House of Commons
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had with civil society groups on the effect of the Work programme on their organisations.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
I have regular discussions with organisations that deliver the Work programme. I recognise that they operate in a challenging environment, but I salute their collective early success in getting more than 200,000 long-term unemployed people into work, as I am sure does the hon. Lady.
Sandra Osborne
I thank the Minister for that response. A recent report by the Work and Pensions Committee on the Work programme found that many voluntary sector organisations that are listed as sub-contractors do not consider themselves to be involved at all, leading to suspicions that specialist organisations are being used as “bid candy”, rather than to deliver services. What will the Minister do to ensure that such charities are treated fairly?
Mr Hurd
It is for the Department for Work and Pensions to respond to that report; my role is to ensure that the relevant Minister understands the concerns of the voluntary sector. We should recognise that more than 350 voluntary sector organisations in the supply chain are doing incredibly valuable work to get long-term unemployed people back into work. My other role is to ensure that we learn the lessons from that programme in forthcoming payment-by-results programmes, not least in the transforming rehabilitation and probation programme.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend noted the figures from the Department for Work and Pensions that show that voluntary and community based organisations, such as Whitwick Community Enterprises in my constituency, make up the largest proportion of workplace providers under the Work programme at 47%?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Surely the Minister knows that New Philanthropy Capital has advised the Government not to repeat the mistakes of the Work programme. What lessons will he learn so that those mistakes are not repeated and so that third sector organisations and charities that want to help unemployed people are encouraged to do so?
Mr Hurd
I do not necessarily recognise that mistakes have been made. Payment-by-results is a tough and challenging regime, but each exercise will be different and the process will evolve. It is a better regime than paying for failure and mediocrity, which is what the Labour Government did. The next test is the probation reforms. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the detail of what the Ministry of Justice has produced, he will see that lessons have been learned on having more contracts, paying much more attention to how the supply chain is managed and investing in capacity building in the voluntary sector so that it can do more.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of counter-fraud activities across Government.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The National Fraud Authority estimates that the public purse loses more than £20 billion a year to fraud. That figure has been far too high for far too long. Last year, the Departments that engaged with the cross-Government taskforce that I chair saved an estimated £5.9 billion. However, we know that there is much more to do.
Stephen Barclay
I pay tribute to the Minister for the billions of pounds of cross-departmental savings that he has achieved. In targeting that £20 billion, I urge him to look again at the risk-averse legal advice in Whitehall that is stopping data-sharing between the public and private sectors, because fraudsters who commit fraud against the private sector often do so against the public purse.
Mr Maude
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, for his interest in this area and, more generally, for the brilliant forensic work he does on the Public Accounts Committee to protect the taxpayer’s interest. He is right about the legal advice that is often given in this complex area of law, which is a mishmash of common law and statutory provisions. There are many opportunities to share data, which would protect privacy but promote the public interest by saving money. We need to look at that area and have a rather more open approach.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Will the Minister also consider the proposal to establish a register of private sector companies in receipt of public sector contracts that have been involved in fraud?
Mr Maude
I will certainly consider that. We need to get much better at sharing information about fraud and attempted fraud both within the private sector and between the public and private sectors. That has been done far too little, but we are getting better at it. There is still much to do and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s thoughts.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
3. What steps he is taking to ensure that charities are able to bid for public sector contracts.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
It is Government policy to dismantle the barriers facing small companies, charities and voluntary organisations to ensure they can compete for contracts on a level playing field. We have taken a number of significant steps specifically to support charities and social enterprises to bid for and win public sector contracts, such as the implementation of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, a community right to challenge, and reforms of procurement processes that make them more open and fair to charities.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Foundation for Social Improvement today reports:
“Looking to the future of the commissioning process, it is clear that the current situation is not sustainable. Only around one quarter of respondents indicated that they felt they could carry on bidding for—and carrying out—local authority contracts over the next 5 years.”
Is it true that the Government’s plan to break open public services is merely benefiting a handful of large companies that use charities as “bid candy”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said, and as the report concludes?
Miss Smith
As the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) made clear in an earlier answer, many charitable organisations are already taking part and there are opportunities for more. What I take from the hon. Gentleman’s question is his willingness to work with me and others who care about making procurement better throughout the whole public sector, and encouraging local authorities to do their bit alongside the reforms we have achieved in central Government.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I applaud the Government’s steps to encourage charities to win public sector contracts, but does my hon. Friend believe there is a threshold to the proportion of income that charities receive from the public sector, above which they stop becoming charities because they are merely agencies of the state?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and it may be just as much the responsibility of trustees of an organisation to look at such issues within that organisation. The Government welcome the diversity of the sector and the opening up of Government procurement to those who can do the job well for value for money.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Justice Secretary is a man who appears to be in something of a hurry. The Minister may be aware of growing concern among small voluntary organisations that provide services to ex-offenders that under the Justice Secretary’s plans their work will be undermined as large contracts are given to a small number of private providers. What reassurance can be given to those important small charities?
Miss Smith
The right hon. Gentleman may wish to direct that question to the Justice Secretary himself, but the Parliamentary Secretary has had many discussions with Members across Government about opportunities for the voluntary sector, and we are passionate about getting that right.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
In strongly applauding my hon. Friend’s work in this area, may I suggest that it needs to go beyond the procurement process itself? The other danger is public sector bodies—both locally and centrally—taking on employees to do work that could be done more effectively by voluntary sector organisations.
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the value for money that the state would seek to achieve at all levels. Alongside that, our reforms include measures to build the capability of the third sector, which I am sure we would all want to see strongly succeed.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Is it clear that not only have the Government failed to deliver more public sector contracts to charities, but after three years in office the big society project has now become a shrivelled society, except in one area—charitable activity and supporting people whom the hon. Lady’s Government have driven into poverty? More than 13 million people are now in poverty, two thirds of whom are in work.
Miss Smith
I thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome the notion that more charities are getting involved and more people are volunteering. Surely that is a good thing.
Jon Trickett
It is a sad thing. In the past year, the number of people dependent on food banks tripled to almost 350,000, of whom—listen to this figure—126,889 are children. There is no doubt that the Minister is a decent human being, but did she really come into politics to increase the scale of the third sector on the back of a disgraceful rise in the number of children in poverty? Is she ashamed of that record?
Miss Smith
What I am ashamed of is the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to turn an important issue into a political football. Like many others in the House, I have stood alongside excellent volunteers at food banks in my constituency. I applaud their efforts, their goodheartedness and their contribution, but I do not applaud his blindness to the notion that the use of food banks in fact soared under the previous Labour Government.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the growth of the National Citizen Service.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
The National Citizen Service is a fantastic opportunity for our young constituents to make a difference in the community and to develop really valuable skills. Demand is growing rapidly, so we are making 50,000 places available this year and 90,000 in 2014.
Andrew Stephenson
I frequently meet with the Challenge Network, which is the principal provider of the NCS in Pendle, and I am looking forward to taking part in a “Dragons’ Den” exercise with it later this year. Will my hon. Friend say what the outcomes are for young people who have so far taken part in the NCS programme?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for his positive engagement with the programme. As he would expect, we commissioned independent research on its impact, and it tells us that so far we are getting £2 of value for every £1 of public money we spend. The most significant impact has been on what might be called work-ready skills: in particular, helping young people to develop confidence and teamwork, leadership and communication skills, all of which are very important in the workplace.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Youth work budgets have been slashed throughout the country, but the amount the Government are spending on a six-week programme for 16-year-olds would fund a 52-week-a-year service for 13 to 19-year-olds. Will the Minister rethink the NCS and instead put the money into a year-round youth service?
Mr Hurd
I think the hon. Lady should speak to her Front-Bench team, who recently said they were not against the NCS. I think they saw the numbers on the very positive impact it has on young people, and I hope she will support that too. Youth services around the country do not have to be cut. There are lots of other options for local authorities—to mutualise, to look at other delivery models—and we stand ready to support them in that.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
5. What progress he has made on abolishing quangos.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
To date, the number of public bodies has been reduced by more than 240, through abolitions and mergers, and by the end of the spending review period in March 2015, the Government will have reduced their total number by a third.
Stephen Phillips
I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has managed to achieve so far, but how will he ensure that we never see the explosion in the number of these unaccountable bodies that we saw under the last Government?
Mr Hurd
That is absolutely the right question, and part of the answer is that in the future any new proposal for creating a public body will have to get the approval of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and I think I can reliably inform the House that the answer would likely be no. Furthermore, in the future, every public body will be subject to triennial reviews set up to justify their continued existence. It is about changing the culture that we inherited from the last Government.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
One set of so-called quangos that was immediately abolished were the very accountable regional development agencies, and since then regional assistance has noticeably been a pale shadow of what it was. What steps is the Cabinet Office taking to audit the effectiveness with which the subsequent bodies—the regional growth fund, the local enterprise partnerships—are delivering regeneration to areas that desperately need it, such as mine in north Staffordshire?
Mr Hurd
I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s question, particularly in relation to exactly whom the RDAs were accountable to. I do not think that anyone is weeping for their absence, and I think that he should give LEPs a chance. My impression is that they are doing increasingly valuable work. We have new city deals and a whole new era of localism, with more and more decisions being taken locally and accountable to the communities they serve. I hope he will welcome that.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
6. What steps he is taking to encourage co-operatives and mutuals to provide public services.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The Government are committed to supporting public service mutuals in providing public services. We know that mutuals can bring significant efficiencies that benefit not only public service users and the taxpayer, but the staff who form them. Our mutuals support programme is tracking more than 120 emerging and established public service mutuals across 13 different sectors.
Jesse Norman
Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, in line with the original Rochdale principles, co-operatives should be politically neutral and not make contributions to political parties?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister talks about supporting mutuals. What is he doing actively to encourage them to apply for public services, especially at year-end, when they do not give large bonuses to executive and non-executive directors?
Mr Maude
I do not entirely see the connection between those two phenomena. We actively encourage groups of public sector workers to come together to form new entities that continue to deliver public services, but on a contractual basis, not a line-managed, bureaucratic basis. I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a lot of interest in the public sector. Many entrepreneurial leaders are looking for the opportunity to lead the service in an innovative and less-restricted way.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current difficulties at the Co-operative bank should in no way deflect the Government from the coalition agreement to promote greater corporate diversity in Britain?
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
On the Government’s support of co-operatives and mutuals, what discussions have taken place with colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change on support for co-operative and mutual energy in the Energy Bill?
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
7. What plans he has to reform the procedure for the appointment of permanent secretaries of Government Departments.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The Government wish to strengthen the role of Ministers in permanent secretary appointments to reflect Ministers’ accountability to Parliament for the performance of their Departments. We believe it sensible to allow a choice of candidates who are judged by the Civil Service Commission to be above the line and appointable. The Civil Service Commission’s recent guidance is capable of strengthening the Minister’s role. We will review how it works before deciding whether to seek further changes.
Mr Bradshaw
Does the Minister agree with the two recent excellent reports from the Institute of Government and the Institute for Public Policy Research, which say that for there to be proper accountability Secretaries of State must have a say in who runs their Department, albeit from a shortlist agreed in the normal way? Will he reassure us that, contrary to press reports, he is not caving in to the mandarins on this vital reform?
Mr Maude
I do not think that that is a phenomenon that would be recognised in Whitehall. The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. The relationship between permanent secretary and Minister is very important. Ministers are accountable in this place for their Department, and it seems to us to make sense—it clearly makes sense to him, too—that a Minister should be given a choice of candidates, as long as they are deemed to be politically impartial and capable of doing the job properly.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for encouraging a lively debate on the leadership of the senior civil service, not least because senior appointments have led to a great deal of churn and discontinuity at the top of Government Departments in recent years. May I also congratulate him on publishing the IPPR report? We look forward to him coming before the Public Administration Committee to discuss it.
Mr Maude
I look forward to one of my regular attendances at my hon. Friend’s Committee with barely concealed impatience. I am grateful for the interest he and his Committee take in this important area. I would like to take the opportunity, while answering this question, to pay tribute to so many hard working civil servants who do a fantastic job, and to the support that so many of them have given to the programme of reform we have set in train.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
My departmental responsibilities include responsibility for public service efficiency and reform groups, civil service issues, industrial relations strategy in the public sector, transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.
Stephen Metcalfe
What steps will my right hon. Friend take to accelerate the pace of efficiency savings in Whitehall, and what further action will he take to slice out the accumulated waste of the previous Government?
Mr Maude
I was able to announce a couple of weeks ago that in the last financial year, 2012-13, we made over £10 billion of efficiency savings. It is a pity that it has taken so long to get on with this. If the present Leader of the Opposition had started on the process when he was in my position, the country’s public finances would now be in a much better state.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The single biggest source of new social finance for charities and social enterprises would be a UK community investment Act that required banks to lend into areas that they are not currently lending into. Why are the Government blocking such reforms?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
I think that is the first Labour policy announcement I have heard in three years. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, this country is the acknowledged world leader in developing a new source of finance for social organisations. It is called social investment, and it was the subject of a special meeting of the G8 this week, at which everyone stood up and said that Britain was recognised as a world leader in this regard, not least because of our creation of big society capital, which has £600 million on its balance sheet, to make it easier for charities and social enterprises to access capital.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
T2. Too often, Government Departments exist in their own silos and fail to share services and skills. What steps is the Minister taking to address that and to ensure that that silo mentality stops?
Mr Maude
Way back in 2004, Sir Peter Gershon recommended the introduction of shared services to try to break down that silo mentality and to make efficiency savings. For eight years very little happened, but we are now breaking through and making big progress on legal services, on internal audit and on back-office, transactional, human resources and finance services. There is much more to do, however, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
T6. Bolton community and volunteer services have congratulated Bolton council on preserving funding for the voluntary sector, but projects are still at risk owing to rising costs, increasing demand and reduced access to funding. What will the Minister do to save community and voluntary sector projects in Bolton West?
Mr Hurd
The hon. Lady should direct her first inquiries to the council, because not all councils are cutting funding to the voluntary sector. She should be aware of the broad national picture, in which volunteering is up, giving is stable and social investment is rising. There is a whole range of Government programmes to support and strengthen civil society and help it to maintain its resilience through this very difficult period.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
T3. In 2010, the Smith report suggested that substantial cost savings would result from moving parts of the civil service from London to the regions. It suggested a target of moving 15,000 civil servants by 2015. Will the Minister update us on progress?
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
T7. In 2010, cybercrime cost the Welsh economy £974 million. What steps are the Government taking to protect online shoppers and the small and medium-sized businesses that tend to trade online?
Mr Maude
Repeated reports show that the best protection that can be given to individuals, households and businesses is basic online hygiene and safety. We have increased spending on cyber-security at a time of great financial stringency, and we are generally regarded as being well placed in the international rankings on cyber-security, but there is absolutely no room for complacency.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
T4. Keighley town council is currently running a £160,000 deficit and has a liability of £1 million. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no accountable body for town councils and therefore no one to protect taxpayers’ money? Will he look at this issue as a matter of urgency?
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
T9. Given recent criticism by various organisations of the accuracy of Government statistics, will the Minister advise the House on what steps he is taking to promote trust in Government statistics in future?
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 June.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
I will also be making an announcement about a new Minister to join the Government. At the end of the year, Stephen Green, the former chair and chief executive of HSBC, will be standing down as Trade Minister, after doing a superb job refocusing the Government’s efforts in key export markets. I can announce today that Ian Livingston—for the past five years chief executive of BT, one of Britain’s most successful businesses—will take on this vital role. I believe he will bring huge talent to a vital national effort.
Damian Hinds
Does the Prime Minister agree that there are many pupils in excellent schools benefiting from outstanding teaching from inspirational teachers, not all of whom have necessarily been to teacher training college?
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend makes an important point. There are many good teachers in our schools who have not been through the formal processes. I know that this week we have had another new policy from the Opposition banning all such teachers from such schools. As ever, although I have been busy, I have had a careful look at this policy and I note that there are such teachers—people who teach—among those on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), a renowned historian, teaches in his local comprehensive schools. He is going to be banned. And of course, there is the former Member for South Shields, who enjoys doing that as well. I think this policy—another shambles—is another example of brotherly love.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Following the Parliamentary Commission on Banking, can the Prime Minister confirm that he supports its important recommendations on bonuses and criminal penalties, and that he will use the banking Bill to implement them?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do support both those measures. Obviously we need to take time to read this excellent report, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) for the excellent job that he has done. Penalising, including with criminal penalties against bankers who behave irresponsibly—I say yes. Also, making sure that for banks in receipt of taxpayers’ money we can claw back and have a ban on bonuses—I say yes too.
Edward Miliband
On the specific issue of criminal penalties, I am glad that the Prime Minister supports the proposal, but will he confirm for the House on this important issue that the Government will put down the appropriate amendments to the banking Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, to make sure that this gets on the statute book as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
We will be using that Bill to take these important steps. The key thing is that we have the opportunity, first, because we said there should be a parliamentary inquiry that could be done rapidly, rather than a public inquiry, which the right hon. Gentleman supported. If we had done that, we would just about be getting going with the inquiry. Instead, we have a good inquiry and good results, and we can have strong legislation too.
Edward Miliband
Just to be clear about this, if the Government do not put down the amendments on criminal penalties in the banking Bill, we will and we will make sure they happen.
The Prime Minister praises the Parliamentary Commission on Banking, but let us turn to one of its recommendations from last year’s report. It said that the Government should legislate for a general power to break up the banks, breaking up high-risk casino banking from high street banks. We think it is right, the commission thinks it is right, but the Government are so far refusing to implement—[Interruption.] The part-time Chancellor is trying to give some advice to the Prime Minister. We think it is right and the commission thinks it is right, but the Government have so far refused to implement that recommendation. Why are the Government not doing it?
The Prime Minister
Let me say first that I would rather listen to my Chancellor than listen to the right hon. Gentleman’s neighbour the shadow Chancellor. We remember his advice. Mortgages of 125% from Northern Rock: that is fine. A knighthood for Fred Goodwin: that is fine. The biggest banking bust in British history: that is fine. The shadow Chancellor was the City Minister when all that went on, and it is this Government who are clearing up the mess. As I have said, we would not have these results without the excellent inquiry that was commissioned by this Government, and we would not be able to legislate if we did not have the excellent banking Bill provided by this Government.
As for the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we are putting a ring fence around retail banks, something which, in 13 years of a Labour Government, the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor never got round to doing, although they were both in the Treasury.
Edward Miliband
We are really not going to take lectures from the guy who was the adviser on Black Wednesday in 1992.
The Prime Minister had no answer to the question about retail and investment banking. Perhaps he can do better on the issue of bonuses and the banks. Last week’s figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that in April bonuses in business and financial services were 64% higher than they were a year ago. Why does the Prime Minister think that is?
The Prime Minister
Bank bonuses are about a fifth of what they were when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury. They have been going down, not up.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the issue of banking, perhaps he will reflect on the fact that the Labour Government’s other City Minister, Lord Myners, had this to say today: “The Government of which I was a member certainly has to take some culpability for the fact that the regulatory oversight of the banks was not as effective as it should be.” He went on: “To do otherwise would be to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.” Perhaps the next time the right hon. Gentleman stands at the Dispatch Box, he will apologise for the mess that Labour made.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister is asking questions, Mr. Speaker. He is preparing for opposition.
Let us talk about what people were saying in 2008. We all remember the speeches, do we not, Mr. Speaker? Let me quote from “David Cameron: A Conservative Economic Strategy”. In March 2008, the Prime Minister said:
“As a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say that a significant part of”
the problems of the last decade
“has been…too much regulation”.
There we have it: the Prime Minister wanted less regulation of the City.
Let us return to the question about bonuses. The fact is that bonuses in the City were up by 64% in April—and why? Because the Prime Minister has cut the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p. People took their bonuses in April, and were given a massive tax cut as a result. Will the Prime Minister confirm that 64% figure, and the fact that people are being given a massive tax cut as a result of his decision?
The Prime Minister
First, let me give the right hon. Gentleman the figures. In 2012-13, City bonuses will be 85% lower than they were in 2007 and 2008, when those two were advising, or working in, the last Government, and had responsibility for regulating the City. It does not matter what the right hon. Gentleman says; he cannot get over the fact that they presided over boom and bust, the collapse of the banks and the failure to regulate. We remember what they said in 2008: they said “No more boom and bust” . They referred to
“ a… golden age for the City”.
That is what they said. They cannot hide their dreadful record, and they ought to start with an apology.
Edward Miliband
The whole House will have noted that the Prime Minister cannot deny the figures that I read out to him. He does not even know the facts. Bonuses are up so that people can take advantage of his massive cuts. Here is the truth. For all his tough talk, the reality is that the Prime Minister is dragging his feet on banking reform. Business lending is still falling, bonuses are rising, and while ordinary families are suffering, he is giving a massive tax cut to the bankers.
The Prime Minister
Just another display of extraordinary weakness! Labour had 13 years to sort out this problem and did absolutely nothing. It is this Government who have introduced the banking Bill, this Government who have introduced the ring fence, this Government who have put the Bank of England in charge of regulating credit in our economy. Instead, what we ought to be getting from the right hon. Gentleman is an apology and a thank you to us for clearing up the mess they left.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Occasionally, one should be grateful. May I warmly commend my right hon. Friend for being the first Conservative Prime Minister ever to commit to a referendum on Europe and for leading a Government who have done more than any other to tackle welfare dependency, to reduce immigration and to bring in academies, thereby showing that one can be Conservative, popular and right all at the same time?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and may I, on behalf of everyone in the House, congratulate him on his richly deserved knighthood? He has served in this House for many decades and also in the vital role of overseeing the Public Accounts Committee, which does such important work in our parliamentary system. I am grateful for what he says about the referendum and I would urge all colleagues to come to the House on 5 July and vote for this Bill.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Q2. Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that, on his watch, 300,000 more children have been pushed into absolute poverty?
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we have protected the poorest in our country by increasing the child tax credit, but the most important thing we can do to tackle poverty is to get more people into work. There are now more people in work in our country than at any time in our history. In the hon. Gentleman’s own area, in the west midlands, the number of people employed is up 66,000 since the election. It is worth remembering the last Government’s record, because even during the boom years, private sector employment in the west midlands went down.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am sure the Prime Minister will want to join every Member in wishing all British players the best of luck for the Wimbledon championships, which start on Monday. Looking to the future, does he back the Lawn Tennis Association’s schools tennis programme, which is now in operation in over 16,000 schools, including a number in my Winchester constituency such as the Henry Beaufort and Kings’, to help find us some future home-grown and home-trained champion?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. First of all, let us congratulate Andy Murray on his excellent victory at the Queen’s club at the weekend, and wish him and other British players well for the Wimbledon tournament. We should commend the LTA for its work in trying to make tennis much more of a mass participation sport. I see it in the primary school that my children go to, where more tennis is being taught and played. It still has a long way to go. The LTA has to satisfy Sport England and all the funding bodies that it is doing everything it can to make tennis a mass participation sport.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Q3. When, according to The Sunday Times, just 1,000 of our richest citizens have increased their wealth since the financial crash by £190 billion while everyone else has been forced to take on average a 6% real-terms cut in income, is not the Prime Minister’s policy of enriching the perpetrators and punishing the victims the very opposite of a one nation Britain?
The Prime Minister
The richest in our country are going to pay a higher percentage of income tax under this Government than they did under the last one. The right hon. Gentleman sat in that Government and had an opportunity to do something about it, but all the time he was a Minister, the top rate of tax was actually lower than it is going to be under this Government.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a community is obliged to take a strategic piece of infrastructure, there should be agreements for payments and compensation for any blight that is caused by a nationally important piece of structure like a rail freight interchange?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why section 106 agreements exist. We need to keep this under active review, particularly with a view to how we are going to handle fracking and shale gas, for instance, where we might need a simpler and more direct mechanism to make sure that communities feel the real benefit of things that benefit the economy overall.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Q4. On Monday, the Milburn report showed that the proportion of students from state schools at elite Russell Group universities is now lower than a decade ago. Meanwhile, another report, Project Hero, is secretly considering lifting interest rates on previous graduate loans. After £9,000 tuition fees, does the Prime Minister think such another breach of faith is more likely to encourage students from less wealthy backgrounds to apply to university, or discourage them?
The Prime Minister
I will make two points to the hon. Gentleman, because this is an important question. First, the number of children from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university is higher than it has ever been, so that is a good step forward. Secondly, if we want to get children from disadvantaged backgrounds into universities, we should be supporting things like the academies programme and free schools. We saw in Labour’s announcement this week that they are now saying that they support free schools. That is great. The trouble is they then went on to say that they are not going to allow any more of them. Then they said this, which is quite extraordinary:
“What we will have is a new academies programme including parent-led academies, really good teacher-led academies like Peter Hyman’s school in east London”.
