Britain’s future is inevitably one of decline, lowered ambitions and a downgrading of our role in the world. I do not think, based on the same evidence as that used by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), that most British people want to share that pessimism about our future.
When Eurosceptics talk of being free from the drag of co-operation, from shared obligations and from any common purpose, and when they talk about Britain going it alone, they think that that is a proud statement of intent. It is not. It is an admission that they have lost faith in the future of our country. Those who say, “Go it alone” do not believe that we can succeed, as any modern nation must, in collaboration with others. They think that if Britain tries to work with others we must inevitably be losers—that it will always be them bossing us, rather than us influencing them. The debate does not divide Europhiles from Europhobes; it divides pessimists from optimists.
Andrea Leadsom
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Prime Minister’s speech last week was incredibly optimistic about Britain’s positive future at the heart of a newly globally competitive reformed European Union? Surely it was the definition of an optimistic speech.
Mr Denham
None of us is against competitive success, but the Prime Minister gave no clue about how he thought that should be achieved or about which failures to achieve it in the EU would lead him to a no vote. It was all motherhood and apple pie, as my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party said last Wednesday. We can always sign up to those five principles, but the speech took us no further forward.
Mr Denham
I shall do so a little later.
On the one hand, we have those who believe Britain can never again be a nation of power and influence; on the other, we have those of us who have few doubts about the capacity of our country and our people to succeed, our ability to have an influence that exceeds our economic power and our capacity to create a stronger economy in the future.
Some of the pessimists are the traditional Eurosceptics —that is, the UK Independence party and its allies in the Tory party. They still wear the flapping white coats that caused so much harm to the previous Conservative Prime Minister. Those defeatists have been joined today by a new group who are perhaps a bit sensitive to the taint of the past. Those new Eurosceptics—perhaps we should call them neurosceptics—enjoy a much more nuanced and subtle lunacy. Let us stay in the EU, they say, but only if we can act as though we were not part of it, by pulling out of agreement after agreement until there is no meaningful relationship left. Of course, the end game is the same: years of uncertainty and declining influence, which make it more likely to end in a British exit.
Mr Carswell
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for remaining in, and I am sure that when the “in” campaign starts it will draw heavily on his powers of advocacy. Is he against allowing the people who voted for him to be an MP having the final say? If so, why does he believe that the political elite alone should decide these points? Why not allow everyone in the country their say?
Mr Denham
A year ago, I voted with the Prime Minister of the hon. Gentleman’s party to say that an in/out referendum at that point would be damaging to Britain. Nothing I heard last week made the case that an uncertain referendum in five years’ time is not equally damaging. We never say never, but on the two issues that we are considering today, I think that the Prime Minister was right a year ago and wrong on Wednesday.
Mr Denham
I will not give way, as I have done so twice already.
The Eurosceptics and the neurosceptics have made the Conservative party ungovernable. The Prime Minister, who lacks the will, ability or interest to lead his party, was forced into last week’s speech. That pessimism is in their language. Historians will surely puzzle over how the party of Winston Churchill—indeed, that of Margaret Thatcher—became the party that sees Britain’s future in Norway and Switzerland and how a country with all our history, all the capabilities of our people and, notwithstanding our current difficulties, all our strengths should consider countries a 10th our size and with little of our influence as role models.
The pessimism is there in the Eurosceptics’ policy and in the call to withdraw from most of the provisions of the social chapter. They will say that it is about sovereignty, but it reflects a deeper belief that the creation of wealth is incompatible with ensuring that wealth is fairly shared among all the people who help to create it. They want us to turn our back on a broadly shared European value that we helped to create, which is that economic growth and social justice can go hand in hand. That is what leads neurosceptics like the Mayor of London to speak against serious banking reform, despite the damage done to the global economy and our own by the excesses and distortions of the past.
The debate is often clouded by concerns, sometimes quite legitimate, about this regulation or that regulatory threat, but those concerns are the cover for a much bigger and more pessimistic view of Britain’s future. Those who express them believe that we must give up on a fair sharing of wealth, on decent protection at work from exploitation and danger and on the shared obligation to protect our environment, which the Prime Minister attacked last week. That is the pessimist vision: a Britain that can compete only by offering ourselves to the worst regulated, most unstable and least committed global economic forces. That is, indeed, a possible vision of Britain’s future, but true patriots will say that it is not the best.
The real future that is possible—the best vision for Britain—will have sustained, committed private investment that builds on the research, the innovation and the skills that we have to offer, that understands that real success is based not on the quickest profit but on the creation of lasting value and that sees the potential to build strong companies, whether British or foreign, rooted in this country whose business success depends on our country’s success. That is the way to compete and pay our way in the world.
Although their economic prescriptions are founded on pessimism, much of the rest of the Eurosceptics’ and neurosceptics’ agenda is either fanciful or dangerous. On what basis should we believe that an isolated Britain will be able to negotiate more preferential trade terms than a large trading bloc; that an isolated Britain would have more diplomatic influence with the USA or with China and the rest of the BRICs than as an influential part of the EU; or that our constituents would be safer if we tried to tear up co-operation on justice, as though the drugs smugglers, the weapons dealers, the terrorists and the paedophiles will think, “Oh, Britain’s leaving the EU. We won’t go there any more.”? Evil people do not target the strong and the confident; they target the weak and the pessimistic. That leaves our constituents—the people of Britain—more vulnerable, not less.
That is not to say that everything is perfect. It is not. Change is coming and change is needed, so had the Prime Minister come to the House last week and said, “Let’s bring regional aid policy back to member states,” he would not only have united the House but won many friends in Europe. Had he come to the House and said, “Let’s change the state aid rules so that countries that want to develop an active industrial policy can do so within the single market,” he would, I think, have united the House and won many friends in Europe. Had he said, “Let’s change the rules on the movement of people so that benefits are only for those who have contributed through work and taxation, even if they aren’t members of a formal contributory scheme,” I believe that he would have united the House and won more friends in Europe than he thinks.
We have no idea what the Prime Minister wants to achieve, though. The Europe Minister tells us that we will have to wait for the Tory manifesto in 2015 to find out, and tells us nothing about what our Prime Minister wants to achieve in the next two years. That is the truth: it is not about British interests; it is about Tories and the next election. Our hapless Prime Minister dare not say whether he is with the optimists or the pessimists, and the price that our country pays is five years of paralysis, indecision and uncertainty. Britain deserves better than that.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
We have heard from John the optimist, but I am not sure about his approach. I speak as a sceptic and a definite, confirmed optimist.
Being the MP for the wonderful constituency of Macclesfield, I have little incentive to leave these shores, but in the two parliamentary overseas trips that I have made, my world view has changed quite fundamentally. The first trip, led by the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) and with the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) accompanying us, was to China. There I saw for the first time the rapid changes going on in the world economy—the opportunities and the challenges of increasingly competitive, dynamic and globalised marketplaces.
The second trip was a visit to Brussels with the all-party group for European reform, led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). It was another eye-opening visit, but one that told a very different story about the challenges and opportunities of globalisation. Of course Europe’s economic interests were discussed, but the participants in that discussion got lost in the fog of political point scoring and diplomatic manoeuvres to patch up the eurozone. That sort of howling at the moon is rendering the EU an increasingly uncompetitive, increasingly undynamic and increasingly parochial place, and it is something that Conservative Members are determined to address.
Mark Hendrick
I remember our visit to China, but does the hon. Gentleman not think that the UK has far more influence around the world through its membership of the EU and the weight that that adds, so we should stay in the EU? Given that there are countries—Germany, for example—that do far more trade with China than we do, is it not important that we stay within the EU?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We need shorter interventions. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken—[Interruption.] He should know better. I do not mind interventions, but they must be short.
David Rutley
There is an opportunity for Europe to respond, but it is not responding—in fact, it has been caught completely flat-footed by the economic crisis and is not responding properly. We want that to change.
Mr Redwood
Is not the true pessimism the Labour pessimism that says that Britain is not big enough and strong enough to have a strong presence in the world and that we have to kowtow to Germany and France to achieve that?
David Rutley
As so often, I agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope to build on that thought.
The reality of the world economy is shifting patterns of trade and emerging markets. They have been tapping us on the shoulder for some time and are now tapping even harder. Some hon. Members in the Chamber today may remember John Major pointing out to Peter Mandelson that if we do not notice when reality taps us on the shoulder, one day reality will grab us by the throat. Yet it is sadly clear that the EU has become divorced from reality—from real people and from real lives. When the British people voted to stay in the European Economic Community in 1975, it was for real world reasons—for jobs, for growth and for the common market—and at that time the EEC gave every impression that that was its purpose. The EU needs to give us and our constituents similar cause for optimism today. There is an urgent need for reform and a fundamental resettlement in the UK’s relationship with Europe.
This is not about being little Englanders. It is about being big Britons who want to seize the opportunities available in the global marketplace; so do big Germans, big Swedes and big Danes—not to be confused with Great Danes—and we need to work with them, our reformist friends, against those who should be called little Europeans, who would turn our continent’s shoulder to the world. Just as we led Europe to the single market, we can lead in its completion and help our local businesses and our constituents to compete better on the global stage. The channel is little more than 20 miles across, but the gulf is huge between the global economic horizons of the big Britons we represent and the continental introversion represented by the little Europeans on the Opposition Benches.
The EU has been caught flat-footed in the economic crisis, and the euro—a political creation—has been caught in an economic straitjacket, yet there remains clear political will among many people in the eurozone for it to succeed. That has already led to calls for deeper, thicker integration and less flexibility at national level, and that is not the Europe that was voted for. We are told that we should not demand a Europe à la carte, yet the eurozone members chose to set up a new club within the club of Europe and—perhaps unsurprisingly, given the problems that the euro has caused—they are now demanding a European fixed price set menu. The Prime Minister is resisting this, quite rightly.
The bottom line for our constituents is this: are we better off in or better off out? Are we more likely to create jobs and economic growth, or are we to be suffocated by excessive regulation and told that our national Parliament cannot do anything about it? Those are important questions that we want answered. We do not want to fudge them. The Government have already taken important action, which the Foreign Secretary told us about. We wanted to ensure that, if transfers of power to the EU were proposed, they would have to be put to the British people first, and we have achieved that by creating the referendum lock. Rightly, no further powers can be transferred to the EU without the British people having their say.
The Government have already taken action to kick-start the debate on the resettlement with Europe. The review of the balance of the EU competencies will provide a national audit of what the EU currently does and what it means for our country, and it will provide us with the information that is needed to take future decisions about our relationship with the EU and in the referendum that now, thank goodness, lies ahead.
The House will not be surprised that I regard myself as a Eurosceptic. As I said at the beginning, in scepticism there is hope, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) said. On the Government Benches and across the country, Euro- scepticism is on the rise. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are surely right to press for renegotiation before an in/out referendum and to work with our partners for a more competitive EU and one that is worth considering voting for.
Some people have asked, “What are you considering repatriating?” or “What do you want to renegotiate?” I commend the fantastic work that is being led by my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on the Fresh Start project. A wealth of options is being put forward there—worked through, thought through and analysed carefully. Take a look. I think that Opposition Members will find something to learn there.
This negotiation must be aimed, laser-like, at improving our economic position, cutting through red tape, safeguarding our financial services, delivering government at the lowest possible level and trusting the people to have the final say. That is the Conservative way. But in their heads the Opposition, with a few notable exceptions, do not want the British people to have their say. The reality of the Labour Government was the Lisbon treaty, with no promised referendum at the end.
David Rutley
I have given way twice already.
The Opposition prefer the top-down, little European approach which I spoke about, where EU membership is a price worth paying and staying in an unreformed EU is worth any price at all. How depressingly pessimistic that is. How unambitiously 20th century of the Labour party. It is here, on the Conservative Benches, where Members are fizzing with ideas for a sustainable, successful and competitive Europe, which I suggest the Opposition should take a look at. The Prime Minister has taken a bold approach. It is the right approach for Britain; it is the right approach for Europe; it is optimistic and reformist; and it is based on reality—the reality of where we are, where we could be and where we should be to compete in the globally competitive marketplaces that we face today.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to contribute to this important debate. I made my maiden speech in the House in a debate on Europe so people might start to think I have something of an interest. Let me say at the outset that my allegiance, first and foremost, is to my constituents. Our allegiance in this place should be to the people of the United Kingdom. We are here to serve the national interest, not narrow party interests. Our job is to listen to the concerns of our constituents and to try and understand the things they need to make their lives better, not to think about our narrow point of view.
I am in politics because it broke my heart to see people I loved in the place I come from have to leave our city to get a job. That is what motivates me to speak in the debate today. It is not about some kind of philosophical attitude. It is about the practical needs of my constituents. Nor should the debate be about party interests separated from the needs of the British people.
So the Prime Minister makes his great speech and his Tory attack dogs turn into puppies having their tummies tickled—for now. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, I think there might be a couple of problems ahead for him. That is because his speech might have been a victory of spin over substance. Unfortunately, we are still not quite clear what the Conservative view on Europe is. The Prime Minister cannot tell the public how he would vote in any referendum that we might have. Nor is it clear what concessions or what negotiations he can achieve. I have seen House of Commons Library briefings that say that there are no examples of repatriation without new treaties. As the Deputy Prime Minister told us, it seems unlikely that there would be. The rest of Europe, he said, simply would not have it. The Business Secretary said that the UK should not overestimate its own negotiating position. Oh dear!
Damian Collins
Does not the hon. Lady agree that the end of this process could not be clearer, because there will be an in/out referendum and the people will decide? What is ambiguous about that?
Alison McGovern
No—the end of this process is the Prime Minister telling us and the British people how he would vote. That is the confusion.
Alison McGovern
I am tempted to give way but I will make some progress before I do.
Let us not forget the real issues. As I said, what matters to my constituents at the moment is the fact that our local authority has been cut to the bone and we are losing hundreds and hundreds of jobs. We are worried about employment and having a well-functioning economy on Merseyside where people have the money in their pockets to afford the prices in the shops. That is what people are really concerned about.
Because my time is limited and I have only four minutes left, I want to focus on a particular problem in Europe that I would have hoped we could all try to work together to deal with. This is timely, I hope, because yesterday a report by the Work Foundation demonstrated not only that youth unemployment is a significant problem on the continent of Europe but that the UK’s unemployment is higher than the European average, third only to Greece and Spain, and that we have youth unemployment that is higher than the OECD average. In yesterday’s Treasury questions, I asked how the Government planned to tackle the fact that their own predictions from the Department for Work and Pensions demonstrate that they have increased by 31,000 the number of young people to whom we will be paying jobseeker’s allowance by the end of this Parliament. We have the wrong economic plans. This problem cuts across the whole continent of Europe, and we ought to work together with our European partners to try to solve it. Considering this question helps to enlighten the debate about what we should do in Europe.
We need to focus on two things in the light of this problem. First, we need to rebalance the economy of Europe.
Alison McGovern
Briefly, if the hon. Gentleman wants to answer the question of what the Government should do about Europe.
Richard Drax
Just as a matter of observation, when talking about losing jobs and all the things the hon. Lady is mentioning, is it not the case that many more millions of people are out of work in Europe because this whole European federalism dream—we can call it what we like—is going horribly wrong? It is not just a UK matter; it is about what we are trying to live with, and we just cannot do it.
Alison McGovern
To help the hon. Gentleman, let me point out that what went horribly wrong was that the financial services industry invested in complicated products that it told us would help to manage risk, but it turned out that they made the risks worse. That sparked a financial crisis, and that has led to the problems that I have been describing.
We need a rebalancing of our European economy, and we need to think about how we can address the significant problem of inequality that is being created. In a recent Mansion House speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was not in favour of a stimulus because it would lead to leakage in relation to imports. An EU-wide plan therefore makes sense, because we are part of a trading bloc and we should be working together to improve our shared economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), who is sadly no longer in his place, mentioned state aid rules to rebalance areas of the economy that use high technology. It makes sense to work with our European colleagues on rebalancing.
Some commentators have advanced the idea of a youth contract whereby we could use unused structural funds for a European youth guarantee. I would argue that in order to tackle youth unemployment we need to learn the lessons of the projects proposed by the best of our town halls in the UK and the best countries around the world that have used active labour markets to tackle these problems. If there are funds available in Europe, we should work together with colleagues to get them to the heart of the problem.
Michael Connarty
My hon. Friend is talking about youth unemployment and employment strategies. Unfortunately, the proposal made by the Irish presidency to have a four-month trigger point at which all young people would have the guarantee of a job, which is better than what is offered in the UK, seems to be getting very short shrift from the UK Government.
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes my point for me. For me, being in politics is not about standing in this Chamber thinking that we have all the answers; it is about listening to and working with colleagues in town halls in this country and across the European Union to solve the problem together.
Finally, there is no doubt that if we want to get people in Europe working, we need to trade. In my view, we should listen to the President of the United States of America.
Alison McGovern
I’m afraid I will. The President of the USA said that it would be better for the UK to remain part of the EU. We really have to listen to that. As other people have said, our future must be in Europe, using its strength to negotiate with the great economies of the future—India, China, the United States of America and, hopefully, Africa.
The question is this: are we prepared to negotiate for the good of the people in the UK? What matters more: our own party interests or the dignity of the people we are supposed to represent? Their ability to work, to have money in their pockets and to have a good family life is what matters to me. That is why this debate on Europe could not be more important.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I want to start by paying tribute to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Their leadership on this issue has electrified Europe, the nation and this debate, and not before time.
The context for this debate is that the EU has changed fundamentally and is still changing. The eurozone crisis demands that we rethink our relationship, and the rise of globalisation and new markets require us all, as Europeans, to look to new models of economic growth.
The principal reason why this debate is so important to my constituents is democracy. The British people voted nigh on 40 years ago for a common market. They have been delivered a federal political union that does not have the legitimacy of their support. At the heart of all democratic politics is a golden principle: those who are elected to serve should never give away the power vested in them by the people they serve without their authority.
The electorate are looking to us to build an economic future for them and their families. They demand that we leave no stone unturned in insisting that the European project adjusts to the realities of globalisation and growth. Furthermore, the world economy demands that Europe becomes more enterprising and more prosperous, and that it engages more with the economies of tomorrow.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman says that we do not have what we signed up for in 1975. I agree with him about that. However, does he not agree that the biggest transfer of power to Brussels and the biggest change in the EU came with the Single European Act, which was signed in 1986 by Margaret Thatcher, who never even considered taking it to the country in a referendum?
George Freeman
I disagree. We could have an interesting debate about how the illegitimate ratcheting of power has happened over the past 30 years. The Lisbon treaty had a big part to play. The previous Government’s promise to hold a referendum and their denial of one played a big part in the destruction of trust.
Twenty-five years ago, the then Conservative Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, made a major speech on Europe that became known as the Bruges speech. I think that our Prime Minister’s speech will become known as the Bloomberg speech. I pay tribute to his leadership. He set out some important messages, not least the idea that Europe requires a new model to deal with global growth and that we cannot build a 21st century economy within the constraints of a 20th century political and economic institution. I warmly welcome the five principles that he set out to guide this important renegotiation.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement of our belief in a common single market—not a market that is over-regulated by big government and dominated by the big businesses that feed of it, but a single market that is dynamic, entrepreneurial, open, innovative and global. We are, as the Prime Minister said, in a global race. We need a Europe that helps us and itself to cope and compete in that race.
I consider myself to be an optimistic, entrepreneurial and global European. I am Eurosceptic in terms of the political, federal project that I have witnessed during my lifetime, but I am an optimistic democrat and businessman when it comes to Europe’s future in the world and our future in the world through it. We have much to be optimistic about. Post the cold war we have seen an extraordinary change in Europe, the middle east and across the world, and more recently we have seen the Arab spring and an opening up across the middle east. Rather than focus on ever-deepening European political union, should we not seek to widen the influence of a looser, pro-enterprise and entrepreneurial Europe? I dream of the day when the strife, poverty, violence and terror that dominate the middle east are vanquished because that area is part of a much wider European market. I want to buy goods from Syria, not watch it on television while it and neighbouring countries are torn apart by violence and strife.
Globalisation creates enormous market opportunities for us and for Europe, and a Europe that is plugged into that global phenomenon would be capable of leading against the two big blocs of America and China. That is not, however, the Europe with which we are confronted. In my field of science and innovation I know all too well how powerful the European market is and can be because of CERN, the life sciences and the European Space Agency. On Monday I was at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge and visited the European Bioinformatics Institute where hundreds of young European scientists here in Britain are at the forefront of breaking down the human genome and increasing our understanding of how disease affects different populations.
As a mature, sophisticated set of western economies, we can lead the world with the translation of our knowledge to help the developing world. Over the next 30 years, the developing world will have to go through revolutions that took us 200 years. Perhaps they will go through Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from the basics of food, medicine and energy to becoming sophisticated western markets that will unlock enormous markets for our talents and skills.
The problem is, however, that the European Union of today is not in a fit state to unlock such opportunities. Economically, the eurozone is riven by debt—I remind the House that as a whole, Europe currently owes €10.9 trillion—and it has high rates of unemployment, with the EU average currently running at 10.7%. That is unsustainable. Furthermore, politically we are seeing that the federal model of ever-closer union is simply not capable of accommodating the needs of the eurozone as well as those of us who are—fortunately—outside it. The need to recover trust among those of us who have observed the illegitimate ratcheting of a federal union demands the change set out by the Prime Minister.
Closer integration in the eurozone is a problem for the UK but also an opportunity for us and other countries not included in that zone. We need to define a new structure and I believe that a two-tier Europe is emerging. I have in my hand a list of the 17 nations in the eurozone. It is a long list, and the big leader is Germany. On the right is a list of the 10 nations outside the eurozone, and if Norway, Switzerland and the next wave of possible new entrants are added, the obvious leader of that group would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We can, I believe, develop our leadership in the context of a debate about that structure. Our leadership must be in the context of the global race about which the Prime Minister, and many hon. Members in this debate, have been so lucid.
The life sciences are a particular interest of mine, and this country and Europe have a big part to play in the big markets of food, medicine and energy. Through collaborations between European universities, investors and companies, we lead the world in that sector. The truth is, however, that the European Union is not always—and of late has increasingly not been—supportive of our, or its, ability to unlock that strength. In particular, it has begun to develop a series of policies and directives on genetic modification that are holding back this country’s leadership. Global food demand is set to increase by 70% in the next 30 years, 29 countries are growing GM crops, and biotech crops are valued at £90 billion yet only two are licensed in the European Union. If the European Union will not let us lead in that sphere, we need the freedom to do it for ourselves.
I congratulate those hon. Members who have put together the Fresh Start group, and reiterate my support for them. If we set out a positive vision of a new Europe and build alliances with nations that share our interests, we can deliver real change. The truth is that Europe 1.0 is over and we need Europe version 2.0 in which we can lead and to which we want to belong. We must seize the moment and build the alliances to deliver that.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister’s speech last week was much delayed, much anticipated and over-hyped. It is already clear that the blip in the opinion polls is much less than he had hoped for. I therefore look forward to the internal debate in the Conservative party over the coming two years, and to the Prime Minister continuing to try to appease and assuage the egos of many Conservative Back Benchers.
I want to consider the so-called five principles and aspects of the Prime Minister’s speech. He said that
“we…need to address the sclerotic, ineffective decision making that is holding us back.”
Much of that sclerotic decision making in the EU happens because of unanimity rules. Can we therefore take it that the Prime Minister has called for more qualified majority voting? Conservative Back Benchers are shaking their heads, but Ministers cannot tell us the answer, because they do not know what the negotiating position will be.
Similarly, the Prime Minister questioned whether we can justify an ever-larger Commission, but the Commission gets larger because of EU enlargement and the accession of more member states. If the Prime Minister does not wish the Commission to become larger, the long-standing policy of successive Governments for further European enlargement has presumably been ditched. Alternatively, is the Prime Minister arguing that there should be a limit on the number of commissioners and saying that there might be future circumstances in which there is no British commissioner? We do not know the answer to that question because, again, the Government are unable to tell us.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Labour Government sold the pass on the number of commissioners by saying that not every state should have one? Perhaps that was one of the few sensible things they did to drive home the point that the Commission is a European government, not a representative government.
Mike Gapes
Why did the Prime Minister not give more information in his speech rather than putting up the straw man and attacking the EU for increasing the number of commissioners relentlessly, when that is in fact a consequence of our previous enlargement policies?
The Prime Minister said that the European treaty laid the foundations of ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe. It is interesting to note that he did not point out that British Conservative negotiators of the Maastricht treaty insisted on keeping the phrase “ever-closer union” because they deemed the words to be vague and therefore something they could live with.
The Prime Minister made a number of other criticisms, including an assertion referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). The right hon. Gentleman said:
“Put simply, many ask ‘why can’t we just have what we voted to join – a common market?’”
I campaigned and voted no in 1975, in my misguided youth. At that time, the Wilson Government, like the previous Heath Government and pro and anti-European campaigners, said the vote was about more than a common market, namely political union and other aspirations for co-operation. Whatever position the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk took in 1975—I do not know whether he was old enough to vote at the time—it is not true that we had a referendum and joined an organisation that was just about trade. It was more than that. I could go on to comment on other aspects of the Prime Minister’s speech, but I will not because of limited time.
It is clear that instead of addressing the economic crisis that confronts the whole of this continent, and the wrong, misguided austerity economics that is creating tens of millions of unemployed people and the immiseration of millions in many European countries, we in this country are now going to have an obsession with the minutiae of a probably unrealisable renegotiation about unrealisable repatriation powers. We need Ministers to go to Brussels and argue, in all the forums of the European Union, for different economic policies. In the meantime, we need Ministers to bring in different domestic economic policies to again achieve growth, prosperity and jobs in this country.
The economic policies we are pursuing here are potentially leading, as we now know, to a triple-dip recession. We have a massive trade imbalance with the European Union, which is partly due to the failures of our domestic policy, but is being compounded by the wrong economic policies being pursued by the austerity programme within the eurozone. As a result, the Government’s British economic strategy—export-led growth to get us out of the situation we are in, presumably capitalising on the benefits of the devaluation of the pound that has been going on for some months—is not getting us the growth we need, partly due to domestic reasons and partly due to problems in the eurozone economy. There is a very good paper by Simon Tilford from the Centre for European Reform—I do not have time to quote it, but I recommend that hon. Members read it—about the problems confronting our country partly because of the wrong policies within the EU’s economies.
We need to have concerted economic plans for recovery in the next five years, not concerted plans to create economic uncertainty and damaging policies that will reduce the amount of inward investment into the UK economy. The Government have taken a dangerous leap in the dark, creating enormous uncertainty for anybody who wishes to plan to invest in this country. They are putting jobs and prosperity in Britain at risk, and in time they will come to regret it at the next general election.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Thank you for this opportunity to speak in what is an extremely timely and important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Members of this House, we are all very privileged to have the opportunity to contribute and have our say. Every time I walk through the doors, I am conscious that there are approximately 100,000 people in my constituency whom I am seeking to represent. I was struck by the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). She has left her place, but she spoke about giving dignity back to our constituents. I can think of no greater way of doing that than to give them a say on our future relationship with the European Union. The influence of the EU in the past four decades has increasingly dominated every aspect of our national life.
On 1 January 1973—I do not remember it; I was only three years old—we joined what was then referred to as the Common Market or the European Economic Community. When I was six, our membership was confirmed in a referendum. It is important to say that most people thought they were voting in favour of a common market—a customs union or a free trade area. [Interruption.] At the time, some people referred to the small print in the treaty of Rome about ever-closer union, but generally people believed that, essentially, they were joining an economic free trading agreement.
Over ensuing decades, the European Economic Community developed into the European Community and then into the European Union, and the various Acts and treaties, including the Single European Act, which has been referred to, the Maastricht treaty and the failed EU constitution, which had to be rebranded and essentially presented and passed by the previous Government as the Lisbon treaty, have seen an inexorable moving of power from this Parliament to a centralised EU.
I am often struck that people refer to the EU as a federal project—if only it were a little more federal with more subsidiarity! Over the past 40 years, however, it has grown into a central government project, and it is right that the Prime Minister has offered the country a chance to decide its future relationship with the EU. Last Wednesday’s speech will prove to be one of the most important speeches that a British Prime Minister has made in the past half century, and I, for one, am grateful for the clear direction he has set out—as the Foreign Secretary said, it is much clearer than what we hear from Her Majesty’s Opposition.
I only wish that our coalition partners were also signed up to a referendum. It certainly used to be their policy. I do not often quote the Deputy Prime Minister, but I would like to now. Writing in The Guardian on 25 February 2008, he said:
“It’s time we pulled out the thorn and healed the wound, time for a debate politicians have been too cowardly to hold for 30 years—time for a referendum on the big question. Do we want to be in or out? Nobody in Britain under the age of 51 has ever been asked that simple question. None of them were eligible to vote in that 1975 referendum. That includes half of all MPs. Two generations have never had their say.”
That was five years ago, so now that age is 56, and we are into a new Parliament.
Henry Smith
I wish I knew how the Deputy Prime Minister’s mind worked. You would be quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule me out of order for being unparliamentary if I used the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber, and I would never use the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber to refer to another right hon. or hon. Member, but I think that the Deputy Prime Minister is guilty of rank inconsistency over his party’s position on a referendum.
This country has a unique position in the world; we have global links like no other nation on earth and we of course have our proximity to the European continent. This nation’s success has been rooted in being a free trading nation that seeks links and co-operation with the world. Our best opportunity for the future, as in the past, is to utilise those unique links and act as a conduit—a bridge—between the world and the European continent.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman a history lesson, but the British empire was actually founded on protectionism. Until the repeal of the corn laws, we had very restrictive markets for our goods.
Henry Smith
I was hoping to speak yesterday, to quote from the Reform Act of 1831 and refer to the sweeping away of the rotten boroughs—[Hon. Members: “1832.”] My apologies; I will refrain from using dates. Nevertheless, our history is based on free trade, as is our future.
Mr Cash
Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a serious problem if the free trade arrangements that he and I, along with many others, want are in any way obstructed by the exclusive competence of the European Union overlaying the question of whether we could trade freely with, for example, all the members of the Commonwealth and emerging markets?
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is an EU competence to negotiate free trade agreements. If we had that competence back, as a sovereign Parliament and a sovereign nation, we would once again be free to forge those free trade agreements. I am struck by the fact that there is a multilingual central European country that is free of the European Union, but which has free trade agreements with the European Union—and, indeed, the rest of the world—and that is the nation of Switzerland. It is perfectly possible for us to maintain co-operation and free trading with Europe and to extend that to the rest of the world.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Switzerland can indeed trade, by agreement, with the European single market, but it has to comply with the highest EU standards in food and farming—the policy area that I shadow for the Labour party—or not export into it. It does not have any say in the rules, however.
Henry Smith
It is the same with world free trade agreements. It is high time that we gave the British people back the ability to determine how their relationship with Europe and the rest of the world should go forward, so that we can have greater global free trade for greater prosperity and bring back democracy. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on delivering that promise.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
In the 1970s I was chairman of the north-west London “Get Britain Out” campaign. I remember chairing a rally addressed on the one hand by local Labour MPs and Ken Gill, the general secretary of TASS—the Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section—and a leading member of the Communist party on the party, and Enoch Powell on the other. I believed that position in good faith and I worked hard for it. I was disappointed by the outcome, but I soon came to recognise that I was wrong, just as I came to recognise that continuing to fight yesterday’s battles was wrong. We took a long time in the Labour party to recognise that. Indeed, when Labour members first went into the European Parliament, the Spanish socialists nicknamed them “Los Japonistos”, after the soldiers who emerged from the jungles in Guam 40 years after the war was over asking, “Is the war continuing?”
Why did I change my mind? I remember an excellent German-Jewish friend who had lost his family in the camps saying to me, “Jack, I’m not the greatest fan of the common market,” as it then was, “but we’ve had a continent at peace for a generation, unlike that which took my family from me.” I remember a very honourable Macmillanite Conservative in the 1980s—in the days when there were such people, before, in the immortal words of Julian Critchley, the “garagistes” took over the Conservative party—saying, “Jack, I’m proud of my country, but we can only be strong in a modern, bi-polar world,” as it was then, “if we are at the heart of the European Union, with its great traditions of Christian democracy and social democracy.”
The reason I changed my mind was also, yes, the rolling forward of the social dimension in the 1980s, when Jacques Delors—Frère Jacques, as we came to call him—came to address the TUC. However, it was also because of my experience in the real world of work, dealing with hard-headed business people—enlightened in their approach—who rightly argued that we needed a single market with common standards, at the heart of which was a social dimension that reflected a belief in the simple truth that how we treat workers is crucial to the quality of the service they provide and what they produce.
Richard Drax
Why do we need to be a member of a federalist state to treat our workers properly? Why cannot we pass those laws ourselves? Indeed, we have.
Jack Dromey
I am coming to that point in a moment.
On the argument that I have just deployed, I remember the chairman of the company then known as British Aerospace saying that we needed a single market, but that as a company and as a continent we could not succeed in the world on the basis of a race to the bottom. That brings me to my first concern, which is the hidden agenda that lies behind the Prime Minister’s argument. There was a tantalising glimpse of that last week when, extraordinarily, he seemed to suggest that we should return to the days when a junior doctor could work 100 hours a week. Repatriation is the cry, but the reality behind that is rolling back a generation of progress on workers’ rights and taking us back to the 1980s, an era I remember well.
Let me give the House an example, which relates to the acquired rights directive. The directive was legislated on at European Union level in 1978, and introduced here, reluctantly, by a Conservative Government in 1982. However, that Government did not extend it to cover 6 million public servants. What we saw was the most appalling Dutch auction, involving cut-throat competition as workers were transferred and suffered cuts to their pay, their holiday entitlement, their sickness entitlement and, often, their pension arrangements as well. I remember a particular example that I dealt with early on involving the Moreton-in-Marsh fire service training college, where 130 women caterers and housekeepers had seen dramatic cuts to their terms and conditions of employment. The only humorous side to that otherwise sad story was the fact that the managing director of the company concerned—Grand Metropolitan catering—was none other than a Mr Dick Turpin.
Two things happened at that time. First, in 1991, I took the case of the Eastbourne dustmen to the European Court of Justice, and we won. It was ruled that the British Government had acted unlawfully in denying protection on transfer from the public to the private sector. Secondly, employers themselves began to speak out. I remember Martin O’Halloran of ISS, the then chair of the CBI, saying that it was madness—that employers did not want a market based on a race to the bottom, and that they wanted a market in which we competed on quality and productivity, characterised by fair treatment and fair competition.
Mr Redwood
I, too, found that my attitude towards the single market changed in the 1980s, when I became the chairman of a big industrial company. I discovered that I had much better access, as an investor and as an exporter, to leading non-EU countries than I had to France and Germany.
Jack Dromey
I say this to the right hon. Gentleman and anyone else on the Government Benches: let us have some honesty in this debate. If they want to go back to the days of the 1980s, they should say so. If they want a Beecroft Britain, they should say so. If they believe that Britain can succeed only by driving down workers’ pay and conditions of employment, and by reducing their health and safety protection at work, they should say so. We will certainly be seeking to draw out what is undoubtedly their hidden agenda.
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned case, but there is nothing to prevent the British Government from introducing legislation of that kind. What has created frustration about the EU is that those powers have come in under the guise of European treaties and not been put before the House properly. They have come in through the back door.
Jack Dromey
They have come in as a consequence of our membership of the European Union and the move towards a single market based on clear ground rules, including the fair treatment of workers. I will say it once again: if Government Members want the repatriation of the legislation that protects workers’ rights so that they can cut that protection, they should say so.
My final point relates to the immense economic damage that this debate will cause. I have worked with the automotive industry for many years.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making his case very eloquently, and I congratulate him on doing so. I do not agree with him, but that is another issue. I am curious as to which way he would vote in a referendum if we had been able to negotiate the return to the United Kingdom of some of those regulations.
Jack Dromey
What I certainly will oppose is the madness of saying now that we are going to have a referendum on an in/out basis in five years’ time, for exactly the reason that 82% of the cars that we produce in this country, through our world-class success story that is automotive, are exported—and half to the European Union. Key to the future of the industry is inward investment, and key to inward investment is continuing membership of the European Union. There is already a chorus of concern from Ford and BMW, for example, about the grave consequences of prolonged uncertainty, while the director general of the Engineering Employers Federation has said that this is the worst possible way to go about negotiations, as it will weaken any negotiating leverage we need rather than strengthen it.
That is why I believe that the good Lord Heseltine is right and the Prime Minister is fundamentally wrong. With an economy bumping along the bottom and a triple-dip recession possible, this is the worst possible time for prolonged uncertainty, which will inevitably impact on crucial investment decisions. Far from standing up for Britain, as the Prime Minister says he is doing, he is putting party interest before the public interest, and he runs the risk of doing great damage to the economy of our country.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. The one question I would pose to the Labour Opposition is simply this: what is their opinion on the referendum? Do they want one now, do they want one later or do they not want one at all? We need to hear an answer to that.
I shall focus on the European Union in the context of the amount of trade we do with it, which is substantial. We have four times as much trade with the European Union as with the whole of the Commonwealth, so let us get that into perspective. It is a market some 500 million strong—a significant market, which happens to be the biggest single market in the world, accounting for up to a fifth of the world’s gross domestic product. That is the scale of what we are talking about today, and it is why I hope that if and when we have a referendum we will say yes, but on the back of having reformed the EU.
I like local government, but that does not mean to say that it should not be reformed, and I apply the same logic to the European Union. It is really important that we reform it, and the Prime Minister has signalled that.
Michael Connarty
The hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned reform. Can he, unlike the Government Front-Bench team or anyone else who has spoken, give us the specifics about what needs reform? We do not want to hear about just a vague reform; let us hear the hon. Gentleman’s vision of reform, as it may tie up with the vision of other Members, although it may not.
Neil Carmichael
That is an excellent question. I shall talk about three areas where reform needs to take place and will take place under this coalition Government and the next Conservative Government.
Ironically, the first area is the common agricultural policy. It needs to be radically changed so that farmers face less bureaucracy and are able to farm more easily; for that, the strictures of the CAP need to be altered. The chamber for such a change is, I think, the Council of Ministers.
Oliver Colvile
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also make sure that we bring UK fishing waters back under UK control, so we need a big reform of the common fisheries policy?
Neil Carmichael
We would also need to look at—I think—the Marine Act 1986 if we wanted to make that a consistent strategy. I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point, but we should not overlook the other legislation that governs our access to our waters.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, like the Welsh Agriculture Minister Alun Davies, we should be in there at the heart of the negotiations? If we are to get a proper deal on the CAP, we should be seen not as the country that is trying to leap out of the Union, but as a country at the heart of the negotiations.
Neil Carmichael
That is exactly right, and I think the Prime Minister has spelt out exactly how we are going to be at the heart of those negotiations. We are really talking turkey this time; we are saying that things have to change, and we are bringing the full force of this coalition Government behind that direction of change. The hon. Lady is right: we have to be in on the act; we have to be constructive; and we have to make sure that Europe nevertheless understands that we pack a punch. We pack a punch by eventually having a referendum.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Neil Carmichael
No, as I am running out of time.
The first area in need of reform, then, is the common agricultural policy. The second—and we heard the Prime Minister signal this—is energy, in connection with the single market. We should be thinking about extending the single market to other areas, and energy is ripe for it.
I know that many people currently envisage what would effectively be the nationalisation of energy policy by European countries which are worried about their security of supply and how they can deal with such matters as reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore need to think carefully about how we can apply energy to the single market. There are two key words that we should be using, and one is competition. We need more competition: we need a competitive Europe generally, but we need a competitive market in energy specifically, because we need to be able to sell energy to other countries more easily than we do at present and because the development of a different tapestry of energy production systems will require a more open, flexible market.
There is a specific need for energy to be in the single market, but there is a desire for it as well, not just in Britain but in other countries, notably Germany. I have talked to representatives of the BDI—the German equivalent of the CBI—who are interested in the possibility that energy could become part of a more competitive, effective single market. I believe that the processes in which we are already engaging will eventually produce a single market that is more robust, more competitive and more flexible.
Alex Cunningham
The CBI is interested in employment law. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would hazard a reply to the question posed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). Do he and his party hope to reduce workers’ rights by repatriating powers in that area?
Neil Carmichael
Absolutely not. We do not want to “reduce workers’ rights”, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, but we do want to ensure that more people can be employed. That is being made possible by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is probably an Act by now. It copies legislation introduced by the German Chancellor who, at the time, was none other than Chancellor Schröder of the SPD—the Social Democratic party of Germany—to make it easier for small firms to employ people. Those are the sort of measures that we should be introducing here, and we are starting to do exactly that.
Neil Carmichael
No, because I am running out of time. I was asked specifically which policy areas we should be changing. I have dealt with the second, and I now want to talk about the third, which, although more long-term, is critical.
What are we going to do about the Council of Ministers? It needs to be more transparent, and it needs to have more capacity. I think that we can provide the answer to the democratic deficit in two ways. First, this Parliament and the Parliaments of the other member states must become more interactive, engaging in the kind of discussions that take place in the Council. We need to hear more about the agenda, we need to hear more about what is actually said and done, and we need to hear more about how we as parliamentarians can influence all that through our own national Parliaments. The second way in which that can be beneficial is in challenging the effective supremacy of the Commission in ensuring that treaties work as they should, which drives a hole into the argument about the European Parliament’s position that I have heard mentioned several times in the debate today.
There are a great many areas of policy that we can change, but let me canter through the ones that I have mentioned. First, we need to act immediately to deal with the common agricultural policy. We are already too late for 2012, as we are now in 2013, but there are changes on which we should now be insisting. Secondly, we need to extend the single market to energy—although not just to energy: I could have mentioned the digital economy and financial services. Thirdly, there is the constitutional aspect, which I think is central to what the Prime Minister said in his speech.
If we can deliver on some or all of those areas— policy, the single market and the construction of the European Union itself—we shall have something really interesting to say to the electorate at the time of the in/out referendum. Meanwhile, we shall be protecting and, indeed, strengthening our interests. Above all, we shall be producing a better Europe, because it will be more flexible, more competitive, more transparent and more democratic.
Finally, I want to talk about President Obama. It is true that he said we should remain in the EU, but he is not the only American President to have said that: every single one has since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. It is a consistent message, therefore, and we should listen to it, but the clear message we are getting from our electorate is this: “Make a difference in Europe. Reform it where necessary. Make it more flexible. Make it more competitive. Make it more useful to us, and make it less intrusive.” I can take that case to my constituents in Stroud, valleys and vale, and to businesses and everyone else who has a clear interest in protecting Britain’s interests through having a reformed and effective Europe.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The subject of this debate belongs in the same broad historical category as some of the great political causes the House has dealt with, including the repeal of the corn laws and imperial preference. These issues are also connected to the dry matters of tariffs and trade, but they, too, are really about Britain’s role in the rest of the world. We all have emotional views about what our country is and what it could be, and where we sit in relation to our neighbours. If we look back to the 1970s, we see that the case for our going in was framed predominantly in emotional, rather than rational, terms. It was about Europe coming together, an end to continental war and Britain giving up its empire but obtaining a role in Europe. Even the well-regarded Chancellor Roy Jenkins framed the case in those terms, rather than by reference to economic or trading arguments.
Intriguingly, however, the roles have now been reversed. The case for coming out is now the emotional one; it is based on the notion that we can be free of the shackles of an imaginary tyrannical European bureaucracy, even when all the rational, objective arguments push any pragmatist to the view that staying in the EU is both an advantage and a necessity. That should serve as a lesson to all Members on both sides of the House who are in favour of retaining our EU membership, because there is no doubt that, under this Government, we are sleepwalking towards the exit.
The Prime Minister must realise that no amount of renegotiation, repatriation or reorganisation will satisfy some of his Eurosceptic Back Benchers. That has been made clear today. He has completely lost control of them, and in doing so he has lost control of the country. He cannot compromise with them because, whatever the objective arguments, they hold to an outdated and misguided notion that Britain is in some way held back by the EU and that we would be better off without it.
In that regard, the absolutists on the Government Benches who want to leave Europe remind me of my Labour colleagues of the 1970s and 1980s who wanted to respond to Britain’s economic problems and our changing role in the world by running a siege economy and cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. It was the basis of our 1983 manifesto, and it was not particularly successful as it was economic madness. Again, however, it was a message that gave emotional satisfaction to the people who believed in it, regardless of the strength of the arguments to the contrary.
We should therefore be used to seeing the tension between rational, objective economic arguments and an instinctive, emotional view that people want to hold about the future role of their country in the wider world. However, given the current state of the UK economy and what we all see and hear in our constituencies on Fridays and at weekends—the stories of human misery, unemployment and squeezed living standards—the only points that should matter to us are those rational, objective, economic arguments and, more than anything else, questions of what is in our national interest.
To me, the case for being in the EU is extremely clear. There are huge economic advantages to being in a single European market. A single market is not a free trade area; they are different things. A single market requires the co-ordination of certain domestic policies to ensure that that market is a level playing field. Although some understandably feel that this constrains national sovereignty, we must remember that we are now part of a global economy that already puts huge constraints on national sovereignty.
If people were arguing for a siege economy today, it would be taken even less seriously than previously, because, frankly, it would be impossible. Moreover, being a member of the single market does not inhibit our trading relationships with other countries; instead, it allows us to negotiate trade deals as part of a powerful bloc of nations and serves to attract investment into the UK from countries that want to be inside the EU.
In addition, although the World Trade Organisation should ensure that we have a rules-based system for resolving all global trade disputes, there is no doubt that the size of a country still counts when disputes arise. By operating as a bloc within organisations such as the WTO, we are in a far stronger position than we would be on our own.
Regarding non-economic matters, the only people who should be arguing to end co-operation on crime and justice are serious criminals. We absolutely should be working together to make sure that justice across Europe is effective and quick and that nowhere is beyond the reach of our law-enforcement agencies. Criminals will be just as mobile, just as international in their operations, whether or not we co-operate with our neighbours. Co-operation is so sensible that we cannot be tough on crime without being pro-European.
The Eurosceptic argument that we frequently hear—we have heard it a lot today—is that we could be a Norway or a Switzerland: we could have these benefits without being a full member. Both Norway and Switzerland are wonderful countries, but neither is comparable to us in terms of economy, status or role in the world today. What Eurosceptics do not like to discuss is that those countries have to commit to introducing almost every bit of European law but get a say in none of it. That is perhaps okay for Norway, but how would we protect the City of London and our competitive advantage in financial services if we did not have a say in the formation of those laws? We might as well stand at the airport and wave those jobs off to Frankfurt. Norway still has to make a contribution to the EU budget—€1.8 billion over this budget period. We should also remember that, when the EU was first set up, we tried to create a rival body that was simply a free-trade organisation: the European Free Trade Association. It failed.
None of this means that I personally want to join, or ever see, a federal Europe, or even to join the euro. I judge these matters according to only one thing: what is in our national interest? That brings us to the Prime Minister’s speech and his attempt to reconcile what he knows to be sane with the views of many of his Back Benchers. He clearly recognises that adding to the turmoil in Europe by holding a referendum in the UK right now would be extremely reckless. But he can surely see that announcing a referendum to be held in five years’ time is equally reckless, given that during that time we will live in limbo, lose investment and have created further unnecessary uncertainty.
Yesterday, I and other members of the all-party group on manufacturing met some of our leading manufacturers and policy makers. They were clear that this uncertainty is bad for Britain. Why, in the present economic climate, would we want to make the UK a less attractive destination for investment and jobs? By all means, let us try to change Europe—there are plenty of things that I would like to change—but we have natural allies on this issue, and we could lead them.
The worst thing about the Eurosceptics is how pessimistic they are about how great our country could be. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) was spot-on in saying that. Our priority should be to promote growth at home and secure influence abroad. Short-term expedient decisions based on party management should never be prioritised above what is in our national interest.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). I was canvassing on Saturday in a village called Crick, in my constituency. I told one of my constituents there that I had applied to speak in this debate, and he said, “It’ll be a bit like a conversation between the man from Del Monte and the Churchill insurance dog, with one side saying ‘Yes’ all the time the other saying ‘No’”. It is a bit like that, but there are some common themes. A number of Members on both sides of the House do want to see some fundamental reform of the European Union, and the hon. Gentleman identified a couple of those areas.
One thing that no hon. Member can dispute is that the ongoing eurozone crisis means that Europe and the European Union is changing. We therefore have challenges that we must look out for and find solutions to. Currently, there are 17 countries within the eurozone, and there could soon be more. Many of the countries that signed the acquis when they joined the EU signed up to the euro, but at the moment, 10 EU countries are outside the eurozone. There is fear among those 10 of the caucusing of the 17. That is writ large in the United Kingdom.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman explain the logic of the position that takes us from the eurozone nations needing to assess how they can underpin the currency to wanting to repatriate powers over policing?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I think that I will be able to do that during my speech, in the next few minutes. It was a pleasure to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, whose wife I enjoyed working with as an MEP. I believe that he was working for her at the time and so was obviously feeding her some good lines, but it was a pleasure working with her none the less.
The fear of caucusing could cause the UK and others outside the eurozone to be outvoted in the Council in the very near future—the voting weightings are just about to change—possibly affecting our access to the single market. Most Members from all parts of the House are keen to ensure that that access remains, so we need to have, at the very least, what the Prime Minister called “new legal safeguards” to protect us from that problem.
I am not as defeatist as many Opposition Members have been. I was getting concerned about the idea of a European banking regulator, which came out of the blue last year as a new thing that Europe desperately needed to correct problems in the eurozone. I was worried about how it might affect our banking system, but Europe, as ever, managed to find a reasonable fix—one well negotiated on our behalf by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in the double-majority mechanism. Such a mechanism had not existed before, but it made sure that the UK position was fundamentally safeguarded. I am a great believer in the fact that these things that I and other Conservative Members might be calling for are achievable and that Europe will find solutions to problems if we enter the negotiation with a broad mind.
I am a founder of the Fresh Start group of Conservative MPs. Some Opposition Members are keen on detail, and we have detailed some of the areas where we think it would be worth while negotiating. In a way, we are making the Conservative political pitch, so I expect disagreement from Opposition Members, but I will try to explain why it is important at least to look at these areas, which include justice and home affairs. We highlighted a number of areas, and some Opposition Members might agree on some of them.
The first such area relates to a new legal safeguard to maintain access to the single market—I am sure hon. Members on both sides will agree that we need to ensure that the eurozone cannot prevent our accessing that. Secondly, we need an emergency brake that any member state can use on future EU legislation affecting the financial services market. That market is important to the United Kingdom, as a huge amount of our GDP is created in financial services. The single market has been important to that, by always providing an opportunity, but it is beginning to look a bit more like a threat, because of the 48 directives and regulations coming down the track at the moment.
Thirdly, we need the repatriation of competences in social and employment law. That is a controversial area for many Labour Members, but I was in the European Parliament when Labour Ministers appeared before its employment committee and were begging people to understand the different, liberal nature of the UK work force and were asking them not to put in extra measures on the working time directive and the temporary workers directive that would directly affect the number of people getting into employment in the UK.
Fourthly, we need to opt out from existing policing and criminal justice measures, as some of them are not working, some of them are defunct and some of them are based on mechanisms that no longer exist. Europe does not repeal things and it really should; there should be sunset clauses in some of the legislation.
Nia Griffith
Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman says that he is very much in favour of a common market and economic union, but has reservations about other aspects? What sort of referendum is he therefore suggesting? Should we have an in/out referendum, or is he suggesting that any question would have to be worded differently and address whether people wanted to stay in one thing but not another?
Chris Heaton-Harris
This is a fairly simple matter, and I tend to agree with what the Prime Minister says: we should renegotiate, get our deal and then go to the British people and settle this question. We should end the uncertainty by putting our trust in the British people and asking them, “Do you want this on the basis of the package that we have renegotiated or not?”
Jack Dromey
On ending uncertainty, does the hon. Gentleman accept the warnings given by Ford, BMW and the Engineering Employers Federation that the danger of prolonged uncertainty is that it will have an impact on vital inward investment decisions?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The biggest uncertainty and biggest danger for the British economy is the chance that Labour might be elected to government. There could be no greater uncertainty for the British economy than that—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) mentions democracy from the Opposition Front Bench—absolutely damn right. That is why we should trust the British people, because they will have the final say. We should be able to agree on reform of the European institutions.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who used to travel regularly to Strasbourg when he was a Member of the European Parliament, as I did, as well as to a third institution in Luxembourg.
Mark Hendrick
I am interested by the hon. Gentleman’s shopping list of powers that might need to be repatriated, but may I ask him about the mechanism? I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we have considered Switzerland and Norway. Would he prefer a relationship like that between one of those two countries and the EU, and if not, why not? Does he think that his Government can obtain their own relationship in some other way?
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is where the pessimism of Labour’s negotiating position has undermined our chances of getting some of the things that we have wanted in the past. I do not see either model working for us. We want a British model, which might be within the European Union but, if we do not get what we want, might be outside it.
I strongly believe that we need to negotiate a better settlement with the EU and that we should give the British people a say in it. I was delighted by the Prime Minister’s speech last week—as, I am sure, were the majority of the British public—although I was very concerned that the Leader of the Opposition said on the BBC’s “Politics Show” that he did not think that the European Union had enough power. Let me illustrate why I was concerned. The European Commission often asks for extra powers, and we have recently received its work programme, which contains proposals to harmonise and get rid of anomalies in the VAT system. In other words, the plan is to get rid of the anomaly whereby we can charge less VAT on energy, for example. That would increase fuel poverty in the United Kingdom, and I do not think that the European Commission should have more power to do that. We should retain the power in the UK to differentiate our own policies.
There is a divergence going on, and if we are going to stay in the EU, we need to ensure that we negotiate hard to ensure that that is in the British interest. If it is not, the British people will decide and they will decide to walk.
Mr Speaker
Order. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches must now be reduced to six minutes with immediate effect.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
You have cut me down to size before I have even started, Mr Speaker, but I will comply with your ruling.
I want to speak in defence of agriculture in the EU and the dangers for our farmers, food producers, manufacturers and the UK economy that would arise from pulling out or from the prevarication we might see over the next few years. People do not often speak in defence of agriculture in the EU, but my discussions with farmers show that they have been universally in favour of staying in—and not because of CAP reform or subsidies, although I shall return to those issues in a moment.
The first issue is the clear benefit that being in the European Union brings to consumers. Our high food standards, animal welfare, food protection, food safety and so on—despite the recent issues that bubble along—are a direct result of our being in the EU and working across it to the highest standards. Examples include the beef hormone ban, comprehensive food labelling—although we can do more on that, a cross-Europe approach has been an enormous help to our farmers and food producers—and limits on the pesticide residue that can be left in our food.
I mentioned the higher welfare standards and one example is the ban on battery hens, which came at an enormous cost to our farmers. Despite their fears that they might be disadvantaged when we entered into the ban across Europe on 1 January last year, the demand for eggs from producers who met the highest standards meant that for a short period there was a premium on their eggs. We need to sing this out loud: our farmers provide the highest standards of animal welfare and food safety standards of which consumers can be proud. It is a question not just of domestic supply but of exports.
Richard Drax
We discussed eggs and their production in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it might interest the hon. Gentleman to learn that very few other countries met any of the requirements, at great cost to our producers.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I do not want to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but, to my surprise, the response of the EU on 1 January last year was a quite dramatic intervention: in Spain and elsewhere, immediate action was taken against suppliers who were not compliant, to the extent of closing down hatcheries and egg producers. My regular meetings with the British Egg Industry Council suggest that that has not been nearly as worrisome to its members as they thought it might be, and has, in fact, been to their advantage. The long-term advantage in the sector lies in having not just a level playing field, but in meeting the higher standards that consumers expect. Consumers are demanding more of food production.
The common agricultural policy is undergoing changes at the moment, but the rural development pillar has been directly beneficial to many hard-pressed rural communities throughout the UK by rewarding the delivery of biodiversity and good environmental outcomes as well as innovation and competitiveness in farming and food production, and supporting areas such as Wales and Scotland where there are natural environmental constraints.
Another benefit is found in European food protection labelling, such as protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed. We in the UK need to speak up proudly about how many of our foodstuffs, produced in every part of the UK, fall within one of those designations and because of that, have value added and command a premium price. It is interesting that, just within cheeses, we now have more than one speciality cheese for every single day of the year. That is the result of the European approach of recognising the very best in local and speciality foods. Examples include Welsh lamb, Stilton cheese, Scotch beef, traditional farm fresh turkey and traditionally farmed Gloucestershire Old Spots pork.
We should also look at what the EU does across its member states in agricultural scientific research. For example, this country is holding its breath over the spread of the Schmallenberg virus, but it is at EU level that the research is being done into how we can counter it in the seven or so member states affected. The UK specifically has €400,000 to carry out scientific studies designed to gather further information, and is working with farmers to deliver a joined-up approach to research and to provide advice to farmers and the farming community.
Access to the single market is also vital. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) spoke about this. Yes, if we were outside the EU, we could still negotiate access, but there are difficulties with that. First, there is the time it would take and the complexity of negotiating access for a range of different products; and secondly, as farmers and the NFU tell me, we would have to comply with the standards that were determined without our having any input into making those rules. It would be like playing a game but having no say in the rules—just being told what to do. That is surely not to our advantage and it is the reason why the farming community are adamant that they want to be in the EU, playing and leading.
CAP reform is a continuous process. This week, the European Parliament voted on a proposal that, although it has some good parts, is in many respects extremely retrograde, not least re-coupling payments to production rather than to added value through environmental gains and so on. That links back to the old problem, albeit not on the same scale, of wine lakes and butter mountains, and it is wrong headed. None the less, I believe that our farmers want us to be in there, at the front, arguing loudly as a progressive member of the EU. My one concern in all this is that Government’s overall approach in the past couple of years of shaking a big stick on every possible occasion, and their present position that we will carry a bit of a threat here just in case we need to use it, have an impact not only on the tone of the negotiations but on their outcome. Having one of the leading Eurosceptics in the Cabinet taking those negotiations forward may be a disaster.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Who governs? That is the fundamental question before us in this mighty debate today. At what point does a self-governing country have to say it is no longer self-governing because the body of European law and the wide-ranging body of European decisions are so fundamental that Ministers and this Parliament can no longer effectively govern the country?
Too many of us have watched as Governments have given away mighty powers of self-government from these islands and from this once great Parliament to the European institutions, and we have worried greatly. This has been done in the name of the British people, but it has not been done with the consent of the British people. There has always been an excuse not to trouble the British people, and so often outside this House political parties have misled the British people.
The British people were told that they were joining a common market. It was very clear from the treaty of Rome onwards that they were joining a political, economic and monetary union in the making. They were told that they just belonged to a single market, needed to guarantee jobs in certain export industries. There were two misleading things there. First, we do not need to belong to the EU to export to the EU. Many other countries outside it export much more successfully than we have done from inside it. Secondly, it was always a far bigger and more noble venture in the eyes of its architects, its fathers and mothers, than a mere single market or internal market.
I ask Members of this Parliament to look around and see what has been done in their names—to see how difficult it is now for Ministers of the coalition, future Ministers and Conservative or Labour Administrations to do many of the things they would like to do or their electors wish them to do, because so many powers have been given away. The bigger the corpus of European law becomes, the more constrained are not just our Ministers, but this once-great Parliament.
Mark Hendrick
Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cars exported from the UK to mainland Europe today are a result of foreign direct investment to the UK because the UK is within the European Union, not outside the European Union?
Mr Redwood
No. That is a trivial point compared with the issues that I am raising, and it is entirely wrong, because there are many countries outside the EU that attract as much as or more inward investment than we do. I want, as does the hon. Gentleman, to keep those jobs, and we will continue to attract and support that inward investment as long as we have a satisfactory enterprise economy here and a decent market. We have a very large market of our own. That is why those investments come here.
The hon. Gentleman needs to look around and see how many powers have been taken away. We can no longer have an agricultural policy of any kind unless it is the approved one from Brussels. Our fishing grounds are completely controlled and regulated from Brussels. Our energy policy is greatly circumscribed by a large amount of European legislation, regulation and price control, and many more decisions coming along on climate change and energy, which means that it is very difficult to have an enterprise-oriented energy policy in this country.
We find that we do not control our own borders. We have no say over who comes here from the continent of Europe, and they have come in very large numbers in recent years. Many of them are welcome, but a sovereign country has the right to decide who comes and on what terms. We were always assured by Governments that we kept control of our welfare policy—that that was a matter for domestic consideration. We now find that the EU presumes to instruct us to whom we give benefits and what benefits we give them.
Michael Connarty
This is a grand opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I asked the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), to outline what position he would take and on what issues he would vote to leave the EU—on a matter of emotion, or can he give me some specific issues that he says should persuade his party and his Government to vote no when it comes to a referendum?
Mr Redwood
I wish to help restore democracy in our islands and to do that we need to regain the veto. We should not have sacrificed 100 vetoes at Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon. This Parliament needs to be able to decide whether a new law goes forward or not; otherwise we will find that in ever more areas—I am just beginning to illustrate some of them—we are a fax or an e-mail democracy. We receive the e-mails or the faxes from Brussels and this Parliament has to put through the measure, whether we like it or not. That creates a tension within our democracy. Successive Governments bring measures to this House and recommend them to this House. They are very fundamental measures, but they often sneak them through this House, or sneak them through upstairs, because they fear they are unpalatable to us. However, they know that there is nothing that the House of Commons can do once the agreement has been made in Brussels—and very often it is made without the wholehearted consent of the British Minister. In the case of this Government, it may often be made against the wishes of the British Minister, but this House is still expected to put through these measures come what may.
That is why we need a Government who resolutely negotiate a new relationship for us with our partners in Europe. Of course, I give no ground to anybody in wanting to maximise jobs and investment in this country, and my recommendations would increase that rather than reduce them, as we find with non-EU members already. However, I also wish to see the Prime Minister’s great speech used as a platform for setting out how we recreate a democracy and secure the right in this House to say no to European laws if we do not like them. We have waited a long time for a Prime Minister who would say honestly that this country does not share the aim of the treaties and of many of the member states of the European Union because we do not wish ever-closer union.
I have heard very few Labour Members say that they want ever-closer union, because they know that that means political, monetary, fiscal, economic and every kind of union known; it means the creation of a united states of Europe. Those who wish to join that, I wish well, but it was never Britain’s view that we wanted to be part of a united states of Europe. The British people, if asked, would say no to that idea. It is up to us now, at this late hour, to say that too many powers have gone and that they need to be returned if we are to restore this once-great Chamber to what it once was.
This Parliament wrestled power from over-mighty monarchs. This Parliament took on those who wished to dominate the continent of Europe and rejected the imperial ambitions of first Spain, then France, and then Germany. Because of the work of our predecessors in the House of Commons, we as a nation said to Europe: “We want a Europe of the free. We want a Europe of independent nations. We want a Europe where people’s sense of local belonging is respected. We are against a tyranny. We are against an over-mighty Europe. We do not believe that Europe can be governed as a whole.”
How proud that vision was, and how right it is that our Prime Minister has reminded us of the foundations of our beliefs: no to ever-closer union, yes to more democracy; no to restrictions and too much centralised government from Brussels, yes to greater freedom to breathe and to decide and to choose among all the smaller countries of western Europe. I suspect that many countries out there and many politicians in them respect that vision and are rather impressed by its boldness. We should all join together now in rallying the peoples of Europe to say yes to friendship, yes to trade, yes to co-operation, but no to centralisation and no to authoritarian interference.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Having listened to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), I have to say that I must have heard a different speech by the Prime Minister. I did not hear that rallying cry in the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe or in the Foreign Secretary’s speech today. It is a dream. It may be a good dream, and I am sure that it is one that the right hon. Member for Wokingham will take into his dotage, but it will never be realised on the basis of what is being offered by his Government. If he really believes that by speaking in that way he can change the route that his Government are taking, he is deluding himself.
The key question for me on the whole issue of Europe is whether, if the policies and procedures that currently exist in the UK’s relationship with the EU remain unamended, it is likely that the Foreign Secretary, given his speech today and his many contributions over his period in office, or the Prime Minister—or, indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition—would campaign for the UK to withdraw from membership of the EU. The answer is clearly no. I believe that that is the case for the majority of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members and for the vast majority of Opposition Members. If there were no changes, I do not think that those people would go out and campaign for our withdrawal from the EU. I think that the people of the UK would reject that.
I ask the same question as I asked in the Scottish referendum debate: is the current relationship between the UK and the EU damaging or malevolent? I do not find it malevolent. I find it irritating, troublesome and tedious in its mechanistic way of working. I have seen that as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee since 1998. However, it is not malevolent and it is certainly not damaging to the UK. Every statistic shows that the UK benefits remarkably from its membership of the EU.