They want more schools like that. The shadow Education Secretary is nodding. There is only one problem: that school is a free school. What a complete shambles.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
What discussions has the Prime Minister held with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to amend the priorities of Natural England and the Environment Agency so as to recognise the value of productive land and the need to protect farmland in my constituency from flooding?
The Prime Minister
I have conversations about this issue with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As I announced in the House last week, he will soon bring forward the proposal to make sure that the insurance scheme that protected households in danger of flooding is renewed. We also need to make sure we protect farmland in the way the hon. Lady says, not least because, with global populations rising, the demand for food production is going to increase, and we should make sure we have a good level of food security in this country.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Q5. The last Labour Government took 1 million children out of poverty. Figures released recently show that one in six children in this country now lives in poverty. In my constituency, one in three is living in poverty, compared with one in 10 in the Prime Minister’s constituency. What is he going to do about it?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the problem with the last Government’s legacy is you left a massive debt burden and a massive deficit, and this Government have had to take action to deal with it. As I said, the best way to get—
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not leave any debt burden. We will concentrate on the policies of the Government. Nothing further requires to be said, so we shall move on. I call Mr Graham Brady.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Q6. Whatever the long-term benefits of the high-speed rail project, it is already causing serious worry for tens of thousands of home owners along the route. Will my right hon. Friend give urgent attention and consideration to the possibility of introducing a property bond, to remove that blight?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this issue. It is right that he stands up for his constituents, and other MPs have discussed this issue with me. I think we should remain committed to HS2, because it will connect our cities and communities and bring many benefits, particularly to the north of England, as it is built out, but we should look at the compensation schemes available, and we are consulting and listening to the idea of the property bond.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q7. In his statement following the appalling murder of Drummer Lee Rigby a month ago, the Prime Minister announced the setting up of the Government’s taskforce on tackling extremism, and said:“We will also look at new ways to support communities as they come together and take a united stand against all forms of extremism.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1235.]In Woolwich, our diverse communities have been working hard to do just that. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what progress has been made by the taskforce, and specifically what new ways he envisages will emerge to support communities such as ours?
The Prime Minister
First, may I commend the right hon. Gentleman on all the action he has taken in his community. I saw for myself when visiting Woolwich how strongly that community has come together to decry absolutely what happened and to build a stronger future.
The taskforce has met, and the first papers and ideas have been commissioned. One particular idea we are looking at is something I heard about when I was with the right hon. Gentleman in Woolwich: where, for instance, communities want to come together and try to drive extremist groups out of particular mosques or Islamic centres, they often need help, including help with legal advice, to do that. That is one of the specific ideas, but the action of this taskforce should cover the whole waterfront of everything we do right across our communities.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Given the need to improve recognition of the role of women in the developing world, especially in the contexts of health, education, water and sanitation, business and all other matters that affect administration in those countries, will my right hon. Friend take a positive interest in my Gender Equality (International Development) Bill, which will be introduced today? Will he note that it is already supported by a very wide range of people, including WaterAid, The GREAT Initiative and others?
The Prime Minister
I will study my hon. Friend’s Bill closely. It is not the Bill that everybody might expect—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let us hear a bit more about Mr Cash’s Bill—I think the Prime Minister is going to tell us.
The Prime Minister
I will certainly study my hon. Friend’s Bill. It is not necessarily the Bill we would all expect him to produce, but it sounds like an absolutely excellent idea. In co-chairing the high-level panel at the UN about the future of development, I wanted to make sure that gender equality was put right up there in the replacement for the millennium development goals, and it is there. I think his Bill might be able to provide some extra ideas for how to bring this to life.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Q8. In 2010, the Prime Minister proudly stated:“we actually made sure that neither the budget, nor the spending round…would result in any increase in child poverty” but in his first full year as Prime Minister, the number of children in absolute poverty rose by 300,000, and it is still rising. Will he now admit that he was wrong and that his policies are to blame?
The Prime Minister
We made a specific decision in the spending round to increase the child tax credit to protect the poorest families in our country, but we had an inheritance from the last Government of such appalling levels of debt that it has been difficult and painful to deal with them. Let me repeat the point that the best way to get people out of poverty is to see employment grow, and in the north-west, the part of the country that the hon. Lady represents, employment has risen by 6,000 this quarter, it has risen by 50,000 since the election and unemployment is down by 20,000 since the election. Those are all life chances, jobs and chances to get on which people did not have under the last Labour Government.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s leadership at the G8 to prevent the horrors of Syria from turning into a regional humanitarian catastrophe? May I also urge him to pursue further the support for Lebanon and Jordan, two very fragile neighbouring states, and especially to go further with the support we are providing for the Lebanese army, which is the only cross-confessional organisation in the area and a potential stabilising force?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the G8. We did make some good progress on Syria, particularly on support in terms of humanitarian aid, where $1.5 billion extra was pledged for what is now becoming one of the worst humanitarian crises we have seen in recent years. He is absolutely right to say that we need to support the neighbouring states, and we should pay tribute to the Lebanese army, which plays a very important role—we do indeed fund its activity in terms of some of the border posts.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Q9. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), and indeed several times in this Question Time, the Prime Minister has said that the best way of tackling poverty is to get people into work. In principle I agree with him, but would he explain this: why is it that two thirds of the children in poverty today come from families where at least one adult is in work, and why is that figure rising?
The Prime Minister
The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that work is the best answer for taking people out of poverty. Yes of course we should continue to pay child benefit, which we do. Of course we should continue with the tax credits that we do pay. Indeed, one of the decisions we made when we came into office was to stop the nonsense of tax credits going to people, including Members of this House of Commons, earning £50,000 or more a year. So we are focusing the help on the people who need it most, and we have seen in the west midlands an extra 66,000 people in work.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Q10. A few weeks ago, nine paediatricians wrote to me and the Care Quality Commission expressing serious safety concerns after maternity services at the Eastbourne district general hospital were downgraded. Since then, their managers have acted in an intimidating manner. Will the Prime Minister assure me that reprisals will not be made against those doctors and that the managers implement the safety concerns?
The Prime Minister
As we have discussed before in this House, there should always be safeguards for people who whistleblow and for people who tell the truth about problems in our NHS. We have completely overhauled the Care Quality Commission from what was—and the report out today proves it—a totally dysfunctional organisation that we inherited.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
In a few weeks’ time, thousands of young people across the country, including many from my constituency in Salford and Eccles, will be graduating from university and looking forward to getting their first step on the career ladder. Unfortunately for many of them, the only option will be a long-term unpaid internship that requires them to work for free. Will the Prime Minister therefore make sure that the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2011 are rigorously enforced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to put an end to this exploitation of our young people?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is doing some important work in this area. It is a difficult area to get right, because we all know from our own experiences that some short-term unpaid internships—work experience—can be very valuable for the people taking part. On the other hand, unpaid interns should not be employed instead of workers to avoid the national minimum wage. That is the balance that we have to get right, and I commend the right hon. Lady for the important work that she is doing.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
Q11. The excellent children’s heart unit at Southampton general is the best in the country outside London, yet the recent decision by the Secretary of State means more uncertainty for patients and their families in my Eastleigh constituency. What assurances can the Prime Minister give about the future of that unit?
The Prime Minister
I do not think the Secretary of State had any choice but to re-begin the whole process of looking at Safe and Sustainable in children’s hospitals, including Southampton, which is twinned with the hospital that serves my constituency, so I quite understand people’s frustration about the time that this is taking, but most important of all is to make sure we get the decision right.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Government’s own research shows that there is a link between the portrayal of women as sex objects in the media and greater acceptance of sexual harassment and violence against women. That being the case, will the Prime Minister join me in trying to get our own House in order and calling on the parliamentary authorities to stop The Sun being available on the parliamentary estate until page 3 is scrapped, and will he have a word with his friend Rupert Murdoch about it while he is at it?
The Prime Minister
I am glad the hon. Lady got her question asked after the dazzling T-shirt that she was wearing last week failed to catch Mr Speaker’s eye. I am afraid I do not agree with her. It is important that we can read all newspapers on the parliamentary estate, including The Sun.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Q12. I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on getting the G8 to agree a deal on tackling aggressive corporate tax avoidance. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will not be offering a corporate tax avoidance service, as does the Labour party?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. At the G8 we achieved real progress on tax transparency and cracking down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, but is it not a sad thing that, although we were doing that, the Labour party is still offering tax avoidance advice to its donors, and it has not paid back the £700,000 of tax that it owes? Let me remind the leader of the Labour party what he said:
“If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t have an education system.”
So he has to put his hand in his pocket and give the money back.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Q13. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 May and I have not yet received a reply. May I ask him now whether he has had any discussions with Lynton Crosby about the standard packaging of cigarettes or the minimum price of a unit of alcohol—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that Lynton Crosby has never lobbied me on anything. The only opinions that I am interested in are how we destroy the credibility of the Labour party, on which he has considerable expertise, though I have to say that he is not doing as good a job as the Labour party.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Q14. Last year the Prime Minister successfully intervened in the case of newly born baby Lexie-Mai, who has eventually been confirmed as the daughter of Private Daniel Wade, who died on active service in Afghanistan. Private Wade’s fiancée and her family are in the Gallery today. This whole situation would not have arisen if the Ministry of Defence routinely kept samples of DNA of soldiers on active duty. Are we making any progress on this?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is quite right to have stood up for his constituents in the way that he did. I would like to convene a meeting with MOD Ministers so that I can get back to him with the very best answer about the action we can take to stop these problems happening in the future.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The number of homeless families living in temporary accommodation rose by 5,000 in the last year. Will the Prime Minister explain why?
The Prime Minister
We need to build more houses in our country, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. We are building more social houses and more private houses, and we are reforming housing benefit so that we can better use the money. The question now is for the Opposition. They spent weeks and weeks complaining about the removal of the spare room subsidy. I do not know whether anyone else has noticed: they do not ask questions about it any more. Could that possibly be because they have not got a clue about whether they would restore it?
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
With an estimated £10 billion boost to our economy, does my right hon. Friend agree that a free trade agreement with the United States represents a glittering prize for Britain and for Europe?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is very good news that this free trade agreement has been launched at Lough Erne in Northern Ireland. It will now take many months of very difficult and patient negotiation. It is a hugely complicated problem, because we want it to cover all sorts of areas, such as public procurement and services, and not just manufactured goods, but it is good that it is getting going, because this could mean millions of jobs right across Europe and great benefits for us here in the UK.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
On the subject of giving money back, which the Prime Minister has just referred to in respect of the Labour party, will he now explain to the House why when he had a windfall he decided to write down his mortgage at Notting Hill instead of writing down the mortgage on the one that he was claiming for from the expenses allowance in the House of Commons?
The Prime Minister
I think that what the hon. Gentleman needs to do is concentrate on the massive problem on his Front Bench. Every week until they pay the money back, they will get a question about the £700,000 that they owe to the British taxpayer.
Proposed Closure of Downham Fire Station
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I would like to present a petition signed by 723 residents of south-east London who are concerned about the proposed closure of Downham fire station. Today is the final day of the Mayor of London’s consultation on fire station closures in the capital. These closures, if they go ahead, will lead to average response times increasing by 31 seconds in the London borough of Lewisham. Signatories to the petition therefore urge the Department for Communities and Local Government to appeal to the Mayor of London to prioritise public safety and keep Downham fire station open.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of South East London,
Declares that the Petitioners regret the £30 million cut to the grant received by the London Fire Brigade for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15; express concern about the proposed closure of Downham Fire Station as set out in the Fifth London Safety Plan; and note that the proposed closure of Downham Fire Station, currently subject to consultation, will increase the average Fire Brigade response time to incidents in the London Borough of Lewisham by 31 seconds.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to appeal to the Mayor of London to prioritise public safety and to keep Downham Fire Station open.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001187]
Proposed Closure of Suffolk Court Care Home
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I would like to present a petition against Leeds city council’s proposed closure of the Suffolk Court care home in Yeadon.
The petition states:
The Petition of a resident of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioner objects to the proposed closure of Suffolk Court Care Home in Yeadon; further that with the increase in numbers and age of older people in our community, Suffolk Court is a vital resource, providing security and practical care for those unable to be sustained at home by community services; further that closing Suffolk Court would undermine services to the elderly and vulnerable in Yeadon.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons call upon Leeds City Council to reassess its priorities and keep this essential service open.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P001188]
G8
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8.
The Government decided to hold the G8 in Northern Ireland to demonstrate the strength of this part of the United Kingdom. We wanted to show the success of the peace process, the openness for business and investment, and the potential for tourism and growth. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the First and Deputy First Ministers for all they did to help with the conference, I congratulate the Police Service of Northern Ireland and all those responsible for delivering a safe and successful G8, and I thank everyone in Northern Ireland for giving everyone such a warm welcome. Northern Ireland put on its best face and the whole world could see what a great place it is.
We set a clear agenda for this summit: to boost jobs and growth, with more open trade, fairer taxes and greater transparency—what I have called the three Ts. I also added a fourth T—combating terrorism. We reached important agreements, including on support to the Libyan Government and ending ransom payments for kidnap by terrorists. Despite our fundamental differences, we also made good progress, agreeing a way forward on working together to help the Syrian people achieve the change they want. Let me take each of these points in turn.
We started with the issues that matter most to our people—jobs, growth and mending our economies. First, we agreed that each country needs to press on with sorting out its public finances. Dealing with our debts and securing growth are not alternatives. The former is an essential step in achieving the latter. In fact, the communiqué that we agreed unanimously reflects all three parts of the plan for growth that we have in Britain—not just fiscal sustainability, but active monetary policy to unlock the finance that businesses and families need, and structural reforms to increase our competitiveness so that our young people can get into work and succeed in the global race.
The UK’s G8 also launched a bold new pro-business agenda to drive a dramatic increase in trade and to get to grips with the problems of tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance and corporate secrecy. This was a distinctive British agenda to shape the way the world economy works for the benefit of everyone. We believe in free trade, private enterprise and low taxes as the best route to growth, but that is only sustainable if ambitious trade deals are agreed, the taxes owed are paid and companies play by the rules. This agenda has now, I believe, been written into the DNA of G8 and G20 summits for many years to come.
On trade, we started the summit with the launch of negotiations on the EU-US trade deal. As has recently been said, this could add as much as £100 billion to the EU economy, £80 billion to the US and £85 billion for the rest of the world. We should be clear about what these numbers mean: more jobs, more choice and lower prices in our shops, and the biggest bilateral trade deal in history, launched at our G8.
On tax, the Lough Erne declaration that leaders signed yesterday sets out simple, clear commitments: tax authorities around the world should automatically share information so that those who want to evade taxes will have nowhere to hide; companies should know who really owns them; and tax collectors and law enforcers should be able to obtain this information easily, for example through central registries, so that people cannot escape taxes by using complicated and fake structures. In a world where business has moved from the offline and the national to the online and the international but the tax system has not caught up, we are commissioning the OECD to develop a new international tax tool that will expose discrepancies between where multinationals earn their profits and where they pay their taxes.
The declaration also makes it clear that all that action has to help developing countries too, by sharing tax information and building their capability to collect taxes. Crucially for developing countries, we agreed that oil, gas and mining companies should report what they pay to Governments and that Governments should publish what they receive so that natural resources are a blessing, not a curse. Charities and other non-governmental organisations have rightly campaigned for years for action on these issues, and for the first time they have been raised to the top of the agenda and brought together in one document.
The agreements on tax made at the summit are significant, but it is also worth noting what has happened on this front since I put the issue to the top of the agenda. On 1 January there was no single international standard for automatic exchange of information. Now there is such a standard, and over 30 jurisdictions have already signed up, with more to follow. After years of delay, the European Union has agreed to progress the sharing of tax information between member states. The UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies have signed up to the multilateral convention on information exchange and agreed automatic exchange of information with the UK and action plans for beneficial ownership. Taken together, all the actions agreed with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies will provide over £1 billion in revenue to the Exchequer, helping to keep taxes down for hard-working families here in Britain.
People around the world also wanted to know whether the G8 would take action to tackle malnutrition and ensure that there is enough food for everyone. The pledges at our nutrition and hunger summit earlier this month will save 20 million children from stunting by 2020. Crucially, our G8 also took action on some of the causes of these problems. That is why the work we did on land, extractive industries, tax and transparency is so important.
Turing to the fourth T—terrorism—we agreed a tough, patient and intelligent approach: confronting the terrorists, defeating the poisonous ideology that sustains them and tackling the weak and failing states in which they thrive. The G8 leaders reached a groundbreaking agreement on ransom payments for kidnap by terrorists. In the last three years alone ransom payments have given al-Qaeda and its allies tens of millions of dollars. These payments have to stop and this G8 agreed that they will.
We also discussed plans to begin direct talks with the Taliban. Britain has long supported a peace process in Afghanistan to work alongside our tough security response, so we welcome this step forward.
We also discussed support to Libya. I believe that we should be proud of the role we played in ridding Libya of Colonel Gaddafi, but we need to help that country secure its future. So we held a separate meeting with the Libyan Prime Minister, which included President Obama, and European nations have already offered to train 7,000 troops to help Prime Minister Zeidan disarm and integrate the militias and bring security to the whole country. More contributions will follow from others. Let me be clear that the Libyan Government have asked for this and will pay for it.
Finally, let me turn to Syria. It is no secret that there are very different views around the G8 table, but I was determined that we should use the opportunity of this summit to overcome some of these differences and agree a way forward to help the Syrian people achieve the change that they want. This did not happen during just one night in Lough Erne; the talks between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov have been vital.
In the weeks before the summit, I flew to Sochi and Washington, and I met again President Putin and President Obama in the hours before the summit began. These conversations were open, honest and frank, but we were all agreed on what must be the core principle of the international approach to this crisis. There is no military victory to be won and all our efforts must be focused on the ultimate goal of a political solution.
Together with our G8 partners, we agreed almost $1.5 billion of new money for humanitarian support. This is an unprecedented commitment from Lough Erne for Syria and her neighbours. We agreed to back a Geneva II process that delivers a transitional governing body with, crucially, full Executive authority. So a core requirement for success that had been called into doubt in recent weeks has now been reasserted unanimously, with the full authority of the G8.
We pledged to learn the lessons of Iraq by making sure that the key institutions of the state are maintained throughout the transition and that there is no vacuum. This sends a clear message to those loyalists looking for an alternative to Assad. The G8 also unequivocally condemned any use of chemical weapons and, following an extensive debate, we reached for the first time a united position, including Russia, that the regime must immediately allow unrestricted access for UN inspectors to establish the full facts on the use of chemical weapons by regime forces, or indeed by anyone else. All these agreements are absolutely fundamental to saving lives and securing the political transition that we all want to see.
Let us be clear on what is happening in Syria and what we are trying to achieve. We are faced with a dramatically escalating humanitarian disaster with more than 90,000 dead and almost 6 million people having had to flee their homes. There is a radicalisation of terrorists and extremists who will pose a direct threat to the security of the region and also the world. There is a growing risk to the peace and stability of Syria’s neighbours and the long-standing international prohibition on chemical weapons is being breached by a dictator who is brutalising his people.
None of this constitutes an argument for plunging in recklessly. We will not do so, and we will not take any major actions without first coming to this House. But we cannot simply ignore this continuing slaughter. Of course it is right to point out that there are extremists among the Opposition. There are, and I am clear: they pose a threat not just to Syria but to all of us. The G8 agreed that they should be defeated and expelled from their havens in Syria.
I also understand those who fear that whatever we try to do could make things worse, not better. Of course we must think carefully before any course of action, but we must not accept what President Assad wants us to believe—that the only alternative to his brutal action against Syria is extremism and terrorism. There are millions of ordinary Syrians who want to take control of their own future, a future without Assad. That is why I made sure that the G8 agreed that the way through the crisis is to help Syrians forge a new Government who are neither Sunni, nor Alawite, nor Shi’a.
We are committed to using diplomacy to end this war with a political solution. This is not easy, but the essential first step must be to get agreement between the main international powers with influence on Syria. That is what we have done at the G8 in Lough Erne. We must now work to turn these commitments into action, and I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s statement. Let me start by commending him on holding the summit in Northern Ireland. Fifteen years ago, holding a G8 summit in Enniskillen would have been unthinkable. Peace has transformed Enniskillen, and the location of this summit alone is testament to what can be achieved through politics and dialogue. It is a credit to all the people of Northern Ireland.
Let me take the G8 issues in turn. On hunger and nutrition, it is completely unacceptable that there is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry and 2.3 million children die every year from malnutrition. I therefore welcome the agreements and commitments made during the hunger summit. The task must now be to ensure that these commitments will be delivered. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to stick by our pledge of 0.7% aid as a proportion of national income and does he further agree with me that we should be using all the moral force that we gain from that position to urge others to follow suit?
On trade, we welcome and support the launch of negotiations on a free trade agreement between Europe and the United States. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will tell all his colleagues, including the Cabinet, that this is a timely reminder of the importance for jobs and prosperity of staying in the European Union?
On tax havens, the Prime Minister said that one of his goals was to make sure that there will be public registries of who owns companies and trusts. What blocked getting agreement on that at the G8? Will he clarify whether the agreement reached by rich countries on information sharing, which he mentioned in his statement, will from the outset apply to developing countries? As the IF campaign has said,
“a summit focussed on transparency can’t justify keeping this information secret”
from poorer countries.
Let me turn to the devastating situation in Syria. It was right for the Prime Minister to prioritise this crisis and make it the focus of this week’s talks. We welcome the announcements of additional humanitarian relief, in particular the doubling of UK aid. However, as the Prime Minister has said, the answer to this humanitarian crisis is a political solution. All of us recognise the scale of the challenge of bringing together an international community that has been deeply divided on this issue, and there are no easy options.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that it was
“a strong and purposeful statement on Syria”.
Although we welcome the centrepiece of that statement being a commitment to the Geneva II conference, will the Prime Minister explain why there was no agreement on its starting date? It is being reported that the conference is now being pushed to July or even later in August. Based on his discussions this week, could he now tell us when he expects the conference to take place?
On the substance of Geneva II, the Prime Minister has spoken today about the importance of the agreement in Enniskillen on a transitional governing body with full Executive authority, based on the maintenance of key institutions of the state and an inclusive political settlement. Does he accept, however, that every one of those commitments featured in the Geneva I communiqué back in June 2012? The Prime Minister spoke of this G8 providing a moment of clarity on Syria, but will he set out how in concrete terms yesterday’s statement moves us closer to a political settlement?
On arming the rebels, the Prime Minister now says that it is not his policy to do so. Given that the Geneva conference has already been delayed, is he able to envisage any circumstances in which he would seek to arm the rebels before the conference takes place?
Given the limited nature or the progress achieved this week, does the Prime Minister still maintain that focusing so much time and effort in the days and weeks preceding the summit on lifting the EU arms embargo was the right way to spend political capital and energy?
The reality is that we did not witness the long-hoped-for breakthrough on Syria at the G8 summit, and we need to be candid about that. None of us should doubt the difficulties of the choices that confront this Government and all Governments around the world. The Prime Minister knows that, on the steps agreed this week to tackle terrorism and on the issues of Afghanistan and, indeed, Libya, I have given him my full support. May I urge him in the months ahead, however, to proceed with the greatest possible clarity on his strategy and purpose and to seek to build the greatest possible consensus across this House?
The Prime Minister
First of all, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about holding the conference in Northern Ireland. That was not without its difficulties and questions were asked, but not only was it a very successful and very well-managed and well-run conference—I pay tribute to everyone who was involved in it—but I think it was also one of the most peaceful G8s in terms of demonstrations. It was rumoured that one of the six tents in the place where all the tents were going to be put up belonged to some Dutch folk who happened to be on holiday. I also read this morning that one of the hopeful shopkeepers in Enniskillen had stocked up on vegan meals only to find that the protesters did not turn up in large enough numbers, so he now has a large supply going spare. It is a remarkable part of our country and it was good to bring the G8 to County Fermanagh.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said on the aid pledge. It is right that Britain has made and kept its promises, and we use that to bring others up to the mark. Of course, the G8 always publishes an accountability report. A lot of these communiqués are impenetrable, but this is very simple and straightforward on who has promised what and whether they have kept that promise. We should go on publishing those reports. I say to any sceptics that for every pound they pay in tax, only 1p of it goes to overseas aid. I think that that is a good investment in the future of the world.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the trade issue. It is good that we have made a start on EU-US trade and disappointing that we have not completed the Canada negotiations. He mentioned the single market. Of course, it is of benefit to Britain that we are in the single market as a trading nation and able to take part in deals with other parts of the world.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of public registries of beneficial ownership and asked why we had not achieved public registries everywhere. For many G8 Governments and leaders, this is a new issue at the top of the agenda. I am absolutely convinced that central registries of ownership are vital if we are to cut out corruption and corrupt payments from developing countries, and if we are to get to the bottom of tax evasion. We put that on the agenda, and every G8 country has agreed to an action plan, and some have committed to immediate registries. We must keep pushing on that agenda because it is so vital. We will consult on whether our registry should be public—I look forward to the consultation getting going—but no one should underestimate the importance of having a registry so that the tax authorities can get to grips with those problems.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about tax information change—yes, it will be open to poorer countries, but we must help them to take part and carry on with the programmes we have to help poorer countries to collect their taxes.
On Syria, the date of a conference was discussed, but the decision was taken that the most important thing is to get the substance right on the role of the transitional authority, its powers and such like, rather than set too quick a date, which might set us up to fail. Obviously, there is a real sense of urgency and we all want to see it happen in the weeks ahead.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the differences between Geneva I and the position we are now in. I would make two points to him on that. The Russians were backing off the idea of a transitional authority with full Executive powers, but have now fully reaffirmed it. That is important because no one wants to take part in negotiations that are for negotiations’ sake—they must be about something—and a transitional authority will not work unless it has full Executive power, including over the armed forces. As I said in my statement, the language and approach on chemical weapons is new, as is the language on humanitarian aid. Those new things were achieved at the G8.
I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to provide consensus on issues of foreign policy—we should always try to do that, and I hope we can re-forge that consensus in the months ahead—but the point I would make to him is this: I think that lifting the arms embargo in the EU was right. It sent a powerful signal that there is not a moral equivalence between Assad on the one hand and the official opposition, who want a democratic Syria, on the other. That has helped to add to the pressure. There is a huge danger that people will fall into the trap of believing Assad’s argument, which is that the only alternative to him is terrorism and extremism. We should stand for something else in the House and in this country—we should stand up for people who want democracy, freedom and the sorts of things we take for granted right here.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I fully share my right hon. Friend’s horror at the situation in Syria, a country that I first visited when I was 19, and where I have had good friends, but may I urge him not to propagate the myth that progress can be made only by the killing, or removal in some way, of President Assad, because the Syrian presidency is something of a family business, and President Assad has a number of extremely tough and ruthless individuals around him. They are probably tougher and more ruthless than he is. If President Assad is removed, one of them will instantly take over his position, and will be just as determined to prevent the Alawites from being massacred by the Sunni as is President Assad. If Geneva II is to make any real progress, I strongly recommend that President Assad should be invited to attend it, together with a representative of the new Iranian Government, who need to be brought back into the comity of nations.
The Prime Minister
I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend, but I do not agree with him that, somehow, President Assad can continue. When a leader has used chemical weapons against his own people and presided over such an appalling slaughter, he cannot have a place in the government of his country. I agree with him that, clearly, the aim must be to bring forward a transitional Government that includes Sunni and Alawite representatives, and representatives of the regime and opposition, because we need a Government in whom everyone in Syria can have confidence.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that there can be no military victory in Syria. In his search for a political solution, may I caution him on his apparent insistence on a precondition? Northern Ireland shows that preconditions do not work. He and I share exactly the same view of Assad’s barbarism, but if he insists that Assad cannot come to the conference or play any subsequent role, I caution him that the conference might never happen.
The Prime Minister
We are insisting that a proper conference must include representatives of the regime and representatives of the opposition, and that it should lead to a transitional Government. The UK Government have a clear view that neither of those stages can involve President Assad, for the reasons we have given, but that should not stand in the way of the transition that is necessary, and the transition that everyone in the G8, Russians included, believes is right.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are persistent reports that, in the course of the discussions on Syria, Russia made it clear that it would no longer insist that any final settlement should include a role for President Assad? If that is true, it represents a substantial step forward, if not a breakthrough, and merely emphasises the importance of continuing dialogue and discussion with Russia, which has such an important part to play in the solution we all seek.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. Obviously, it is important that the Russians are allowed to speak for themselves about what they did and did not say, and what they agree and do not agree with. I found in the discussions that the reason we were able to go ahead with the seven points I laid out at the press conference yesterday was that the conversations were constructive—we did not dwell on the areas where we have disagreed and continue to disagree; we dwelled on those areas where we can agree. I agree with what he says about engaging with President Putin. That is why, in addition to inviting President Putin here before the G8, I flew to Sochi this year—I was the first Prime Minister to visit Russia for many years.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for highlighting his commitment to ending world hunger as such a central part of the G8, and for highlighting many of the underlying causes, but he will be aware that a third of the most malnourished children in the world live in just four countries—India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh—so will he continue to use his best offices to ensure that those countries give their wholehearted commitment to ensuring that their children do not go to bed hungry every night?
On Syria, two days after America has agreed to sit down with the Taliban, surely it is better to bring everyone around the debating table. We do not want 12 more years of civil war in Syria.
The Prime Minister
On the Taliban, I have said many times that I welcome a political process. It is worth noting that the Taliban said in their statement that they wanted an Afghanistan that no longer caused instability, death or trouble in other countries. That is significant.
On hunger, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is not enough for us just to pass resolutions, or for this country alone to commit to aid programmes. We must engage other countries, which will do a lot of the heavy lifting in dealing with malnutrition. I am confident that, having held our summit at the Olympics last year, with the sort of top-up this year and the Brazilians co-chairing another summit at the Olympic games there, we have achieved a lot in terms of getting other countries to pledge action on hunger.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister and the G8 for addressing the key challenges of the day. On Syria, the situation is becoming increasingly complex as the rebels become increasingly fragmented. Does he agree that the solution lies in a negotiated settlement, but—it is an important “but”—that cannot be achieved without him firmly setting out where his red lines lie?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. Everyone wants a negotiated solution and a peace process. We must think about what things will make a peace process and peace settlement more likely. Obviously, international agreement at the G8 is one of them, but we must also ensure that Assad feels he is under some pressure and cannot achieve what he wants by military means alone. That is where there is such unity of purpose between President Obama, President Hollande, myself, Angela Merkel and Stephen Harper. This is an important point to make to those who have concerns. They cannot think of President Obama as someone sitting in the White House dreaming up ways to start a new engagement or war in the middle east. That is not what Barack Obama is about. He knows that we need a peace process, but he also knows we need to present a tough and united front to President Assad in the process.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
The Syrian Government have brought their troubles on themselves. There is no doubt that they are a corrupt and brutal regime. Although the Prime Minister was keen to lift the arms embargo, there was no enthusiasm in this House for doing so and very few Members have stood up and said that they are in favour of sending arms to the Syrian opposition. The sooner we have a debate on this subject, the better.
The Prime Minister
We are debating it right now and we should go on debating it. We have not made a decision about arming the rebels. However, the fact that we are working with the opposition to help and advise them, along with the French, the Americans and our Gulf allies, is helpful in making sure that Syria has a legitimate opposition who want democracy, freedom and a pluralistic Syria. At the same time, we should have no hesitation in condemning extremism. We must work with everyone to say that the extremists on all sides, including Hezbollah, which is working for the regime, should be expelled from the country.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the case of my constituent, Shaker Aamer, with President Obama during the G8. Will he update the House on that discussion and on what progress has been made towards Mr Aamer’s release from Guantanamo Bay?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s efforts on behalf of her constituent and his family. I have received moving letters from them. I raised the case with President Obama directly and will be writing to him about the specifics of the case and everything that we can do to expedite it. We need to show some understanding of the huge difficulties that America has faced over Guantanamo Bay. Clearly, President Obama wants to make progress on this issue and we should help him in every way that we can with respect to this individual. I will keep my hon. Friend and the House updated on progress.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I am sure that the Prime Minister was honoured to showcase to his fellow world leaders one of the most beautiful regions of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the lakelands of Fermanagh, and to bask in the glory of one of the most peaceful G8 summits in history. Will he assure Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland that he will do everything in his power to build on that summit and bring economic prosperity to Northern Ireland? Will he also ensure that all company taxes that are due to the UK coffers go to them, instead of to the Irish Republic?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Each of the G8 leaders mentioned how pleased they were to be in Northern Ireland and how impressed they were by the progress of the peace process. The advertising or, as I put it yesterday, infomercial for Northern Ireland was priceless. I ensured that the leaders were all sent off with a bottle of Bushmills to enjoy when they got home.
We discussed the tax issue. It is important to recognise that as well as the issues with the rate of corporation tax, there are issues with how tax authorities handle companies. We must ensure that they do not turn a blind eye to bad practices. That is an important part of the debate.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
The Prime Minister was right to take a lead on the EU-US trade deal, which could increase car exports by a further 25%. Does he agree that another very big prize, through the mutual recognition of regulations, would be the ability to set standards globally?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That point highlights what a complicated and difficult deal it is. We sometimes think that trade deals are just about taking down tariff barriers and then letting the market decide. Modern trade deals are much more about agreeing common standards and recognition of each other’s standards, and opening up things like services and procurement. The deal will be difficult and complicated, but it has started with good will on all sides, which is the right way to kick it off.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The automatic transfer of tax information and the provision of registers of beneficial ownership appear to be no more than a wish list, since the communiqué says that countries “should” do those things, rather than “will”. What sanctions or pressures will be exerted against countries that refuse or fail to comply, given that that could unravel the whole objective?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has a long track record of campaigning on these issues. I urge him to read the Lough Erne declaration, because we tried to put down in simple terms something that everyone would understand about publishing information, about companies saying where they pay their taxes and about what extractive industries pay to developing countries. People write and campaign to all Members of the House on that agenda, and we all feel passionately about it. Getting the leaders to sign their name under that declaration means that it will become part of the G8 process. Every time we meet, we will discuss what progress has been made and what fresh agreements have been made. In the end, all countries are sovereign and make their own decisions, but it was remarkable how much progress was made so quickly at the G8 in getting countries to sign up to these things and do them.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Prime Minister is right to stress the importance of a political settlement in Syria. Does he understand that excluding Iran from the forthcoming talks simply because we do not agree with it is an admission of political and diplomatic failure? It is precisely because we do not agree with it that we should be talking to it. Will he revisit that decision and approach his international partners in the hope that there can be a change of view?
The Prime Minister
I make two points to my hon. Friend. First, Iran has never accepted the premises of Geneva I, so it has not even crossed the threshold into considering what a transition would look like. Secondly, when we are trying to put together a group of individuals to negotiate at a peace conference, the most important thing is that there are a limited number of people from the regime and a limited number of people from the opposition who represent the people of Syria. We must focus on that more than on anything else.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I ask the Prime Minister about the fourth T in his tieless summit: the issue of counter-terrorism? I welcome what he said about the agreement on ransom moneys. However, we must consider not only the discussions of the leaders, but the follow-up. What additional resources or powers will he give the Roma-Lyon group that traditionally follows up on the counter-terrorism agenda from G8 summits? In the end, the most important part of the summit meeting is what happens afterwards. The Prime Minister has seven months as president. Will he ensure that there is an effective structure?
The Prime Minister
The communiqué pays tribute to the Roma-Lyon group and says that it must have what is necessary to take action so that we can co-ordinate better after dreadful events such as that at in Amenas. In the discussion at the G8, we tried to agree on the drivers of terrorism and extremism across north Africa, and on what more the countries around the table could do so that we do not duplicate our efforts, but divide up what needs to be done. For instance, Britain could do more to help Nigeria, France could do more to stabilise Mali and the United States could work with key partners in the region. We tasked our national security advisers with continuing to work out how to adjudicate who should do more of what. It was encouraging that President Putin agreed to take up that work when he chairs the G8 next year.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that the gravest threat to western interests and safety would be al-Qaeda getting its hands on Syria’s stocks of chemical weapons of mass destruction? Does he think that arming the rebels would make that outcome more or less likely?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to point to the danger of having extremists in Syria who have weapons and the intent to get hold of chemical weapons. We must ask ourselves how we have got to that point because they already have weapons and that intent. The extremist element of the opposition has become too strong, so our aim should be to reduce its strength. That is why we agreed at the G8 that part of the programme must be to expel extremists on all sides from Syria—that is the absolute key.
I say to those who see dangers, quite rightly, in engaging in any efforts to help Syria that we have got to the point of extremists having arms, ill intent and the desire to get hold of chemical weapons while there has been a deficit of engagement from countries that want Syria to take the right path rather than the wrong path. As I have said, we have not decided to arm the rebels, but are working with the opposition in the ways that I have described. We are working with the Americans and the French. I am sure that being engaged and being positive about what Britain can achieve with its partners is the right approach to reducing the dangers, rather than increasing them.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I welcome the statement on taxation, international transparency and commissioning the OECD to develop new international tools, but has there been a recognition that the big accountancy firms have not always been as benign an influence on that transparency? Unless they too play a part in developing international standards of transparency, we will not succeed.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right and we will never solve that issue just through Governments reaching agreements, either nationally or internationally. We need a debate about this in every boardroom and business in the world, and we also need lawyers and accountants to think about their responsibilities, as well as the bottom line. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to do. A positive suggestion made by the French and Americans, with my support, was that we ought to be asking accountants and lawyers to do more to help developing countries with their tax systems. Otherwise, there is an unequal struggle between businesses armed to the teeth with corporate lawyers and—this was one example given—a country where the entire budget of the department dealing with the company was far smaller than that of the army of lawyers sent to deal with it.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I welcome the G8 pledges on Syria and fairer taxes worldwide, and particularly the Prime Minister’s closing remarks at the summit when he said:
“If Britain weren’t in the EU you would not directly benefit from an EU/US trade deal”.
Is it right that Europe means jobs?
The Prime Minister
The point I was making—I hope the hon. Gentleman will quote me in full—is that if Britain were not in the European Union we could reach our own trade agreements with different parts of the world, but I believe we benefit from being part of the single market, and obviously part of bigger negotiations where we have a huge amount of heft in delivering these deals. The EU-Korea deal has been positive, and I think the EU-Canada deal will be positive and completed very shortly. The EU-US deal obviously has more potential than all the others put together.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have listened with interest to a number of the Prime Minister’s answers on tax. The IF campaign said that although there has been progress, the G8 tax deal left major unfinished business, particularly on information exchange in relation to poor countries. What assurances can the Prime Minister give thousands of campaigners up and down the country about when and how he will finish that business?
The Prime Minister
The IF campaign has done an excellent job in raising the profile of that issue and all the other issues around hunger, and in its response to the outcome yesterday it made a number of fair points. We have made good progress and the issue is far higher up the agenda than it has ever been. Lots of tax agreements have been made and lots of revenue recovered for this country. We have done a huge amount to help the poorest countries in the world. At the lunch meeting yesterday the African leaders said that this is absolutely the agenda they want us to focus on, but there is more to do and I am happy to keep on with that work.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making progress on Syria at the G8 summit, although there is clearly more to do. President Putin reminded us that among the Syrian rebels are those of the same kind that murdered Lee Rigby. What more can we do in this country to stop young British men going to Syria and coming back seriously radicalised?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a danger of young people from Britain taking part in this conflict, just as there has been in Afghanistan, Mali and elsewhere. We should do everything we can in the UK to try to crack down on those centres of radicalisation. It is clear to me, as I said during Prime Minister’s questions, that we need to do more to throw extremists out of mosques and confront the radicalisers and hate preachers, and we must do more to throw those who are not British nationals out of the country. This is a huge programme that goes right across Government, and we must do everything we can to deliver it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister will know that my constituents and people around the world will be positive about much that has come out of the G8 conference, although the hard-headed and cynical press are always ready to say it is pie in the sky. What assurance can he give me and my constituents that jobs and growth are a priority, and how do we know he will follow this through so that it makes a real difference to a world looking for a new deal in employment?
The Prime Minister
I completely understand people’s cynicism about these great international gatherings because they produce long communiqués, lots of talking, and one has to ask afterwards, “Well, what did you actually agree?” On this occasion, we can point to one or two really concrete things—an agreement not to pay ransom for kidnap by terrorists, which is good, and all the agreements in the run-up to the G8 conference which have delivered an extra £1 billion of revenue, just from Crown dependencies and overseas territories, that can help to keep tax rates down. I think the Lough Erne declaration is the clearest statement yet to come out of an international body about what needs to be done on tax, transparency and extractive industries, and frankly it is now a guide for NGOs to hold Governments to account and make progress on that vital agenda.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
May I echo the strong words of the Leader of the Opposition, and thank my right hon. Friend for bringing the G8 to Northern Ireland, and through that, showing the world how far it has come from the dark and dangerous place I remember from my childhood? Before the conference, the Prime Minister alluded in a newspaper interview to his frustration with the diplomatic vagueness of communiqués. This one was a big step forward, and he has a list of real and tangible declarations on tax and transparency. What more will we do to get that excellent list—reproduced in full in today’s Belfast Telegraph—to the British people?
The Prime Minister
I commend the Belfast Telegraph on the fact that it has not joined the mass of the cynical and hard-bitten, and has actually said, “Hold on, this is an important breakthrough on the issues that people really care about.” We must now hold all those countries to their commitment and ensure that everybody delivers on the action plans for beneficial ownership, so that we can see who owns what company. We must ensure that the international exchange of tax information can involve every country in the world. In that way we can get fairer taxes and help the developing world at the same time. We need follow-up on all these issues.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no unilateral military intervention, including the supply of weapons and other arsenals to the rebels in Syria, and that Britain’s role will be confined to an international peace plan? I was, of course, pleased that the G8 came to Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for praising the decision to hold the summit in Northern Ireland, and let me say again how well I think the authorities did in making it work. On Syria, the Government have clearly stated their approach. We want an international peace conference and a transitional Government, and we want a peace settlement. We believe, however, that we should be helping the Syrian national opposition. We have recognised—not just us, but America and countries across the European Union—that the opposition are legitimate spokespeople for the Syrian people. We should decry Assad—frankly, I hope the Labour party and all its allies in the Social Democratic and Labour party and elsewhere will decry Assad—[Interruption.] and continue to do so. We should also decry the use of chemical weapons. It cannot be said often enough what a brutal dictator this man is.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on the achievements of the G8. On tax transparency, will he comment a little more on the timetable that might be stretching in front of us for making that happen?
The Prime Minister
In terms of UK domestic action, we will publish shortly our consultation on whether to make a register of beneficial ownership public, and we can get on with that rapidly. The international exchange of tax information is progressing all the time throughout Europe and the rest of the world, and we need to keep pushing that.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister is aware that 30 years ago, a United States President and a British Conservative Prime Minister decided to arm the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, with consequences that are still with us today in belated talks directly with the Taliban. The Prime Minister mentioned Mali. I was there two weeks ago and we are aware that arms that came out of Libya led to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb almost taking power in that country. What guarantee can he give the House that if he decides to arm elements of the Syrian opposition, we will not be dealing with the same problems in this country and the rest of the world in 30 years’ time?
The Prime Minister
We have not made that decision and let me say that on Libya, I think it was right to work with others, including the French. There was cross-party agreement to do that and get rid of Gaddafi. Of course, that work is never done, but that should not be an argument for never doing anything anywhere. If we take action, as we do in Libya, we must do everything we can to help the successor regime that is democratically elected get weapons out of Libya, and that is what we are doing. Those are all arguments for engagement and working with partners—not putting our soldiers at risk or taking steps we are not capable of, but working with others to try to get good outcomes.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Was any progress made on international development issues in terms of trying to establish a land registry in Africa and other developing countries, as this would be hugely helpful in enabling people to have security when they lend to boost agricultural and industrial production?
The Prime Minister
That was discussed at the lunch held yesterday specifically on tax, transparency and trade, and the Lough Erne declaration covers the important issue of land transparency. The point was made that not only do we now have these declarations, but with all the capabilities of satellite mapping and digital technology, it should be easier to take these steps forward in the future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The talks that the Prime Minister reported on between the Taliban and the west are obviously welcome, and one hopes that they bring about a long-term resolution and peace in Afghanistan, but can he not draw a parallel from that and recognise that a political settlement in Syria must involve Iran as much as Russia and all the other countries? Will he turn his attention to a political settlement, a date for the conference and wide participation, and get off his hobby horse about supplying arms to fuel a civil war within a civil war that can only bring about greater destruction to an already disastrous situation?
The Prime Minister
I would make two points. First, the Iranians have not accepted what was discussed at Geneva as a basis. Secondly, it is not right to say that the British Government have had a single fixation. After all, it was my decision to fly to Sochi to have the discussions with Vladimir Putin and to invite him back here in order to try and find common ground. When I sit down with him, there are obviously big disagreements—I take a totally different view from him about Assad and the use of chemical weapons—and there is no point hiding that. It is right to engage, however, and to discuss where we can find common ground, and that is exactly what we have done.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his energy in trying to resolve the dreadful humanitarian crisis in Syria and I warmly welcome his statement today that he is emphasising the diplomatic route. In that connection, may I press him gently, as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) just did, on the need to bring in everyone who can influence the situation? Is it not a good idea to talk to the new Iranian President?
The Prime Minister
Of course, we should have discussions, as we are, with the Iranians over the nuclear issue, and perhaps those discussions can get a greater pace with the new Iranian President. We have to remember, however, why we do not have an embassy in Tehran—it was invaded and trashed by the Iranians. We should remember that. On the issue of how wide to take the discussions, of course in the end we need to involve all partners and neighbours—the more people who buy into a process, the better—but it is important that we do not make that a substitute for the real action that is needed, which is to get the Syrian regime and the Syrian opposition, with encouragement from the Russians and Americans, to name the people who need to sit round the table to hold those talks. That is where the leaders need to apply pressure on everybody, because otherwise one can get into an endless, tortuous process.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
While it was regrettable that climate change was not on the official G8 agenda this week, the communiqué described it as one of the foremost challenges we face. What is the Prime Minister doing to meet this challenge and secure a new global climate change agreement?
The Prime Minister
This issue was dealt with not only in the communiqué, but in the vital preamble, which is the part that most people look at to see what the conference discussed. My judgment was that it was right to talk with the G8 countries about, in particular, the issues of trade, tax and transparency, because I thought that that was where we could make the greatest progress. Had we had a long conversation on climate change, there would have been basic agreement among most of the participants around the table. We already know one another’s positions, and without some of the developing countries and larger countries, such as China and India, it would not have been a vital agenda-shifting discussion. I chose the subjects we spent the most time on, but there is an important reference to climate change, as the hon. Lady said.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The Prime Minister is to be warmly commended for taking the initiative and for the first time in recent years putting tax, transparency and justice in the developed and developing worlds on the agenda at the G8 and on making progress. In order that it be not the end, but only the beginning, of the process, will he undertake to take that agenda to the EU, the Commonwealth and the G20, so that by the end of the Parliament our Government can deliver on transparent ownership of companies, for example, and ensure that multinationals are seen to pay tax in all the countries where they work?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Obviously, the G8 includes a limited number of countries, but it can play a leadership role. Now we have this agenda and a simple and straightforward declaration, we can run it through the G20 and the Commonwealth. The EU has already started to address this issue with the ground-breaking deal on tax exchange between EU members, which for many years the Austrians and Luxembourgers have held up. So yes I want the British Government to drive this through all its multilateral bodies.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
At an IF campaign event in Belfast last Saturday, I heard at first hand from Bangladeshi community workers about the impact that land grabs have had on people there, with the poorest farmers having been displaced and agricultural land being destroyed for more than a generation, so I very much welcome the Prime Minister placing land on the G8’s agenda for the first time. What will he do throughout the rest of our presidency of the G8 to ensure that G8 companies involved in aggressive land acquisition are tackled on this matter?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Point 7 of the declaration states:
“Land transactions should be transparent, respecting the property rights of local communities.”