There is an issue with competence creep. There is no doubt about that. That is what gets me about this Government who put themselves forward as being reforming. I watch Ministers come forward every week, again and again, with explanatory memorandums saying that they have decided to go for a political agreement or a compromise that gives away power to the European Commission. I have always said that since Lisbon that has been much more difficult to resist. But it is not even resisted. That is not about the EU; it is about the failure of our Governments over a long period to stand up to the Commission when they could have done, to build the alliances that Opposition colleagues and some Government Members have talked about, and to deliver for the UK.
Mr Cash
To respond to the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me earlier, would he be good enough to tell me whether it is more important to implement the laws made by consensus in the European Council of Ministers or the laws that his constituents support through the ballot box?
Michael Connarty
In 20 years in this place, I have never found it inconsistent to support the European Union. I supported it when I voted in the first referendum, and I supported it when I was the chairman of the Mid Scotland and Fife European parliamentary constituency and convinced a Eurosceptic MEP to see the benefits of Europe. There is no inconsistency between my job as a Member of Parliament and my support for the EU.
The big questions that we should be discussing—the ones that were touched on by the shadow Foreign Secretary—are all included in the Irish presidency agenda. The budget, the next financial perspective, the multi-annual framework and the need to deal with debt in the eurozone are all on the agenda and are being discussed on a daily basis by the 27 countries and Ministers. We should be discussing low participation in the labour market, unemployment levels and the massive problem of youth unemployment. The only comment that was made by the UK Government on the proposal for a youth, education and sport initiative—interestingly, I am the chair of the Council of Europe’s sub-committee on education, youth and sport—was that it should not be called the youth, education and sport initiative because that spelled “YES”. That was the one contribution from a UK Minister about what is on the Irish presidency agenda on youth employment. The Government have rejected the proposal for a guaranteed job or training place for every youth in Europe after four months of unemployment because they did not want that to interfere with what they call apprenticeships. In fact, apprenticeships in this country are not apprenticeships, but merely in-work training.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
As a fellow officer of the chemical industry all-party parliamentary group, I know that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is Britain’s leading export industry, ahead of the car industry. The chemical industry relies on long-term investment. Does he agree that the political risk premium that we now have will reduce the inward investment that is so important to that industry?
Michael Connarty
I totally agree. I would also point to things that are happening in the environment package, such as interference in health and safety in the North sea. Those things are being chased not by the environment directorate-general, but by the energy directorate-general. I know of three or four issues that it is trying to get into an energy chapter that it did not get into the Lisbon treaty. We have to watch the Commission creep and fight against it, as I have said before.
As for what it will mean, what is Fresh Start—the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and his colleagues—really about? Does it mean to renegotiate the 1972 treaty as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) suggested? No, it does not. If not, what is the agenda? It seems to me to be very light. As the hon. Member for Daventry said, the changes suggested are not radical ones that will make the EU a different place when people vote on the issue. That is the reality. It is about changing small matters, but it will not, for example, reinstate the UK vetoes. If that is the Government’s agenda, they are promising people a false referendum because it would not be a different Europe. If that is the case, why not hold the referendum now? Basically, Europe is not going to change, because this is a political ploy before an election, not a genuine attempt to re-establish the perspective on Europe.
Will the UK be allowed to renegotiate A8 citizens back to EU countries—one of the big cries from those in UKIP? No, it will not. Will the UK deny safe working conditions in its factories and building sites? I hope not. I worked in a toy factory in the ’70s. The EU came to the rescue by putting proper guards on the machines and, where they had damaged people, proper constraints. Will the UK return to the days of failed extradition processes? We used to talk of the Costa de los Bandidos in Spain because we could not get the crooks back here. Now we use the European arrest warrant. Will we abandon that? It is a nonsense. Will we make people in hospitals work longer hours? I do not think so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who speaks on agricultural matters, made an interesting point about meat eaters and I had a vision of carnivores in the Conservative party—carnivores or cannibals, I am not quite sure how they should be described because when the right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke I had a feeling that he would happily feed on the bones of his own Government if he could not feed on the bones of the European Union.
Those in Fresh Start basically hope that the EU is changing. Yes, it is changing because of the euro crisis and the crisis of the capitalist economy in Europe, but it is not changing fundamentally in its structures and powers. It will not change unless we repeal the Lisbon treaty and we are not going to do that. All the things that were mentioned about agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy are on the agenda of the Irish presidency, as is a more competitive single market. On the reform of the Council and Commission, since the Commission is set in stone, it will make policy and others will choose whether to implement that policy in the Council. My worry is that the feeding frenzy of the carnivores will not be justified by what the Prime Minister tries to do in this fake referendum, and in fact they will feed on the bones of their own Government when that fails.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I start by saying that the speech the Prime Minister gave last week was probably the most important speech that a Prime Minister has given on Europe since we joined 40 years ago, and the first time we have seen a Prime Minister showing genuine leadership on the issue. There has been lots of rhetoric from previous Prime Ministers about wanting to lead in Europe, but all too often they have found themselves drifting along with an agenda set by others. For the first time we have a Prime Minister who does not necessarily want to make friends with Europe, and who is challenging Europe’s failure and challenging it to move in a new direction. Such an intervention is long overdue because for many years there has been tension in the European Union between those who wanted to integrate policy making more deeply within Europe, and countries such as Britain who said we should have a broader Europe and bring on board countries from eastern Europe.
The decision to enlarge the European Union to include eastern Europe should have been a triumph for British foreign policy and have led to a situation in which the EU tried to do less but did a few things better. Some powers should have started to return to national Governments, but instead the relentless dogma of ever-closer union has continued. It is high time we called time on that.
We have heard a great deal from Labour Members about pessimism and defeatism, but I will tell them what those things really are. Pessimism and defeatism are seen in those who agree with the analysis that Europe needs to change and reform, and that some powers should return, but who have no confidence whatsoever in their ability to deliver that—they will not even try; they are not prepared to embark on the process. I heard the shadow Foreign Secretary agree with the five principles, but he will not say whether he thinks there should be a new treaty or intergovernmental conference, and he will not commit to any kind of renegotiation. There is a kind of craven fear among those who say they agree with our analysis but are completely unwilling to do anything about it or make a change.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Prime Minister is not clear what powers he wants to repatriate—it changes every time the Downing street spin machine gets into gear and whenever he is asked. Negotiations on that basis will mean four, five or seven years of uncertainty, which will damage the UK’s economy.
George Eustice
The Prime Minister is clear that we will have a renegotiation and put it to the people. The whole point of a renegotiation is that such things are developed in the negotiation. Labour Front Benchers say they share the Prime Minister’s analysis, but they are unwilling to do anything about it.
Three other aspects of the Prime Minister’s speech were important. First, he was right that the core of the EU is not the euro, but the single market. We are committed to the single market and want to expand and extend it. Research last year by Open Europe concluded that the current arrangement in the single market was better for Britain than the alternatives. It is better because we need to be in the single market for things such as financial services, and because we need to be in the customs union to support our manufacturing, because of complicated country-of-origin rules. For those reasons, we are committed to, and want to expand, the single market. The euro is not the core of the EU, as some would say. In fact, the euro is an optional project. Britain and perhaps other countries will never join it, and some member states trapped in it might yet choose to leave and re-establish their own currency.
The second important point expanded on by the Prime Minister is that we must end the dogma of ever-closer union. It must now be possible for powers to return to nation states. The reality is that the more competences the EU has taken on, the less competent it has become. We must give the EU the power to adapt and the power to let go of things when there is no longer a rationale for deciding them at European level. Who is really on the side of the EU? Is it those like me who say, “Let’s make the EU more flexible and give it the ability to adapt to new challenges in future,” or is it those who say, “It’s all too difficult to change. Let’s just leave it like it is”? Those of us who are arguing for change are on the side of the EU.
The third important aspect of the Prime Minister’s speech was the distinction between willing co-operation between nation states and national Governments, and the integration of policy. There is an opportunity to roll back the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in many areas. That has already been done on matters such as justice and home affairs by countries such as Denmark. It co-operates with directives and works with other countries in a spirit of co-operation but does not accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We do something similar on foreign affairs, and it works. We co-operate with other European countries and work to have co-ordinated policies on foreign affairs, but we do not have an integrated policy and we do not make foreign affairs subject to QMV.
I conclude by dwelling on whether change is possible. The big challenge in the debate is answering those who say, “It’s all well and good. We agree with you about what needs to be changed, but it’s impossible. What will you do if they say no?” I am more optimistic than many on that point, for a number of reasons. First, the euro has created challenges that mean that the EU will change anyway. I believe there will be growing demands for a new treaty in the coming 12 months if Angela Merkel is re-elected later this year. That demands a policy response from Britain. If other countries say that they want to integrate more deeply and understand that Britain will not follow them, we must at that point have a grown-up discussion on what a new model for Europe looks like.
The second thing to remember is that the differences between countries that are out of the euro and those that are in it can be exaggerated. The truth is that countries such as Germany, Holland and many others see Britain as an ally in liberalising markets and opening up the single market. They want us in the EU because they see us as an ally. The EU needs us because we give it influence in the world. People often say that Britain might be losing influence, but there is a two-way street, because we give the EU influence.
The third thing to bear in mind is that other countries have problems with aspects of EU policy. Germany and Sweden do not like measures such as the data retention directive. Therefore, we should discuss which bits they want to drop and which bits we want to drop.
Finally, the Prime Minister struck absolutely the right tone. He made it clear that Britain wants to be in the EU, but that we want Europe to change. He said that Britain will play its role as a genuine leader and challenge Europe to face up to its failures and make that change. To those who say that is impossible, I say that we should reject such defeatism. People used to say that the euro was inevitable; it was not. There is no such thing as historical inevitability.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The shadow Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to say that the big political news stories from this House last week were the cuts and redundancies in our armed forces, the shrinking of the economy, and the Government’s failure to deal with the economy. However, the Prime Minister and sections of the media wanted to concentrate on Europe.
Europe is an obsession for the Conservative party. Only last Friday I spoke to former Conservative party activist who had agreed with the Prime Minister when he said that it was the “banging on” about Europe that put people off the Conservative party, and why it had not been elected to Government since 1992. That was what some Conservative people were telling me only last Friday. This obsession confuses me, because it was a Conservative Prime Minister who took us into the European Union; it was Mrs Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, who signed the Single European Act which gave away many powers and vetoes; and it was Mr Major who signed the Maastricht treaty. He was very unkind to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and others at that time—I would never be as rude as the former Prime Minister.
Oliver Colvile
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that John Major was able to negotiate a number of opt-outs? Unfortunately, those opt-outs have been given away by Labour Governments.
Albert Owen
The then Prime Minister was very rude to the right hon. Member for Wokingham and doubted his parentage. He was angry and frustrated at being bounced by his Back Benchers, in the same way that the current Prime Minister has been bounced into making his speech. The Prime Minister could never be accused of being consistent on Europe. As recently as October 2011, I joined him in the Lobby to support the view that a referendum would cause all sorts of uncertainty. The Conservative party’s obsession is damaging the British interest.
I want today to make a pro-European speech. Although I totally disagree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham, I respect the fact that he has always been in favour of our leaving the European Union. He has been clear on that point, and he was clear again today. I believe that our strength lies in the EU. The title of today’s debate is “Europe”. We are in Europe; we are part of the continent of Europe. As a Welshman, I am proud of Wales being a part of the United Kingdom. I do not go to the UK and I do not go to Europe—I am in both and I want to remain in both. I believe that the interests of my constituents are better served by our having a strong voice in the United Kingdom in this Parliament, and in the European Union. I trust our representatives to fight for our interests. That is what the Prime Minister should be doing—talking not about our going somewhere closer to the exit of Europe, but about going to the centre of Europe and fighting for the interests of my constituency.
Identity is important. I am proud to be Welsh. I support Wales. Last year, 2012, was a great sporting year—Wales won the grand slam in rugby union, beating England on the way. Our British athletes won gold medals and I was proud to shout for Britain in the Olympics in the same way that I was proud to support the European win in the Ryder cup. The Welsh people are as proud as anybody of being at the centre of events, and Wales has benefited from being there.
I do not believe in an emotional approach towards Europe; I believe in practical, social and economic policies, and we have had good policies for Wales. Being a member of the European Union has been a net benefit to Wales. It is estimated that £40 per person per year extra comes into Wales from our membership of the European Union. We benefit in many other ways. Social and economic regeneration has happened through structural funds. Extra money has come from Europe, on top of what the UK Government have given, for real, social and economic regeneration that is sometimes difficult to quantify because it has built village halls and the structure of social cohesion of Wales and the UK.
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the structural funds, but, because we are net contributors to the EU, all we are doing is getting some of our own money back—it is not extra money we could not otherwise find.
Albert Owen
I understand that, but in the ’80s and ’90s, when my community was declining and, as a result, qualified for European structural funds, the British Government were not doing enough to protect such communities. The structural funds, which go directly to my community, are good for Wales and my constituency. I understand the argument about our being a net contributor, but in many ways the UK is not uniform. Many people talk about unemployment falling, but in my constituency it is rising—dangerously—to the levels in the 1980s, and there are job threats today, because a European company, Vion food processers, is pulling out, putting 350 jobs at risk. Jobs have been created as a result of our membership of the EU.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who is no longer in her place, asked why we did not make these arguments in the last Parliament. The truth is, Mr Speaker, that the Speaker before you used only to call the likes of her and members of the Government from our side of the House. Now, however, I have the opportunity, and I am taking it, to say that I am proud to be Welsh and proud to be British—she is right that we should talk about the UK, not just the island of Britain.
I represent a constituency that has been in existence for 450 years—and, thanks to the Liberal Democrats, it will continue to be in existence. The people I represent do not have an island mentality; they are outward-looking patriots, and a patriot can be proud to be Welsh, proud to be British and proud to be European. The agenda does not belong to those who want to move us towards the exit from Europe; it belongs to those who want to be at the centre of Europe.
Jobs matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) was quite right. Like him, I had a meeting with farmers today—I represent a rural community. They know that there are problems in Europe, but they also know the benefits of being in Europe. They run small businesses and local communities, and for them it is not about big or small Europe. They understand that Europe brings real benefits. That is what I am proud to speak about today.
The urban development in my town comes from European structural funds. The near neighbour of mine is not continental Europe, but Ireland. The Chancellor used to boast about how good the Irish economy was. We can have both free trade and good employment laws; they can go hand in hand. I am worried, however, that if we move away from the social chapter, our jobs will become less valuable and our constituents less valued. I am proud to say: Wales, Britain, Europe, we need to be united; we need to be leading in it, not moving away from the centre.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who made a passionate, excellent case for accepting and celebrating identity on many different levels. In a way, like him, I am proud to come from Gloucestershire, I am proud to be English and I am proud to be European—indeed, I am proud to be a member of a country that is part of the United Nations as well. We can celebrate and identify with people on many different levels.
We have heard many passionate speeches in this debate. Obviously, we heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is not in his place anymore, who revealed that he had voted in two French referendums—so perhaps we should call him the hon. Member for Pierre for now on. We also heard a passionate speech from the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who made a strong case for Britain remaining at the heart of Europe. If a referendum one day comes, I have no doubt that he, like the Liberal Democrats, will be putting the case strongly for a yes vote, for remaining in the EU and for keeping Britain at the heart of Europe.
In a spirit of coalition fraternité, let me say that I found much to welcome in the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe, although one would not necessarily have known it from much of the media coverage. He applauded the EU’s contribution to peace and freedom over many decades in Europe and emphasised the value of the single market. He also emphasised the EU’s role in putting Britain at the heart of negotiations on world trade—through free trade agreements and so on—and therefore its value to British jobs and British business. He also stressed its role in keeping Britain at the top table on issues such as climate change. The idea that if we left the European Union and were no longer a member, we would have that kind of access to top tables around the world, to the single market or to the free trade agreements that are negotiated at European level is a bit of fantasy and a misleading argument.
The Prime Minister also emphasised the importance of reform in Europe. I agree with a great deal of what he said in his speech about that. I was talking to consultants at Cheltenham general hospital only recently about the working time directive and the need, perhaps, to reform some aspects of it. We all want the EU budget reduced, in line with these austere times, and there are regulations—from small businesses to fisheries—that can be lightened or brought closer to national decision making. We would all support that. In fact, the Prime Minister made a very good case for British membership of the European Union and the kind of reforms that can be achieved within a process of negotiation and collaboration, positively engaging with our European partners.
However, the Prime Minister rather undermined that with his announcement of this hypothetical in/out referendum, not so much by putting forward the principle of a referendum, but by refusing to say which way he will ask us to vote if such a referendum actually happens, which is quite a big if. Let us look at Conservative policy over the past few years. In 2007 we had the “cast-iron guarantee” of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. A few years later, that was not so certain. Then, once the Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, we had a clear and legislated-for agreement that there would be a referendum in the event of any powers moving from the British to the European level of government.
Damian Collins
We are all enjoying a lecture from a Liberal Democrat MP on consistency in policy, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that this argument about the Lisbon treaty is totally spurious? The treaty was signed into law by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) as Prime Minister before the coalition Government came into power, so the horse had long left the stables.
Martin Horwood
When the Lisbon treaty was debated in this Chamber, the Liberal Democrats were the only ones who proposed an in/out referendum, not at some hypothetical time in the far distant future, but then and there, yet few Conservative MPs—or, indeed, Labour MPs—joined us in the Lobby that day. We have therefore been very consistent in arguing for referendums at times of major change. What I am highlighting is the lack of certainty in Conservative policy, which has yet again changed in the last few weeks. I might make rather more money than I generally do at the Cheltenham gold cup by betting that within the next four years, before this hypothetical referendum takes place, Conservative policy might just change a little again.
The real problem is not the principle of a referendum; the real problem is what will happen in the intervening years. This whole debate has given those who do not share the Prime Minister’s agenda—which is quite positive about membership of the European Union—an excuse basically to campaign for a British exit. Some of them dress it up in the argument for this imagined wholesale renegotiation of the British terms of membership. There is no reason why that should succeed, because if we start unpicking all aspects of our relationship with Europe, why would the French not start arguing to unpick competition policy? Why would the Germans not start arguing for the protection of their energy markets? Why would quite a lot of countries not start arguing, after perhaps making a few concessions to us, for taking back our rebate, as a quid pro quo? Realistically, I do not think that an unpicking of the whole relationship will happen.
In the meantime, business will be concerned about the uncertainty. Some of the statements from business have been clear. David Sproul, the UK head of Deloitte, has said:
“The Europe debate does not help to create certainty. When I talk to US clients who have not been immersed in the European debate as we have, they say that what they need is clarity. There is no question: it will impact business—it will hit investment into the UK.”
That point is repeated in a number of different quotations.
George Eustice
Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that all those arguments were put forward during the euro debate and that they were all proved wrong? For example, it was said that the Japanese car companies would all go, but that did not happen. It is a sorry state of affairs when the European Union seems almost incompatible with a democratic referendum or with the will of democratically elected national Governments.
Martin Horwood
Membership of the European Union is not at all incompatible with democratic referendums. We have had one and we have advocated another, and the coalition has legislated for a referendum lock if powers should ever move closer to Brussels, so that is not the issue. The real issue is British jobs and British business, and the climate of uncertainty, which is not about the principle of a referendum; it is about the risk of exit and the damage that that would do to the British economy and to the guarantee of peace and freedom across the European continent for future generations. It is also about the risk of losing our place at the table on everything from climate change to world trade. Those are genuine, deep risks, and concern is now being expressed by businesses, by our European partners and by our allies around the world.
Whatever we think about the principle of a referendum, we need to be absolutely clear which way we would vote in a referendum. The Prime Minister has tried to start making the case for a yes vote, and for Britain remaining in the European Union, but he has shied away from making a really firm commitment. The Liberal Democrats are absolutely clear that we would argue for Britain to remain at the heart of Europe, and the more that Members on other Benches stick their heads above the parapet and start to make that case as well, the better.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). Given the events of the past 24 hours, I am surprised that he is still sitting across the Chamber from us and that he has not joined us on the Opposition Benches, especially in the light of the speech that he has just made.
Is it not strange that on this, the 1,000th day of the coalition Government, we should find ourselves in the Chamber discussing the Conservative party’s favourite obsession: Europe? That is a surprise indeed. As the economy hurtles towards a triple-dip recession, the Prime Minister and the Government have decided to create economic uncertainty that could damage any recovery and the long-term prospects for economic stability by adopting a policy that is designed to fix the Conservative party rather than this country’s economy.
It is the job of any Prime Minister to stand up for the national interest. Indeed, that has been the motto of this coalition since 2010, but the Prime Minister has compromised the national interest by responding to the increasing Euroscepticism of his Back Benchers. We have a Prime Minister who simply cannot reconcile the demands of his party with the demands of his country. Let us look at the potential consequences.
The EU brings the UK a considerable amount of investment, but that could be put at risk. Some estimates put the number of UK jobs reliant on the EU at 3 million. Those jobs could be put at risk. The EU remains our single biggest trading partner and represents a de facto domestic market of 500 million people. That market could be put at risk. At a time when economic recovery seems like a distant goal, that creates uncertainty for business, which could put any economic recovery at further risk. Businesses large and small are already warning about the potential dangers to investment. We have heard many such voices being quoted in the Chamber this afternoon. The head of the CBI has said that the promise of a referendum
“builds in a degree of uncertainty and business never welcomes uncertainty.”
The problem is that the Prime Minister wants to renegotiate with Europe, but he has no strategy and no thoughts on what he wants to renegotiate. How can he renegotiate anything when there is confusion over his own position? He has talked about the repatriation of powers since he became Prime Minister, but he has yet to tell the House and the country which powers he wants to repatriate. Many Government Members have been challenged to give us some examples this afternoon, but they have failed to do so. Does the Prime Minister’s shopping list include the progressive policies of the social chapter? Does it include the right to four weeks’ holiday for British workers, the right to parental leave and extended maternity leave or the right to request flexible working? Does it include protection for part-time workers, the working time directive, the TUPE regulations or collective redundancy provisions?
There is an obvious distinction between repatriation and repeal. The British people deserve to know not just the list of powers the Prime Minister wishes to repatriate but what the Government would do with those repatriated powers. We have already seen the Beecroft report on workers’ rights, which would take this country back to Victorian times. Would the Government repatriate and repeal? Would they just repatriate? Or would they even repatriate and improve? Those key questions need to be answered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) was absolutely right to say that, whether we are in Europe or out of it, British business will still have to conform to EU directives to be able to trade. That is a critical point, but I think that the Government have missed it. If the Prime Minister has a menu for repatriation, how many or how few items on it will have to be met before being satisfied that he will go for an in/out referendum?
It would be remiss to talk of the EU in this Chamber without mentioning Scotland. It will not surprise the House to hear that the Scottish Government’s response to the Prime Minister’s speech was confusing at best. The Deputy First Minister wrote to the Foreign Ministers of the EU and said that Scotland had no intention of leaving it and that Scotland, after a successful independence vote, would continue to be a constructive member of the EU. That was despite the Irish Foreign Minister and the President of the European Commission stating that Scotland would have to reapply and that it could be a lengthy process with conditions attached.
Even more astonishingly, the Scottish Government responded to the Prime Minister’s speech by declaring that a referendum on the EU would create uncertainty for Scottish business—despite the referendum due to take place in 2014 being four years in the making. We could be in a position whereby, come 2014, Scotland is not just not in the UK, but not in the EU.
In the past two and a half years, the Government have never said anything positive about the EU. We know that the Prime Minister does not want a referendum, as he voted with us in the House only a few months ago. Back in June last year, he posed the question whether he wanted to stop the bus and get off, and he answered no. One thing is for sure: the Prime Minister can do none of this while he is away from the EU decision-making table and locked out of the room in a sulk. He should be at the table, thumping his fists on it and using this country’s considerable influence to make the patriotic case, founded on the national interest, for a flexible Europe that can stimulate economic growth, respect national sovereignty and change better to reflect current circumstances. Europe cannot be changed from an isolated position.
In his speech, the Prime Minister referred to
“a tantric approach to policy-making”.
In reality, this is not a tantric approach, but complete impotence. Having been bounced by his party on Europe and bounced by the Liberal Democrats on boundaries, we could be talking about the one-term Prime Minister who broke up the UK, took Britain out of the EU and inherited a growing economy, only to take it three times back into recession.
My constituents are concerned about the real issues of the economy, jobs, the cost of living, protecting those who are most in need and getting young people and graduates into work, but their Governments on both sides of the border are putting their future prosperity in further—
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
A number of Opposition Members have criticised the Prime Minister for announcing that he will campaign in the next general election to renegotiate, hold a referendum and, on the basis of that renegotiation, campaign for a yes vote. It is probably worth reminding them that it was a Labour leader and a Labour Prime Minister who did just that in the general election of 1974. Despite having a number of irreconcilable people on his Benches, including Barbara Castle, Michael Foot and Tony Benn, he succeeded in gaining a two-to-one victory in the subsequent referendum.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman reminds us of the 1970s. Of course, the clamour of the two camps to win out against each other took our eye off the economy at the time, and we went into a very difficult period. Are we in danger of doing exactly the same, and is not the Prime Minister in danger of being not the son of Blair, but the grandson of Harold Wilson?
Martin Horwood
I think the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made a good comparison with Harold Wilson and the 1970s. Like our Prime Minister now, Harold Wilson wanted modest reforms, but was unable to satisfy the Europhobes in his own party. Within five years, that party was voting for exit from the European Union—despite the referendum. Is that not a little bit of a warning from history?
Mr Walter
It is a warning from history, but if the hon. Gentleman listens to what else I have to say, I hope that he will accept that I will be campaigning to make sure that that does not happen. I had rather hoped that the question of Britain’s membership had been settled decisively back then—my view has not changed—but I believe that the prospect of a national vote would give our country an opportunity to have a serious national conversation about Britain’s relations with the European Union. I welcome that, because I think that for too long the debate has been dominated and, to an extent, distorted by mistrust and by a suspicion that more EU integration means less sovereignty for the United Kingdom.
We need to set the record straight. For those of us who support the European project, this will serve as an opportunity to explain what Parliament and politicians have done in the people’s name over the last 40 years. It will also give us a chance to expose the myths purveyed by those who would have us turn our backs on both our European history and our European future.
It is true that the Europe we joined in 1973 was created on the basis of a vision of a post-war Franco-German elite. It is also true that Schuman, Monnet and de Gaulle himself saw ever-closer union as meaning an eventual federal Europe. But that was another time, and another Europe. The EU of today is markedly different, and the EU of tomorrow will, I believe, be even more so. In the Commission and, to some extent, in the European Parliament, there are those who still see the EU as a centralising project, but in national Parliaments—including this one—and among the peoples of Europe there is no craving for that original centralised model.
Brussels is not Europe, and the people who work there have no monopoly on the European vision. Schuman’s plan was fundamentally about eliminating trouble, anxiety and distrust from a continent ravaged by centuries of conflict. Today, our focus is not on keeping the peace, but on consolidating prosperity. The treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 by just six countries with a combined population of 173 million. By the time the Lisbon treaty came into force, more than half a century later, the Union comprised 27 member states with a combined population of more than half a billion. With Croatia, we are soon to number 28. Enlargement, one of the EU’s greatest success stories, is set to continue, bringing more change to the character and direction of the European project.
As its membership has changed, the EU has embarked on a different path. If we reflect on the way in which European institutions have evolved since that original blueprint, if we look at the aspirations and stated aims of EU member states—all of which want to protect their identities and interests—and if we consider the actions that member states have taken independently, across a wide spectrum of policies, it is clear to us that there is no great craving for the centralising project envisaged by the founding fathers. The proof is all around us.
After 40 years of British membership, there is really no overarching bureaucracy or executive. The Commission and the Council are small in comparison with many national Government administrations. The Commission’s budget is barely 1% of Europe’s GDP. Countries retain sovereignty over many areas that might have been expected to be transferred in a federal system. Member states have their own foreign policies and their own armies, which they can deploy at will, and they do. Member states can choose to opt out of a raft of agreements that they oppose, and they have: that has been proved.
We should not forget, of course, that treaties require the consent of every member state, even if they are supported by the vast majority of the population of the EU. That is an important point. When consent is not given, Europe must go back to the drawing board, and that has been done. In 2005, France and the Netherlands rejected, by referendum, what was then the constitution. In 2008, Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty in the same way. Did those countries threaten to leave the European Union? No. Did the EU respond by trying to coerce those countries into accepting a treaty that was judged unacceptable by the people? No. What happened was that the countries returned to the negotiating table, and their Governments renegotiated the aspects of the treaties that conflicted with their national interest. They made the case for their concerns to be addressed, and they were.
I think that there is a lesson here. We in the UK have our concerns and suspicions, and the EU has many shortcomings. We are therefore right to push for reform, but these examples show us that the EU is not heading inevitably and inexorably towards some sort of federal superstate, even if some people within the Commission and the European Parliament still harbour that goal. Every country has its own corner to fight, and it has the power to do so. We are far too reluctant to admit this, but the UK has time and again proven itself to be an influential leader in the EU.
Mr Walter
No, you cannot.
Thanks to our positive engagement across a swathe of policy areas, from economic reform and deregulation to environment and trade, we have consistently set the agenda. In the debates ahead, we need to strip away the rhetoric and clarify what Europe represents. Europe is the solution, not the problem. Our history is in Europe, and I believe that our future is, too.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Cash, you can do many things, but you could not have given Mr Walter another minute even if you had wanted.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), who has been an isolated and lonely voice of sanity on the Government Benches this afternoon.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), I am fascinated by the modern-day Conservative party’s obsession with Europe. We only have to mention the word “Europe” to send many Conservative Members into an act of communal or self-flagellation. As my hon. Friend said, however, that has not always been the case. The major changes in our relationship with Europe were introduced by Conservative Governments. They took us into Europe, and it was Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single European Act.
Now, however, the Conservative party holds to a little Englander narrative, which goes as follows: Europe is a foreign place that is anti our culture and somehow does things to poor old little Britain. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that we are an island off the continent of Europe, but we are part of Europe. For centuries, we spoke French, not English, and we even speak Norman French at the Prorogation of each Parliament. Our royal family has a proud German history and heritage, too. It is therefore plain wrong to argue that Europe is somehow alien to our culture. It is part of our history, and it is in our DNA, too, as the blood of people from Europe who have settled here flows through our veins. All this also influences the decisions we take: if we go down to the Members’ car park, we can see the most fervent anti-Europeans driving French and German-made cars.
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said what is important is inward investment and access to the European market. I completely agree. The EU is vital for jobs in my region of the north-east, and also for our future prosperity. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made a point about structural funds, too. They made a real difference when the last Conservative Government ripped the heart out of the north-east economy. This is not only about manufacturing, however; it is about access to financial markets, too, and liberating the European telecommunications market, which cannot be done from the sidelines.
Albert Owen
My hon. Friend is making a strong argument about our being an English-speaking gateway to Europe, but we are not the only one. There is also the Republic of Ireland, so we must be on our toes and make decisions at the centre of Europe.
Mr Jones
That is true, which is why current policies and statements are potentially putting us at a competitive disadvantage.
There are those who argue we would be better off outside Europe, and that we should have an in/out referendum now. I respect that position—although I totally disagree with it—but that is not what is before us. It is worse than that. We will have five or more years of indecision because this Prime Minister has put party advantage ahead of Britain’s national interest. We will have five years of companies looking at Britain and asking themselves, “Should we invest? Can we be sure Britain is going to be part of Europe?” The Prime Minister will not even tell us what the red lines in respect of Europe are going to be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said earlier, they will involve, for example, driving employment rights down to the bottom to try to ensure that we are competitive with the rest of the world.
Europe is our major trading partner and we need to be at the centre of it. We will not achieve that by standing on the sidelines, or, as this Prime Minister seems to do, by threatening to take our bat and ball home if we do not get our own way.
Much has been said about the free movement of people throughout Europe. This is nothing new. I grew up in the region of the north Nottinghamshire coalfields and went to school with people with Italian and Polish names—the children of people who had settled there after the second world war. Conservative Members who represent areas such as Lincolnshire will be aware that many generations of immigrant workers have come there to pick fruit and other agricultural produce. That has added to, not taken away from, this country’s prosperity.
Mark Hendrick
My hon. Friend, coming has he does from the north-east, will remember the “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” generation who went to work in Germany because they could not find work in this country under the Thatcher regime.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When the Tyne shipyards were decimated by the last Conservative Government, most of the welders and other skilled workers got work in Holland and other parts of the EU, and those skills continue to be exported today.
It is important to remember that being part of, at the centre of, Europe is in this country’s interest. On the idea that Europe is doing things to us—that the Commission tells Britain what to do—Conservative Members tend to forget the nature of the decision-making process. What on earth do Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers go to Council of Ministers meetings for, if not to influence debate? Similarly, the last treaty actually changed the role of the European Parliament. I have my criticisms of the way it operates, but at least it increased the so-called democratic voice in decision-making processes.
Are we going to end up with a two-speed Europe? If we continue as we are, we certainly will, because our voice will be ignored in Europe. There are some changes that could be made. I am not one of those who argue for a federal Europe; I am arguing strongly that we need to be an active and loud voice, speaking up for what is in Britain’s national interest: the single market and the security that Europe offers this country.
There will be changes to, for example, the eurozone, but I should remind the Conservatives that we are not part of the single currency. Change will happen, and we need to be part of a constructive, positive dialogue. Standing at the sidelines stamping our feet, saying that we must get our way on every single thing or we will take our bat and ball home—in some instances, the Government do not even know what it is they want their way on—is not the way to get the economy out of the dire straits this Government have got it into.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
What a refreshing change to be in the Chamber today, having this interesting, broad and generous discussion about the European Union, which is so different from many such debates that I have watched remotely or participated in in my short time here. The same is no doubt true for other Members. The mood has changed, and the reason why is the Prime Minister’s speech last week. The greatest service that his speech has done not only to the country but to the European debate is that it has allowed us, at last, to open up this debate properly. It has allowed the full spectrum of belief and thinking—on both sides of the House—to find its voice and come alive, and with a graciousness that we have not had in such debates for many decades. That is a good thing, because this debate is too important for us to allow it to become reconciled only through rancour. We have to approach it afresh. The British public are tired, frustrated and irritated with this discussion and we need to have it in a new way that gets to the heart of the matter.
That was why I was so pleased with the way in which the Prime Minister opened his speech last Wednesday. It began, so importantly, by dealing with the historical context, which we have not discussed properly in this Chamber for many years. When we have been discussing the minutiae of European treaties, we have forgotten the reason for Europe, why this country is a member of the European Union and why so many of its other members care so deeply about the political consequences of this great community, which has done so much, with NATO, to forge a peace since the second world war. It has been the longest peace that the continent has enjoyed in its modern history.
As Tomas Masaryk so memorably said, our continent is
“a laboratory atop a vast graveyard”.
It behoves us not to forget that although we have found peace within the continent during the past 60 years, the edges of our continent are as dangerous, as vociferous and as potentially alive to crisis and trauma as they have been at any point in the past five or six centuries. Furthermore, we have to be alive to the fact that, as the Prime Minister said, our relationship with the European Union is peculiarly British; a golden thread runs from the very first engagement that we had in our modern history—the Norman conquest—all the way through to now, and it is peculiarly English. That has stamped its mark on the relationship between Great Britain—and then the United Kingdom—and Europe. Even in that prototype of European summitry at the field of the cloth of gold, which the Minister will know of far better than I do, the discussions between the delegations contained many of the same tensions that we see now in European summitry and in the discussions that he has to have on a weekly basis on our behalf.
None of that is to say that other nations in the European Union do not have their own peculiar, individual, unique relationships with other member states; for the Finns, for the Spanish, for the Italians and for the Germans these relationships are very special. So we are not in a unique position in encountering a difficult or particularly interesting relationship with our fellow member states; the relationship is made different by the great ditch that lies between us, but we still have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that other nation states also have these peculiar interests.
The Prime Minister recognised not only that changing relationship with the European Union, but the changing demos of the European Union. We would do well not to forget that the demos is changing in our own country, too. This is a remarkable moment for us and for our nation and, I would propose, for reform of the European Union. I am glad that the tone has changed as a result of his new beginning last week.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow a thoughtful contribution by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer). The debate has had a more welcome tone, perhaps because, with one or two honourable exceptions, it has been boycotted by some of the more extreme Europhobes on the Government Benches—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) walks in on cue. Perhaps they have boycotted it because they think they have the Prime Minister cornered.
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich in congratulating the Prime Minister on the opening remarks in his speech last week. I thought it went rapidly downhill, but he was right to remind us of the big picture, of the wider national interest, of the bigger strategic goals and of the peace dividend from the European Union, which has been complacently disregarded by many. My father was a pilot in the second world war and my grandfather was in the trenches of the first. I am a member of the first generation of my family since the 19th century not to have been called up to one of the bloody conflicts that have engulfed our continent for centuries, because the European politicians who survived the last war said, “Enough,” and recognised that if we created economic and political interdependency among the countries of Europe, we would stop killing each other. And we have, for the longest period in our history.
Peace, safety and freedom: those were the objectives for post-war Europe that Churchill described in Zurich in 1946 and they have been delivered by the European Union. How has the Conservative party been transformed from the party of Churchill to one in which outright hostility to the European Union has become almost an article of faith for so many of its members? It has clearly not been helped by the tabloid press. As the Leveson inquiry reported:
“At various times, readers of these and other newspapers may have read that ‘Europe’…is intending to ban…kilts, curries, mushy peas, paper rounds, Caerphilly cheese, charity shops, bulldogs, bent sausages and cucumbers, the British Army, lollipop ladies, British loaves…and many more.”
Paul Blomfield
I have been asked not to give way because of the time available—I would otherwise have been delighted to do so.
All those claims by the tabloid press were nonsense, but there are more sophisticated myths, too. One, which was most recently reported during this debate by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), is that the people of Britain were misled about the Union we were entering and were not told that we were signing up for anything more than a single market. Again, that is simply not true. The Conservative Government’s 1971 White Paper was clear that the aim was
“an ever closer union among European peoples”
and went on to say:
“If the political implications of joining Europe are at present clearest in the economic field, it is because the Community is primarily concerned with economic policy. But it is inevitable that the scope…should broaden as member countries’ interests become harmonised…what is proposed is a sharing and an enlargement of individual national sovereignties in the general interest”.
The prospectus for the 1975 referendum was clear and so was the result.
Of course, the rhetoric of repatriating powers will sound attractive to some, but, as a number of Members have pointed out, we must be clear about exactly what powers we mean. Top of the list for many Government Members are the powers on employment. They need to be honest with the people of this country. Why repatriate those powers if not to abolish the rights for working people that come with them? We deserve an answer.
I do not think that Government Members want to abolish social Europe. They want the other 26 member states to keep it, but they want the UK out so that our USP in Europe is offering the lowest labour costs, leading a race to the bottom and offering companies the chance to boost profits at the expense of hard-working families. Why would the British people vote for that and why would the rest of Europe allow it? The single market is about a level playing field, not about skewing the market to the advantage of one country at the expense of its people. How will the British people be persuaded by a Prime Minister who cannot even win an argument in his own party? As he struggles and fails to control his party, he is undermining business confidence, damaging our economy, limiting the chance for growth and weakening the creation of jobs.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Throughout the debate, we have been asked to consider the choice between optimism and pessimism and between certainty and uncertainty. It is clear to me, however, that the people on the Opposition Benches who would call themselves optimists are so optimistic about the benefits of the European Union that they do not want an open debate with the British people in which they get to have their say. Those Opposition Members complain that the uncertainty of the referendum period is damaging, but will not give us any certainty about whether they support having a referendum now or at any point in the future.
The debate today, and the debate that the Prime Minister has rightly started, is about our bottom line. What do we want from the European Union if we are to maintain our membership? What case will we put to the British people in the referendum campaign based on what we have renegotiated? Without certainty, without a bottom line and without the referendum, there is a danger that the debate will carry on for ever. Britain and other member states will grumble about the EU and what they do and do not get out of it, but there will never be clarity about what we want to get back, what we think is the best deal for Britain and whether we should consider that our national interest is better served by considering a future outside the EU. If someone has a negotiating position, they have to consider walking away from the table if they cannot get what they want; otherwise they are never taken seriously. That is the story of the Labour Government: they gave away Britain’s opt-out on social policy and £7 billion of our rebate and got nothing in return. Their rhetoric about Britain being at the heart of Europe was exactly that: a rhetorical position, totally meaningless. We got nothing out of Tony Blair’s positioning himself at the centre of a grand European stage—nothing that could be shown to be of any real benefit to the British people.
Following the Prime Minister’s speech, the German newspaper Bild wrote that:
“Most EU countries have tacitly agreed to build Europe above the heads of the people. Motto: The European project is simply too important for democratic participation. And then along comes this Cameron!”
That is exactly what the Prime Minister has done: he has demonstrated that we can have an open debate about Britain’s future in the European Union and put it to the people. If we start that national conversation, ultimately we will have a clear view and an answer, and an end to the debate.
There has been considerable discussion of the European social model and what reforms we would want. We certainly see the case for nation states and national Parliaments making decisions in that area. I believe that the social model of Europe has to be reformed if Europe is to be competitive in an increasingly competitive world, and that view has been expressed by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It was also expressed by Tony Blair in an interview in Der Spiegel this week, but although, “We want reform—reform of social policy,” are fine words, if you do not have a clear view of what you want and do not back it up with a referendum, you will not get what you want. The reason countries such as Ireland could negotiate after their people originally said no to the Lisbon treaty is that they had a clear, definitive position as a country. The European Commission had to deal with them because they had the power to bring down the entire treaty; that was the strength they had in that negotiation. We have to learn from that.
We have to take a simple and pragmatic view of what is in our national interest. Britain, like Germany, is seeing its exports grow not within the EU, but in the growing consumer economies around the world. Brazil, Russia, India, China and Indonesia—those are the growing developing markets and we cannot ignore that. Neither can Europe ignore the fact that one of the reasons for the debt crisis is that the European model has been too expensive and the wealth generated by the European Union has not been enough to sustain it. That is a lesson we have to learn.
Ben Gummer
Does my hon. Friend agree that EU reform will result in that market itself growing, which will enable us to expand our exports into the EU?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why a reformed Europe—more liberal, more open and more competitive—is something we all want and would all work towards achieving.
We should realise that even if, at the end of the process, the British people decide that our future lies outside the EU—Britain could decide to leave; that is in the gift of the British people and this Parliament—we cannot abolish the European Union. It is a fact of life and it will continue to work in its own way. It is inevitable that the eurozone countries will see closer co-ordinated integration as part of the solution to the crisis in the eurozone, but it is clear that we will never be part of that inner core. There has to be a view of what Europe means for countries that are not only not in the eurozone, but have no desire ever to be in the eurozone, and what their relationship is with the EU.
My constituency, other than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), is about the closest to the continent of Europe. From Folkestone, we can see France clearly, and the channel tunnel at Folkestone is a direct link to the continent. Our business links and our trade through the ferry ports of Kent and through the tunnel will continue. Companies’ investments, such as that of EDF in the cross-channel electricity pipe and Dungeness nuclear power station in my constituency, will continue. They make those investments because it makes business sense for them; they are not doing us a favour because we are in the European Union. Those pragmatic business decisions will continue to be taken because Britain is an open, low-tax, competitive economy with a very large consumer market, which is attractive to investors.
Martin Horwood
Surely one of the most valuable things the EU can do to help business and trade is negotiate free trade agreements? If we were to withdraw from the European Union, would we be guaranteed the same terms with South Korea or north America? That would pose an enormous risk, would it not?
Damian Collins
We are not in a position where we can say that Britain will be outside the European Union, or even in a position to know, if we did leave, what our relationship would be in those trade negotiations. The process of leaving the European Union, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is incredibly complex and it takes two years of negotiations to achieve that end. It is not like walking out of a house, giving the keys to the estate agent or the bank and saying, “Right, I’m off.” These are matters that will be negotiated over a long period.
However, Britain has one of the top 10 economies in the world, with a very large consumer market. It tends to be a net importer of goods and it embraces trade and cultures from around the world. That has always been one of our great strengths. Britain will always be a country that people are interested in talking to when it comes to negotiating trade agreements. The opportunity for us to do that either inside or outside the European Union will remain, but the goal is to try to secure the open, liberal, competitive Europe that we think is in the interests of Europe and of Britain, too.
The political correspondent for Die Welt, Alan Posener, commented after the Prime Minister’s speech that for the first time in years Britain is setting the European agenda. We are doing that because we are putting down a marker. We are making it clear where we stand, where we are looking for renegotiation, and what we want from our membership. We are clear that things have to change. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his interview with Die Welt, if Europe will not change, then our relationship with Europe must.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am keen to get everybody in, so I am reducing the time limit to four minutes.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Business needs certainty. What business wants to know is, “Where are we going to be in the next 10 years?” It does not need a situation where it does not know whether we will be in or out of the Common Market or European Union.
In Wales we depend heavily on foreign direct investment. We want to be part of the European Union that allows us to be a country where goods can be manufactured and then exported to the European Union. We forget how very complicated it was before the days of the Common Market. We forget the number of bilateral trade agreements that were necessary and the number of different safety standards. We take it for granted that we now have common standards and free trade, and we lose that at our peril. Instead of investing in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, firms such as Tata Steel will say, “Well, we’ve already got a plant in IJmuiden in the Netherlands. We know that that will stay securely in the European Union. If we make further investment, that is where we’re going to put our money.” That is a very real risk for people working in the steel industry, the car components industry and in the many other industries whose products are exported to other countries in Europe.
Of course we want reform of agricultural policy. Our Agriculture Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government, Alun Davies, is discussing common agricultural policy reform at the heart of Europe, and also consulting Welsh farmers so that we get the right sort of reforms. On consumer protection, yes, we want to move forward together. Consumer protection and employment legislation are two sides of the same coin. As well as protecting the worker, such measures protect investment in this country because we are competing on a more level playing field if we expect the same standards of rights, pensions, welfare and so forth to apply to workers in the countries with which we may be competing.
We in the Labour party delivered devolution to Scotland and Wales. There will always be a discussion about the level at which certain decisions are best made, but we forget at our peril the important decisions made at European level in respect of issues such as the pollution of rivers and acid rain. Borders are not respected by the elements and we have to get it right for all of us. The same applies to the emissions trading scheme. Again, it is about creating a level playing field so that businesses and industries can compete on the same terms.
When we look forward to where we are going to be by 2017, we seem to be looking at a huge Pandora’s box, and we do not know where the Prime Minister is leading us. Instead of showing real commitment to Europe, he is showing a lack of commitment. Unfortunately, instead of such commitment being a bargaining tool, some of the countries of Europe might be quite pleased to see us go. One of the big problems is that we do not know what the referendum will be about—whether it will be about the Common Market, the state that we were in pre-Maastricht or pre-Lisbon, or something else. That is the uncertainty that business does not like to operate in.
We would like a much clearer commitment from the Government to a proper pro-European policy and to getting the very best for the country from our membership of the European Union. Of course there must be accountability and scrutiny. We will always be able to say, “That could have been done better,” or “Money could have been spent more wisely,” but that is the same at every level of government. We should be at the heart of Europe, fighting for our cause.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I am very supportive of the Prime Minister, who has changed the climate to make sure that we are going to have a proper debate about Europe for the next few years. I have a little lesson for Labour Members who might think it rather strange that we want to talk about Europe. In my constituency in the south-west, I am for ever being talked to about the whole issue of Europe. A lot of people come to see me on a regular basis, and they clearly perceive that Europe is now the bogeyman. We as politicians have to be seen to be taking some action, and the Prime Minister is certainly showing the way.
Britain’s role in Europe has been to maintain the balance of power within Europe—that has been our island story for the past 1,000 years. It has been very much about trading issues to do with imperial preference, the corn laws and so on. These issues come along every 100 years or so, and we need to react to them. The Conservative party has been having this debate because we are the party that represents the whole country and understands what people feel about such issues.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Oliver Colvile
I will not, I am afraid, because we have only a short time to speak.
In terms of trade, Britain has been far too dependent on Europe. It is very important that we have a relationship with Europe, but we need to do more about trade with other countries as well. This whole debate sparked off as it did because shortly before the Berlin wall came down Jacques Delors made a speech in which he made it very clear what the European vision was, and we did not agree with it.
The eurozone is having to go through a complete reappraisal of where it will end up. The countries in it are going to have to become closer. We are not part of the eurozone, and nor should we be. I very much welcome the job that the Foreign Secretary did when he was leader of the Conservative party. We in Britain must demonstrate that we are taking the lead in all this. We support a free market. The difference between us and Labour Members is that they have thought that it is a way of maintaining regulation sent down from Europe whereas we think that we can change the situation.
We must have an agenda that sets out what we want. I will set out my personal view; if the Prime Minister is listening, I would be very grateful if he took it on board. We need to bring UK fishing waters back under UK control. We need to make sure that we are able to negotiate back all the opt-outs that John Major was able to deliver during his time in office when he dealt with the Maastricht treaty. We must be able to control who is allowed to come into our country. We must be able to decide who should be charged and who should be prosecuted. That is how I want us to end up. If we can achieve that, we can do what Drake set out to do in the first place—a great Plymouth boy who went out and beat the Spanish armada. We have a real opportunity of securing a big victory for our country under the current Prime Minister.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), although we will disagree more than we agree.
The debate that we and the country are having on Europe is a healthy one, albeit one that it stems from an embattled Prime Minister trying to deal with his party members’ conflicting views. The public understand very well that this is really about political opportunism, and they will be watching this debate carefully as it unfolds—or, in the case of the Government, unravels. It is still not clear whether the Prime Minister personally wants Britain to be in or out of the EU. It is also not clear what that means for inward investment. Only this week, I attended an event here at the House of Commons with members of the financial services sector who gave a clear message that the current situation is not good for their sector. I am afraid that selective quoting by the Foreign Secretary hides a very genuine concern that people have about the referendum.
I do not often sympathise with the Foreign Minister of Poland, but in a recent speech he made a very cogent argument for Britain’s remaining in the EU. He pointed out the strength of our trade output to some of our EU partners.
The Prime Minister’s allusions to a possible exit have jeopardised our market position. Perhaps he should consider changing his catchphrase to, “We’re not in this together anymore.” Is he going to rely on the goodwill of significant trading partners in the EU, such as Ireland and Germany, for their continued trade with the UK if we find ourselves outside the single market? They certainly will not want to give us preferential rates. Why on earth should they?
It would be helpful to know exactly what the Prime Minister meant by some of the little snippets in his speech. What did he mean by
“pushing to exempt Europe’s smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU Directives”?
How does that work when his Government have just supported the EU directive on defence and security that is designed to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence supply chain and ensure that there is a level playing field? That directive was opposed by the Conservative party in opposition. It has now had the sense to see that it works for business and is taking it forward.
The Government have a pick-and-mix attitude to Europe, but we do not know what they want to pick. Nothing in the Foreign Secretary’s speech today left us any the wiser. He did not explain why he wants us to leave the champions league and play in league two. We do know, as we heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, some of the things that Government Members want to lose. However, they also want to lose protections that British families and workers enjoy: the entitlement to a safe workplace, paid leave and fair pay. That was highlighted well by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey).
Everything that we have heard from Government Members is indicative of the uncertainty and lack of consistency that are the hallmarks of this Government. They are not clear whether we are staying or going; they are not clear about what exemptions they want; they are not clear about what powers they want repatriated—the list is endless. This Government will spend the next five years bickering and failing to get the UK economy back on track.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). I do not agree with her views, but that is probably why we are on opposite sides of the Chamber.
I suspect that it will surprise a few Members in this place when I say that I love Europe. I love the languages, the culture, the history, the open roads, the mountains, the rivers, the wine—
Richard Drax
Indeed, the women. However, I do not want to be ruled by Europe.
Why do we not admire the diversity of this great European space rather like a family? I am a father of four. I am not offering any advice on how to be a father —it would be far beyond me to do that. However, I have noted from my experience and that of my friends that if you let your children go, they come home, but if you cudgel them over the head and say, “Do this job, do that course,” they say, “Goodbye,” and you lose them. Why can we not do the same with Europe? One rule simply does not fit all. The evidence is there to be seen.
I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on his speech. It is perhaps rare for me to say that, but I really do. He is a man of courage, standing up for our country, which is what we are all here to do. My battle cry during the election campaign was, “We want our country back.” That is not being a pessimistic, down-at-heart little Englander. It is being optimistic. It is looking to the future and doing what is best for our country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said so eloquently, this debate is about democracy and freedom. I am delighted that we are at last talking about this bogeyman—this elephant in the room—that nobody has discussed until now. The fact that the Prime Minister has at last said that we will have a referendum in 2017 allows us to speak our minds.
From the Opposition Benches we heard words such as “uncertainty” and “clarity”, but we do not have certainty and clarity now, because Europe as we know it is dead; it is finished. I am sure all hon. Members are familiar with the “Dead Parrot” sketch from Monty Python. As it stands and as it is being progressed, the parrot—Europe—is dead. It is finished. For 17 years the doctor—the accountant—has injected all this medicine into the poor EU parrot: “Wake up, wake up!” Yet there it lies saying, “No. I am a corrupt dead parrot; I am a finished parrot.” The evidence is there to see. Opposition Members are shaking their heads—yes, the nightmare Member for South Dorset is standing up for his country. I am proud to be in the Chamber and to speak in this way, and I have 46 seconds left to speak up for my constituents and my country—our country.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, this place has lost so much power. We were put here to stand up for our constituents and they say that they are worried about the way Europe is going. It is time to look at the issue and at whether we can renegotiate the powers. Again, we are asked, “What powers?” I say all powers—repatriate the lot so that this House becomes a sovereign Parliament once again and all hon. Members do the job that we were sent here to do.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is 62 years since the treaty of Paris was adopted, and 57 years since the adoption of the first treaty of Rome. In that time we have seen peace among the great powers in Europe, a great boost to our growth and trade, and a greater sense of social unity between Europe’s peoples. That is now under threat because the Government no longer seem willing to make the case that pooling part of our sovereignty increases our collective economic strength within Europe, and that our influence in the world increases as a result.
The success of the European Union means that other countries such as Serbia and Turkey are queuing up to join, and the model of peaceful rules-based co-operation between nation states has been followed in Asia with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in Africa with the African Union, and in south America with Mercosur. We know from the views of the American Administration and the Government of China that our sense of and influence in the world is bound up with our full participation in the European Union, and we risk that at our peril.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), my grandfather served during the first world war and my parents were children during the second world war when Europe was in the process of tearing itself apart.
Mr Bain
Sadly I cannot because of time. For my generation, Europe stands stronger together with common rights at work, free movement for workers and a successful single market of 480 million with whom we trade more than 48% of our exports. On many issues, the common stance that we have adopted has added to our strength in the world. That is why, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, I am clear that we must remain part of the United Kingdom and through that play a crucial part in Europe. I am hugely concerned that the Scottish Government’s proposals to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom would impact on that strong link with Europe and lead to years of negotiations and uncertainty about our currency and central bank, and our inclusion in global trade agreements.
The EU is at an important crossroads and needs reform, not least of its economic policies. Through the fiscal pact to which 25 countries have signed up, we see southern Europe at risk of a generation of austerity. The tragedy of the Prime Minister’s leadership—as the ghost of Maastricht continues to stalk the Conservative Benches two decades after the ratification of that treaty—is that Britain is well placed to lead on major issues of reform such as reducing agricultural subsidies through the CAP, increasing Europe’s investment in science and innovation, and completing the single market in energy. Instead of prioritising those areas, the Prime Minister is throwing that opportunity away and trying to diminish the rights of workers within the single market to paid holidays, maternity and paternity leave, and safe conditions at work.
As the Government’s survey shows, if Britain is not part of the single market and if the rest of Europe completes it in our absence, our national income would be 7.4% lower—[Interruption.] The analysis, which Government Members can consult, was conducted by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
The Prime Minister is placing his increasingly forlorn ambition of uniting his party above our national interests at the heart of Europe. It is the Opposition’s duty to make the positive case.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for managing to squeeze me into this hugely important debate—this is one of the most important subjects that Parliament can debate, because at its heart is the question of who governs the country, and what power lies in Westminster and in Europe. No issue can be more important than that.
There are several reasons why the EU is going through a period of change, the first of which is the move towards political union by eurozone countries. When politicians considered entry to the eurozone, it was obvious to many of us that political union among eurozone countries was inevitable. I did not want to be a part of that and was opposed to joining. That inevitable process is now leading to great change in the EU.
Secondly, there is a challenge of competitiveness for the EU. There is great change and other countries in the world are moving forward. Unless the EU changes its internal processes, it will find that it is outflanked by many other countries.
The third pressure, which is perhaps the most important, is the democratic disconnect between the peoples of Europe and those who govern them. Unless we address that problem, we could have serious social problems.
I support the Prime Minister’s speech, which has greatly changed the narrative in the House and the country—I am not an Order Paper-waving enthusiast, but a realistic pragmatist, and the speech was hugely important to us. Before hon. Members make speeches in the Chamber, it is as well that they look back at the last speech they made on the subject. I spoke in the October 2011 debate, when a referendum motion was before the House. I opposed the motion quite strongly, for two reasons, and the Prime Minister addressed both in his speech.
My first reason was the need for clarity. In October 2011, I felt we were discussing a referendum when there was no clarity on the options that the public would be given. Some hon. Members spoke of a “preferendum”. The Prime Minister has now made the position clear: the choice will be between what the Prime Minister has renegotiated and withdrawal.
My second reason was that I needed to be certain that the Prime Minister—the leader of Britain’s political entity—was willing to withdraw if the people voted no. It would be unthinkable if he was unwilling to withdraw if the people voted no. It is pretty clear now that, should the people vote no, Britain will seriously consider withdrawal.
I shall conclude by repeating the words with which I finished my speech in October 2011:
“I believe that one day, following a serious negotiation, there will be a referendum on our relationship with the European Union, and that that referendum will ask a clear question enabling the public to say yes or no about our relationship with the European Union. I look forward to that day”.—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 115.]
Nothing in my position has changed.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am delighted to speak last from the Back Benches in this debate. Who laughs last laughs longest, so I hope to have some influence on Britain’s EU reform. I feel hugely optimistic. The Prime Minister’s vision for Britain at the heart of a new globally competitive EU, and an EU that is both fair and democratically accountable, is music to my ears.
I find it astonishing that Opposition Front Benchers say that the Prime Minister’s speech causes rather than resolves uncertainty. They need to focus on the fact that the uncertainty over Britain’s future in the EU is the same as the uncertainty over the EU’s future. The eurozone has faced an unprecedented currency crisis and an existential crisis. While we have been worrying about jobs and growth, they have been worrying about the literal collapse of their currency and their eurozone union. Change is not just something that Britain would like to have and haggle over a bit here and there at the edges; change is essential across the whole of the EU, something already in evidence in the recent actions in the eurozone.
Mr Redwood
My hon. Friend has done an important study of EU powers. Did she find that the EU either now controls, or has substantial influence over, every part of Government?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, as part of a newly negotiated relationship with Brussels, it will be important for Britain to bring back significant powers. At the same time, the EU is set to change itself. It is already changing significantly, and changing in ways that already benefit Britain. Just one example is the eurozone’s decision to create a single regulator for eurozone financial institutions, and the recognition that in doing so there was the potential for member states to caucus against non-euro members. It has been agreed, at the request of Britain and other non-euro member states, to have a double majority, so that eurozone members cannot exclude non-euro countries from having a say in a vote. That is an important, game-changing precedent that points the way to a future for the European Union. There is a group of eurozone members that need to move towards a country called Europe where they underwrite one another’s debts and move to a federal united states of Europe. At the same time, there can be another very strong group of non-euro member countries that can find a different path. The Fresh Start project, which I was closely involved in establishing 18 months ago, has recently recommended a number of reforms. I hope that the Government will take close account of its recommendations.
Ben Gummer
Does my hon. Friend not agree that that does not necessarily preclude closer co-operation in some areas? For example, a single sex offenders register across the European Union is necessary to stop some of the outrages that some of us have seen in our constituencies. People have come in unchecked and have committed crimes.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that Britain co-operate fully with the EU on matters of crime and policing. I will come on to that, because it is one of the recommendations in the Fresh Start manifesto that Britain repatriate its competency in that area. In other words, Britain can envisage a scenario where we co-operate fully with the EU, but do not necessarily have to opt in to directives that cannot then be changed under qualified majority voting and are subject to European Court of Justice oversight. It is perfectly possible for Britain to repatriate crime and policing without having to give up its sovereignty in that area.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
On that point, is it not important that, if we can get proper negotiation on proportionality, we can make the European arrest warrant work for serious crimes while avoiding the sorts of abuses about which we all have concerns ?
Andrea Leadsom
That is a very specific point. I advocate co-operation on the European arrest warrant, but not opting back into that specific directive.
I want to come on to the other proposals in the Fresh Start manifesto, which support the development of the EU. First, the repatriation of social and employment law is not, as Opposition Members would have us believe, to get rid of workers’ rights, but to say that national Parliaments are best placed to decide and should have the flexibility to amend legislation when it is in the interests of their countries to do so. Let us face it, there is up to 50% youth unemployment in places such as Spain and Greece. If ever they needed flexible labour laws, it is now.
There is a recommendation to have an emergency brake for financial services for all member states. The financial services industry is very important at EU level, and for Britain it is a key contributor to the Chancellor’s tax take. We need to defend it, but it is also essential for the entire EU. We want an emergency brake that enables any member state to defend itself against unfavourable interventions. The final proposal is for a legal safeguard for the single market.
Those are some of the proposals from the Fresh Start project. I hope that the Front-Bench team will be listening carefully and taking up some of our ideas.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
We have heard some excellent contributions to this debate.
Former French President Charles de Gaulle famously asked how it was possible to govern a country with 246 types of cheese. The same could be said of the Conservative party on the EU. As my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) stressed, the timing and the content of the Prime Minister’s speech last week were clearly motivated by an attempt to manage his party, rather than to serve the national interest. His speech was both a delaying tactic and a diversionary tactic designed to kick the can of a Tory split over Europe down the road and to divert attention from the Government’s ongoing economic failure.
When the Prime Minister set the original date for his much delayed EU speech, there was a failure to notice the clash with the anniversary of the Élysée treaty, but it was clear that the speech was deliberately timed to divert attention from last Friday’s GDP figures, which were, as expected, disappointing. [Interruption.] Government Members may laugh, but the situation is serious in my constituency and throughout the country. We were told last week that our economy contracted in the last quarter of 2012, but today, instead of discussing the possibility of the economy slipping into a triple-dip recession, we are talking about Europe.
The Prime Minister’s policy last week was to buy himself some time, keep his party quiet and stem the tide of rumours of leadership challenges. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, it would appear that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and several other Back Benchers did not get the memo. This week’s leadership rumours show that behind the paper-thin veneer of unity afforded by last week’s speech, the Conservatives remain a deeply divided party. Today’s debate has shown that, too.
There are many factions in the Conservative party over the EU. There are those who want us to leave no matter what, although I am slightly confused by the position of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—I would have put him in that group, but now I do not know whether he is a Camembert or a Roquefort. Another faction is led by the Fresh Starters.
Mr Cash
Would the hon. Lady recognise that some of us seek to address this question in the context of the national interest? When she speaks about GDP, does she recognise that the challenges to GDP in this country are largely driven by the lack of growth in the eurozone? We run a deficit with the EU member states of £47 billion a year.
Emma Reynolds
Germany’s EU membership has not prevented its economy from growing more than 4% in the past two years, nor has France’s membership prevented its economy from growing by more than 1.5%.
I return to the divisions in the Conservative party. There are different factions with different shopping lists. There is an interesting faction that actually quite likes the status quo, but will not admit it, and various Members—not least the Minister for Europe—who are pro-Europeans, but would never call themselves that. I will not name any others, because I might get them in trouble with their local Conservative associations, but it is clear that the gap between what the Prime Minister’s party is demanding and what he can renegotiate with our European partners is unbridgeable.
The Prime Minister’s announcement of an in/out referendum in four years—on an arbitrary time scale, an unknown set of demands and an unknown outcome—will create economic uncertainty. Many of my hon. Friends have made that point. Many business leaders are concerned about the UK drifting towards an exit. A leading group of business leaders warned that to call for a wholesale renegotiation would
“put our membership of the EU at risk”
and cause
“damaging uncertainty for British business”.
Interestingly, back in November 2011, the Chancellor, when talking about a slightly different referendum, said:
“The instability and the uncertainty that hangs over the Scottish economy”
is the result of the First Minister
“raising the prospects of independence without actually providing any detail of when he wants to have his referendum or what the question will be.”
It seems curious that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor cannot see that there is a direct parallel with their commitment to a referendum on Europe.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Conservative Members are all united behind allowing the people to decide. The hon. Lady says that there is uncertainty about a referendum, but the uncertainty is: what is Labour’s position on whether the British people will ever have a referendum?
Emma Reynolds
We have been clear and consistent about our position. I was in the Division Lobby with each of the right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting on the Treasury Bench, voting against a referendum on our membership in October 2011. We are not the ones who have changed our position; they are the ones who have changed theirs.