That is the commitment, and we now need to engage with Governments beyond the G8 and businesses to ensure that it is put in place.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is it not the case that the speed of events on the ground in Syria vis-à-vis chemical weapons potentially falling into the hands of the wrong opposition groups might move quicker than the Westminster parliamentary process? May I encourage the Prime Minister not to be deterred from making immediate national security decisions, if he needs to do so?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, it is a concern, because Syria has very large stockpiles of chemical weapons, and I think we have to focus on both dangers: the danger that the regime could use them again—as we have said, we believe they have been used on 10 occasions, so we have to beware of that danger, and President Obama has sent a clear message about that—and the danger that these stocks could fall into dangerous hands. We have to be alert to both dangers. He is absolutely right to say that we make a big commitment to come to the House, explain, vote and all the rest of it, but obviously Governments have to reserve the ability to take action swiftly on this or other issues.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
When the tax avoiders find the first loophole in the Prime Minister’s current plan, will he come straight back to the House or the G8 and close it, or will I have to ask that question of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, because he will be the next Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that no sooner do we make one change to the tax system than another loophole opens up that we have to attack. Prime Minister Harper in Canada said that he had taken about 72 tax avoidance measures in recent years. This is continuing work; it never ends. As for the second half of his question, I think I will leave that.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his position vis-à-vis Syria. One of the lessons from Iraq, Libya and Lebanon is that some of these extremist groups thrive not only with the bomb and the bullet, but by distributing food aid and using other ways to aid the communities that they invade. What are we doing to help the official Syrian opposition do that sort of work with the communities in the areas they control?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was a huge issue in Somalia, where we have seen real progress in recent years. What matters is funding humanitarian relief through the best mechanisms we have. At the moment, that means working a lot with non-governmental organisations and the UN to ensure that they deliver what they can. He is absolutely right, however, about ensuring that it gets to parts of the country held by the Syrian opposition.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Hosting the G8 in Enniskillen was a practical way of showing that Northern Ireland was an integral part of the UK, and I want to add my congratulations to the Prime Minister on taking it there. Is he aware of the concern, however, that the Libyan Prime Minister was in Enniskillen, just a few miles from the site of a terrible atrocity involving semtex from Libya, but was not able to meet those concerned—they got very late notice—and then went and met someone who used to be in the IRA?
The Prime Minister
First, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that Libyan semtex played an appalling role in the violence and destruction in Northern Ireland. For all we know, Libyan semtex may still be in the hands of dissident republicans, so this is a serious and live issue. Let me commend the Libyan Prime Minister for wanting to settle all these issues with the United Kingdom. He knows how important it is to communities in Northern Ireland and elsewhere to do so. My sense is that he wants to deal with these issues, not least because he knows that Britain played such a key role in getting rid of Gaddafi. Let us not forget that he was the person who provided the semtex in the first place.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for choosing Northern Ireland to host the G8 conference. It looked very different on the television screens from when I was there some 19 years ago. Many internet providers exploit the global nature of the worldwide web to ensure that they avoid their fair share of tax. I congratulate the Prime Minister on reaching an agreement to commission the OECD to consider what tax regime can ensure that providers are taxed where transactions take place, not where they declare their profits. Will he let us know the timetable?
The Prime Minister
We commissioned the OECD to help us. The simple principle is that there should be a tool to enable a country to see how much revenue, profit and tax a company is paying in each jurisdiction. Sometimes non-governmental organisations and others have asked for full disclosure of every piece of information, but, frankly, boxfile after boxfile of information does not necessarily get us the high level tax tool we need to see whether there is a problem, to share information with other tax authorities and to find an answer. This is the right approach for the reasons I have just given.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has in the past supported the public disclosure of ownership of companies, so why is he hesitating now, rather than seizing the opportunity to show leadership again and committing the UK to a public register in its action plan?
The Prime Minister
As I said, we will set up a central registry and consult on whether it should be public. There are strong arguments for it to be public, but let me make two points. First, the point at which one says one’s own registry will be public, one gives up rather a lot of leverage over other countries we might want to encourage to do that at the same time. Secondly, it is important to take the business community that believes in responsible behaviour with us on this journey of greater transparency and fairness. To be fair, the CBI has been supportive of this agenda, so there is nothing to fear from a consultation where we try to take people with us on this important progress.
Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome the clear commitments from the G8, led by my right hon. Friend, which I would characterise as growth with responsibility—growth for all citizens and responsibility for the most vulnerable. None of that can happen without responsibilities. Does he share my hope that the groundbreaking agreement on ransoms will not be lost in all this? I have seen this menace with my own eyes in the Sahel. It drives so much of the instability that we can now conquer by cutting it off at the source.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. There is no doubt that paying ransoms to terrorists has been immensely damaging. Tens of millions of dollars in countries such as Mali, Niger and elsewhere in the region he knows so well, can buy a huge amount of arms and power. The countries have all signed up to this. What matters now is that we hold each other’s feet to the fire and make sure we deliver on it. I pay tribute to President Hollande, Prime Minister Letta and others, who all willingly engaged in this agenda and signed this important declaration.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I fear that the Prime Minister’s strategy on Syria is completely misguided, but I want to ask him about the EU-US trade deal. Of course I support it, but we should not be naive. The Motion Picture Association is one of the best funded lobbying organisations in the world. It has always campaigned against any state subsidy of any kind for making movies in this country or anywhere else in Europe. Should there not be an exemption for cultural services?
The Prime Minister
What the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at it closely is that the European starting position is that there will be an exception for audiovisual services, which has been in place for all free trade agreements we have made as a European Union with countries around the world. Uniquely, there is an opportunity, if we want it, to add it back in. Personally, I think that the British film and television industry is immensely strong and I do not think that our tax credit system is in any way an unfair subsidy. We should be proud of collaborations between Britain and Hollywood. This subject was much discussed, including which member of the G8 liked what French film.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing agreement on land in the declaration he cited earlier this afternoon. Will he support measures to increase the transparency of land deals done around the world by companies based in the United Kingdom, thereby getting our own house in order?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Clearly, the register of beneficial ownership will help with this issue, because companies will have to declare who owns them. That will be one way that tax authorities in developing countries, for example, will be able to ensure that bribes are not paid and so on. That is part of the point of the register.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Prime Minister said that the tax evasion provisions in the G8 agreement would raise £1 billion per annum for the Exchequer. What about the other £29 billion that is lost each year illegally, according to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?
The Prime Minister
If we look at all the things the Government have done, the Swiss deal raised billions of pounds and I have mentioned the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. The more countries that sign up to these multilateral exchanges and the automatic exchange of information, the more money we will be able to recover.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
May I, too, commend the Prime Minister on focusing the eyes of the world on beautiful county Fermanagh, and for his leadership towards an EU-US trade deal? Will he help to put that in context in terms of its value to this country relative to other trade deals?
The Prime Minister
The figures I gave are £85 billion benefit to the US and £100 billion as a whole to the EU. With the UK being, I think, 13% or 14% of the EU, one can, as it were, do the math. Britain benefits from freeing up services, particularly financial services, so it will perhaps be of particular benefit to Britain to reach good agreements in those chapters of the deal.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and other hon. Friends on tax transparency. Is not one of the weaknesses of the Lough Erne declaration that there is no means of holding countries to account? The nightmare scenario will be that we will be back next year, the next year and the year after that, with little progress being made.
The Prime Minister
I would not be so depressed about it. One of the good things about the G8 is that the accountability report is simple and straightforward. It has always been about aid volumes and aid promises. I hope that future accountability reports will be able to address some of these issues in the declaration, too. If we do that and hold leaders’ feet to the fire, there is no reason why we should not make real progress on this agenda.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
In giving a strong welcome to the EU-US trade negotiations launched at the G8, does the Prime Minister agree that the process itself could be a catalyst towards creating a more open and more modern Europe, and that that is entirely consistent with his ambitions for Europe and demonstrates that Britain’s influence in Europe will be positive?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. The process, going through chapter by chapter trying to open up areas to greater trade and competition, will be good for Europe as a whole. There are always those countries that fear this process. We tend to be in the vanguard of thinking that it is a good thing, so I hope this engagement will have the effect that he says it will.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Were the reports before the summit that the Prime Minister had committed his Government to making public registries of beneficial ownership wrong? Is his commitment only to holding a consultation?
The Prime Minister
Our commitment is what we said it is, which is to have a central register of beneficial ownership and to have a consultation about whether it should be public. As I said, I think there are strong arguments for public registers of beneficial ownership all over the world. Let us be clear about the end point: every country having a register of beneficial ownership so that we can see who owns every single company. That is the goal. The question is: how can we accelerate progress towards it? I think we have really put the foot on the gas for this declaration. We now need to work out how to use our next steps to increase the leverage on others.
Mr Speaker
The moment has arrived for the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who need no longer look downcast in any way.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. All my colleagues thought that I was going to be left out. When I used to read double tax treaties, they were written in a bygone age and mentioned quarrying, forestry and the signatory powers of overseas agents. Will the Prime Minister use Britain’s position in the OECD to ensure that those treaties are brought up to date, particularly in regard to e-commerce, where so much international tax avoidance is done?
The Prime Minister
That is a very important point. We must also try to make them less impenetrable, but they need to cover every area. E-commerce is a real challenge for the tax authorities, because so much business has gone online.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on proving once again the remarkable persuasive powers of parliamentary questions? As recently as 25 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) told me in response to a question on the Crown dependencies that
“the Government currently has no plans to require disclosure of the beneficial ownership of UK property.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2013; Vol. 559, c. 301W.]
Now they do. Will he further prove his flexibility in this area by persuading his right hon. Friend Lord Blencathra to end his work as a lobbyist for the Cayman Islands?
The Prime Minister
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Members of the House who put pressure on the representatives of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. We should also pay tribute to those representatives. They came willingly to London, they sat round the Cabinet table and they committed to a series of steps that some but not all of them had committed to before. We should now stand up for them and say that other jurisdictions that do not have this sort of transparency now need to do what they have done. It is important that we pay tribute to the work they have done. As for the other part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am not sighted of it so I shall have to have a look at it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As we went into Afghanistan as a direct result of a threat to our own country and our own people, will my right hon. Friend honour all those soldiers, sailors and airmen who have died or been hurt in Afghanistan by ensuring that those who negotiate with the Taliban somehow get an agreement from them that they will never make a threat against our country or encourage others to do so? Thus can we honour those people who have given their lives in support of our country.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak as he does; he speaks with great authority on this matter. If we cast our minds back to 2001, we will remember that one of the reasons we went into Afghanistan was that the then Taliban regime refused to give up or condemn al-Qaeda. The whole point of the action was to get al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and to stop them launching attacks from there on our soil. We should pay tribute to the more than 400 service personnel who have given their lives and to the many more who have been wounded. We should pay tribute to the incredible work they have done. They have helped bring us to a point at which Afghanistan is now taking responsibility for its own security through the highly capable Afghan national security forces. The Taliban have said in their statement that they do not want to see Afghanistan being used as a base for attacks on other countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. I welcome the distinctive British agenda for the G8 summit in Enniskillen, the PR for the Province and the two days of sunshine—although I am sure that he had no control over that last element. He referred to talks with the Taliban. Will the conditions for starting such talks include a cessation of violence or a ceasefire prior to the start of the process?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, the two days of sunshine were a bonus, and not one that I was expecting. The point about the discussions with the Taliban is that they are taking place against the background of a statement by the Taliban that—I am paraphrasing—they do not want to see Afghanistan being used as a base for attacks on other countries. That is the right basis for them to start from, but clearly the whole aim of the process is to give people who thought that they could achieve their goals through the bomb and the bullet an opportunity to achieve them by political means. That is, I suppose, a parallel with the very painful process that was gone through in Northern Ireland.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on hosting such a successful meeting of the G8? Given the UK’s special relationship with the United States of America, however, does he not think that we could have made more progress on negotiating a free trade deal with America had we not left the matter up to the EU for the last 40 years?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, if Britain wanted to leave the European Union, we could do so and we could then make trade deals with every country in the world. Obviously that path is open to us. The argument that I would make is that, as part of the European Union—the world’s largest single market—we have the opportunity to drive some quite good deals. Clearly we sometimes have to make compromises with EU partners with whom we might not agree, but I would argue that, on balance, membership of the single market brings clear benefits, as does the negotiating heft that we have. The whole point is that we are going to be able to debate and discuss this, not least in the run-up to a referendum by the end of 2017.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister will understand that some of us are still seeking assurance that the outcomes from the G8 summit will be as thoroughly welcome and significant as its arrival in Northern Ireland. The Lough Erne declaration contains 10 points, which contain 13 “shoulds” and not a single “shall”. The “G8 action plan principles to prevent the misuse of companies and legal arrangements” provides eight principles containing 17 “shoulds”, one “could” and no “shall”. The provisions will be subject to a process of self-reporting against individual action plans. The UK individual action plan, which was helpfully published here yesterday, sets out 10 points offering standards, most of which should or could have been reached under existing laws and Financial Action Task Force requirements. What confidence can we have that the Prime Minister will ensure that the commitments made yesterday will go the distance?
The Prime Minister
This is a journey, and the question is: how far down the road are we? I would argue that we have taken some serious steps down that road by setting out clearly what needs to be done on beneficial ownership, on automatic exchange of information and on international tax standards. If we look at what Britain has done—with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for instance—we can see real progress. Is there a lot more to do? Yes. Do we need international reporting on it? Yes. Has the G8 lifted this issue? Frankly, tax transparency and beneficial ownership were academic issues that were discussed in lofty academic circles, but they are now kitchen table issues that are being discussed by the G8 leaders, who have pledged to take action on them.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Chair is minded to take all remaining colleagues on these extremely important matters. The Prime Minister is helpfully providing pithy replies, which of course now need to be matched with comparably pithy questions.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the progress made at the G8 and on his commitment today to come to the House before taking major action on Syria. Will he confirm that that would include an opportunity for the House to vote before any arms were sent to Syria?
The Prime Minister
I have made it clear that we have made no decision to arm the rebels. As has been said, these things should be discussed, debated and indeed voted on in this House—with the proviso of the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard).
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The agreements on tax transparency are welcome, and I give credit to the Prime Minister for that achievement. He will know, however, that tax transparency is only part of the issue because, although it will stop excesses, there will still be tax havens to which people can have recourse. Does he agree that the next step is to ensure that companies and individuals pay tax in the countries in which they earn their income? Will he make that a priority for the next year, before the next G8?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question; I know that he has spoken a lot about this in the past. That is the point of the high-level international tax tool. I have been searching for a better description for it than that, but it is none the less what we want the OECD to provide to countries so that we can see at a glance what a company earns, what its profits are and how much tax it has paid. In that way, we shall be able to see whether there is a problem, and whether further investigation is required. The register of beneficial ownership will also help, because it will enable us to hunt down the true owners of companies that are being registered under different nominee ownerships. These things all go together, and I think they can work.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Hope Technology in Barnoldswick, which the Prime Minister visited in April, was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend use it as an example of a great British exporter in a keynote speech ahead of the G8 summit. I warmly welcome what he has said today about the focus on jobs and growth. Will he say more about the positive impact that decisions taken at the G8 will have on manufacturers such as Hope Technology in Barnoldswick?
The Prime Minister
I will not forget my visit to Hope Technology in Barnoldswick, because it was impressive to see a manufacturing business making cycle accessories, parts and bicycles here in the UK, when so often people think that all this sort of manufacturing has gone offshore. No, it has not: some of the highest-quality production is right here. Obviously these trade deals make a difference for manufacturing industries, but we also need to do everything else, including keeping our tax rates low, which is what this Government are doing.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Now that the Prime Minister has had some time to reflect on his earlier remarks about the Labour party and the Assad regime, will he consider withdrawing his remarks and apologising? Everyone in this House is united in being opposed to the Assad regime and the brutal killings of thousands of people, but we have genuine questions about his stance on arming the Syrian rebels. The first question is—
Rushanara Ali
Sorry. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that humanitarian access will not get worse, and can he explain—
The Prime Minister
As I have said many times, we have made no decision to arm the rebels. The point I was making was simply that, whenever we talk about these issues, we should put out there, front and centre, how much we abhor this form of dictatorship, brutalisation and use of chemical weapons. It cannot be said often enough and it needs to be said by everybody, all the time. That is the point I was making and I certainly will not withdraw it.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I warmly welcome the significant progress that the Prime Minister has made on issues that really matter to my constituents and, I am sure, those the length and breadth of the country. Will he confirm that at the forthcoming Geneva II talks, a limited number of representatives of civil society and the refugees who have been displaced in neighbouring countries will be involved?
The Prime Minister
What matters is that the regime and the opposition nominate a limited number of people to discuss how to put together a transitional Government who can represent all the Syrian people. I do not want to put too many strictures on it, because speed and simplicity are of the essence.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The activities of companies engaged in secret mining deals and salting profits away in tax havens are, in the words of Kofi Annan,
“like taking food off the table for the poor”
in Africa. What specific commitments has the G8 made to ensure mandatory country-by-country reporting of what companies pay in tax?
The Prime Minister
This issue—on which I applaud Kofi Annan’s work—is covered in the declaration: that companies should report what they pay and that Governments should report what they receive, because often there has been a discrepancy between the two. Obviously the more countries that join the extractive industries transparency initiative—several promised during the course of the G8 and the Italians, the French, and ourselves before the G8—the higher the international standards will be.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On Syria, may I refer the Prime Minister to paragraph 87 of the communiqué, which deals with chemical weapons and a United Nations mission going to Syria to inspect whether there are any chemical weapons there? For clarification, will Russia, having been a party to this, accept the findings of that mission and, following on from that, will Russia accept any action that the United Nations proposes should be taken if there are any specific findings on those matters?
The Prime Minister
Obviously my hon. Friend’s second two questions are matters for the Russians, which they will have to answer for. I am clear about the information I have been given about the use of chemical weapons. Clearly there is a disagreement between what I believe and what President Putin believes, but what matters about paragraph 87 is that it says that the UN should be allowed in unhindered and that the regime must allow that to happen, and I think it is significant that the Russians agreed that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the statement by the Prime Minister and the distinctly “British agenda” set in Fermanagh. I am very happy that the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone have given way to a new dawn. I congratulate the Government on setting the G8 in Fermanagh and I look forward to other G8 summits coming there in future, when the British Government are back in charge—perhaps they could be in North Antrim.
May I turn to the part of the Prime Minister’s statement where he said, “We will not take any major actions”—on Syria—“without first coming to this House”? Can he confirm that that includes arming the rebels?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can, and I have said that very clearly. Let me be clear: although I know the saying, there was nothing dreary about the steeples of Fermanagh. The sun was shining and the countryside looked magnificent.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
The talks between the EU and the US on trade are welcome for economic growth, covering, as they will, 50% of global trade. Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that those tasked with negotiations on the EU side maintain relentless energy on the removal of non-tariff barriers, such that services trade should blossom?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. It is not just that officials have to be relentless and engaged on this, but where there are blockages and problems, that needs to be elevated to politicians and Ministers, so that we can try to drive forward the agenda. Otherwise, these trade talks get bogged down in difficult areas.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Everybody in the Labour party abhors the Assad regime, but on the question of Iran, given the Iranians’ traditional influence over the Syrian regime and given the election results, is the Prime Minister absolutely sure that we do not now have a window of opportunity to try to engage Iran in helping us to find the political solution in Syria that we all want to see?
The Prime Minister
I think we should certainly engage with the fact that Iran has elected a relative moderate. I think that is a positive sign and we should look for opportunities; but as I said, really, if we are going to put so much weight on the Geneva process and the Geneva principles, it is important that everybody, Iran included, signs up to them.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s attempts on the world trade agreement will be warmly welcomed by many, and rightly so, but does he agree that the prize could be even bigger if we could genuinely open up the EU single market to services? Some 71% of EU GDP is in services, yet only 3.2% is intra-EU trade, so much more could be done to help our economy.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This requires action by Governments and countries across the board, including traditionally quite free trade countries such as Germany that have sometimes had quite a lot of restrictions around particular professions. We therefore need action in the EU and then between the EU and the US in order to capture the full benefits of these changes.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On the sharing of tax information, was there agreement in principle that multinationals should pay their tax where they make their profits and if so, when will that happen, given that there will be winners and losers, with different countries resisting?
The Prime Minister
The key point in the Lough Erne declaration is that we should stop companies trying to artificially shift profits from one jurisdiction to another. I believe in fair tax competition. I am a low-tax Conservative: I think it is right to have low tax and then to ask companies to pay that tax. I think what is unacceptable is when processes and procedures are gone into not to shift the activity—that is a company’s right—but to shift where companies are trying to take the profits. That is the point.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Having served on the effective no-fly zone over northern Iraq in the 1990s, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether there were discussions at the G8 about the introduction of a no-fly zone over Syria?
The Prime Minister
There were no specific discussions at the G8. Obviously I had a series of conversations with Barack Obama about all the things that we should be doing to put pressure on President Assad, but we do not have any plans to take those steps.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the NHS is exempt from the EU-US trade negotiations?
The Prime Minister
I am not aware of a specific exemption for any particular area, but I think that the health service would be treated in the same way in relation to EU-US negotiations as it is in relation to EU rules. If that is in any way inaccurate, I will write to the hon. Lady and put it right.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
Yesterday my right hon. Friend commented on the possible route to a political solution in Afghanistan following the opening of talks between the United States and the Taliban. May I encourage him to offer our resources to those who are beginning to tread that very difficult path, and to share our experience of peace talks in these islands with them?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an important point. I agree that we have relevant experience and that we should share it, and we do so. The fact that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland are working together is a tangible example.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
May I press the Prime Minister further on the precise wording of his statement? He said, “We will not take any major actions without first coming to the House.” Can he offer us a definition of “major”?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is tempting me. I think that I would repeat what I said in my statement about major action, but add the proviso that I issued in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). As the hon. Lady will recall, in the case of Libya and other such action it has sometimes been necessary to act very swiftly in defence of the national interest. The same applies to, for instance, terrorist kidnap, and not supplying information to those with whom one is engaged. Obviously, however, one would come to the House very swiftly after that and explain, as I did in the case of Libya. I think that those are well-known approaches, and I do not think that there is anything to be surprised about.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his approach to Syria at the summit, and particularly on his approach to an international peace conference, but may I urge him to be very cautious about calls for Iran to be involved in such a conference? After all, the Iranian regime has been funding its proxy Hezbollah in Syria, and has been responsible for and complicit in many of the atrocities committed by the Assad regime.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an important point, but the most important point is that if countries are to be engaged in any way, they must sign up to the Geneva process.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The G8 tax agreement opens the way to an international tax settlement that is simpler and more transparent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has the potential to benefit countries that have reduced their corporation tax rates, such as the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend would agree that, while low tax rates are good for business and there is nothing wrong with healthy tax competition, when we set a low tax rate we should then say to businesses, “We have a low tax rate; now you must pay the tax.” I believe that the G8 agenda will help us in that regard.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
People in the north-east will especially welcome the agreement on tax transparency and tax-dodging. Will the Prime Minister say more about the effect that that will have on future Government tax receipts and the war on poverty?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to ask that question. Dealing more effectively with tax evasion, which is illegal, and with aggressive tax avoidance, which, as I have said many times, raises serious moral issues, while at the same time garnering more revenue, can help us to keep down taxes on hard-working people who do the right thing. That is what should drive our whole agenda. As I said earlier, we have recovered a lot of money from territories and bank accounts, and we should continue to do so.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making his recent pre-G8 “ambition” speech at London Gateway port in my constituency. Does he agree that that investment will assist our global export aims, stimulate world economic growth, encourage free trade and, above all, demonstrate that under this Government, Britain is a great place in which to do business?
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend for standing up for his constituency so vigorously, and for that extraordinary investment. I urge Members who have not seen the giant port that is being built on the Thames estuary to go and look at it. When you are there, you think that surely this must be happening in Shanghai or Rio, but it is actually happening right here in the UK—a massive investment that will cut costs for consumers and will really benefit our country. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may chuckle. They do so because they do not care about the important things that are happening in our country.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the progress made on extractives transparency at the summit, and, in particular, on the leadership shown by the UK and Canada in signing the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative before it.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. The EITI is important, and I think it right for countries such as Britain to sign it themselves as well as asking developing countries to do so. We should then try to help developing countries to meet its requirements, because it imposes a number of obligations on them which they cannot always fulfil. I think the fact that so many advanced countries have signed it is a good step forward.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in pressing for stronger relationships between the EU and the United States—that is vital—but does he agree that it is critical for us to press for an unrelenting focus on driving British exports in growth markets such as China, India and Russia in the years ahead?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need for us to win this global race and to back our exports. At the beginning of Prime Minister’s Question Time, I announced that Ian Livingston, who has run BT so effectively, would join the Government as Trade Minister at the end of the year. Having first secured the services of Stephen Green, who led HSBC, one of the world’s strongest and best banks, we have now secured those of someone who has run a successful business here in the UK, but who also has a presence in about 78 markets overseas. I think that is great for Britain and great for our exports, and I am sure that it will be widely welcomed by Members in all parts of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I thank the Prime Minister very much. Some 70 Back Benchers took part in questions on that important statement.