The Government’s commitment to a referendum also weakens the UK’s negotiating position with the rest of the EU. Opposition Members would like meaningful reform of the European Union, but we do not do that by blackmailing our European partners. Although my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has been specific about what kind of EU reform he would like, the same cannot be said of the Prime Minister’s speech last week, which gave very little detail about which powers he wanted to repatriate. Indeed, he did not even mention the word “repatriation”—much to the disgust, I am sure, of his Back Benchers—and he was also unclear about how he would campaign if he was not successful in that negotiation. When the Minister winds up, it would be useful for the rest of the House and the country if he put an end to that obscurity and told us which powers the Conservatives are attempting to bring back. What is their strategy, if they have one, and why are they so sure that the timing, in 2017, chimes with any sort of timing in the European Union? Chancellor Merkel has gone very lukewarm on the possibility of treaty change. It is not clear that we will have any treaty change between now and 2017.
Mr Redwood
Why did the Labour party in office give away a lot of our rebate, which a Conservative Prime Minister had negotiated, and then get no agricultural reform, which it had promised?
Emma Reynolds
I correct the right hon. Gentleman: he may have longer experience than I do, but I can tell him that there was significant reform of the common agricultural policy, and we put our contribution, for the first time in our history, on a par with the French contribution.
Labour’s agenda for the EU is reform, not exit. We believe it is in our vital national interest that the UK remains a full member of the EU, arguing and pushing for reform from the inside. In a global economy dominated by economic giants—the US, China, India and Brazil—it would be economic madness to shrink our domestic market from 500 million people to 60 million people. The EU is the biggest collective negotiating tool when negotiating trade deals with those emerging economies. At a time when the economy is flatlining, the Prime Minister’s attempt to unite his party might prove incredibly damaging. [Interruption.] I hope that it is not, but those are the warnings that we are getting on jobs, trade and inward investment in the years to come. That is indeed regrettable.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I am grateful for the opportunity to reply, only briefly, to the 37 right hon. and hon. Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House who have spoken, in addition to the two Front Benchers. Beneath all the knockabout and the genuinely strong views that we have heard on the different sides of the debate, there has been a common recognition that the European Union is changing already and is likely to have to change further, as a consequence of three inexorable trends that are affecting how it operates.
My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) emphasised how the dynamic inherent in the single currency union is pushing its members towards closer fiscal and economic integration and that, over time, that will require further political integration to make those fiscal and economic decisions democratically accountable. They suggested that that, in turn, would mean that at some stage in the next few years, all members of the European Union would have to sit down and have what my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) called a grown-up conversation about how we can get right the political and institutional architecture to make the European Union work with different levels of integration, with some countries having committed themselves to much closer, deeper integration on some aspects of policy than others, but with those others still remaining full participants in the EU.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and for Macclesfield (David Rutley) pointed out, Europe is having to contend with the dramatic rise of the emerging economies. Therefore, Europe as a whole—as well as the individual countries—needs to raise its game quickly. Otherwise, the blunt truth is that none of us will be able to afford either the material standards of living or the social protection that current generations in Europe have come to take for granted. That does not mean sweeping away all social protection, however.
If the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and other hon. Members who raised that scare story look at European debates on the working time directive, the pregnant workers directive or the posted workers directive, they will find that the United Kingdom is far from being the only member state that questions whether we need a one-size-fits-all policy, or whether the Commission or the Parliament need to be quite so prescriptive in trying to harmonise different systems that are based on national traditions, laws and practices in relation to employment protection and social benefits.
Given the need to respond to the global economic challenge, Europe as a whole needs to focus on the further deepening of the single market. We have already accomplished a great deal in terms of goods, but the single market in services is woefully underdeveloped. It is profoundly in the interest of the United Kingdom and of Europe as a whole that we should be successful in promoting those reforms further.
It is also essential that the United Kingdom should work energetically within the European Union, as the Government are doing, to promote greater free trade between Europe and other countries around the world. During the lifetime of this Government, we have achieved free trade agreements with Singapore and South Korea, and there is now an ambition to obtain an historic free trade agreement with the United States that would in effect set global regulatory standards, as well as sweeping away tariffs and non-tariff barriers. That objective is among the top priorities of our Prime Minister and of the German Chancellor, as well as of other leaders around the European Union.
We need a practice and a culture of legislation and regulation at European level, as at national level, that seek always to reduce the burden that such law and regulation impose on the flexibility of our businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. In answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), I would say that the plan to extend the deregulatory exemption for the smallest business is not some plot dreamt up in the nether recesses of Conservative central office. It is a policy objective that has been endorsed by the European Council on more than one occasion and that is supported by the Heads of State and Heads of Government of all 27 member states—conservative, liberal and socialist alike. I hope that, on reflection, she will welcome what is happening in that regard.
The third driver for change is the need to strengthen democratic accountability. As I would have expected, much has been said in the debate today about the United Kingdom’s desire for a greater role for national Parliaments in how decisions are taken at European level. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pointed out that discontent with the current state of Europe manifested itself in the voting in the French presidential election. If we look at countries such as Hungary and Greece, we can see manifestations of an ugly strand of European politics that we hoped had been defeated for good at the end of the second world war. Those undemocratic populist movements are exploiting genuine grievances against, among other things, the way in which decisions appear to be taken over the heads of ordinary people. It would be to the disadvantage of the European Union as a whole and of democratic traditions and values in Europe if they were not dealt with.
Mr Lidington
I do not agree with that statement. The European Parliament has a role that is set down in the treaties, but if giving extra powers to the European Parliament were the answer to discontent over the democratic deficit, the transfer of those additional powers in successive treaties over the past 15 or 20 years would have remedied the problem. It clearly has not, and it is not just in the United Kingdom where politicians are starting to think about how to involve national Parliaments more in European business than they have been in the past. Europe is changing and needs to change further.
Mr Lidington
No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The Government are not waiting until 2015. I agree with most of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) said about how the coalition is working to shape change at European level in a way that benefits the prosperity and security of people in the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members on all sides have emphasised the importance of Europe for trade and investment in this country—a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Our membership of the single market makes it easier for United Kingdom companies to sell goods and services to the rest of Europe without tariffs, without port checks and with common or mutually recognised standards applying. That point was put to me very clearly by Scottish business leaders when I met them in Edinburgh earlier this week. Our location in the single market makes us a more attractive destination than we might otherwise be for foreign direct investment, with the UK still getting a larger share of that than any other member of the European Union.
It is true, as many hon. Members have said, that we need to do far more to step up our trade with the emerging economies of Asia and Latin America. Frankly, if the UK could match the success of Germany on that count, our economic performance would benefit significantly. We still sell more to one German land—North Rhine-Westphalia—than we do to the whole of India, so I do not see a strong economic partnership with the European Union and vigorous initiatives to promote trade and investment with the emerging economies as somehow alternatives. It is in the interest of people in the United Kingdom that we are successful in doing both.
In the various contributions to the debate from Labour Members, there have been two chief criticisms of the way in which the Prime Minister spoke last week. The hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) denounced the idea of having a referendum on the grounds that it would cause uncertainty and drive away investment. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, the
“question mark over Britain’s place in the European Union…is already there and ignoring it won’t make it go away.”
He said that people who refused to think about “consulting the British people” were making it “more likely” that the whole population would become increasingly discontented with the European Union and more likely to vote to leave it when the choice was finally put to them, as one day it will be. He said he did not wish them to take that decision.
What is ironic is that the criticisms from the other side ignore the fact that, as their own spokesmen have been at pains to say, although they will not express support for a referendum now, they might change their policy and advocate a referendum within the next two years—despite the fact that their own supporters are saying that that would create enormous business uncertainty. I do not think anything could demonstrate more clearly than that contradiction the incoherence of the Labour party’s position.
I am confident, on the basis of the work that the Government have already done, that we will be successful in reforming the European Union to enhance the prosperity and security of the people of this country, and I support the approach laid out by the Prime Minister last week.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of Europe.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will recall that yesterday, during Treasury questions, the Chancellor was rebuked by Mr. Speaker for claiming that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chief Secretary, was not “being completely straight” when she drew attention to figures published by the Office for Budget Responsibility showing that
“in the first three years this Government are spending £12.8 billion less”
on capital projects
“than the plans that they inherited.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 770.]
Now that it is clear that the Government have not matched the plans that Labour had for infrastructure investment—according to the Channel 4 News FactCheck verdict, the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the Chancellor’s claim to have spent more on infrastructure than Labour had planned to spend was wrong—have you been given any notice that the Chancellor is available to come to the House this evening to apologise again for getting his facts completely incorrect?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have been given no notification that the Chancellor or, indeed, any other Minister will make a statement from the Dispatch Box this evening, but if the position changes, the House will of course be notified in the usual manner.
Business without Debate
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Pig Industry
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is an enormous pleasure, especially following our debate on Europe, to speak in an attempt to protect the British pig, a noble beast, from the depredations of the European Union.
On 1 January this year, a European directive, Council Directive 2008/120/EC, came into force throughout the EU. It lays down minimum standards and requirements for the welfare of pigs, and, most notably, outlaws the use of systems, known as stalls, which in fact confine sows in individual metal stalls. It was originally passed in 2001, and in this respect—as in so many areas of animal health and welfare—the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard.
The Minister is a former pig farmer, as is his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who is also present this evening. I only wish that I too had been a pig farmer: I should have liked that very much. My right hon. Friend and the Minister will know—as, indeed, will many other Members—that Parliament placed a complete ban on sow stalls in 1999, and that the United Kingdom had already achieved full compliance with the directive when it came into force this year. Unfortunately, however, that is not true of all member states.
In June 2012, the European Commission reported that 18 of the 27 member states expected to meet the January 2013 deadline for full compliance with the directive. Despite assurances given to the Commission, however, figures leaked from the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in December 2012 showed that 80% of member states were expected to fail to comply with the ban.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I welcome the debate, because I want to draw attention to a difficulty affecting Europe’s enforcement of the directive. One of the problems with EU legislation is that it is only when it has actually become law that the European Commission can take action. It should be able to take action before the event: that would enable the practice of keeping pigs in stalls to be stopped in Denmark and in all member states.
Mr Bacon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this country, once the rules come into force on a given date—1 January 2013, in this instance—that should be it. There is a huge difference between our approach to the law, what we do with it and how we obey it, and the approach of many countries on the continent, where law and the making of law are more of an aspiration than a statement of what is and how things should be. I do not want to dwell on that point too much, because it is outside the terms of the debate, but I think that it highlights one of the fundamental differences between us and many European countries, which makes the melding of our countries—should we wish it, which we do not—almost impossible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this very important issue before the House. My constituency used to have 30 pig producers, but we now have just one, although it is a large one. The problem has been that we in the UK have religiously followed the regulations, to the detriment of local pig farmers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the supermarket chains should give a commitment to sourcing pork from local farmers, rather than buying from across the rest of Europe?
Mr Bacon
Yes, that is important, and the evidence is that where supermarkets—such as Waitrose and Morrisons —have made such a commitment, it has had very favourable consequences and customers like it.
As a result of 80% of EU member states not being expected to meet the deadline, many illegal farms are likely to operate well into 2013. Only five nations—the United Kingdom, Austria, Estonia, Luxembourg and Sweden—achieved full compliance with the directive by the 1 January 2013 deadline.
As the Minister will know, at the Council of Ministers meeting on Monday of this week, fresh figures on the extent of compliance with the directive were provided. The latest data from Agra Facts revealed that an additional five member states—Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Romania—are now fully compliant, taking the total number of compliant countries to 10. It is interesting that some countries that might have faced more difficulties and that are less economically developed have been able to achieve full compliance, while other countries, such as France and Germany, have not. That speaks volumes about why compliance has not been achieved. The reality is that it has not been achieved because it was not in those countries’ interests to achieve compliance, as they can get more profit by flouting the law, and they have done that up to, and beyond, the last possible moment.
Many of these countries export to the UK in significant volumes, including Denmark, the Netherlands and the EU’s largest pork producer, Germany. To take Germany as an example, one quarter of the EU’s pigmeat—some 5.6 million tonnes—is produced by German pig farmers. Recent Eurostat figures show that Germany has 27.4 million pigs, over six times the number of pigs in the UK, and 18.5% of the overall EU pig herd. The website for German Meat, the joint export promotion organisation of the German meat industry, proudly proclaims:
“The production of pork has a long tradition in Germany. Production methods and structures today are of a high standard and undergo constant further development in terms of animal genetics, animal health, production technology and hygiene.”
However, the December 2012 figures for compliance show that fewer than half of Germany’s pig farmers—just 48%—had achieved full compliance with the directive. That figure now stands at 73%—so still more than a quarter are not compliant—and both figures place Germany at 24th place out of 27 member states in terms of the percentage of pig farms in full compliance.
In December, four member states had compliance rates of below 50%: Germany, Portugal, Belgium and France. Together, they produced 49.7 million tonnes of pork and pigmeat. By contrast, the five countries that were fully compliant by December 2012 produced 9.4 million tonnes. These figures help to illustrate the scale of the challenge. Europe is awash with cheap pork produced illegally, forcing down the price of pork and other pig products and adding yet more pressure on Britain’s already hard-pressed pig farmers, who are complying with the law, unlike many of their major competitors.
Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this hugely important issue for our pig industry. May I caution him about the use of the word “compliance”, however? We are talking here about compliance with the EU directive, but that directive does not meet the standards on our statute book in this country. The EU directive allows farmers in other member states to continue to keep sows in stalls for, I think, the first 21 days, while they are being served —or mated—for the future. Therefore, every other farm in Europe is entitled to have some sow stalls on their farm for that reason, but they are completely banned in our country, so even European farmers who are in compliance with the regulation are not necessarily keeping their pigs to the high standards we uphold in this country.
Mr Bacon
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has probably forgotten more about this subject than I will ever know, for pointing that out. In a way, that makes my point even more strongly: even though the word “compliance” must be treated with care, such farmers are not able to reach even that lower standard, which shows how much further there is to go.
Of course, in this country we do have farrowing crates for sows that are giving birth, which I support. That is the safest and best method. I have been in pig houses and watched the process, and it is the right thing to do. The British Pig Executive is sponsoring research into other methods, but at the moment that is the best technology we have, and I support it.
The problem, however, is that, of the top 10 pigmeat-producing nations in the EU in terms of production tonnage, only Romania and the UK are fully compliant, and they are ninth and tenth respectively. The top eight countries, by volume of meat produced, are non-compliant. They include Germany, with 6 million tonnes; Spain, with 3.5 million tonnes; France, with just under 2 million tonnes; and Poland, with 1.8 million tonnes. The vast majority of the big producers are not compliant. In other words, the biggest pork producers are those who have made the least effort to comply with the law and who have benefited accordingly from lower costs. This is more than a question of fairness or a matter of principle. Poor harvests last year have resulted in very high feed costs. That is fine for wheat farmers, but for pig farmers, who rely on buying feed, it is not fine at all, and means that many farmers are under great financial pressure.
If illegal farms either complied with the law, as they should, or stopped producing pork altogether, that would tighten the supply chain and lift pork prices, creating a much brighter future for those who have made substantial investments in making sure the pork they produce is legal. It now falls to the European Commission to work with member states to enforce the protection of pigs directive. However, the Commission’s attempts to enforce it are already going awry. An inadvertent and unofficial derogation has already been granted to Ireland and France, after the European Commission gave them an extension to the deadline for applying for funding for pig farmers who have yet to convert their pig houses. Ireland has until September 2013 to access the funds. In the case of France, a quarter of French pig farmers remain non-compliant.
Together, Ireland and France account for 2.25 million tonnes, or just over 10%, of EU pork production. Interestingly, that is more than the total combined production of the 10 member states that are fully compliant, which between them manage only 2.23 million tonnes, or 9.97%, of EU pork production. Ideally, the money should be withheld until the French and Irish farmers expecting these funds can prove that any illegal sow houses have been empty since new year’s eve, although I recognise that in practice that would be very difficult to achieve.
However, there are three things the Government can do now that would make a real difference to British pig farmers and help to stop illegal pigmeat entering the UK. First, effective enforcement of the directive must begin at home. The Government must ensure absolute clarity in their own buying standards for pork and other pigmeat products. This affects purchasing for schools, the NHS, the armed forces, local government canteens and every other public sector body. By now, every tier of government, from Whitehall to the town hall, should be making sure they are not buying meat that has been produced illegally, and that they know they are not. The Government need to make sure that people in the public sector are aware of this obligation.
However, it is not enough for Government buyers simply to rely on suppliers’ assurances of compliance. The Government must show leadership by making certain that all their suppliers operate a traceable supply chain that procures pork and pigmeat from legally compliant sources. The Minister will recall that at the pig industry summit which I hosted in November, he undertook to write to Government Departments reminding them of their obligations. I look forward to receiving an update from him on this matter and hearing more about what the Government are doing in this area.
Secondly, retailers and food service companies, having been shown leadership by the Government in the way I suggest, should be strongly encouraged to adopt full traceability, so that any pigmeat products they sell are guaranteed to come from legal sources. Such companies should then be expected to have fully transparent systems in place to guarantee that to their customers. The need for full and open traceability has been aptly demonstrated by the recent detection of horse DNA in beefburgers. That discovery not only inspired the largest accumulation of equine puns known to mankind, but illustrated the importance of a fully transparent supply chain.
Tesco chief executive, Philip Clarke, wrote the following in his “Talking Shop” blog:
“We expect our suppliers to deliver to a standard, and to meet basic food traceability rules. But our customers shop with Tesco, not our suppliers, so you won’t find us hiding behind suppliers. It’s our job to ensure they are meeting our high standards.”
I commend Tesco for its speed in reassuring customers and withdrawing suspect products from sale, but the key lesson to take from the scandal is that food traceability rules need to be strengthened significantly. Retailers, processors and food manufacturers know that improved traceability is difficult, but they also know that it is possible. They need to be pressed for commitments to guarantee traceability that extend to branded products such as Wall’s, as much as to supermarkets’ own brands. Claiming either to have assurances from a supplier or to have no control over branded products can no longer be regarded as sufficient.
I am indebted to the National Pig Association for sharing with me an encouraging letter from Mr Martyn Jones, corporate services director for the supermarket Morrisons, to NPA chairman Richard Longthorp. The letter stated that Morrisons’
“commitment to the integrity and transparency of our offer remains paramount. For the pork and pork products we are importing from the EU, we have been clear to suppliers of both branded and tertiary products that this must meet the requirements of the new pig welfare directive”.
I very much welcome Morrisons’ commitment to the transparency of the supply chain. Every company within a supply chain should have sourcing policies that can prove beyond doubt that the pork they are using or selling was legally produced. I am sure that the Minister will join me in encouraging other retailers to follow Morrisons’ example. I would welcome his comments on how that might be achieved.
Finally, what must be avoided at all costs is a further protracted period before 100% compliance across the EU is finally achieved. The European Commission has a responsibility in that regard; it can and should be demanding to see deliverable action plans from non-compliant countries. In the meantime, we should stop illegal pork and pork products from entering the country. Non-compliant nations must be pressed for specific guarantees on when they intend to reach full compliance, rather than some vague promise to be delivered by some indeterminate date. To encourage them, we should refuse to allow illegally produced meat to enter the United Kingdom.
Member states have had more than a decade to move towards full compliance with the directive, so there are no excuses. We used to have to say that British farmers faced unfair competition from imported meat that was produced overseas using methods that would be illegal in the UK. Now, British pig farmers face unfair competition from imported meat produced overseas using methods that are illegal overseas, too—we cannot accept that. We must bear in mind what happened in the poultry industry. It had a far greater number of regulations, agreements and testing regimes than the pig industry to help enforce the directive on the welfare of laying hens. Nevertheless, a year on from the original January 2012 deadline, an estimated 5% of Europe’s egg production still comes from chickens in conventional battery cages.
The British pig industry receives no subsidies—pig farmers live and die by the market—yet farmers across Europe who are in full compliance with their obligations are being undercut by illegally produced pork and pigmeat. Above all, what pig farmers across the UK want, and indeed what compliant pig farmers across the continent want, is a level playing field. Those nations edging towards full compliance have the largest number of pigs in the EU and they have also had more than a decade to get their house in order.
Of course, I would ideally wish to see British pork as the first and only choice for consumers, retailers, the Government and the whole public sector. But right now what matters most is preventing British pig farmers from being continually undercut by illegal pig products that should not be on the shelves at all and should not be in this country at all. The UK’s pig farmers have had to put up with an unfair market for 13 years, and that is far too long. The law is now finally on their side, and I expect the Government to ensure that the law is enforced.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this important debate. He described me as a pig farmer, but I ought to say that that slightly overstates the case. I had four pedigree Tamworth sows. I do not think that quite constitutes a farm. It does mean, however, that I have farrowed a pig and got my hands dirty, so perhaps I have some affinity with the industry.
The provisions in the EU pig welfare directive, which bans the use of sow stalls from 1 January, represent a significant welfare advance across the EU. It has been a long time coming. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said, although it does not level the playing field entirely, as European pig producers, unlike UK producers, will still be allowed to keep sows in close-confinement stalls for the first four weeks after service, it means that when all member states achieve full compliance there will be far greater parity for UK producers—provided that we have that full compliance. The hon. Member for South Norfolk probably knows the old saying, “Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you, but pigs is equal.” UK pigs are not quite equal at the moment and that is what we need to achieve.
It is very disappointing that so many member states were not fully compliant with the sow stall ban on 1 January, particularly as it is the second of Europe’s flagship animal welfare measures on which there has been large-scale non-compliance across Europe. The first, as the hon. Gentleman said, was the ban on the keeping of hens in conventional battery cages, which came into force in January 2012.
The UK pig industry is understandably extremely concerned that non-compliance across Europe will continue to disadvantage UK producers who went through the process of investing heavily in converting to group housing systems to comply with the UK’s unilateral sow stall ban in 1999. I assure hon. Members that I recognise and share the industry’s concern about non-compliance. We have been working very closely with it over the last year and it is extremely frustrating that we have been unable to achieve compliance across the EU on a ban that was agreed almost 12 years ago.
I also recognise that non-compliance is a huge challenge for the Commission and some other member states. We are continuing to work to ensure that the ban is fully and effectively implemented across the European Union as quickly as possible. That is essential to avoid damaging compliant businesses and to demonstrate that the EU can deliver agreed long-term policy.
As the hon. Member for South Norfolk shared with the House, the Commission reported at the Council of Ministers on Monday that 17 member states are not compliant with the sow stall ban. The figures are changing rapidly, but as at mid-January 10 member states were more than 90% compliant, three were less than 90% compliant and four were less than 75% compliant, so there is certainly an issue. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, the problem is—we should stress this—that the Commission could not take any action until the ban was in force. So we are starting from where we are now.
At the Council of Ministers on Monday, Commissioner Borg demanded that member states provide regular updates of progress with implementation. That goes quite a long way towards what the hon. Member for South Norfolk was saying about a clear map of progress towards full implementation. Commissioner Borg urged member states to apply dissuasive sanctions to non-compliant producers and we will have to wait and see what exactly they comprise. Most importantly, he said that he will commence formal infraction proceedings against non-compliant member states at the end of February. That is quite quick action on the part of the Commission compared with what sometimes happens.
The Commission has held two stakeholder meetings to discuss compliance and enforcement, the most recent this Monday. Commission officials remarked on the rate of progress with compliance in the last couple of months and put the onus squarely on the competent authorities in member states to take tough action against non-compliant producers.
What are the Government doing? We are using every opportunity to press the Commission to take a firm stand, as the priority must be to protect producers across the whole EU from illegal production. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Commissioner Borg on 17 January and raised our concerns about non-compliance. At the Council of Ministers on Monday, the Secretary of State led a call for the Commission to pursue a level playing field vigorously, so that compliant producers are not disadvantaged by inaction elsewhere in Europe.
I will be clear: enforcement on imported pigmeat is challenging. There are no marketing rules to prevent imports from non-compliant systems. The Government thoroughly investigated the possibility of taking unilateral action and bringing in a UK import ban on egg and egg products at the end of 2011—I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire has some recollection of that—because at that time it was clear that many member states would not be compliant with the conventional cage ban. It was not a realistic option for eggs, however, and I fear it is not an option for pork and pork products either, because of the legal and financial implications of introducing such a ban and the practical difficulties of enforcing it. The Commission has repeatedly made it clear that it will not allow member states to impose unilateral trade restrictions for welfare reasons, so we have to rely heavily on the competent authority in each member state to take responsibility for ensuring that their producers comply with the directive.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does the Minister agree that retailers and supermarkets have a huge responsibility? We have seen in the past two weeks that when they want to clean up their supply chain quickly, they can do it. Why can they not do the same for pigmeat and eggs?
Mr Heath
I agree, and I was coming to that point.
The UK relies heavily on imports, being only 40% self-sufficient in pigmeat and 20% self-sufficient in bacon. Denmark and the Netherlands are the largest suppliers of pigmeat to the UK; both countries are more than 90% compliant and are already taking tough action against non-compliant producers. I have spoken to the Danes and the Dutch and I believe that they are serious about reaching full compliance, so the major importers to the UK will come into compliance.
Mr Bacon
I was disappointed but not surprised by what the Minister said about competent authorities. I take his point about the Danes, but of course the reason the pig herd here is now so much smaller than it was is precisely that other countries were not enforcing the rules because they did not have to. Does he not understand the broader point, which is that if the competent authorities on whom he says we must rely were competent, we would not be in this mess?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—I do not disagree with him at all on that point. That is why we must make sure that if those authorities are not prepared to be competent, somebody must make them competent—in effect, the Commission by taking infraction proceedings. I think that is the right approach.
To answer the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), an essential part of our enforcement approach is to ensure that retailers, processors, food manufacturers and the food service industry have stringent traceability in place to ensure that they source pigmeat only from compliant production systems in other member states. In October last year, I met representatives of the whole pig supply chain and they assured me that they will use their best endeavours to source from compliant systems. There is clearly a significant reputational issue here for individual companies and trade associations. I followed that up by writing to the major pork product manufacturers to seek their individual assurances on traceability, and I will have a further meeting with the supply chain to take stock on 6 February. Let me make it absolutely clear: the major retailers in the UK have promised me that they will not sell illegally produced pork products. In some cases, that will be difficult to implement—I know that—but I will hold them to that promise.
We agree with the broad thrust of the request to ensure that the Government buy pork and pork products that comply with the new directive which came into force this year, and I have been taking action, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk says. I hope he accepts that, although it is complicated, we are making progress. I will of course report back to him on progress in due course. The Government buying standards are mandatory for central Government Departments and voluntary for the wider public sector—hospitals, for example. If we can get this built in, we will have made a significant contribution to ensuring that we do not buy from non-compliant sources.
This is a timely debate and an important one for pig producers around the country. I want to make it clear on behalf of the Government that we are doing everything we can to ensure that member states that are not compliant are made to be compliant. The weapon that we have at our disposal is the pressure we are able to apply on the Commission, but to be fair to the Commission, it is equally adamant that it wants full compliance from member states and it is prepared to back that up. We need to deal with the use of non-compliant meat products in this country, and we have assurances from retailers and others that they will not use such products. We also need to make the general public aware that this is an issue. If they value the welfare standards that we have in this country, they should follow that action with their purchasing.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I hope what I have said demonstrates how seriously Ministers and the Department view the issue. We need to protect UK pig producers. That is paramount and we will continue to do all we can to ensure swift compliance across Europe.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Working Tax Credits
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 9 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
Horsemeat
(11 years, 9 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
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
May I start, Mr Amess, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time? It is a particular privilege to introduce the debate, because it is the first time I have had the honour to do so since I was elected to Parliament in a by-election last November. I am delighted that the debate is on such an important matter.
At heart, we are debating whether consumers can feel confident about the meat they are buying and eating. People buying what they thought were beefburgers from supermarkets, including Tesco, Lidl and Iceland, were horrified to discover that they contained horsemeat. Muslims, including many in my constituency, were upset to discover that the beefburgers they were eating contained pork DNA, which is forbidden by their religion.
Aside from the shock of discovering that they were eating a completely different animal, what confidence can we have that the meat we buy is not contaminated or unfit for human consumption if we cannot even be sure what meat is in the product in the first place? Of 27 samples tested by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, 10 tested positive for horse DNA and 23 for pig DNA. One Tesco beefburger, in probably the most celebrated instance, was found to contain 29% horsemeat.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. Does he agree that there is a difference between a product having traces of something in it, however problematic that may be for people’s religious views, and the adulteration of food with large amounts of material, probably for commercial purposes?
Steve Reed
I do agree. The problem is that consumers cannot be sure what is going into the product they are buying for consumption by them and their family. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
First, we have to ask whether the Food Standards Agency is still fit for purpose. Let us not forget that it was the Irish authorities and not our own that exposed the problem of horsemeat in beefburgers. Our system has been fragmented by the Government as part of a drive to deregulate. Labelling, food composition, nutrition and food safety used to be dealt with by a single agency and are now handled by three: the Department of Health, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the FSA. That fragmentation and additional bureaucracy make it much more likely that problems will be missed.
Standards in the British food industry are high, and it is vital that those standards and that reputation are not undermined by the Government’s actions. The FSA’s budget has been cut by £11 million over the past year alone, reducing its capacity to detect contaminated food. At the same time, the swingeing scale of Government cuts to local government has seen funding for local trading standards services plummet by a third from £213 million in 2011-12 to around £140 million this year.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that the Government’s scrapping of the national equine database was sheer folly? We have the risk of bute entering the food chain, but, putting that to one side, any savings that may have been made by scrapping the database have been totally dwarfed by the commercial and financial damage to the food industry.
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to the national equine database and the risks that its scrapping has created for consumers and the industry. I thank him for his welcome intervention.
On local trading standards services, a freedom of information request by the trade union Unison exposed the fact that 743 trading standards jobs have been lost since 2010, resulting in fewer inspections and, consequently, higher risks for the public. Unison has questioned whether councils still have the resources they need to do the job. It is not enough for the Government to blame councils for cutting those services when the Government have cut councils’ funding to such a huge extent in the first place.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s interesting speech on this extremely important subject, which is damaging our meat industry and our farmers. I am not certain about his logic regarding Government cuts to local authorities and elsewhere. He is politicising what should be a non-political discussion, because we all hate the notion of horsemeat in burgers. The issue has nothing to do with Government cuts; it is to do with supermarkets buying cheaper and cheaper burgers from doubtful sources.
Steve Reed
There are certainly issues to do with what the supermarkets are sourcing, which is contributing to the problem, but if we do not have a properly resourced system of regulation, consumers cannot be confident that what the supermarkets and other retailers are selling them is what they believe they are buying. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
There are serious questions about the role of the supermarkets in forcing suppliers to cut corners to meet commercial demands. There are reports—we will all have read them—of products being bulked up with protein powders containing trace DNA from other animals, with no way of tracing those products back to their origin. There are further concerns about the processing of meat from different animals through the same production equipment, leaving trace DNA behind despite attempts at deep cleaning, as well as about meat from different sources being commingled without any labelling to warn consumers about what they are buying. The National Farmers Union has raised concerns about that, warning that the drive towards “more for less” risks compromising consumer health, the need for transparency and, ultimately, consumer confidence.
On horses slaughtered in the UK for food, the past four years have seen an 84% increase in the number of animals slaughtered, mostly for export. In 2012, 9,405 horses were slaughtered, but only 1.5% of those animals were tested for phenylbutazone, or bute, as it is more commonly known. That drug is commonly administered to race horses, but it can cause cancer in humans and is banned from the human food chain. Of that small sample, the FSA has confirmed that eight slaughtered horses tested positive, potentially exposing fraud in the system. That risk of fraud was made worse by the Government’s decision to scrap the national equine database last August, which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) alluded to. That has made it more difficult to trace which British horses are being slaughtered for meat and whether the meat is fit for human consumption.
The Government have chosen to rely on the horse passport system alone. Under that system, 75 different organisations are authorised to issue passports, which contain details of the drugs a horse is given during its lifetime. The British Horse Society confirmed this month that
“with no central database…it is now possible for a horse to be issued with two passports: one in which medication is recorded and an apparently clean one to be presented at the time of slaughter—allowing the medicated horse to be passed as fit for consumption.”
The system is clearly wide open to fraud and abuse.
Steve Reed
I will make progress, if I may. I have taken several interventions already.
Those failures of Government threaten the very high reputation of the UK food industry. The NFU has spoken out clearly for a more robust system, with clearer labelling of ingredients in products, and a new requirement that processed meat products should display the species of meat and meat derivatives alongside the country of origin. On the difficulties in tracking the source of horse DNA in burgers, the NFU has called for a review into how the origin of meat is identified and maintained throughout the trade and between different countries. The Government should adopt that proposal, and I hope the Minister will respond to that in his speech.
My contention is that the Government have underfunded, fragmented and undermined the food safety system. We must reassure consumers that the meat they buy is correctly labelled, legal and safe to eat. The Government’s actions, driven by cuts and an ideological pursuit of deregulation, made the latest food crisis more likely and mean that it could happen again.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Like many others, I think that the debate is hugely important, and with my background in the livestock industry I know what the concerns are there. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the issue has come to the fore—and we are pleased that it has—is the improved testing in Ireland, which is, essentially, where the problem arose? We should congratulate the Irish Government on raising the bar for testing. It would be encouraging if testing of that standard could happen in as many countries as possible, including ours.
Mr Reed
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the standards of testing in Ireland seem to be admirable, and we should replicate that in the UK.
In summary, it is time for the Government to review the whole system and take urgent action to restore consumer confidence in the meat products that we buy and eat, for the benefit of consumers, retailers and the food industry in the United Kingdom.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I was not necessarily intending to speak at any great length, but I have been inspired by the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I congratulate him on making such an excellent speech so early in his parliamentary career. I am not sure that in my 15 years here I have quite achieved the expertise that he has in a few months. It was a most useful introduction to an important and interesting debate.
I took issue with the hon. Gentleman to a degree, because in discussing a cross-party issue he strayed slightly into party political issues, blaming the Government and everything to do with them for an appalling incident over Christmas, when horsemeat was found in supermarket burgers. I am not certain that Government cuts to local authorities and the other things that he listed can necessarily be directly blamed, and I felt that that was an unfortunate part of the speech. Overall, however, he made an extremely important point—that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) pointed out, even the smallest traces of DNA in a burger could damage consumer confidence to an extraordinary degree. That has happened before, such as in the Edwina Currie and eggs episode, with beef and on other occasions since then.
The slightest hint that supermarket burgers might not be up to scratch could lead to a disproportionate effect on the burger and supermarket industries, and therefore on farmers. I speak particularly on behalf of farmers in my constituency where there is significant beef production. I pay tribute, in passing, to McDonald’s, which now sources all its beef from UK sources. That was a worthwhile thing to do, and it would be appalling if confidence in the excellent McDonald’s product—I hold no brief for McDonald’s—were to be undermined by the unfortunate incident that has occurred.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making a very good speech. Local food provenance is important, because among EU nations the UK is unique: it has the highest proportion of food retail—and beverages—from sales from shops and restaurants. That is very important, so trading standards are critical. Even in the past month, trading standards in the south-west found lamb kebabs, which everyone likes to get when it is late, on the way home, containing chicken, beef, poultry and other assorted goodies. It is important to keep local trading standards.
Mr Gray
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and am about to discuss trading standards, and how we can restore consumer confidence. If consumers believe that what they buy is different from what the packet says, they will stop buying it. That damages not only dodgy products—and I think some supermarkets have been guilty, under commercial pressure, of buying products at a lower price than they might reasonably have done—but also first-class ones. I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon North about the importance of strong local trading standards, a strong Food Standards Agency, and strong Government controls, to ensure that the highest possible standards for food are maintained in supermarkets. That applies particularly in the present case to meat, and particularly beef, in the context of horse-contaminated products. I agree with the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister how we can be certain to restore consumer confidence.
I want, however, to touch on an aspect of the opening speech that I disagreed with; the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) also touched on the same point in an intervention. The suggestion seemed to be that if the system in the UK for the control of the killing of horses were somehow better, incidents such as the recent one would be less likely. The hon. Member for Croydon North mentioned the Government’s recent abolition of the national equine database and the operation of horse passports. I remember a debate in this very Chamber in 2005 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) argued passionately that horse passports were a complete waste of time, and committed himself to abolishing them when he came to power. I keep reminding the Prime Minister of that, and he has not yet got round to it, but I am confident that sooner or later he may go down that track.
The idea behind the introduction of horse passports was that every medicine administered to a horse would be stamped on the passport. In particular, as the hon. Member for Croydon North mentioned, bute is a common medicine—and not only among racehorses, as he mentioned; often ordinary hacks will be given bute. That is or could be harmful to human beings. It is important that those horses should not go into the food chain. Abattoirs should know if horses have taken it, and prevent that from happening. The idea was that every horse—there are getting on for 2 million of them in the UK; we do not quite know the number—should have a passport. Every time it went to the vet the passport would be stamped, and when it appeared at the abattoir the staff would say, “No, Mr Horse, you have had bute. You can’t come in here. Please go away.”
From the start, that was a ridiculously flawed principle. The basic flaw is that although a horse owner such as me might be persuaded to buy a horse passport on first getting the horse, it is difficult to remember to cancel it when the horse dies. Already, roughly half of 750,000 horse passports in circulation in the UK today are for dead horses. The document is entirely meaningless, and a great many horses—particularly low-value ones, belonging to various groups of people—have no passports at all. The system is blown wide open. Decent, sensible, ordinary horse owners get round to buying them. People who try, criminally, to get their horses into the human consumption chain do not, so the system does not work.
That system failure was compounded by the national equine database. I must pick up the hon. Member for Croydon North on one point: of course the NED did not cost the Government anything. It was the passport-issuing authorities that paid for it. Abolishing it did not save any money; it was abolished because it was not working. An enormous computer, with a list of animals on it that die at the rate of 100,000 a year and are born all over the place, without anyone knowing where they live, is a worthless piece of bureaucracy. It cannot keep an accurate record of where all the horses are. It did not work. It did not even begin to do so, or come close to it. The Government sensibly realised that. I hope that they will go further at some stage and abolish horse passports, challenging the European Union in doing so, but that is another debate.
Glyn Davies
I have taken the same view of horse passports as my hon. Friend, because I knew they would not work. Does he agree that the issue is particularly relevant where there are many wild horses? Because of the bureaucracy affecting passports and ownership, and fear of in some way getting into trouble, the likelihood of their being got rid of when they die is far greater. That is one reason why the whole industry is not run properly. That is particularly relevant in places such as north Wales, where there are huge numbers of wild horses.
Mr Gray
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I was about to move on to it. He speaks for north Wales, where there is a large problem, but it is also a problem across the rest of England—less so in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.
The fact of the matter is that the NED and horse passports cannot, by definition, prevent horse medicines from getting into the human food chain in the UK; neither can they prevent horsemeat from entering it. They do not work, but there is a simple solution. Only about 7,500, or perhaps 8,500, horses a year go to the one or two functioning UK abattoirs that still take them, which is an incredibly small percentage of the 100,000 or so horses that die each year. Horses are generally shot by a vet, and either buried on a farm or given to packs of foxhounds to consume. The latter is a common way of disposing of horse carcases, with a very small number indeed of horses going to an abattoir. All horses that do go to an abattoir are exported overseas on the hook, as it were, for eating in Italy and elsewhere.
Many purists who think that eating a horse is a disgusting idea, would say, “Fine. Let us abolish the killing of horses in the UK. There is a very small number, so let us just abolish the abattoirs.” That would also abolish the need for horse passports, because if someone could not take their horse to an abattoir they would not need a passport to prove that it had not taken bute in the previous couple of years.
That is a possible solution, but either way, I do not believe that the way in which the horse passport regime, the NED and the UK abattoirs work has anything to do with the scandal of horsemeat in burgers. That came from elsewhere in the world, and no one is suggesting that UK abattoirs were somehow feeding horsemeat into burgers in the supermarkets. Saying that the horse passport system is somehow bad, that the NED should not have been abolished or something about abattoirs in the UK has nothing to do with what we are discussing, so I want to press the Minister on this matter.
If the Government have a primary duty to consumers, it must be to say to them, first, “What you are buying in the supermarkets is what you believe you are buying.” What it says on the tin must be what they find inside the box, and if that is not the case there is a slippage somewhere, whether with the Food Standards Agency, local trading standards or elsewhere. Secondly, the Government must be able to tell consumers that the product is of the highest possible quality. Our farmers depend on the consumer relying on top-quality supermarket products, and the moment the consumer—because they are Muslim or do not like eating horses, or for another reason—begins to believe that a product might somehow be contaminated, they will stop buying it, and that has an extraordinarily bad knock-on effect on our nation’s food producers.
The Government have an absolutely fundamental duty to discover what went wrong in this case, to put it right, and to consider whether the newly established supermarket ombudsman might have a role to play, possibly in examining how purchases are made. In all events, I want to be able to say to consumers in my constituency, “What you buy in supermarkets is exactly what you think you are buying and it is of the highest possible quality. There is no possibility of cross-contamination, from horsemeat or in any other way, and you will get precisely what it says on the tin.”
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon North on securing this important debate, and I very much hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister responds he will be able to put at rest the minds not only of consumers across my constituency of North Wiltshire but of the food producers there too.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) on bringing this matter to the House. It has been very much in the press over the past few weeks, and it continues to be an issue that concerns us. My constituency is a very rural one, and because of the scare in certain parts of the country the importance and quality of the foodstuffs produced in Strangford must be illustrated and underscored.
Up until a few years ago, before I was elected to this House, I was a pork retailer. I had a business that sold bacon and sausage across the whole country. I sold good-quality meats to local butchers and restaurants, and had a very good trade. Times have changed since the day when people knew the farmer, knew the guys who slaughtered the animal and knew their butcher, and with the current lack of knowledge, uncertainty has crept into the market, which is at odds with the new mindset of being aware of and cautious about what we eat.
As a type 2 diabetic, I have become very aware of what I eat and of the need to control my diet carefully, so when it comes to checking food labels I try to look for the good things to eat. Labels tell us what is in a product—but do they? That is the question that the hon. Member for Croydon North is asking. Do labels tell us what we are eating? No, clearly they do not. This debate will hopefully address that issue, and consider where the responsibility lies. In the short time I have, I want to illustrate where I think the focus needs to be.
We teach primary schoolchildren how to read nutritional labels and to be aware of what goes into their bodies, and this shock of a label not actually covering what is in the product is alarming news. In a recent interesting article about the horsemeat issue, the Countryside Alliance raised the following important point:
“A food scare never fails to alarm, and when the spotlight shines on the unsustainable cheap-end of the market we must use the opportunity to inform consumers.”
One reason we are where we are today is the demand from the public and the consumer for cheaper products, as other Members have illustrated. Cheaper products are not always better products. Very often, as has recently been seen, they are not what they seem to be, and I, and many others in this Chamber, want to ensure that there is more information for consumers, that lessons are learned from this latest debacle and that things change for the better.
Although eating horsemeat poses no health risks, I and many others in this Chamber consider it distasteful. People should be informed about what they are paying for and eating. When we buy a beefburger we want a beefburger, and when we buy a beefsteak that is what we expect to get. In one of this morning’s papers, it was indicated that there is some concern about beefburgers in Spain. We know that our European colleagues have much more unusual eating habits and tastes than we do in this Chamber, and there might be a liking for some things that I, and many others, would turn our noses up at and not be happy with, but the point is that in Spain they thought that they were eating beefburgers and they were not.
There should be an assurance that British beef is indeed British, and not just packaged in Britain as the labels so often tell us. When I was wearing my previous hat as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), the issue of clear labelling was brought up. At that time the scare was about pork contamination, but it was clear that Northern Ireland’s pork was free of any contaminants. That scare reminded me of when Edwina Currie made her comment about the egg industry. I am not being disrespectful to her, but right away the impact on that industry was colossal and people were ruined overnight, yet the threat, the contamination and the damage were coming from outside.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what is important now is to restore the confidence of the wider community—the general consumer—in the accuracy of labelling and the safety of meat products? That needs to be done with the utmost urgency, to try to ensure that there is no repeat of the salmonella and other such issues, to which I think my hon. Friend was alluding.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. The farming industry does its bit, and trading standards has a role to play, but the supermarkets also have a clear role because their push for insatiable profits and cheaper items means that they cast their net wider when it comes to getting the product.
At the time I was talking about, the shelves were emptied of bacon, sausages and other pork products, even through they were safe. The spin-off in Northern Ireland was worrying. The contaminated products came from the Republic of Ireland, and their origin was not clear from the packaging. There is a clear role for local councils and trading standards on clear packaging.
Mr Gray
There is a question to be asked about the degree to which the Republic of Ireland is guilty of lower standards than we have in the United Kingdom. I heard of a case this week in which a horse with a decent passport was exported to southern Ireland to be administered drugs and the passport was not changed. The horse was re-imported into the UK with an apparently clean passport, despite having been given drugs in the Republic. One or two of the Republic’s practices might need to be examined with some care.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has illustrated that well. There is a question on the standards in neighbouring countries, and that question must be addressed.
The Northern Ireland pork contamination of 2008 is happening today in the United Kingdom, and this time we must take action that ensures that the good-quality products that farmers produce across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are given the status that they deserve. That raises the issue that butchers and the like have been touting for years: buying from reputable local retailers ensures that food is locally or responsibly sourced, although it may cost slightly more. Local butchers have local products. Many farmers have direct access to butchers, and people can be assured that the local butcher, by and large, has the best product and ensures animal welfare.
We had a debate in this Chamber two weeks ago—several Members here today were in attendance—on veterinary products that are put into animals and sometimes carry over into the food chain. There is concern about animal welfare, but there is also the reassurance and confidence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry referred, that British farming almost certainly guarantees a first-class product every time.
Hailing from a rural constituency and working with farmers and fishermen, I know the hard work that goes into providing top-class produce. In my eyes, buying locally, supporting the local economy and ensuring that farmers get a fair price for their product is worth every penny. I am concerned about local supermarkets and their drive to keep prices low, which is good for the consumer, but only if the product is good. The recent situation should not have arisen, but, as the saying goes, there is no use crying over spilt milk, just fix the jug handle and make sure that it does not happen again.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. At one end of the market, people are becoming very conscious about what is in their meat—they are looking for locally sourced, organic produce, perhaps cattle fed on grass, rather than on grain, and so on—but at the other end of the market, people who cannot afford to pay for such products are increasingly going for the very cheap options, and we have no idea what they actually contain. As we have heard today, in some cases those products are contaminated. I am unsure of the solution. Does he have any ideas?
Jim Shannon
I do not always have solutions to the issues that come along. I hope the Government, in whom we have confidence, can provide some of those solutions. I know one thing: when it comes to cheaper products, we need a guarantee that there will be monitoring of what takes place.
My constituency is no different from any other. I represent people who buy something because it is cheaper, and many people who buy cheaper perhaps do not fit into the physical, visual strata of being well off.
Glyn Davies
I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should not create an impression that, just because a product is cheaper, in some way it is of poorer quality, because that is not the case. We need a system whereby what is said on the tin is what is actually in the tin. Just because a product has been produced more cheaply using cheaper cuts, that does not mean it is an inferior product.
Jim Shannon
I accept that point. Cheaper does not always mean that the quality is inferior, but—this is why we are having this debate—we must underline where the labelling on the tin or the package has not been correct. That is the point. We need councils or the Government to oversee a system in which labels stating that a product is sourced in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom mean that the product comes from Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, not on a lorry into an abattoir in the middle of England from across Europe because that would not be entirely accurate. We want to address those things.
We must ensure that steps are taken to ensure that produce is clearly marked with the country of origin, country of packaging and exactly what the product is made of. As the hon. Gentleman says, that what it says on the tin is what is in the tin, and that what it says on the packet is what is in the packet. The best way to do that is by buying locally. I know the price squeezes that large chains put on local farmers make it hard to survive, which is why I have always supported the idea of a supermarket ombudsman or regulator. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication of whether there is a role for the ombudsman or regulator. I suspect everyone in the Chamber has pushed for the groceries code adjudicator, for instance, and the Government have committed to introducing that. Is there a role for the adjudicator? If there is, perhaps that is how we can address the issue.
The price gap from field to plate is increasing, and as the price of fuel increases the farmers once again feel the brunt. Too often, supermarkets expect farmers to absorb the price increases, and, indeed, too often supermarkets push for a price decrease, which means they will not buy locally. Farmers in my area tell me that the supermarkets will say, “Here is the price for this week,” even though it costs the farmer more to produce their quality product. There has to be a role for the adjudicator. My firm belief is that, had the meat been locally sourced, there would not have been an issue. I support those who call for an investigation into the way labels are written and for all things to be made clear, which is what the hon. Member for Croydon North proposes.
Have we learned a lesson? I hope we have, and I hope we can improve. The major supermarkets are saying that they have learned a lesson, and I hope they have; consumers are saying that they have also learned a lesson, and I hope they have, too. They are both committed to the product. Our job is to ensure that the lesson learned translates into action so that we do not find ourselves in the same position in five years’ time. The next time someone has a burger containing horsemeat, it should be because they are aware of what they are eating, not because they went to the local supermarket and chose a cheaper brand.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I start by declaring an interest as a producer of beef and sheep, but not horses. The last time I sold a horse was when it was outgrown by my daughter, which was before passports were introduced.
I commend the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) for obtaining this debate. Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason why such debates are well attended or not so well attended, but he has been rather ill served today because he has introduced a subject of great interest both to the House and to the public outside.
A range of organisations and people across the country are looking to the Government to ensure that confidence is re-established in food, particularly meat products and burgers. Not only farmers and food producers, but food manufacturers, food retailers and consumers must have confidence so that our food industry, which has been of a high standard, maintains that high standard and goes on to improve.
The hon. Gentleman did a good job of breaking down some of the issues that have been conflated by other people. The excellent work in the Irish Republic to identify the matter has raised a number of issues, the first of which is contamination. Some food manufacturers’ processes are not as good as they could be, and they use machinery that has been used to make pork products to produce a beef burger without cleaning the equipment well enough, so that some pork residue ends up in the beef product. That can be of huge consequence to people whose religion teaches that they should not eat pork, so it is of great significance to us.
The other issue occurs when large amounts of cheaper product are introduced into another product in order to reduce the cost, and the product is not described accurately on the label. That is food adulteration, and it is as old as the food industry itself. When commodity prices are high, people will always cast around for a cheaper alternative to put into their products. There is no real problem with doing so, as long as it is made clear to the whole supply chain so that people know what is in the product. In this case, it was a complete deception, possibly by the supplier of the meat, which it is suggested originally came from Poland. The supplier had a duty to make that clear to the Irish who bought it, and so on down the supply chain.
It is a difficult issue. The food manufacturing business is this country’s biggest manufacturing sector, and it is sometimes overlooked as simple or primitive. I do not mean that in a derogatory way; it does not have the same great initiatives and research as some of the other sectors, but it fulfils an important purpose.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman is making a good and intelligent contribution to this debate. I suggest that one thing that has changed in how we source and identify our meat and trace ingredients is the increasing globalisation of the meat market, both inside and outside the EU, the Republic of Ireland and the UK. For that reason, adulterated meat, which he says is a problem that is as old as the hills, is of greater concern now, particularly when it can involve imports from Argentina, North America or elsewhere into the EU market, and possibly into the UK thereafter. We must be even more stringent.
Roger Williams
The hon. Gentleman, because he is aware of these matters, will know that if meat or any other foodstuff is imported into the European Union, it must come through a port and be inspected, but if meat is transferred between European Union nations, it is expected that each nation will have done the appropriate tests and is confident that the product is as described and is safe. Safety is key.
During food manufacturing, a lot of products are taken out and put in. One of the simplest examples is bread. Some or all of the bran is removed from wheat to make flour, and then chemicals are added, particularly nutrients to prevent birth defects. We agree that those additions to wheat are a good thing, but we must ensure that other things added to our food products maintain safety.
Trading standards and the Food Standards Agency have been mentioned, as have this country’s public health bodies. The key issue is to have joined-up working between those organisations locally, in policy making and in ensuring that all the necessary tests are done to maintain food safety in this country.
We must stand up and say that Britain has a remarkable record on food safety. When issues have been identified, Governments of all persuasions have been ready to take action to ensure that consumers are safeguarded. I am sure that this Government will be no different in taking such action, and I have every confidence that they will do so.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) on securing this debate, which is of vital concern not only for food production but for manufacturing and processing. It affects every constituency in the UK; I doubt that there is a single one that does not have jobs related to food manufacturing and processing. As the Minister will know, it is one of the largest employment areas in the UK economy, but is often overlooked. It is important to get food provenance and consumer confidence in the sector right, and to ensure that what is written on the label is accurate.
As my hon. Friend outlined in his contribution, this debate should focus on restoring confidence after a scare within the industry and among consumers, but in order to do so, we need complete and utter transparency. I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams); in the past couple of decades, we have become increasingly rigorous in inspecting and testing meat, in terms of slaughter and processing. However, we also need candour, not only about the successes in the sector and in implementation across the EU but about potential failings. If we do not do so—if we try to conceal issues that might be of concern—we have learned nothing from previous scare stories that have caused a run on consumer confidence and hit the economy of the food processing sector. It is vital to be honest with consumers, ourselves and industry in order to restore and maintain confidence.
That might be uncomfortable, but before I begin, let me highlight, as I am sure the Minister will do in his speech, the importance of the sector. The meat processing and slaughter sector in the UK involves more than 300 businesses and contributes more than £4 billion in revenue and turnover. In the European Union, of which we are still a member nation at the moment, the meat processing sector employs 48 million people, and here in the UK it employs 1.25 million. It is economically important, but consumer confidence is equally important. People need to know that what they eat is what is described on the package.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. His point about confidence is of the greatest concern to many Muslim and Jewish consumers in my constituency and across the country. Although, as we know, none of the products recalled was labelled as kosher or halal, the case has unfortunately eroded confidence more widely. Does he not think that it is crucial to rebuild confidence in the industry?
Huw Irranca-Davies
My hon. Friend makes a critical point. There are technical issues that we need to consider and ask the Minister to deal with, but fundamentally, consumers might overlook much of that technical detail. They want to know exactly what the Government, the Food Standards Agency, individual food processors and manufacturers and supermarkets are doing to give utter confidence to the nth degree, so that they know what they are purchasing, whether in a local takeaway or restaurant, a supermarket or elsewhere. In a moment I will mention some ways in which we might want to deal with that.
I should like to discuss some salient points that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North mentioned, including on the fragmentation of the labelling system between three different areas and the cuts to the FSA budget, from £143 million to £132 million by 2014-15. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments about how he can avoid those cuts having any impact at all on front-line testing. The National Audit Office states that Government funding is falling substantially. Unison has some views on the matter, too.
I do not think that hon. Members have mentioned the detection of bute, or any other substance, whether in trace elements or otherwise—an issue that has recently emerged. The interesting response from the FSA, when this matter was pushed, was that it could provide reassurance that none of the animals slaughtered in which bute was identified were put into the human consumption chain within the UK. It is, of course, illegal to put such animals into the human food chain. However, five animals were identified later as having been subsumed into the food chain in another country in the EU. In light of comments made during this debate about integration and the fact that food now does not necessarily go straight from farm to fork—it could go through various stages of processing—it is interesting to note that food produced in this country that was tested and identified as containing bute, albeit with trace elements, entered the human food chain somewhere in the EU. Whether in respect of bute or any other substances, can we give consumers confidence that, in that spider’s web of food processing networks, nothing containing those substances is re-entering the UK for consumption?
Roger Williams
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. He has been doing some work on bute. Animals receive many other medicines as well and not all of them can be tested, but there is a process involving withdrawal periods, whereby animals should not be slaughtered within so many weeks of such medicines being administered. Quality is assured on that basis.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to mention the Government’s own veterinary advice, although I was not going to mention it. The veterinary residues committee, which advises the Government, has repeatedly identified concerns about trace elements of bute, or other substances, in horses coming into the slaughter process in the UK, although not entering the human food chain. That committee identified a failing in the system, regarding the veterinary process and the horse passport, which has been mentioned. Horse passports are fragmented now over more than 70 organisations.
Mr Gray
Just to correct the hon. Gentleman on a small point, it is not a matter of fragmentation. When the Labour Government introduced horse passports, there were 93 passport-issuing authorities and that number has been reduced to 75. So it is nothing to do with fragmentation. The system was flawed before it started.
Huw Irranca-Davies
This is fascinating, because that was why we introduced the national equine database, which centralised data in accordance with European regulations to do with horse passports and aspects of safety in the supply chain. I ask the Minister how, in the absence of the NED, he can assure himself about issues to do with passporting, when there is a report showing that there is concern about double passporting. Vets must be much more rigorous in ensuring that a non-passported horse is not entering the food chain. I will cite the report if the Minister would like me to.
Mr Gray
Double passporting and fraud would occur whether or not there was a national equine database; that would not prevent it. I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on a factual point. The NED was not set up by the Government. It was a private not-for-profit company, run by private individuals—directors—to which the Government provided some small subsidy. It did not cost the Government much at all. It was a private company that never worked, and I am glad it has been abolished.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister was always opposed to the NED and spoke openly about his opposition to it and his wish to get rid of it. However, it provided a central database, as required under European legislation, which allowed for cross-referencing of records. I will not dwell on that any more or take any more interventions on it, because it is a matter for a separate debate.
On the industry’s response, at one point there was a suggestion that the transparency that I am calling for was unnecessary and that reassurances should be offered. That is not the view of Peter Kendall, the president of the National Farmers Union, who said:
“The events of the past few days have severely undermined confidence in the UK food industry and farmers are rightly angry that the integrity of stringent UK-farmed products is being compromised by using cheaper imported alternatives”.
John Sleith, the chairman of the Society for Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland, said:
“We note that statements are being made that it is not a health issue, but our concern is that there is no information on how the horse meat came to be in the burgers and so there is no way of telling whether the meat is safe to eat, it could be from diseased or injured animals, for example.”
What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office about this matter? We know—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be well aware—that there have been suggestions in recent weeks, as this matter has come to light, that it may not simply be an issue of adulteration, whether in Poland or elsewhere. Criminal gangs may be involved. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said that this issue was as old as the hills, but it has tended to be localised in many ways. If there is a serious criminal gang operation involved, that will be a major concern.
I have spoken to people who work in the UK slaughter trade—they are doing a fine job and are proud of the standards in the industry—who tell me of their concerns about adulteration. An individual mentioned to me in a conversation yesterday that they were sympathetic to Tesco and the other big retailers, because Tesco, for example, does spot checks and checks the veracity of its supply chain. However, the adulteration of food happens the moment that it leaves. That is a concern, because the information comes from people working in the industry.
Roger Williams
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the illegal meat trade has always involved criminal activity. Some of us were involved in trying to prevent the import of bush meat into this country, which was run by criminal gangs. It has been going on forever and I am sure that criminality is still part of the illegal meat trade.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Indeed, hence my insistence on doing more. It is not sufficient just to say, “We have checks in place.” We need to do more.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to my praise for an announcement made by Tesco this morning, about its introduction of its own self-funded, comprehensive system of DNA testing for meat products. That innovation is welcome; there should be more of that sort of thing, which the NFU and others are calling for. We need to be far more rigorous than we used to be, and such innovations show us how we can do that. It is not the same world as it was 20 years ago.
It is not only me saying that double passporting is a matter of concern. With no central database to facilitate checks, it is now possible for a horse to be issued with two passports, one in which medication is recorded and an apparently clean one to be presented at the time of slaughter, allowing the medicated horse to be passed as fit for consumption. Hamish McBean, chairman of the National Beef Association, has said:
“It is obvious that here in the UK consumers, quite rightly, have high regard for the excellence and integrity of beef produced on British farms and that British beef is their favoured purchase.”
He is flagging up exactly the same issue.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I would prefer not to take an intervention, because a separate debate is needed on the matter and I am up against time, but okay.
Mr Gray
I am extremely interested in the whole topic of horse passports, but it is a diversion and a red herring in the debate. Only one abattoir in the United Kingdom kills horses, and it kills nothing apart from horses—it is a pure horse abattoir. In the recent scandal, no one has suggested that something going wrong in the British abattoir system was to blame. That meat could have come from anywhere in the world; as the hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out, it could have been internationally sourced. The notion that we should somehow undermine the credibility of the British abattoir system because of apparent cross-contamination seems entirely fallacious. A small number of horses are killed in Britain, and there is no suggestion that the abattoir that does it is guilty of the cross-contamination in the recent case.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Another debate is needed, but I can cite root and branch opinion, including from members of DEFRA’s own equine expert groups, on the necessity of a central database to deal with controls and stringency on passports.
To move on to my fundamental point, the issue is not only a UK one. In recent weeks and months, we have had warnings over dyed pork sold as beef; in Sweden, meat imported from Argentina and sold as beef turned out to be other meat products; in Spain, in recent days, a similar horsemeat scandal to ours has been unravelling. As I mentioned earlier, trading standards are now picking up adulterated meat issues locally, not only in supermarkets but in takeaway shops and restaurants.
I am interested in the Minister’s comments on whether the country of origin labelling proposals before the European Parliament and Commission—due to be resolved this year—provide an opportunity for more stringent labelling. The NFU, the National Beef Association and others are keen on that. When something is marketed as British beef, it is really important to know that it is sourced and produced in Britain, not transported from somewhere in the EU, potentially with adulteration, and that it is only processed in Britain before being put on the shelves.
In the Minister’s response, will he deal with the fundamental issues of adulteration, which are not UK issues only? Does he have any evidence on whether adulteration is going on more widely in the supply chain and, potentially, in the EU market, and what lines of inquiry is he pursuing? What additional steps is he taking to tackle the issue, in the UK and in the EU? Does that involve discussions at EU level? Does it involve further discussions with the supermarkets about following today’s example of Tesco on DNA testing? Has he had any discussions whatever with the Home Office on the criminality involved in the sector, whether in food adulteration or in horse passports, in order to get horsemeat into the food chain?
The issue is vital, and I know that the Minister wants to give complete confidence. We are forthright about our concern on the subject, as are the NFU, the National Beef Association and people who believe in provenance labelling such as red tractor labelling. They are concerned about the matter not only because of its economic importance but because they want to give people long-lasting confidence, in the very different age we now live in, so that they know exactly what they are eating and can trust what is said on the labels.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) on securing and introducing the debate, which is timely. I am sorry that more colleagues were not able to contribute.
Nothing is more important than giving our consumers the confidence that what they see on the label of a food product is what they get. Sadly, that confidence has been undermined by the recent incident—there is no doubt about that—which is why it is essential for us to find out as much as possible about what happened. We need to take any appropriate steps to deal with the situation, but we also need to look again at the whole range of activities that we carry out in this country in order to ensure conformity with labelling, as far as consumers are concerned, and to put right anything we are not doing that we should be doing.
Having said that, I want to put the situation into context. When we had the urgent question in the main Chamber, I was accused of complacency or arguing purely from the producer interest, but I make no apologies for saying that there is abundant evidence for, in general, our producers, our processors and our retailers doing a good job at maintaining high levels of food standards in this country. That point was made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). We do no one any favours by suggesting that every piece of meat on the shelf is adulterated, dangerous or whatever, which would simply undermine confidence inappropriately. It is a question of identifying and dealing with risk properly and, as far as possible, giving that assurance to our consumers.
As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, that assurance is also important for our industry, which relies on its good reputation and people’s trust. That certainly applies to the big retailers, but also to anyone engaged in the sector. Those engaged in the food chain need to know that it is assured at every point, which is why I was pleased with the immediate response of the big retailers. I welcome Tesco’s further announcement today, which has been mentioned. Sellers are required to know where their goods come from and that they conform with their labels—that is their responsibility, in law and morally, to the people who buy products. I think Tesco has suggested today that its supplier in the recent case had been using produce from a non-registered or non-approved forward supplier, which must be of concern to a supermarket in regulating its food supply chain.
Roger Williams
I, too, welcome the announcement that Tesco will do DNA testing, but we should not be misled in thinking that Tesco has not always been vigilant previously. I supply animals to a slaughterhouse in Merthyr from which Tesco sources a lot of its meat. Tesco certainly examines the processes in that slaughterhouse, and ensures that they are fit for purpose and that consumer safety is at the top of the list for that organisation. I am sure that other supermarkets do exactly the same.
Mr Heath
I am sure that that is absolutely true, as it is of other retailers. Waitrose, for instance, wished to point out that its contracts require its own-label burgers to be made on the first run in the morning, to ensure that there is no cross-contamination from other products later in the day. Retailers take the matter terribly seriously, and we should not give the impression that they do not, because that would be a false impression.