Care Quality Commission (Morecambe Bay Hospitals)
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I wish to make a statement about today’s independent report on the Care Quality Commission’s regulatory oversight of University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. What happened at Morecambe Bay is, above all, a terrible personal tragedy for all of the families involved, and before saying anything else, I want to apologise on behalf of the Government and the NHS for all the appalling suffering that those families have endured. In that context, I know that the whole House will wish to extend our condolences to every single one of them.
Joshua Titcombe’s tragic death was one of 12 serious untoward incidents, including five in the maternity department. His family and others have had to work tirelessly to expose the truth, and I pay tribute to them for that, but the fact is that they should not have had to go to such lengths. As we saw in the case of Mid Staffs, a culture in the NHS had been allowed to develop in which defensiveness and secrecy were put ahead of patient safety and care. Today I want to explain to the House what the Government are doing to root out that culture and ensure that that kind of cover-up never happens again.
The independent report was commissioned by the new chief executive of the CQC, and the members of the new team that is running it have made it clear that there was a completely unacceptable attempt to cover up the deficiencies in their organisation. The report lists what went wrong over a period of many years. There were unclear regulatory processes, a report was commissioned and then withheld, key information was not shared, and there were communication problems throughout the organisation. Most of the facts are not in dispute, and all of them are unacceptable. They have compounded the grief of the Titcombe family and many others.
The role of the regulator is to be a champion for patients, to expose poor care and to ensure that steps are taken to root it out. The regulator must do that without fear or favour, but it is clear that at Morecambe Bay, the CQC failed in that fundamental duty. We now have a new leadership at the CQC, and we should recognise its role in turning things around. David Behan was appointed chief executive in July 2012, and one of his very first acts was to commission the report that we are now debating. David Prior was appointed the new chairman in January this year, and has rightly insisted that the report be published as soon as possible. Those two outstanding individuals have never shrunk from addressing head-on the failings of the organisation that they inherited, and are wholly committed to turning the CQC into the fearless, independent regulator that the House would like to see. While I do not underestimate the challenge, I have every confidence in their ability to undertake it.
David Prior will now report back to me on what further actions the CQC will take in response to the report, including internal disciplinary procedures and other appropriate sanctions. The whole truth must now come out, and individuals must be accountable for their actions.
With respect to Morecambe Bay itself, an independent inquiry led by Dr Bill Kirkup started work earlier this year. More broadly, following the Francis report into the tragedy at Mid Staffs, the Government are putting in place far-reaching measures to put patient care and patient safety at the heart of how the NHS is regulated.
The CQC is appointing three new chief inspectors—of hospitals, social care and general practice. This will provide an authoritative, independent voice on the quality of care in all the providers that it regulates. The commission has already announced the appointment of Professor Sir Mike Richards as the new chief inspector of hospitals, and on Monday, the CQC launched a consultation, “A new start”, which outlines its much tougher regulatory approach. This includes putting in place more specialist inspection teams with clinical expertise. It will include Ofsted-style performance ratings so that every member of the public can know how well their local hospital is doing just as they do for their local school.
The Government will also amend the CQC registration requirements so that they include an emphasis on fundamental standards—the basic levels below which care must never fall, such as making sure patients are properly fed, washed and treated with dignity and respect. Failure to adhere to these will result in serious consequences for providers, including potentially criminal prosecution. The revised registration requirements will also include a new statutory duty of candour on providers that will require them to tell patients and regulators where there are failings in care—a failure clearly identified in today’s report.
Finally, we are putting in place, through the Care Bill, a new robust single failure regime for NHS hospitals. This will provide a more effective mechanism to address persistent failings in the quality of care, including the automatic suspension of trust boards when failings are not addressed promptly.
The events at Morecambe Bay, Mid Staffs and many other hospitals should never have been covered up, but they should never have happened in the first place, either. To prevent such tragedies we need to transform the approach to patient safety in our NHS.
The Prime Minister has therefore asked Professor Don Berwick, President Obama’s former health adviser and one of the world’s foremost experts on patient safety, to advise us on how to create the right safety culture in the NHS. He and his committee will report later this summer.
In addition, later this year we will start to publish surgeon-level outcomes data for a wide range of surgical specialties. Most of all, we need a culture where, from the top to the bottom of NHS organisations, everyone is focused on reducing the chances of harming a patient in the course of their care, and a culture of openness and transparency to ensure that, when tragedies do occur, they are dealt with honestly so that any lessons can be learnt. Our thousands of dedicated doctors, nurses and health care assistants want nothing less. We must not let them down, or any of the families who suffered so tragically in Morecambe Bay. I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for early sight of it, and I welcome what he has just said. Today’s report will have left people stunned. The Secretary of State began with an apology and we on the Opposition side echo it. It is a sad fact that mistakes will be made in any walk of life, even in the NHS. What is never acceptable is when people or organisations try to hide those mistakes. As Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, the former chief medical officer, says:
“To err is human, to cover up is unforgivable, and to fail to learn is inexcusable.”
Sadly, that is precisely what appears to have happened in this case.
The report covers a four-year period from autumn 2008 to autumn 2012. It details failures in regulation, but also subsequent attempts at a cover-up. It was published only because of the efforts of James Titcombe and his family. Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to them today, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who has supported the family. As he rightly said, that family’s suffering has been intensified by the actions of the NHS—something that should never happen. It is now essential that they and all the other Cumbria and Lancashire families affected get all the answers they are looking for—and I fully commit the Opposition to making sure that happens.
The most shocking revelation in this report is that, in March 2012, an instruction was given by a member of senior management at the CQC to “delete” the findings of a critical internal review. Let me remind the House of the context in which that March 2012 instruction was given. At that time, we were midway through a major public inquiry into the terrible failings at Mid Staffs. This was two years after the completion of an earlier independent inquiry—also led by Robert Francis, QC—following which all parts of the NHS had committed to full openness and transparency. It also came after failings at other trusts—most notably Basildon and Thurrock—which led me to request an in-depth look at all hospitals so that problems could be flushed out and a system put in place to ensure that people had a comprehensive picture of local standards. That was the context in which this instruction was given, and it explains why today’s revelations beggar belief and are hard to comprehend. The report raises questions for the CQC and the Department; I will take each in turn.
The new chief executive, David Behan, commissioned this report and we pay tribute to him for doing so. The chair has said today that he now wants to draw a line under this issue, but does the Secretary of State agree that it will be possible to do that only when further questions raised by this report are answered?
On hospital regulation, there is a recognition on all sides that it has not been good enough for too long. While we note the important work of Don Berwick, should we not also be getting on with the job of implementing the recommendations of the three-year Francis report in this regard? The Secretary of State mentioned a duty of candour on providers, but he will know that Robert Francis recommended that that should extend to individual clinicians, too. Will the right hon. Gentleman work with the Opposition to implement that recommendation as soon as possible?
On the cover-up, paragraph 1.17 of today’s report says that the order to delete
“may constitute a broader and on-going cover-up.”
Will the Secretary of State address that point directly and tell the House whether he is confident that this cover-up is no longer happening? Is he satisfied that the CQC has taken all appropriate steps, and does he have full confidence in it going forward, or does he believe a further process of investigation is necessary?
More specifically, is anybody who was involved in the decision to delete still working at the CQC or elsewhere in the NHS? If they are, people will find that hard to accept and they will want answers on that specific point. Given that accountability is essential, does the Secretary of State agree that people will find it hard to accept if data protection laws stand in the way of that accountability, and will he therefore review the decision to shield the identities of those involved? Today’s report makes it clear that the “deleted” report still exists. Should it not now be published?
Now let me turn to the Department of Health. Was the decision to delete taken solely by senior management at the CQC or is there evidence that anyone outside the CQC was either involved in the decision or aware of it? Was anyone in the Department of Health aware of the internal report being produced, and did any contact take place between the CQC and the Department running up to the decision to delete it?
Unfortunately, this matter does not end with deletion of the report. The Prime Minister said earlier that there should always be support for whistleblowers, and he was right, but there are serious doubts about whether that has happened in this case. Concerns about the CQC were raised by an internal whistleblower who was on the board. We know there was an attempt to remove her from the board and to question her character. Has the Secretary of State looked into these issues and considered whether appropriate support was provided—by both the CQC and the Department—to the individual who raised these concerns? The same whistleblower told the CQC today that she had raised issues internally first, then within the Department and then directly with the former Secretary of State in a meeting. Will the Secretary of State provide details of that meeting and publish a minute of it? What actions were taken by Ministers subsequent to that meeting? Were Ministers consulted about the decision to remove her from the CQC board, and did they support that decision?
Finally, the only real answer to all of these deep-rooted problems that go back a long way is for both sides of the House to recommit to full openness and transparency in the national health service. Will the Secretary of State join me today in restating that commitment and together sending the clearest and most unambiguous signal we can to the rest of the NHS?
In conclusion, there are difficult questions here for people at every level of the system. If we are to restore confidence, it is essential that they are answered and that people are held accountable for their actions. Learning from this failure and others, this House must a deliver a regulator that the public can trust, one that puts patients before its own interests. We will support the Government in that process and not stop until it is completed.
Mr Hunt
I welcome much of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but let me say this: he talks about getting on with implementing the Francis report, and that is exactly what has been happening. The report came to the House on 6 February. A new chief inspector of hospitals was appointed by 31 May, and the new inspections will start towards the end of this year. That will mean that many of the things talked about in the Francis report as being fundamentally important will start to be looked at independently and rigorously for the very first time.
I can confirm that there will be a duty of candour in the new Care Bill. We are looking at the extent to which it should apply to individuals, but we want to wait until Professor Berwick produces his report, because it is important to create a culture of openness, and we do not want to pass a measure that might inadvertently mean people clam up when they see a potential safety breach. We need to encourage an atmosphere where everyone talks openly about any concerns they have.
David Prior will be looking in his response to today’s independent report at whether anyone still working in the NHS, or, indeed, the CQC, may have been responsible for some of the shocking things that have been revealed. He will pass that report to me within the next two months. As I said in my statement, there will be full consideration of any sanctions or appropriate disciplinary procedures. In our response to the Francis report, we have said we want to introduce a new barring scheme to make sure that managers who have been found guilty of behaving in a bad way do not get jobs in another part of the NHS.
With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman said about my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), I gently say to him that it was not my right hon. Friend or myself or this Government’s Ministers who rejected 81 requests for a public inquiry into what happened at Mid Staffs. My right hon. Friend was the person who called the public inquiry into Mid Staffs. He is the person who changed the management of the CQC. He is the person who put clinicians in charge of budgets in the NHS, precisely to make sure these kinds of safety issues do not arise.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about accountability. If the Opposition really wanted to give confidence that they take the issues raised today seriously, they would recognise that it was fundamentally wrong to set up an inspection regime that was not carried out by specialists, and where the same person was inspecting a dental clinic, a slimming clinic, a hospital or a GP practice, perhaps in the same month. That may have contributed to the CQC’s decision in 2009 not to investigate the maternity deaths at Morecambe Bay, and to its decision in April 2010 to register the hospital without conditions.
When it comes to accountability, the right hon. Gentleman needs to explain to the House why the former head of the CQC, Barbara Young, said in her evidence to the Francis inquiry:
“We were under more pressure…when Andy Burnham became minister, from the politics.”
Is it the case that the head of the CQC felt under pressure not to speak out about care issues?
On the substantive policy point, the right hon. Gentleman continues to criticise the appointment of a chief inspector of hospitals and continues to criticise me when I single out hospital management who coast when it comes to raising standards. Just how much evidence will it take for the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party to realise that when it comes to NHS policies, they really need to change?
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
As Member of Parliament for Lancaster, which is covered by the Morecambe Bay trust, may I reassure the Secretary of State and the House in general that thousands of my constituents are receiving a good service from hundreds of hard-working NHS doctors and nurses at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary? Does he think the problems began with the setting up of the CQC on 1 April 2009, and its being appointed as an independent regulator and being expected by the previous Government to inspect and register 378 NHS trusts within 12 months, by April 2010, which was an impossible target for any system to cope with?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That regime was utterly flawed, and as far as we can tell, inspectors looking at hospitals and care homes had targets of inspections they had to complete in a way that was totally counter-productive to the concept of a rigorous, thorough, independent inspection where people speak out without fear or favour when they find problems.
I also thank my hon. Friend for the other point he makes: that the people who work at the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust are working extremely hard and under great pressure. I think they are doing a very good job by and large, but there are clearly very severe problems with the trust that we need to get to the bottom of, and it is very important that we recognise that if we are going to create a safety culture in the NHS, we need to back the people on the front line. They did not go into the NHS to have to deal with these terrible breaches in health and safety; they went into the NHS because they care for people and they want to do the best for people at their most vulnerable.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
May I first thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for those words of apology to the Titcombe family and other families who have long been pressing for an inquiry and this kind of day of reckoning for the CQC? It is hard to imagine what it must be like to lose a child, but then to be faced with an almost impenetrable wall of bureaucracy, with one organisation and one group of people passing them over to another group, and with all of them ultimately washing their hands of accountability, is truly shocking. That has been laid bare in this report, and I commend its authors for bringing it to the attention of the public.
What the Secretary of State says about the staff in this trust is very important, because these are front-line people who have been failed by poor leadership and a poor inspection regime, which absolutely has to change.
The report says the particular issue here
“may constitute a broader and ongoing cover-up.”
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that that is not the case? If he is, how can he be? What can he do to look more widely than just at the CQC itself when looking into this allegation?
Mr Hunt
First, may I say I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and commend him on his work with his constituents and local families who have suffered so terribly from what happened? He is absolutely right to say we have created a system that is a nightmare for families who identify problems, and the real problem is a lack of clarity as to where the buck stops: where the buck stops in terms of the decision to say that a hospital is safe or not safe, and where the buck stops in terms of sorting out a problem when it is identified. Those are the areas where we are putting through big changes this year, as a result of the Francis report.
I completely understand why the issue of whether there is a continuing cover-up is a concern. All I can say is that I have total confidence in the new leadership of the CQC. They are on the side of the public. They understand that the CQC’s job is to be the nation’s whistleblower-in-chief. They absolutely get that, but changing the culture in the broader NHS takes more than the appointment of two new individuals at the CQC; it takes a complete change in the leadership so that people on the front line always feel supported if they want to raise safety concerns. That is a much bigger job. I do not want to pretend that we are going to be able to solve it overnight, but that is the big change we have to make.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My constituents can be forgiven for wondering whether, when the watchdog chooses to muzzle itself, it is time to put it to sleep. The report shows that the CQC discovered the truth about the deaths of babies at Furness General, but chose to suppress the truth, and to seek to subvert the Freedom of Information Act—and this morning I have asked the police to investigate that point.
Grieving families like the Titcombes deserve to know who made these decisions, so will the Secretary of State agree to ensure the removal of anonymity for those guilty of putting institutional convenience ahead of the lives of mothers and babies?
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about backing those on the front line, but we have a culpable ex-chief executive of the trust on a £200,000 payout while the excellent nurses and doctors in the trust are struggling under immense pressure, so will he agree to work with me and all colleagues across Morecambe Bay to help the trust recover, which includes agreeing not to now demand that the trust make £25 million-worth of savings by March, as that would further threaten the pursuit of patient safety?
Mr Hunt
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. He is absolutely right that accountability for what went wrong is crucial in this. I know that the CQC wanted to publish the report in full today, including the names of the individuals involved, but was given legal advice that it would be against the law to do so. However, the CQC is keen to have maximum transparency as soon as possible and is looking into how it can make sure that happens. There should be no anonymity, no hiding place, no opportunity to get off scot-free for anyone at all who was responsible for this. This is the problem we have to address in the NHS: all too often, people are not held accountable for what went wrong. However, the system also bears responsibility. This is not just about bad apples and how we root them out more quickly; it is also about creating a system that brings out the best in people—that plays to the decent instincts that got people to join the NHS in the first place, rather than making them think that targets at any cost matter more than the care and dignity of the patients in their trust.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The CQC’s chairman said on the radio this morning that he could not publish the names of those responsible for this scandal because of the Data Protection Act, but there are clear and explicit exemptions to the Act when it comes to
“protecting members of the public from dishonesty, malpractice, incompetence or seriously improper conduct, or in connection with health and safety”.
Will the Secretary of State please challenge the CQC’s interpretation of the Act and, if necessary, ask the Information Commissioner to rule on this flawed decision?
Mr Hunt
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that neither the chairman of the CQC nor I have any interest whatsoever in keeping these names secret. He did receive legal advice telling him that he could not publish them, but I will go back to him with what the right hon. Gentleman says. I know that the CQC chairman would like to be as transparent as possible. The choice he had, on the basis of the legal advice, was either not to publish the report or to publish it without the names. I think he took the right decision, given the advice he had, but I will ask him to consider what the right hon. Gentleman says.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
It is appalling what has come out in the press today and it is appalling what has been suppressed in the past. It is alleged by Lady Barbara Young, a former CQC chair, that under the previous Labour Government she was leant on by Labour Ministers not to criticise the NHS under their tenure. In her Mid Staffs inquiry evidence she stated:
“There was huge government pressure, because the government hated the idea that…a regulator would criticise it”.
She also alleges that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the then Health Secretary in the last Labour Government, needs to answer these very serious allegations, especially given what has happened in my local NHS trust.
Mr Hunt
That is the big culture change we need to see; we need to see Governments who are prepared, in all circumstances, however difficult and however politically inconvenient it is, to recognise that when there are safety issues, when there are terrible failures in care and compassion, we need to support the people who want to speak up, because if we do not do that, we will never root out these problems.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I support the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). A real concern is being expressed by Members on both sides of the House, because a person committed this cover-up by deleting this report and we really want to know—there should be an investigation—whether they are currently working for the CQC or working in the NHS anywhere. It is vital to know that.
Today, the CQC’s chair has said that it is not currently capable of carrying out hospital inspections. The Health Secretary has talked about putting in place more specialist inspection teams, and I, of course, support that. However, CQC inspectors have had access to specialists for a long time—they have talked about it before the Health Committee—so if they are not using them, that is an issue to address. What measures will the Health Secretary put in place to ensure that from this day onwards—not at some future point—we can have the CQC competently carrying out inspections?
Mr Hunt
When the CQC was set up in 2009, it was decided, with full ministerial approval, to go for a generalist inspection model—a model where inspection was not carried out by specialists; the same people would inspect dental clinics, GP practices, hospitals and slimming clinics. That was the wrong decision to take. Making sure that we have enough specialist inspectors in place, with appropriate clinical expertise, takes time—it is a very big recruitment job—and that is what the new chief inspector of hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards, is now setting about doing. It is also expensive—it costs money—but he has said to me that when his teams are in place he will start those inspections before the end of this year. So we are going as fast as we possibly can to try to put these problems right.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
My wife gave birth to all three of our children at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary, which is part of the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. Although the midwifery care was excellent, when we had complications with the third my wife received such neglect and ill treatment, at about the same time as Joshua Titcombe’s death, that the trust resorted to lying to us. No one should have to endure that treatment.
I have with me a litany of complaints, ignored by the management, the non-execs, and the Department of Health, going back to 2005. Constituents were lied to and nothing was done—no one came to help. I support the Secretary of State’s attempt to reform the CQC, but may I urge him to sort out governance at a more local level? Unless we improve the non-execs and the chairs of these trusts, none of these reforms will make a difference. Unless we improve clinical leadership, as well as managerial leadership, it will all be for nothing.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks extremely wisely, and I know that the whole House will want to say how sorry we are to hear about the personal problems he had with that trust. All the international safety studies say that if we are to transform safety culture, it has to come from better leadership. It has to come from leadership that really cares; that frees up people on the front line to raise safety concerns in a way that they do not feel will be career-threatening; that encourages them to rethink procedures to minimise the risk of harm to patients; and that encourages the open and transparent approach that has enabled hospitals such as Salford Royal to become one of the safest in the country, because of the inspirational leadership of David Dalton. That change in leadership is fundamental, but having a chief inspector who goes without fear and favour and says where we have that leadership and, more importantly, where we do not have it, will be vital to ensuring that we start to get the changes that my hon. Friend is concerned about.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the long litany in this report of events that were inexplicable and completely unacceptable, one of the most inexplicable and unacceptable things it lays bare is that at the same time as concern was being expressed to the CQC about the quality of maternity services delivered in the trust, to which the CQC did not respond, the trust itself commissioned a report into the future of maternity services and did not see fit to report the existence of the Fielding review to the regulator to which it was responsible? Will my right hon. Friend make it crystal clear that that is completely inconsistent with any concept of duty of candour for health care deliverers?
Mr Hunt
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. What happened beggars belief, and I very much agreed with his comments on that on the radio this morning. The point about duty of candour is that there will be a criminal liability for boards that do not tell patients or their families where there has been harm and that do not tell the regulator; boards will have a responsibility to be honest, open and transparent about their record. That has to be the starting point if we are going to turn this around.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The public will be horrified, but probably not surprised, to hear that Ministers were leaning on the CQC not to criticise NHS hospitals. Leadership has to start at the top, so will the Secretary of State confirm that he will be fearless in standing up for whistleblowers and those protecting patients in the NHS? [Interruption.]
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for that. She is absolutely right to say that the biggest responsibility Ministers have when faced with such tragedies is to be open and transparent about the scale of the problems; otherwise, they will never be addressed. Let me put it this way: people who love the NHS and are proud of it are the people who most want to sort out these problems when they arise. That is why it is incredibly important that we are open and candid. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has stood up and criticised me in the media every single time I have given a speech drawing attention to some of the problems facing the NHS. He needs to be very careful every time he does that, because I will continue to do this, and I do it because I want the NHS to get better and believe it can be better.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
James Titcombe this morning spoke of ministerial pressure on the CQC. Further to the statement by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) about full transparency and the fact that data protection should not be an impediment, will the Secretary of State have discussions with him as to whether, within the very narrow remit of the Department’s dealings over Morecambe Bay with the CQC, he will apply full transparency to his involvement in this issue?
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I echo the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and ask the Secretary of State to look urgently at the application of the Data Protection Act if accountability is to mean anything at all. I urge him also to look at the lessons that a change of leadership effected in the CQC and the era of transparency that that heralded. There is a cover-up which is not just about Morecambe Bay; it is about Mid Staffs, and I suspect that, sadly, other stories may emerge of other such horrors. Does my right hon. Friend think there should be an inquiry into the culture of lack of transparency and cover-up that involved senior managers, and will he consider a change of leadership in order to herald a proper culture change in the NHS?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend has campaigned with great assiduity and distinction on this issue. The report about the culture of cover-ups and secrecy was the Francis report, and my job now is to do what is necessary to bring forward the change so that we move on and have a culture of openness and transparency. That means, yes, openness and transparency in this place and among Government Departments and regulators, but it also means creating a culture for front-line staff where they feel that they can raise concerns. We do not do that as well as we should, and it is even more important.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
I share a great deal of the sentiments that the Secretary of State has expressed. He said at the Dispatch Box that the involvement of lay inspectors in the CQC was a problem, yet the Keogh review, which I comprehensively support, is involving significant numbers of lay inspectors. Does the Secretary of State agree with that approach? Is it the right or the wrong way forward?
Mr Hunt
As I understand it, the terms of reference, the way it is conducted and the timetable for the review happening at the moment are being set independently, but we should give every support to the people doing that review to make sure that they have access to the clinical expertise they need.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s desire to see published appropriately contextualised surgical outcome data for each surgeon. Those surgeons, however, have to work within structures created by managers, so in the interests of transparency would he support the publication of each manager’s performance so that the public can see where failure is taking place? First, that could prevent the merry-go-round of jobs, Cynthia Bower being the classic example. Secondly, appropriate financial penalties can be applied to the said managers if they fail, as they clearly have done in Morecombe.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks extremely wisely. One of the key issues raised by the Francis report was the fact that we have a form of accountability for doctors and nurses—it does not always work as well as it should—through the possibility of being struck off by the GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, but there is no equivalent accountability for managers. In a way, that is what the chief inspector is going to do. That is why I was so keen that as well as looking at whether a hospital is safe or not, the chief inspector should rate hospitals with Ofsted-style rankings, which look clearly at the quality of leadership in every organisation. The score that a hospital or a trust gets from the chief inspector will ultimately be the determinant of whether or not an organisation is well led. That is why I think it will give the public vital information about leadership, which they do not have at present.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
As the Secretary of State knows, there have been issues about patient care in the North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust. I therefore fully support the introduction of a more robust CQC regime than the one that previously existed. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to ensure that failing trusts are taken over in a timely and efficient manner so that new leadership and new management may be put in place as soon as possible?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks well. Even under the current system, when problems are identified they seem to fester without being properly addressed. Under the new single failure regime for hospitals, when failure is identified there will be a maximum period of one year to sort it out or the board’s trust will be suspended. There will be a cut-off which does not exist at present to make sure that the local NHS, the trust board and, in the end, even Ministers bite the bullet when there are problems so that we do not allow them to continue.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
After Francis, after the Health and Social Care Act 2012, are we not asking a deeply dysfunctional and damaged organisation to shoulder additional responsibilities? Is not that in itself risky? In the Secretary of State’s statement he mentions “potentially criminal prosecution” of providers. Exactly who will be prosecuted? Managers? Clinicians? Board members? And exactly on what charge?