Ultimately, however, the Irish authorities did pick up a serious example of adulteration, and I congratulate them on that and on communicating the facts to us, so that we and others have been able to work closely with them to investigate what happened. While I do not diminish the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) about those whose religious dietary requirements may be affected, the trace findings of porcine and equine DNA elsewhere were a much lower level of contamination than the burger containing 29% horsemeat, which appears to have been a case not of cross-contamination but of deliberate substitution.
Huw Irranca-Davies
One confidence restorer that consumers will expect is that those responsible for the current adulteration will face the full weight of the law. People should not be let off the hook. There has been an element of pointing the finger further and further down the supply chain. If a processor in the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere did not follow due diligence down the supply chain and used an unauthorised supplier, I hope that they will be prosecuted—I am interested in the Minister’s comments on this—by the supermarkets and others because of vicarious liability for negligence down the supply chain. Someone is responsible, and the finger should not be pointed to the nth degree at someone in Poland if some culpability lies within the supply chain in the Republic.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman must be careful to distinguish between prosecution and litigation. Civil litigation may follow—I do not know—if there is prima facie evidence. When I responded in the House to an urgent question, I said that it seemed to me, without being in possession of all the facts in Ireland, that there was a possibility of criminality. That is a matter for the Irish authorities, and it would be absolutely wrong of me to assume any responsibility or to encourage the Irish in one way or another in their prosecution policy. However, they will no doubt consider whether fraud has taken place, and trace the perpetrators, whether they are the supplier in Poland, as it seems if their tracing is correct, or the people in Ireland who took receipt of the meat. That is for the Irish to decide, and I cannot interfere in that process. I can only express a view, which I think is shared by many people, that if criminal activity takes place on something as important as the food that people eat, we should use whatever powers are available.
Steve Reed
The Minister referred to cross-contamination being a source of trace DNA found in other food products. Does he accept that other meat derivatives, such as protein powders to bulk up products, could be deliberately included in processed food when their origins are unclear, because there is no secure system for labelling and tracking the source of such additives through the supply chain?
Mr Heath
It is not uncommon in inexpensive burgers, for example, to use bulking material such as beef protein, and it is not illegal to do so. The EU labelling regime changes to which the hon. Member for Ogmore referred will require such material to be more specifically labelled in future. I agree that it is a difficulty for those who are trying to enforce compliance because it is obviously much more difficult to identify the speciation of a brown powder than a rump steak. The hon. Member for Croydon North points to a difficulty, and we must be aware of it and consider what we can do about it.
I want to deal with some of the broad points that were raised. First, it is simply not the case that the system has been fragmented and, suddenly over the past two years, no one has known what anyone is doing. There was a change in 2010, but the Food Standards Agency has always been the key player in food safety and analysis, including competition. It has always worked incredibly closely with trading standards departments throughout the country which often do the testing at local level. The Department of Health has always had parliamentary responsibility for answering for the Food Standards Agency in response to questions from hon. Members. None of that has changed.
The only change in 2010 was in labelling policy, which was returned from the FSA to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs because we knew that there would be issues in the EU about country-of-origin labelling and we wanted to have a clear handle on that. Ministers in my Department were inevitably involved in those negotiations. They were going to be advised by civil servants in the FSA or the Department, and it seemed more sensible for them to work with those in the Department. That was the change that was made in 2010, and it does not imply fragmentation of responsibility. There is still a close working relationship between us and the FSA, and I do not think anyone would seriously challenge that or the close working between the FSA and trading standards departments.
Secondly, another charge was that the FSA’s overall budget has been reduced. That is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Health, but let us be clear that that is not an operational reduction, but a result of the merger with the Meat Hygiene Service, which has produced economies of scale by restructuring support staff and accommodation charges, and enabled us to save money. Saving money is a good thing if it can be done without detriment to the service. We must be clear about that.
Thirdly, there is a feeling that there are vastly fewer trading standards officers around the country and that the service is denuded of capacity. I accept that there are fewer trading standards officers, but the scale of that reduction is nothing like what has been suggested. Local authority returns suggest that on 31 March 2012, 2,709 people were engaged in UK food law enforcement, which is a 2.3% reduction since the previous year, and a 6.1% reduction since 2009-10. I am concerned about that reduction and the priorities that local authorities are choosing to make in what they do because food law enforcement is a key part of their work. I would encourage them to ensure that their priorities are the same as those of residents in their area. However, the reduction in the level of testing is not huge or swingeing.
We sometimes talk about the number of samples taken, but we should distinguish between the number of samples and the number of tests done on them. We are becoming more and more sophisticated in what we can provide. I will give an indication of some of our work in the Department. One policy area is the research that we commission every year into new methods of testing for compliance of foodstuffs. We put £450,000 into that each year.
DNA testing is by no means the only tool available for testing. Stable isotope testing is being developed and is a valuable tool. Proteomics are a key test which is more often used in ELISA—enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay—which gives similar findings of speciation and origin to DNA, but at a lower cost. Metabolomics involves looking at metabolites in food. All those tools are being used to ensure that the service we provide is as effective as possible.
Let us not run away with the idea that we have a supine, inefficient service in this country that never catches anything, and the wonderful Irish can do it, but we cannot. Some of the things that have been found and dealt with over recent years include buffalo milk adulterated with cow’s milk; fruit juice adulterated with sugar and water; maize adulterated with rapeseed oil; the identification of basmati rice from its origin; the speciation of meat and fish, making sure that no offal and blood proteins are in meat products; the origins of beef; traditional breeds—distinguishing between one breed and another—the origin of fish, whether chicken has been previously frozen; and production methods, so whether something is organic, as it says it is on the packet. We test for all those things. We occasionally find non-compliance and we deal with it, so let us get away from the idea that somehow we are either complacent or have ineffective protection in this country.
Steve Reed
I hear what the Minister says about the reduced numbers of local authority food safety officers, but will he give us the figure for the reduction in food safety tests carried out? Unfortunately, I do not have the documentation here, but I believe that in the freedom of information request obtained by the trade union, Unison, there was a 30% reduction in tests, which would mean a considerable increase in risk to consumers purchasing burgers or other meat products, not only from supermarkets, but from the many other outlets that operate in that area, and—I will leave it at that.
Mr Heath
The distinction I was trying to make for the hon. Gentleman—I accept that he has been given figures—is between the number of samples and the number of tests. The samples have gone down, and that is what I think he is quoting. In 2009-10, there were 105,556 samples—and that is down—on the local authority side, to 78,653 in 2010-11. That is the diminution that he refers to, but the number of tests done on them has gone up to 92,181 in comparison. It is not quite as clear a picture as crude figures sometimes suggest. As I say, I accept the fact that the number of people working in local authorities has reduced, which is a proper cause for concern for me and others in central Government. What I do not accept is that it is on the scale suggested by some commentators, who are perhaps taking crude figures and interpreting them in an inappropriate way.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The Minister has rightly drawn attention to the success of testing in the meat processing and abattoir sectors, but what is his view on the situation we have just come across involving five horses that were tested and identified as having bute in them, and although they did not enter directly into the UK chain, it was too late to stop them potentially entering the food chain elsewhere in the EU? Is that acceptable? What has gone wrong? They should not be entering the human food chain at all.
Mr Heath
I was going to move on to the issues about phenylbutazone and horse passports, as that was the other factor that has been referred to several times in the debate.
Let us be clear about phenylbutazone: it is a potentially harmful substance—in fact, there is little evidence one way or another, but we cannot say it is safe. That is why it is excluded from the food chain and it is quite right that it should be. It is principally excluded via the horse passport system. If the horse passport system is being properly applied, it will be excluded at the point of the abattoir. It should not enter the food chain and it should be simply disposed of in other ways. It is not the only drug residue that is occasionally tested for and that we need to be aware of. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate checks for a string of residues that we would also wish to exclude from the human food chain. The evidence from sampling suggests that a small quantity of phenylbutazone is making its way through, in some samples. That is concerning and it has to be investigated, which is exactly what we are doing. The Food Standards Agency is now looking at that in detail to see whether it can get a clearer picture.
There is a problem with the fact that it takes a long time for the test results to come through. I am afraid that I cannot explain why that is, but I am advised that it takes about three weeks to get the results back. During that time, it is entirely possible for food to be passed across the English channel to French markets, where it could enter the food chain. As soon as we have a positive confirmation, we advise the French—or whoever it is—authorities in the same way that they advise us. We have a wonderful network of agencies around Europe. They are constantly in communication and advise one another, which is why we knew about the Irish issue and why we would always notify the French—to ensure that that is the case. However, there is a delay, and the hon. Gentleman raises a point that I accept I need to look at further, to see if there is more that we can do.
Steve Reed
Does the Minister not agree that it would make much more sense to prevent the transport of such meat to its destination before the results of the tests for bute have come through? For instance, it could be possible to keep it frozen until it is clear that there is no contamination.
Mr Heath
That would require all 9,000 horses that are killed for human consumption—the vast majority of which go abroad, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, because there is no appetite for horsemeat in this country, generally—to be kept in cold storage over a period of time while tests are being conducted. That is an option. What we have to do is be proportionate—we are required by law to be proportionate about what we do, because there are costs involved for exporters—and we can only do that if the evidence shows that it is a proportionate action to take. We are collecting that evidence at the moment and I will then take advice. If at any stage, the chief medical officer or the Food Standards Agency advises me that taking any action of that kind is necessary for the protection of human health, I will take it. I have not received that advice at the moment.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I welcome the Minister’s candour. In the couple of minutes that are remaining, will he deal with the other issue about horses and the food chain? In July 2012, the Veterinary Residues Committee, which reports to him, said:
“Defra’s follow-up investigations in recent years have found that some vets are still prescribing phenylbutazone without checking the passport or ensuring that the horse is subsequently signed out of the food-chain. Phenylbutazone residues have also been found in horses that have changed owners prior to going to slaughter, and whose passports do not indicate that they have been signed out of the food-chain.”
Does he have a view on that, and will he take action?
Mr Heath
I am very happy to look at the operation of the horse passport. However, the national equine database is a red herring. It never provided any information on the food-chain status of individual horses, and therefore, it really is not relevant. What is relevant is that passports need to be robust. They need to have the information, and people need to respect the fact that if they do not put that information in, the passports cannot serve as the sort of check and balance that we need. It is wrong to falsify a document such as a passport. Its purpose is to protect the public, but there is evidence of occasions on which people have falsified them.
We have a very complicated system of issuing horse passports. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) discussed it, and the hon. Member for Ogmore did not seem to recognise that his Government set it up. I understand why they set it up, because there are EU rules on the matter. Each breed society can issue a passport, because they keep the stud book and therefore, there is a proliferation. If we can take action to ensure that there is no duplication, it would be a good thing. Let us look at that, but again, I emphasise the point that if people want to defraud the system, they might do so. Our job is to try and pick that up, but let us not pretend that we can stop anyone from trying to defraud the system—sometimes they will.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon North on securing the debate. I hope that it has been helpful in outlining some of the actions that we are taking. We will take more, because we need to make sure that the consumer is best served by labelling, and that what it says on the packet is what they get on their plate.
Regional Government (North)
(11 years, 9 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
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to have secured the debate and to introduce it under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.
Regional government is an issue that is resonating with people from across the north. The campaign for strong, powerful and effective government for Yorkshire, the north-east and the north-west has been growing and gathering momentum in the past year. Its time has arrived. The arguments are strong and the case powerful. In the past 12 months, the debate has been led and championed by the Hannah Mitchell Foundation. It has outlined the benefits that regional government can bring to the northern area, how it can generate economic growth and social cohesion and how it can enable key decisions to be made in the north, by the north.
Regional government is supported not just by individuals but by business, local authorities and key agencies. It is time to move the debate forward. The arguments now need to be understood and taken up by central Government. Whitehall should not be fearful of devolving powers to the north; it should be embracing that. Without its support, the required political progress will not be made, or a watered-down version—a talking shop—might be applied. That is the last thing our region wants or needs. Indeed, I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the weekend outlining how too much economic power was concentrated in London and saying that it was time to generate growth in the north. Will the Minister outline today some of the ways in which that can happen and say whether he would like to see a form of regional government helping to achieve the necessary economic growth and other benefits for the northern region?
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate, but does she not agree with me on the following? This matter was decided in the north-east in July 2004, when an overwhelming majority of 77.9% rejected a regional assembly.
Guy Opperman
The previous Government then decided not to proceed in the north-west, either. Given that, surely this matter has been settled, or is the hon. Lady saying that matters have changed since then?
Mrs Riordan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I will come on to the 2004 vote in a little while. It was indeed a very low turnout, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) says. People recognise when we are talking about a talking shop and not talking about action. I think that the debate has moved on. The campaign has been growing in momentum in the past 12 months, as I said. The Hannah Mitchell Foundation is growing and getting support from all quarters.
Guy Opperman
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. I do not want to keep interrupting her, but last May certain parts of the region were offered mayors, who would surely be a form of devolved administration and powerful local leaders, but they were rejected. Given that that forms part of the “January declaration” on the north-east, does she not agree that a mayor would be a very good way forward whereby cities could come together and have a powerful local voice driving things, much as people do in London or Paris, for example?
Mrs Riordan
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his intervention. No; I would like to see a regional government for the north, using its powers to fight for the whole region, not individual areas. That is done very well now in some cases, but I want to see the whole region being represented.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said in an excellent speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on Monday, we need
“long term reforms, including a coherent industrial strategy, to make the most of the North’s strengths and to give businesses and working people of the North a better chance…such an agenda will only work”
if it is
“in the hands of the people who are best placed to move it forward”—
that is, if there is a radical devolution of power and resources to the north.
I shall outline what is needed. We do not want local authorities to be undermined; we want them to be a key partner of strong regional government. The regional and local government structures should complement each other and work together positively. This is about transferring powers from Whitehall and outlining areas of policy on which regional government could provide a real focus, with powers drawn to the north, for the north. It is not about weakening Britain, but about making it stronger, more democratic and economically successful. We have only to look at post-war West Germany to see how successful regional government has been in creating an economic and political powerhouse. As long as England remains so centralised and London-focused, the north’s economy will never reach its full potential.
The recent key report by the Institute for Public Policy Research was as timely as it was revealing. Yes, we can differ about its conclusions, but the basis on which its findings were made cannot be ignored. I want to avoid throwing figures at the Minister. We all know that unemployment is worse in the north than in the south, that job opportunities in the north are fewer and that public sector spending cuts are not as easily absorbed in towns such as Halifax and Huddersfield as they are in Harlow and Huntingdon.
The IPPR report underlined how the economic potential of key towns and cities across the north could be a powerhouse of economic growth in the next 20 years, and how key powers need to be transferred to the region by central Government. The levers of power urgently need releasing and sending back to our regions so that areas such as Leeds, Liverpool, Hull and Newcastle can have their potential tapped, economic opportunities can be released and social changes can be met. It is time for central Government to let go a little bit.
Over a period of years—perhaps even decades—the increasing centralism of decision making has left the north without a proper democratic and accountable voice that can champion the area, boost investment and protect jobs. Yorkshire Forward did many good things and was a strong voice for regional development, but that, sadly, has long gone. I want to see something much stronger than that—elected regional government that has real powers and the chance to do things, not just talk about things.
We can argue about the mechanisms and structures at a later date. What we need is a green light, or even a nod in the right direction, that regional government is going to happen and can be achieved. Yes, some could say that the matter was rejected by the people of the north-east in a referendum in 2004. That was little wonder when what was on offer was lukewarm at best. People can recognise a talking shop from a long way off. I do not want a northern debating chamber that is full of hot air—that talks but does not do—nor one that will just create jobs for the boys. I want to see better employment prospects for the people of Halifax and other towns in the north, and regional government is one way in which that can be achieved.
Regional government could tie together transport policy, planning and job creation. A good example is the current plan to devolve power for rail franchising to the north of England, which I very much welcome. However, special governance arrangements are having to be put in place to ensure that no fewer than 33 local transport authorities have a say in the process. How much easier would it be if there were one accountable body for the north that could provide accountability to the proposed rail in the north executive and drive forward a much-needed programme of investment in our rail network?
We are, I believe, at a turning point in relation to our democratic structures. We talk about transferring powers back from Europe and of transferring more powers to Scotland, perhaps with independence. Wales has its own Parliament. Why should central Government not enable us to have a regional government for the north, north-east and north-west?
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in this important debate. As a proud Yorkshireman, there is nothing I like more than championing the north, but I do not want more bureaucracy. Does she agree that Yorkshire has had a fantastic month? We are hitting above our weight, with the announcement that High Speed 2 is coming to Leeds, Welcome to Yorkshire’s hard work to get the Tour de France to come to our area and the regional growth fund investment. We do not need more bureaucracy. We need to build on the success that Yorkshire and the north have had in the past couple of months.
Mrs Riordan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, we can build on what is already happening. The HS2 decision shows that the Government recognise that we need more investment and jobs in the northern region. Transport is one way we can move forward. I, of course, welcome the Tour de France coming to Yorkshire. With a stronger voice shouting for us, we could build on those announcements and show what a wonderful area it is in which to live.
Guy Opperman
I promise that this will be the last time I intervene. Let us look at the northern hub, for example. With respect, it was promised for years under the previous Government, but came to fruition only under this Government. We are transforming the railways in the north. The hon. Lady talks about infrastructure, but surely that is a classic example of central Government getting out of the way to allow local infrastructure development and positive steps to take place without the bureaucratic talking shop she proposes.
Mrs Riordan
I do not propose a talking shop. That is the last thing I want. Transport is a major area that we need to do something about. I travel on trains from Halifax—they are not the best. One of my major campaigns at the moment is for better carriages on the line. They are much better in other areas. If the hon. Gentleman travels from Halifax to Leeds, he will see that there needs to be improvement.
Many key regional decision-making powers that currently lie with quangos, could be transferred to a regional government. Would the Minister like that to happen? We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to grasp the nettle and achieve our goal. I do not believe in regional government for its own sake, but passionately believe that it will benefit millions of people in the area and stop the trickle of money south out of the region.
Doing nothing is not an option. If we do not act, the north risks falling further behind Scotland, as the Hannah Mitchell Foundation has rightly outlined, because the north of England risks being squeezed between the south-west and a resurgent England and Wales. Does the Minister agree that that might happen unless positive action is taken to address the northern democratic deficit? People argue about having more forms of government, but I do not propose that at all. Powers currently exercised by Westminster and Whitehall would simply transfer to the regions, as they have to Scotland and Wales. The key objective of any regional government proposals must be to ensure that whatever emerges costs the public no more than the current arrangements.
As I said at the beginning, this is an idea whose time has arrived. We need real purpose from all major political parties to drive it forward and ensure it happens. If it is good enough for Scotland and Wales, it is good enough for the north. The Government talk of localism; now they need to act on that and deliver it. It is about democracy, fairness, community and co-operation. It is about helping the north to realise its untapped potential, and about making our region stronger and bigger and ensuring that we are at the forefront of our economic revival.
For too long, power and wealth have been sucked to the south from the north. The journey to reverse that trend should now begin. It is time that the northern regions stood up for themselves and were allowed a democratic, powerful and valued voice. If it does not happen, we risk being left behind an ever more powerful Scotland and London in the coming years. It is time to stop the talking and get on with providing a new vision for the north. The Hannah Mitchell Foundation has started and led the debate. It is now time for central Government to join in and kick-start the process to ensure that we have a radical voice for the north as soon as possible.
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
Does the hon. Gentleman have permission to intervene from the Member whose debate it is and from the Minister?
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Amess. I certainly asked for permission.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) on raising an issue whose time has come—one might say its time has come again. It is clear from Lord Heseltine’s report that there is a need for the devolution of power from the centre, which always safeguards the interests of the south and developments in London, to the north. The Government want to do it through local enterprise partnerships, and I agree that it should be done, but doing so through LEPs would cover the north in a patchwork quilt of smaller, business-led local authorities that do not have the large-scale popular involvement that we need to energise the north.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is correct to say that a referendum was defeated in the north-east, but what was on offer was not worth voting for. As I told Lord Prescott at the time, the vote was very low and mainly an anti-Government vote, not a judgment on regional government. Regional government is necessary to tackle the problems common to the whole of the north, to put the north’s interests into the debate and to hold some of the powers that the Scottish Government hold. Devolution has been effective in Scotland in energising development and bringing Scotland up to higher levels of attainment and performance. We need that kind of devolution for the north.
The north could and should be united——uniting the three old development regions into one powerful authority to give us more power to pursue and develop our own destinies, involving the people and energising the whole area. That is all I want to say. It is time for the debate to begin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax on beginning it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) on securing the debate. It is good to have an opportunity to go through some of the pros and cons of what we can do for particular areas.
I fully share the hon. Lady’s views on the importance of growth in the north of England and of decentralising and devolving power from Whitehall into and closer to communities across the country. However, her proposal to establish regional government for the north is simply not the right way to achieve that. I would like to explain why that is so, then go through in detail what the Government are doing to deliver a real devolution of power so that there is economic success throughout the country.
As the history has been mentioned by hon. Members, I shall touch on it and correct one point, which will slightly change their interpretation. The establishment of regional government—evidenced by the failed attempts in 2004 to create a regional assembly in the north-east, which hon. Members touched on—is founded on a total misunderstanding of the traditions, culture and realities of this country. The hon. Lady referred to the 2004 referendum; as she noted, the electorate in the north-east overwhelmingly rejected the proposal for regional government, with about 78% voting no. A comment was made about turnout, but it was almost 50%, so the vote was a clear comment from the people in the area. Does she really believe that the views of the people in the north-east have changed so much that they would now welcome a regional government, of whatever form, with open arms? I am not convinced.
Federal arrangements in countries such as Germany are founded on centuries of culture and tradition. In this country, we do not have that history or tradition. Ours is a tradition of local government and counties—the great counties of Norfolk, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Northumberland, to name just a few.
Mrs Riordan
I do not know whether the Minister has seen today’s article about the next Archbishop of Canterbury. The Minister asks whether I believe that people in the north have changed their mind. The next Archbishop of Canterbury is quoted as saying that that area is going back to the ‘30s, so perhaps they have changed their mind and need the investment that a regional Government would bring.
Brandon Lewis
I am not quite sure why the hon. Lady is putting those two issues together. From travelling round the country to various counties, my view is that people tend to identify with their county, town or city, borough or neighbourhood, not an arbitrary, centrally imposed government region that, as hon. Members have commented, simply adds a tier of administration that is rarely effective or efficient and is certainly not popular.
I am delighted to say that this Government have swept away the eight government regions, regional development agencies, regional strategies and regional leader boards, which were all based around regions that were completely artificial and had no resonance with the cultural, social and economic realities of our country.
Guy Opperman
The Minister is right that localism in its purest form is an exceptionally popular feature; certainly, it is massively welcomed in Northumberland. I suggest that he go an extra mile and propose the disbandment of the unitary authority that was created by Lord Prescott of Hull. Localism would then return to its purest form, and we would get back Tynedale district authority, which is much missed. I assure the Minister that that would make him the most popular man in Hexham that there has ever been.
Brandon Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As he rightly points out, the unitary authority in Northumberland was set up by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. I do not doubt that I would make myself very popular if I were able to return Tynedale district council to Hexham. Unfortunately, the aforementioned Lord Prescott created a structure that ensures, at the moment at least, that that simply cannot happen, which is why we are reticent about going down that kind of road. It is exactly because of our commitment to localism and decentralisation that we scrapped regional government, reduced spending on bureaucracy and transferred power to local councils and beyond.
Austin Mitchell
Would the Minister not accept that he is putting the traditional Conservative arguments against the devolution of power to the people that were put in opposition to devolution to bodies in Scotland and Wales? Those arguments have been shown to be false by the success of those bodies.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman completely misses my point. I am saying that the Government are devolving power directly to people. There is a misapprehension that localism is about giving power to councils. Understandably, some powers will go to councils, but localism is about moving power to people in their communities, so that they have control over those communities. It is respect for the traditions and beliefs in such communities that means that artificial, centrally set regional governments simply cannot work.
Since we swept those regional governments away, no one—other than perhaps a few bureaucrats—has generally mourned their passing, at least not until this morning. Indeed, only yesterday, I attended the launch of a report published by the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, which is chaired by a member of the Labour party, that outlines the prospects for codifying central and local relations. It states:
“An attempt to introduce regional government in England was abandoned in 2004 after the North East of England rejected proposals for a regional assembly. There were no submissions suggesting a return to regional government. We do not suggest a revival of regional government for England. There is neither the political nor public appetite for this. Local government should be the vehicle for devolution in England.”
For all these reasons—identity and traditions, practicability and efficiency, bureaucracy and effectiveness, and the lack of a political and public appetite—it is clear that the pursuit of regional government is not the way fundamentally to shift decision making away from Whitehall. It would simply shift decision making from Whitehall to an artificial regional-tier construct. Local authorities are best placed to receive powers and take critical decisions on local economic growth and on the public services that impact on the day-to-day lives of our citizens; business rate retention and the new homes bonus, with the Localism Act 2011, are moving power that way.
Guy Opperman
To follow up the comments by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) and those of the Minister, two groups are forming positive local solutions in the north-east: Lord Adonis is meeting various members of the local community, and an organisation has created the January declaration. I urge the Minister to study that manifesto and to meet me, because in the north-east, particularly in Newcastle and Gateshead, there are genuine efforts to take localism—working with the local enterprise partnership and local communities—and create strong ways forward that do not involve a regional assembly, but involve all local infrastructure and positive steps. I suggest that that is what we all want.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am very happy to discuss that with him. He highlights that where things are working more positively and there is real progress around the country is where there is no artificial, centrally determined sector, region or body, but something that is led by the people in the community. Local enterprise partnerships have such ability and opportunity because they are led by the people in the communities, who understand their traditions and have a vested interest in seeing their local area grow and in working together. We must trust local people and locally elected and democratically accountable councillors to work together in the interests of their communities. That is what localism is about.
Let me touch on how this Government are devolving power to support that process. The Localism Act, which I have mentioned, and the Local Government Finance Act 2012 have devolved more power and greater control over finances than ever before. For example, the general power of competence turns previous assumptions completely on their heads. It gives councils real power to get on and do things, and the room to take action and innovate without seeking permission from the centre, as they previously had to do. We have un-ring-fenced funding, given local authorities greater control over their resources, and put in place proposals to encourage local economic growth.
We are delivering growth and jobs. The hon. Member for Halifax mentioned the imbalance in our economy. We are already addressing that through such things as city deals, which are recasting the relationship between central Government and our cities. They are giving our great cities the powers and tools that they need to drive economic growth in their areas. For example, through those deals, we have supported cities with a £75 million regeneration fund for Liverpool; an earn-back proposal from Manchester that could be worth more than £200 million; a new development deal in Newcastle worth £60 million; and smaller new development deals in Sheffield and Nottingham.
I will focus for a moment on Yorkshire and Humber, which includes the hon. Lady’s constituency. In that area, we have supported, among other things, the Aire Valley Leeds enterprise zone, which focuses on life sciences, advanced engineering and low carbon industries, and aims to create 3,780 jobs; the Humber renewable energy super cluster, which is creating 4,850 jobs; and the Sheffield city region enterprise zone, which aims to create more than 8,400 additional jobs, with an additional £400 million in economic output. We have also invested more than £73 million for local enterprise partnerships in Yorkshire and Humber as part of the Growing Places fund, and a total of £264 million through rounds 1 to 3 of the regional growth fund—it has already been mentioned—which has created or safeguarded more than 63,000 jobs over 10 years and leveraged £1.433 billion of private sector investment.
We are also opening the way for local authorities to work in partnership across economically significant areas through the establishment of combined authorities, which provide a practical way for local authorities to work together. For example, the establishment of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has brought together local authority leaders. It will strengthen their voice and influence, thus increasing their ability to promote their area with businesses and other partners, and to grow investment and deliver jobs for local people. We are establishing other combined authorities in the Sheffield city region and west Yorkshire. With the authorities in the north-east, we are also considering how a combined authority would support them in further strengthening their leadership and economic development.
That comes back to the main point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). The approach is led by the local community, which comes together to tell us in government what they want and what will help them, rather than our having a top-down approach.
Jason McCartney
I thank the Minister for telling us about all the investment in the north. To include transport, will he join me in welcoming the investment by First TransPennine Express, which has been announced today, of £60 million for 40 new carriages? That will increase capacity by 30%—linking Leeds to Manchester, Newcastle and Hull—which is more good news for the north.
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. That is great news for the north of our country of investment coming in.
As time is short, I will just say that we are as enthusiastic and committed as anybody would be about growth and devolving powers—taking power away from Whitehall and giving it back to local people. However, what we will not do and what would be wholly wrong is to take powers from Whitehall and put them in an artificial construct, which creates pointless discussion, bureaucracy and inefficiency. Local residents have no confidence in and show no loyalty or commitment to such constructs, which therefore tend to end in failure. Our approach is already devolving power and driving growth. We have opened the door to the significantly wider transfers of powers not only to the north, but to the south, east and west—to our entire country—without any new bureaucracy. I hope that the hon. Member for Halifax will come to see that it is our approach that, in driving growth through decentralisation, will realistically achieve her aims, which are ones that she and we must share.
Scam Mailing
(11 years, 9 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
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I thank Mr Speaker for allowing us the opportunity of having this debate on scam mail and postal fraud, which impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands of the country’s most vulnerable people. The elderly and those in debt are among those who are deliberately targeted by fraudsters because they are seen as a soft target and easy to con.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) who has been championing the issue for some time. If her ten-minute rule Bill had received Royal Assent, it would have gone a considerable way to eradicating the issue, by empowering the Royal Mail to take definitive action against those engaging in postal fraud. Regrettably, she is on parliamentary business elsewhere and cannot attend this debate. None the less, I am deeply grateful to her for the input and support of her office.
Let me outline the nature and scale of the problem before making some suggestions as to how the issue might be easily resolved. For the avoidance of doubt, when I use the words “scam mail” I am not talking about the perfectly legal mail shots that legitimate companies send out to advertise lawful services or the sale of genuine goods.
I wish to focus on mail shots which are sent for the sole intention of obtaining money through deception—fraud. Such scams include fake lotteries, fake lawyers promising transfers of large sums of cash, so-called boiler-room share purchasing scams, and even threats of curses put on recipients if they do not send back money to the originators. The scams have many different guises, but, none the less, end up with vulnerable people parting with their cash.
The scale of this largely unreported problem is vast, costing some £3.5 billion a year and growing. Some 50% of the population will be targeted, and nearly 7% will be duped by scam mail, which is carefully crafted to maximise the potential of deceiving the victim. Once the scam comes to light, the victim or, in many cases, the victim’s family, experience a large range of emotions, including anger, shame and upset. In some cases where the loss has been so big, they might even have suicidal thoughts. Indeed, as we heard on the television today, there were five suicides as a result of this matter last year alone.
Sadly, the experience of my constituent Mrs Smith is like that of many others. Her father, a former Gurkha, spends a considerable amount of his weekly pension on these scams. He looks on the payments as his “investments”. He lives in total denial, but believes unwaveringly that one day one of these investments will pay off. He has even told friends and bank managers that his investments abroad are about to mature. Of course Mrs Smith’s father will not admit what he is doing, but everyone knows about it, including his long-suffering wife and daughters. The growing piles of envelopes from the scammer arrive daily and are overtaking the bedroom, and now the summer house is full of scam mail, too, providing clear evidence of the scale of his obsession.
The local post office and coffee shop know him well, because of his routine visits, almost every day, to register post containing the money. He sends up to £150 a week to these criminals. He insists on making copies of letters so that he has proof should he need it. Of course the people in the post office cannot stop an elderly man from sending post. His family feel powerless. They have tried to make him watch BBC exposés, look at the Think Jessica website, and read leaflets and posters. They have tried to get him help from independent financial advisers; orchestrated visits from Derbyshire police officers; and even arranged a personal visit by Marilyn Baldwin from Think Jessica, who tried her hardest to convince him but to no avail. All attempts were met with the response, “That’s not me” or “Nothing I didn’t know already.”
Marilyn Baldwin is passionate about getting “Jessica’s scam syndrome” recognised as a mental health condition. Those referred to as having such a syndrome would be people trapped in the delusional world created by the scammer. Mrs Baldwin feels passionately that calling individuals obsessed with scam mail “victims” or “addicts” is not enough, as it does not explain their behaviour adequately or the torment faced by those trying to protect them.
Scam mail has the potential to make people mentally ill, as it opens up a delusional world that goes deeper than any other addiction or obsession. This inability to get some victims to see the reality of their victimisation and delusions has led some people to ask whether psychiatrists should consider the existence of some form of psychological or mental health condition that drives people to be repeated victims of scams. I strongly suspect that the addictive and irrational behaviours from which many of these victims suffer might be well known to psychiatrists. Perhaps we should consider how existing powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 could be used to empower families and those with safeguarding responsibilities to intervene and save victims, such as Mrs Smith’s father, from their own delusions.
Mrs Smith’s family feel so strongly that they have set up their own action group called “The Fight To Stop SAPCO”—scams and prize cheque offences—which already has a small army of people behind it, including a consumer affairs lawyer from Nottingham, an EU lawyer from London who is aware of international frauds of this type, a private investigator working internationally uncovering perpetrators of international finance crimes and fraud, Derbyshire trading standards, Marilyn Baldwin of Think Jessica, and DC Jim Egley of Operation Sterling at the Serious Fraud Office.
What is most galling, especially to the families of the victims, is that these scams take place with the full awareness of the Royal Mail, which often handles envelopes full of cash that it knows have been fraudulently obtained. Although the Royal Mail is able to recognise when such scams are happening, it remains powerless to intervene, which is a source of intense frustration among postal workers.
Let me turn to the current difficulties in tackling this issue. The nub of the matter is simple. First, there is confusion over the law and what it permits the various organisations involved in detecting and prosecuting these frauds to do. Secondly, there is a patchwork quilt of legislation derived from various Acts of Parliament, which creates a lack of clarity in this area. Thirdly, there is an overly burdensome demand to protect mail in transmission, which means postal workers often observe the scams happening, but are either powerless, or believe themselves to be powerless, to intervene. The result is that the fraudsters continue to profit while the authorities are unable to do anything definitive for fear of acting beyond their legal powers. In effect, no one knows what they can do when a scam is detected, even though they know what they would do if they could.
The law needs clarifying, responsibilities need redefining and powers of intervention need enhancing.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on this important, but under-reported, issue. It is clear that the purpose of this debate is to discuss postal mail scams, but I hope that she agrees that internet e-mailing scams are also an important problem. When looking to clarify the law over postal mail scamming, attention should also be paid to the consequence of e-mail scamming.
Heather Wheeler
The hon. Lady is of course right. If she would like to apply for a Westminster Hall debate on that issue, I would gladly support her. I think the internet may be one byte too many for my 25-minute speech, but I am sure that the Minister, with her breadth of knowledge, will come on to that.
One Bill to amend the three relevant Acts could cover the issue. There is no doubt which organisation is best placed to detect scam marketing—Royal Mail, which says that scam mail is easy to identify both before and when the scam takes place. It wants to be able to pass on the details of suspected victims to trading standards, but its staff feel duty bound, even while observing the scams happening, to observe the Data Protection Act 1998, the Postal Services Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and not intervene and report the names and addresses of those they believe are being scammed. Those three Acts place obligations on the Royal Mail that, although well intentioned, often run contrary to the detection and prevention of fraud.
The seemingly simple approach of Royal Mail reporting suspicious mail to trading standards officers is particularly hampered because there is some disagreement as to whether disclosure of the victim’s details by Royal Mail is permissible under section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The legal advice received by trading standards is that disclosure of potential scam victims’ details by the Royal Mail is already permitted under section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998, which says that information can be released if it is in connection with
“the prevention or detection of crime”
or
“the apprehension or prosecution of offenders”.
However, the legal advice obtained by Royal Mail itself contradicts that view, which reminds me of a friend’s quip that if someone asks 10 lawyers a question they will get 20 different answers.
Royal Mail states that it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 to release details of suspected victims to a trading standards officer, and therefore it does not do so. Consequently, there is complete confusion about what powers Royal Mail has to report suspected scams to the body that is best placed to investigate. However, a Bill could be brought forward to introduce an amendment to the Postal Services Act 2000 and to the Data Protection Act 1998, in order to provide a legal gateway for the release of that information and for Parliament to enable Royal Mail to act against scam mail.
That brings me to the third issue, which is enhanced powers of interception. At the moment, in order to intercept and report scam mail, the Royal Mail, the police or those officials seeking to investigate scams or enforce existing legislation must secure a warrant from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to intercept post in the course of its transmission. To issue a warrant, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would need to be satisfied that it was necessary for the purposes of detecting serious crime, which would need substantial proof. That is understandable given the need to protect privacy, data and even human rights. However, the almost sacrosanct nature that post in transmission enjoys is also a charter for the scammer to carry on defrauding.
Like the legislative patchwork quilt, that burdensome approach is well intentioned but it also works against consumer interests. Again, it could be tackled by an Act of Parliament that gives new powers of interception. However, enhancing powers of interception naturally raises questions about protection of privacy and data. If interception powers were to be introduced without the need for a warrant, there would have to be appropriate safeguards against breaches of human rights. Such powers would need to be controlled using the existing authorisation process, but perhaps with the final power of decision resting at a sufficiently high level to ensure that the tests of necessity and proportionality are satisfied, without needing to trouble my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. After all, should she not be dealing with matters of national security, defeating terrorism and managing our law enforcement agencies?
Heather Wheeler
Exactly; I thank my hon. Friend for that. As I was saying, should my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary not be dealing with matters of national security rather than being asked if a postal worker can report the name and address of someone who he or she has genuine reason to believe is a victim of scam mail?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I join others in congratulating her on securing this timely debate. On the issue of powers of interception, does she agree that very often, and particularly in rural areas, the local postman or postwoman, who has very distinct and detailed local knowledge of people who may have been victims of scam mail in the past, could readily and usefully deploy that knowledge in identifying scam mail before it reaches its intended target?
Heather Wheeler
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he is absolutely spot on. One issue that has come to light is the complete frustration of postal workers. They know that they cannot stop this scam mail because they are being told by their bosses that they are not allowed to stop it. It is interesting that we genuinely feel that there must be sufficient safeguards in place to protect both the addressee’s right to privacy and their data, but we also feel that there is a sensible, proportionate way around the issue.
What can be done to resolve this issue? Who is best placed to deal with it? Who should detect and investigate such scams? As I have said, the Royal Mail is best placed to detect many of the scams, and then either the police or trading standards officers can investigate and prosecute those involved. In many cases, trading standards officers remain the best first port of call. That is the current situation and in my opinion it does not need to change. There is no need for new bodies or agencies, but merely for existing powers to be clarified and improved and for existing bodies to be enabled to do the job with which we charge them.
That prompts the question whether there are already sufficient powers of investigation in place; if there are, there is no need for new powers. Could an amendment to an existing Act close the loopholes? The answer is, “Very possibly and—frankly—very easily.”
Exactly two years ago, in January 2011, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North presented to the House the Consumer Protection (Postal Marketing) Bill. It aimed to regulate postal mass marketing, which my hon. Friend rightly defined as the unsolicited sending of mail shots and letters to UK residents. She noted that, although in the majority of cases it is perfectly legal marketing of goods and services, in many cases it is used for fraudulent purposes—so-called “scam mail”.
The purpose and spirit of my hon. Friend’s Bill was not to prevent legal and legitimate marketing, but to augment the existing legislation and to close the very loopholes that I have just mentioned. It also intended to clarify the legal position of the Royal Mail and trading standards officers, and to give Royal Mail the powers that it and trading standards agree it needs to act decisively against such frauds. Therefore, this Bill is a great place to start, offering a road map for resolving the issue.
The main pieces of legislation that my hon. Friend’s Bill sought to augment were not the Acts that I mentioned earlier, but the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Fraud Act 2006. Those two pieces of legislation have some use in dealing with scam mail, but crucially they are limited in their application because they only deal with scams originating in the UK and can only be enforced once a scam has been committed. My hon. Friend’s Bill would have enacted new powers and made a genuine difference in the detection and prevention of these frauds, wherever they come from.
My hon. Friend’s Bill would have been a very welcome piece of legislation, and was regarded as such by Royal Mail, trading standards and the National Fraud Authority. Those bodies all supported it and hoped that it would be given Government time. I echo that call now, particularly if the Bill could be resurrected and amended to deal with the issues relating to the need for a warrant from the Home Secretary, and if it could clarify what powers Royal Mail actually has.
As I said, sadly my hon. Friend’s Bill did not secure Government time and Parliament lost a real opportunity to produce a genuinely worthy piece of legislation that would have undoubtedly secured both cross-party support and the support of the general public. As a result, the scammers continue to profit in the face of Government inaction, which is greatly to be regretted.
I brought the case of Mrs Smith to the attention of the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is the Minister with responsibility for crime prevention. However, I was disappointed with his response. Although he drew my attention to a number of Government initiatives aimed at tackling fraud in a general sense, his response fell short of proposing legislation to close the loopholes that allow scammers to continue to thrive.
We are legislators, are we not? We are elected to propose, scrutinise and enact legislation, and we should not be afraid of using the privileges of our office to enact laws that are required to enable bodies to carry out their statutory duties. Indeed, to fail to propose such legislation is a dereliction of our duty to our constituents and a betrayal of their trust in this House. To quote the former Member for Wendover, the great Whig philosopher Edmund Burke,
“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will do something. I believe that we have done nothing definitive to tackle this issue, and as a result evil continues to prevail and my constituents continue to fall victim to these most wicked of frauds.
Trading standards and the Royal Mail have identified a loophole and proposed a mechanism for closing it. Legislation is needed, so why can the Government not find time for a non-contentious Bill, which commands cross-party support, to protect the most vulnerable people in society, some of whom live in every single one of our constituencies across the country? Indeed, I will quote to the House the words that the Minister with responsibility for crime prevention wrote to me in his response to the case of Mrs Smith:
“It is clear that for some time the response to fraud has not been good enough and criminals have exploited this. The response has been too fragmented, not enough use is made of intelligence or advanced investigation techniques, and there is not a strong enough focus on prevention”.
I could not agree with him more. There has not been “enough focus on prevention” and therefore powers to prevent postal marketing scams that could easily be enacted should be enacted. We demand a lot of our statutory bodies, and when they ask for the powers to do their job, it is in the public interest to grant them.
I urge the Government to think again about the confusion in the current legislative framework, reconsider the position of Royal Mail and trading standards, and rather than call for greater public awareness, new bodies or new initiatives, do what the experts ask, which is to find Government time for a Bill that will close the loopholes that enable fraudsters to continue to scam innocent victims. Such a Bill exists. I urge the Government to look again at the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North introduced two years ago, find Government time for it, and act decisively to empower Royal Mail to act to stop mass marketing scams.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) on securing the debate. I have worked closely with her on a number of issues, and we sat together on the Communities and Local Government Committee. She is a passionate defender of her constituents’ interests. I readily admit that my expertise in this area is not the same as hers, and I certainly will not go into the issues in such depth, but a number of my constituents have been hit by mail scams and it is important to attempt to do something about them.
According to Office of Fair Trading research, 48% of the UK population has been targeted, and 3.2 million people fall victim to scam mailings every year, particularly the most vulnerable in our society.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) on securing this important debate. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) agree that it is often the elderly who are targeted and victimised by the scams? There are many different forms of what I call snail mail marketing, and the scams get lost in the middle of that. They are well hidden, and in my experience the elderly are particularly vulnerable.
George Hollingbery
That is plainly the case. In my experience, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire also made this clear, it tends to be the older and less mentally robust who are scammed and are subjected to repeat versions of the same thing. Their names get on a list and they are targeted again and again.
The estimated annual cost of scam mailings to the economy is some £3.5 billion. The citizens advice bureau in Bishop’s Waltham in my constituency has brought a number of such scams to my attention, and one of them, involving missed delivery cards, caught my eye. The scam is not of the same nature as one that says, “You will send in a cheque,” or one that asks someone to send money directly back. This one is allegedly from a well-known delivery company, and it asks people to confirm that they want the delivery to be remade by calling a particular number. On the card, rather than an address from which to pick up the parcel, there is a telephone number. It turns out to be a premium rate number of a telephone company in Belize, which someone would be charged £315 for the pleasure of calling. Many of the scams are so sophisticated that they are extremely easy to fall for, especially for someone who does not get out or read the newspapers often and is not aware that such things exist. That case highlights one of the biggest challenges in stopping mail scams: the majority originate abroad, and it is nigh on impossible to prosecute or stop them as there is no UK-based business to have a go at.
There is a great deal of work taking place. Hampshire county council has concentrated on the matter, hence the involvement of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). The council has established a special trading standards safeguarding unit, which works closely with its partner agencies to help protect vulnerable adults, provide flexible support to victims of fraud and raise awareness through information designed to educate, support and guard against further financial abuse. It has raised awareness through working closely with the media and community groups, and by drafting articles for newsletters, newspapers and generally circulated public communications. Extra training has been given to all staff in adult services and other agencies so that, for example, when staff visit a home and are greeted with a mountain of post they can consider whether the person there might be the victim of scam mailing.
Working in that way has enabled Hampshire county council and adult services to identify several chronic scam victims. This is not something that only Royal Mail or the Government can deal with; local authorities can have a positive input. The council also works closely with a local business that provides a mail and package forwarding service to consumers and businesses outside the UK. The business raised concerns with trading standards after large amounts of mail were returned to it undelivered. With that help, more than 200 envelopes full of cash and cheques from the US were discovered, which helped to end an American mailing scam. Hampshire trading standards has a good working relationship with money supply bureaux, and it highlights concerns about individuals who regularly make overseas transfers to unknown individuals or organisations. There is by no means a single point of contact or a single solution; many different hands can get involved.
I absolutely believe that the Government take the matter seriously. The Prime Minister answered a question during Prime Minister’s Question Time from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North on, I think, 11 November, and he has announced a series of changes designed to get to grips with the problem. The Office of Fair Trading has invested £7.5 million to create scambuster teams and run awareness campaigns, and the Government are also in the process of creating a dedicated team within the National Crime Agency, when it is established, aimed at tackling the problem. The work is therefore ongoing, but I believe we have a responsibility to look even more closely at the matter and consider whether there is anything more that we can do to target the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire has covered many of the solutions that Hampshire county council would like to employ, but let me repeat them anyway. The council believes that we need additional protections in law to help to safeguard potential victims, and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North introduced a private Member’s Bill in January 2011, which unfortunately ran out of time. For colleagues who have not seen that Bill, she argued that the police, customs officers or the National Fraud Authority should be able to intercept mail if they believe it is scam mail. The county council also believes that Royal Mail should disclose the details of potential scam victims to trading standards so that proper support can be offered to financially abused and vulnerable people.
Further questions arise: how do we stop scam mailing and not direct marketing? Can the issue more effectively be tackled by changes made by Royal Mail rather than the Government? Are there data protection issues that need to be considered? Are changes in the law required? I wonder whether it is possible to beef up the existing mail preference service, or whether Royal Mail can improve its safeguards to address the problem better. A moment or two ago, it occurred to me that it might be possible for families and/or vulnerable adults to have some sort of opt-in system, so that they give permission for their mail to be examined. That might be one of the easiest ways forward, to have a permissive regime under which potential scam victims can say, “I don’t mind my mail being looked at.”
I appreciate that this is a tough issue and one that is very difficult to resolve, but I do have some questions for the Minister. Is there a lead person in Government who is pulling together the key actions designed to address the problem better? Is the Government’s view that it is Royal Mail that needs to put a renewed emphasis on reducing the problem, or is it essentially a Home Office issue? How do we stop the problem falling between two stools in government? If there is not one person with whom responsibility sits, we run the risk of the issue being forgotten about and its dropping through the cracks in the floor.
I appreciate that this is strictly outside the Minister’s portfolio, but when the Prime Minister spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North about the issue back in November, he said that a team was being created at the National Crime Agency to deal with it. Is the Minister able to update us on the plans to create that dedicated team? I understand that it is not directly within her portfolio, but if she has any news I would gratefully receive it. What I do know for sure is that the message needs to go out loud and clear that scamming vulnerable people for cash is deeply cruel. There is more that we can and must do about it, and we must do it soon.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) on securing this debate, on an issue that can have such a devastating impact on so many people across the country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), I do not profess to have gone into the matter in as much depth as our hon. Friend has, but I would like to bring some insights from my constituency to the discussion.
The Office of Fair Trading has warned us that, during difficult economic times, not only will the number and incidence of scams rise, but the range of scams will be much greater. We therefore need to be much more vigilant and sceptical about what comes through our letterboxes and who telephones our homes. I appreciate that the debate is confined to the postal service, but as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) mentioned, the growing use of the internet is critical, too.
My local police in Dyfed-Powys tell me that the type of scams they are dealing with have changed a lot in the past few years. There was more of an emphasis on postal fraud, but now Dyfed-Powys police are seeing more innovative attempts, often online. That is to be expected, given the advances in technology and in the psyche of the scammers, who are looking for more cost-effective ways to perpetrate their criminality.
In 2011, Citizens Advice conducted a survey asking what are the 10 most common scams and frauds. Of the 558 people in Wales who were surveyed, the biggest concern, identified by 62% of respondents, was switching: being offered money-saving deals to switch energy or phone suppliers that result in paying more money. Also high on the list, identified by 45% of respondents, were bogus debt advice companies that claim to help manage people’s debt, subject to fees, but once those fees are paid, the debt advice is not forthcoming. The third highest, with 44% of respondents, was—we have already heard a lot about this—those elusive prizes: timeshares, wonderful cars and huge amounts of cash. The local citizens advice bureau in Aberystwyth in my Ceredigion constituency alerted me to the case of an elderly gentleman who received a letter from a company informing him that he had won the magical £50,000, and in order to claim, of course, he had to buy £25 of goods from a catalogue.
There is a technical discussion to be had about the inadequacies or otherwise of legislation, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire alluded to in her speech, but this debate also serves the important purpose—there have been debates in this House on such matters before—of shedding the light of publicity, because educating and informing people is a critical tool in defying the scammers.
Dyfed-Powys police inform me that the “receive £50,000 if you pay £25” type of scam has recently grown considerably, and the scam not only means the elderly person who replies loses money, but it allows the potential for their details to be passed on and on. Once bank details are passed on, the whole thing spirals in an unimaginably large way. The global dimension must not be lost either.
Members may have read the case, not a Welsh case, of Mr Paul Kiely from Suffolk, who discovered after his mother’s death that she had spent up to £20,000 responding to scams. On going through her paperwork, the extent to which she was being bombarded by post, often three or four letters every day, became clear. The more people respond, the more likely they are to be a target; it is a vicious cycle, particularly for the vulnerable and elderly in our society.
I have a case from my surgery, and other Members have also alluded to such cases, of a constituent who paid money for goods by bank transfer from what he believed to be a reputable website. When the goods did not materialise, the consumer returned to complain, only to discover the website had disappeared.
We are aware of the dangers of scam phone calls, and Ceredigion citizens advice bureau has informed me of cold calls from agencies claiming to be Citizens Advice, National Debtline, the consumer credit counselling service or the Office of Fair Trading and seeking payment for debt management assistance, often persuading consumers to part with their bank details.
Parliament is not immune from the scammers. In December last year a constituent of mine, a prominent farmer and butcher, received a letter from the “Office of Parliamentary Research” stating that it would like to use the details of my constituent’s business in its work, but, of course, it would cost him a fee. Suspecting from the outset that that was not what it seemed, my constituent got in touch with my office. A member of my staff rang the parliamentary switchboard and asked to be put through to the department the letter claimed to have been sent from, which did not exist in the same name. When the operator put my staff member through to the department with the closest-sounding name and asked for the person who had signed the letter, she was unsurprisingly told that no such person worked there. When my staff member explained why she was calling, she was advised that the call was not the first of its kind and the letter had nothing to do with Parliament; it was a bogus request for money. The letter was cleverly worded to get through the law, and, of course, our advice was to steer well clear. I have had two or three similar cases in my constituency, and I am sure people across the country have been approached. The sad reality is that many may have complied with the request for money, given the name on the letterhead.
So how do we address that problem? I have learnt a great deal from the hon. Members for South Derbyshire and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on the specifics of the Royal Mail. Education and awareness are critical, In my Ceredigion constituency we have had some excellent campaigns over the years involving trading standards and the voluntary sector, with Scambusters being the latest, We must promote to our constituents the value of protecting private details until they know who they are dealing with and treating all mail, e-mails and cold callers with acute caution. If something sounds too good to be true, the sad reality is that it probably is.
Dyfed-Powys police have talked glowingly of Action Fraud, the national campaign in which they have participated since December 2012. The scheme is run by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau in conjunction with City of London police with the intention of gathering a range of cases from across the country and collecting information on incidents and reports into a central database. The information is collated and analysed before being fed back to the police force in the area where the scam may have originated. Since Dyfed-Powys police went live with the scheme in December, they have received three such packages in only two months. They tell me that they find that method helpful in dealing with perpetrators. Last year, in Newtown in mid-Wales, five or six people were arrested in connection with a scam involving the online purchase of iPads and iPhones—payment was made, but the product never arrived. The work at the centre to collect that information and feed it through to Dyfed-Powys police meant that the perpetrators could be dealt with.
Consumer Focus has also done good work on scam mail, and its “Stay Private” website should be commended for helping people who sign up to reduce the amount of unwanted mail and sales calls they receive by bringing various marketing opt-out services together. The site is popular, with some 60,000 people signing up so far, which gives a small indication of the scale of the problem.
I cannot commend my local trading standards strongly enough, although it has limited resources. Above all else, trading standards need to hear from people who have been subjected to scams, but often people, particularly elderly people, are embarrassed. There is an issue with the addictive nature of scam mail, to which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire alluded, but sometimes people are embarrassed that they have been fooled or taken in for so long, and they, too, need support and encouragement to come forward.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution, because I did not give notice of my intention to speak. I came to listen, but I have heard one or two things on which I would like briefly to comment.
Many of us have had people in our surgeries with scam mail problems. I want to address scratchcards and premium-rate numbers, which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery). Those things have at the bottom, “Phone this number for untold riches.” Telephone numbers are changing. At one time, people could spot an STD—a subscriber trunk dialling—code, and if they were a bit sad like me, they could remember the places the codes were for. Now codes begin with 09 or 08 and people never know what they will be charged. The elderly and the vulnerable see things that say, “Phone this number to claim your prize. There are six prizes. One is a car, and one is a holiday.” As has been said, they are suddenly through to a phone number halfway round the world and they get a phone bill of £300, £400 or £500 many weeks later. That is a real problem. It is not only mail fraud that is becoming more prevalent, but e-mail fraud too.
Scratchcards are also an issue. They come in the post and in magazines. People look at them, and they seem wonderful, but I always try to find the flaw in them. If someone is aware, they can see that these things are a scam, but many people just see them and think, “This is fantastic.” I completely agree with what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said: if it looks too good to be true, it is. That is what I always say to my constituents, but, unfortunately, by the time they come to see me it is too late, because they have the bill and it has to be paid. It is a real problem.
The other scam I have started to see—it is done more by e-mail—is a message that someone has a package waiting. On the face of it, it looks like a completely legitimate courier has a package for the recipient. I had one of these e-mails once when, ironically, I was actually waiting for a package. The e-mail dropped into my spam folder, however, so I knew that it was not about my package. That is another way that these people are digging into the vulnerable in our society and the people who cannot afford these things. It is wrong whether the person has the money or not, but the people who are being targeted can ill afford to pay out these fraudulently demanded sums.
I have seen people affected by the problem, and their first emotion is anger that they have lost the money. Then they move on to a sense of shame and foolishness. People who have been done this way feel somewhat foolish and do not tell other people, because it makes them feel a little more foolish. Consequently, word does not go around to watch out for the scam. It is great that my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), who is a near neighbour, has secured this debate, because it gives the issue publicity and lets people know that if they have been conned, they are not on their own. They should not feel ashamed or foolish. They should tell us and tell other people, because the more oxygen of publicity we can give the problem, the better chance we have of fighting it without bringing in legislation to stop it. This is a terrible and wicked crime that preys, as I have said, on the most vulnerable. If the Government can bring forward anything to stop it, they should look to do so as soon as possible.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Sheridan. It is always a great pleasure to be in your company.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) on securing this Westminster Hall debate. She is a good campaigner in the House, and today has emphasised how good a campaigner she is. Hopefully the debate will kick-start a process that will achieve some results on this serious issue. It is distressing not only for the victims and their families but for everyone concerned. I share the concerns that the hon. Lady expressed in her opening remarks.
As all those who have spoken have said, we have all had constituents who have been affected. Some of us have had personal experience of this problem. I was scammed when booking a holiday not too long ago. It looked as though it was a legitimate holiday company registered with the air travel organisers’ license scheme, but it was merely an online scam. It can be difficult to unwind such a process.
Many hon. Members will remember the 2008 survey conducted by Age UK and Barclays, which revealed that seven out of 10 older people in Britain—that is roughly 7 million people—are targeted by scams every month, either by telephone or letter. It is worth reflecting on what the Office of Fair Trading survey said. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) mentioned the £3.5 billion that is lost to scams every year, which equates to £70 for every adult in the UK. That is a massive amount, particularly considering family budgets. The average detriment in a scam is well over £1,000—about £1,200—which shows the scale of the problem.
The OFT survey in 2010 found that around one in 11 —just over 4 million—people said that they had responded to a scam at some time in their life, nearly a third of whom lost money. One in 25, or about 2 million people, had responded to a scam in the previous 12 months. Around half of those scammed have lost more than £50 in total, with 5% claiming to have lost more than £5,000. Three in 10 adults who responded to a scam received further correspondence from the scammer, with more than half being asked to send money and more than a third being asked to send personal information. Those statistics are pretty stark. They show the sheer scale of the problem and the effect it has across every constituency.
Of course, it is not a new practice. I thought I would reflect on the issue in the way the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would and take us back to when we first find any information on scamming. The first mail fraud dates back to 1660, when King Charles II of England first issued orders regarding postal carriers. Some corrupt letter carriers had taken to pocketing the money that was supposed to pay for the letter’s transport and then delivering the letter anyway, because that was what they were supposed to be doing. Mail scams are nothing new, and I hope the Minister can give us some hope, 400 years later, that we have seen the end of the mail scamming system.
In the present day, as well as sending scam mail by post, scammers are taking to new methods to target people young and old, including phishing e-mails and scam adverts on social networking sites. I know the debate is on scam mail, but it is worth reflecting that the scammers are becoming more sophisticated. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire asked us to look at mail in particular, but we need to update the legislation on social networking and the internet. The work that has been done by the Think Jessica campaign on that deserves great tribute.
Once someone is drawn in by a scam mail, they are often put on a “suckers list”. We have seen some of those suckers lists when scammers have been caught. The language used in scam mail is enticing, saying, “You are a guaranteed winner”, “This is a time-sensitive document”, or, “Reply immediately to release your award”. Various other slogans and logos are also used to entice people in for the first time. The scammers are looking for the first indication that someone may be capable of being scammed. They are not interested in the person who throws the message in the bin or puts it in the junk e-mail box. They are interested in grabbing that little bit of hope that they can take the scam forward.
The hon. Member for Meon Valley mentioned bogus prize draws, lotteries and premium-rate prize promotions. Many of those promotions come with some of our national and local newspapers, as the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) said. Perhaps we should tell the editors of those newspapers that we do not accept that.
Andrew Bingham
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The newspaper supplements come in a plastic bag for the simple reason that when the bag is opened and its contents are given a shake, a cascade of different things fall out. Many of them are legitimate, but among them are these scratchcards with super-premium-rate phone numbers.
Ian Murray
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, which emphasises part of the problem. I have experimented with a few Sunday newspapers by scratching off all the cards to see if I have ever not won. Given that the chances of winning the national lottery are 14.5 million to one, it is quite exceptional to pick up a Sunday newspaper and win on every single premium-rate scratchcard. That shows how people can be drawn in.
When Labour was in government, we recognised that the consumer regime needed to be more effective at stopping rogues, criminals and those who deliberately set out to defraud consumers, especially the elderly and vulnerable, through scam mailing. I am sure the Minister will respond positively to the patchwork of legislation that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire has laid out.
In government, Labour invested £7.5 million to create scambuster teams across the UK. Those specialist trading standards teams work hard with local police and others across local authority boundaries to come down hard on the worst scammers. The cross-boundary aspect of those teams’ work is absolutely essential, because trading standards teams generally find it difficult to work across local authority boundaries. Since 2006, the project has uncovered £55 million in fraud, saved consumers £23 million, seized £16.5 million in criminal assets and jailed 58 mail scammers for a total of 75 years. That is a good record, but not good enough, and the massive increase in scams, and the things that we have heard today, show that more is needed.
We strengthened the powers of the Office of Fair Trading, and of trading standards, with the implementation of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Those regulations banned all types of unfair selling and marketing methods, and, crucially, are enforceable through both criminal and civil courts, to ensure that appropriate action is taken against prolific scammers and to serve as a deterrent. However, as we have heard, the regulations are not really serving as a deterrent, given the stories that have emerged since this debate was announced about people moving on to new scams when one is closed down.
The Government’s commitment to further scambusters funding in December 2010 was welcome, but teams in the south-eastern region, which includes London and East Anglia, have been disbanded. Has the Minister assessed the effect of that on the ability to tackle scams and scam mailing? It would be interesting if she would explain whether scambusters funding will continue.
Sadly, people involved in scam mailing have never had it so good. The economic backdrop of stagnant wages and rising prices has made consumers more anxious to save every penny or earn more money. Sometimes, that has resulted in an explosion of money-making scams and sharp practices disguised as sources of help. In addition, we cannot deny that the Government have squeezed funding on consumer protection, and particularly trading standards, with an average 19% cut in overall local authority funding from central Government. The Trading Standards Institute has done an analysis of the aggregate amount of funding for consumer protection through trading standards. The projections are that from £250 million in 2010, the aggregate throughout the country will fall to £140 million by 2014. That significant drop gives scammers the opportunity to enter markets where they may not have been before.
It is important to consider the restructuring of the consumer landscape, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) mentioned. The consumer protection powers of Consumer Focus have been passed to Citizens Advice, and there is a worry that that transfer to an organisation of a different kind, with different philosophies and a different set-up, might undermine some of the great work that Consumer Focus did on the issue. The OFT operated an awareness campaign called Scamnesty in partnership with 129 local authority trading standards services. That was to increase consumer awareness of mass market scams and provide consumers with practical advice on how to avoid being scammed.
Perhaps that is one of the most important things that is needed as a result of the debate. Yes, there are legislative and parliamentary responses, but awareness is also needed of ways in which consumers can protect themselves in the first place, and how they can recognise scam mailings or phishing e-mails if they receive them. I received one such e-mail yesterday, apparently from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which said I was due a tax rebate. I know that that is not true, but the temptation to click on the link and get money back from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was incredibly tempting. The fact that Departments are being shadowed for the sending out of scam e-mails is a great worry, particularly at a time of year when people are filling out tax returns and may expect e-mails or correspondence from Departments, and particularly HMRC. The amount was only £194.70, if anyone is interested—but far better it should be in my pocket than the Chancellor’s.
It is important for people to be on their guard, and to know that help is available. Scams can bring misery to victims, and we need to remind constituents of several things that the OFT highlighted in its report. It is worth reading them, to raise awareness:
“Stop, think and be sceptical. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Do not be rushed into sending off money to someone you do not know, however plausible they might sound and even where an approach is personalised.
Ask yourself how likely it is that you have been especially chosen for this offer—thousands of other people will probably have received the same offer.
Think about how much money you could lose from replying to a potential scam—it’s not a gamble worth taking.”
It is also worth reflecting on the constituency case raised by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire about a gentleman who became addicted, and how that issue might fit into legislative change. The data protection issues, and requirement for the Home Secretary to obtain a warrant, are valid only if the individual in receipt of the mail would not complain that their rights were infringed. I wonder if in the hon. Lady’s example the poor old gentleman would complain that he wanted to receive the mailings—what he called his investments. They might be costly, but perhaps he was willing to do it for entertainment.
It is worth highlighting the mailing preference service, which the hon. Member for Meon Valley mentioned, by which constituents can have their details removed from mailing lists to reduce the amount of addressed advertising literature that they receive. The MPS does not cover unaddressed mailings, of course and I suppose that the real problem with it is that people who are willing to scam completely forget it exists, so that all it does is remove legitimate people who want to send mail. However, if someone is registered with the MPS and receives mail that they think is a scam, their awareness may be heightened.
The Royal Mail door-to-door opt-out scheme includes unaddressed mail. Has the Minister reflected on the matter, and will she embark on an awareness campaign in conjunction with Royal Mail? The Foreign Secretary has just said in the House that we do not spend money on advertising these days, and he is probably right to say so, but I wonder whether there is any way in which Royal Mail could help with the process.