Mr Hunt
The criminal sanctions apply to boards for withholding information about safety breaches at their trust, and as I mentioned earlier, we are considering whether those sanctions should apply below board level. We want to wait for Professor Berwick’s advice on that, because there is a balance between proper accountability for mistakes and the need to create that culture of openness, where people report mistakes that they might see a colleague making, which might not happen if they were worried about criminal prosecutions. I want to take the advice of an expert on that.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I and the people I represent are rightly proud of our NHS. However, from Morecambe Bay to Mid Staffordshire we have had a series of scandals. Can the Secretary of State reassure patients that the previous Government’s culture of secrecy and neglect will now be torn apart and replaced by a new, transparent, accountable health service that treats patients with dignity, rather than as numbers?
Mr Hunt
The big challenge of our times for the NHS is to make that culture change, and it is a huge organisation. With 1.3 million people, we will do this only if we tap into and harness the desire that they have to do their jobs to the highest standards of patient safety, treating people with dignity and respect. That will be the key to unlocking success.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Secretary of State rightly said that individuals must be held accountable for their actions. To what extent does he think some former Labour Ministers were complicit in this disgraceful cover-up?
Mr Hunt
They need to explain why Barbara Young made the comments that she did. I think there was a general desire to talk up the NHS and not to talk about some of the very deep-seated problems that have now come to light. It is our duty in all parts of the House to make sure that we have a more mature discussion about the NHS when problems arise, and that we do not always seek to throw party political stones but recognise when problems arise. We should talk about them, not cover them up.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I attended a presentation given by the CQC in early 2011 and I was shocked at the low calibre of what I heard. In particular, I found the CEO at that time to be out of her depth. My right hon. Friend will know that the individual concerned was previously CEO of the West Midlands strategic health authority between 2006 and 2008, at the time of the scandal of Mid Staffs. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what he plans to do to improve the appointment process for senior positions in the wider health service to ensure that proper scrutiny of people’s prior performance takes place?
Mr Hunt
That is a very good question from my hon. Friend. We need to make sure that we have absolutely the right people in place. One of the lessons that we have learned from Ofsted, which has been an extremely successful regulator in the education sector, is that what works is having people who are prepared to speak truth to power—who are prepared to say uncomfortable things even to the people who have appointed them. I have had this conversation with Mike Richards, because I have the highest opinion of Mike, and I also know that he will say things while I am Secretary of State that will make me deeply uncomfortable. We have to understand that part of the way that we will make sure that the NHS is and continues to be one of the very best health services in the world is having that rigour in the inspection process.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Many families in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington in my constituency will have elderly relatives living in care homes, which they will have chosen on the basis of CQC assessments. Can my right hon. Friend reassure them that these care homes, inspected and approved by the CQC, are in fact up to standard?
Mr Hunt
We have not talked very much about care homes during these questions, but anyone who saw the horrific “Panorama” programme earlier this week on the BBC will know that there are some appalling problems in some of our care homes. We need that same independent, rigorous inspection in care homes as well. That is why, alongside the chief inspector of hospitals, we are appointing a chief inspector of social care who will once again—it is a great shame that we stopped doing this—rate care homes on the quality of care that they give and speak without fear or favour, so that we can reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Last week and this week, the Secretary of State has made bold and helpful statements in the interests of NHS accountability, and I commend him for doing that, but does he accept that we have a real problem in the structure of democratic accountability in the NHS? As he knows, there has been great leadership, including from some of his Back Benchers, and will he commission a review now so that we can all have confidence that there is a proper democratic structure of accountability to oversee all parts of the NHS?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I hope that he will bear with me as the profound changes that we are introducing this year are rolled out. The most important element of democratic accountability is making sure that the public have the same information as the experts, so that they know whether their local hospital, GP surgery and care home are doing well. That is one of the biggest imbalances and that is why I am putting a lot of emphasis on the new chief inspectors, who will have the status, authority and resources to make those judgments, so that the public know what sometimes only the system has known. Then we will help to address some of the issues that he raised.
Point of Order
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it a point of order to insist on our having a debate on the Francis report? It was issued as long ago as February, but we still have not had a debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The hon. Gentleman is right; that is not a point of order, but it is certainly a question for business questions tomorrow, and no doubt he will be in attendance.
Bills Presented
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
James Wharton, supported by Sir Tony Baldry, Guto Bebb, Graham Brady, Mr William Cash, Mr Nigel Dodds, Mr Stephen Dorrell, Jackie Doyle-Price, Dr Liam Fox, Zac Goldsmith, Sir Gerald Howarth and Sheryll Murray, presented a Bill make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July, and to be printed (Bill 11).
High Cost Credit Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paul Blomfield, supported by Heidi Alexander, Tracey Crouch, Yvonne Fovargue, Andrew George, Rebecca Harris, John Healey, Julie Hilling, Damian Hinds, Stephen Lloyd, Mr Robin Walker and Nadhim Zahawi, presented a Bill to make provision for regulating high-cost credit arrangements and providers of such arrangements; to provide for controls on advertising, information and communications associated with such arrangements; to make measures to address the cost and affordability of such credit arrangements and their associated charges; to regulate matters concerning repayments under such arrangements; to make provision on advice and advice services in relation to debt arising from such arrangements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July, and to be printed (Bill 12).
Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jonathan Lord, supported by Richard Fuller, Kris Hopkins and Sir Paul Beresford, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with applications for naturalisation as a British citizen made by members or former members of the armed forces.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September, and to be printed (Bill 13) with explanatory notes (Bill 13-EN).
Deep Sea Mining Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sheryll Murray, supported by Dr Matthew Offord, Andrew Bridgen, Oliver Colvile, Paul Maynard, Caroline Nokes, George Eustice and Dr Thérèse Coffey, presented a Bill to make provision about deep sea mining; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September, and to be printed (Bill 14) with explanatory notes (Bill 14-EN).
House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dan Byles, supported by Andrew George, Mr David Blunkett, Mr Jack Straw, Jeremy Lefroy, Sir Nick Harvey, Kris Hopkins, Margaret Beckett, Margot James, Rory Stewart, Dr Thérèse Coffey and Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to make provision for retirement from the House of Lords; and to make provision for the expulsion of Members of the House of Lords in specified circumstances.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 15).
Private Landlords and Letting and Managing Agents (Regulation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Alan Meale, supported by Mr Nick Raynsford, Mr Brian Binley, Ian Swales, Caroline Lucas, Jim Shannon, Jim Sheridan, Graham Evans, Mark Durkan, Bob Stewart, Naomi Long and Jim Dobbin, presented a Bill to establish a mandatory national register of private landlords; to introduce regulation of private sector letting agents and managing agents; to establish a body to administer the national register and to monitor compliance with regulations applying to letting agents and managing agents; to require all tenancy agreements entered into with private landlords to take the form of written agreements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October, and to be printed (Bill 16).
Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Andrew Gwynne, supported by Alan Johnson, Mr David Blunkett, Catherine McKinnell, Mr Jamie Reed, Dan Jarvis, Barbara Keeley, Tom Greatrex, Bill Esterson, Robert Halfon, Andrew George and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to require certain public procurement contracts let by public authorities to include a commitment by the contractor to provide apprenticeships and skills training; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November, and to be printed (Bill 17).
Delivery Surcharges (Transparency for Consumers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mike Crockart on behalf of Sir Robert Smith, supported by Sir Malcolm Bruce, John Thurso, Mr Alan Reid, Mr Frank Doran, Dame Anne Begg, Mr Charles Kennedy, Mr Mike Weir, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Mr Andrew Turner and Dr Eilidh Whiteford, presented a Bill to require online retailers to declare to consumers at the start of the retail process the existence of surcharges for delivery to certain addresses in the UK; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September, and to be printed (Bill 19).
Drug Driving (Assessment of Drug Misuse) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Graham Evans, supported by Sir Alan Meale, Mr David Nuttall, John Mann, Tracey Crouch, Fiona Bruce, Gavin Barwell, Alex Shelbrooke, Conor Burns, Charlie Elphicke, Mike Freer and Sir Bob Russell, presented a Bill to provide for the assessment of drug dependency or propensity for drug misuse of persons who, in the course of investigations for certain driving offences, have provided blood or urine samples that reveal the presence of certain drugs; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 20) with explanatory notes (Bill 20-EN).
Communications (Unsolicited Telephone Calls and Texts) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mike Crockart, supported by Alun Cairns, Sir Andrew Stunell, Jackie Doyle-Price, Katy Clark, Mr Mike Weir, Dr Julian Huppert, Simon Wright, Steve Brine, Fiona Bruce and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to reduce the incidence of unsolicited telephone calls and texts received by consumers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November, and to be printed (Bill 21).
Graduated Driving Licence Scheme Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Justin Tomlinson, supported by Mr Robert Buckland, Sir Nick Harvey, Mark Pawsey, Kelvin Hopkins, Roger Williams, Andrew Percy, Fiona Bruce, Sir Andrew Stunell, Rosie Cooper, Mr John Leech and John McDonnell, presented a Bill to make provision for a graduated driving licence scheme; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October, and to be printed (Bill 22).
Child Maltreatment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Mark Williams, supported by Jessica Morden, Roger Williams, Mr Robert Buckland, Neil Parish, Dan Rogerson, Geraint Davies, Paul Goggins, Annette Brooke and Jonathan Edwards, presented a Bill to make provision about the physical and emotional welfare of children; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July, and to be printed (Bill 23).
Communication Support (Deafness) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Mark Williams on behalf of Sir Malcolm Bruce, supported by Stephen Lloyd, Rosie Cooper, Richard Ottaway, Mr Michael McCann, Tim Loughton, Sir Robert Smith, Dame Anne Begg, Mr John Leech, Mr Robert Buckland and Mr Mark Williams, presented a Bill to establish a body to assess provision of communication support for Deaf people and to make recommendations; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October, and to be printed (Bill 24).
Property Blight Compensation Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mrs Caroline Spelman, supported by Dan Byles, Sir Tony Baldry, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Jeremy Lefroy, Mrs Anne Main, Andrew Leadsom and Fiona Bruce, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to amend legislation to improve the system of compensation for property blight caused by major national infrastructure projects; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 25).
Education (Information Sharing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Andrew Selous, supported by Harriett Baldwin, Steve Brine, Margot James, Charlie Elphicke, Nigel Mills, Martin Vickers, Julian Sturdy, Graham Evans, Sir Bob Russell, Jim Sheridan and Michael Connarty, presented a Bill to make provision about the disclosure and use of information relating to persons who are or have been in education or training.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July, and to be printed (Bill 26) with explanatory notes (Bill 26-EN).
Prisons (Drug Testing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Margot James, supported by Harriett Baldwin, Steve Brine, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Ben Gummer, Chris Kelly and Andrew Selous, presented a Bill to make provision about the drugs for which persons detained in prisons and similar institutions may be tested.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September, and to be printed (Bill 27) with explanatory notes (Bill 27-EN).
Gender Equality (International Development) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr William Cash, supported by Sir Malcolm Bruce, Pauline Latham, Mr Bernard Jenkin, Keith Vaz, Jeremy Lefroy, Meg Hillier, Hugh Bayley, Margot James, Sarah Newton, Mr Brooks Newmark and Zac Goldsmith, presented a Bill to promote gender equality in the provision by the Government of development assistance and humanitarian assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September, and to be printed (Bill 28).
United Kingdom Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Michael Meacher, supported by Ann Clwyd, Ian Mearns, Caroline Lucas, John Mann, Stephen Pound, Fabian Hamilton, Mr Frank Doran, Kelvin Hopkins, Simon Hughes, Mr George Mudie and Paul Blomfield, presented a Bill to require disclosure of various financial information by large companies; to provide for disclosure of beneficial ownership; to require banks to disclose to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs the identity of certain companies holding bank accounts; to require the publication of the tax returns of individuals with an income of more than a certain level and the largest two hundred and fifty UK companies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September, and to be printed (Bill 29).
Local Government (Religious Etc. Observances) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Stevenson on behalf of Dr Matthew Offord, supported by John Stevenson, Gavin Shuker, Mr Gary Streeter and Jim Dobbin, presented a Bill to make provision about the inclusion at local authority meetings of observances that are, and about powers of local authorities in relation to events that to any extent are, religious or related to a religious or philosophical belief.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 30) with explanatory notes (Bill 30-EN).
Opposition Day
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arts and Creative Industries
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:59 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 213 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the importance to the UK of the arts and creative industries, with art and culture enriching the lives of individuals, reinforcing a sense of local community, and being vital to the economy, generating more than £36 billion a year and employing 1.5 million people; calls on the Government actively to support the arts by developing a strategy for the arts and creative industries; believes that this should include putting creativity at the heart of education, ensuring that creative industries have access to finance and funding, protecting intellectual property, supporting the arts and creative industries, including museums and galleries, in all nations and regions of the country, not just London, and attracting inward investment and providing support for exports; recognises that it is not only right in principle that the arts should be for everyone but that the arts thrive when they draw on the pool of talent of young people from every part of the country and all walks of life; and believes that a strong Department for Culture, Media and Sport with a Secretary of State standing up for the arts is crucial.
This debate is an opportunity for the whole House to express support for our arts and creative industries and to assert their great importance to this country. In this House, we often debate health, education and the economy, and we should recognise that the arts contribute to all of those. It is right too that we talk about the intrinsic value of the arts—how they move us and challenge us, and the great joy that arts and culture bring to our lives. Yes, the arts make money for this country, but they are never just a commodity. From the parents watching a school play to the nation watching the Olympic ceremony, the arts enrich our lives and all our communities. Therefore, we should have no hesitation in standing up for them and declaring their importance to individuals, communities and our economy.
We are a country that produces some of the greatest creativity on the planet, whether it is music, fashion, film, theatre, broadcasting, design, art, our libraries or our museums. Our cultural creativity is admired and envied around the world, and it was that belief that led the Labour party when it was in government to step up support for the arts, including massively strengthening the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, bringing in free entry to museums and galleries, and trebling the budget for the Arts Council. But let us be clear: public support for the arts is repaid over and over. For example, there was a £5,000 public subsidy to support the stage production of “The Woman in Black”. Since then, the production company has paid back more than £12 million in tax to the Treasury.
Public subsidy allows for the willingness of the arts to take risks, like the hugely successful “Matilda”, which the Royal Shakespeare company says would just not have been possible without public seedcorn funding. For some, subsidy has become a dirty word, but there is a false dichotomy between the public and the commercial. They are inextricably linked. Public investment gives the space for commercial success. The Arts Council calculates that for every pound of Government spending invested in the arts, the British economy gets £4 back.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Apart from the wider values that my right hon. and learned Friend has spoken about, in London alone the arts and cultural sector generates 400,000 jobs and returns £18 billion to the economy. Does she therefore share my disappointment that Westminster city council, at the heart of the west end, has chosen to cut its entire arts and culture budget, leaving it the only local authority in Britain with no targeted arts support at all?
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that in the west midlands alone the regional theatres contribute around £264 million to the economy and that it is therefore not just a question of culture, but of economic development in the regions, which has to be underpinned by the cultural contribution?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) just said, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the west midlands is famous for its arts. Importantly, the cuts currently being made to subsidies are affecting the arts, particularly the Belgrade theatre in Coventry, where many famous artists started out.
Ms Harman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I will be in Coventry tomorrow—I will say more about that later—working with councillors to ensure we do what we can to protect the arts in this difficult time.
Public money provides the basis of the mixed economy that supports the arts. It provides the foundation on which philanthropy and other funding schemes can then build. We should recognise the role of the arts in regeneration, as in my constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. Joe Anderson, the mayor of Liverpool, has said that the arts have been the rocket fuel for his city’s economy. The leader of Birmingham city council, Sir Albert Bore, has said that without the arts and culture, our cities would be deserts. The same is true across the country.
Our belief is that the arts are a public policy imperative because they must be for everyone. Without the active support of public policy, there is a real danger that the arts could become the privilege of the few. That is wrong in principle, because the arts and culture must be a right for all. It is also wrong in practice, because creativity needs to draw on the widest pool of talent. Talent is everywhere in this country, in people from all walks of life. Look at Lee Hall’s “Billy Elliot”, Opera North and Bournemouth symphony orchestra. We can all see the massive success stories. One need only look around at any award ceremony in the world; Britain’s creativity is always right up there in lights. While we celebrate that success, we must not let it mask the reality that the arts are facing a difficult time, especially smaller organisations and those outside London.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the phenomenal impact the arts and the creative sector have had in my constituency and across east London, but one of the major challenges has been the sale of Henry Moore’s sculpture, Draped Seated Woman. Up and down the country, local authorities are selling public works of art. One of the big worries is that by the end of this Session we will be not only economically bankrupt, but culturally bankrupt, and the Government need to address that issue more generally, rather than specifically.
Ms Harman
I absolutely agree. It is incredibly short-sighted, because once something is sold, it can never be regained. In relation to my hon. Friend’s borough of Tower Hamlets and the other east London boroughs, I pay tribute to the Barbican for the outreach work it does with school children in east London. While the headlines trumpet our success, behind the scenes there is an arts emergency, especially in the regions.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The right hon. and learned Lady has referred repeatedly to the regions, but does she not agree that in places such as Hampshire there are fantastic arts organisations, such as the Test Valley Arts Foundation, doing exactly what she has highlighted: outreaching to young people and community groups?
Ms Harman
Absolutely, and I pay tribute to those small community organisations, whether they are in Hastings or the hon. Lady’s constituency. Perhaps she will have an opportunity to speak about the importance of the arts in her community, because we know that there is genuine support across the House for arts and creativity, and we want to be able to show that support.
The Arts Council, which provides funds for the arts all across the country, has already been cut by 35%, and it is expecting even more cuts. Local government are having their budgets slashed by a third. That is really important, because for most arts organisations, especially those outside London, most public funding comes not from central Government, but from local government.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. So many of our arts institutions, such as Manchester’s Hallé orchestra and the Manchester Camerata, which do fantastic work with local schools in my constituency, including Denton community college, get a large amount of their funding from the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which is made up of the 10 councils around Greater Manchester. Sadly that is just no longer sustainable, given the cuts that the Government have forced on those councils.
Ms Harman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The truth is that outside London it is much more difficult for such organisations to get philanthropic support. The reality is that there is a very uneven distribution of philanthropy. I pay tribute to him for his support for the arts, and also to Sir Richard Leese and Manchester city council for the important support they give the arts. Local authorities are struggling.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will want to congratulate Swansea on reaching the shortlist to be city of culture in 2017. In Swansea and elsewhere we should be aware of the enormous growth of tourism from China, India and other developing countries. We should invest in the infrastructure of culture and the arts and take advantage of more and more visitors, rather than cutting them.
Ms Harman
Indeed, and I hope to say something about the importance of our work overseas to highlight our arts. In the meantime, I add my congratulations to Swansea bay on being shortlisted for city of culture in 2017, and I also congratulate Leicester, Hull and Dundee.
Even in such difficult times for local authorities, when they are having to grapple with how to care for the elderly and protect vulnerable people, it is important that they do all they can to support the arts, as is happening in Manchester, which is protecting the arts to protect its future success as a city.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
The right hon. and learned Lady mentioned the play “Matilda”. She will know that in Stratford-on-Avon the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and the Orchestra of the Swan are all important cultural assets. She talks about local authorities. Of course, the average spend of a local authority is about £385,000, yet some authorities, such as Newcastle city council, have £50 million in reserves. The shadow Chancellor has already called for almost £45 billion of extra borrowing and spending. Will she confirm whether any of that money would go towards the arts under a Labour Administration?
Ms Harman
The shadow Chancellor has said that we have to invest in jobs and growth in the future, and I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that future jobs will come from the creative industry as well as from investments in infrastructure. I pay tribute to him for his support for the arts and to the Royal Shakespeare Company in his constituency.
To support councillors across the country who are facing such difficult choices, we have set up a network of local councillors to come together to discuss the challenges facing them and the importance of the arts in local communities and to share best practice. There are many things that local authorities can do, and are doing, to support the arts, over and above the provision of public money, for example sharing back-office functions, granting licences and offering public spaces for arts events. I am delighted that tomorrow I will be in Coventry’s transport museum meeting our creative councillors network from across the country. We are thinking in imaginative and innovative way about how to help the arts, even in these difficult times.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The right hon. and learned Lady is right that it is a question of getting priorities right for local authorities. Does she think that rather than giving £250,000 a year to the trade unions in subsidies, Newcastle city council should invest that money in the arts instead?
Ms Harman
The hon. Gentleman should look at Newcastle city council’s innovative culture fund, which not only shows its backing for the arts but provides a platform for bringing in outside commercial and philanthropic investment. We need to support and pay tribute to just such innovative thinking.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is a bit of an angel herself, but does she recognise that the Angel of the North has not just become a world icon, but helped to drive tens of millions of pounds of investment in the north-east? Its legacy is now very much in danger.
Ms Harman
I absolutely agree. The Angel of the North is not just a proud landmark for the north; the whole country admires it. We wish we had an angel of similar height and scale in Peckham.
The truth is that if we want the arts to thrive in future, they need to survive now. It takes years to build them up, but they can be destroyed at the stroke of a pen. The situation is so difficult that we have to forge a survival strategy for the arts. That is work for a broad-ranging coalition, including the Arts Council, local government, the arts community and central Government—not just the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but, crucially, the Department for Education, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The Culture Secretary must take the lead and stand up for culture—the clue is in her title. That means not letting the Communities and Local Government Secretary squash arts in the regions, not letting the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary slope off to Europe to water down copyright and not letting the Education Secretary sweep creativity out of the curriculum.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Does the right hon. and learned Lady share my concern about the uncertainty over funding for S4C, the Welsh language television channel? BBC funding is guaranteed until 2017, but Department for Culture, Media and Sport funding may disappear in 2015.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
My right hon. and learned Friend is making an important point about survival. Does she agree that, although the economic case for the arts is well made, in the regions we also need our identities to survive? That is what local authorities, in partnership with the Government, should be able to do through the arts. In the city region of Merseyside where I grew up, we did not have much but we did have the Everyman theatre and Walker art gallery, which meant so much to our identity. That is exactly the kind of survival that we need right now.
Ms Harman
I absolutely agree. The spark that was lit in my hon. Friend is carried through to her support for the arts in her constituency to this day.
The Culture Secretary should be working with the arts and creative industries to develop a clear, confident strategy and make sure that it is delivered. We must be sure that the opportunities are there for young people to experience and participate in the arts—at school, at college and through apprenticeships—so that they can make their way into earning their livings in the arts.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
On the point about schools, does my right hon. and learned Friend share an anxiety of mine? On 28 February 2012, the Government announced that they would immediately establish a new ministerial board between the Culture and Education Departments and immediately produce a cultural education strategy, and we have not yet seen either.
Ms Harman
We have yet to see those, but we have seen a fall in the number of school pupils taking exams in creative subjects. There has also been a fall in the number of students applying to do creative subjects at university.
We must be sure that artists and arts organisations have the right infrastructure for funding, which includes a mix of public subsidy, philanthropy and other innovative sources such as crowd funding.
Ms Harman
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so I will carry on.
Britain’s creative talent is a precious natural resource and must be protected, so the Government must get off the fence and rigorously enforce intellectual property rights. The arts situation is different outside London from how it is here in the capital, so there needs to be a specific, separate focus on the English regions, Scotland and Wales. [Interruption.] Indeed, support for tax credits is important across Scotland and Wales as well. [Interruption.] There are a number of arts organisations, such as the BBC, which are important in the arts in Scotland and Wales as well as in England. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) ought to know that.
British creativity is recognised all around the world, so we must have co-ordinated work that includes BIS, UK Trade & Investment, the Foreign Office and the British Council to showcase the best of British. Finally, running through any culture strategy must be a fundamental principle: the arts must be a right for everyone, not the preserve of a privileged elite. That is not only important in principle; to carry on as world leaders, we need to continue to draw on the widest possible pool of talent.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s steadfast and continuing support for Welsh language broadcasting by S4C. Does she not agree that the arts are extremely important for international and community cohesion? The Llangollen international musical eisteddfod in my constituency was set up at the end of the second world war, to bring nations and cultures together. That is another vital facet of the arts.