I want to touch briefly on the matter of e-mail scams. Surveys show that 73% of adults in the UK have received a scam e-mail in the past year. I think probably everyone in the Chamber has received one in the past week—from people who want to send us bequests, or to tell us that people have died, and so on. That is followed by scams via a letter, at 21%, and text messages at 12%. Social media sites appear to be emerging as a new route for scammers, with 9% of adults having received an approach in that way in the past year. It is not just older people who are the targets, although I appreciate that they are the targets of the physical mail. Young people, with the developments in smartphone technology, and now that many of them have their own bank accounts, are becoming susceptible to scams. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) will secure a debate on that, because it would be interesting.
I have some information about phishing e-mails to Wonga customers, and about how people are being sucked in, but it is probably best to leave that for a debate about online phishing. Perhaps the Minister could expand on what the Government are doing to make the public aware of the problems, particularly when they relate to departments such as HMRC. The hon. Member for High Peak raised the issue of such departments being made to look as if they are sending information to constituents, and what we could do to tackle that.
As for mail that is posted, Royal Mail must deliver it. That is not its fault; it is governed by law, and it must do so. I believe we all recognise the importance of strong legislation of that kind, to give Royal Mail the backing needed to deliver its mail door to door. However, could the Government and consumer organisations do more, working with Royal Mail and its union, the Communication Workers Union, and postal workers? Perhaps, while there is an obligation to deliver mail, it would be possible to pick up signs—increased loads, or telltale envelopes—that someone on a particular round is at risk from scam mail, and at the very least deliver an information leaflet, or make the recipient aware. It might be very difficult for the House to change the law on intervening, or intercepting mail, and that is probably right, but there is nothing to prevent the Royal Mail or the postman from putting an information leaflet on scam mailing through the door if it is felt that such mailings are going to that address.
Once scam mail has entered the UK postal system, Royal Mail has a legal obligation to deliver it. However, there has been some criticism in connection with Royal Mail’s “local look” service offered by Spring Global Mail and Royal Mail, whereby letters from abroad bear the Royal Mail postmark and have no trace of their overseas origins. There are concerns about that giving credence to scam mail entering the country. Will the Minister reflect on whether enough is being done at Royal Mail to protect its brand, particularly in connection with organisations such as Spring Global Mail, so that at least those overseas issues can be dealt with?
I want to finish by reflecting on the BBC programme “Inside Out” broadcast a few weeks ago. The programme reported on one company called Emery Ltd, a mail handling company based in Hampshire, which willingly acts as a conduit for European mail scammers. Footage obtained by the BBC programme shows company staff throwing letters from scam victims in the bin. The show’s reporter reads one letter detailing that the victim is 90 years old and in a wheelchair, has had two heart attacks and is diabetic, and querying why they have not received their prize yet. Such letters of complaint were just going in the bin.
It will be crucial to continue to educate and empower consumers to recognise and resist scams. That can be done by key stakeholders working together, and some of the key changes in the consumer landscape that we have discussed will have an impact.
Finally, what is being done to simplify and clarify the law, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire mentioned at the start of her speech? I conclude back where I started, Mr Sheridan: not by congratulating you on being in the Chair, but by congratulating the hon. Lady on securing this important debate about a problem that blights so many of our constituents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship Mr Sheridan, and to respond to this debate on an important issue that has been well highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). I congratulate her not only on securing this debate but on how eloquently she has taken up the issue, prompted by the appalling experiences of her constituent, Mrs Smith.
It is worth recognising the great campaigning work done on the issue by a range of individuals, including the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), and organisations such as Age UK, Citizens Advice and the Think Jessica campaign. It is hugely important for raising awareness, a matter that I will address shortly. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that it is an important part of tackling the problem.
Although we are mainly discussing postal scams, it is important to recognise that scams operate in a range of different ways, and that the people perpetrating such scams do not necessarily stick exclusively with one particular avenue. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) mentioned internet scams, which as e-mail users we are all familiar with. Premium telephone line prize scams have also been a great cause for concern, although the latter have at least decreased slightly in number since the new guidance from the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services was put in place.
It is important to recognise, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire did when introducing this debate, that the vast majority of direct mail delivered to our doors is legitimate advertising material. The industry is important to the economy, generating about £16 billion in sales each year, and is a linchpin of the postal service model in this country. We would not want to jeopardise that industry, as it ensures that we have a universal postal service and that we do not pay prohibitively expensive prices when we go to post a letter. I will come to preference services, as they are important, but the real villains of this case are the fraudsters. Their goal is simple: to cheat as many people as possible out of their money by making false promises.
It is worth noting that we are all potential victims. About 3.2 million people a year are victims of such scams, and the losses incurred total about £3.5 billion. Various Members have stated that it is particularly an issue for the vulnerable and elderly. We want to ensure that we protect such individuals, but it is easy to fall into a slightly superior sense that it could not happen to us: “I am a very savvy consumer, and this would never happen to me; it’s something that only happens to vulnerable elderly people.” I was certainly surprised to find when I looked at the research that the age group most likely to fall victim to postal scams is not elderly people—over-65s make up 13% of victims—but people between the ages of 35 and 44. More than a quarter of scams affect people in that age group. It is worth bearing that in mind.
We are discussing scams that are often cleverly customised. Some involve the prospect of a tax rebate, and are often sent around the time at which tax deadlines approach. Some use information about individuals to imitate interactions with banks of which they might be customers. That is how the perpetrators of such horrible crimes try to dupe people out of their money. It is true, however, that older victims tend to lose more money—about £1,200 per scam, almost double other age groups—so we must ensure that everyone is protected.
I was interested in the different types of scam. The most common are bogus holiday clubs, then high-risk investments, which are little more than pyramid or chain-letter scams. Foreign lottery scams also lead to £260 million in losses, whereas the figure for bogus holiday clubs is about £1.17 billion. A range of different scams exist.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South discussed awareness of the issue, which is crucial. A variety of organisations, from the Office of Fair Trading to the Trading Standards Institute and Citizens Advice, try to get the message out so that people are aware of the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said and many Members in this debate have repeated—it is a good mantra—if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. We must have a healthy scepticism about things that come to us through the post, via e-mail, over the telephone or by other methods, and ensure that people know what sort of thing to watch out for.
Age UK has produced a helpful checklist of things to consider. Was the offer unsolicited? Is it necessary to respond quickly? Why the rush? Is it necessary to pay for a prize or free gift, or ring a premium rate number that starts with 09? Are recipients being asked for any bank or credit card details? Is the business reluctant to give its address or contact details? Is the recipient being asked to keep it confidential or secret? Those are all healthy questions to ask. It is not just parts of Government, independent agencies or charities that have a role to play in raising awareness; all of us as Members can do our bit in our constituencies as well.
Beyond awareness, enforcement is clearly a key part of the action that the Government can take. In 2010, the National Fraud Authority produced a comprehensive strategy to confront mass marketing fraud, which includes postal scams and other types of fraud. The strategy was set up under the banner of Action Fraud, and the Metropolitan police and the NFA have been working on it with a range of partners—from local government to central Government bodies and stakeholder groups—to build a cohesive response to tackling postal scams. That includes engaging with Royal Mail and other postal operators and mailing operations. Royal Mail is aware that the nature of the service that it provides—universal access to all users—makes it vulnerable to being used for scams. In recognition of that, Royal Mail is working with the police and other enforcement bodies to prevent scam mail from getting into the system at the beginning of the process. I will return to that point later.
A public trigger is also important. If people suspect a scam, they should be able to do something to trigger a response. That is why awareness will always be important. The first step in stopping a scam is knowing what a scam looks like, but it is not always straightforward, as I have said. There is a range of advice on scams and clear and practical guidance to consumers about what they can do, and I will outline some of what is available.
If someone thinks that they have been the victim of a scam or would like to know how to advise a loved one who might be the victim of a scam, the Citizens Advice consumer helpline is a good first port of call. It is open during office hours on 0845 404 0506, and it gives consumers clear, practical advice on what to do. Action Fraud is the place to go to report the scams; its website is actionfraud.police.uk and its telephone line is 0300 123 2040. The process is simple and quick. If people are worried, they can go online or telephone and quickly make a report, then the appropriate authority will be alerted so that it can take action. It might not happen overnight, but action will be pursued.
Trading standards can take action locally or it can refer matters to national and international enforcement bodies, if required, depending on the nature of the scam that has been uncovered. Trading standards services and Scambusters can investigate scams under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which carry criminal sanctions.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South mentioned Scambusters and what the Government are doing. In respect of the consumer landscape changes, we are giving trading standards greater responsibility for consumer law enforcement, by transferring central Government funding to co-ordinate enforcement activity from the OFT to the new National Trading Standards Board. He rightly highlighted the success of Scambusters, mentioning figures for what it has done in the six years from 2006 to March 2012. It may be helpful for colleagues if I say that, since 2012, that work has continued and is now being co-ordinated more centrally as a result of that more national approach. The National Trading Standards Board is now responsible for the Scambusters teams and has matched previous funding levels, which is important recognition of how vital we think this issue is, particularly in the context of difficult economic circumstances. That central co-ordination will continue in 2013. I hope that I have provided hon. Members with some reassurance.
The snappily titled strategic intelligence, prevention and enforcement partnership, despite being in need of a new name, co-ordinates nationally between trading standards and the National Trading Standards Board and liaises over the border into Scotland, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and agencies there, and co-ordinates with external stakeholder organisations. It is also heavily involved in other activities, particularly in considering whether consumer or business education and awareness campaigns might be able to deal with some of the detriment caused.
Various ideas have been advanced in the debate about what could be done to tackle these scams. It was either the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) or the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) who suggested an opt-in system, whereby people could say, “I’m worried about this. Can I opt in to extra help?” There is merit in thinking about that idea, but it relies on the individual recognising that there is a problem and wanting support. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire discussed scenarios involving vulnerable people who do not realise what is going on and will not be open to such action. That said, it is worth setting out what people can do if they are worried about this, and worth doing for the many who have not, thankfully, been victims of a scam and do not want to be.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South mentioned things that people can do. I should like to elaborate on that. The Direct Marketing Association has two different opt-out mechanisms. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the mailing preference service, under which people can sign up to opt out of addressed direct mail, but rightly made the point that that does not include unaddressed direct mail. However, that association has a second service, which is called “Your Choice”, through which people can opt out of unaddressed direct mail. It has both services because some people might be happy to receive one type but not the other, so people have that option. Details of those opt-out schemes are available at dma.org.uk. The Royal Mail opt-out, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, stops about a quarter of unaddressed direct mail delivered by Royal Mail directly through its bulk mailing system, although that does not apply to other items in the postal system.
If people sign up to all three mechanisms, that will generally stop about 95% of direct mail. Of course, if people are freely breaking the law and trying to scam innocent people out of money, they are probably not going to be too bothered about following the rules of the mailing preference service. However, the point was rightly made that, if much less direct mail is coming in, it may be easier to spot something that is fraudulent or a scam. These services can give people a little bit more peace of mind. I recommend that individuals who would like an opt-in mechanism take that action.
There is a desire in some quarters for legislation as a solution—the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North has introduced a private Member’s Bill, and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire mentioned legislation—which I understand. However, there are significant drawbacks in reaching for such a solution. On the legal point, amending the Postal Services Act 2000 would not create the effect sought by the proponents of this approach, because the rules on not intercepting the post are contained not just in that Act; they are also in the Police Act 1997 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, both of which, for good reason, limit intercepts and set down the process for which warrants are required. A simple amendment to the Postal Services Act would not achieve the aim, and if those other Acts were amended the unintended consequences would be significant.
There are consequences relating to privacy of individuals who want their mail to be delivered without it being opened by somebody else: I think that is the vast majority of people. I do not like to say it would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, because this is a significant problem, but given the total number of items going through the mail—60 million items a day through Royal Mail, for example, making 21.9 billion a year—and even taking into account the 3 million people a year who are victims, trying to identify which items are causing the problems is like looking for a needle in a haystack. They do not have a big stamp on the front of the envelope saying, “This is scam mail”.
George Hollingbery
The Minister mentioned my opt-in suggestion. My thinking was that there could be an option for people to sign into, such that their mail could be intercepted by their local post office worker. We have heard about postal workers’ frustration about not being able to get involved. If somebody could opt in, giving a postal worker the right to intercept at the door, there might be some scope for that.
Jo Swinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I will mention Royal Mail’s response and what we could do to enhance that.
Volume is just one issue that we face. It is not easy to tell which letters are scam mail, because they can arrive in plain envelopes. Indeed, the people designing scams try to stay one step ahead of any regime.
Heather Wheeler
With 12 minutes to go, I am not going to fall out with the hon. Lady. Unfortunately, given protocol, I did not wave around the envelopes, but they really are obvious.
Jo Swinson
I take the hon. Lady’s point that some may be obvious. I do not think that all of them are. We are talking about 3.2 million victims of scams a year, so there will be a wide range.
If we begin to give people licence to intercept mail, that creates a fundamental change in the postal workers’ role. There is a related issue—a genuine operational issue—about feasibility and the resource required. The postal service is universal and is welcomed and valued. We need to think about the resource impact, given the 60 million items of mail a day.
There are, however, things that Royal Mail can do, given the communication channel in which it operates. Hon. Members have mentioned Royal Mail employees feeling frustrated because they want to ensure that they can help. That is often because the local posties will have a pleasant chat and pass the time of day with people, or say hello to them, in particular someone who is housebound or in during the day. They are frequently the people who notice if someone has had a fall or been ill, because the mail is piling up at the door, and many of them take a real interest as upstanding members of the community. There is no reason why they should not be part of the solution, and that is why there is specific awareness among postal workers of such issues—general awareness in the population is vital, but such front-line workers have particular access to individuals, where things are happening.
Such awareness has already started to develop. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South mentioned the lack of funds for advertising campaigns, which is right, but there are other ways of communicating and getting information out there. For example, Royal Mail has an employee magazine, in which the Think Jessica campaign has been publicised, including contact details and its aims. If postal workers are concerned about someone on their regular round, they have a way of being able to pass on those complaints to Action Fraud to ensure that the police and the authorities can deal with the issues. That is important.
At the other end—not the mail delivery end, but at the beginning, trying to stop things before they get into the postal system—Royal Mail is working alongside the police and the UK Border Agency to identify some of the scam mailing houses. Royal Mail has the ability to cancel contracts, and it has done so with particular bulk mailing houses if they are found to have been used to facilitate scams. Such action in the early stages is important, as is the role of that trusted individual with access as a conduit for good advice.
One idea was that postal workers could have an information leaflet to give out, which would be less intrusive than a power to open mail—I have outlined some of the problems with that proposal. Royal Mail does not leaflet at the moment, but I am happy to go away and take up the idea with Royal Mail, to see if it is feasible and useful. In the scenarios outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire—I can imagine the brandishing of the envelopes that were pretty obvious—a leaflet could provide targeted and useful information without being intrusive or invading privacy. With awareness and enforcement, we can ensure that people understand the risks and can clamp down hard on the people who are abusing the system and conning innocent people out of money, causing a great deal of distress. That is vital.
I accept that my response is slightly disappointing for my hon. Friend, because I cannot say that the Government will support the proposed legislative change. I can, however, say that the Government are sympathetic to the problem she has rightly outlined. The victims of such scams are people who should not be conned out of their money. The practice is unacceptable and, to use a word used earlier, cruel. I disagree that we should deal with it by putting the onus on Royal Mail front-line staff and giving them an extra responsibility to identify things, then intercept and open the mail. Such an approach would be heavy-handed and there would be a raft of unintended consequences.
Another general principle is that legislation is a last resort. Some good ideas have been proposed in the debate today, and we can take those forward to see whether they can have a further impact. Indeed, excellent work is already going on, started through Scambusters under the previous Government, continued under this Government, to ensure awareness and that proper enforcement is followed up. Trading standards, Citizens Advice, individual MPs, UKBA and the police all have an important role to play in raising awareness, in improving enforcement and in putting a stop to this unacceptable practice.
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
(11 years, 9 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
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Sheridan, for allowing us to start a couple of minutes early, which is always helpful in such circumstances. I am grateful to have secured the opportunity to debate the core strategy of Reigate and Banstead borough council.
The strategy has been more than eight years in the making, since the introduction of the local development framework system in 2004. To say that the process has been fraught would be an understatement. There have been more than a dozen iterations, consultations, submissions, amendments and further amendments, and we are now in a public consultation period on further amendments that ends on 4 February. I intend my speech to be the basis of my contribution to the latest public consultation.
Before I get further into the details of process, which are of course where the devil sits, in an almost impenetrable fog of regulation, affordable housing needs assessments, employment and migration forecasts, judgments about housing demand and household social behaviour forecasts—all of which are being made against a framework of directives from the European Union overlaying national policy, overlaying regional plans, which may or may not be valid subject to potential judicial interpretations of EU law—let me highlight the key fact that something is badly awry with the process. Simply put, green fields in the green belt are being zoned for potential future development. That has had its first public presentation in the further amendments to the core strategy now being consulted on, and two sites for 500 to 700 homes each have been identified in technical papers supporting the consultation.
Unsurprisingly, as this wholly unexpected and unwelcome development has become public and people have realised that their interests are absolutely engaged in terms of local planning blight, the value of their property and the quality of their environment, they have started to express concern in debates in public meetings and on web pages. Greenfield development in the green belt, against the wishes of the local planning authority and its people, is surely a violation of two central tenets of our Government’s policy of localism and protection of the green belt. Set against what people rightly understand about our policy, what is being contemplated seems scandalous. How have we got into this position, and how can we get out of it?
Protection of the environment and the centrality of planning policy in my constituency have been plain to me ever since I first applied for the Conservative nomination back in 1997. The constituency is wholly within London’s metropolitan green belt and because of the ribbon developments down the A23 and the A217 the green belt is at its narrowest and most fragile. The villages to the north of the M25, which bisects the constituency east to west, including Banstead, Walton-on-the-Hill, Tadworth, Kingswood and Chipstead, have their own character and charm. Their individuality has been sustained by green belt protection and, before that, by the existence of substantial tracts of common land, and the determined policy of the borough council.
South of the M25 and the north downs area of high conservation value, the adjacent towns of Reigate and Redhill complement each other in age, style, history and planning policy. South of Reigate and Redhill are the significant housing areas of Woodhatch, South Park, Earlswood and Whitebushes, much of which was conceived as social housing development. Without the protection of the green belt those areas would have sprawled to envelop the villages of Salfords and Sidlow and form one continuous development into Horley and on into Crawley. However, those settlements enjoy abutting on to green fields, much of which make up the floodplain of the River Mole, which is a significant plus of living in those areas, which do not possess some of the architectural or downland charm of other parts of the constituency. It is that asset and the principle of preventing sprawl development that is now under long-term threat in the proposed core strategy of Reigate and Banstead.
It is not the purpose of this speech to criticise the position of the borough council or the inspectorate. In the end, they are the prisoners of the national planning process and if things are going self-evidently wrong in Reigate and Banstead, we must of course look to the Minister to put things right. He is the policy supervisor of the planning process, and I look forward to his response, both in reply to this debate and on a more considered basis over the weeks to come, about how to turn around the alarming environmental outlook for my constituents.
Having tried to paint a picture of my constituency, let me go into some of the detail. Reigate and Banstead borough has the largest population by district in the county, and it is projected to grow by 18% by 2027, mainly due to the large amount of development in recent years, which has attracted young families and therefore the highest birth rate in the county. It is far from being the largest borough. It is not as though the borough, despite the green belt designation of much of it and the entire Reigate constituency, has not done its bit in contributing to national housing need. The annual housing target at 500 houses per year since 2006-07 has seen 3,689 housing completions in that period, exceeding policy by more than 20%.
The infrastructure is under serious pressure. We are already short of two primary schools and we will shortly require a new secondary school. The local road network becomes paralysed as soon as there is trouble on the M25, as it is already beyond capacity. This time last year, we were panicking about future water supply, and today we are recovering from the latest occasion on which the River Mole burst its banks on Sunday. Development will only make flooding worse, not least because the major development flowing from the 1994 borough development plan saw water retention and run- off factors built into a development of nearly 2,000 homes on the encouragingly named Great Lake farm.
Taking all factors into consideration, the proposed housing target for the borough of 460 houses per year is unsustainable, and undermines the green belt and the principles of localism. Frankly, it also undermines any sensible national regional policy because enabling development in the south-east further undermines the economic prospects of England’s less prosperous regions. That number drives everything, and takes us into the contentious area of defined housing need, which the Government set and on which the inspectorate hangs its decisions.
What is our objectively assessed housing need? It is not something that local policy seems able to influence. It is a number, which in its latest iteration, has been spat out of the 2008 strategic housing market assessment. How that process was to be done was imposed by central Government, and is so complex that local authorities cede it to specialist consultants. That number, at 981 is nearly double the requirement produced by the discredited regional south-east plan. It includes market demand and a requirement to meet the needs of migration, the sensitivities of which were again reflected at Prime Minister’s questions today.
Reigate and Banstead borough council is about to submit a third draft of the core strategy to the Planning Inspectorate, the previous two drafts having been withdrawn due to the planning inspector’s non-acceptance of the plans on the grounds that, notwithstanding the council’s assurances on site allocations, he did not consider that they would meet the stipulated housing targets. Here, I would enter an important concern about the process.
Windfall sites have made up much of local provision over the past decade. That is hardly surprising when nearly every property owner stands to make a life-changing development gain for their family given local property prices if they can secure unrestricted planning permission. The inspector should be able, indeed required, to include that historical pattern in his review of the council’s ability to meet its housing target. The council, including all Conservative and Green councillors, whom I have found equally committed to the defence of the environment, has unanimously endorsed a housing target of 460 per annum. That is significantly higher than councillors would wish, in actuality, but on the strong advice of their officials, is the lowest practical target they believe they have a chance of defending. The council’s figure is taken from the south-east plan, which remains in place due to the impact of EU regulation. I seem presciently to have predicted in my maiden speech in June 1997 that that would happen.
It should be deeply ironic to any Conservative that the core of the Conservative borough’s case is that to be allowed a strategy that will give it a measure of local control, it must rely on a regional plan, which Conservatives wish to abolish, but cannot because of EU regulation that Conservatives oppose, to give it a housing target that is unsustainable and inconsistent with any sensible balance of environmental and economic policy, compared with one that would be utterly catastrophic if consistent with central Government’s 2008 formulation of a strategic housing market assessment that could hold sway otherwise.
The threat of a much larger number being imposed by inspectors at planning appeals driven by developers, some of whom have already land-banked parts of the green belt in the absence of an authorised local plan, is forcing the council’s hand to contemplate future development it would otherwise not want. Under that impossible pressure, the borough council has had to issue for consultation a third draft core strategy, which refers to green belt development by way of two large but undefined urban extensions in the south of the borough, and holds out the prospect of future development around the village of Salfords after 2027.
All that is deeply inimical to the interests of my constituents who, left to their own devices with their representatives, could properly balance economic, environmental and social pressures. However, we now have a situation in which every strategic objective of our policy, be it localism, protection of the green belt, or a sensible regional balance across the country between the economy and the environment, is being undermined by how planning policy is delivered in practice.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case for his constituents and his constituency. Does he agree that many of the voters in Surrey, which includes my seat as well as his, gave us their vote at the last election because they believed that we would protect the green belt, and they felt that we believed in localism, which was a central tenet of our manifesto? That is what they want to see MPs, our council and our Government deliver now.
Mr Blunt
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. He neatly makes the point that I will come to next in my peroration.
Clarity is required for my constituents, their councillors and the inspectorate on which national policy trumps which: the delivery of local autonomy through meeting perceived national housing need, or the protection of the green belt? Our rhetoric implies—this is the point that my hon. Friend made, with which I absolutely agree—that the green belt has priority when those two clash, as they do in my constituency. I hope that the Minister can make it clear that that is the reality of our policy as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, and I apologise that you were not informed that I was going to be replying to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) on securing this debate on a matter of great importance, both to his constituents and to the constituents of many other hon. Members around the country. He referred to his prescience in his maiden speech, and I am sure it surprises none of us that he was prescient on that matter, as on many other things.
As I hope my hon. Friend will understand, because of my role being a strange beast, in that it is quasi-judicial, I will not be able to go into the details of his constituency and how planning policy and the recommendation that authorities produce a local plan affect it. I am not familiar with the situation, and it would be wrong of me to prejudge any decisions, but I hope that I can provide an explanation and even some reassurance about what national policy demands of local authorities that are producing local plans.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not take exception to my starting with what I think are the fundamentals: what are planning and the planning process all about? Any of us who have served as local councillors, whether on the planning committee or having represented our wards in front of planning committees, know that planning is an attempt to reconcile competing demands and make difficult trade-offs on behalf of the people we represent. Very few planning decisions are easy and no planning decisions are universally popular, but we believe, as I know he does, that the people who are best placed to make those difficult trade-offs are those who are closest to the people such decisions affect.
The national planning policy framework was the Government’s attempt to take a blizzard of planning policy that we had inherited—not only from the previous Government but from a series of Governments—and clarify and simplify it, so that there were a relatively limited number of national policy priorities that each locality needed to reconcile in its own way. One of those policy priorities is housing need, and it is probably on that priority that our performance, as a country, is most disappointing over the longest period of time.
Over 30 or 40 years, we have failed to build enough houses to meet the housing need of our population. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to single out the previous Government’s failure to control the level of immigration as a contributor to that need. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned during Prime Minister’s questions today, 2 million people in a decade moved to the UK. Of those, 1.7 million moved to England. Our population has grown largely because of an immigration policy that none of us—I apologise, Mr Sheridan, I do not mean to include you in this—supported. The Government are now trying to bring that under control, but we have to accept that those people now live here and have a right to do so.
Although that is a big contributor to the housing need of the country, it is not the only one. Something that we can all feel happier about is the fact that people are living longer, and as a result, there is a natural growth in the number of households. If people live into their 80s and 90s, while people are still being born, an increase in the number of households will inevitably be created, with each household having an entirely legitimate right to expect a home of their own.
The fact remains that the planning system that we inherited in 2010 had, for 30 or 40 years, failed to deliver the level of housing that we needed to meet the growth in the number of households. What is extraordinary is that it did not even meet the housing need between 2000 and 2010, when we had a booming economy and the loosest credit conditions that anybody had ever seen. In no year in that decade did we, as a country, build enough houses to meet our need. That priority is important. It is stated in the national planning policy framework and is one of the Government policies that every local plan must meet, but, of course, it is not the only one.
Mr Blunt
I would like to register a concern about the definition of housing need. The danger is that it starts to look like “predict and provide”. There are other ways in which housing policy and household formation policy will adapt to how many houses there are. I want to be careful about an approach that simply says, “We must have this number of houses, because these things are happening elsewhere.” The other things that are happening—in terms of household formation, when children leave home, and how rapidly or otherwise families break up—can change, and they will change in the face of economic pressures, some of which will come from housing shortage.
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but as I think he would agree, although we should feel comfortable with some adaptations, as he puts it, we should be profoundly uncomfortable with others. An adaptation with which we were all comfortable—the Government have therefore taken steps to facilitate it—is the idea that redundant buildings, such as offices, should be easily converted to housing, so that that can go some way to meeting that housing need. Every office that we can convert into housing is a bit of land that no longer needs to be built on to create new housing. I think we would all agree with that kind of adaptation.
However, two adaptations are taking place in our country that no Conservative, and probably no Member of Parliament, can feel entirely comfortable about. The first is the number of working people in their 20s and 30s who still have to live with their parents, or sometimes have to share a room, because they cannot afford to get a place of their own. The second is certain young families with young children, who have no prospect of ever being able to afford a place of their own with a bit of garden that the children can play in as they grow up. Neither my hon. Friend nor I would be comfortable with such an adaptation, which is clearly a response to the astonishingly high prices and lack of affordability of housing.
I do not want to dwell too long on that point, because that would imply that it is the only policy priority of the Government, when it is not. It is important for every local authority area to come up with a plan that meets its fair share of the housing need. However, the national planning policy framework, which was brought in under the auspices of the Localism Act 2011, is very clear about the protection of the green belt. That is of the utmost importance; its permanence and openness is vital, and the NPPF is absolutely explicit about the importance of preserving that.
The figures that we have are relatively encouraging—again, I refer to what is happening nationwide, and not to my hon. Friend’s constituency—as the amount of green belt has gone up in the past 10 years, and the amount of building that has taken place on the green belt is tiny. The number of times when and the number of places where the green belt is encroached on is still, I am glad to say, very small. It is very rare and is done as a result of a local authority going through the process of a local plan and working out which bits of green belt it is in the interests of the entire community to surrender for some kind of development in order to balance the competing demands of the community.
Mr Blunt
I want us to be clear on the starting position for the national Government, given that green belt is a national policy designed to protect us from the sprawl that would otherwise happen in terms of development. The Government start from the position that the green belt should be protected, and policies that lead to the green belt being encroached on violate that principal objective of Government policy.
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is an absolutely core tenet of Government policy that the green belt should be protected. It is also an absolutely core tenet of Government policy that housing need should be met. That is why localism is difficult and not a free lunch for anybody—we are devolving the matter to local authorities, in their communities, to resolve that very difficult tension between competing policy demands.
Mr Blunt
It is not terribly difficult. If the entire country were green belt, it would be difficult, but the entire country is not green belt, for very obvious reasons, and green belt is restricted to certain areas to stop towns simply growing for ever and there being no space. That is why green-belt policy exists. I gently put it to the Minister that it is not a very difficult tension to reconcile; indeed, it is essential that it is reconciled in favour of the green belt.
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course, that the green belt does not cover everywhere. It does cover, nevertheless, a very substantial proportion of land. Interestingly, it covers more land, as a percentage of the total, than all the land that is currently developed in any way; 13% is in the green belt and only 8.9%, in the whole of England, is built on or even used for gardens in any form of development. The green belt is bigger than the total of all towns, cities, villages and all other kinds of uses.
It is absolutely the case that it is the function of the green belt, as the green lung, to prevent cities from splurging into each other, which is what has happened in the United States and in other countries. We absolutely do not want that to happen in England. Nevertheless, the green belt is a substantial proportion of land, and it has always been the case that local authorities have, by their own choice, through local consultation and the local plan process, sometimes varied it in small ways in order to meet community needs.
There are other policy objectives. My hon. Friend referred to them, and I want to make it clear that they, too, find their place in the national planning policy framework. I am referring to the broad idea of sustainability on all levels. He is absolutely right that infrastructure of all kinds needs to keep pace with the demands that are placed on it, and it is incumbent on the local authority to make those plans and not to encourage, welcome or accept development that is not adequately supported by infrastructure.
Another kind of sustainability, although in a sense it is all one concept, is environmental sustainability. My hon. Friend referred to the threat of flooding, and it is of course clearly a national policy in the framework that houses should not be built in areas of high flood risk unless there are flood defences or some other form of mitigation to prevent floods from affecting those houses.
I would like to say something that I fear may be somewhat unsatisfying to my hon. Friend. We as a Government cannot make the choices between these different priorities. All we ask the inspectorate to do, and all the inspectorate can do—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that the inspectorate should not be blamed for this, because we make the policy and the inspectorate, like a judge, just tries to interpret that policy—is to look and see whether it believes that a local authority has adequately measured its housing need, assessed the sustainability concerns, looked at all the different policy requirements in the national planning policy framework and given due weight to all of them in the difficult attempt to achieve a resolution. I completely accept that in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s, for local authorities such as Reigate and Banstead, that difficult task is probably more difficult than it is for almost any other local authority in the country.
Mr Blunt
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s generosity in giving way again. When he spoke about green-belt development—I want to bring him back to that—he used the term “the community”, and I absolutely endorse that. The local community may be able to see a reason for developing on the green belt, as Reigate and Banstead did, with my support and everyone else’s support, when it developed proper access to the Holmethorpe industrial estate and then created a development of approximately 500 homes, now called Watercolour. That was entirely supported. It involved access underneath the London to Brighton railway line and it tidied up access to an important industrial estate in Redhill. That was a very good example of the community driving development.
What the Minister has not said, though—I want to bring him back to this—is that green belt is a national policy. We are dealing with the consequences of two national requirements. One is the housing numbers, and I would challenge how those numbers are acquired. I would also challenge other points. If children have to leave home slightly later because we are protecting the environment in our country and see that as a priority, so be it. If we make this country a less attractive place for immigration because there is a housing shortage, so be it. We protect the environment for our children and successive generations. The Minister and I may disagree on that, but that is a perfectly proper debate to have. But on this issue, the green belt is a national policy to protect cities from expanding ever outwards. Reigate and Banstead is now dealing with the contradiction between the two. I just want him to give an indication that it is fine for the community to seek development in the green belt, but not fine if it is done otherwise, in which case there will always be questions about why it is happening.
Nick Boles
I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s concern to ensure that any changes to the green belt in his local authority area, in his constituency, are decided by his local authority. It is of course the case that although we very strongly encourage local authorities to produce a local plan, they are not compelled to do so. There is no obligation on them. No councillor will go to prison if they do not produce a local plan. However, we believe that even when the process of producing that local plan requires them to take intensely difficult decisions, some of which may not be very popular with local people, that is nevertheless a better position for them and their community to be in than to have no local plan at all. If there is no local plan, all applications will be speculative in a sense, because there will not be a plan to go by. All applications will be judged according to the national planning policy framework.
Of course, although the inspectorate can advise a local authority on how to make its local plan robust and suggest things that it might want to consider so that the local plan will pass examination and be adopted, it is entirely for the local authority to decide what it wants to have in its local plan. If it does not agree with the advice that it is getting or does not want to take up any of the suggestions that come from the inspectorate, it is entirely within its power to resist those suggestions and to decide either to put forward something else as a plan or not to have a plan at all. But what is the case—
Nick Boles
May I just finish? I do not feel that I answered my hon. Friend’s previous question.
There is indeed a national policy about the green belt—that we should protect it, that it should be permanent and open. There is also a national policy that we must meet our housing need. Those two policies and many others about sustainability and about economic growth are all contained within the national planning policy framework, and it is for local authorities such as his to carry out the difficult task of achieving all those objectives within their local plan.
Children’s Services
(11 years, 9 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
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have secured this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, and to have the opportunity to discuss this very important topic in such a timely manner. I believe that it provides the Minister with a last chance to allay the concerns about reform of special educational needs provision before the children and families Bill enters Parliament.
I remind colleagues that this is not a marginal issue. There are about 700,000 disabled children in England. One in 15 families with dependent children has at least one disabled child and more than one fifth of children—about 1.7 million—are said to have special educational needs. Far too many of those families feel close to crisis point. I know of no MP whose casework file does not include countless calls for help from parents of disabled children and children with SEN. Parents are forced to fight their way over seemingly endless bureaucratic hurdles to get the support they desperately need for their children. Parents come to me, and have done for many years, exhausted and demoralised, unable to understand why it is such a battle even to get their children’s needs recognised, let alone be given adequate support.
At the heart of the battle that families with disabled children and children with SEN face is the unacceptable lack of support close to home. Scope’s recent report, “Keep Us Close”, found that the biggest issue facing families with disabled children was a lack of local support services.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
When we first come into this place, we all think that it is just an individual problem, but I see from the Scope report the scale of the problem. The average distance travelled is more than 4,300 miles a year. That is staggering. When someone has to travel, it is always a fight to get funding from the local authority to cover even that.
Angela Smith
I empathise and agree with the point my hon. Friend makes. I will refer to that issue later in my speech. It is about not only distance, but cost, which in the case of low-income families can be an incredibly difficult burden to bear.
More than six in 10 parents of disabled children say that they cannot get the services they and their child need in their local area. A measly one in 10 parents told Scope that the process of getting local services was simple. Families with disabled children and children with SEN want to use the services that many families simply take for granted: child care, so that parents can work; short breaks, which enable families to rest and a disabled child to enjoy a leisure activity; therapeutic services, to support development such as speech and language; and, of course, the right educational setting, so a child can learn and reach their potential.
A lack of local, accessible services can have a devastating impact on a family’s quality of life. Recent research by Scope found that 80% of the families with disabled children who cannot access the services they need locally report feeling anxious and stressed, and more than half said that as a consequence they missed out on doing family activities together, such as days out or celebrating birthdays.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, families with disabled children travel on average more than 4,300 miles a year —84 miles a week—to access the services they need. The logistics and complicated arrangements necessary to get them to appointments, school and activities on time are vast. Travelling long distances is extremely demanding, particularly for children who tire easily or become distressed if they are contained for long periods. For disabled children and children with SEN, such journeys can be even more stressful. As one mother of a disabled child put it:
“Not being able to access the fun things for my child has left us isolated and almost housebound for most of the month. It is difficult to access things as we don’t drive and no thought is put in to the placement of services for disabled families who need to use public transport. It is always assumed we drive. Therefore public transport costs a fortune and takes at least twice as long. Services are a distance away, so if you don’t drive it means you just don’t go to services at all, which means being housebound and being further isolated.”
In some cases, the immense financial burden placed on families can literally tear them apart, which is the important point my hon. Friend made earlier.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend describes a situation with which we are all familiar in our constituencies. One concern that parents in my constituency report is that funding for home-to-school transport has been reduced significantly due to pressure on councils’ budgets. Does she agree that it is extremely important to ensure that families can manage the day-to-day journey to school readily and affordably and that it ought to be given priority in any local offer?
Angela Smith
Transport is extremely important, as my hon. Friend points out, but so is the consistency of the service. Having the same driver, routine and route to school is often incredibly important for children, particularly those with autism, for example. There are issues with consistency of service and central Government funding for local government to ensure that such services are consistent and of a high quality.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the impact of funding cuts, which are of particular concern, given the additional responsibilities that will be pushed on to local services by the Government through the legislation. She will share my concern that extra services will be demanded and local authorities will need to put on those extra services, but the money will not come with them. At a time of pressure, that will make it even harder for the families she described.
Angela Smith
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. When local authority budgets are being reduced significantly, we may see the expectations on local authorities quite rightly increase in relation to disabled children and children with SEN. I will be pleased to hear the Minister’s response on that point. In Sheffield, £1 in every £3 is being cut from the council budget by central Government. Something has to give somewhere.
Frustrated at not being able to access support, some parents find that the only way to gain the help they need is to go through the formal process of getting a statement for their child. For too many, that process involves navigating their way round a very complex system, characterised by a lack of information, poor support and negative attitudes. Indeed, “banging our heads against a brick wall” is a phrase my constituents use time and time again when talking about the challenges they face to get the support they need. All too often, they feel that they have to be persistent and tireless if they are to get the services they need, and they often feel that only articulate families or those who shout the loudest—middle-class families—are successful in accessing services.
The Government have said that their reforms to SEN provision will reduce the adversarial nature of the system, putting an end to the frustration at having to fight to get the support families need and deserve. The former Minister with responsibility for children, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), said that the proposed children and families Bill would put an end to the unacceptable situation in which thousands of families
“are forced to go from pillar to post and face agonizing delays and bureaucracy to get support, therapy and equipment.”
I welcome the intention behind the Bill. I particularly welcome the requirement for local authorities to publish a local offer to better enable families to find the education, health and care support that they need. I also welcome the duty on local agencies to jointly plan and commission services for disabled children—it is long overdue.
Too often, families feel that their child, and indeed the whole family, has been compartmentalised, with local agencies failing to see the whole picture of what is needed to support them. One of the most common refrains I hear from my constituents is that children are not seen as individuals and that services fail to see them as individuals and families.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is right. Bringing together education and health in the plans is a positive move. The concern presented to the Select Committee on Education in evidence, when we conducted pre-legislative scrutiny, was about what happens at the thresholds. What happens to those people on the borderline who have low or medium levels of need? I am sure that she will touch on that concern and I know that the Minister is aware of it. It is one of the key issues around statementing.
Angela Smith
I was the cabinet member for education in Sheffield, and low incidence need is an area of SEN that has long been neglected. My personal view is that children with low incidence needs—dyscalculia, dyslexia and such heath conditions as diabetes and asthma—are often not given the care and support that they should receive in the education and health systems. Movement on that score is and will be very welcome, but we must scrutinise carefully what the Government are proposing, because this is a great opportunity to get it right.
The Government’s proposed reforms to SEN provision are well intentioned, as I have just said, but I cannot help feeling that they very much lack the ambition truly to improve the support available for families with disabled children and children with SEN. I hope that the Minister will prove me wrong on that point when he responds.
In its pre-legislative scrutiny report, the Education Committee said:
“The importance of getting the Local Offer right cannot be overstated.”
The local offer is designed to set out which services are available to support children and young people with SEN and their families, reflecting those services that can be made available from within existing local resource, but that only reinforces the status quo. Where is the vision to improve both the quality and the availability of services? Rather than reducing the adversarial nature of the system, the reforms in the proposed Bill might actually increase the battles faced by parents with disabled children and children with SEN, with the onus being placed on them to ensure that services meet the needs of their children.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Angela Smith
I will take one more intervention, but I will then stop taking any others.
Annette Brooke
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we want to avoid the adversarial conditions of the past that have worn down whole families. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what redress there is for parents who do not get adequate services?
Angela Smith
I take the hon. Lady’s point. Ambitious about Autism is pressing for the right to appeal to be included in the proposed Bill, but I want to state that it is important for services to be right in the first place. A problem with the current system is that the right to appeal in the tribunal process is exactly one of the reasons why parents find the system so difficult. At the moment, I do not think that services are meeting the needs of parents when the first offer is made to them in relation to their children. The constant obstacles and hurdles that parents have to go over to get where they need to be is the most depressing part of the SEN process.
Is it any wonder that people are so lacking in faith about what the Bill contains, given that a former Minister has openly stated that children and families policy is simply “not a priority” for the Secretary of State or the Department for Education? Unsurprisingly, the disability sector is worried that insufficient attention is being paid to a proposed Bill, the title of which comprises the words “children and families”. This concern is increasingly turning towards the development of the local offer, as is illustrated by the lack of detail and clarity in the Bill about that. Will the Minister confirm that the development of the local offer is being sufficiently prioritised by his Department?
That relates to the point that I previously made. Services must work really hard to ensure that they get the local offer right first time—when parents need to put support in place for their children. We do not want parents to have to battle against inadequate offers that may be made to them by local services. If the local offer is not of a high quality, families will continue to have to battle to get the services they need and the Government will have failed in their ambition for the proposed Bill.
There are widespread calls for the local offer to be strengthened. For example, Scope has called for a “provide local principle” to be introduced to place a clear duty on local authorities to ensure that local services—schools, playgroups, children’s centres and leisure centres—are inclusive and accessible for families with disabled children and children with SEN. That would ensure that where those services do not already exist, there is a duty on local agencies to commission and guarantee the delivery of them. Many feel that it is only through bringing about a cultural change in local authorities, with local councils and service providers thinking differently about the services they commission and run, that a step change in provision can be initiated. Such a cultural change is needed now more than ever.
I have already referred to the strongly worded pre-legislative scrutiny report from the Select Committee. Colleagues on the Committee have recommended that the Government strengthen the local offer through the introduction of minimum standards or a national framework, which I strongly support. Does the Minister have any plans to implement such a national framework or minimum standards? A commitment from him that the Bill will include such proposals would go a long way to alleviate the many concerns held by families with disabled children and by the organisations that represent them, as well as by many local authorities.
There is no doubt that local authorities face immense financial constraints, which means that many services for the disabled are being cut. That is particularly being done through tightening eligibility criteria, which means that people with lower-level needs are losing support. It is therefore imperative that the local offer meets the needs of children with less complex needs—that was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson)—notably, the 1.3 million who have SEN, but are not eligible for a statement. The needs of those children cannot merely be met by, as the Minister has stated,
“improving teaching and learning for all”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 304W.]
For example, many of those children have distinct difficulties, such as speech and language problems, which require specialist attention that cannot be provided by mainstream teaching alone. I have personal experience of that, and it relates exactly to my point about having to go over all the different hurdles that are in the way of getting the right support.
Many of those children currently receive support from the school action and school action plus programmes. The Government have announced that those programmes will be scrapped, which has created huge fear and uncertainty among parents, who simply do not know what support will be available for their children. The Education Committee highlighted that as a key concern. Will the Minister clarify exactly what support will be available for the 1.3 million pupils with SEN who do not have a statement, particularly those who currently receive support under the school action and school action plus programmes?
When the Minister gave oral evidence to the Education Committee, he stated the importance of ensuring that there is a strong local accountability mechanism for the local offer. That is extremely important for families with disabled children, and will be crucial to the success of the local offer. With plans to replace the school action and school action plus programmes with a single school-based category, there is an increased need for a strong local offer, as such children will be reliant on the universal services outlined in the offer. It is therefore crucial that families are able to hold local authorities to account for the delivery of the services described in the offer.
Ministerial responses affirming that the introduction of a local offer will “inevitably...prompt discussion locally” offer alarmingly little reassurance for families. Indeed, in the proposed Bill, the Government are relying on parents to create accountability for services within the local offer, which they could well do without. At the moment, parents already have to battle and struggle—and become demoralised—to get things right for their children. We do not want to replace one system with another that puts in place a different set of obstacles and hurdles. Parents will be forced to go from individual service to individual service to complain about inadequate local provision, or they will themselves have to examine local offers from neighbouring authorities to identify services that are missing in their area. That is not acceptable: it might lead to a deterioration in standards, and will not provide adequate accountability.
I want to end with a comment from Joanna, whose son has Down’s syndrome:
“I am not naive and I don’t expect services to exist just for me, or facilities to be for my convenience. The frustration comes from the possibility of services being made easier; the facilities are already there...but are out of my reach.”
No one disagrees that the battles faced by parents such as Joanna are unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will think that this a timely opportunity, before Second Reading of the proposed Bill, to answer some important questions. Lots of people, including parents of disabled children and children with SEN, are closely watching this debate, and I urge him to seize this opportunity to break down the barriers to accessing the services that those families so desperately need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this important and timely debate. I know that she speaks from personal experience, and that she gives support to people in her constituency. I believe that she will be doing that on 1 February when she attends an employment fair for individuals with autism in the city of Sheffield. I hope the fair goes well. She has a strong and sustained interest in the issue and I am delighted that she has taken the time to look carefully at the Green Paper that was brought out by my predecessor and subsequently at the draft clauses that were subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee.
I will endeavour to cover as many points as possible in the short time that is left. In the usual way, I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady to provide full answers to any outstanding points; all her points carry weight and deserve a full response. Let me deal with the specific points that she raised at the outset. In relation to the local offer and where it will sit in the future provision of services for children with special educational needs and disability, clearly the purpose of the local offer is to have, for the first time, a single source of information, which is transparent and which sets out all the services in the local area and beyond. Clearly, there are not provisions for some low-instance conditions in every local area, but it is important that parents and young people know where they can access them if they fall outside their local authority area. Parents need to know how to access all the services in their local area and what support is available to enable them to do that. Where the support is not provided, parents need to know how they can redress that.
The approach of the Scope campaign has been constructive. It has supported many elements of the Bill that we, hopefully, will be introducing shortly. To allay some of its concerns over the veracity of the local offer and over how parents and young people will be able to review the services that are on offer to ensure that they match the need within the local area, it needs to be involved in the consultative stage of the local offer; I will come on to that in relation to the point that the hon. Lady raised about the framework and where it will sit as a national model. I do not see the local offer as a static document. It is important that it is an evolving piece of information and guidance for local people who have the opportunity to review, monitor and influence it to ensure that it reflects everything that is required by all young people with a special educational need or disability within the local authority area. I want to have local people as involved as possible in the whole process, and that is something that I hope to take forward in the Bill, which will deal with many of the issues that Scope has raised.
What will the local offer look like? What we have found from the 20 pathfinders across 31 local authorities is that close involvement of parents and young people in the development of the local offer, through the parent carer forums funded by the Department, is a much more powerful way of ensuring that the services that local authorities will provide match the local need. To drive up national consistency, the code of practice, which is not in primary legislation, will set out a common framework that shows what should be in the local offer. We do not want it to require local authorities to provide only what is in that framework; it must not be a race to the bottom. It will set some parameters so that both local authorities and other agencies and services know their responsibilities and their duty to co-operate and to provide information for the local offer. Parents and young people need an explicit assurance that they will have that information available to them.
John McDonnell
That is really helpful. Our concern is that some local authorities will simply re-badge what they have already, and they will not drive up standards. A key role is to ensure that parents and local groups work with the local authority to raise those standards.
Mr Timpson
That is a sensible approach and one that we share. As is illustrated in the Green Paper, the redrafted Bill following the Select Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny, and the subsequent regulations in the code of practice, the whole purpose behind many of these reforms is to put parents and young people at the heart of the whole process—before the assessment and through the assessment, the delivery of service and any redress that follows. That can be done on an individual basis and also with the help of professionals. It can also be done through existing groups such as parent carer forums, which can be a powerful voice for parents in their local area.
The Bill will strengthen the role of young people in the system, which is hugely important. We will move to a single system for those aged nought to 25 with a more co-ordinated assessment and joint commissioning, and increase the opportunities for young people over the current age requirement to take their own case to tribunal where their request for an assessment has been refused. We will also pilot a scheme for children to take forward an appeal if they feel that they have not been provided with everything that they require. That is a huge advance in ensuring that this system moves away from the huge barriers which the hon. Lady rightly referred to in her speech. Too many parents are still finding obstacles in their way, too much duplication of information and that they are having to retell their story again and again. We need to get away from that and have a system that has parents and young people at its heart from the start, rather than when it is too late and when there is too much division between them and the services that should be there to support children.
Bill Esterson
What the Minister is saying is absolutely right; I think we all agree with him. But without the additional resources, and given the constraints on local authorities because of the funding problems that they already have, will this be deliverable? That is a very grave concern for local authorities.
Mr Timpson
The overall spending on special educational needs is consistent; about £5.7 billion is being spent across local authorities. Clearly, other services fall outside that funding envelope. What we are seeing from the pathfinders, particularly with the onset of personal budgets, is that there is a much better way of bringing together services so that they can co-ordinate their response. Not duplicating efforts means that there can be a more efficient and effective provision of the service that the individual child needs.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of transport. That will be contained in the local offer, so it will be clear to parents and young people what the opportunities are for accessing transport. One pathfinder has demonstrated the power of personal budgets in that regard: in the East Riding area, a group of parents have pooled their personal budgets to provide a mode of transport on which they can all rely, which is far more cost-effective and puts them more in control of the arrangement.
Mr Sheridan, I am conscious that I have only 40 seconds left and there are many issues that we have not managed to cover. None the less, I welcome the hon. Lady’s broad support for the direction of travel of our reforms. When the Bill is finally published and we take it through Parliament, I hope that she will see that I have taken time to listen to many of the aspects that she has raised today and to the concerns of parents and others, and that I have taken on board much of what the Select Committee has said to get the proposed legislation in as good a state as possible. However, I recognise that this is about not just the legislation, but the culture change that we need, and we are determined to make that happen.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business Mentors
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I am pleased to inform the House that the drive to recruit volunteer mentors to help and support businesses looking to start, grow and prosper through the Get Mentoring project has now hit its target of 15,000.
These new volunteer business mentors come from the small business community and have committed to volunteering at least one hour a month of mentoring for two years. They have been recruited and trained over the past 14 months as part of the £1.9 million Government-funded Get Mentoring project, delivered by the Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative (SFEDI), working in partnership with over 140 business and trade bodies. This represents the biggest ever recruitment of business mentors in the UK and equates to over 180,000 hours of free business support.
The Get Mentoring mentors are now accessible via the Institute of Enterprise and Entrepreneurs (IOEE) on mentorsme.co.uk, the national mentoring portal owned and operated by the British Bankers’ Association (BBA).
Mentoring is a vital part of starting and growing a business and thanks to our national recruitment drive, there is now a network of over 27,000 new and existing business mentors across the country accessible through the portal. Wherever you are, there is now a business mentor near you.
Growth is our number one priority, and that means making every effort to support businesses so they can grow. Small businesses, particularly those in the early stages of setting up, need as much help and support on how best to survive and make a success of their business as possible. Vibrant local mentoring networks are an essential component of that support.
Business mentors have a wealth of experience and knowledge to pass on and research shows that nine out of 10 business people who use a mentor have benefited.
Our thriving small business sector now has access to a network of business mentors with the experience and know-how to help them make the right choices for their business and tackle the challenges of running a business with vigour.
What is important now is that those who have been trained are encouraged to put these new skills into practice and are able to share their knowledge and experience with the small businesses that need it.
Over the next three months SFEDI is delivering a programme of “Meet A Mentor” events to connect small businesses looking for help with the volunteer business mentors. The first event takes place at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on February 15 and will involve over 100 small businesses and entrepreneurs. This will be followed by other events across the country, connecting local businesses with mentors that can guide and support their success and growth.
For more information on the “Meet A Mentor” events go to: http://getmentoringuk.eventbrite.co.uk/.
I want to encourage all small business owners to make use of the support and expertise available through the national mentoring network, and in so doing take an important step towards securing a bright future for themselves.
I hope you will join me in encouraging local businesses within your constituencies to make the most of this valuable support network.
ECOFIN
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 22 January 2013. Ministers discussed the following items:
Current legislative proposals
The presidency updated Ministers on the single supervisory mechanism (SSM), capital requirements directive IV (CRD IV) and economic governance—“Two Pack”.
Presentation of the Presidency work programme
The presidency presented its ECOFIN work programme for the first half of 2013. Priorities include: economic governance and policy co-ordination; strengthening financial regulation and supervision; progressing work on economic and monetary integration; and representing the EU in the G20.
Follow-up to the European Council meeting on 13/14 December 2012
The presidency provided a summary on issues related to deepening economic and monetary union as detailed in the December European Council conclusions. These issues are reflected in the priorities of the current presidency’s work programme.
Annual Growth Survey
The Council discussed the annual growth survey which was published last November and signalled the start of the European semester 2013. Council conclusions will come back to a future ECOFIN.
Communication: Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion
The Commission presented its action plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion. The plan follows the mandate of the March 2012 European Council which called for concrete ways to fight tax fraud and tax evasion.
Financial Transaction Tax (FTT)
The Council adopted a proposal for a Council decision authorising enhanced co-operation for an FTT. The UK will not participate in an enhanced co-operation FTT. The UK was one of a number of member states who raised concerns that the European Commission has not provided any analysis of the impacts an enhanced co-operation FTT would have on individual member states, both participants and non-participants. The UK tabled a minute statement stating that the UK could not support the proposal as it was not possible to take the view that the conditions set out in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and the treaty on European Union are fulfilled. These conditions include the following: any such co-operation shall not undermine the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion; such co-operation shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between member states, nor distort competition between them; and any enhanced co-operation shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of those member states which do not participate in it.
Local Government Finance
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
Local government has been at the forefront of the coalition Government’s transparency agenda, opening up the books, its spending and its meetings to public scrutiny and ensuring councils are fully accountable to their local residents, rather than Whitehall and regional quangos. We intend to go further with the transparency code to free up more data, and ensure it is reused and republished for creative and innovative ends.
However, we want to ensure all bodies that help set council tax are transparent and fully accountable to the people.
The Secret State
Some parts of local government are not so open as elected local councils. There is a secret state in our country: a regime of local bodies which help set council tax, but have minimal presence or public profile. Such largely unelected council tax levying bodies include:
Internal Drainage Boards
Integrated Transport Authorities
The Environment Agency
Garden Committees
Joint Waste Disposal Authorities
National Parks Authorities
Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
Conservators
Pensions Authorities
Harbour and Bridge Boards
Port Health Authorities
Crematorium Boards.
The Government intend to bring forward legislative proposals to increase the accountability and transparency of levy increases which are raised on billing authorities by levying bodies, and ensure there are stronger democratic check and balances on their council tax increases.
Council tax referendums
We will ensure that in future, excessiveness will be determined with reference to the basic amount of council tax—that is, the band D amount including levies. We also intend that the legislation can be applied in response to council tax increases set in 2013-14.
On 19 December, I announced the trigger points we are proposing to set for council tax referendums in 2013-14. We propose that a 2% referendum principle will apply for all principal local authorities, police and crime commissioners and fire and rescue authorities. This would mean that if an authority or commissioner wished to raise their relevant basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 by more than 2%, their local electorate will have the opportunity to approve or veto the increase in a binding referendum. Further details were outlined in the written ministerial statement of 19 December 2012, Official Report, column 103WS.
At present, the legislation determining excessiveness requires a comparison to be made between the relevant basic amount of council tax for the year in question and the year immediately preceding that year. The relevant basic amount is the band D council tax adjusted to exclude levies. A consequence of this is that some authorities are seeking to increase their overall council tax bills by a substantial amount through levy increases without being accountable to their local residents and having to hold a referendum.
Such levy increases often stem from poor policy decisions by the unelected bodies. For example, in Manchester city council, their proposals for higher council tax this year are driven, in part, by a badly drafted, long-term PFI agreement signed by the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority, pushing up the waste levy on council tax due to the cost of rubbish disposal being well over the current market rates.
Another consequence is that a referendum principle based on the relevant basic amount affects the amount a local authority can raise through council tax in cash terms, which can be to the authority’s detriment if its council tax requirement includes a large proportion of levies. Metropolitan authorities have made representations expressing their concern and requested that the calculation of excessiveness should be based on the basic amount of council tax, rather than the relevant basic amount.
The Government therefore intend to bring forward legislative proposals to ensure that levying bodies are accountable to the public. The future determination of excessiveness will be based upon the basic amount of council tax (i.e. the actual band D amount). This will bring all revenue raised through council tax—including levies—within the scope of the legislation. Council tax payers will want to see this change which will ensure that unelected levying bodies do not have a disproportionate effect on council tax levels. As now, we intend that the referendum principles should be determined on an annual basis to reflect prevailing circumstances and should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons.
Local authorities should be on notice that we will pay close attention to increases in their basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 and we are prepared to take action in response to any large increases. Authorities should have no doubt that we will consider setting principles in future years which are specific to authorities that increase their basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 by more than 2% without having sought the approval of the local electorate in a referendum.
These proposals will increase the accountability of large numbers of unelected public bodies for their money-raising and spending decisions; and secondly they will encourage these bodies to focus on better deliver and value for money.
Following the current period for representations, the final principles for 2013-14 will be included in a report to be put before the House of Commons for approval alongside the local government finance report in the coming weeks.
Council tax freeze
More broadly, local authorities should be signing up to this year’s council tax freeze offer.
Over the last two years, the coalition Government have worked with councils to help freeze council tax bills for hard-working families and pensioners and this has seen council tax bills in England fall by 4.4% in real terms. Under the last Administration, band D council tax bills rose by £751 (+109%) across England as a whole.
This Government are setting aside an extra £450 million over the next two years to help local government in England to freeze their council tax in 2013-14, which will be the third successive year in which a freeze scheme applies. The cumulative impact of three years’ worth of council tax freezes represents up to £227 off the council tax bills of an average band D home.
We would encourage every eligible council to participate and receive the extra Government funding to support the freeze.
Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 31 January, and I will attend the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 4 February in Brussels. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Irish presidency.
Foreign Affairs Council
Mali
Ministers will discuss developments in Mali since the emergency Foreign Affairs Council met on 17 January. I expect conclusions to be issued. The discussion will focus on the severity of the situation in Mali and the need for decisive action by the international community and the EU, including progress on the EU training mission.
Southern Neighbourhood
The Council will have a discussion on the European neighbourhood policy and the Arab spring ahead of the European Council in February. We will push for sustained political support for countries undergoing transition in the southern neighbourhood; to uphold the level of ambition agreed in 2011, particularly on deep and comprehensive free trade agreements; and seek a robust assessment of how far the targeted benefits and clear communication of the European neighbourhood policy have incentivised reform.
On Syria, we are urging EU partners to look at all options to protect civilians and to assist the National Coalition and opposition groups opposed to extremism, including amendment of the EU sanctions regime. We must send a clear message to the regime that all options remain on the table.
On Egypt, the Council will discuss the political transition, including parliamentary elections and the constitution. We will continue to encourage greater emphasis on the principles of more-for-more in the follow-up to the EU-Egypt task force in November, in line with EU ambition to use the ENP to incentivise reform, with a specific focus on supporting free and fair parliamentary elections and tackling the economy.
EU-US
This item was originally scheduled for December’s Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), but due to time constraints, was removed from the meeting’s agenda and re-scheduled for January’s FAC. Ministers will have the opportunity to discuss the EU’s priorities with the US during President Obama’s second term. We expect the discussion to cover a spectrum of leading international issues, including the global economy and a possible EU-US free trade deal.
Middle East Peace Process
Ministers will seek to co-ordinate the EU’s approach on the MEPP for the year ahead. The discussions will focus on opportunities for action by the EU on specific issues, notably Palestinian financing, border management, Palestinian reconciliation and settlements. We will emphasise the importance of a major effort on the peace process, and call for the EU to offer strong support for a US-led push for progress in the coming months. We will also reiterate the need for co-ordinated action by EU member states to support the financial viability of the Palestinian Authority, urging Israel to transfer tax revenues and Arab states to fulfil pledges of support. We will support EU action which supports Egyptian-brokered ceasefire efforts and addresses the underlying causes of the conflict in Gaza.
Somalia
Ministers will take stock of progress in Somalia and agree conclusions on EU activity on Somalia. The discussion provides an opportunity to underpin EU support for the Government of Somalia’s priorities, particularly in support of the security sector and building the state’s capacity to deliver services. There will also be an opportunity to set out plans for the 7 May Somalia conference which will be co-hosted by the Prime Minister and President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud of the Federal Government of Somalia. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud will meet the Council over lunch.
The Arctic
Ministers will discuss the EU’s policy on the Arctic. I do not expect conclusions. This will be an opportunity to influence the future direction of the EU’s Arctic policy following the joint communication “Developing a European Union policy on the Arctic region: progress since 2008 and next steps”, published on 26 June 2012, and will set the tone for any future conclusions. The UK is broadly supportive of the approach laid out in the 2012 joint communication. I also expect the discussion to cover the application by the EU for permanent observer status at the Arctic Council. I note that previous conclusions in 2008 welcomed the application, and a further set in 2009 expressed continued support for it, thereby giving the Commission a clear mandate to pursue the application.
South Caucasus
Under AOB, the Foreign Ministers of Sweden, Bulgaria and Poland, who visited the south Caucasus region in December 2012, are likely to introduce a discussion of current developments in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, and highlight some of the challenges ahead. We do not expect this to be a substantive discussion. The Foreign Ministers will want to discuss EU engagement with all three states under the eastern partnership, and progress towards the association agreements (for all three) and deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (for Georgia and Armenia) that are currently being negotiated. On Azerbaijan, the likely focus is the EU’s energy interests and human rights, while on Armenia the likely focus is the 18 February presidential elections and the Armenian minority in Syria. Ministers may raise the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in particular the risk of an escalation of tensions if the airport in the territory is opened. On Georgia, there is likely to be a focus on supporting co-operation between President Saakashvili and Prime Minister Ivanishvili.
General Affairs Council
The 4 February GAC will primarily focus on preparation for the 7 and 8 February European Council. The February European Council agenda has three main items, which the GAC will consider: the multiannual financial framework (MFF), external relations and trade. The GAC will also hear a presentation on the Irish presidency work programme and review a draft agenda for the 14 and 15 March European Council.
Multiannual Financial Framework
The February European Council will focus on the MFF negotiations. The Prime Minister will continue to argue for a real-terms freeze in the EU budget and will protect the UK rebate. Though we do not expect detailed discussion at the GAC, there will be an opportunity for member states to highlight their positions ahead of the February European Council at a lunch with European Council President Herman van Rompuy. I will restate the UK position on the MFF and outline the position the Prime Minister will take.
External Relations—Arab Spring
As mentioned above, discussion on the Arab spring will have been covered in the FAC. However, this topic will also be addressed when the GAC helps to prepare the conclusions of the European Council.
Trade
The European Commission has recently produced a paper on the role of trade in promoting growth and jobs. This paper clearly sets out the potential benefits of further trade liberalisation and the challenges of overcoming barriers to trade, and has provided a useful basis for discussion at the February European Council.
As the Prime Minister said in his speech on Europe on 23 January, progress on EU-US trade talks is a priority for the 2013 UK presidency of the G8. Dependent on the outcome of a report due from the EU/US high level working group, we hope that the European Council will call on the Commission to bring forward a draft negotiating mandate for agreement during the Irish presidency.
Broadly, I will be calling for progress on trade liberalisation to be made at the February European Council; in particular, I will emphasise that the European Council should endorse the December free trade agreement with Singapore and make progress towards a free trade agreement with Japan.
Programme of the Irish Presidency
The Irish presidency will formally present their work programme. The overarching vision of the Irish for their presidency is growth and jobs creation. They share our ambition on structural reform of the single market, including the conclusion of the services directive and the digital single market.
The Irish presidency programme is available on their website at the following address: http://www.eu2013.ie/.
Direct Entry to the Police
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
On 27 March 2012 I issued a written statement to the House on the Government’s response to Tom Winsor’s final report of his review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff in England and Wales.