Ms Harman
Absolutely. One of the things that is so distinctive and admirable about Wales is its people’s love of culture and the eisteddfod tradition. I pay tribute to that.
We cannot accept the Government amendment. Although it details some of the important work that the Department is doing, it is complacent and totally out of touch with what is happening on the ground. It asks us to welcome
“the continued strong lead given by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport”,
but the truth is that no one in the arts thinks that such a lead is being given. It is what the arts need, but not what they have.
A heavy responsibility falls on the Secretary of State. This is a difficult time for the arts, which is why at this point it would be disastrous to dismantle the Department. Britain’s arts and creative industries are important for our future. They must have unequivocal backing from the Government and a strong Secretary of State with a seat at the Cabinet table. I look forward to speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House in support of the arts and I call on them to stand up for the arts and vote for the Opposition motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I advise the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and add:
“welcomes the Government’s support for the arts and creative industries; notes the increase in Lottery funding for the arts which will mean that some £3 billion will be provided for the arts from the National Lottery and in Grant in Aid over the lifetime of the present Parliament; notes that there has been further support for the arts from the Government, including the introduction of lifetime giving, catalyst funding and the maintenance of free admission to the UK’s national museums; welcomes the first ever national music plan for education, and looks forward to the imminent publication of the national cultural plan for education; further notes the Government’s support for the creative industries, including tax credits for film, television and animation; looks forward to the introduction of a tax credit for video games; notes the establishment of a Creative Industries Council; and welcomes the continued strong lead given by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in these areas.”.
I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to debate such an important subject. As all Members know, the arts are one of Britain’s crown jewels. We are known across the world for our cultural and creative prowess.
We heard a lot of warm words from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), but she was a bit short on policies. A closer reading of the Opposition motion shows, all too clearly, that the Opposition have not kept up to date with the work that the Government have been doing for the past three years in supporting this vital sector.
Britain is already a world leader in the arts and the creative industries, and I want to give the right hon. and learned Lady and all Members the opportunity to show their positive support for what has already been achieved. I hope that she will be able to support the Government’s amendment.
The country undoubtedly faces difficult economic times. As I think Labour now accepts, that calls for discipline in public spending. However, the right hon. and learned Lady sounded as if she was calling for more spending. What is it—more spending or iron discipline? I am still not sure.
Maria Miller
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify that when he intervenes.
Paul Farrelly
The motion mentions leadership. Since the 2010 general election, the Department has taken on more responsibilities, including, notably, telecoms, so the creative industries are not the only ones looking to the Department for leadership. Will the Secretary of State therefore categorically confirm that, given all the planned cuts, the Department will still be in existence at the next general election in 2015?
Maria Miller
Yes, and I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham would be able to elaborate on that and say that she has heard that from the Prime Minister himself.
The House should be focusing on the important issue of the future of our creative industries. I gently suggest that if the right hon. and learned Lady and other Opposition Members looked a little closer, they would see that the Government have increased lottery funding to the arts by £100 million a year; developed the catalyst fund to encourage organisations to build endowments for the first time; introduced lifetime giving and the cultural gift scheme; maintained free access to museums in the toughest economic climate for almost a century; launched a national music education plan; developed a national cultural education plan; introduced tax credits for film, television and animation; announced tax credits for video games; and established Creative England and the creative industries council. This is practical action that is being taken now, despite the difficult economic situation we face, to support the arts because of how important they are.
Ms Gisela Stuart
What the arts need is proper co-ordination. Some really good work is being done between the British Museum and Birmingham art galleries. It is not so much a question of money as of central co-ordination. It looks to me as though that co-ordination is about to be lost. Will the Secretary of State assure us that that is not the case?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of co-ordination and regional funding. That is why we have put so much focus on it, particularly on the Arts Council’s work in the creative people and places programme, the strategic touring programme and grants for the arts. Hundreds of millions of pounds are going into the sorts of regional activities that many hon. Members have mentioned.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State remind the House of her splendid visit to Stroud on a cold February night, where she saw at first hand the Stroud valley art project and a number of other fantastic arts and crafts activities? That rams home the point that arts and crafts in my constituency are alive and well, with the support of this Government.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. In his constituency I saw first hand how this commitment to the arts is being translated into industry and jobs in the heart of his constituency. That sort of relationship between the arts and the creative industries means that we have some of the very best creative industries in the world. As the recent survey of theatre workers by Creative & Cultural Skills demonstrated, the relationship between cultural organisations and the creative industries is fluid and vital, and underpins the £36 billion a year that the creative industries are worth.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
May I take the right hon. Lady back to free entry to museums? There is chaos in the regions, because our excellent museums, such as the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, are fighting a rear-guard action against threatened 10% cuts. Tens of thousands of people are terribly worried—there is a campaign in the local paper—that Government cuts will force such excellent museums to close. Will the right hon. Lady clarify that not only will free entry to museums be maintained, but that there will be no swingeing cuts, which would cause our excellent museum to close?
Maria Miller
I am sure the hon. Lady will have followed the settlement we have achieved for the arts and museum sector and that she will be delighted that there is absolutely no reason why such a closure should happen. A 5% reduction in funds will obviously be a challenge for the sector, but it has welcomed it and I hope the hon. Lady welcomes it, too.
Our cultural offer is intrinsic to our nation’s success in tourism: 40% of people who come to our country cite culture as the most important reason for visiting and eight out of 10 of our top visitor attractions are museums. Hon. Members from all parties know that this is not just a London story, as Liverpool can testify, having received almost 10 million extra visitors during its year as European city of culture.
The arts are, as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham said so powerfully in her opening remarks, of immense social value, too. They define who we are and what we stand for as a nation. They also help us understand where we come from and they support and shape our communities.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State clarify that one of this Government’s first acts was to increase the amount of lottery funding for the arts? Am I correct in understanding that it was the Labour party that in 2004 cut the percentage from 20% to 16%?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. That meant a significant reduction in lottery funding for the arts. I will come on to that in more detail in a moment.
It is for all the reasons that hon. Members have already raised in their interventions that I and my Department fought so hard to protect spending on the arts and culture during the recent spending round. Despite doing our bit as a Department and playing our part in tackling our crippling deficit, the reduction in the funding of the arts and museums in 2015-16 will be just 5%.
Hywel Williams
Given the happy news about the Department’s future survival, will the Secretary of State report on the prospect of DCMS funding for S4C after 2015?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a clear obligation to make sure that there is sufficient funding. I am aware of this issue and will talk to colleagues and, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman about it. He will know, however, that I am not able to give him any future details at the moment, because they are subject to the spending review.
In the context of the difficult financial climate, the settlement our Department has achieved clearly demonstrates the Government’s recognition of the economic and social value of culture. This is an important settlement for the arts in a very challenging spending review.
I would be interested to hear from those on the Opposition Front Bench—I think we would all be interested to hear this—whether or not they will commit to the same level of funding and spending, or will the arts be one of the areas covered by the shadow Chancellor’s iron discipline on public spending, or will the Opposition promise to increase spending on the arts? It is not clear what their polices are or where their funding would come from.
Maria Miller
I will give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).
Robert Flello
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. She has mentioned regional theatre. Will she explain why it is that of the 696 organisations regularly funded through Arts Council England’s national portfolio programme, there is only one in the whole of Staffordshire, namely the New Vic in the neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)? It does amazing and fantastic work, employs about 90 individuals and contributes nearly £12 million to the local economy, but why, out of the 696, is it the only one in the whole of Staffordshire?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman may or may not know that I was born in Staffordshire. I understand his desire to ensure that Staffordshire has strong cultural representation. The Arts Council funds 179 theatre organisations and groups. Those decisions are made at arm’s length from the Government by the Arts Council, which I am sure listens carefully to his remarks.
Maria Miller
I had promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud first, but then I will give way to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
Neil Carmichael
The investment the Government are providing for broadband in my constituency is a huge advantage to the creative industry, especially in areas beyond our towns, where people need access to broadband for their design and technology work. Does the Secretary of State feel inclined to commit to ensuring that broadband is provided for most of my constituents by the time of the general election?
Maria Miller
Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and heard his constituents’ comments directly, I know how important the Government’s superfast broadband project is to such constituencies. It will ensure that not only our creative industries are supported, but cultural organisations, whether galleries or libraries. Broadband can support and help their work so much.
As well as managing the reductions in grant in aid I have mentioned, the Government have made important changes to the national lottery to ensure that arts and culture are properly supported, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) has said. As she pointed out, one of the first things this Government did was reverse Labour’s lottery cuts. In 1998, the Labour Government cut lottery support for the arts—their cuts took £600 million out of the sector. The coalition has restored the proportion the arts receive, meaning an extra £100 million goes to the arts each year. When the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) responds to the debate for the Opposition, will he commit to maintaining the current proportion of lottery funding to the arts, or will Labour cut it again?
Fiona Mactaggart
In the Secretary of State’s list of achievements she mentioned the announcement of the cultural education strategy. That happened 16 months ago. Where is it?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady will know that we have done an incredible amount in that area, whether for the Youth Dance Company or the other organisations that are part of the plan we are developing—[Interruption.] She will have heard the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), say from a sedentary position that further details will be announced next month.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to know that the Government’s commitment to the arts will mean that more public money in cash terms will go to the Arts Council under this Government than under the previous one. Why, therefore, do the Opposition constantly posture about funding cuts rather than propose their own plans? It is no good the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham sitting there just criticising. People are listening to the debate, and want to know what she and her hon. Friends want to do differently. What do they want to do differently, and how will she fund it?
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming down to Brighton and Hove to visit NCSOFT and others in the software industry, and the music industry in the Brighton Institute of Modern Music. Does she agree that the Government have done significant amounts for the software industry and the music industry? They have raised live licence numbers from 100 to 200—it will shortly be 500.
Maria Miller
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on supporting those parts of the creative industries. It was fantastic to go along and speak to the students in his constituency who are doing so much to support the future of the music industry. We should applaud his work in that area.
The Government’s action means we can maintain spending on grants for the arts, which provide funding for 3,700 organisations up and down the country, and support the Arts Council’s £45 million touring programme, which is hugely valuable for the regions. The Arts Council announced just last week further touring grants of nearly £2 million. The Government’s action also means we can pump money into areas where the arts are under-represented, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned. The Arts Council’s £37 million creative people and places fund will focus on parts of the country in which involvement in the arts is significantly below the national average.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I acknowledge some of the Secretary of State’s achievements, but is she satisfied that the distribution is fair? Does she believe that areas such as the midlands get a fair share of arts funding in relation to their populations?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is vital that we ensure that the money available goes to the places that need it most. The Arts Council, as an arm’s length body, makes those decisions independently of the Government. We must take into account the importance of ensuring that the money gets to those areas, and particularly to rural areas, which can find it difficult to have sustainable arts programmes.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I must declare an interest as chairman of the Northampton Theatres Trust, which has a £7.5 million turnover. We receive Arts Council funding, for which we are eternally grateful. We all love regional theatre and the culture that it brings to towns across the country. I know that the Arts Council is an arm’s length body, but why should it fund two national opera companies in London, when if it funded just one, there would be plenty of money for regional theatre across the country?
Maria Miller
I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration, but the national institutions that are located in our capital city do much to support regional organisations both by supplying them with talented people and by training people from the regions. He makes the important point that regional culture, and theatre in particular, needs the right level of funding. I hope that he supports the work that we are doing to ensure that that happens.
Nadhim Zahawi
Does my right hon. Friend recognise the input that the arts have in schools? In my constituency, the Orchestra of the Swan, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and, of course, the Royal Shakespeare Company do great work in schools. The RSC also developed “Matilda” over seven years with Arts Council funding, which has gone around the world, has won Tonys and Oliviers, and is a great British export.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend will know about the support that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education gives to the work of the Royal Shakespeare Company. My hon. Friend brings out the critical role that cultural organisations can have in underpinning the understanding of the arts and culture among the children of this country. That is important work.
Maria Miller
If I may, I will make a tiny bit of progress before I take further interventions, because I know that a lot of Members want to speak in this debate.
The regional support that I have outlined illustrates how important we consider regional arts to be. I reinforced that point when I spoke recently at the British Museum. That is why the funding settlement that we have achieved is so important. It means that we can continue to fund projects in the Lake district, Leicester, Newcastle and Newquay.
The Government’s achievements do not stop at public funding. We have made great strides on philanthropy. We recognise that that is a way in which many organisations can diversify their funding streams. We have developed the catalyst scheme with the Arts Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has allocated £110 million to arts and heritage organisations in match funding, meaning that it will unlock at least as much again from private donors. We have simplified gift aid and introduced a reduced rate of inheritance tax for those who leave 10% or more of their estate to charity. We recently launched the cultural gifts scheme. I am sure that many hon. Members would like to join me in thanking the donors who already contribute almost £700 million to the arts and heritage sector every year. That support should not go unnoticed by this House.
We have been working closely with our colleagues in the Department for Education on cultural education plans. We have published the first ever national plan for music education, which has ring-fenced funding of £171 million up to 2015. Our national plan for cultural education will be launched next month, as the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, said. Sadler’s Wells has already been selected to form the new national youth dance company. English Heritage is receiving £2.7 million from the Department for Education to establish heritage schools, which schoolchildren can visit to be inspired by our rich island story. Our 10 regional museums and schools partnerships have been awarded a total of £3.6 million funding until 2015 through the museums and schools programme.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being so generous with her time. Unfortunately, the Department for Education cut the creative partnerships programme for schools, which was a £30 million programme designed to get young people involved in creative and artistic activities. Was that not a great shame?
Maria Miller
We are now putting more funding into cultural education through our work with the Arts Council. The hon. Gentleman should look at that before he draws too many conclusions about the effect that any changes will have on our schools. We have all agreed that cultural organisations in our communities do a huge amount, and no Member of this House would suggest otherwise.
Having worked in the creative industries for 17 years, I have first-hand experience of the importance of culture and the arts in supporting what I believe is a world-class sector, and the work we have done will help ensure that our creative industries stay world-beating. It is clear to me that a symbiotic relationship exists between culture and the arts and the creative industries, and that view is reinforced time and again when I go on regional visits, whether to Bury, Bristol or—as I did recently—to Brighton. It sings out loud and clear.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the right hon. Lady for having visited Brighton and Hove and spent time looking at some companies in my constituency. Those businesses are rightly proud that our city has won £3.3 million of investment for ultrafast broadband, but they are worried about a potential story coming from Labour that about half the super-connected cities budget could be cut to concentrate on access in rural areas. Does she agree that the speed versus access debate is not helpful because both are essential for different reasons? We need basic internet access for social inclusion, but ultrafast capacity is essential if we are to enable our UK cities to be at the cutting edge of international creative and digital innovation.
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady would be right to be deeply disappointed if anybody—let alone those on the Opposition Front Bench—suggested we should cut investment into one of this country’s most important current infrastructure projects. I join her in asking Labour Members to make their position clear on that issue in their later comments.
Maria Miller
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, and I apologise that I did not do so earlier.
Mr Lammy
Of course the 5% cut is welcomed by the sector, but the right hon. Lady will recognise that it comes on top of 5% last year and 29% the year before. Is it not premature to paint a rosy picture when arts organisations are waiting for decisions by local authorities? I appeal to her in tone not to give the impression that all is rosy when we know that education programmes are being cut and that links to arts organisations are diminishing.
Maria Miller
From his previous role, the right hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience in dealing with the difficult choices that I and colleagues have to make. Equally, if he feels that the decisions the Government are making are not right, he must explain to the House what decisions his party would take and where the additional funding would come from. We are trying to take tough decisions fairly, and ensure that we encourage organisations to come and work together in new ways. Earlier, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham mentioned budget cuts being an innovation. I like to talk plainly, and I acknowledge that we are in a difficult position economically. We are making tough decisions, but I think we are making them fairly.
We must recognise the importance of being transparent with people, and I was disappointed at the failure to recognise the importance of being straightforward in the recent intervention by the shadow Culture Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), about the Labour council’s decision in Newcastle to cut funding. Indeed, it was suggested that the council would cut its entire arts budget last December. Perhaps if he had understood that point more clearly, the shadow Culture Minister would have instead suggested—my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) made this point—that the council dip into its £50 million of reserves, rather than waiting for his boss, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, to overrule him.
I am pleased that we have made huge strides in providing support for our creative industries, which have an enormous impact on our economy and up and down the country. In 2011 the Government formed the Creative Industries Council to help drive growth in the UK’s creative industries and ensure that the UK remains a global centre of excellence for those industries.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady will know that the success of our creative industries, which she is right to applaud, depends on the firm foundations of intellectual property rights and copyright protections, so why is she not getting on with the Digital Economy Act 2010 and why is she pursuing copyright exceptions?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited a difficult situation around the implementation of some of the provisions—provisions that were unfortunately rushed through by the previous Government and which we now have to deal with in practical reality—and we are working through them carefully.
Creative England, established in 2011, looks at investments in creative ideas, talent and businesses in film, television, games and the digital media. Along with the Creative Industries Council, it is an important way of sensibly supporting the creative industries. Our existing film tax relief has helped raise more than £1 billion in inward investment into British film, while additional tax reliefs targeted at animation, high-end television and video games were announced in last year’s Budget. These are all practical and tangible ways of helping to grow a successful creative industries sector in this country, underpinned by strong and world-leading cultural organisations.
Maria Miller
I will give way first to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. Friend.
Kerry McCarthy
On a point of clarification, the Secretary of State’s recent speech was interpreted to mean that she thought that the priority was continued public funding where there was a direct economic impact—in other words, that we should only support art that makes money. Will she place it on the record that that will not be the criterion for her Department’s allocation for funding, and that although the economic impact of the arts is great, there are many more benefits to arts funding?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. It might help, Secretary of State, if I could explain to the House that more than 30 Members wish to take part in this debate. There is already a severe time limit, and it will get even shorter at this rate. You have been incredibly generous, Secretary of State, but I wonder if I could encourage you to be a little less generous, so that we can get some Back Benchers in.
Maria Miller
I thank you for your intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I feel that I should give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright); otherwise I will fall into his bad books.
Simon Wright
Norwich University of the Arts in my constituency is creating a digital centre for innovation. It has come as a result of national funding and support from the new Anglia local enterprise partnership and, of course, of the world-class innovation shown by the university itself. Will the Secretary of State look at this model and how she can work with others in government to promote the best from our world-class universities and create jobs in our communities?
Maria Miller
Of course, I will answer the question from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I just did not want my hon. Friend not to get the opportunity to talk as well. She is right to pick up on her point, but had she read my whole speech, rather than just an extract, she would have seen clearly that the Government absolutely recognise the intrinsic value of arts and culture. The point I was making—I think, very clearly—in that speech was that there was a powerful economic argument to be made as well. As somebody who has worked in the creative industries for almost 20 years, I know that having a strong culture and arts sector, as we do in this country, means that we can also have a strong creative industry, which has an economic benefit. That is the argument I have used—persuasively, I think—with the Treasury, and perhaps that is why we have achieved such a strong result for the sector.
On the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South, I would be delighted for the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, to have a further discussion with him. I am sure he would be delighted to do that too.
I shall take your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and make a few closing remarks. Our international reputation for arts and culture and the easy transfer of people between the cultural sector and the creative industries are based on the enormous talents of the people who work in the sector. We recognise that we need to invest for the future, however, and thanks to our sector skills councils, more than 3,500 people have either completed or are currently doing apprenticeships in the creative industries. The Arts Council’s creative employment programme will support up to 6,500 new apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships and paid internships across the sector, and the Government are investing up to £8 million each year over the next two years to support skills development in the UK digital content sector. That is important investment in people for the future. It is ensuring that our creative industries have the sort of skilled work force that we need to innovate and compete globally.
We work closely with UK Trade & Investment, the British Council and others to explore ways to promote creative industries globally, too. We are using the GREAT campaign to underpin not just those efforts, but our economic ambitions more generally. The arts and culture, including our museums and galleries, have a key role to play. They act as our flag bearers, helping to develop interest in Britain and allowing us to build the relationships that mean we can do the trade deals of tomorrow. It is this kind of relationship marketing that helps UKTI to fly the flag for British goods and services, and to attract the investment that will drive jobs and opportunities here at home. It opens doors for UK plc and makes it easier for businesses to export and to expand.
If we look at what is actually happening, rather than the rhetoric from the Opposition, we see huge success up and down the country. We see new libraries opening in Birmingham and Liverpool, new regional museums in Margate and Wakefield, and refurbished and regenerated theatres in Bristol and Liverpool. Today, my Department announced a shortlist of four cities that will go forward to compete to be UK city of culture in 2017. While I—I am sorry, but the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham does not announce these things—commiserate with the seven bidders that were not shortlisted, I congratulate all 11 for their ambition and the belief that they share with me that arts and culture are a powerful force for good socially and economically, both at home and abroad.
I take this opportunity to applaud those who lead the arts and cultural institutions in our country for their vision and hard work. Above all, I thank them for their passion and innovation, and for ensuring that Britain remains a pre-eminent cultural force that is well regarded and respected all around the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Speaker has put a six-minute time limit on all Back Bench contributions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Are we all waiting to leave the Chamber? [Laughter.] I just thought that maybe hon. Members knew something that I did not. Given the shortage of time, it may be necessary to review the time limit and reduce it further, but we will start with a six-minute limit and see how we get on.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I am fortunate to represent the beautiful historic city of York. It is a vibrant centre for the arts, science, craft skills, technology and the creative industries. It is important to realise that they feed off each other—we cannot silo the arts away from science and think that the one does not affect the other. We have apprentice stonemasons being trained at York Minster and wood carvers. The York Glaziers Trust is restoring the biggest mediaeval work of art in the world, the great east window of York Minster, in a £30 million project. Exhibition designers have just installed the new York Minster Revealed exhibition in the undercroft below York Minster, which combines Roman remains with interactive computer-driven displays, so that people can imagine what life was like almost 2,000 years ago. We have software engineers who have designed some of the world’s most popular computer games. I could talk about all these things, but instead I want to talk about one thing only: the Science Museum Group, which includes the National Railway museum in York.
On 5 June, the director of the Science Museum Group, Ian Blatchford, said:
“If an additional 10% cut is made when the spending review is announced at the end of the month, there would be little choice other than to close one of our museums.”
Following that statement, I tabled two parliamentary questions to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) whether free admission to national museums would be retained—he answered yes, and I thank him for that—and whether sufficient funding would be made available to keep open all of the Science Museum Group’s museums. I got an equivocal answer at that time, but when I was on Radio York with the Minister yesterday morning, he gave a clear answer, saying that he believed sufficient funding was being made available to the Science Museum Group to keep all its museums open.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend knows, Shildon in my constituency is home to one of the branches of the National Railway museum. It is immensely successful. Last year, it had 200,000 visitors, brought £6 million into the regional economy and trained 100 young people. Does he agree that, as railways made Britain great and that these are among the most popular of our national museums, free entry is absolutely essential?
Hugh Bayley
It is absolutely essential.
I take it that the Minister’s comment on the radio in Yorkshire yesterday applied to all the sites—to Shildon as well as to the York branch of the National Railway museum.
I also tabled a parliamentary question to ask about the Government’s funding for the Science Museum Group. The Minister replied yesterday, for which I am grateful. He told me that if the funding were pooled for the Science museum, which includes the York, Shildon and Bradford museums, the Museum for Science and Industry in Manchester, which was funded separately until recently, and the National Coal Mining museum, one would see that the total had fallen from £48.25 million in 2009-10 to £42.25 million this year. That is a reduction of more than 15% after inflation is taken into account.
We are told that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport secured a reduction of only 5% in its funding settlement. If the Science museum received a further cut of 5%, its structural deficit would increase from about £2 million a year to £4 million a year. Nothing has been said yet about the capital funding of between £2 million and £2.5 million. If that is not provided, the deficit will of course increase further, because revenue money would have to be used to repair the roof of the museum and for other capital works. If the Science Museum Group does not receive capital money in addition, the deficit will rise and, even though the doors of the museums will stay open, the greater the deficit, the less money there will be for preserving and conserving their artefacts, for research, for public education and outreach and for collecting new assets. It is odd that a Conservative Government should be doing significantly less to conserve our national heritage than was being done before. We face the real danger of our museums being hollowed out. It is not just me saying that; the directors of our national museums are saying it, too.