The Government remain committed to the review’s principles and objectives. It is vital that we have a modern and flexible police force to meet the demands placed on it, while being fair to police officers and staff who deserve to have pay and workforce arrangements that recognise the role they play in fighting crime and keeping the public safe.
In his review Tom Winsor said it is
“clear that the next 30 years are unlikely to be like the last 30. Chief Constables will need different and better tools to respond to future challenges”.
The issue of choosing our police leaders is of the highest importance to the future of the police. This consultation addresses the implementation of Tom Winsor’s recommendations for a fast-track inspector scheme, recruitment directly to the rank of superintendent, and amending eligibility for chief constable rank to include service in a chief officer equivalent role overseas in a common law jurisdiction. The fast track to inspector scheme will attract the brightest with the most potential to go on to become leaders. Direct entry at senior ranks will make sure that there is access to the best pool of talent, those who have proven leadership and business skills and who can bring with them fresh thinking from other sectors.
Previously I promised to consult on proposals for direct entry to the police. I can confirm that the consultation on the implementation of this major element of the wider programme of reform will launch today, 30 January, and close on 28 March. The consultation document and online questionnaires will be available on the Home Office website. My Department will ensure that all interested parties are aware of the launch of the consultation to ensure that they can have their views heard. I would also welcome responses from other interested organisations and individuals.
Tom Winsor’s recommendations form part of a coherent programme of police reform, along with wider reforms including the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the reduction in bureaucracy, developing professionalism in the police and the creation of the college of policing, and improving service to the public through collaboration between police forces, with other public services and with the private sector. This reform programme is working: crime is falling and public confidence is high.
Copies of the consultation will be available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office. I will report to the House on the results of the consultation exercise in the summer.
Immigration Rules
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in the immigration rules that will bring about urgent changes to tackle abuse in the entrepreneur migration route while protecting genuine entrepreneurs. The changes will take effect on 31 January.
In April 2011 we made some changes to the investor and entrepreneur routes to encourage greater uptake. These changes have successfully brought about a steady increase in applications from overseas.
However, it is clear that, following our tightening of other migration routes, the entrepreneur route is now being targeted by applicants seeking to abuse the immigration rules. There is strong evidence that funds to prove eligibility are being recycled among different applicants and that artificial businesses are being created. We need to tighten the current rules to allow for a meaningful assessment of the credibility of an applicant for this route.
I am therefore acting promptly to tackle this abuse, without damaging the legitimate applicants who are important to our economic growth. I am introducing a “genuine entrepreneur” test which will give UK Border Agency caseworkers the ability to test the credibility of suspicious applicants. I am also making a further change to require the necessary minimum funds to be held, or invested in the business, on an ongoing basis rather than solely at the time of the application. This will apply to those already in the UK and those who apply to come here under the entrepreneur route.
I emphasise that these are technical but important changes to improve the effectiveness of the current rules. Those seeking to abuse the immigration system will always seek new methods to do so. We are vigilant and will take swift action where we see evidence of abuse. At the same time, we will protect genuine entrepreneurs and continue to encourage them to invest in the UK where they will be made welcome.
Cycling Infrastructure Funding
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I am pleased to announce today details of a major investment of over £62 million in cycling in England.
This funding is part of the overall £107 million the Government announced during 2012 for investment over the following three years, and is in addition to the £600 million for the local sustainable transport fund.
I have decided that the £42 million cycling investment funding announced in the Chancellor’s autumn statement will comprise two elements—an urban element and an element for rural areas that are covered by national parks.
For the urban element there will be an opportunity for cities to bid for two or three cycle city ambition grants. These grants would be for infrastructure improvements to give people the confidence to take up cycling.
The areas eligible to apply for those grants would be the cities that have taken part in wave 1 and wave 2 of the city deals process. The list of cities is:
Wave 1 |
|---|
Birmingham |
Leeds |
Sheffield |
Newcastle |
Bristol |
Liverpool |
Manchester |
Nottingham |
Wave 2 |
|---|
Black Country |
Bournemouth/Poole |
Brighton and Hove |
Cambridge |
Coventry |
Hull |
Ipswich |
Leicester |
Oxford |
Milton Keynes |
Norwich |
Plymouth |
Portsmouth/Southampton |
Preston |
Reading |
Southend |
Stoke on Trent |
Sunderland |
Swindon |
Tees Valley |
Successful applicant cities would be expected to provide funding of around £10 per head of population over two years, with a commitment to longer-term funding from the cities. We would expect funding to be focused on a single continuous urban area (i.e. a city centre and its suburbs), or perhaps two centres with high levels of travel to work/leisure connectivity.
Rural areas that are covered by national parks will be invited to apply for funding via the linking communities fund which is administered by Sustrans who will collate bids for Ministers. Successful bids will be those that can demonstrate schemes enabling more people to cycle.
The deadline for receipt of bids for the £42 million package will be 30 April, with a view to announcing successful bids in the summer this year. I will be placing a copy of the bidding guidance and application forms in the Library of the House when they are available shortly. They will also be published on the Department’s website at www.gov.uk/dft.
In respect of the remaining £20 million, £15 million will be used to boost the community linking places fund to support schemes that improve cycle-rail integration and enhance community cycling. A full list of schemes can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ linking-places-fund-tranche-2. Five million pounds will be added to the fund already earmarked to tackle dangerous junctions.
House of Lords
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government: Economic Policies
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of their economic policies during their 1,000 days in office.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton)
My Lords, the Government’s economic strategy is underpinned by fiscal consolidation, allowing monetary activism and supply-side reforms to support the economy. This strategy has provided the foundations for recovery. Market interest rates have fallen to near-record lows; the deficit has been reduced by a quarter; more than 1 million private sector jobs have been created; and goods exports to China, India and Brazil have increased by around a third.
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Today, this Government have been in office for 1,000 days: 1,000 days, and we are teetering on the brink of a triple-dip recession; 1,000 days, and the UK’s credit rating is close to being downgraded; 1,000 days, and our national debt is rising; 1,000 days, and our productivity is falling; 1,000 days, and our trade gap is widening. After 1,000 days, does not the Minister think that this Government should stop blaming the previous Government and start taking responsibility for their own failed economic policies?
Lord Deighton
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I confirm that we are facing extraordinarily challenging economic conditions, but the economy is recovering from the most damaging financial crisis in generations after a decade of growth built on unsustainable levels of debt. This Government inherited the largest deficit since the Second World War and the largest in the G20, and we experienced one of the deepest recessions of any major economy. This Government’s strategy is designed to protect the economy through this period of global uncertainty, to maintain market confidence and keep those interest rates low, and to lay the foundations for a stronger, more balanced economy.
Lord Soley
Where is the evidence of growth? Without growth, you will not get out of this deficit. We had larger deficits than this several times in the 19th and 20th centuries, but we got out of them through growth. It is growth that is lacking.
Lord Deighton
I agree with the implicit statement of the noble Lord that the economy is taking a long time to recover. That is because of the depth of the problems that we confront and the global nature of the economic recession with which we are dealing. There is only one effective solution to that, which is to restore market credibility. The only way in which we can do that is to ensure that our finances are absolutely stable. The alternative strategy of borrowing more to increase demand has already been proven, given the state that we got into, not to work. You do not borrow your way out of a recession which is caused by a deficit created by borrowing too much.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Will my noble friend confirm that the reason the Government are facing such terrible economic difficulties is because at the height of the boom created by Gordon Brown, that Government continued to borrow? As a measure of their economic competence, they sold gold at the bottom of the market, which is affectionately known in the City as the “Brown bottom”.
Lord Deighton
I thank my noble friend for that excellent contribution. I will not comment on the timing of selling the gold. Hitting a market high is tough to do. I will refer to what I would call the “scissors of doom”, which is the graph I was first shown when I entered the Treasury, which shows that between 2008 and 2010 spending was heading north at a rapid rate while receipts were heading south at an equally rapid rate, a situation that we are now trying to recover through this period of fiscal consolidation.
Lord Tomlinson
Does the Minister agree that confidence in the United Kingdom is being illustrated by the way sterling is devaluing against the euro—the much derided euro on which we blame so many of our economic ills? If the medicine is so good, why is the patient looking so ill?
Lord Deighton
There are many positive signs. I do not think that the patient does look so ill. I refer to the extraordinary employment levels—the biggest increase in employment for the past 20 years. On the question of the exchange rate, the noble Lord is absolutely correct that sterling has recently weakened against the euro. The exchange rate has two sides: the strength of the eurozone versus the UK economy. What that exchange rate reflects is that many of the risks that have been confronted by the eurozone over the past two or three years are perceived by the market to be diminishing.
Lord Flight
Does the Minister agree that, beneath the aggregate figures, the private sector has actually grown by about 4% since 2010 but that this has been matched by the public sector reduction?
Lord Deighton
I welcome my noble friend’s encouragement to delve a little deeper into the figures. Certainly, with respect to employment, we are seeing a switch from an overinflated public sector to a much more dynamic private sector, which will stand us in very good stead in the longer term. If one looks at the specific factors relating to the output figures, there are some very interesting facts; for example, the majority of the decline in the fourth quarter relates to maintenance in the North Sea, and coping with the long-term decline of that source of revenue to the United Kingdom is a structural problem to which we must adjust.
Lord Barnett
Can the noble Lord tell us, if the economy is going so well, why the deficit is rising?
Lord Deighton
My comments were not intended to imply that the economy was going so well. My comments were intended to imply that the economy is facing extraordinarily difficult circumstances that were a function of the historical debt we accumulated, and a very difficult global situation in terms of demand. With respect to the deficit, I confirm that it has been reduced by a quarter.
Baroness Browning
I think my noble friend will be aware that the fourth-quarter GDP figures in the USA have been missed by miles. Will he assure us that the UK Government will not emulate the Obama spending spree?
Lord Deighton
I thank my noble friend for reinforcing the fact that demonstrating to the world’s financial markets that our spending is properly controlled, and consistent with our capacity to repay the debts that we develop in the international markets, is absolutely at the foundation of our recovery.
Tourism
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prospects for United Kingdom tourism in 2013.
Lord Lee of Trafford
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, declare an interest as the chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, tourism is the fifth biggest industry and worth £115 billion per year. In many parts of Britain, it is the leading economic sector. It has great potential to grow: VisitBritain reports that the volume of international tourism will grow by 3% this year, with a spend of £9 billion. Domestic tourism accounts for 80% of the market, and VisitEngland predicts a £500 million additional spend over four years. The Government are working with tourism organisations to secure these objectives.
Lord Lee of Trafford
I know that my noble friend is very conscious of tourism’s importance, but are the Government? On 31 December, the Prime Minister sent a three-page letter to all parliamentarians on the Olympics legacy. Unbelievably, there was not one word on tourism. Is my noble friend aware that tourism created one-third of all new UK employment in the two years to the end of 2011 and now accounts for 9% of all employment? Two months ago, the Intercontinental London Westminster opened, just by St James’s Park tube station. Of its 170 permanent staff, only 68—or 40%—were from the United Kingdom. There were 13 each from Italy and Spain, 11 from Lithuania, 10 from France, eight from Poland and 47 who were from 30 other countries. It is a veritable United Nations. Just what are the Government doing to encourage our young people to embrace career opportunities in tourism and hospitality?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, first, I am very conscious that I am replying to a former Minister for Tourism. I assure your Lordships that the Government are taking tourism and its potential extremely seriously. The Prime Minister is leading from the front on this issue; indeed, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sports and Tourism are fully engaged in promoting it. The Government are investing £137 million over four years via the GREAT campaign, which is delivered through VisitBritain and in partnership with the private sector. Through that investment, we hope that almost 60,000 new job opportunities will be created. Those will of course include job opportunities for the young, while the success story of apprenticeships is very strong.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the strong and widespread feeling among tourism operators in Wales that Wales is not being marketed abroad effectively by VisitBritain? This fact was recognised by his ministerial colleague Mr Stephen Crabb, who said earlier this month in another place that there would be a meeting very soon with VisitBritain to discuss the specific problem. Has that meeting taken place and if the Minister does not know, can he make inquiries and let us know the outcome?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I shall certainly make inquiries for the noble Lord and place a record of the findings in the Library. Clearly, the task and responsibility for VisitBritain is to work with all the other organisations including VisitEngland, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and VisitScotland, and they must of course be co-ordinated because VisitBritain has the responsibility to ensure that, across the country, there are greater tourism opportunities. Wales, with its countryside and industrial heritage, is hugely important in that respect.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, could my noble friend boost tourism this year by suggesting that we put on special tours of all those marvellous areas and wonderful buildings that will be despoiled or destroyed by the extravagant expenditure of HS2?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I know that HS2 has been the subject of earlier discussions; of course, there will be considerable opportunities with that rail network of getting to many parts of the country. As a man of Buckinghamshire, I understand what my noble friend means but the overall objective is to ensure that this country has a vibrant transport network.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, given the previous question, I should declare an interest as a director of VisitBritain. Does the Minister agree that the great opportunities that exist for British tourism on the back of the excellent images of Britain through the Olympics and Paralympics will be limited if people have difficulty getting into Britain? It is not just a visa issue, it is also an issue about aviation policy and the negative publicity that British airports have had over the past few weeks. What action are the Government taking in the short term to help alleviate these difficulties for people coming into Britain?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
A number of issues are being taken forward. The first, although we want to go beyond visa issues, is that last year the UK Border Agency launched the simplified approved destinations scheme, which is particularly important for China. Clearly, there are also important advantages. We want to ensure that the growth of tourism from India and other countries improves. Our objective is to get 500,000 new visitors from China by 2015. This is clearly going to involve a great deal of work co-ordinating vis-à-vis airports, as the noble Baroness suggested, and across the piece to ensure that many people from all around the world can visit our wonderful country.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
Cross Bench.
Lord Dannatt
My Lords, I declare an interest as Constable of the Tower of London, which received 2.5 million visitors last year, 70% of whom came from overseas. Will the Minister indicate what he is doing to encourage the UK Border Force to present not only a secure but a welcoming entry into this country so that queues and the grumpy attitude seen on some occasions do not deter people from visiting this country and our wonderful attractions?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
It is very important that people receive a welcome not only in terms of the visa application process but on their arrival. It is acknowledged that we always need to do better. In particular, we have moved up three places to ninth out of 50 countries in the Anholt brands index in terms of the welcome that the UK grants its visitors. That is an indication of the warmth of the Olympic welcome, but it is something that we must build on all the time.
Ethiopia and Eritrea
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Chidgey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress toward the resolution of the disputed border between Ethiopia and Eritrea since the death of Meles Zenawi.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, unfortunately there has been no progress on the border dispute since the death of Prime Minister Meles. We have, however, encouraged both Governments to engage to resolve their differences.
Lord Chidgey
I thank my noble friend for that reply, which confirms that there has been little change over the past decade in this very long-running dispute. Does my noble friend agree that the appointment of Ethiopia’s new Prime Minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, to chair the African Union and, quite separately but in the same time span just last week, the revolt of elements of Isaias Afewerki’s Eritrean army indicate a shifting of regional political ground? Does that mean that developments in Ethiopia and Eritrea and the impact on regional security of the weakening of al-Shabaab represent an opportunity through diplomatic discourse to resolve the border issues, address the democratic deficit and unlock the security stalemate in that region?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend makes an important point, and I think all noble Lords in this House would agree that a legitimate Government and stability in the region are essential. We can see from what has happened in Mali and Algeria that it is absolutely essential for us to support a democratic process to resolve border disputes. We have been working with the United Nations and the European Union to try to ensure that these countries continue to speak to resolve their differences. As my noble friend will be aware, the Boundary Commission report of 2003, which is the document that lays out the internationally accepted agreement on that boundary, has still not been implemented.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, Eritrea is governed by one of the most secretive and repressive regimes in the whole world, which uses forced labour and is under UN sanctions for its continuing support for al-Shabaab, a self-declared affiliate of al-Qaeda in Somalia. Will the Minister join me in condemning that regime? Will she tell us why the Foreign Office has facilitated a London meeting between the Eritrean Government and a range of mining and investment companies? Does she really think that this is the best way to impress on the Government of Eritrea the need to respect the freedoms and human rights of its people?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Baroness will be aware that the Somalia and Ethiopia monitoring group, which reported in 2012, very much raised some of the concerns that the noble Baroness raises here today. Eritrea continues to flout UN sanctions; that is why we continue to support them. The regime has huge human rights issues, which is why we continue to raise those matters whenever we get the opportunity.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer the second point of my noble friend’s question: the meeting with the oil company?
Baroness Warsi
I was not immediately familiar with the specific meeting to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, refers. She is clearly better informed than I on this issue, as many noble Lords are on regular occasions; it is why we have such expertise on foreign policy in this House. I will make sure that I speak to the Minister for Africa and write to the noble Baroness.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, in the post-Meles era, the international community needs to reset its relations with Ethiopia by pushing the ruling parties to revive the rights and freedoms of the 1994 constitution and by promoting inclusive reforms, as the only way to ensure internal and regional stability as well as durable development?
Baroness Warsi
We saw the appointment of Prime Minister Hailemariam as a real opportunity. The right reverend Prelate will be aware that Prime Minister Meles and President Isaias have had a long history with the ongoing dispute between the two countries, and we felt that a change in Prime Minister was an opportunity for the two countries to move together. South Sudan, as the right reverend Prelate will probably be aware, has offered to act as a mediator and facilitator in this dispute, but unfortunately, because of the ongoing violence through 2012, no real progress has been made.
Lord Lea of Crondall
On the new Prime Minister’s role in Ethiopia, is the Minister aware that some of us met the Prime Minister and pressed very hard on all the questions that have been raised, including on the role of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and the need for it to be transparent in publishing all its reports. I think we made some progress on that. I hope that the Minister can press on that point as well.
Baroness Warsi
We raise the issue of human rights whenever we have the opportunity, with both the Eritrean and Ethiopian Governments. The Minister for Africa raised the issue of human rights, among other things, with the adviser to the Eritrean President in September of last year.
Energy: Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)
My Lords, following its successful launch on Monday, I expect the Green Deal to revolutionise energy saving in our homes. It will transform the energy efficiency market, giving consumers real choice and control over how they can improve their properties. The new energy company obligation will ensure that those who struggle most to heat their homes affordably will get the help that they need. The reaction of industry and other groups has been more than encouraging. I am pleased with the warm reception from the party opposite for the Green Deal.
Lord Ezra
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I agree that the Green Deal and the energy company obligation are innovative schemes, and I hope that they are very successful. However, there is one aspect that I am a little concerned about—the rate of build-up at a time when fuel poverty is still increasing. There may be a lapse before these schemes get fully under way. Would my noble friend care to comment on that aspect? In that connection, would she also comment on a number of reports that have come out on the fact that there have been some lay-offs in the insulation sector?
Baroness Verma
I begin by thanking my noble friend for his very warm welcome. The Green Deal targets energy efficiency schemes and is one of the most effective ways in which to tackle fuel poverty. That is why the minimum of 40% of eco will help to support low-income households. The eco-affordable warmth and carbon saving community obligations will support around 230,000 low-income households each year. The insulation sector as a whole has a real opportunity to grow from the success of the Green Deal, and we estimate that overall jobs in the sector will increase from the 26,000 recorded in 2011 to about 60,000 in 2015.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, interest rates for loans for home improvement under the Green Deal appear far higher than can be obtained on the high street. Both Homebase and the RBS, for example, offer loans at below 5% interest, whereas the Green Deal base rate starts at 6.9%. Can the Minister please explain why the Government have failed to negotiate a more attractive offer? Could she also inform the House how many people have signed up since the launch on Monday?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, this is a market-based deal. To be quite frank, it is really important that we allow consumers the choice of finding where they want to go for their finance, but this offer from the Green Deal Finance Company is available to 80% of the population. So it is a competitive rate, but if people want to source elsewhere it does not stop them from doing so. We also think that the energy company obligation with the extra £540 million attached to it will help those families who are not always able to access and source competitive rates. As for commenting on how many people have signed up, it was launched only on Monday, so it would be very predictive of me to be able to predict a figure for the noble Baroness at this stage.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Could I first congratulate the Minister on her colour co-ordination for this Question? She will recall that the Prime Minister made a promise in the other place that everyone would be guaranteed the lowest rate for their energy supply. Does that mean the end of competition?
Baroness Verma
First, I congratulate the noble Lord on his observation. It was not intentional. As always, the noble Lord is resplendent in his attire, too.
The Government are very much focused on ensuring that consumers get the best possible deal that they can source out in the market. It is not the end of competition —it is actually more encouraging of competition. I hope that the noble Lord, when he accesses the Green Deal, as I very much hope that he does, will see how easy it is for consumers to be able to take control of their own destinies by being able to control how much they spend on their energy bills.
Lord Vinson
My Lords, while the Green Deal may or may not help the poorer sections of our community, the huge subsidies paid for the installation of wholly inefficient wind turbines, which will make no measurable effect on world CO2 levels, are making British industry uncompetitive and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said earlier, putting millions of households deeper into fuel poverty. Surely it is time that the fiasco of some parts of the energy-saving programme inherited as it has been by the present Government were reviewed.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord’s question is slightly away from the Question on the Order Paper. I remind him that, as a country, we need a mixed source of energies, and wind is one of those sources.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, to what extent has voltage optimisation been incorporated into the Green Deal?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is very keen on voltage optimisation. I remind noble Lords that it is an area that we have looked at, and continue to look at.
HGV Road User Levy Bill
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2013
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 8 January be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 29 January.
Public Service Pensions Bill
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedule 3 Clauses 4 to 17, Schedule 4, Clause 18, Schedule 5, Clause 19, Schedule 6, Clause 20, Schedule 7, Clauses 21 to 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 9, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 10, Clauses 31 and 32, Schedule 11, Clauses 33 to 40.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Lytton
“Further provision regarding advance payment
After section 52A of the Land Compensation Act 1973 insert—“52B Further provision regarding advance payment
(1) A request for an advance payment under section 52(2) must be in such form as may be prescribed by regulations to be made under this section.
(2) Where a request under section 52(2) has been made to an acquiring authority, the acquiring authority must make an advance payment within the time specified in the regulations unless any of the circumstances specified in the regulations apply.
(3) The regulations must provide for the circumstances in which an acquiring authority must be required to make an advance payment prior to taking possession of a claimant’s land.””
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I tabled these amendments as a probing gesture and, I hope, a reasonably friendly one. I wish to speak to Amendments 58 and 59 together.
I have a professional interest and involvement in the world of compulsory purchase since my early days in—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as a courtesy to the noble Earl, if noble Lords wish to leave the Chamber, may I suggest that they do so quietly? Thank you.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, as I was saying, I have a professional interest and involvement in the world of compulsory purchase going back some 30 or more years and have a professional interest to declare. I also wish to record the assistance that I have had from a small group of specialist practitioners in the Compulsory Purchase Association who have been instrumental in helping me draft these amendments. There was to have been a meeting between a representative of the Compulsory Purchase Association and the department but I think that has not yet happened for various reasons. I hope that it will happen because there are probably things that could usefully be discussed, but I know that the reasons for it not happening were beyond anybody’s control.
For more than 20 years, legal experts, surveyors, claimants, acquiring authorities and others have campaigned to have the compulsory purchase system modernised. I have previously campaigned to remove some of the blocks and impediments to growth and infrastructure.
In passing, I should mention Fair Play, a publication produced last year by the Country Land and Business Association on dealing with blocks in the compulsory purchase system. I know that compulsory purchase is a slightly peripheral aspect of this Bill but I am reinforced in my endeavours in this respect by the Bill’s Long Title, which addresses the principle of unblocking systems.
Compulsory purchase is vital to growth and particularly to the creation and laying out of infrastructure. We need a compulsory purchase system that is properly modernised and is understood, with the majority of participants signed up to its principles. Participants need to believe that it is working. At the moment, I feel that there is widespread disdain and that we are dealing with a system that has fallen into a certain amount of disrepute. Participants need to support the process, even if they do not support the specific outcomes; otherwise, we will have delay and sclerosis. We have had many problems in the planning system and other systems, and the compulsory purchase system is another of those systems of administration that need to operate slickly and effectively. One gets the impression that, given the length of time for which this matter has been under discussion by experts of all sorts, it has fallen into the Whitehall “just too difficult to deal with” category. I hope that that is more perception than reality but there are many voices who suggest that the system is long overdue for reform and overhaul.
The Minister kindly wrote to me on 21 January, and I thank her for that. In particular, she endeavoured to answer a point that I had raised on compulsory purchase. She explained that the Bill is intended to deal with specific and small-scale issues and points of concern. I understand that but one needs to look at the system holistically. If we are dealing with growth and infrastructure, and getting things cranked up again for our economy to prosper, it is important that we do not deal with this matter at the periphery— at the edges. We need to deal with the central issues.
I should like to quote from the noble Baroness’s letter. She said:
“I do not think that it is appropriate at this stage in the Bill proceedings to take forward substantive changes to the compulsory purchase system without wider engagement and prior discussions on the details”.
That is all very well, but I was not sure if she was referring to amendments to this harlequin Bill in general or to compulsory purchase in particular. Perhaps she could clarify in her reply the degree to which compulsory purchase should be a component of the Bill. If she was referring specifically to compulsory purchase, I should point out that this matter has been under discussion for a long time. The issues have been well trailed.
In December 2003, the Law Commission published its paper, Towards a Better Compulsory Purchase Code: (1) Compensation. For nine years, that has been gathering dust in the noble Baroness’s department—not, I appreciate, under her jurisdiction as such. However, for far longer, experts have been campaigning for change. Blight, a degree of sharp practice in the advance payments procedures, out-of-date planning assumptions and so on are rife. All these are blocks and impediments to a streamlined system. No wonder the Country Land and Business Association, of which I am a member, has had a lot to say about this issue. It is worthy of consideration. We need to bear in mind that if we are going to roll out schemes such as High Speed 2, the way in which compulsory purchase operates is intrinsic to that process if it is to be carried out in any sort of sensible timescale and at sensible cost.
My amendments are an attempt to test the Government’s resolve and are a litmus test of their real intentions as regards growth and infrastructure. I turn to the detail. Amendment 58 is about advance payments. I should explain that when a compulsory purchase order is made and land is taken, a claimant is entitled to an advance payment of 90% of the estimated compensation due to them, while the final amount is being worked out. It should be borne in mind that at that stage, the relevant land has been taken and the acquiring body is in possession. The problem is that there is a lack of standardisation in the approach to claiming and receiving this payment.
If there is a disagreement regarding the completeness or otherwise of the information required or the basis of the payout, there is no satisfactory quick or necessarily fair solution for dealing with the matter. In those circumstances, it is wide open to abuse, and the abuse can occur on either side—both in the employing authority and, indeed, through claimants trying to manipulate the system to suit their own purposes. This simply causes delay. Advance payments are essential to a claimant’s ability to arrange their affairs. This can, and often is, mission-critical. Statutory interest—currently effectively zero—is no compensation when cash flow is king.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his amendments because he raises an issue which is clearly of importance. I particularly commend his practice of giving us an explanatory note with his amendments. Perhaps I may commend that to other noble Lords and I shall take it on board myself.
As my noble friend said, we are dealing here with a complex compulsory purchase system in which specialist practitioners are involved. To some extent, it may be seen as just too difficult to deal with. However, my noble friend makes an important point: if it is one of the components that are holding up growth, it should be addressed. I checked with one of my colleagues, whose knowledge of this is greater than mine, his reaction to the amendment and certainly to advance payments and loss payments. The response was that the amendment does not seem unreasonable. I think that is quite a way from our saying that we are in a position to support these amendments but I look forward to the Minister's reply, particularly on the question of, if not now, when will we be able to look at the system holistically and unravel some of the complexities and inefficiencies that my noble friend has identified.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I join the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for explaining the two areas of compensation code for compulsory purchase that are of concern to practitioners and to claimants and indeed for proposing some remedy. I think his explanations were very clear.
First, as regards Amendment 58, the Government are very grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter. I, too, am concerned to hear about the poor practice in making advance payments of compensation. However, it is not clear how the new Section 52B of the Land Compensation Act 1973 would provide the necessary teeth, for want of a better term, to force the acquiring authority to make the payment when it is due.
The provision to allow an advance payment to be made before possession is taken is new but, again, the same issue arises about how to ensure that the payment actually happens. In both cases, the provisions may not be effective without the additional use of judicial review to obtain an order requiring a tardy acquiring authority to pay the necessary amount.
On Amendment 59, the Government note the view that the percentages for loss payments should be reversed, so that occupiers get the lion’s share. This would be a popular change for occupiers and perhaps less so for owners. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, suggests that this change would be cost neutral and I have no doubt that cases can be found where this is so. Some have been set out in the Compulsory Purchase Association’s evidence to the Committee in the other place. There may equally be cases where the amount of compensation would rise. Currently, both the evidence and the views of the acquiring authorities are lacking.
For both of these amendments, the issues raised would require further investigation before they could be taken forward. As I said earlier, it is not clear where the teeth could be found to ensure that advance payments are made in time. This might be a subject for good practice guidance, as we have mentioned in respect of other areas of the Bill. That guidance should come from the sector. I am sure that some authorities do things properly, and if others were told how this was done, the situation may improve. The noble Earl was quite clear that sometimes it is not apparent how this process can be done more effectively and the information is not readily available.
The noble Earl also mentioned the letter on loss payments sent by the Minister. He raised the issue about meetings, to which I shall turn in a moment but, first, I shall speak about loss payments. It is clear that the noble Earl’s proposals will be popular with occupiers but not with investment owners. We have not yet heard the view of acquiring authorities. I am sure that the noble Earl will appreciate and understand that, at this time, I cannot commit the Government to taking either of these amendments forward. Even if I could, the argument may quite understandably be made that we need to look at these in more detail, have the necessary investigations and, of course, conduct all consultations, which may not be possible during the passage of the Bill.
The noble Earl suggested, and my noble friend acknowledged the fact, that it would be useful to meet on these amendments and on the particular proposal specifically. Therefore, it would be helpful if we asked our officials to arrange a meeting to discuss the two matters raised and invite the noble Earl and his associates to discuss these matters further. We would welcome such a detailed discussion. Based on those assurances and the offer of a meeting, I hope that the noble Earl will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his reply. As I said, my amendments are probing—I wanted to elicit a response. At this stage of the Bill, I am very pleased with the response and with the offer to meet. The Minister identified one or two things that I will comment on. Certainly the intention with regard to advance payments, and how that system would work, was intended to tap into the Land Compensation Act regulatory power provisions. There is a much longer document behind that, which sets out a series of recommendations that I know have been submitted to the department by the Compulsory Purchase Association. I hope that they will form the basis of a discussion on that point. It will require the Secretary of State’s regulation-making functions to bring that in. That is the only place where the teeth are going to bite.
I note the point about the views of acquiring authorities; it is perfectly valid. However, acquiring authorities very often use one of the same specialist practitioners with whom I have been conversing through the Compulsory Purchase Association. The relevant distillation of views is there, but it is perfectly right to raise the point and ask for better and fuller particulars to be provided. What the noble Lord said was perfectly valid. I look forward to a meeting and thank him very much for his invitation. I may return to the issue at a later stage in the Bill, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
“(1A) The Secretary of State shall by regulation introduce statutory guidance specifying how statutory undertakers shall consult with local planning authorities.”
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 59B in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Whitaker. We are dealing here with national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The issue is how to get superfast broadband to them. The key point on which we are all agreed is that this needs to happen superfast. No one disputes this. The DCMS consultation paper, published yesterday, states:
“We want to ensure that planning-related barriers to deployment are minimised at a time when upgraded broadband infrastructure is being rolled out to the rural or remote areas where connectivity is needed the most”.
I think that the whole House will agree with that.
The consultation paper published yesterday makes an excellent case for why we need a rapid rollout of superfast broadband. It points out that in the national parks there are more than 22,000 businesses, of which more than 70% are SMEs. In areas of outstanding natural beauty there are more than 61,000 businesses, of which 74% are SMEs. It also points out that there are more than 153,000 homes in the national parks, and more than 467,000 in areas of outstanding natural beauty. The consultation paper states:
“By providing planning certainty, the aim is to encourage operators to invest in new infrastructure to support greater rural connectivity for householders and SME businesses in protected areas, supported by the fact that whereas 84% of urban premises have superfast broadband, the figure drops to just 19% in rural areas”.
However, having set out those figures on why it is important to get superfast broadband into rural areas, including our national parks, as soon as possible, the paper totally fails to make an argument in respect of the planning system to bring this about.
Like other noble Lords, I have spoken to those in charge of our national parks. They tell me that, far from obstructing superfast broadband, they are desperate for it. They see it as absolutely vital to their communities and to their sustainable futures. They have almost invariably given the consents required for the installation of the necessary cabinets and masts through the existing prior notification procedure.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments, I declare my interest as president of the South Downs Society, which co-ordinates NGO representations to the South Downs National Park Authority. The risks to our national parks were well rehearsed at Second Reading and I do not propose to repeat them.
My noble friend Lord Judd and other noble Lords have tabled an amendment to delete Clause 8. I have a great deal of sympathy with that. On past history, the national parks have done much to facilitate broadband, and delays in its rollout have not been caused by them, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said in such comprehensive detail, but I sense a strong concern in your Lordships’ House about the rollout of broadband in rural areas. If the Minister is not persuaded that Clause 8 is unnecessary, I support my noble friend Lord Adonis in Amendment 59B to safeguard our national parks by restricting activity only to broadband, and my own amendment, Amendment 59C, to further protect our national parks by codifying the installation of any equipment with an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
The Minister gave some assurances in her closing speech at Second Reading, but I think that more precision is needed. She also said that,
“it is absolutely vital to ensure that rural areas have broadband”.—[Official Report, 8/1/13; col. 107.]
As it is broadband that she is concerned with, she will surely accept that Amendment 59B makes it clear that these easements should be available only to procure broadband equipment, and if there is parliamentary approval for the response to the mandatory consultation, as the amendment provides, Parliament will have the opportunity to check that best practice is followed.
Amendment 59C in my name strengthens the proposal of my noble friend Lord Adonis in Amendment 59A for a statutory code by again bringing Parliament into the process of verifying best practice. The code would ensure that there is no postcode lottery for different national parks; all will have the standards of the best. It will make it easier for the installers of broadband equipment to plan and to have clear expectations from local authorities. It is also entirely right that Parliament, which passed the great 1949 Act setting up the national parks, should have the opportunity to consider fully and scrutinise any modification of its intentions via affirmative resolution.
These amendments set out minimum requirements from which we should not resile if we are to give out the pro-broadband message while preserving the essential nature of our most cherished national landscapes. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I support the deletion of Clause 8 and in so doing I thank my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Marlesford, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for joining me in this. The debate today is complicated, given that we are considering the Government’s proposed approach to deliver broadband to remote and special areas through new secondary legislation that was set out in a consultation published only last night, which they argue requires changes to be made to primary legislation as set out in Clause 8.
The first issue for the Committee to consider must be whether a case has been made for any legislative changes. The examples given by the Government in support of this legislative change do not, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has said, demonstrate convincingly that national parks and AONB planning authorities are the barrier to delivering the broadband that rural communities want and rural economies need. The few examples of broadband planning delays cited are in areas outside national parks and AONBs. Indeed, the argument used in the Government’s consultation document to support changing the law is not that planning authorities in national parks and AONBs have been to date a barrier, rather it is the need to cut the costs of deploying broadband infrastructure to enable it to go as far as it can.
The second issue is whether the secondary legislation the Government want to introduce requires the proposed changes to be made to the primary legislation. Of particular concern in that regard is why there is a need to change the long-standing duties in national park and AONB legislation. I can see the argument to add a further consideration to the Communications Act 2003 for the Secretary of State to have regard to promote economic growth at the same time as other existing duties, which is what subsection (1) of Clause 8 proposes. This means that the Secretary of State would be obliged to consider the need to promote economic growth alongside and, crucially, give equal weight to, other considerations, which would include having regard to the need to protect the environment, and in particular to conserve the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. However, I fail to see why the following eight subsections of Clause 8 are necessary to ensure that these pieces of legislation are consistent with the amended Communications Act.
I am not convinced that amending the Communications Act requires the disapplication of the duty to have regard to conserving beauty in other pieces of primary legislation. If this House is to accept changes to the legislation, the Minister must make clear the legal case for the necessity of such a disproportionate measure. It is a disproportionate approach, which not only sets a dangerous precedent for weakening the protection given to national parks and AONBs but creates the impression that the Government are intent on nibbling away at protection policies for our most valued landscapes and countryside; protection which has been in place since 1949. This approach makes the commitment in the recent National Planning Policy Framework to give great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in national parks and AONBs sound very hollow indeed and is disproportionate, given that national parks authorities are not inflexible regulators, bystanders or obstacles to broadband rollout. National parks authorities are leading the development of local broadband programmes, with the New Forest National Park Authority supporting parish councils in a joint bid to Defra’s very welcome £20 million rural communications broadband fund and the Lake District National Park sitting on a Cumbria-wide steering group aiming to get superfast broadband coverage to 90% of the county, including the national park.
It is right that local planning authorities are involved in decisions which balance the need for broadband and countryside protection. Cabinets are big and intrusive—nearly two metres tall—and the noble Lord, Lord True, gave some excellent examples at Second Reading of insensitive siting. Efforts to camouflage cabinets green are wasted when operators such as Virgin and BT use them as advertising hoardings to promote their campaign that, “Fibre broadband is here”. In Guildford this week, Virgin Media is having to remove 200 posters on such street cabinets. Experience to date hardly suggests that operators are going to site in the least visible places, unless they are under some duty to consult. It is right that planning authorities work with providers to ensure that the effects on the landscape are minimised while delivering the economic and social benefits we need.
If the Government intend to regulate to temporarily remove the current requirement for communication providers to seek prior approval from local planning authorities in protected areas before permitted development can go ahead—that seems to be their direction of travel—I, too, would support a code of best siting practice between operators and local planning authorities to show how broadband undertakers should work with local authorities on siting. The Government’s consultation does not make it clear whether the code they propose is voluntary or mandatory. It should be mandatory, to give operators the certainty they claim they want in planning procedures and give local authorities the certainty that their legitimate concerns will be heard. As the Government seek to champion the speedy and cost-effective rollout of broadband to deliver economic growth, it should reflect on the need to ensure that the measures they propose do not unwittingly compromise the visual amenity of rural areas which underpin rural economies.
The impact assessment for this legislation and the Minister’s remarks at Second Reading make it clear that the Government have no idea of the number of overhead lines, poles and masts which could end up pepper-potting our most treasured landscapes if these changes go through. The cumulative visual impact of broadband infrastructure could have a chilling effect on the rural economy. Of people who were asked why they went to the Peak District, 85% said it was because of the visual appearance. However, the proposed regulations would leave broadband infrastructure siting at the discretion of the operator. It is crucial that the consultation period on the proposed regulations identifies the scale of infrastructure that rural areas may need to accommodate. Every step must be taken to ensure effective dialogue with local authorities about siting, or the cumulative effect of these changes could undermine rural tourism and local economies.
In that regard, it is worth reminding ourselves of the significant investment made by Ofgem and electricity distributors over recent years to enhance the beauty of treasured landscapes by burying overhead lines. They are doing this because local people recognise the value to local tourism and the economy of maintaining the visual amenity in their most precious landscapes. They have already spent millions removing 223 kilometres of overhead electricity lines and now Ofgem has given approval for £500 million of investment until 2021 to underground more lines. While electricity companies are working with local communities to protect valued landscapes from visual scarring and ensure that rural tourism can flourish, it would be inconsistent, to say the least, if government broadband policy allowed the insensitive siting of broadband cabinets, poles, lines and masts to disfigure the areas and undermine the tourism industry.
We all fully support the provision of broadband to rural communities, but this clause is a disproportionate response to deliver that. The clause should be removed and I hope that the Minister will use the time before Report to reflect on that, and on the merit of a statutory code of practice showing how broadband operators should work with local authorities on siting in protected areas and thus deliver the broadband that we and—crucially—rural communities and businesses want.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very glad to be able to warmly support the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for the proposition that the clause should be removed. The more I look at this legislation and hear the discussions around it, the more I wonder whether on Report it will not be necessary to return to the very first clause of the Bill. For something which is crucial to the well-being of the nation, it is interesting to see the list of specific organisations that are exempted from these positions, and to see that this totally ignores the national parks authorities. It seems to me quite extraordinary. Many of them are bodies related to urban matters, but not to these qualitative matters for the nation as a whole.
I have to declare an interest. I am a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks, and I do live within a national park. I am very glad to have broadband and want it to be as good as possible. It is no good causing any confusion over that; most of us who live in national parks want broadband.
The issue is about what is and what is not necessary, and about how it should be done. We have moved a long way; less than a year ago in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Government said this:
“Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads”.
That was a fine statement; I could not question it. It was a good, reinforcing statement about the importance of the parks. It is necessary—as the noble Baroness did—to stress how essential the parks have been seen to be since that period immediately after the Second World War. In that period there was, in the best democratic tradition, a lot of controversy, but about some things there was a lot of qualitative cross-party consensus. We were interested in the kind of Britain we wanted; we wanted a qualitative as well as quantitative Britain. We saw the economy and the measures put in place for the operation of society not as an end in themselves, but as a means of underwriting and strengthening the kind of society we wanted. With all the pressures that operate in society, all the impersonal technological development and all the stress and strain that this puts upon people, we desperately need—if we are to be a healthy, effective, and prosperous nation—these special areas that provide total contrast with the hurly-burly of life outside. They are places for reflection, for physical engagement with nature and its surroundings, and have the ability to raise the spirits by the beauty and culture of what is there. That is crucial to the psychological well-being of the nation.
I was saddened but not altogether surprised the other day when I heard that there was a rather acute discussion going on—I have to say, this was about the area in which I live; it was about the future of nuclear waste disposal. An official of some significance within the area of energy said, “Of course, we have to remember that we are concerned about the practicalities of what is important for the nation. The arguments about national parks are emotional”. Of course, there is a great deal of emotion about the national parks and what they mean to the nation. It would be a sad place to be if that emotion did not exist.
I suggest that that official, and all those involved, should take on board that this is actually a debate about quantity versus quality and how to get the kind of society you want. It is about ensuring that quantitative considerations are of course taken immensely seriously and driven forward with all possible vigour—the survival of the nation depends on this—but that we are absolutely determined to preserve the qualitative elements that make the nation a good place to live and which play into the health and well-being of the workforce, if that is how we are to look at people, and those who service the economic machine.
This part of the Bill raises very serious issues. It is rather sad when in situations of this kind, acute as they are, Ministers or others can get up and say, for example in the context of committee work, “Well, we have published a consultation paper”, when of course the consultation paper was published yesterday. That really does not give very much time for people to consult with those of us who have the privilege of being able to speak in Parliament about the issues.
I have taken the opportunity of having some telephone conversations in order to discuss some of the immediate reactions to the situation. I hope the Committee will bear with me if I refer to those briefly. The first thing that becomes very clear in the consultation paper is that the Government intend to press ahead with the changes set out in the Bill. Indeed, they are resolute in wanting to do that. Well, we take that position seriously. It is important to consider why it is so fundamentally important to press ahead before the outcome of the consultations has become clear. Of course, a Government who are sensitive and open to persuasion would want to take those consultations into account before they decided they were going to press ahead at all costs.
Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation paper refers to the establishment of a code to support best practice. It is interesting to note that to date DCMS has not sought any input on this from the English National Park Authorities Association. Although a number of organisations have been charged with the preparation of the code, the ENPAA, Defra, Natural England and the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are not listed. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will actively be asking for the input of NPAs and AONBs?
Secondly, it is important to recognise that the code in no way addresses our main concern over the precedent that would be set by removal of the “have regard” duty in Clause 8. Paragraph 1.4 begins to create a division between different protected areas; for example, SSSIs are to continue to be protected, but national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are not. Perhaps we could hear a bit more about why this is.
Paragraph 1.5 refers to providing greater planning certainty. It can be seen that the overwhelming majority of planning applications and prior notifications are approved. My noble friend Lord Adonis, who made a very powerful case for the points that I and all those who feel the same way are trying to make, drew attention to this point.
We are told that the measures will provide greater planning certainty, but, as my noble friend said, all the evidence is that there have been no difficulties in this area. Please establish what the difficulties are which are used in support of this draconian legislation. More than 90%—almost 100%—of applications are approved. They are approved with good will because there has been consultation, points have been taken on board, and modifications and constructive and sensible compromises have been made.
Paragraph 2.2 makes the case that undergrounding new lines is more expensive. So it seems, although I am not totally convinced about this; I am not sure that imagination has been exercised with as much drive when considering different methods of undergrounding as the Government are bringing to the Bill as a whole. This is sometimes a very emotional argument which is not altogether practically borne out with evidence—but I shall not advance that case at this moment. However, it would be useful to know what other options have been considered for reducing the costs of digging before going to the option of weakening the protection of national parks.
Paragraph 2.16 refers to the prior notification process relating to cabinets. As I understand it, the park authorities would be happy to work with operators to assess locations for cabinets more strategically, one by one. There may even be a willingness to review the 56-day limit for this, but I have no authority to say that; I just have the impression that they might be open to discussion.
Paragraph 3.5 seeks to reassure that changes will be used only for broadband and not mobile masts. The explanation given is fair enough, but there would not appear to be anything to stop this or to stop future Governments using the changes for masts of other kinds. Indeed, EU rules prevent the Government giving such technology-specific assurances even if they wanted to.
The consultation makes no reference to wider concerns expressed about the precedent that risks being set for other policy areas. That is crucial; it is the thin end of the wedge. Everybody has realised up till now that, with all the pressures that operate on society—with which the national parks and the areas of outstanding should be a contrast—it is important to have very firm and unquestionable protection of their special and unique status. Once you break that, where is it going to end? One argument leads to the next and, before you know it, you have ended up with a home county. There are many very delightful Home Counties, but they certainly cannot provide what national parks and areas of outstanding beauty provide for the nation.
This is a very dangerous clause. It is also a very sad clause, because it is another spur to the altogether-too-evident trend in our society towards knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. It is a society that has lost its values. It has lost its sense of aesthetic priority, which makes for a civilised society. I want Governments of every persuasion to stand by the principle that we all want to live in a civilised Britain. I do not believe that the Bill will help in that respect.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter, as I live in the South Downs National Park; indeed, I have lived there for a great many years. I was pleased by and interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, which I strongly support.
Under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 8, the Secretary of State can make regulations that will override the duty on the national parks to conserve beauty, from the 1949 Act, in favour of promoting economic growth. The same applies to the duties of the public authorities in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. What does this mean? It means a tremendous falling off of the power and strength of national parks, to be taken over by the relevant Minister.
In that connection, I cite one instance from my area. A year ago, E.ON submitted a planning application to run a cable from near Worthing—where it will emerge from the sea, connecting 100 wind turbines that are to be built about seven miles offshore from Seaford—to E.ON’s substation in Bolney, some miles from Brighton. This takes away from any real strength on the part of the South Downs National Park. It is proposed that the cable will be laid across the downs; it will be put underground. After some discussion with the national park, the application was called in by the appropriate Minister, as provided in law, on the grounds of its importance in the national interest. Surely that shows, sadly, the way in which we are going.
I remind noble Lords that the South Downs National Park was only a consultee on the application and now has no planning authority on it at all. As a consultee, the park authority pointed out that the cable did not serve the park’s two statutory purposes: first, to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and, secondly, to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the park’s special qualities. All of that has gone. Instead, it will be up to the Minister to respond in the way that he thinks appropriate.
It is clear to me that an applicant seeking to run power lines across the South Downs will now have a fair chance of doing so, notwithstanding the level of protection that Parliament gave to the national park in the 1949 Act. If I am right about the Minister being allowed to take the decision away from the park authority, the process will be made so easy for him that I wonder why he needs Clause 8 in the Bill at all. This is therefore a matter for clear, keen thinking. Surely we do not want to remove the power, actions or knowledge from national parks and put them into the hands of Ministers when, frankly, they may not really know very much about the job.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I come to this clause and this group of amendments entirely from an economic perspective. I am very much in favour of greater economic growth for our countryside because, frankly, all too often our rural deprivation is ignored, and I am as keen as anyone that entrepreneurs and businesses should be given all the help they need to thrive throughout rural England. It goes without saying that broadband and all the modern means of communication are a crucial godsend to the diversification and profitability of our rural economy. However, I have also always believed that the economy of our protected areas, such as the national parks and AONBs, is very much dependent on their beauty. Not only do these areas attract tourists and other visitors who spend their money there—indeed, because of these protected areas our national economy attracts visitors who spend their money in this country generally while going to or from those areas—but their beauty affects the valuable branding of all the businesses within the designation.
The economic benefit to these businesses depends on the retention of the beauty with which the area is associated. Branding could obviously affect agricultural or food products—South Downs lamb, for instance, and Exmoor ale. It could even affect other products such as dales furniture and so on. Brand names are important in marketing; if they inspire visions of beautiful countryside and fresh air, as cool as a mountain stream or whatever, then they are also very valuable. It seems right that for economic reasons, as well as for social and environmental reasons, we should truly protect our protected areas. We must never allow them to be nibbled away at in the way that this clause seems to be doing.
This is not to say that anyone is trying to prevent modern economic activities in our national parks—indeed, far from it: the national parks authorities have a statutory duty to promote the economy within their territories. In this case, that is exactly what they seem to be doing. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, 97% of the 392 applications for prior notifications on overhead wires and cabinets have been approved. The current system allows for meaningful discussion about where and how they should be introduced. If in 97% of cases an agreement has been reached, I see absolutely no benefit in changing the current situation. I am quite happy to make the current, meaningful discussions statutory or mandatory, as proposed in some of the amendments in this group, but it seems to me that economic progress is already being accommodated in our national parks. At the same time, the crucial purpose of our protected areas as valuable heritage and economic assets is being protected, so we should leave well alone.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have some amendments in this group. In view of the discussions that are likely to take place today, I think I should add some interests to those I declared at the beginning of the Committee: namely, as a patron of the Friends of the Lake District and of the British Mountaineering Council, of whose access and environment committee I am a member, and as a vice-president of the Open Spaces Society.
I have tabled amendments to remove or leave out subsections (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7), really to draw attention to the particular protected areas that this clause is aimed at, and where it weakens that protection in the case of communications equipment. It does that by amending the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, in the case of English and Welsh national parks. It refers to conservation and amenity lands in Northern Ireland, of which I know very little but I am sure they are important, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988—the broads are a national park in all but name—and the similar protection given to areas of outstanding natural beauty in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and to national parks in Scotland in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. It is slightly odd that we are legislating here about cabinets and overhead wires in Scotland in view of the existence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but it is just one of the anomalies of the devolution settlement.
I shall concentrate on national parks in England and Wales because they are the most important as far as England and Wales are concerned—clearly, national parks in Scotland are of equal importance—without in any way saying that other areas are not very important, and I shall look at what the proposed changes to the legislation do and whether they are necessary for developing broadband or for what the Government want to do. It is not clear to me that the sort of in-principle amendment to the national parks Act that the Government want to carry through will prevent them doing most of what they want to do in the electronic communications code and in the matters they refer to in their consultation document, which I read for the first time this morning.
Clause 8 amends Section 109 of the Communications Act, which is headed, “Restrictions and conditions subject to which code applies”. The Government want to add to Section 109(2),
“the need to promote economic growth in the United Kingdom”,
which is very different from all the others. They are constraints and this is an encouragement, so I am not sure that it belongs here, but I am not arguing about that particular aspect. I do not really mind it being added; the problem is what the Government are doing as a result.
Section 109(2) states:
“In exercising his power to make regulations under this section it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to each of the following”,
and subsection (2)(b) refers to,
“the need to protect the environment and, in particular, to conserve the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside”.
As I understand it, that is not being changed and applies to all applications, not just to these special areas. In a sense, the Government will say that that remains. Section 109(2)(da) states that they have to have regard to,
“the need to ensure that restrictions and conditions are objectively justifiable and proportionate to what they are intended to achieve”.
That qualification seems to remain and will allow the broadband position to go ahead.
I am never sure whether I live in a rural area or an urban area, because when I look out of the back window I see the town, and when I look out of the front window I see the countryside. I live in an old industrial village on the edge of the town, and the sooner fast broadband comes, the better, because we are in an area where on Saturday night and Sunday night, when lots of our neighbours are watching movies on broadband, our broadband just closes down completely, so roll it on. I think everybody is of this view, but the question is whether this legislation is necessary to achieve that, particularly in protected areas.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I put my name to these amendments for very much the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Clause 8 is really not necessary. I declare an interest as president of the Suffolk Preservation Society. I have some experience in this area, because I did 12 years on the Countryside Commission, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, and was lucky enough to get to know the national parks very well during that time. In eight of those years, I was also on the Rural Development Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Vinson. One saw then the importance and possibility of combining the conservation and protection of our finest countryside with economic development, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, so rightly pointed out.
I have always regarded the planning system and, with it, the creation of the national parks, as one of the two great venerable icons of the Attlee Government—the other, of course, being the National Health Service. Over the years, it has worked extremely well. I have seen at close quarters how it works. Of course, it is necessary to have new technologies, and indeed they are to be welcomed. Indeed, the broadband technologies, which make new forms of economic enterprise possible in remote areas is one of the least intrusive.
There has been a lot of talk about undergrounding, and I have a bit of experience of that, too. I am very keen on undergrounding. For some years, I was a non-executive director of the Eastern Electricity Board, both before it was privatised and for a while afterwards, when it was taken over by Hanson. I persuaded my co-directors to start a scheme for undergrounding wires in designated areas, which worked extremely well. It is not wildly expensive. Of course, the 440 kilovolt pylons are hugely expensive to underground, but the network of wirescaping, which can so badly damage a landscape, is remarkably inexpensive to underground. We did it in some 30 designated conservation areas on the heritage coast. The first one was in my own village, and I was attacked by Paul Foot in Private Eye, on the grounds that I lived in the village, because I had banged on about it for about five years before they did it. But it is a perfectly good scheme to do things such as undergrounding. All this can be done very well under the existing arrangements. Broadband can and will come, and it is crucial that it should do so. However, absolutely no reason that I have heard of or read about justifies the necessity for introducing Clause 8 to give special treatment to broadband.
I do not believe that we should for one instant consider damaging the unique quality and status of these most precious landscapes by weakening control over them. I believe it is unlikely that this Government would seek to do so, but if they were to do so, it is most unlikely that your Lordships’ House would agree to it.
Lord Judd
The noble Lord referred to world heritage. I am sure he will be aware that the Lake District, where I live, is seeking world heritage site status. This will have immense significance for the British economy and for attracting visitors and tourists. Will this process be helped or hindered by these unnecessary provisions in the Bill?
Lord Marlesford
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I hope that the Lake District gets that status. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, pointed out that a crucial part of the prosperity of these remote areas is their attraction for tourists. That applies to rural areas generally. As regards protecting the countryside, I could have declared another interest in that for five years I was chairman of CPRE, which tries to protect the countryside. Had we not had the planning laws of 1948 and 1949 and the national parks in place, England and Wales would not be the beautiful places that they are.
Lord Burnett
My Lords, I apologise to the House for missing the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which I much regret. I spend a good deal of my time in Dartmoor National Park. I live part of the time very near to it and am president of Dartmoor Search and Rescue.
Some years ago a survey was carried out to measure the economic activity within Dartmoor National Park. Before the results were published, I wondered whether the most prevalent aspect of economic activity would be agriculture or tourism. However, the House will be surprised to hear that the greatest proportion of Dartmoor National Park’s gross domestic product came from financial services. Therefore, I understand the importance of broadband. My previous comments on the Bill have supported the promotion of sustainable economic growth. I have openly stated that much of the planning system is sclerotic and immensely time-consuming and expensive.
I do not wish to repeat all the compelling points made by my noble friends Lady Parminter, Lord Renton, Lord Greaves and Lord Marlesford, as well as those made by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Cameron, who are also my noble friends. We need to foster and promote economic activity everywhere, including within the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, we must not jeopardise these uniquely glorious landscapes that have the highest planning protection. Yes, the introduction of broadband is very important, but is this clause necessary to realise this aim? I hope that the Government will rethink the clause. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I had the privilege of representing for many years Exmoor National Park and the Quantocks AONB. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that I am grateful to him for quoting my good friend, Dr Nigel Stone, who is the chief executive of Exmoor National Park.
It has been common ground throughout this debate that everyone here is in favour of two things. Everyone is in favour of helping the rural economy and considers that the rapid expansion of broadband is a vital ingredient in that. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, set the tone at the start of the debate by making that absolutely clear. It is important to get broadband into the rural economy. We know that the problems in the economies of national parks are not easy. They depend on diversity, and tourism is enormously important. People must be able to ring up, book their bed and breakfast or hotel, communicate and run businesses of all varieties. I have some interesting statistics about the increasing number of SMEs within the national parks made possible by the huge improvement in modern communications.
Everyone is agreed on that and everyone is agreed about the other aspect—we are all here to make sure that we do not damage the national parks. One or two of the speeches were slightly exaggerated—if I may say so, with respect—and suggested that the clause was an undercover attempt to somehow undermine the protection and beauty of the national parks. It is a judgment as to the way in which we proceed, but nobody will discourage anyone’s motives in this—it is very important indeed to protect the beauty, quality and character of our national parks and AONBs.
The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and repeated by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, and I agree that the onus is on the Minister to say why we are here. It is suggested that there are no planning problems or delays—that it is possible to introduce high-quality broadband rapidly within a short timeframe, which is what the whole House wishes to achieve, and that it does not require an upheaval of the planning process. This clause is not the end of civilisation as we know it or the end of the national parks as we know them. That is a judgment that one or two noble Lords have thought to make. The theme that came through in many speeches, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is that there is not necessarily a fear of what the clause does but of whether it is a precedent for other things that might then happen and be the thin end of a wedge that could lead to all sorts of permissions and lack of protection in other areas.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend about a matter that came up in Committee in the Commons. Am I right in thinking that we are talking entirely about cabinets and overhead wires and that we are not talking at all about masts? That is important. When people first hear about this provision, they think that there will be huge masts rising up on top of the Quantocks, without anyone having a chance to say anything about it. I note that the Minister in the other place made it clear that the Government are insisting on maintaining the statutory duty on people wishing to embark on schemes,
“to consult local authorities on the siting”.—[Official Report, Commons, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 29/11/12; col. 360.]
That dealt with one aspect of the statutory powers that some people thought might have been lacking. His second point related to the discussions on the code of best siting practice.
I do not think that we will vote on this matter today, but I hope that my noble friend will say something about it because it is important for the Government to give clear reassurance that the objectives that everyone in this House shares—rapid broadband expansion and proper protection of the national parks—can be combined. That is what the Government want to achieve and we want to make sure that they have the best way of achieving it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I was looking around the Chamber to check that everyone had finished. Many points have been raised and it is important that I try to deal with them.
We have been discussing the consultation paper. Although there was criticism that it was late, I am sure that noble Lords will give me some credit for the fact that I made sure that they were aware of it last night and had copies of it. I apologise that that was rather late for today’s purposes but it was completely missing for the discussions in the other place. At least we have had the opportunity to see it.
Within this group we have several amendments and a clause stand part debate which have not been moved. In the light of the general discussion, it may be helpful if I lay out some of the rationale behind the provision. I think that, as I do so, some of the questions that have been raised will be answered.
As noble Lords know, the Government’s ambition is to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. It is a challenging target. It has not been helped by the discussions on state aid, but improving the UK’s communications infrastructure is integral to our ability to grow our economy.
No one wants to destroy, upset or prejudice areas of national beauty—the national parks—and that forms no aspect of what we are trying to do. I understand noble Lords wanting to preserve what we have. I can only say that, as part of the process of ensuring that broadband has a wide distribution, cabinets and wires will be inescapable, but it is how we deal with them that matters.
In order to ensure that the economy can grow all over the country, we need to make sure—
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but, before she goes into the detail of her speech, I just want to point out that my noble friend Lady Parminter, in her very broad-ranging and able speech, spoke on the question of the clause standing part, although I understand that in this House we do not say, “I beg to move” at the end of a clause stand part debate.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am grateful for that and I apologise to the noble Baroness for not realising that. However, that gives me greater justification for doing what I am doing, which is to answer immediately what would have been the clause stand part debate. I think that we will all benefit in the end.
The more rural and remote areas, including protected areas, are some of the places where an infrastructure upgrade for broadband is needed the most. Without action, it is likely that these rural and quite remote areas will be left even further behind. I think that noble Lords have acknowledged that people who live in these areas want broadband and that there is a strong rationale for it. There are 700,000 households and businesses in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, and most of these will not be served by the market alone. In England, 25% of premises in these areas currently get less than 2 megabytes per second. We estimate that, in total, potentially 4 million more people and nearly 2 million households could have access to superfast broadband as a result of Clause 8.
Without the rollout of broadband, businesses in these areas would suffer, including those in the tourism service sector, which increasingly find that visitors demand greater connectivity when they come and stay at guest houses, bed and breakfast establishments and hotels, and these businesses are frustrated by the lack of broadband to offer their customers. National parks authorities, along with many other rural areas in England, have cited insufficient broadband provision as a particular barrier to growth.
We are trying to tackle this disparity in the provision of superfast broadband and it is a key priority for the Government. We are spending nearly £700 million to stimulate the market to improve broadband connectivity and we are taking action to ensure that the barriers to deployment are removed. These actions are designed specifically to close the rural-urban broadband divide and promote economic growth. The broadband support package, which the Government announced on 7 September, is key to delivering that.
The consultation paper, Proposed Changes to Siting Requirements for Broadband Cabinets and Overhead Lines to Facilitate the Deployment of Superfast Broadband Networks—succinct as that is—published yesterday by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to whom we have been talking, brings forward proposals for two changes to the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003.
Perhaps I can take a few moments to set out what the consultation covers. The consultation’s first proposal is that we remove of the requirement to underground telecommunications apparatus. This is the only restriction that stops communication providers deploying overhead infrastructure. It does not say that they cannot provide underground structures. They can. If they want to share a gully or a trench with some other provider, they can do it in a way that is satisfactory to them. There is nothing to stop that. All this does is to say that it is not a requirement. If you cannot do it for some reason—
Lord Greaves
This is a crucial point. It is clear that they can still put them underground if they wish to, although there will be the removal of the statutory power of the local planning authority, which is usually the national park authority, to require it, and there will be less time for consultation. If I have understood it correctly, the consultation period will be 28 days and not 58 days in future. It would be helpful to have that confirmed. Do the Government have an estimate of the proportion of the lines in, for example, national parks in England and Wales which, in future, would be put underground compared with the present situation?
Baroness Hanham
I cannot answer the noble Lord’s question. He probably does not really expect me to answer it here. The consultation process will begin to throw up some of that information if we do not have it. If we do have the information, I shall see that noble Lords receive it.
The second proposal removes the prior approval requirements for broadband cabinets in protected areas. Of course, the cabinets have to be there, otherwise you cannot have broadband. They have to be at certain spaces and there are all sorts of things about broadband cabinets that require them to be placed in a specific location. We are bringing forward Clause 8 to enable us to make these amendments to the communications code through secondary legislation.
Let me be clear that the removal of prior approval will be temporary, as noble Lords have seen in the consultation which sets out a period of five years. By limiting the window to five years, this will also ensure that the operators have an incentive to get on with the rollout of that business and community need.
Lord Adonis
The noble Baroness said that the requirement for prior approval will be removed. However, she still has not told the Committee how that will accelerate the deployment of superfast broadband, given that there appear to be virtually no cases where the prior approval process has held up the deployment of superfast broadband in the national parks and in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have about another 15 pages in my brief.
Again, referring to the consultation paper, in the national parks, there are more than 22,000 businesses, of which more than 70% are small and medium-sized enterprises, as noble Lords have said. There are more than 153,000 homes and we know that there is a lot of demand for it. The proposed changes are about creating certainty and reducing the time and cost of deployments. Evidence to date from commercial deployment shows that deployment can be held up by planning decisions. In conservation areas where planning permission is currently required for broadband, there is evidence that it has been held up for 27 months by the need for consultation. This has resulted in the new broadband service not being provided in these areas.
Lord Adonis
The noble Baroness referred to conservation areas but did not cite any evidence in respect of national parks.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I was citing the reason for the process in conservation areas taking up to two- and-a-half years. Under the measures on which we are consulting, local authorities will still be involved.
Lord Greaves
As I understand it, there are no proposed changes in this legislation to conservation areas. I declare an interest as living in not one conservation area but two—they overlap. Are there proposals for changes to the rules in conservation areas?
Baroness Hanham
I am citing conservation areas that in many cases are in urban areas and have held up some of these decisions. I accept that we are talking about rural areas. I was asked why some of this was necessary. Part of the reason for the decision is the delays caused by conservation areas.
Lord Greaves
I wonder whether the Minister would write to me on that, as she does not have the answer. I asked a specific question about whether the rules in conservation areas were to be changed.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I understand it, the rules in conservation areas are not to be changed.
Under the measures on which we are consulting, local authorities will still be involved and will have more of an opportunity to put forward their views on the siting of poles and boxes, and on their appearance. The existing regulations require, and will continue to require, consultation with local authorities. In addition, providers will work to a new code of best practice on the siting of infrastructure. This will contain an agreed set of overall principles on sensitive siting, together with specific requirements for consultation with local communities about new overhead line deployment. My noble friend Lord King asked whether these measures were related to fixed broadband. As I said in my Second Reading speech, these measures cover fixed broadband—poles and boxes.
We will outline the main principles of the code of practice by Report, and the code will be agreed before changes are brought into effect by regulations. We expect broadband operators to adhere to the code that they will be involved in drawing up. We believe that the sector should have responsibility for its own code. I can confirm that the English National Park Authorities Association will be invited to join the group that is drafting the code of practice.
Importantly, local authorities will also be able to influence how new broadband services are deployed when procuring projects under the Broadband Delivery UK programme—including, for example, determining whether lines should be run overground or underground. As I said, the underground aspect is not being removed. This will be balanced against how much coverage can be provided.
I turn now to the specific amendments. I do not agree that there is a need to place conditions on the Clause 8 enabling power.
Lord Judd
Before the noble Baroness turns to the amendments, perhaps I may ask her a question. I have great respect for her as a person and a Minister; I know that she very much cares about the qualitative dimensions of British life. On reflection, would it not have been better for the Government to say, “Our objective is to have the most efficient possible economic performance in Britain. We will include the rural areas in this objective. We are determined to have the best possible facilities to service that economic activity. However, we not only want our broadband system to be the best in Europe, we want our areas of outstanding natural beauty, including the national parks, to be the best in the world”? The Government’s purpose is to find a policy that enables both objectives to be reconciled.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are in Committee. Noble Lords may speak as many times as they like, but it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we allow the Minister to respond initially to the amendments and then I am sure my noble friend will be delighted to take further questions.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am beginning to feel like a jack-in-the-box. I hope that I do not look like one, but I am beginning to feel like one. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked a philosophical if not a practical question. We are where we are. My job is the legislation before us. It is not to proffer a view on that. This is how the Government feel it is necessary to proceed in order to do precisely what the noble Lord said, which is to get broadband across the country as quickly as possible and in the best way possible. As I tried to say as I was going along, the only way that you can get broadband is through masts, lines and boxes, and somehow that has to be dealt with in the best way possible.
Turning to Amendments 59A and 59C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I do not think that there is a need to place conditions on the Clause 8 enabling power in the way that the noble Lord proposes, and I have referred to the existing consultation requirements in the regulations. That consultation must be considered before further action is taken. The relevant secondary legislation—the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003—already includes both general and specific statutory requirements for consultation with planning authorities. This will continue to be the case.
Communications providers will be required to notify local planning authorities about the equipment that they propose to install and where they propose to install it. The regulations will make it clear, as they do currently, that planning authorities will have an opportunity to influence the siting and appearance of that equipment and can put forward objections, as is currently the case. Communications providers will be required to make changes, if they are reasonable.
Communications providers are under a strong incentive to ensure that they follow the statutory requirements for consultation with local planning authorities. If they do not, this would be considered a breach of the permitted development rights under which they install their equipment and could lead to planning enforcement action.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, called for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure as is currently the case. The requirements for consultation with local planning authorities that we propose to introduce for protected areas are not new. They are already well established and work well for non-designated areas. I am confident that they can work well in protected areas with the co-operation of communications providers and local planning authorities alike. At present, I do not see the need for the affirmative procedure. This is not new. It is not novel: it is how things have happened in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, also proposed Amendment 59B. As I said at Second Reading, we are unable to draft legislation in such a way that is specific to broadband infrastructure. I explained then that this is because of Article 8(1) of the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC, which requires technology neutrality so far as the primary implementing legislation is concerned.
We can, though, be specific in secondary legislation. As I made clear at Second Reading and make clear again today, and as our consultation also makes clear, our proposed changes relate to broadband cabinets and overhead lines—in other words fixed broadband technology. As I said, that cannot be done in primary legislation. It will be done in secondary legislation.
The amendment also suggests that specifying consultation with local authorities on changes to secondary legislation is necessary. Consultation with local authority interests already happens under the existing provisions of the Communications Act 2003. Section 109(4) provides that before making regulations, the Secretary of State must consult Ofcom and any other persons as she considers appropriate. As I mentioned earlier, a large proportion of the existing regulations consists of the requirements for consultation with and notification to highway and planning authorities; this will not change, and of course we are now consulting on our proposed approach. The Local Government Association and others such as the national park authorities will want to make their views clear on the proposed planning changes.
My noble friend Lord Greaves has proposed Amendments 59D to 59H. These would remove what we believe are necessary subsections to ensure that other legislation relating to protected areas is amended so as to be consistent with the Secretary of State’s powers in Section 109 of the Communications Act. If we remove them, Clause 8 would not deliver the result the Government are seeking to achieve. It would also risk creating great uncertainty and inconsistency in the law. My noble friend Lady Parminter raised this with us at a meeting we held yesterday. We explained to her then that this was the way we had to deal with the matter legally, and although it may seem rather cumbersome, it is essential. I have heard nothing to change my mind since our discussion, but I did undertake that we would consider the reasons why. I also understand the intention of my noble friend Lord Greaves and I want to reassure him that the amended legislation will continue to make it explicit that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to conserve the natural beauty of the countryside when making regulations in relation to the Electronic Communications Code.
As with the relaxation of prior approval in protected areas for cabinets and poles, these subsections also only apply for a period of five years, which I hope gives some comfort to noble Lords. The provision of broadband to business and communities across the country is vital to ensure that we have growth. We want to see the economy grow right across the country.
I have spoken at some length regarding the existing and proposed consultation requirements that will be necessary through the secondary legislation that Clause 8 will enable. Perhaps I may go over those requirements again. Communications providers will still be required to consult with local authorities on the siting of infrastructure and to take on board any reasonable objections, which is the current situation. The proposed code of best practice for the siting of infrastructure will contain an agreed set of overall principles for siting, as well as specific arrangements for consultation with communities on new overhead wires. Local authorities will be able to influence how services are deployed in their area in consultation with their supplier when procuring under the Broadband Delivery UK programme. There is a great deal of scope for local authorities to influence what is going on, and it seems to me that broadband providers are going to find it much easier to get their work done if they co-operate and co-ordinate their activities with local authorities to ensure that between them there is a sensitive recognition of the environment.
As a side issue, I was asked about advertising on boxes, an issue that has been the cause of a lot of concern. Advertisements are not permitted unless specifically approved by the local authority. Permission has to be sought to do that. My noble friend Lady Parminter asked about the siting of equipment. A number of statutory requirements are set out in the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 which are aimed at ensuring that the amount of electronic communications apparatus and its impact on visual amenity is kept to a minimum, and these provisions will remain unchanged. The relevant provisions are in the general conditions, under Regulations 3(1)(b), 3(3)(a) and 3(4). Regulation 3(1)(b) requires communications providers to,
“consult … planning authorities in relation to the installation of electronic communications apparatus, including installation in a local nature reserve”.
Under Regulation 3(3)(a), communications providers,
“when installing any electronic communications apparatus, shall, so far as reasonably practicable, minimise … the impact on the visual amenity of properties, in particular buildings on the statutory list of buildings”.
Under Regulation 3(4) they,
“where practicable, shall share the use of electronic communications apparatus”.
There is nothing in this legislation to change any of that.
I hope that I have dealt with more or less everything that has been said. If not, I am sure that somebody will remind me and ask me again. I hope, with those explanations, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us so much detail as to how the reformed regime will work. However, I cannot help but observe that she spoke for 27 minutes but did not give us a single shred of evidence as to why the existing planning regime is halting or delaying the rollout of superfast broadband to the national parks or to areas of outstanding natural beauty. I will ask a direct question: does she have any evidence that she would like to share with the Committee as to how the current planning regime is delaying the rollout of superfast broadband in the national parks or in areas of outstanding natural beauty?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, first, we need some speed to get this done. As the noble Lord will know, so far there has been very little deployment of broadband in areas of natural beauty and it is estimated that 85% of premises will not be reached by the market unless we can speed things up. This is at least a contribution to speeding up the provision of broadband in the rural areas where, at the moment, it is not very significant.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, that does not meet the point at all. The evidence which the national parks have given to noble Lords shows that 97% of several hundred applications—I think 292 have been made under the pre-notification procedure—have been agreed by the national parks authorities. I am sorry to keep putting this to the noble Baroness but it is a fairly fundamental issue. There has been a large number of applications, and we obviously want a great deal more so that we have a great deal more rollout of superfast broadband in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, almost all those that have been brought forward have been agreed. Does the noble Baroness have any evidence at all that there are cases which the Committee should take into consideration where the planning authorities themselves have been slowing down a rollout of broadband that would otherwise have taken place?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Before my noble friend responds to that, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has taken account of the paragraph in the impact assessment which says:
“We have received reports where multiple sites have had to be surveyed and prior approval applications submitted, only for agreement still not to be reached, and delays in some cases of up to two years. Examples have been provided by BT based on their experience of rolling out broadband over the last two years with delays ranging from 12-27 months”.
It seems to me that that is really quite a serious bar on broadband in these areas
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was present for my opening speech, but I pointed out that national parks authorities are not aware that any of those cases raised by BT apply to national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Government say airily that they have received reports but will not actually publish anything. The noble Lord, like me, has been a Secretary of State in the past. It is one thing to declare airily that you have received reports but it is another thing actually to give chapter and verse. No chapter and verse whatever has been given in this debate that there is a real issue that would justify a very major change in the law of the kind that the Government are proposing.
Lord King of Bridgwater
Is there not a serious point in what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has just read out? The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has quite correctly said that there has now got to be a large expansion of broadband into the rural areas. What the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has cited is the experience so far of trying to introduce broadband more widely. Maybe my noble friend is thinking that it is a precautionary principle—that the Government are giving top priority to the expansion of broadband. I think that the point that I tried to make in my comments, that it is important if we are coming back to this on Report that we have a clearer answer on these points about the risks that may arise.
The Earl of Lytton
I apologise to the Committee for intervening now; I thought that I would intervene earlier but felt that it had been discussed. I want to try to disassemble something here. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, of which I am a member, recently looked into this question of the operation of the telecommunications code. One of the things that became apparent was that the code has been an exceedingly clunky means of dealing with difficulties and disputes because it has to be dealt with through the county court. One of the things that the institution was particularly keen to air—and perhaps I should have done so earlier—was that this process really needs to be dealt with. I would have invited the Minister then, and maybe I still can, to say whether it is correct that the Law Commission is looking into this whole business to try to find a better and more streamlined way of dealing with that particular process. I do not know whether British Telecom, or whoever it may happen to be, is concerned about the whole process, or specifically concerned about planning, or whether within that it is concerned about national parks, or whether it is actually the telecommunication code that is a common denominator for all planning authorities. If the Minister cannot respond to that now, perhaps it could be explored at some juncture.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I will make sure that that is considered and give him an answer before next time—as I will with the other matters raised before Report.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, it is always good to try to be constructive. Given the scale of the concern that has been expressed in the Committee and the noble Baroness’s good intentions—as always—to seek to meet legitimate concerns which have been raised, I wonder whether she and the Planning Minister, Nick Boles, would agree to meet the chief executives of the national parks authorities before Report? They could discuss this matter directly and go into the specific issue of how superfast broadband can be rolled out more swiftly and effectively while seeking to preserve the landscape and not subvert the existing planning system.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I am always happy to have meetings that are relevant to the legislation. Let me look into what would be sensible and the best way of setting up such meetings before Report. I give him an undertaking that I will do that.
Lord Adonis
I very much welcome that commitment from the noble Baroness. I hope that Mr Boles will also be present at the meeting and that we can make some good progress so that when this matter comes back on Report we do not have to have the same debate yet again.
Baroness Parminter
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to address an issue that was not fully responded to in her reply—an issue which was raised by a number of Peers, including the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Cameron, and myself, namely the issue of statutory guidance. The Minister said that the Government expect the operators to abide by the code. For those of us who are concerned about this issue, we feel that it should be a statutory code. Bearing in mind the fact that the final siting will be at the discretion of the operators and that the operators have the ability to deploy new infrastructure if they believe that there is still merit in doing so, can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend for the code of practice to be statutory or voluntary?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I apologise for overlooking that. The proposal is that the code should not be statutory. It should be a code of guidance but not backed up by statute.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, perhaps I could ask again: if everything goes well with a particular proposal and notification, is the difference in timing between the present system and what is proposed just 28 days as it seems to be? In other words, does the 56-day prior approval system disappear but the 28-day period still exist for the local planning authority to comment? Can the Minister say, either now or perhaps in writing, what will happen and what is available to people, particularly the local planning authority, under the proposed new system if there is a difference of view that cannot be resolved? If a proposal is put forward and the planning authority has comments—not necessarily on whether the proposal should be there at all but on the two key issues of siting and appearance—and if that dispute between the local planning authority and the broadband provider cannot be resolved, does the provider simply go ahead and do it or is there some other procedure? I am a bit mystified about where the county court comes in but perhaps everybody else understands that.
We have been told that the number of such cases that have been refused is very few indeed—it is a handful. But the fact that there was a handful means that there will be some cases where the local planning authority believes that what is being proposed is unacceptable. So under those circumstances will it be possible now for the proposal to go through?
Finally, with regard to the issue I was talking about before, Section 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act is a general section that refers to everything. We are told that subsection (2) has to be put aside for this specific purpose because when the decisions are being made or the Secretary of State is issuing guidance and regulations under the Electronic Communications Act, if the national parks Act provision remains, there will not be a level playing field and the different considerations that the Secretary of State has to take into account will not be given equal weighting. Since Section 11A of the national parks Act is a general provision on everything that happens in national parks that authorities have to take account of, surely that is the case with all sorts of other things as well, yet all this other legislation that it must apply to—all these other powers of the Secretary of State and other authorities—does not appear to be invalidated by this section of the national parks Act. This is a fairly esoteric legal point but it would be very helpful to have clear legal guidance from the Government as to why they think this particular provision is necessary.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, with regard to the latter point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, this was a discussion that we had last night with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and I said earlier that the strong legal advice is that it has to be done in the way that has been proposed at the moment. I said that I was happy to go back and have that checked but I expected that I would come back with exactly the same outcome because that is the legal process, but I am happy to give that undertaking to come back on it.
If all else failed and the providers could not get anywhere with the local authority and the planning committee, ultimately, yes, they could go ahead and provide the facilities where they need to. We do not expect that to happen. The whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure that there is good consultation and a clear understanding of where broadband is going to be placed, and that it should be done as quickly as possible so that we can move on.
Operators will have to adhere to the code. They are going to be involved in drawing it up, and we believe that they should have responsibility for their own code. I am sure that if we did not think that was going to happen properly we might consider taking a backstop power to ensure that the code is placed on a statutory footing, but I would like to come back to that on Report.
Lord Judd
The Minister said that she was willing to consult, which is encouraging. Can she say a little bit about the thinking that has gone on in government about any requirements for such installations to be removed as soon as advances in the technology make them superfluous?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am sure that that is worthy of an amendment on Report. I am sure that they will be expected to be removed, but I take the noble Lord’s point that sometimes these things are put up and are not then pulled down. However, it is not part of this legislation; I will find out whether consideration has been given to that; and I will find out what the precedents are, because we have got boxes all over the place for cables and all the rest of it, some of which are not used again.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, on the basis that the Minister is content to meet the chief executives of the national park authorities before Report—
Baroness Hanham
I am content to meet their representatives. If we confine ourselves to chief executives, they may not be able to come in time, but I will certainly meet the organisations.
Lord Adonis
On that basis, my Lords, after an hour and 48 minutes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Whitaker
“( ) The Secretary of State must by regulations introduce statutory guidance on how statutory undertakers will consult local planning authorities, and these regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Baroness Whitaker
On the basis of the discussion of consultation, I shall not move the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“Extension of economic development powers to councils
In the Localism Act 2011, after section 16 insert—
“16A Duty to report on proposals for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils
(1) Within one year of second round of bespoke “city deals” being completed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the government proposals, policies and timescales for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils.
(2) The report must, in particular, fully set out—
(a) the case for making the “core package” of devolved powers achieved in the second round of bespoke “city deals” available to all councils to help boost growth; and(b) the time-scales over which those proposals and policies are expected to take effect.(3) Where the Secretary of State has determined it not appropriate to extend devolutionary powers to all local councils, the report must, in particular, fully set out—
(a) why this has been determined as not appropriate;(b) include a resolution that sets out how the government intends to review this determination; and(c) the review of this determination must be laid before Parliament not later than one year following the laying of the original report.””
Lord Jenkin of Roding
With the agreement of my noble friend Lord Tope, in whose name the amendment has been tabled, I wish to move Amendment 60. The amendment is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
The amendment returns us, as I am sure the Minister recognises, to localism. She will remember that when we were debating the Localism Bill, as it then was, two years ago, we made considerable progress in persuading the Government to go for a greater degree of localism than had originally been in that Bill. At the same time, I did not seek to conceal my disappointment that it had not gone further. There is huge scope for increasing the decentralisation of power and decision-making from central government to local areas and local people.
Since then, there have been a number of developments. I start with the remarkable report prepared by my noble friend Lord Heseltine, No Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth. I told my noble friend that I did not agree with everything in that report, but I applauded the emphasis which he laid—indeed, in an entire chapter—on the need for achieving greater localism.
That chapter is Chapter 2, Building on our Strengths. I cannot begin to quote the whole of that chapter, and the Committee, I think, would become singularly impatient if I did, but I want to quote just two sentences. Paragraph 2.14 states:
“For the UK to face up to the challenge of increasing international competition, we must reverse the long trend to centralism. Every place is unique. Local leaders are best placed to understand the opportunities and obstacles to growth in their own communities”.
That is highly relevant to the Bill.
In paragraph 2.22, after reciting a considerable number of measures that the Government have taken—they cover two pages of the report—my noble friend goes on to say:
“We need to go further and faster to achieve an essential rebalancing of central and local power and resources, extending not just to cities, but to local areas right across England”.
I thoroughly endorse that. As my noble friend will recognise, that is what the amendment is all about.
Another development is that in December 2011, the Government announced their intention,
“to develop tailored deals with our core cities, devolving powers and supporting projects which will boost growth and jobs for the long term”.
That was widely applauded. It has been followed up vigorously by the relatively small number of cities to which it extends. The question is: why should it stop with the cities? The new city deals recognise that local leaders, rather than Whitehall departments, are best placed to understand the economic opportunities and challenges that they face and that they have a key role to play in shaping incentives and conditions for private sector success.
There is also a case for mainstreaming the devolved powers achieved in the early city deals as part of a general mainstreaming programme making those powers available to all councils to help them to boost growth. The wave 2 cities will receive a core package of devolved powers as part of their deal. I submit that the case for extending that more widely is becoming very strong.
I am told by the Local Government Association, which of course has followed that up with much enthusiasm, and has conducted seminars and conferences to seek the views of its members on it, including a seminar with the Centre for Cities on 19 December last year, that it is now receiving many expressions of interest from other cities, towns—and, indeed, not only single local authorities but groups of local authorities—which would like encouragement to develop similar negotiated deals with central Government to give them the additional powers and resources necessary for them to develop the economy in their area.
Another aspect is that when we were passing the Localism Act, the local enterprise partnerships were still very rudimentary. They had only recently been announced; they did not at that stage cover the whole country; some of them were taking longer than others to get off the ground; and they did not have significant financial resources behind them. Those are partnerships led by employers. I have always been firmly of the view that the most effective encouragement to employment, growth, and all the rest of it comes from employers rather than from central government. The Government can facilitate, encourage and provide a framework but, in the end, it is local authorities, individuals and businesses which can make it happen on the ground.
We have not only the strong recommendations of the report of my noble friend Lord Heseltine; we now have the growing experience of the city deals, which are proving very satisfactory and popular and are producing results, and the now well established local enterprise partnerships set up over the greater part of the country, which are beginning to work well. The Government have recognised that by allocating more finance to them. I very much welcome that.
The missing link is that local authorities, apart from the big cities, do not have the same power to negotiate deals with central government that would allow them to have the same opportunities and encouragement to develop their economies and provide jobs and growth in their areas. They know their areas best. We should be prepared to do that; I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench agree.
We are not seeking by the amendment an immediate commitment for that to happen. Clearly, there needs to be study and further consideration of how, where and when that would best be done. Our amendment would add a new clause to the Localism Act entitled:
“Duty to report on proposals for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils”.
The first subsection states:
“Within one year of second round of bespoke ‘city deals’ being completed”—
that is very wise, because it gives a chance to assess the experience of city deals without charging ahead too rapidly—
“the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the government proposals, policies and timescales for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils”.
Then the amendment suggests what should be in the report. Subsection (3) states:
“Where the Secretary of State has determined it not appropriate to extend devolutionary powers to all local councils … The report must, in particular, fully set out—
(a) why this has been determined as not appropriate;
(b) include a resolution that sets out how the government intends to review this determination”.
Then the review of the determination must be laid before Parliament within a year.
That is asking the Government to take this forward positively as a further means of spreading the localism—which is the Government’s policy and has been declared to be and has rightly been at the centre of their attitude to local government—but gives them time to ensure that it would really work if extended across the country.
The amendment is reasonable. It builds on what is there already. It reflects the important chapter in my noble friend’s report, No Stone Unturned, and it fits well with the general thrust of the Government’s policy of increasing localism. I hope that my noble friends will feel able to smile on the amendment. I do not say for one moment that the wording is right, but I hope for some encouragement. Then we can return either with a government amendment or something that takes account of what Ministers have said. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, which we enthusiastically support. We should thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for moving it so comprehensively in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Too often, we hear the mantra of devolving power but see the reverse: power and decision-making moving to the centre, from schools policy to planning.
We should acknowledge the progress being made on devolving powers to some areas, building on the achievements of multi-area agreements. Following the deal on the first eight cities, the Government are encouraging bids from a further 20, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what was involved for some in the first tranche. Nottingham City Council would be given powers to create a venture capital fund to invest in high-tech business, start-ups and growth businesses. I think that for Newcastle, Sheffield and Nottingham the deal has been backed by tax increment finance schemes. A control over part of central government’s skills budgets will be given to Sheffield, while Bristol, Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham will join Manchester in creating apprenticeship hubs. That is just a flavour of what has been achieved from those first few city deals.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I first declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and, as your Lordships know, a government adviser on cities policy. This amendment would extend the city deals structure, potentially to all councils, and it would be a practical manifestation of what we passed in the Localism Act. I welcome that. The aim of this amendment is to boost economic growth, based on the core package for wave 2 cities. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, explained there will be a confirmation, I think within a few weeks, of those wave 2 cities. However, the core package will be derived from the experience of those in wave one. I expect that that announcement will be made during March; I certainly hope it will be before Easter.
The amendment would mainstream the core package of the city deals. When the Deputy Prime Minister launched the wave two process at the end of October, he said that,
“while it’s too early to talk exactly about what a third Wave might look like, I very much see this”—
wave two—
“as a step in a journey”.
I have concluded that the door is ajar and that this amendment may well represent a means of providing it with a gentle push, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Jenkin outlined. There is a very clear base of evidence that if you localise, decentralise and devolve, you will actually drive faster economic growth if you provide local councils and their local enterprise partnerships with the statutory means of delivering that economic growth.
I have one caveat. Councils will need to show governance structures demonstrating their stability, their ability to manage risk and their ability to pool thinking and resources with their local enterprise partnerships and neighbouring councils so that driving growth in an area is seen as a collaborative process rather than a competitive one. I am particularly impressed by the governance structure that is in place in Greater Manchester, where the combined authority—enabled under legislation from 2009—provides a model that could be built on in other parts of the country.
Finally, on timing, if wave 2 city deal announcements are made later in 2013, this amendment will be implemented some time around the summer or autumn of 2014. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, this gives the Government an opportunity to consult and think further—but then to come forward with a means whereby the powers that are being given to a number of cities will actually be available to all of local government.
Lord Smith of Leigh
My Lords, I must follow the noble Lord’s compliments to Greater Manchester by speaking at this point. I need to declare my interests, which I repeat from Second Reading, particularly to mention that I am the chair of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. I therefore support this amendment, which gets to the heart of the Bill’s Title—it is what the Bill should be about.
I took part in the negotiations with the Government over the city deal. It was a very interesting process. Obviously, we developed ideas on our own and in conjunction. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is absolutely right that it needs to involve not just local authorities but the local business community. It takes a very special skill for many businesspeople to rise above their day-to-day work to have that comprehension of local economic policy, but in Greater Manchester we are fortunate to have many people who can do that. We rely on them and other partners such as universities, which are very important, too. On the key partners, we need to remind the Government that this is not a financial issue for local authorities. We are actually asking for devolution—not necessarily for more money but to have the money spent at a local level, where many of us believe it will be spent more effectively. In some cases, no money is involved at all; it simply gives us permission to do what we currently have to do.
The city deals work. They can harness the strengths of local partners and build on local knowledge, and they can be addressed to the local circumstances. I am sure that the city deal for Greater Manchester is different from the city deal for Newcastle, because the issues are clearly different. We will have some similar issues. No doubt skills are a very important part but, for us, transport was a key issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly said, this amendment mirrors the report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. It is really beginning to address this point about freedom. At a meeting of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority on Friday, we were pleased that we were beginning directly to fund local businesses to take on new workers and expand, so the measure is working practically on the ground. It is not a theoretical thing, and I will be very glad to see the rolled-out programme.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am a bit concerned about the wording of the amendment because I would not like every local authority to have to have its own deal with the Government. That is not what the spirit of this measure is about. What we did very carefully in Greater Manchester was to think about the functional economics. What is an economic area that makes sense? As important and lovely as the great city of Manchester is, its geography is a very odd shape. It is very long and thin. It is not a functioning economic area. The centre of Manchester and the centre of Salford are very close together, so we need to go over local authority boundaries. I hope that in passing some version of this amendment, we can encourage local authorities to be co-operative, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, to work together to think about what is in the interests of their communities and to make sure that we start to deliver what all noble Lords want, which is more growth, more employment and more opportunities in the country.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, because outside Greater London, Greater Manchester is probably the best example of a classic city region in this country. City regions suddenly became all the rage a few years ago under the Labour Government, and they are perhaps making a bit of a comeback now.
The problem is that when people get new ideas, they tend to regard them as a template that applies everywhere. There is no doubt that city regions can be very powerful places in democracy and growth, but the geography of this country is not the same everywhere. Even within England, there are places which it is difficult sensibly to allocate to a city region. The temptation is for people to look at the model and try to impose it everywhere, instead of asking about the geography of this country, which is very different in different places, and about the appropriate model given the geography of a region or sub-region.
A classic example is the towns of west Cumbria—Barrow, Whitehaven and Workington—and their local authorities, Allerdale, Copeland and Barrow. It is very difficult to say which city region they can be part of. Newcastle upon Tyne might have imperialist designs on them and pretend they are part of it, but they are clearly not, and they are equally clearly not part of the Greater Manchester city region, Merseyside or whatever. They are different. The largest places in those areas, including Carlisle, are smaller than the largest places in west Yorkshire or Greater Manchester, obviously, so the system that is used ought to take account of the geography of those areas. That is not to say that they should not have the kind of powers which are set out in this amendment, the powers that existing city deals have, which will, I hope, go on to get more; it is to say that central government has to get out of the mindset of trying to fit everybody into the same size bottle and accept powers have to be devolved to some smaller places because that is the nature of the economic geography and the economic regions in those areas.
It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that I think that east Lancashire is another area, not quite as extreme an example as west Cumbria, that is very difficult to fit sensibly into any particular city region. If we were forced into a big city region, it would be Greater Manchester, but we would always be peripheral and far too far out. Despite the wishes of some people in Preston, it is very difficult to claim that Lancashire is in any way geographically a city region with Blackpool out on the coast, Blackburn and Burnley, former county boroughs, further inland, Lancaster further to the north and then all the other places.
If this is going to be successful, it has to be accepted that it is not just the major metropolitan centres, such as Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle, and smaller but equally important ones such as Norwich, that are going to be the engines of growth in this country. They are probably the main engines of growth because of geographical factors, but the rest of the country needs a fair deal as well, and we do not want to be looking forward to a country where some areas are growing: the south-east and Greater London, obviously, but also those cities that have been remarkably successful in recent years, of which Leeds and Manchester are perhaps the leading examples. Those of us who live out in the sticks need a decent standard of life, a decent level of growth and a decent level of local services, just the same as everywhere else.
My final point is that it is more difficult institutionally where there is two-tier local government. In some areas, the districts are not important. District councils vary hugely across the country. There are some areas where shire districts are not really important within the economic development sphere, never have been and are never going to be. Some of them are quite weak rural authorities in that sense. There are other areas where they are the motors of economic development and the places were inspiration, motivation, ideas and people from the public sector and the private sector come from. I suggest that west Cumbria and east Lancashire are classic examples of this there the county councils traditionally have not had a very strong economic development role.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, on behalf of the city of Newcastle, I disavow any territorial ambitions in relation to Cumbria, even though we are connected by the Roman wall, part of which runs through and, indeed, is visible in the ward I represent.
I am the fifth consecutive former council leader to address the Committee this afternoon. It was in that capacity that I first made the acquaintance of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, some 30 years ago when he chaired the inner city partnership in Newcastle. At that time, a number of authorities had such a partnership chaired by a senior Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was chairman of the Newcastle inner city partnership. I recall rather amusing him by referring to the city action teams that were created in those days as “feral cats”. He might remember the phrase. We worked well together, as did other inner city partnerships. It was a process initiated by Peter Shore in the Callaghan Government of the late 1970s.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I ought to put on record—I do not think that the noble Lord will disagree—that there were some areas that found that extremely difficult. I need only mention Liverpool.
Lord Beecham
Liverpool was in many minds at that time. The noble Lord and I perhaps shared a view about Liverpool, but we were not alone in that.
The principle of looking across government departments and local authority functions embodied in a small way in those arrangements was returned to under the previous Government with the concept of Total Place. As I think I have said before in debates in your Lordships’ House, that has, I believe, been rebranded as community budgets, but it is consistently compatible with the thrust of the Government’s policy on city deals and the thrust of the amendments, which, of course, I support. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was quite right to refer to the powers and resources that are required to invigorate local economies. That involves, by definition, a wide range of public organisations, including government departments. One thinks of BIS, the Department for Transport, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, the DCLG, Defra and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. All potentially have a role to play with not only their policies but sometimes with their resources in individual areas. I hope that the Government can look at reinforcing the concept of the city deal by connecting it to the concept of community budgeting or Total Place, so that one looks at the sum of government-directed public expenditure in an area and sees how it can fit into and be applied to the issues of economic growth and regeneration.
Of course, the city deals that have been announced are welcome. Newcastle has benefited; I think that the figure is roughly £80 million. Liverpool got a little more at £110 million. That is not necessarily cash coming from the Government. It is the value of some of the freedoms that have been given, including, for example, tax-increment financing. Tax-increment financing is the permission effectively to borrow against the anticipated business rate income, which will generated by development. It has been deployed effectively for some years in the United States. There is reason to hope that it will help us here.
It is not, then, a question of the Government passing resources to the local authority, but of borrowing. Useful and impressive though those schemes and those amounts of money to invest will be, however derived, they have to be contrasted with the loss of financial resources to the very same authorities as a result of the local government finance settlement, exceeding on an annual basis in the cases of both Liverpool and Newcastle—and perhaps the others, I cannot say for certain—the value of the city deal and its financial implications. That is ultimately money taken out of the local economy, which is likely to have a deleterious effect on that local economy, employment and business. It is a curious inconsistency, which the Government have to address. They have to align their local government finance policies with the ambitions, which we share in local government, across the parties, of the city deal programme.
Finally, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Smith on the need for local authorities to co-operate and not to be seen to be competing with one another, at least in the same sort of area. There will no doubt be competition —healthy, I hope—between different parts of the country, offering different attractions for investment from within this country or overseas; that is a healthy process. However, it would be a great mistake if, within regions—or, to use the current governmental phrase, sub-national areas—there were to be cut-throat competition between more-or-less neighbouring authorities.
It was striking in those dark days of the 1980s—which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, did his best to brighten in Newcastle—that the region of the north-east came together in two ways. First, it came together—I have to say, at my suggestion—to create a Northern Regional Councils Association, which included Cumbria in those days, as it rather looked to the east than to the south. It also came together to facilitate the hugely important Nissan development in Sunderland. There was no competition between authorities as to who should get that. We came together and worked with business in the region and the Government of the day on behalf of the region as a whole. It is effectively a functional economic area, to use the jargon. That spirit of co-operation certainly needs to be driven, and I hope that the Government will incentivise it as these proposals go forward. I hope that—with the slightly cautionary words of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about not conferring significant powers and functions on unviably small groups of authorities on their own terms, with which I agree—
Have I misunderstood the noble Lord?
Lord Greaves
My Lords, that was not my point at all. My point is that people who live in big cities think that these places are functionally unviable because they are smaller than where they come from. My point is that they are not necessary functionally unviable just because they are smaller. They are big towns, small cities and areas with an urban nucleus which can actually do the job themselves, even though their population might be only 500,000 rather than 8 million.
Lord Beecham
I agree with that. What would be a concern would be the individual smallish councils in an area each seeking a separate agreement. It is the point about co-operation, which I thought the noble Lord was advancing, that I seek to emphasise and I assume the Government would accept.
Again, will the Minister indicate in replying whether the Government will look at the connection between the city deal programme and community budgeting or Total Place, and whether these things need to be linked? If that needs to be discussed further during the course of the Bill—I do not expect an immediate response—perhaps we can have some discussions about that before we get to Report stage.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I noted that my noble friend Lord Jenkin’s final words in moving the amendment were, “I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench smile” at his proposal. I assure him that whenever he makes a contribution I often smile, because I often agree with what he says. In what he said, there is nothing specific with which I can disagree. I think it would be generally accepted by the Committee that all contributions across the Chamber were supportive of the initiatives that are being taken.
I was particularly delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, agreeing with my honourable friend in the other place, Greg Clark. What can I say? Détente has broken out. I am glad that we agree on these issues. When we have these debates, it is important that things which are working across the board are acknowledged as doing so. I do not think for a moment that we are where we want to be with the city deals. This is an evolving issue. We are clearly seeing the trialling of city deals, as has been acknowledged by many noble Lords.
Look at the first wave of the cities listed outside London: Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Nottingham, Newcastle, Leeds and Sheffield; I feel a bit like a train announcer here.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am glad that the city deal has. I was concerned by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the expansion of areas and Manchester connecting with Newcastle. As a Liverpool fan, for football reasons alone, that is something that we would want to park.
Coming to noble Lords’ points, I first reassure your Lordships on where we are on city deals. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it is not a one-size-fits-all proposal. City deals are about bespoke solutions unlocking local growth and trialling different and innovative approaches. Perhaps it would not be appropriate for every single trial to be rolled out wholesale to every single council across the country. That said, the Government have a strong record of commitment to the localist agenda and are working directly with local authorities to provide the powers and support that they need. Where local models and city models make sense, I say to my noble friend Lord Jenkin that we will seek to make them more widely available.
On what we have already done with local authorities, we have given them greater control over their own budgets. First, an estimated 70% of income will be raised locally, compared to 50% to 60% under the current formula grant system. Secondly, from next April, councils will retain nearly £11 billion of business rates. Thirdly, the Government intend to devolve a greater proportion of future growth-related spending, based on the recommendations to which many noble Lords have alluded, as detailed in my noble friend Lord Heseltine’s recent, excellent review. My noble friend Lord Jenkin quoted my noble friend Lord Heseltine. We agree with him that local leaders and businesses are best placed to set the strategic direction of the area. He made a powerful case for increased devolution, and the Government agree with that.
Local people and businesses are better placed to take greater economic powers from central government, particularly in terms of funding and responsibilities, as the LEPs have. They can act as a stronger voice for local people, incorporating the local private sector. As several noble Lords have acknowledged, we have allocated funding. The Chancellor announced an additional £250,000 of capacity on top of the £625,000 core funding announced in September. So steps have already been taken, and I am pleased that noble Lords have acknowledged that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I think that my noble friend did indeed smile. He has given us a very fair and encouraging report, and I entirely take the point with which he finished, that there will be a full response to the report of my noble friend Lord Heseltine. There was one point on which I disagreed with my noble friend Lord Heseltine, when he suggested that local authority structures should be reviewed and they should become single-tier authorities. I told him that I did not agree with that, and the Government have made it perfectly clear that they do not agree.
I warmly support what has been said about the need for co-operation. When we debated the Localism Bill—my noble friend Lady Hanham will remember this—there was a good deal of scepticism about the Government’s wish that local authorities should co-operate. The fact of the matter is that two years later one can point to any number of examples where local authorities are co-operating admirably. That is a far better way than to embark on a major restructuring, which would be unrealistic.
I shall not comment in detail on everybody who has spoken. I am extremely grateful for the amount of support that we have received. I mention two points. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the achievement of the Nissan investment. That was very much a collaborative exercise; I was the Secretary of State for Industry who in the end persuaded Nissan to come here. We were negotiating as well with Honda, which eventually went to Swindon. I composed what my Japanese friends were kind enough to say was a sort of haiku: “We get fonder and fonder of Honda, but the kissing with Nissan is missing”. In the end, the kissing was everywhere; we got them both.
That was a very good example of local authorities co-operating. My noble friend Lord Greaves mentioned the West Cumbria authorities: Allerdale, Copeland and West Cumbria. I had been led to believe—with considerable optimism, I hope—that the decision will be announced that the idea of a nuclear repository within that territory, on terms that will need to be finally agreed, is welcomed. We had a three-month delay on this. But the co-operation of the county council and those two district councils has, to my mind, been an admirable example of how local authorities can work together in the national interest.
I thank my noble friend Lord Ahmad for his very encouraging response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“Planning permission required for development
(1) Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission required for development) is amended as follows.
(2) Subsection (3), after “Where by a development order (or a local development order)” insert “issued by the local planning authority.”
(3) After subsection (3), insert—
“(3A) Where a local planning authority propose to make an order under this section they shall first prepare—
(a) a draft of the order; and(b) a statement of their reasons for making the order.(3B) The statement of reasons shall contain—
(a) a description of the development which the order would permit; and(b) a plan or statement identifying the land to which the order would relate.(3C) Where a local planning authority have prepared a draft local development order, they shall consult, in accordance with regulations, persons whose interests they consider would be affected by the order.”.”
Lord Shipley
In moving Amendment 60A, I shall also speak to Amendments 60B and 60C, as well as Amendments 71 and 71A. I present the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who is unavoidably away today. Amendment 71A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is in practice virtually the same as Amendment 60A in our name, but the grammar in his is better than the grammar in ours.
Amendment 60A would allow local authorities to set their own permitted development rights. It is a logical extension of the Localism Act, because what is and is not permitted development should be decided locally. The current system allows central government to set out permitted development rights and provide local authorities with limited mechanisms to amend this. We noted the debate in your Lordships’ House on Monday about free schools and the powers of government over permitted development rights, and the limited powers that local authorities can sometimes have. We shall debate that issue further, but allowing permitted development to be managed by a local authority at a local level would mean that individual local issues and differences such as between rural and urban, suburban and city and town centres could be considered.
I accept that the proposal is a significant change to the planning system, and there may be concerns about that both from professionals and from the Government. Any change would need to be accompanied by robust consultation before commencement, but there is a principle behind this that permitted development should be decided at a local level.
Amendment 60B would remove the need for the Secretary of State to give approval for local development orders. Local authorities can currently restrict or extend permitted development rights via the use of an article for direction or a local development order. That can be important when, for example, a council could better support local economic growth. But the procedures that have to be followed are complicated and time-consuming and rarely used by local authorities. I have been concerned by the length of time that it can take to get a conclusion to a consultation on an Article 4 direction from the beginning of the consultation. Removing the need for the Secretary of State to give approval for each and every local development order as it is implemented across the country would make the procedures quicker and more effective.
Amendment 60C would remove the need for an individual annual report on all local development orders. I question whether those annual reports are necessary. If there was a problem with the local development order, I think it is inevitable that councillors and planning officers would know about that. However, Schedule 4A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that an annual report must be produced detailing,
“the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes”.
The schedule also states:
“The Secretary of State may prescribe the form and content of the report”.
This is very centralist, and I think that the provision could be safely removed from the statute book in order to speed up the process of extending and relaxing rights better to support growth. At a time of constraint in local authority staffing and planning departments, it would also free up considerable local authority resource and time. As I said a moment ago, councillors and planning officers will know whether a local development order is not working properly.
In the absence of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tope, both of whom are unavoidably unable to be here, I wish to comment on Amendment 71. This amendment would offer local discretion on permitted development reforms. As I am sure my noble friend the Minister knows, there is great concern about this. The amendment would offer councils the local choice of whether or not to introduce the permitted development changes which the Government are seeking to introduce. It is not clear to me, and has not been throughout the process, why the Government want to do this. It is supposedly to have a positive impact on growth. It is not clear to me how the Government’s proposals would have a positive impact on growth. I have concluded that permitted development rules should not be changed by Whitehall, since such a move cannot take account of significant local differences. As I said a moment ago, city centres, suburbs, town centres, urban areas and rural areas may all have different requirements, and councils are best placed locally to make these judgments. This is a very important issue, and there is a very important principle at stake. If we believe in localism, surely we should permit a planning authority to have local discretion on permitted development schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I strongly support these amendments. It seems contrary to the whole thrust of the Localism Act that central government should impose its decision on what are absolutely fundamentally local matters, and do so in such a way as effectively to preclude the local council from taking decisions of this kind in consultation with its residents. For example, it would be interesting to know how many extensions are being built under the dispensation given by the Government. I should think that on the whole that would be more likely to engender conflict between neighbours than lead to any significant development of extended housing in urban areas.
In addition to that, we had the recent announcement, which I referred to in the Chamber a few days ago, of the Government’s decision to grant permitted development status to the conversion of office premises into residential premises. This has provoked a good deal of concern up and down the country, not least within a couple of miles of this place. I do not know whether it has succeeded, but I understood that the City of London was endeavouring to negotiate an opt-out, as it were, from this provision. That seems to be a fashionable thing to do these days.
I do not know whether the Minister can tell us what has happened with that, but can she explain why the Government deem it necessary to override local authorities? Councils can, of course, give this permission if an application is made, and indeed if it is refused it may be appealed, but why should the Government take this decision, effectively on behalf of every local authority in the country, and see that it applies willy-nilly? What is the rationale for that? Where is the evidence that it will lead to the satisfactory development everywhere of housing of an adequate standard, particularly affordable housing of an adequate standard? I recognise, of course, that in certain places that could be the outcome, but why should that decision not be made by those responsible for their local community?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out, Amendment 71A in this group, which stands in my name, is to all intents and purposes identical to the amendment that he moved and which stands in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It is also identical to the amendment moved in another place by my honourable friend Roberta Blackman-Woods.
The thrust of the amendment is to reverse the current arrangements whereby permitted development is determined at the centre but with local authorities having the right to restrict or extend permitted development rights by an Article 4 direction or a local development order. It would anchor the process of permitted development rights at the local level with full obligations to prepare a draft order for consultation. The Minister will doubtless argue, as was argued in the Commons, that the powers available under Article 4 or a local development order are sufficient to secure that the decision of the centre can be modified in the local context. However, the LGA briefing—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, endorsed this—makes clear that these approaches are heavily bureaucratic, time-consuming and resource-intensive. If the Minister does not accept that case, I would be grateful if she would provide the evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the briefing suggests that these approaches are rarely used. As I say, if this is challenged by the Government, will they supply evidence demonstrating that these approaches are used?
I have also added my name to Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tope. This is a narrower amendment and requires that a new or amended development order that grants planning permission for development within the curtilage of a dwelling house should have approval from the local planning authority before being applicable.
My noble friend Lord Beecham has clearly argued the case for supporting the amendment and said why the Government’s position is inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord True, has spoken previously about concerns in his local borough regarding developments in gardens and the challenges that this poses to the local community. Alarm bells were certainly set ringing by the November 2012 technical consultation on extended permitted development rights for home owners and businesses. Its proposals included doubling the size limits for single-storey domestic extensions, although for a limited period. Will the Minister let us know what is happening with that consultation, when we might expect the Government’s response, and whether, in advance of that response, we might at least have an understanding of the direction in which it is travelling?
Amendment 60B in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Shipley, seeks to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve all local development orders. We agree with this, but could this not also be addressed by secondary legislation? Is primary legislation required to do that?
On Amendment 60C, will the Minister please remind us what happens to the reports that are made under Section 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? The amendment seeks to remove the requirement for those reports. What happens to the reports that are made and how do the Government deal with them? Is there any process by which the results of that are reported to Parliament?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that was rather a quick ending. I am grateful for this short debate, which I thought might take a bit longer.
The amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Tope and Lord Shipley, and Amendment 71A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have the admirable aim of giving local authorities the power to decide how to adapt nationally set permitted development rights to their own local circumstances. I am pleased to say that that power is already there. Where local authorities have concerns about the impact of permitted development rights locally, they are able to consult their local communities on removing those rights via Article 4 directions. I know that my noble friend Lord Shipley said that that process is complicated, but it is really up to local authorities how complicated it is and how long it takes. It is in a local authority’s hands; it has to consult for 28 days, but after that it can decide whether to confirm an Article 4 direction. Because there are concerns regarding potential compensation issues, local authorities can, if they give 12 months’ notice that they are going to consult on an Article 4 direction, always manage to avoid compensation requirements.
Where the aim is to extend permitted development rights locally, local development orders provide a quick and simple way to do this. After a slow start, the number of local development orders being put in place across the country is increasing. Local authorities are recognising the benefits of this flexible provision, which can be put in place through a simple and streamlined procedure. More than 30 local development orders have now been put in place in enterprise zones, and local development orders are contributing to growth by helping to speed up everything from small domestic alterations to major industrial development. Rather than being a cumbersome process, as suggested, local development orders work quite well.
Amendments 60B and 60C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Shipley, are intended to make the local development order process even more straightforward. The amendments seek to remove the Secretary of State’s role in the local development order process and remove the requirement for local authorities to report on local development orders, with the aim of reducing burdens further. The Secretary of State only exceptionally exercises his powers to intervene in local development orders. In many cases, local authorities can proceed to adoption within a few days of submitting local development orders to the Secretary of State. However, that does not mean that we should not constantly be seeking to improve and simplify the processes under which development takes place.
Officials have already begun discussions with the Local Government Association with the aim of learning from the experience of local authorities about the best way of using local development orders. That experience is growing rapidly, and it is important to capture it in deciding whether and how local development orders can be improved, including in the ways that my noble friends have suggested. Given my assurance that local development orders are a perfectly reasonable way forward, I hope that my noble friends are willing to withdraw or not move these amendments. I have also given an explanation of how the Article 4 direction plays, or could play, a particularly big role in the control by local authorities.
I turn now to Amendment 71, tabled by my noble friends Lord True and Lord Tope—I am sorry they are unable to be here—and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who has spoken to it. I appreciate the noble Lords’ wish to make sure that local authorities are able to take their particular circumstances into account when considering the operation of national permitted development rights. This is indeed a vital safeguard, because nationally determined rights will of course have different effects in different local areas. As I have already outlined, local authorities have this power now through the use of Article 4 directions, which they can implement themselves. However, I remind noble Lords that every time permitted development rights are removed, local people are deprived of the benefits that they offer and become subject again to the additional work and costs of putting in a planning application.
Extending development rights will reduce the bureaucracy and delays that home owners face when they want to carry out what remain, even with these revised proposals, small extensions. That applies to businesses also. This amendment would deny people those benefits on a much wider scale. It would fundamentally undermine the well established and popular system of permitted development rights, which allows home owners the freedom and flexibility to make the best use of their homes without getting bogged down in red tape. However, I hear noble Lords’ concerns and I am sure that we will return to this issue at a later stage, when perhaps other noble Lords who tabled amendments in the group are here.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the consultation. It ended on 24 December and is being considered at the moment. I hope that we will have some indication of the response in due course. There is no fixed date for the announcement of the response, but I hope, given my explanations, that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the Minister used the word “small” in reference to extensions. Does she understand and agree that what is or is not small depends to some extent on the size of the existing house and, particularly if it is an extension into a back yard, the existing size of that back yard?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I appreciate that proposals and applications for extensions will always be different because it will depend on the nature of the property—for example, whether it is terraced or detached. Permitted development rights are being removed for small-scale and reasonably small-scale developments.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed reply. She may be right to say that there will be a desire to return to some of these concerns on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“Notification of Parish Councils
(1) After section 261 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—
“261A Notification of parish councils
(1) Where an order is made under this Part by any authority or person for the stopping up, diversion or creation of any highway, the extinguishment of any rights over a highway, or for any work in relation to a highway, a copy of the order shall be sent to each parish council that the highway crosses or serves.
(2) “Highway” in this section includes a footpath, bridleway or other right of way.”
(2) After section 129F of the Highways Act 1980 insert—
“129FA Notification of parish councils
Where an order is made under this Part by any authority or person for the stopping up, diversion or creation of any highway, of the extinguishment of any rights over a highway, or for any work in relation to a highway, a copy of the order shall be sent to each parish council that the highway crosses or serves.” (3) In section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 (registration of greens) after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) Where an application is made under this section to register land as a town or village green, a notice of the application must be sent to any parish council whose area includes the land that is the subject of the application or any part thereof.””
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the amendment would add a new clause after Clause 12, headed “Notification of Parish Councils”. I apologise that the amendment was circulated a day late but it took me some time to track down the bits of legislation that I need to amend. The genesis of this came from the National Association of Local Councils, which knew what it wanted to do but relied on me to find out how to do it.
The amendment is about three different matters which are conveniently lumped together. It would amend parts of different Acts to make sure that when certain proposals or orders are made by what I might call higher authorities, parish councils are notified. The amendment goes no further than saying that they have to be notified but, clearly, notification is the first stage in reaching a view and perhaps putting it forward.
The amendment follows the procedure on planning applications whereby parish and town councils have, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the right to be notified about planning applications. The first provision amends that Act and would secure that when,
“an order is made … by any authority or person for the stopping up, diversion or creation of any highway, the extinguishment of any rights over a highway, or for any work in relation to a highway, a copy of the order shall be sent to each parish council that the highway crosses or serves”.
The second part would make a similar amendment to the Highways Act 1980. The wording is very similar but, in practice, it refers to rights of way orders. It really refers to lower-order highways—bridleways, footpaths and similar routes. The third part refers to Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 concerning the registration of greens, and we will be moving on to that shortly. This part of the amendment would make a provision that, where an application is made to register land as a town or village green—that is, the beginning of the registration process—the parish council that includes the green or part of it should be informed.
So far as concerns the second part of the amendment, I am aware that the practice guidance notes on rights of way orders—that is, in relation to footpaths, bridleways and so on—issued by the Rights of Way Review Committee, include consultation with various local bodies, including parish councils. However, I am informed by the NALC that that does not always happen and it would much prefer to have such a requirement in primary legislation. With regard to both the other matters, I am informed that they have caused difficulties for parish councils over the years and that these fairly simple provisions would make life a lot easier for them. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I look forward to the Minister’s reply but, on the face of it, these amendments seem entirely sensible.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend that it is very important that parish councils are notified of the making of any legal orders affecting rights of way and other highways serving or crossing a parish and indeed of any town and village green applications relating to land within the parish. It may be helpful to the Committee if I set out how the process works to ensure that this is the case.
First, as regards rights of way creation, diversion and extinguishment orders, paragraph 1(2)(b)(ii) of Schedule 14 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and paragraph 1(3)(b)(ii) of Schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1980 require the order-making authority to serve notice on,
“every council, the council of every parish or community and the parish meeting of every parish not having a separate parish council, being a council, parish or community whose area includes”,
any land affected by a rights of way order.
As regards orders for stopping up or diverting highways for the purposes of development—that is, Section 247/248 orders—Section 252 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that, before making an order, notice be served on the local authority in the area of the proposed stopping up or diversion of a highway. Therefore, the notice of a stopping up or diversion is served on the parish council in whose area the development lies.
For town and village green applications, existing regulations require notification of Section 15 applications to parish councils. Specifically, the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008, which apply to registration authority areas in England in respect of which the registration provisions in Part 1 of the 2006 Act have been commenced—known as “pioneer areas”—and the Commons (Registration of Town or Village Greens) (Interim Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2007, which apply to other authority areas in England, require notification of such applications to parish councils.
Schedule 14 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1980 require that, before a rights of way creation, diversion or extinguishment order is confirmed by either the Secretary of State or the order-making authority, notice shall be given in the prescribed form: first,
“stating the general effect of the order and that it has been made and is about to be submitted for confirmation or to be confirmed as an unopposed order”;
secondly,
“naming a place in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated where a copy of the order and of the map referred to therein may be inspected free of charge … at all reasonable hours”;
and, thirdly,
“specifying the time (which shall not be less than 28 days from the date of the first publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to the order may be made”.
The notices shall be given, among others, to,
“every council, the council of every parish or community and the parish meeting of every parish not having a separate parish council, being a council, parish or community whose area includes”,
any of the land to which the order relates.
The Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008, which apply in the pioneer authority areas that I mentioned earlier, require, in Regulation 22(1)(a), an applicant to serve a notice of any application to a registration authority under Part 1 of the Act,
“on each of the persons specified in Schedule 6”.
Schedule 6, as it applies to Section 15 applications, requires the notice to be served on any local authority other than the registration authority in whose area the land in question lies. “Local authority”, as defined in Regulation 2 of the 2008 regulations, includes a parish council and the chairman of a parish meeting.
Finally, the Commons (Registration of Town or Village Greens) (Interim Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2007, which apply to the non-pioneer authority areas, require, in Regulation 5, a registration authority to send notice of an application in the prescribed form to every “concerned authority”. In this case, “concerned authority” is defined in Regulation 2(2) as,
“a local authority … in whose area any part of the land affected by the application lies”.
“Local authority”, as defined in Regulation 2, includes a parish council.
I believe that what I have illustrated answers my noble friend’s questions. With those assurances and the details that I have provided, I hope that he will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I declare interests as the president of the National Association of Local Councils and as chairman of the Rights of Way Review Committee. If there is a failure to give the relevant notification to a parish council, will any sanction or redress be available to the parish council? I realise that the Minister may not be in a position to answer that question straight away.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am sure that there are instances where that is the case. For completeness, it may be appropriate if I write to the noble Earl on that specific point. However, I assume that appeals procedures are available to parish councils to take forward where orders are not adhered to.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and should be grateful to receive a copy of his letter to the noble Earl. It may be that what is now required is for the NALC to circulate to its member councils the fact that there is a need and a requirement for them to start to demand their rights from higher authorities. However, I am very grateful for the Minister’s care in setting out the details and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“(a) ”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 62 and 63. This group also contains a couple of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I shall refer to them in passing, although I shall wait for him to speak to them.
Clauses 13, 14 and 15 take us on to a new area in the Bill: the registration of town and village greens. These clauses refer to Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006, and some of us have fond memories of the passage of that legislation through your Lordships’ House.
Clause 13 inserts new Sections 15A and 15B into the Commons Act. Section 15 refers to the registration of town and village greens which exist—or which people claim exist—but which are not yet registered. It sets out the procedure for registration and that takes place through the commons registration regulations by commons registration authorities, which are local authorities in two-tier areas—now county councils.
Before we can understand any of these amendments or clauses we need to understand town and village greens and their registration. They are areas of land that may or may not be registered—most of them are now registered—in the commons register, and they confer on local people the right to informal recreation on that land. They are also open spaces. That common law right was codified in the Commons Registration Act 1965 and again in the Commons Act 2006.
Clause 13 brings in a new right for a landowner to bring to an end a period in which people have had rights to take part in informal recreation on that land. A piece of land can be registered as a town or village green under certain conditions: first, if people have used it for 20 years—usually continuously, but, basically, for 20 years; and secondly, if they have used it for lawful sports and pastimes—in other words, informal recreation—as of right as opposed to by right. That sounds legalistic and obscure but “as of right” means that they have not been stopped from using it; they have not used force; they have not used it secretly, having sneaked on there at two o’clock in the morning and kicked a ball about and left before anyone saw them; and they have not had permission. All those matters are crucial. If the owner of the land gives people permission by putting a sign up saying, “Ball games allowed”, that negates the ability to register it as a green. It is an ancient right and it is closely prescribed by those requirements.
If a piece of land has been used in that way without any of those conditions applying for 20 years or more, it can be registered as a green. It is very important to understand that if that happens, it is not being created as a green; it is simply recognising the legal fact that, under the old common law and under the Commons Act, where it has been codified, it is a green. It is a matter of fact. It is quite different from planning permission, which is a matter of saying, “Given the circumstances of that land and given all the planning laws and regulations, is it a good idea for that planning permission to be given?”. For example, it is very different from a designation as a piece of new green space under the new designation in the NPPF, where it is a matter of opinion as to whether that is a good idea or not. Either it is a green or it is not a green. That is why the process of registration often seems fairly bureaucratic, legalistic and long-winded.
Within the 20-year period, an owner can simply prevent the area ever being registered as a green by stopping people or by giving permission to people, whichever he wants to do. Clause 13 brings in a new right for a landowner to bring to an end the possibility of it being registered as a green—in other words, to bring to an end the period in which lawful pastimes can take place on it—by making a statement to a commons registration authority. In future, even if it has been used for more than 20 years or since the 15th century, it cannot be registered as a green.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 63A and 63B in this group. I should start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his knowledgeable exposition on these issues. I was told by one of his colleagues that he is the world expert on these matters, as he has demonstrated.
By way of background, Clauses 13 and 14 mirror the approach taken in so much of the Bill. This issue is largely subject to anecdote, so the Government have taken the opportunity to address it in legislation in an unacceptably tough manner. Let me be clear: we reject the opportunity to use town and village green provisions to thwart development which is unwanted by some. However, we equally reject legislation that would, in large measure, make it difficult to establish such a provision in the future. Our approach is not to seek a deletion of these clauses but to amend them in an attempt to get a better balance.
Amendments 63A and 63B address the issue of the publicity that must be given to a statement under Clause 13. As the noble Lord explained, the statement is that which a landowner can deposit with a registration authority to bring to an end any period during which persons have indulged as of right in lawful sport and pastimes on the land. The knowledge of cessation of use is important because it is the trigger to the two-year window in which a person can seek to register the land as a green. Without that knowledge there is the prospect that the two years will elapse and the chance to register will be lost.
Amendment 63A inserts “must” rather than “may”—an issue that perhaps we do not need to dwell on extensively. However, Amendment 63B requires regulations concerning publicity to be inserted into the Bill. On that basis, we have broadly common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on these amendments. His proposition about the nature of the publicity is more detailed and possibly more appropriate, but we seek to achieve the same thing by our amendments.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I support this group of amendments on a very important issue. I will make a perhaps slightly illegitimate point, because I probably do support the removal of the two clauses, which I consider unnecessary. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I will not be here for the debate on whether the clauses should stand part, so I will say that were I to be here I would support the proposition that they should not.
The amendments in this group are particularly important if the clauses remain—in particular the need to publicise and notify those whose interests could otherwise be removed surreptitiously, without them realising that that had been done. However, it is important to say—as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said—that these two clauses typify the Bill in that the number of applications for town and village greens has considerably reduced and is very small compared with the number of planning applications that are approved every year. Therefore, we must challenge considerably whether primary legislation is necessary. It is quite a large sledgehammer to crack a nut that probably does not exist—or, if it does, exists in very small proportions.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, in responding to the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord McKenzie, it may be helpful if I briefly set out why we are reforming the system for registering town and village greens. This explanation will take us through to the next group of amendments. In short, the reforms are needed to prevent the greens registration scheme being used to stop or delay planned development decided through the democratically accountable planning system. The changes will also protect the ability of local communities to promote or support development in their areas through consultation and decision-taking on planning applications and local and neighbourhood plans. Another aim is to reduce the financial burden on local authorities in considering green applications, and the costs to landowners whose land is affected by these applications.
Clause 13 inserts new Section 15A into the Commons Act 2006 which allows a landowner in England to deposit a statement and map with the commons registration authority, the effect of which is to bring to an end any period of use “as of right” for lawful sports and pastimes on that land. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, very expertly went through what lies behind this clause. I will briefly say that under the current system, if landowners want to protect their land from town or village green registration, they may erect fences and/or notices to physically prevent access to the land. However, the courts have ruled that even taking such steps does not necessarily bring to an end any use “as of right”, in particular where fences or notices are not maintained in the event of damage or removal. Clause 13 will allow landowners to achieve the aim of ending use “as of right” through the submission of a statement. We hope that this reform will encourage landowners to allow recreational use of their land, safe in the knowledge that they can prevent the registration of their land as a green. That will then be of benefit to those who use the land, as well as to landowners.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, tabled Amendments 61, 62 and 63. As he explained, their intention is to ensure that, where a landowner makes a statement, notice is given to local people and other interested parties so that they are aware that the clock is ticking on the time that is available for making a town or village green application. Amendments 63A and 63B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would require that publicising the deposit of a statement should be mandatory.
In line with the statements made by the honourable Member for Sevenoaks in the other place, I offer the Committee the reassurance that we intend that, where a landowner statement is deposited with a commons registration authority, the authority will be required to publicise it. This will ensure that local people and other interested parties are made aware of the fact that a statement has been deposited. We intend to use the power to make regulations, set out in subsection (6) of new Section 15A, to make publication of the statement one of the steps that an authority must take when the statement has been deposited.
It is our view that the specific publicity requirements are best set out in regulations; it is not necessary to include such detail in the Bill. However, my officials will draw up those regulations in close consultation with key interested parties, including the Open Spaces Society and the Association of Commons Registration Authorities. The regulations will require that commons registration authorities take appropriate steps to ensure that local people and other interested parties are made aware of the fact that a landowner statement has been deposited.
Amendment 63 would ensure that a landowner statement under this clause cannot be made until regulations prescribing the detail of the process under subsection (6) have come into effect. However, there is already provision for Clause 13 and those regulations to come into effect at the same time. The commencement provisions in Clause 31 provide that the Government can commence Clause 13 at an appointed time, and I reassure the Committee that the reason that the clause will be commenced in this way rather than on a set date is to ensure that these provisions are not commenced until regulations are finalised. I hope that, with those reassurances, noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful for that detailed response and for the Minister’s comments. I am also grateful to her for referring to Amendment 63, which I forgot to speak to. I thought that I had spoken long enough—and I am sure that the Committee did, too. That is my excuse, anyway. What the Minister said is exactly what my amendment would do, so I am very happy not to press it.
On the publishing of information when a statement is deposited with a commons registration authority, I think that the Minister’s response fitted the bill and that her assurance was okay. We will look at the regulations when they come out and, if they do not say what the Minister has just said, she will have to explain why—but I am sure that they will.
The only point I will make is that it is very important that the publishing of the fact that a statement has been made should be sufficiently local. Some commons registration authorities are big unitary authorities such as Northumberland or Cornwall, or big counties such as North Yorkshire or Lancashire. Simply publishing statements centrally or on a website will not get to the people who are using a piece of land in a village or town. It is very important that publication is sufficiently local so that somebody will pick it up and pass it on. With that comment, I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Health: Neglected Tropical Diseases
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in combating neglected tropical diseases since the London declaration on NTDs of January 2012.
Baroness Hayman
My Lords, much has been achieved since the signing of the London declaration on neglected tropical diseases a year ago today. Substantial progress has been made in raising awareness of the issues—in that respect I welcome the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in tonight’s debate—and in the fight to control and eventually eliminate the scourge of this group of debilitating and disabling conditions.
They are diseases caused by viruses and bacteria transmitted through snails and worms, flies and mosquitoes. They are found predominantly among poor, rural and semi-urban populations in Africa, Asia and Latin America, with almost half their health burden in sub-Saharan Africa. NTDs cause disfigurement and disability, anaemia, stunting and blindness to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. It has been estimated that among the 1.4 billion people who constitute the poorest in the world today, there is not a man, woman or child who has not, is not or will not be affected by at least one of these diseases. They are not just neglected diseases in terms of research or money: they are the diseases of neglected people.
The London declaration set out an ambitious plan to work towards the control and elimination of NTDs, building on the programme set out by the World Health Organisation. The substantial progress that has been made in the past year has been clearly set out in a series of recent reports from, among others, the WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Only yesterday, the executive board of the WHO passed an important, comprehensive and authoritative resolution committing the authority to grow the programmes already in place and integrate them further into the health and development agenda.
I do not intend tonight to do the Minister’s work for her by answering in detail my own question as to the progress made over the past year, but I want to emphasise the advantages that have come from the partnership approach of the London declaration: the bringing together of the pharmaceutical companies that have contributed, free of charge, more than 1 billion treatments; the endemic countries, 40 of which have developed multiyear integrated NTD plans; the donors who have committed funds to support delivery of those programmes and increase the resources available for mapping and research; and the academic institutions that are undertaking that research such as the London Centre for NTDs launched today—an important UK initiative—which will concentrate on identifying and supporting best practice and answering the practical operational questions that we need so much to understand.
The commitment to rigorous monitoring and evaluation through the scorecard for the London declaration will track delivery, highlight milestones and targets and help identify priority action areas. This joint working, accountability and transparency is one of the reasons why aid directed to NTDs is so obviously smart aid. It is aid where resources deployed are cost-effective—we come back again and again to the 50 pence per person per year for de-worming programmes—and aid that leverages resources and commitments from endemic countries, private and philanthropic sectors as well as from voluntary organisations and donor Governments.
DfID and the British Government deserve great credit for being, together with US aid, a leader in this field and I pay tribute to the previous Minister at DfID, Stephen O’Brien MP, who provided committed and knowledgeable leadership, without which we would never have got this far. I hope when she comes to wind up that the Minister will have something to say about the Government’s efforts to encourage other countries, particularly in Europe, to allocate resources in this area.
In the few minutes that I have left, I want to talk about the reasons for making NTD control a global health priority and I remind the House of my non-financial interests in the area, particularly as a trustee of the Sabin Vaccine Institute, and to look forward to some of the areas that we need to develop for success in the future.
The value-for-money argument for making NTDs a priority goes alongside the humanitarian argument. Unlike many other diseases, we have cheap and effective tools for alleviating the misery of the disease, disablement and discrimination that these conditions cause. What we need is political will as well as resource. I hope that this debate tonight will contribute in some small way towards that political will.
These are age-old afflictions. Twenty years ago, I chaired the Whittington Hospital in Archway in London. The first health facility on that site was a leper hospital in the 12th century. It was opened and positioned there because it was just beyond the boundaries of the city of London, from which people with leprosy were barred. Much more recently on Ellis Island, emigrants from Europe to the USA were examined by immigration officers for trachoma and sent home if they were found to be infected. This experience of exclusion and discrimination still exists for many in the developing world today.
However, as a global health priority, NTDs have a much shorter history. It is less than a decade since Peter Hotez of Sabin, David Molyneux of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and Alan Fenwick of Imperial College first used the term in biomedical journals and they have been tireless advocates for this cause, alongside Dr Lorenzo Savioli at the World Health Organisation. Despite their widespread prevalence, these diseases have been neglected in multiple ways and for multiple reasons. They have attracted tiny proportions of budgets for treatment from donor Governments or for research from private or academic institutions. Médecins sans Frontières presented evidence last month that only 1.4% of clinical studies undertaken in the past year focused on neglected diseases, although they cause around 11% of the global disease burden.
This is partly because of the demographic that they afflict and its lack of purchasing and political power, but also because in public health terms these diseases have been seen as causing morbidity rather than mortality. So the focus in the millennium development goals and elsewhere has been on the big three killers in the developing world—AIDS, TB and malaria. However, there is growing evidence of the important and significant interaction between NTDs and these three diseases.
As well as the obvious overlap in geography and the demographics of co-infection, the data suggest a strong association of exaggerated symptoms, rapid progression of disease and a higher risk of fatality in all three diseases where there is the presence of NTDs. To take just one example, studies in Tanzania and Zimbabwe demonstrate that women with female genital schistosomiasis have a 3% to 4% higher chance of being infected with HIV than those who are free of the disease. If we are to achieve the millennium development goal on AIDS, TB and malaria, we also need to tackle neglected diseases. I hope that the Minister may also say something about encouraging global fund programmes to integrate NTD control, as they have, for the first time, in Togo.
However, progress in achieving other millennium development goals is also impeded by the epidemic of NTDs and its effects on maternal mortality, school attendance and livelihoods. Controlling NTDs is an important component not only of the global health agenda, but of the more general development agenda.
If we are to achieve the ambitious targets set out in the London declaration, we will have to meet many varied challenges, not the least of which is providing the basic building blocks of public health, clean water, sanitation, hygiene and education. These are essential to underpinning NTD initiatives. We need to develop greater capacity to deliver and distribute the drugs that are available, and we need to know more about the best treatment regimes and about synergies with other health programmes, such as the distribution of bed nets and vaccination campaigns. I think that the London centre will be hugely helpful in this respect. We need to mobilise research and development on vector control, which is often a neglected area itself. Evidence from the WHO Global Burden of Disease 2010 study shows that diseases such as leishmaniasis, schistosomiasis and hookworm are unlikely to be eliminated solely through mass drug administration programmes. We urgently need research into the development of new control tools, including drugs, diagnostics and vaccines. We need a good pipeline of innovative products if we are not to be talking, in 20 or 30 years’ time, of re-emerging diseases.
Margaret Chan, the director of the World Health Organisation, has issued a clarion call by saying on the publication of its latest report:
“Overcoming Neglected Tropical Diseases makes sense for economies and development … Many millions of people are being freed from the misery and disability that have kept populations mired in poverty ... We are moving ahead towards achieving universal health coverage with essential health interventions for Neglected Tropical Diseases, the ultimate expression of fairness”.
As we look to the global health agenda post 2015, what better rallying cry could we have?
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for initiating this timely debate. Neglected tropical diseases form a group of 17 diseases, and as one who was born and brought up in Africa, I have seen the effects of some of them. They often affect the poorest of people in the hardest- to-reach areas. Because most of these diseases do not exist in more developed nations, it is easy to forget just how prevalent they are in other parts of the world. They cause death or weaken individuals, putting them at risk of being affected by other conditions. They damage the lives of more than 1 billion people across the globe and cost millions of pounds in healthcare and loss of production.
Large-scale diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis receive worldwide media attention and a great deal of research and funding, including commendable commitments from our own successive Governments. However, it must be acknowledged that in some parts of the world, the combined impact of the neglected diseases is comparable to that of the likes of malaria. We must come to terms with the scale of the task at hand. Some diseases are at risk of spreading further, so it is important that we do all we can to stop that happening.
As with so many of the world’s ills, the key to nipping the problem in the bud will be as much prevention as possible. It is now one year since the London declaration made a call to the world to work together in order to support and realise the World Health Organisation’s 2020 Roadmap on Neglected Tropical Diseases. I was pleased to read the WHO’s second report on NTDs, published earlier this month. It highlights what it describes as “unprecedented progress” made over the past two years. A regular supply of medicines and general worldwide strategic support has resulted in a vast improvement in the health of many people. There now seems to be a much closer focus on simplifying and fine-tuning the logistics of getting medication to as many people as possible in the most cost-effective ways. The outlook has shifted away from instigating the strategy to progressing it in a sustainable way, and the 2020 road map to control or eliminate at least 10 diseases by the end of the decade seems to be firmly in sight.
Today marks the launch of the London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, which is another huge milestone in taking forward further research and, more importantly, providing a bricks-and-mortar hub for continued global co-ordination. We should all be extremely proud that this global initiative has been based here in London from outset—from the coalition of organisations through to the declaration, and now to the establishment of this centre. The United Kingdom has a reputation for identifying and honouring its moral duty to assist others, and our leadership of this initiative continues that fine tradition. Just last year, our Government committed £195 million to support the control and elimination of neglected tropical diseases. In a wider context, this initiative serves as the perfect example of what can be achieved when people come together and collaborate for the greater good. Governments, scientists, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, funding agencies and philanthropists have all provided expertise and resources that have resulted in measurable impacts being made in the affected communities.
Lord Stone of Blackheath
My Lords, my involvement in this area has come about from chairing DIPEx, an online health charity. We publish videos and audio interviews conducted over 10 years of qualitative research into people’s personal experiences of illness by a brilliant team of academics at Green Templeton College, Oxford. Our website, healthtalkonline, was featured last week in the Times as number two in the top 50 websites that “you cannot live without”. We are good at publicity. Sir Tom Hughes-Hallett, the chair of the Institute of Global Health Innovation at Imperial College, has been a great supporter of DIPEx International, and he thought that perhaps our methodology of videoing patients’ experiences might help NTD workers to record and report their effectiveness because they do not get enough exposure; they are neglected. We are looking at that with the institute.
When I met Professor Alan Fenwick, the expert at the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative at Imperial College, he amazed me. The initiative has used its DfID funding to such great effect that it facilitated some 4 million treatments against schistosomiasis in its first year, which was 2011. By 2012 it had reached eight countries and provided 15 million treatments. Similarly, the Centre for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine has increased its number of treatments against lymphatic filariasis from 35 million in 2011 to 52 million in 2012. Both are confident that they will further expand their coverage in 2013 and get to Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cote d’Ivoire.
It is excellent that DfID funding is reaching the poorest of the poor with cost-effective treatments of NTDs, but the world should view addressing these diseases not only within the health context, of course, but also in the important economic context. The Hudson Institute says that about 50 million DALYs—disability adjusted life years—are lost in developing countries to the NTDs alone. The treatment of NTDs is immensely cost-effective on a massive scale. The teams involved in these projects want the correct measurements, graphic representation and feedback loops in place to prove the effectiveness of allocating further huge resources to this work because it pays over the long term. The sources of funding are entitled to know that the route whereby their cash is getting to good causes is providing value for money. If they know that, they can target their funding better and co-operate across the piece, and thence give more. Yesterday evening, Lindsey Wu of Policy Cures described the integration of the malaria vaccine technology road map being co-ordinated by the World Health Organisation. It seeks to involve players at all stages of malaria control and elimination and considers how that can back into early stage vaccine work. This type of holistic approach at all stages goes beyond the lab to deliver the most impact on the ground.
There are, of course, powerful drivers for “commercial” funders to conduct R&D on drugs and thus develop vaccines and diagnostics, but not enough resources are allocated to the less commercial end, which is that of vector control. Millions of people could be prevented from getting these diseases in the first place. Furthermore, more attention is needed on the less exciting areas of operational research, implementation and logistics, as well as an integrated approach to multiple NTDs.
This whole project is amazingly heartening and I urge the Minister to look at the need for well informed, powerfully and graphically presented feedback loops, which could inspire greater integration of funding and bring the successful treatments of these neglected diseases to the attention of the larger world community; thereby supporting these great people working in this field and enabling millions of wonderful individuals in these countries not only to live but to live better lives.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, I thank my noble friend because I know that water fleas, snails, blackfly and many other deadly insects and parasites are still infecting millions with NTDs such as trypanosomiasis and onchocerciasis. “Trips” and “oncho” became part of my vocabulary when I joined Christian Aid 40 years ago. Remembering the WHO mass-spraying campaigns in west Africa at that time, I now feel disappointment that we always seemed to be on the point of eliminating oncho but never quite succeeded.
Agencies specialising in this field have long had the target of “clean water for all”. Water is given a green light in the MDGs but this remains an enormous task —the UN says that 783 million are still using traditional drinking water supplies and one of the most successful agencies, WaterAid, now has 27 country programmes, which last year provided 1.6 million people with safe water and 1.9 million with sanitation. Oxfam and CARE have also been prominent in this field. Coming from the background of the voluntary sector, people like me can sound quite glib in describing the needs of the poorest people—all they have to do is boil their water, wash their hands and follow the advice of the nearest health centre. However, life of course is a little more complicated: the advice may be 50 or more miles away; tradition and culture dominate; and the worms and flies may be too numerous. Education is vital. Water and sanitation must be complemented with child-focused health education that promotes lifelong healthy behaviour.
I have some scepticism about the donations offered by pharmaceutical companies and the doctors they direct, and even control, in developing countries, which undoubtedly gives them a PR advantage. I am also aware of the ill effects of overprescription, which leads to dangerous dependence and painful withdrawal. I remember how subsidiaries of well known pharmaceutical companies in countries such as Bangladesh bought doctors and tyrannised village clinics that did not comply with them. I nevertheless congratulate these companies, and the charities that are contributing to this important campaign. We know that more than 700 million people have been treated for seven diseases and that the numbers treated for soil-transmitted worms have quadrupled in one year, which is nothing but impressive.
Just after DfID announced its fivefold increase in support for the NTD programme—which is to be warmly welcomed, alongside the US contribution—the Lancet asked, a year ago, whether increased funding for neglected tropical diseases really made poverty history. It pointed out the risks of undermining healthcare systems and of relying on volunteers, the gaps in the knowledge of combination drugs, and the limits in the evidence base for these drugs. Mass campaigns, although necessary to meet the MDGs, can at the same time take staff away from fragile healthcare administrations.
I have consulted Save the Children, which of course is well aware of the importance of tackling the NTDs with major campaigns. However, its key message is that, as the communities affected are often those excluded from health services, any work to ensure sustainable access to NTD prevention and control interventions should always be integrated with the strengthening of comprehensive health systems for sustainable change. Does the Minister agree with that and will she ask DfID to ensure that health workers who get involved in these interventions are always adequately remunerated, trained and motivated to support them as part of a package of essential services?
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for securing this debate on a very important topic and, as we have heard, a very neglected one. There are great signs of engagement and creativity, as noble Lords have said, but the statistics and effects are absolutely horrifying. I want to develop the point that has just been made about an integrated and sustainable approach. For medical intervention and investment to be effective—I think the noble Baroness used the term “smart aid”—there has to be an embedding in the local culture. Often, there have been ways of handling these things for many years, and it is not easy for western medicine to come in with all its technology and suddenly change the situation. In fact, an article in the Lancet in March 2012 provided evidence of the hostility to this kind of intervention because people in the local community did not understand it and were threatened by it. The article said that it was important, alongside the medical intervention, to enable what it called “behavioural change” and an “integrated biosocial approach”.
I want to give an example of that and encourage the Minister, and our own investment from this country and the work of the London centre, to take this approach seriously. I declare an interest as a trustee of Christian Aid, and it is good that there are other Christian Aid supporters here. Christian Aid commends what it calls a “community health approach”, which is local, joined-up and sustainable. It has four aims: to respond to local priorities; to integrate the approach to the various diseases and health issues; to develop a local health system; and to involve local people and local resources.
I will give your Lordships an example. A cross-border malaria initiative in Zambia was launched by Christian Aid and a number of partners in July 2010. So far, 100 local people have been identified, engaged and trained up to work as volunteers to enable this integration of the care response and its embedding in the local community. That is the kind of approach that I think we must commend and invest in.
I have two other quick points. Resourcing is crucial. Although it is not the main topic of this debate, I cannot resist reminding noble Lords that before Christmas we debated the issue of tax justice. Much of the wealth that is created in countries where these tropical diseases are prevalent is through tax avoidance schemes and is taken out of the country to where it cannot be taxed to provide local resources for a local response. We need to recognise that that is part of the picture.
Finally, I will say something about vigilance. In the 1960s, sleeping sickness was virtually eradicated in Africa, but by the 1990s, it was beginning to return. There is a frightening pattern in a lot of aid and welfare interventions that almost get there but somehow do not quite integrate and create something sustainable. The problem then creeps back. That is why I commend to the Minister, and ask her to take very seriously, this approach of community health, which is local, sustainable, joined-up and able to build a system so that the approach to neglected tropical diseases will be a lasting and effective one.
Lord Trees
My Lords, the debate today is to mark the first anniversary of the London declaration on neglected tropical diseases. I want to celebrate that important initiative and the considerable progress that has been, and is being, made to control and eradicate these diseases. However, I also want to emphasise that we cannot yet be complacent. The job is not finished and there is much to do, even though the way forward is largely clear.
The NTDs are now getting the attention they deserve because they afflict huge numbers of people in the poorest countries of the world—the so-called “bottom billion”. These diseases are inextricably bound with poverty. It contributes to these diseases and these diseases, in turn, contribute to poverty. Their control is an essential step in the achievement of several key millennium development goals. These diseases, which include many with bizarre, exotic and frightening names such as Kala-Azar, Chagas disease, sleeping sickness, elephantiasis and river blindness, are for the most part chronic and persisting infections, which may eventually kill but which in many cases simply—but seriously—disable, disfigure and stigmatise. The effects are pervasive and extensive in the societies in which they occur.
Another of their characteristics is that many can be treated, controlled and even eradicated with tools that we already have. These are the low-hanging fruit of tropical diseases. The costs of making progress are relatively low and the benefits are huge, as has been said by several speakers. It is very much to the credit of the WHO, the Gates Foundation, various NGOs, scientists and healthcare workers throughout the world, and of course, the London declaration, that these diseases are now being tackled in a concerted and coherent way. The contribution of the UK to this global effort is huge. DfID has played a very substantial part, as have many scientists, medics, vets and healthcare workers based in our universities and in our two schools devoted to tropical medicine and public health in Liverpool and London.
Another hugely important factor has been the donation of drugs by major pharmaceutical companies to this programme. Drugs to the value of $2 billion to $3 billion a year are being donated by big pharma; this is an altruistic gesture that is not always fully appreciated. As a vet, it gives me satisfaction that a lot of these drugs were initially developed for the control of worms in animals. A staggering 700 million tablets are administered each year to school children in developing countries to control enteric worms, and that is just one example. All of these efforts have resulted in a substantial reduction in the incidence of infection and disease, and put the goals of controlling and eradicating many—if not most—of the 17 targeted NTDs by 2020 within reach.
However, there is still a need for an estimated $2 billion to sustain this effort to achieve these goals. That is a lot of money. Currently only 0.6% of overseas development assistance for health globally is being allocated to NTDs. Some $2 billion spread over 7 years among the wealthiest nations of the globe, given the huge return, is surely not only a desirable, but also a necessary investment. Fit and healthy people can work to feed themselves, their families and, their populations and they can contribute to the economic and social progress of their countries which in turn reduces conflict and migration.
There is still a need to develop new products and technologies to continue supporting the development of healthcare systems, health services in endemic countries and particularly systems for delivery of drugs to the point of need. We need to ensure clean water supplies and good sanitation. Notwithstanding that, we now have many of the tools we need. It is the appliance of science, the delivery of what we have, that is the major challenge. Given that there are freely available drugs for many of the NTDs, it is a responsibility we all share to apply these tools to achieve the global benefits. If we fail to do that—to satisfactorily deal with the low-hanging fruit—what hope have we to tackle more complex or technical health problems facing the world?
Lord Rea
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for bringing this important subject before the House. I was stimulated to take part because half a lifetime ago I worked with children in Lagos, Nigeria, for two and a half years and met with some of these diseases. They can have a debilitating effect by causing anaemia, malnutrition, impairment of immunity or renal failure. Most of them have a secondary host, or vector, which spreads the infection. These include a number of insects and other organisms which have been referred to and described by other speakers. I think noble Lords would agree that nobody living in the Western world would tolerate being exposed to any of these pests. However, people living in poor housing with no clean water or sanitation cannot guard against them. In this context, I would echo the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in asking the Minister how far vector control for NTDs other than malaria is being addressed by any of the programmes supported by DfID.
People suffering from these tropical diseases are also subject to the full panoply of other universal infections, such as pneumonia and diarrhoea, which are more likely to be severe because of lowered immunity, caused by one or other NTDs, and associated malnutrition. While welcoming the international initiatives that have been praised by everybody, I have a slight caveat, as did the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Anthropologists Tim Allen of LSE and Melissa Parker of Brunel point out in the Lancet that, welcome though treatment of NTDs is, the mass administration of drugs gives rise to a danger that these vertical programmes can undermine already fragile and overstretched healthcare systems. However, I think that with care, co-ordination and collaboration this can be avoided. In fact, if properly managed, these programmes can actually strengthen primary care.
Populations receiving mass medication often do not understand why tablets are being given to everyone, including those with no symptoms, and may not understand or accept scientific explanations of the causes of NTDs. The two anthropologists I mentioned write:
“The availability of tablets is not enough ... dealing with NTDs in a sustainable way will involve a range of factors including behavioural change. Imagining that mass drug administration ‘will make poverty history’ is unrealistic”.
I think that the leaders of the current interest in conquering NTDs are fully aware of this, and I certainly feel that this was given evidence by the excellent research papers that were given at the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine this afternoon. As someone who has worked at the grass roots, the observations of the two anthropologists need to be taken into account; they have the ring of truth.
I would like the noble Baroness to reassure me if she can that the generous funding going to mass treatment of NTDs is not diverting DfID researchers away from the longer-term, but ultimately much more sustainable, objective of relieving poverty and improving health by strengthening health systems, improving nutrition, ending illiteracy and providing clean water and sanitation. Mass administration of drugs can set the ball rolling, but only through these wider means can NTDs be sustainably controlled and eventually eliminated.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for initiating the debate and for other reasons which will become quite obvious in a minute. Much of the debate implies that we have treatments available for a lot of these diseases. That is far from the truth. We have some treatments available for some of the diseases, and none for others. In some cases, those that are available are highly toxic and, more likely than not, will kill the patient. We need more research in developing cheaper, more effective drugs. We also need a long-term strategy for the eradication of these diseases.
So far, we have succeeded in eradicating one disease: smallpox. We may succeed in eradicating guinea worm disease and possibly polio, but we are a long way from eradicating the others.
I am currently chancellor of the University of Dundee. I mention this because the University of Dundee has received funding from the Wellcome Trust in the fight against neglected parasitic diseases, including support for a multimillion-pound partnership with GlaxoSmithKline to discover new drug treatments. I have been associated with the University of Dundee since the day I went there as a medical student—I would hate to say how long ago that was. The Drug Discovery Unit at Dundee will work with the GSK discovery unit in Spain, and the goal of the collaboration is to develop safe and affordable treatments for Chagas disease, leishmaniasis and African sleeping sickness. The partnership aims to deliver at least one treatment for one of these diseases in the next five years.
These parasitic diseases afflict millions of people worldwide and are collectively responsible for about 150,000 deaths every year. The drugs that are available are difficult to administer, have toxic side-effects and are not always effective due to the drug-resistance of some of the parasites. We have made significant progress towards the development of a new treatment for African sleeping sickness over the past five years and there have been promising results in identifying potential treatments for leishmaniasis.
Currently we have a portfolio of discovery projects in various stages of development in African sleeping sickness and visceral leishmaniasis. We have several types of compounds with promising activity in animal models. The next step is chemically to modify these molecules to find the optimal balance of drug-like properties for clinical trials.
Having an industry-experienced, multidisciplinary drug discovery team is very important and this public/private partnership is critical in developing drugs for these neglected diseases. A report published by the London School of Economics and Political Science, called The New Landscape of Neglected Disease Drug Development, found on the basis of vast amount of empirical data that the PPP approach brings together the best skills of the public/private partnership, and that currently there is very little investment of public money for the development of drugs for neglected tropical diseases. The report points out a surprising lack of policy incentives to support PPPs, which have become a cornerstone of both large and small pharmaceutical companies’ involvement in neglected disease R&D, and adds that some of the incentives on offer could well be counterproductive.
It is important for the Minister to take on board that if we as a country are going to be successful in developing drugs for these diseases, there needs to be more support from public money so that we develop public/private partnerships.
Lord Crisp
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayman on securing the debate and her commitment to this whole area. I also congratulate the Government on their championing and funding of this area. It is another great example of UK leadership in development. I agree with my noble friend that Stephen O’Brien provided really knowledgeable leadership and commitment in this area.
I have a non-financial interest as chair of the trustees of Sightsavers, an organisation that treats and provides surgery to more than 20 million people suffering from, or at risk from, neglected tropical diseases every year. I am delighted that we have been supported by DfID to lead a global survey of blinding trachoma, which will take us into 30 of the poorest countries in the world. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that with that background my comments are going to be about the two diseases that particularly affect eyes: onchocerciasis and blinding trachoma.
I want to make four simple points. First, while I agree with my noble friend Lord Patel that there is much research to do, when it comes to these two diseases—and others—we know what to do. It is well documented, researched and deliverable. We can rid the world of these diseases and we can do so sustainably.
Secondly, the way in which this whole programme around NTDs is developing is an example to other areas of health and, indeed, development. First, there is wonderful co-operation, which my noble friend Lady Hayman mentioned, but that co-operation is not new; it did not start a year ago. Co-operation has been going on at all levels around these two eye diseases for more than 25 years; indeed, Merck has provided free drugs for these eye diseases for the past 25 years.
In addition, in Africa there has been developed a process called community-directed treatment, which relates directly to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said earlier. We in Sightsavers are in touch with 100,000 community volunteers in villages who deliver these pills. It was developed in Africa; it was not actually developed by western medicine, it was developed by Africans as a way of reaching people in the community. What is interesting is that we can use that network not only to treat people with the eye diseases—indeed, ivermectin happens to treat lymphatic filariasis as well as onchocerciasis—but to deliver other drugs. We as an eye organisation are involved with others in delivering treatments for a whole range of different things. The third way in which this is such a good example is that surgery is often delivered by non-medical staff, and there are examples of how you can do things very effectively by being radical and innovative.
My third point is, as again the noble Baroness said in starting off, that this is smart aid; it works. This should be publicised; it should be communicated. Who can argue with 50p to stop people going blind? That is what we are talking about.
My final point is the sustainability one that has been brought up by a number of people. These are diseases of poverty and indeed, as we have heard, of neglected people. They are linked to things like clean water and weak health systems. So my questions to the Minister are very simple. First, what is DfID doing to integrate its policies around neglected tropical diseases with its policies on water and sanitation? Secondly, how is it going to make sure that the strengthening of health systems will be part of the post-2015 development agenda?
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for initiating this important debate. Although neglected tropical diseases are the most common infections among the world’s poorest communities, they receive little attention in the media. As we have heard, while they are not always fatal, their effect on individuals and communities can be devastating. They disproportionately affect the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people and are a serious impediment to economic development in many developing nations.
There is no doubt that the coming together of the global health community in January 2012 to plan a new way forward for achieving a world free of these devastating ailments was a historic occasion. The commitment to the control or elimination of 10 NTDs in line with targets set by the World Health Organisation marked the beginning of a new and co-ordinated effort.
As we have heard, the lives of millions of people have improved since the launch of this plan. However, more resources and political will from all Governments will be needed if we are to achieve the WHO’s 2020 goals. The control and elimination of NTDs is feasible through mass drug administration but failure to also address the underlying causes, including the environmental conditions that contribute to their spread, such as clean water, improved sanitation initiatives and vector control, will make this task almost impossible.
The barriers and risks to achieving the WHO targets include: conflicts and the consequent movement of people; population growth; vector or intermediate host control; resistance to medicines and pesticides; expectations overtaking science; inadequate support for research; and, of course, climate change. We still have a world where some 780 million people are without adequate sanitation and safe drinking water; 40% of those without access to improved water sources live in sub-Saharan Africa, where many of the NTDs are prevalent. The biggest challenge is in India, where more than half the country’s population—625 million people—are without basic toilet facilities.
An integrated approach is essential if we are to meet the WHO targets. As we have heard from the noble Earl and my noble friend, there are other risks attached to promoting mass drug administration, including the undermining of already fragile and overstretched healthcare systems and the difficulties involved in relying on volunteers to assist with drug distribution in targeted communities.
However, schemes such as the Bangladesh Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s Little Doctors programme are shining examples of how education, public health and drugs can be combined effectively. In addition to providing regular treatment, the programme teaches students from upper grades to assist teachers with de-worming days. The Little Doctors also share hygiene and other health messages with their classmates and families to help prevent reinfection.
To ensure that the objectives of the London declaration are delivered, we need clear government strategies. I, too, would like the Minister to explain what action the Government are taking to improving access to clean water and improved sanitation. What steps are being taken to build healthcare capacity and generally to improve public health and education in the target areas?
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for securing this debate and for all her work in this area. Her passionate and expert speech and those of other noble Lords remind us how important it is to tackle the so-called neglected tropical diseases. They blight the lives of more than a billion people, cause disability, disfigurement, stigma and an estimated half a million deaths annually in some of the poorest countries in the world. They cause terrible suffering and perpetuate dire poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke of diseases of neglected people. That is a good way of describing them.
Last year, as noble Lords have mentioned, we made a fivefold increase in our commitment to this area and we are maintaining that support to ensure that these diseases and those who suffer from them are neglected no more. This is an area in which some of our outstanding institutions, such as the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Imperial College, are playing a leading role. Various noble Lords mentioned that the London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research has formally opened this afternoon at the London School, which everybody is extremely pleased to see. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke of the work being done in Dundee and of the importance of public/private partnerships, something which DfID strongly supports and has built into its approach to tackling NTDs.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and others have said, there is partnership across a number of organisations here. The pharmaceutical industry is playing a vital part in this regard. We are also working with the World Health Organisation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the US Agency for International Development.
One year on from the London launch, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others for the tribute that they have paid to the step change that DfID has made in this area. Like the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others, I pay tribute to my honourable friend Stephen O’Brien, the former Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for International Development, for his leadership here, as well as to all the others who played their part in the London declaration. I pay tribute, too, to the various organisations, including those led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who have worked for a long period in this area.
I can assure noble Lords that DfID now expects to reach more than 140 million people who suffer from NTDs by 2015. Since the London declaration, the UK has launched a programme to complete the global mapping of trachoma; agreed a programme to take an integrated approach to tackling NTDs in Nigeria, one of the highest-burden countries in the world; and helped the World Health Organisation strengthen its NTD staffing and improve its co-ordination of the kala-azar programmes in south Asia and east Africa.
Last year, the UK Government offered to increase and extend their support to guinea-worm eradication, provided that others stepped in to help close the financing gap. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Arab Emirates and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation rallied to this call. The programme now has the funds that it needs to achieve eradication. That will be a stunning achievement. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that we continually encourage other donors to contribute.
In 2012, fewer than 600 new cases of guinea-worm disease were reported in just four countries, Chad, Ethiopia, Mali and South Sudan—almost half the number of cases in 2011. This trend is very positive, but it is clear that there is no room for complacency. The endemic countries’ health systems and regional security are fragile—noble Lords have made reference to that. The Mali conflict remains a significant threat to the eradication timeline and the success of the global campaign.
Meanwhile, DfID continues to develop and expand the UK’s support for taking NTDs in three distinct but integrated ways. They are: additional support to control elephantiasis, river blindness and bilharzia, building on a number of existing successful partnerships; driving more research—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred—to increase our knowledge of NTDs and improve delivery and effectiveness in addressing them; working on new programmes to help control kala-azar and trachoma, as well as a programme which takes an integrated approach to tackling a range of NTDs in South Sudan. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that we will include vector control in the design of our work on kala-azar. The noble Lord, Lord Stone, asked about feedback loops. I can assure him that we realise that good monitoring and evaluation are key to this area and we check that treatments get to those who need them. We check to make sure that we are making progress in controlling and eliminating these diseases and are getting best value for money for the funds committed. I seem to recall the noble Lord raising this matter at an APPG meeting that I spoke at and my putting him in touch with DfID. I hope that that takes things further forward.
Expanding our involvement requires a collaborative international effort and response. We are working closely with colleagues, particularly in USAID, the World Bank, WHO and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to improve mechanisms for tackling these diseases. National Governments are key partners, too, particularly in mass drug administration through schools and communities and in efforts to improve water and sanitation services. We recognise the importance of joining all that up.
In the UK, it has not just been the Government responding to the challenge; there has been a positive response also from organisations, particularly in the private sector. This includes the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and Geneva Global. I particularly appreciate the all-party parliamentary group’s support for the UK Government’s work on NTDs and for the opportunity that it gave me to speak at the launch of its annual report in November.
Noble Lords will also be pleased to hear that a number of institutions in the UK have formed the UK Coalition against Neglected Tropical Diseases as a collaborative partnership in research, implementation and capacity building. It is at the forefront of the push for integration, especially at the country level with national and other developmental partners.
The NTD community is adjusting to the post-London declaration situation. The WHO annual report makes clear how we have all stepped up and the challenges for tackling NTDs globally from 2013. These challenges include the need for increasing ownership by Governments in the affected countries. National Parliaments have an important role to play here in making the case to Health and Finance Ministers to increase domestic resource provision.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others asked about integration of work on NTDs. The noble Baroness asked in particular about integration with the Global Fund. As she knows, the Global Fund in its support for health systems, which has developed over the years, makes a contribution beyond malaria, AIDS and TB. It is vital that all these approaches are integrated—the right reverend Prelate made this point very strongly—so that each element supports the other.
In this regard, I concur with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich: mass campaigns need to strengthen and underpin fragile health systems. The right reverend Prelate illustrated that very point. I assure him that drugs for NTDs are delivered by volunteer community health workers, and that that is used to help to strengthen health systems. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Collins, referred to water and sanitation as connected issues. Indeed they are, and we are well aware of that. I assure noble Lords that the increase in funding for NTDs is additional to DfID’s existing health, water and sanitation commitments. Integrating with the health system is an important tenet for NTD programmes to help to strengthen that effectiveness and improve sustainability. If we maintain that approach, those diseases can be eradicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said. We are determined to carry that through—just as we are in sight of eradicating polio, and as we did with smallpox, to which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred.
We have grasped a fantastic opportunity here to make a real difference to the lives of those affected by these diseases. In 2013, the task is to finalise remaining programmes, monitor the portfolio closely, continue to promote integration and work with others to expand the donor base and endemic country commitment.
Noble Lords have pointed out that these are diseases of poverty and that we must tackle poverty across the board. They are right, and that is how we view this task. This is indeed about tackling poverty, and we welcome noble Lords’ contribution in this key area.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 65 to 70, which are grouped; there are some interesting Labour amendments in the same group, which we will discuss with interest. I completely misread the draft groupings when they were issued; I thought that the two stand part debates were part of this group. In practice, I think that it would be sensible if we discuss everything within this group; I will certainly do that and, I hope, we will have nothing else to discuss when we come to the stand part debates, but we will see, because it is impossible to talk about the amendments without talking about the overall principles.
Clause 14 makes provision for the right of people to apply to register land as a town or village green to be stopped by certain trigger mechanisms. In discussion on previous amendments, I referred to the nature of town and village greens, which are based on different law and principles from applications for planning permission, which the clause is really about.
There are two separate systems. There is the procedure for registering greens, which is set out in the commons legislation and which is based on an assessment of the facts on the ground. It either is or is not a green, according to the criteria to which I referred previously, which are that it must have been used by people for informal recreation for 20 years or more without permission, without hindrance, without force and without secrecy. If those conditions apply, a person can apply for it to be made into a green.
Planning permission is completely different; it falls under the Planning Acts. That is a request for permission to use land for a particular purpose, or to build on it, to develop on it, and bears no immediate relationship to the previous or existing use. The problem, and the reason for Clauses 13 and 14, is that it is claimed—with some justification, but less than some people are claiming—that people are making vexatious or frivolous applications to register land as village or town greens, applications that are without foundation, to delay or prevent a particular development. Many of the examples that have been cited concern housing. Little evidence for that has been provided. We have been provided with lists of places where it is alleged that that has taken place, but the evidence is, to put it mildly, a bit thin.
Having said that, I am not challenging the view that it is possible, or the fact that it has happened in some places. I am not challenging the view that it ought not to be possible to make vexatious and unfounded applications for this purpose. The question is how to find an appropriate solution to this problem. Quite a few of the examples that have been provided have been on land owned by the council or by a local authority. The fact that the situation has got to the stage where a green application has been made is essentially down to incompetence by that local authority. However, that is not necessarily a reason why it should succeed.
If we accept the principle that vexatious applications should not be allowed to get in the way of development, how can the Bill tackle it? The Penfold review of non-planning consents looked at this issue as one which was perhaps outside the planning system but which was delaying and possibly stopping development. The Penfold review suggested aligning—an important word—the green registration process, which is a non-planning process, with the planning system where active planning proposals on land existed and where people were making greens applications. It should be said that some of those green applications may have been triggered or stimulated by the planning application but were not necessarily wrong—but let us assume that we are dealing with vexatious applications.
At the beginning of consideration of this Bill Ministers stated quite clearly in briefings that it was their wish to align the planning system and the greens system. Unfortunately, this is not what the Bill does. It defines “trigger events” which are related to planning and the planning process, and which then immediately remove—that is to say, abolish—the rights of people under the green registration process. Instead of aligning the two processes and systems, the Bill is solving the problem simply by abolishing the system that is thought to be getting in the way.
Schedule 4 sets out the trigger events that will be involved. They are to do with either applications for planning permission or the publication of documents under the plan-making system. As far as planning permission is concerned, the trigger event is the moment at which the application is first publicised. A second trigger event is the moment that consent is given. This applies to either planning permission in the normal way or applications for development consent under the infrastructure planning system. There is a lack of logic here. If an event has been triggered by the application first being publicised, one wonders why a further triggering is required when planning permission is granted—but never mind. Those are the two stages at which the process is triggered. Under the plan-making system, the event is the publication of a development plan document or a neighbourhood plan; it is either the publication of a draft of those documents or the adoption of the plan.
My amendments to Schedule 4 look fairly complicated, but all they actually do is to put the trigger events on the adoption of a plan or the granting of planning permission or development consent. In other words, it is the final event in that process in which the land is then allocated for that purpose. I am not arguing that the green application process should not stop if land has active planning permission. As far as plans are concerned, I am not arguing that the green application process should stop if there is an adopted plan. It seems absolutely clear that under those circumstances that is reasonable. Where it seems unreasonable is where it is an initial stage in the process, where no notice is given of it and where people have no reasonable opportunity to know that it is going to happen—and it immediately stops. That does not align the greens process with the planning process; it simply stops the greens process in its track.
There are various ways, which I have not set out in detail in the amendments, in which the alignment of the process can take place: I think the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggest one or two. The green registration process is notoriously lengthy. I might exhibit some of my prejudices here but at the councils which deal with it, particularly county councils, some of the officers who work there—lawyers and bureaucrats, as I would call them, or administrators; I beg their pardon—seem to take an unconscionable length of time. The process of green registration could and should be speeded up.
Where a planning application is made or proposals are made in a plan, there should be a fast-track process and, in particular, a filtering process at the beginning of the stage where quite a few of them could simply be filtered out because they are obviously not going to succeed. I call in evidence an example in my own area where the land belonged to the district council, which was transferring the land to the county council for a new school. The land was a council-owned public recreation ground which clearly failed the tests as to whether it was a green. It was clearly going to fail. It could have been discarded at the first sifting process, if the green registration authority had felt able to do that.
There is a lot to be said for speeding up the green registration process generally, but it is not for this Bill. There is something to be said for changes to the system to deal with the problem of vexatious applications. It is my submission that that can be done very significantly through a change in procedure, process and regulations and does not need primary legislation. If there is to be primary legislation, it should do what the Penfold review proposed and what Ministers initially said the Government wanted to do. The two systems should be aligned rather than taking away people’s rights, which in a minority of cases will result in wrong decisions.
I believe there is a way forward. The amendments I have put forward are mainly to take out the undesirable parts of what is in this clause. I would like to consider this further and come back on Report with amendments that do what the Government want to do, but that do it without abolishing people’s ancient common law and statutory rights on green registration. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 64A, 66A, 69A, 70A, 70B and 70C in this group relating to Clause 14 and Schedule 4. As we have heard, Clause 14 provides that the right to register land as a green ceases on the occurrence of certain trigger events. Partially in response to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who was talking more broadly about whether the clause should stand part, I shall start by saying that I think we share the same analysis about the claim that there could be frivolous and vexatious use of these provisions to prevent development and that we are concerned about the lack of hard evidence. We agree that we should try to get a solution that limits the opportunity for those vexatious claims without impairing people’s long-standing rights to obtain town and village greens.
Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State the ability to disapply the triggers from a specific piece of land. Amendment 66A would put a requirement on the Secretary of State to set out in published criteria his reasons for choosing to do that. There may be pieces of land that should be exempt, but we need to be clear about what the instances are, not least because without that clarity we may not see any improvement in the current situation. Community groups will simply turn to the Secretary of State to exclude their piece of land from the triggers to lodge an application. This would be an ideal place to introduce consultation whereby local authorities, some of which have clearly had a number of issues with some town and village green applications, could set out examples of where a town or village green was rightly protected. Similarly, aggrieved community groups, which work extremely hard to protect spaces that they believe deserve protection, would have the chance to advise the Secretary of State of the circumstances that should lead to an exception from the triggers set out in Schedule 4.
Amendment 69A would take out of scope from the restrictions on registration circumstances where the green is in an area that is not covered by a local plan or neighbourhood development plan. Where a local or neighbourhood plan has been put in place and the community has been adequately consulted, the community is likely to have placed protections on its most valued green space. We accept that where there is a neighbourhood plan and there has been good consultation, this is likely to be the case. However, where this has not taken place the community will not have been through the process of identifying the areas it deems to be of most value. Without the amendment, communities could find that by the time they have their say on a local or neighbourhood plan, the precious spaces they want to protect have already been snapped up.
We wish to encourage neighbourhoods to put in place a neighbourhood plan, but there simply has not been time for them to do that since the Localism Act 2011 was enacted. When creating previous plans, parish councils may not have considered the issue in enough detail. It is important that local communities have the opportunity and enough time to identify sites they wish to protect. They can then decide which process is most appropriate for them. We want to move to a situation where those pieces of land are designated under a neighbourhood plan process and, in the mean time, we want to make sure that all communities are able to use the registration processes that are in place at the moment. Local plans are intended to ensure that we get development in the right places and with community support. To take the right to protect land away from communities before the plan-making process has even begun is no way to foster their trust. We do not want to stop vexatious applications being identified; however, we want to ensure that communities that have not yet identified those very special open spaces are not prevented from being able to protect them simply because they do not know that they are under threat.
Amendments 70A, 70B and 70C deal with the trigger events in Schedule 4. When one of the eight trigger events that are set out in the schedule takes place regarding a piece of land, that land can no longer be registered as a town or village green. The amendments would remove three triggers that we think go too far; I think we have common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on that.
Amendment 70A would remove the publication of a draft development plan as one of the triggers. A draft development plan will not necessarily have been through all the processes of consultation. Simply having a draft plan in place should not prevent communities being able to bring forward an application for a village green. The draft plan would simply highlight to communities that the site may be at risk from development and enable community members to put their views forward. It is much too early in the development process to rule out the opportunity to propose a particular piece of land. Amendment 70B would remove the publication of a draft neighbourhood development plan as a trigger for exactly the same reasons. Amendment 70C would remove an application for development consent as a trigger.
All three amendments relate to events that do not have to be public, and to documents that might not have been consulted on. The whole point of consultation over a draft plan or planning application is to ensure that the community is on board, and to see if more suitable changes can be made. As such, consultation is an important stage and should not be bypassed by any trigger event.
We also want to ensure that whatever process we end up with, and whatever trigger prevents are in place to prevent the registration of village greens, there is proper consultation on them through neighbourhood plans, local plans or applications for development consent. We do not want to deprive communities of the right to submit a village green application in the large number of instances outlined in Schedule 4. We know that there is a need to rationalise the process somewhat, but Schedule 4 goes much too far in denigrating the rights of local communities.
The three trigger events covered by the amendments are tantamount to saying that consultation together with development consent through documents is nothing more than due process. Otherwise, we have no idea why they are included in the list of trigger events. In reality, it is hardly unknown that a piece of land indentified for development in a draft plan is removed when the public are able to express their views. Often enough, a replacement piece of land can be indentified instead.
On where we have ended up with our amendments to Schedule 4, we are aligned with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, except to the extent that his trigger events are the granting of planning permission and ours are the application. Of course, we need to take account of terminating events themselves—that is, the application being withdrawn or a decision to grant that permission.
In conclusion, whether we have got this all right is a matter of debate. We would be more than happy to work with the noble Lord if he is going to review this further, to see if there is a better way of dealing with it. We all want to stop vexatious claims which prevent development that a community would support, but hold on to those precious rights to establish town and village greens.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, the previous two speakers seem to have included the stand part debate in this group of amendments, so if the Committee will permit it, I will do the same. I speak on the stand part Motion from the point of view of a planning applicant.
First, I am a firm believer in the importance of open spaces for the health and happiness of our nation and our communities. Our love of and need for such open land and our access to it is part of what makes us British. It has been proven that the existence of such open land is a considerable factor in promoting good health and well-being. So we must keep our open spaces as much for our heritage as for the social, environmental and even economic benefits that they bring.
Thus, leaving aside existing town and village greens, and referring to currently unclaimed rights, it is absolutely proper that the fact that people have used a piece of land, or claim that they do, for open access or other activities should be taken into consideration during a planning process. However, I also believe that such claims need to be put into context.
In my experience of our planning system—again, I repeat my interests as a farmer and landowner, and someone who is thus usually a planning applicant—I have found that during any proposal for development, or a proposal to try to drive forward an agenda for economic or social change, there is inevitably an inherent fear of change among the locals and, either genuinely or disingenuously, every enthusiast in the neighbourhood turns up to insist that his or her speciality or special interest is given priority over every other matter. Sometimes these specialists can even be part of the Government; it could be a conservation officer who has personal views about the landscape or about the importance of anything from Georgian windows to Victorian chimneys. It could be a badger specialist or a newt expert, or it could be about bats, which are seen as a vital thing that must be preserved at all costs, although we certainly seem to have enough of them now. Alternatively, there was a case recently near me where Natural England caused an important local development, involving the provision of a much needed school as well as much needed housing, to falter because of dormice. I am glad to say that differences were eventually resolved, but only at a cost.
Equally, the all-important priority for some people is energy, either energy saving or even renewable energy. In the latter case, of course, it is less likely to be a desire to include it than a desire to oppose the means of generating it. Then again, it may be the absence of public transport and available access that is the make-or-break factor in some people’s minds. We have all heard of developments being condemned as unsustainable because they are not served by public transport or because the social services find them difficult to access. It may be a public footpath, or the loss of good agricultural land that is absolutely crucial in the mind of the person putting the idea forward. Of course, there is always flood defence or, as we discussed on Monday, excessive demands for affordable housing. The list of special interests—they really are special interests in people’s minds—goes on and on. Of course, village greens must be included in this list.
All of the above, and no doubt others, are vital in their place, and when you list them it is a wonder any development ever takes place in this country at all. Noble Lords who listened to the debate yesterday on how to “unbecalm” our national economy will be aware that the delays caused by our planning system tended to crop up, mostly focusing on the complications, demands and delays of getting anything done by both small and big businesses.
With regard to Clause 14, it is important that the developer and the local planners address all these “overriding imperatives”. Furthermore, as the world changes, the priority of these imperatives will inevitably chop and change. Thus personally, and here I come to the nub, I think that we need to think very seriously indeed before we allow any of these imperatives to be compulsory or statutory show-stoppers. I am not talking about our protected areas, or even existing town and village greens. But as regards aspirational greens, surely it is up to the planning committee, or even the Secretary of State, to decide what is important in each and every instance. Maybe the problem can be dealt with in another way; maybe if the open space went somewhere else, we could enlarge or even enhance it. We all have to realise that for any approved greenfield, or even brownfield, site development, somebody’s valuable piece of England will have had to be sacrificed—one hopes for considerable social or economic gain. That is what planning controls are all about. Even heritage is not completely sacrosanct. For example, there is the moving of Abu Simbel to allow the flooding of Lake Aswan; it could be said that it is better now than it was before, although I am not proposing that we move any of our historic heritage gems. I am just saying that sometimes it is necessary to think outside the box and a statutory show-stopper will automatically prevent that happening.
It is vital that aspirational town and village greens should form an important feature of the planning system, and they could indeed continue to remain show-stoppers in certain cases if the planning committee so thinks. However, they should not have overriding statutory priority without taking into account all the other priorities that might pertain to a particular development proposal. It is the balancing of all the democratic wishes and needs, both local and central, that planning should always be about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has just said, the stand part debates have suddenly morphed into this other group, which was not small initially and is now even larger.
I wish to make a few brief comments on the clause stand part debate because it is important to put what we are talking about into context. The process to register land as a town or village green can cut across decisions taken in the democratically accountable planning system. Applications to register land as a green can, and have, delayed or prevented development. We have heard, for example, about the implications of this for the affordable homes needed in our communities. Clause 14 addresses these concerns by aligning the process for registering greens with the planning system. Without this clause and the linked Schedule 4, the greens registration system will remain at odds with planning. This would mean that applications to register land as a green could continue to be made on land where planning permission has been granted or which has been identified for development in an adopted local plan or neighbourhood plan. Additionally, applications to register land as a green could cut across consultation with the local community on draft local and neighbourhood plans and planning applications, including those seeking consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects.
At Second Reading there was considerable support for these reforms. Indeed, we were urged to look at more radical changes. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, considered the problem in relation to planning to be small-scale and said that Clause 14 was an overreaction. He has reiterated that today. However, this clause has been widely supported, including by the Local Government Association, whose member councils bear the responsibilities for planning and determining applications for town and village greens. The association said that these reforms are essential to align the greens registration system with the planning system. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned Adrian Penfold, who also gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee. He said modestly that what is in the Bill is a better way of dealing with the problem than he himself came up with in the review of non-planning consents that the previous Government commissioned him to lead.
The proposed reforms do not drive a coach and horses through the ability of communities to protect open land which is important to them; rather, the changes are a proportionate response to a serious problem. They strike the right balance and put decisions on the future of land where they should be taken—in the planning system, which provides an opportunity for everyone to have their say and for all relevant considerations to be taken into account.
I shall deal with the amendments as briefly as I can but there are an awful lot of them. In order to align the registration of town and village greens with the planning system, Clause 14 and Schedule 4 to this Bill insert into the Commons Act 2006 a new Section 15C and corresponding Schedule 1A. The new legislation will not affect existing registered greens, which will continue to enjoy the same strong protection as they currently have. Nor is it our intention that the changes will affect applications to register land as a town or village green where there is no proposed development on the land in question. Equally importantly, the reforms have been carefully drafted to ensure that where an application to carry out development has been considered and rejected, and any appeal rights have run their course, an application to register the land as a green can be considered in the normal way. Each of Amendments 64 to 70C would significantly weaken the proposed reforms to align the village green legislation with the planning system. The combined effect would negate most of what these reforms are intended to achieve. I will explain the damaging consequences of each amendment in turn.
Amendments 70, 70A, 70B and 70C concern Schedule 4, and I shall deal with them first. Amendment 70 would remove the trigger events in Schedule 4 that exclude greens applications when a planning application, or a draft local or neighbourhood plan, is formally publicised for consultation. Instead, the only trigger events would be later in the planning process, when a decision had been taken to grant planning permission, to adopt a local plan or to make a neighbourhood plan that identified land for potential development.
Amendment 70A would have the same effect as Amendment 70 in relation to local plans because it would mean that applications to register land as a town or village green could be made when a draft local plan was being consulted on. We have the same concern about Amendment 70B, whereby a town or village green application could be made where a draft neighbourhood plan was published for consultation. Amendment 70C would have a similar effect to Amendment 70, by removing the protection from town or village green applications that we intend to give to major infrastructure projects between the time when a proposed infrastructure application is publicised and, if that application is accepted by the Secretary of State, an application is publicised again. The trigger events proposed in the Bill were carefully chosen to occur when formal publicity and consultation is undertaken in relation to both planning applications and draft plans. This is the right approach because it will protect both decision-making by democratically accountable local authorities and the ability of communities to engage in meaningful consultation on whether land should be developed or kept open.
Amendment 70 would mean that a town or village green application could be made at any time up to when a decision is made on a planning application, an application under the nationally significant infrastructure regime or a draft plan. Amendments 70A, 70B and 70C would have a similar effect. This would cast into real doubt whether a development proposal could be delivered, and would cause significant delays to development proceeding, if that was the eventual decision taken in the planning process. These amendments cut across meaningful consultation in planning. They would mean that an application to register land as a green could be used to undermine a local community’s ability to engage on whether an area should be developed or kept open, taking account of the need for new homes, work places and infrastructure, as well as concerns such as ensuring sufficient recreation space.
It is absolutely right that people should be able to argue their case that a site should be protected as open space. They can look for support to the National Planning Policy Framework, which gives strong protection for open spaces. The framework also includes the new “local green space” designation, which communities, through local and neighbourhood plans, will be able to use to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance. The appropriate way for people to engage in planning is to use the opportunity that consultation affords, while respecting that others in the community may disagree just as passionately and wish to present different evidence about what decisions on the future use of land would be in the overall public interest. It is our intention, when the outcome of the planning process is a decision not to develop land, that the reforms will not then prevent people applying to register the land as a green.
Amendment 64 would mean that applications could be made to register land as a green up to six months after a trigger event has occurred. The effect would be that even when there was a planning permission, you would have to wait another six months before you could be sure that the development would not be delayed further or even stopped altogether by an application to register land as a green. Equally, where land is identified for potential development in a plan, the community would be penalised by a further six months of uncertainty, despite the fact that the proposals had been through a process of independent examination. In both cases, proposals would have been subject to consultation and careful consideration, but the final determination could be undermined by a registration application. The amendment would be unfair to everyone who benefits from development and would produce an unnecessary threat hanging over delivery of the homes and economic growth that is so urgently needed.
Amendment 64A relates to trigger events in the schedule concerning applications for planning permission or development consent, and would mean that an application for a town or village green could be made at any time up to eight weeks after a planning application or an application for development consent had been made. This would cut across consultation in the same way as Amendment 70 and, for the reasons I have explained, we consider that Amendment 64A is equally flawed.
Amendment 66A would require the Secretary of State to consult on any occasion when he made an order to change the particular circumstances in which a town or village green application could go ahead when it would otherwise have been prevented because a trigger event had occurred. The Government recognise the importance of consultation. Equally, however, it is important to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. This amendment would mean that the Government would have to consult, however small the change. Consultation is not free and it may not be necessary. We believe that future Secretaries of State should have discretion to decide when it is appropriate to consult and not have their hand forced, with the potential waste of resources that would ensue.
Amendments 65 to 68 would, together, remove new Section 15C(3) to (5) and 15C(7), which provide for secondary legislation enabling the Secretary of State to amend or refine the provisions relating to town and village greens. Instead, any changes that may be needed, however minor and uncontroversial, would have to be introduced through primary legislation.
The order-making powers are important for several reasons. The aim of new Section 15C(3) is simply to give a power to specify the point at which an event had occurred if in practice there was thought to be ambiguity —for example, arising from any future legislative change. Amendment 65 would prevent such uncontroversial and necessary changes.
New Section 15C(4) gives a power to disapply the exclusion of green applications in relation to a specified trigger event, if necessary in the light of circumstances on the ground. Amendment 66 would prevent this.
Amendments 67 and 68 would remove the power contained in new Section 15C(5) and (7) to add to, remove or amend by order any of the trigger or terminating events. However, Clause 14 and Schedule 4 were constructed to encompass only the main planning processes that were included in our 2011 consultation on the reforms to the green registration system. Additionally, we have sought to include in the Bill only the main terminating events. Evidence submitted in the Commons pointed to the need for additional terminating events to ensure that all outcomes in plan-making are covered and that we avoid the situation where the exclusion on green applications fails to lift even where there is no longer an active development proposal. That would be contrary to our policy and I do not believe that it would be something that my noble friend Lord Greaves would want.
With the background that I have just set out, I wish to advise noble Lords of the Government’s intention, if the Bill is enacted, to consult on setting additional trigger and terminating events in relation to development brought forward through other planning procedures—namely, in relation to local development orders, neighbourhood development orders and Transport and Works Act orders. The consultation will also propose additional terminating events to deal with situations which are unlikely to be common but which may arise in local and neighbourhood plan-making, such as where a local plan is found to be unsound but is not withdrawn.
In saying that, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the Government will respond positively to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that new Section 15C(5) should be subject to the affirmative procedure. An amendment will be brought forward on Report to secure this. Consequently, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise any draft order brought forward in the light of the public consultation.
Amendment 69 would mean that trigger events that occurred before commencement would not have the effect of excluding applications to register land as a green. Consequently, applications could be made on any land on which planning permission had already been granted, even where development had started. Similarly, land identified for development in all existing local plans and those to be adopted in the months before commencement would be vulnerable. Applications to register land as a green in such circumstances would be unfair on all who had invested time and expense in making and responding to planning applications and engaging in plan-making. As with other amendments to this clause, Amendment 69 would hold a threat of delay or derailment over all planned and urgently needed development and growth throughout the country, and that cannot be reasonable or right.
Finally, Amendment 69A would limit the provisions of Clause 14 and Schedule 4 to areas where there is an adopted local plan or neighbourhood development plan. Outside these areas, this amendment would mean applications to register land as a town or village green could be made where a draft local or neighbourhood plan was being consulted on, or where a planning application was being considered. This would mean that in these situations the decision about the future use of land would not be taken through the plan-making process but could instead be decided via the back of an application to register land as a green. For the reasons that I have set out, this would severely undermine the reforms.
We are now seeing good progress made in local plan-making and an encouraging take-up of neighbourhood planning. But not everywhere has an adopted local plan and nowhere yet has a neighbourhood plan. Why in such areas should people engaging in shaping plans have the threat hanging over them that their efforts could be completely undone? For the reasons I have explained, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, at the heart of this matter is a fundamental difference of view, which I shall turn to in a minute. I thank the Minister for replying in great detail to the amendments, most of which I did not speak to specifically. I discarded my notes on those because I thought I had spoken for long enough. I had listened to myself for long enough even if other people had not. I am very grateful to her for doing that, because it gives me something to go away and read carefully. Many of them were probing amendments to find out what the Government really meant by them. I am grateful for the offer from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to have further discussions on this. I hope that we might have further discussions all round.
There may be agreement between the two Front Benches, but there is a wish, certainly on the part of the Minister and I thought there might be on the part of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to bring the registration of greens, as part of the process of deciding the future of land, into the planning process. The Minister has said that quite clearly on several occasions. She talked about the decisions on the future of land not being bypassed by the registration process and so on.
My submission is that there are two separate systems and that the registration of greens is not part of the planning process because, as clearly set out in the commons legislation, it is a question of the establishment of fact and not a question of what, as a matter of opinion or a matter of planning policy, ought to happen. That is the difference. There are two quite separate processes based on different principles and different legislation. One goes back to commons law, as set out in commons legislation, and the other is the planning legislation which is relatively recent, dating mainly from 1948.
There is a difference of view here. It seems to me that the Government are saying that the planning process, or the ability of communities collectively to make a decision about pieces of land, should always trump the commons registration and greens registration process. I think that they should come out openly and honestly and say so and then we can have that argument. They ought not to be pushing it through as one element of a rag-bag miscellaneous Bill of bits and pieces gathered from all sorts of places. At the moment, we have a problem with a meeting of minds because we come from quite separate areas. Perhaps that can be thought about and talked about further.
Of course, there are practical dangers in what is being proposed. It will be two months after the passing of this legislation—assuming it is passed—that it will commence. During those two months people might start rushing in with registration applications. I do not know whether they will, but they might if they know what is going on.
I have one question for the Minister. I am not sure that I know the answer to it. What happens if a piece of land is subject to a registration for a village green—if an application goes in—and somebody makes a planning application after that? Is making a planning application after an application has been made to register a green a way of trumping it completely? That would run a coach and horses through the entire system set out in Section 15 of the Commons Act. I should like that question answered.
I agreed with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said about the planning system. The purpose of the system is to balance different interests and make a decision. I do not disagree with any of that, and I agree that many of the people who come forward on planning applications have special interests—in particular the people who go out hunting for natterjack toads, great crested newts, various sorts of obscure bats and types of birds of which I have never heard. That always happens. A sensible planning system deals with all that. With respect to the noble Lord, it seemed that what he said was not relevant to this discussion because the green registration system is not part of the planning system. If he and other noble Lords say that it should be and want to change the system, that is a different argument. There would be some big arguments all over the place about that.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
Surely that is the whole point of this clause—to make sure that this problem is addressed by the planning system so that it does not become the statutory show-stopper that it currently is. The noble Lord talked about looking at this from two separate points of view. We are looking at it from that point of view; that is the whole point of the clause.
Lord Greaves
I understand that that may be the purpose of it, at least in certain circumstances—and I agree that it is a show-stopper at the moment. If a piece of land is found to be a green, and if the application is legitimate, that trumps the planning system; there is no doubt about that. If noble Lords do not want that to happen, they should change the system. However, this clause does not do what the noble Lord wants, and it does not do what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested that the local planning system should do. There is no way, through a local plan-making system—whether it is a neighbourhood plan or a local plan—to deliver a new green, because that is not part of the planning system. No one can state in a neighbourhood plan, “This will be a village green”, or, “This will be a town green”, unless the owners of the land want to dedicate it as such. Otherwise, no one can do it because the systems are not aligned, or part and parcel of the same process, so the plan-making system will not deliver a green—particularly through a planning application. If a planning application comes in, somebody may come in with an objection and say, “I think that this is a village green because I have kicked a ball about on it for the past 45 years”, but that cannot be dealt with as part of the planning application because it would not be a material consideration. A planning application cannot be turned down on the grounds that something is a village green; it is just not part and parcel of the planning system.
I am in favour of aligning the systems much more than they are now. I am in favour of speeding up the green registration system and making it more modern, and certainly more efficient, than it is now—but this clause does not do it. What it does is abolish the rights that people have under the triggering mechanisms. Having said all that, I will read with great interest exactly what the noble Baroness said. Perhaps we may be able to find at the very least a way forward for Report which improves the proposals that have been made, does away with some of the possible unintended consequences and achieves a degree of consensus. On that basis, I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“Deregistration and exchange of land
(1) The Commons Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 16(1) for “appropriate national authority” substitute “registration authority”.
(3) In section 17(1) for “national” substitute “registration”.
(4) In section 17(1) for “an order requiring the commons registration authority” substitute “the necessary changes”.
(5) In section 17(7) for “An order under this section may contain” substitute “A registration authority may make”.”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I promise that this will take substantially less time than the last amendment. This proposed new clause is about the deregistration and exchange of land. It is a very simple point, but it seems entirely in tune with what we have been arguing for for some time—a decentralisation of a lot of these decisions.
Commons legislation already provides that village greens and land can be deregistered. Where the green is significant, you have to provide alternative land. “Significant” is not very big: it is only 200 square metres. That is only 20 metres by 10 metres, which is not very large, but you have to find and agree replacement land. Land can be deregistered, but it requires the approval of the Secretary of State.
That degree of centralisation is now quite unreasonable. Of course it is not the Secretary of State: it goes straight to the Planning Inspectorate from whom there is no appeal except by way of judicial review at enormous expense. This is a decision that could be fairly and properly left to local authorities. That is what the proposed new clause is intended to achieve. I hope that noble Lords find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, my noble friend laid out the position exactly as it is: the Secretary of State has to reply to an order for land to be deregistered. He also told the House about the release of land where it exceeds 200 square metres in area. The application must include a proposal for other land. If the release land is smaller than 200 square metres, a proposal for replacement land may, but need not, be included.
Commons and greens are a national asset and an important part of our national heritage and culture. They provide open spaces for access and recreation and deliver important benefits for the country. The importance that this Government attach to common land means that any application to deregister commons and greens under Section 16 of the 2006 Act is of national significance. That is why the Secretary of State is responsible for determining Section 16 applications. The function has been carried out by the Planning Inspectorate on his behalf since Section 16 was commenced.
The Planning Inspectorate acts independently and must have regard to the interests of the persons having rights in relation to, or occupying, the release land and in particular persons exercising rights of common over it.
The Secretary of State has reserved his right to recover jurisdiction and takes a close interest in applications where the exchange of land is required for transport, communications or energy infrastructure proposals. The amendment tabled by my noble friend to transfer the function from the Secretary of State to commons registration authorities is made on the basis that such decisions are best made by those commons registration authorities.
Since Section 16 was commenced in October 2007, 27 decisions have been made by the Planning Inspectorate, which equates to around five a year. The commons registration authorities would therefore need to develop more expertise. Commons registration authorities have experience of determining applications to register new greens, but there is no discretion in such applications.
An important issue is what happens when a commons registration authority owns the land for which Section 16 deregistration is sought. There could be some doubt among local people as to whether the authority could demonstrate that it was completely impartial. The rule for other applications under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006, set out in the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008, is that where the commons registration authority has an interest in the outcome of an application, the application must be referred to the Planning Inspectorate for determination. There remain some questions as to how my noble friend’s amendment would provide that reassurance of impartiality.
However, assuming the commons registration authority was to hold its own inquiry, it remains to be seen how it would be quicker and cheaper than is currently the case. Data held by Defra suggest that on average commons registration authorities take between nine and 16 months to process applications under Section 15 to register new greens, which is reasonably comparable in terms of process and is no shorter than the average of nine months that the Planning Inspectorate presently takes for Section 16 applications. Moreover, the estimated average cost of public inquiries ranges between £17,000 and £44,000, which is significantly more than the average cost of £11,200 presently incurred by the Planning Inspectorate.
With those remarks, I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I will want to take advice on what my noble friend has said. It sounds as if it is a lot more complex than perhaps I had appreciated, and I shall certainly look at it very carefully. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.