Our museums, including the National Railway museum, have some of the most valuable artefacts in the world. We have George Stephenson’s original engineering drawings for the Rocket. We have the Mallard, which won the world speed record for a steam locomotive 75 years ago. This year, the museum has assembled the other five remaining Gresley class locomotives in York, probably for the first and last time in history. I once took the US Senator Paul Sarbanes, who is a bit of a railway enthusiast, to the National Railway museum in York. He represented the state of Maryland, which includes Baltimore, home of the US’s biggest railway museum, but he was completely knocked out by our museum. It is in a class of its own, internationally.
The artefacts in our national museums in Bradford, Manchester, South Kensington, York and Shildon are some of the most important and valuable cultural assets in the world. They are like fantastic flowers in a garden. I put it to the Secretary of State that if we do not keep feeding their roots, those flowers will wither and die. There is a danger that, by taking millions and millions out of those museums each year, they will no longer have the resources to keep their collections up to date, conserved and available to the public, now and for future generations.
The Science Museum Group attracts 5 million visitors a year—2 million of whom visit the northern museums—and another 20 million visitors online. It has a diverse range of visitors, with more black and minority ethnic visitors than any other national museum and more from lower socio-economic groups. Also, 60% of its visitors are from outside London and the south-east. The northern museums are not regional museums; they are national and international institutions. The majority of people visiting the National Railway museum in my constituency come from outside Yorkshire and the north of England.
If the Government want to promote growth, they need to inspire more young people to take an interest in engineering, science and technology, which is what the Science Museums Group does. It is no accident that my son, now a railway engineer, was a frequent visitor to science museums in his youth. The Government need to keep these museums alive, and I beg that they do just that.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I very much welcome this opportunity to debate the arts and creative industries. Although I of course support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the spirit of consensus that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport always tries to achieve, I have to say that I can find nothing in the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition that I disagree with.
As a believer in free markets, I am not normally a supporter of public subsidy. However, I am convinced of the benefits of public subsidy in the case of the arts—not just the economic benefits, which the Secretary of State quite rightly spelt out in her speech. The arts are hugely important to people’s quality of life in this country, as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, and many other benefits flow from that in education, health, community cohesion and so much more.
Under the previous Government, the arts enjoyed years of plenty; under this Government, we are facing lean years for the arts. That is absolutely inevitable. This Government have the higher priority of trying to clear up the enormous mountain of borrowing and debt that we inherited, and it would be wrong to exclude the arts from having to play a part in that. However, when we on the Select Committee looked at funding of the arts immediately after the election, we said that it would result in some difficult decisions and that some institutions would probably close as a result. I am delighted to hear from the Secretary of State that she has done well in her debate with colleagues in the Treasury for this year’s spending settlement, but I understand from what I have read and what she has said that we can anticipate still further reductions. That means that more institutions will probably have to close, which will be a tragedy.
That means that we need to look at other means by which we can find funding for those institutions. The Government have already done a lot in trying to encourage philanthropy and, as has been mentioned, to increase the money going from the national lottery. In that respect, I would suggest that what the shadow Secretary of State described as the arts emergency might mean that we can consider—perhaps on only a temporary basis—the flexibility of national lottery funding. It has always been the principle that national lottery funding is there for capital investment projects and not for meeting ongoing costs, but if the consequence is that we can build new buildings while existing ones close, that would not necessarily seem to be a sensible use of resources. That is something that we might consider, if only for a limited period.
I was also interested to see what Dr Simon Thurley said recently about how it is hard to justify spending £35 million on a single painting by an Italian artist when so many buildings in Britain—5,000—are on the at-risk register. That, too, is something we might just look at.
I want to turn quickly to the creative industries, where one has to say that the picture is much brighter. The figures—in terms of employment and economic growth—for the huge contribution that the creative industries make in this country are well known. The success of the music industry and the film industry are well known, but it is also important to look at the others, such as electronic games, publishing, design and advertising.
Mr Whittingdale
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have six minutes and I would like to continue.
One of the most striking things from the Select Committee’s recent visit to California—I will remember this for a long time—was the look on the face of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) when he saw thousands of zombies overcoming Philadelphia. He said, “That’s Glasgow.” Of course, it was Glasgow. Indeed, that film alone brought £90 million into this country. That could not have come without the tax break which the previous Government introduced but which this Government have maintained and extended to cover high-end TV drama, animation and electronic games.
The one note of warning I would sound is that the success of all those creative industries depends on one thing: a strong framework of intellectual property rights. We tinker with that at our peril. Yes, there may be a case for modernising it, but we must be very careful not to pursue questionable and illusory benefits at the price of putting at risk the huge economic benefit to this country from the success of all our creative industries. I ask the Secretary of State, and also Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, to think very carefully about introducing such things as private copying exception and some of the other Hargreaves proposals. I know that we shall be debating that, but the Secretary of State will be aware of the considerable alarm that is being expressed throughout the creative industries about the damage that could be done unless the matter is handled very carefully.
We also need to do more to tackle online piracy, which is still doing huge damage to the creative industries. The Digital Economy Act 2010 was an extremely good first step: it is not perfect, but it is nevertheless a matter of great regret that none of its provisions have yet been enacted. Things are being done—the City of London police are doing extremely good work, and I strongly support their new initiatives to pursue online intellectual property crime—but a very strong signal would be sent if letters could be written to serial file-sharers who are in breach of copyright law, telling them that what they are doing is not only wrong, but jeopardising the success of the creative industries on which we depend so much.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Let me begin by telling the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) that the film “World War Z”—or zee, to the Americans—involved actors. It was not people in Glasgow who were walking about as zombies.
I must admit that I am a repentant son to the creative industries. When it was announced that the Select Committee would be looking into the whole issue of the creative arts, mine was a very luddite approach. I took the view that inquiries of that kind were for arty-farty types—and I am certainly not one of them. However, as I have said, I am now repentant. I was wholly mistaken. Since the inquiry I have learnt how much the creative industries have benefited the UK economy, and I now realise that “arty-farty types” could not be further from the truth of what today’s creative industries look like. People in the creative industries are dynamic, innovative and, more important, young. We must continue to encourage those young people and allow them to thrive, because without them we would lose a great part of our economy and a beacon for British culture.
Paul Farrelly
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for education, particularly arts education, to be available to everyone across the spectrum? Evidence given to our Committee expressed great concern about the originally proposed EBacc, which would have narrowed choice in state schools and hence narrowed the background of people going into the creative industries. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must be ever vigilant in reining in the over-eager Secretary of State for Education, so that in his enthusiasm he does not do unintended damage that we might all come to regret?
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps he saw my speech in advance, because I was going to say something about that. He is an extremely important and valued member of the Committee.
May I issue a plea to the Secretary of State? Regional television companies, especially commercial companies such as Scottish Television, feel that their profiles are not as high as those of public sector broadcasters, and that their priorities do not receive the same attention. At the same time, in the light of the additional funds that will be needed to finance the forthcoming referendum and, indeed, the Commonwealth games, there is genuine concern about the fact that a public sector broadcaster, BBC Scotland, is not receiving the resources that it ought to be receiving.
I chair the Unite group in Parliament. Unite represents a number of people who work in print, publishing, the arts and tourism. It may not surprise Members that the first issue that I want to raise in that connection is the sheer number of jobs involved. The creative industries employ about 1.5 million people, and, according to Government statistics, employment in the sector is increasing at twice the rate of the economy. This is not a sector that we want to stifle, as it is one of the only ones that is actually managing to create jobs.
We must also ensure that we remember all the different jobs that these industries entail. Unfortunately, we have a habit of focusing on the stage talent and sometimes forget those who work backstage, who are the engine behind the industry. Their involvement is just as crucial; when we talk about job creation, we must talk about boosting jobs in those areas as well. I mentioned earlier that young people drive the industry, but in talking about jobs we must address the desperate need to encourage and support those who want to follow such a path. Owing to the Government’s education policy, there has been a downgrading of the arts and other subjects that lead towards the creative industries. More importantly, there are few opportunities for young people to train on the job in apprenticeships and paid posts. I fear that those who cannot afford to work in such posts, or to go to university to gain the additional qualifications—they may not even want to do so—are at a disadvantage in the industry.
Unfortunately, the industry also disadvantages those who cannot undertake an unpaid internship. We hear stories of young hopefuls running around film sets or recording studios desperate to gain experience and contacts, but those people can afford not to be paid; they can afford to live in London, Manchester or Glasgow with no wages. That is not a reality for many young people, so we inevitably lose some of our best talents to those practices. More must be spent on apprenticeships and on giving all young people the chance to work in these important industries.
When we were in government, we introduced the future jobs fund, which in one programme alone provided 800 paid work placements for young people, and 71% of those who participated went into employment, education or training afterwards. This Government, as we know, have abolished that fund. These industries not only provide jobs, but have a much wider impact: they are the third biggest export industry in the UK and worth something in the order of £36 billion a year.
The wide-ranging impact of investment in the creative industries can be felt across the local economy. As I said previously, we can see that in Glasgow. The film “World War Z” is being shown for the first time in Glasgow tonight, following its premier in London. It brought £3.3 million into the city’s economy during the 17 days when the film was shot there. Overall, Hollywood films boosted the economy last year by £20.5 million. “Cloud Atlas” and “Under the Skin” were also filmed in the city. In 2011, 225 productions were shot in Glasgow, and those of us in and around the city are keen to keep encouraging the industry, to help boost others that are struggling during the recession.
In order to survive, the creative industries are crying out for a better solution. I am sure that there are people more in tune with corporate issues than I am and are able to cover that more extensively. These industries cannot attract investment because investors are not confident that they can get the returns that they deserve. Why would anyone invest in music or films to generate money when there is no guarantee of a return?
I am conscious of the time. I am delighted that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee embarked on an inquiry into the creative industries and their impact on the economy.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. The arts and creative industries are one of the UK’s biggest success stories, outperforming most of our more traditional sectors of the economy and exporting talent across the globe. They are one of the main reasons why the UK is a prime destination of choice for so many foreign travellers. Unfortunately, we do not often get the opportunity to talk about its successes or to debate some of the potential challenges ahead, which is why I welcome this opportunity.
There is little doubt that the subject of this Opposition day debate was chosen in the light of questions being raised about the future of some of our finest museums in the north—in Manchester, Bradford and York—but the unequivocal response from the Minister that the museums are not going to close, and the tough negotiations by the Secretary of State, which have resulted in a much better settlement for our museums, have rather ruined the Opposition’s opportunity to criticise the Government. This has resulted in a fairly benign motion, which the Government could quite easily have agreed to, and I certainly agree with the comments of the Chair of my Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale).
The arts and creative industries are vital to communities and the economy throughout the country, and we must nurture the next generation of talent if we are to continue to grow. The need to do that was highlighted in the report of Ian Livingstone and Alex Hope, whom the Minister commissioned in 2010 to review the skills needs of the UK’s video games and visual effects industries and to make practical recommendations as to how they can be met.
The UK had slipped from third to sixth in the global development ranking, and there was a clear recognition that more needed to be done, so I am a little disappointed that the Government did not simply accept the motion, but political rules tend to dictate that Oppositions always oppose Governments—we have had a fair bit of that over the past three years—and Governments always reject anything put forward by Oppositions. I suppose it could be argued that the Opposition’s motion questions the leadership of the Department, but I want to put on record my support for the ministerial team in recognising the importance of the creative industries and for the Secretary of State’s determined negotiations with the Treasury to put in place funding that will secure the future of our museums.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Gentleman has been a supporter of the Museum of Science Industry in the past, although judging by the tone of his speech, that might be changing. Will he comment on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) about the structural deficit that is building up because of the cuts, which will reach 20% even with just the 5% cut now? Is he concerned that even if there is only a 5% cut, our museum—MOSI—will still have a fight on its hands to maintain the extensive number of buildings?
Mr Leech
If the hon. Lady gives me a little more time, I will talk about that.
The Department has protected the future of our museums at a time when it would have been far easier for the Government to have cut deeper into the DCMS budget, so I will certainly be supporting the amendment.
Concerns had been raised that museums in Manchester, York and Bradford were under threat of closure. Ian Blatchford, head of the Science Museum Group, warned about the possible need to close one or more of the museums in the north if the spending review resulted in a 10% cut in the budget, or at least to start charging to make up the predicted increase in the deficit from £2 million to £6 million. That resulted in huge campaigns to protect our museums, including the Save MOSI campaign led by the Manchester Evening News, which received over 30,000 signatures in the first 24 hours.
It is always difficult to gauge how real a threat of closure there actually was, but the Department could not have been clearer in showing its commitment to our national museums in the north, and in fighting its corner in budget negotiations. We must recognise, however, that there is still a lot of work to do to ensure that museums are put on a secure financial footing for the long term.
What I am certain about is that we must not go down the road of charging for entry. The previous Government should be applauded for ending charging at state-funded museums in 2001. In Manchester that resulted in an increase in patronage from 288,000 in the last 12 months of charging to over 833,000 last year. MOSI is Manchester’s No. 1 attraction, but it is more than that: it is a science and industry museum located at the heart of the industrial revolution, and it is a destination for learning. Most children across Greater Manchester will visit the museum at some point in their school career.
Overall, there were 5 million visitors to the group’s four museums in the last 12 months. Even with the “doomsday” scenario mooted by Ian Blatchford, that means the SMG would need to generate only £1.20 extra from visitors coming through the doors to wipe out the £6 million deficit.
Charging an entry fee is not the answer. We know what charging does to visitor numbers. Currently eight of the top 10 UK visitor attractions are free DCMS-sponsored national museums, and there are about 18 million annual visits to museums and galleries that used to charge an entrance fee. It would also have an impact on foreign tourism. According to VisitBritain, Britain’s major museums and galleries earn the country £1 billion a year in revenue from overseas tourists. A recent report on Britain’s culture and heritage showed that museums and galleries are a key motivator for many international visitors to Britain, with free world-class national museums and art galleries a particular draw. Given the importance of the tourism industry to the UK economy, charging must be ruled out.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee intends to carry out an inquiry on the future and funding of the national museums. The two Front-Bench teams could do worse than to follow the example set by the Committee, as the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and I all supported having an inquiry into how we could secure the future of our museums. We took a proper cross-party approach. Rather than playing party politics, the Committee will take a proper look at ways in which additional sources of income can be found, at a time when state funding will, obviously, remain under pressure for years to come.
The Opposition motion also rightly recognises the importance of the creative industries to the economy; they make up in excess of 7% of the economy and continue to show strong growth at a time when many sectors have stagnated or retracted. One great example is the UK games development sector, which is the largest in Europe. However, there has been disagreement recently on whether or not high-tech creative companies, such as those in the games industry, should be included in the measurement of the creative industries.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a great honour to be involved in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech). I am a bit dubious about the football team he supports, but that was the first time I have heard him congratulate the previous Labour Government. Will he put that in writing so that we have it for future reference?
This is an important debate, for the reasons that have been outlined by many of my colleagues on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, whose Chairman has said what it is trying to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) was a bit hard on himself in saying that he was not fully involved with the thought patterns on what needs to happen. He, like me, has certainly learned that the creative industries are vital parts of this country’s lifeblood. They are also important to cities such as Bradford.
I know the House will forgive me for talking about the plight of Bradford’s media museum, but before I do that I wish to mention something that was being talked about long before the prospect of its closure: the rebranding of the city. We were discussing a city with a strong literary and cultural history, and people will know that of Bradford. It is the home of the Brontës, J. B. Priestley, David Hockney, the Black Dyke Mills Band, Kala Sangam and, more recently, Zayn from One Direction. It is also the birthplace of the British film industry and is the first UNESCO city of film. The Minister, and the Education Secretary, whom we are delighted to see in his place, will be pleased to know that next month Bradford college will launch the international film school. That brings together Bollywood and international film makers from around the world to teach the youngsters of Bradford about film. Of course, as I said, Bradford is also the home of the National Media museum.
We were not just involved in a marketing or rebranding exercise; it was about rethinking our future economy in Bradford and cities like it. Bradford is very close to Leeds, the regional centre, and we wanted to find a way to examine the job and economic prospects for Bradford for the future. We want to sell ourselves as a city of culture, media and sport—we have the heritage. That is why the announcement saying that the National Media museum may close came as a bit of a blow. I think that there has been some inverted snobbery over many years. I am old enough to remember when we first got the National Media museum from London in the late ’80s, at a time when the then Government were trying to make sure that everything was not concentrated around London and that things would go out to the regions. We were proud to have the National Media museum in Bradford, but there has been snobbery in the past, as people have, year after year, been trying to get the museum back to London from Bradford. So it is great news that the Minister said what he did to the group of Bradford MPs and said publicly yesterday that there is no reason why the media museum should close. It is great news that the Department has been able to reduce a 10% cut to a 5% cut, but it is still a cut. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) spoke about the accumulation of problems that we face.
I hope the Minister can tell us about the capital programme and the issues that science museums may face in relation to the capital project. That will be important to the future of the museum. It is not just about saving the northern museums; it is about putting investment in and making sure that they are places where people want to go. Our museum has been run down over the past few years. I do not care whose fault that is. We need to look at new partnership arrangements to make sure that we can invigorate that museum. We can do that through the local authority, the local college and the local university coming together, and businesses in Bradford looking to see what they can do philanthropically to protect the future of the museum. I am grateful to the Minister, who said at the meeting on Monday that he would use his good offices to bring people together to try and make sure that we have a workable solution to what needs to happen in Bradford.
The debate is about more than museums in Bradford, important though those are. It is about the creative sector. Copyright is a major concern, as the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) said. The Government need to take heed of bodies such as ALCS, which the Minister knows well. It is not about alcoholics, as he tried to explain yesterday when he talked about Barbara Hayes and Janet Anderson spending their time in Strangers Bar. The Authors Licensing and Collecting Society looks after the copyright proposals that are before the Government now. It is important that the creative industries are confident about copyright protection.
The creative industries are important to the economy. They are the new manufacturing, in terms of the opportunities that they present. In Bradford we have a growing young population. We have the opportunity to have technicians involved in the film industry and in the games industry in our great city. We want to have film studios. I notice with interest that the Warner Brothers planning application has been turned down. If Buckinghamshire does not want it, we will have it in Bradford and in Yorkshire. We must ensure that the sector in the UK remains a world-leading sector. We may have our political knockabout, but the sector is important to us as a country and we need to make sure that we develop it in our own best interests.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I shall take this opportunity to try to cover two subjects, the video games industry and libraries. I am the chair of both all-party parliamentary groups.
Starting with the video games industry, I work very well with the trade representatives, UKIE, the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment, and TIGA, which have done an incredible job in helping to shape Government policy and promote an industry that is growing at an incredible rate. In the UK alone the video game consumer market is worth £2.9 billion, with year-on-year growth of 4%. That makes up 40.2% of the entertainment market. There are about 33.6 million games in the UK, evenly split between males and females. The UK is the third biggest consumer market for the video games industry, after Japan and America. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that the global market will be worth $87 billion by 2017.
Game development is popular in the UK, with 56 universities providing 141 video games specialist courses throughout the UK. There are 9,224 creative staff working in studios, with 16,864 jobs indirectly supported by those studios. The sector’s contribution—this is always music to politicians’ ears—to the UK gross domestic product was around £947 million in 2012. Crucially, 95% of our game developers export their product.
The first of the three points that I want to make is that the UK games tax relief is hugely welcome news. It will be a major shot in the arm to our industry and will allow us to keep up with the international competition and the huge potential for growth in the sector. For those Eurosceptics in the Chamber, I have to say that Europe is being particularly difficult. I urge the Government to stand up, as they do on many other issues relating to Europe, and make sure that Europe does not cheat our games developers out of the incentive to proceed.
Secondly, the radical changes to computer science in schools are also crucial. On a number of occasions I have visited a local studio called Neon Play, which is expanding at an incredible rate and producing fantastic games. It tells me that its biggest challenge is getting skilled people. People have the degrees and qualifications, but they almost have to start again because their education has been broad brush rather than specialising in, for example, 3D programming, design, music or a particular segment of a game, which would make a huge difference. I saw how it can inspire young people. I was fortunate enough to be able to take a child from a local organisation called SMASH, which helps children from challenging backgrounds, and he was given an opportunity to be inspired in a career that ultimately, on average, pays £34,000 a year, which is definitely worth aspiring to.
Finally, we need to consider the problem of the lack of females in the video games industry. I went to an event organised by a fantastic charity called Lady Geek. Within the industry, 90% of jobs are taken by males, and only 4% of game developers are female. Lady Geek is doing a fantastic job to promote and encourage as many females as possible to take this up, and I have recently written to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ask her personally to meet representatives of the charity, and I very much hope that she will.
Libraries provide an important starting point for many people who ultimately go into the creative industries. I was formerly the lead member for libraries within my local authority and we built a number of new libraries, including a £10 million central library on time and on budget, and made some changes. I want to make a quick whistle-stop tour of things that I would like to see within the library service, and I am sure that the shadow Minister will be taking lots of notes, as this is an area that he often follows me on.
Modern library buildings are key. In a modern bookshop such as Waterstones, one expects a certain quality of service, but I am afraid that too many of our libraries are in need of refurbishment. Local authorities must utilise section 106 moneys, the new homes bonus and the opportunities within the Localism Act 2011 to leverage bits of funding. When they spend that money, they need to look at sharing best practice. Too often, local authorities reinvent the wheel, start again and spend huge sums doing things that Waterstones would do for a fraction of the price.
We must also consider measures such as shared usage. Our Old Town library was due to close. I was part of the team that campaigned to keep it, and across the road we had a fantastic refurbished arts centre. We transferred the library into that, and it extended its core 20 hours to cover the entire time that the arts centre was open. The council had to pay only one set of rent and rates, and usage went through the roof.
Libraries must be at the heart of the community. We should display usage and membership figures in all libraries for the community to see. Library managers should be empowered to be responsible not just for the physical building but for the community that they serve, taking library services out there.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman therefore condemn the views of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who said that those who are interested in saving their libraries were just “a bunch of luvvies”?
Justin Tomlinson
I have worked with library campaigners throughout the country and I always challenge them to make sure that local authorities understand the importance of libraries, and in particular to make sure that they are being well used. I have been incredibly impressed with my local authority’s attempts to do outreach work, encouraging the summer reading programme that all MPs support every year. We have a brilliant officer in Ellen Carter, who does fantastic things in the community, encouraging people of all ages to use the libraries.
We also need to make sure that the library service matches modern expectations. Swindon took a bold decision—we are always at the cutting edge—and opened a library on a Sunday because it was next door to the Asda Walmart, and it is now its busiest day, so we need to adapt and change.
Volunteers are a controversial subject in the library world. Some local authorities decided that they could do away with professional librarians and replace them with volunteers. My view is that volunteers should be encouraged to enhance library provision, which could be by extending opening hours, providing additional activities, entertainment and events, and fund-raising.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that flexibility is absolutely key if libraries are to continue, co-locating and co-working with other public utilities?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is spot on. Like any sector, things change, and libraries must also keep up. Every community is different, and it is important that the centre is not prescriptive. Each local community can shape and influence their own service.
We need to ensure that volunteers promote the library within the community, taking the library service to people who cannot reach the libraries. They need to produce newsletters, promote things on Facebook, and make sure that the library is at the heart of the community.
We must also look at library budgets. It is staggering that even today only 7.5% of a typical library budget is spent on book stock. I regularly ask people about that, and most think that the figure is probably about 50%. We must ensure that money is spent on the front line, not the back office. Obviously the Government will have to make a decision on how we take forward e-reading.
In summary, I am keen to see local library managers empowered and volunteers encouraged in order to improve the library service. We must ensure wherever possible that we deliver value for money within a service that is much loved by our communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We will now hear a maiden speech. I remind the House that, as a courtesy, Members do not intervene in a maiden speech. Hopefully they will not intervene too much afterwards, if we are to get everybody in.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in this debate. I am deeply honoured not only to have been chosen by the people of South Shields to represent them as their Member of Parliament, but to be the first woman to do so. Shields has boasted a Labour MP in every election since 1935. It gives me tremendous pride to represent one of the most discerning electorates in the country.
I would first like to pay tribute to my predecessor, David Miliband. David was a passionate and brilliant public servant, both as a constituency MP and a Cabinet Minister. He was highly regarded by the local community, not least for presiding over the dramatic transformation of our schools. His record in government, beginning as schools Minister, then a Communities and Local Government Minister, then Environment Secretary, and finally Foreign Secretary, is proof of the determination and vigour with which he pursued his role. I know that Members on both sides of the House share my admiration and respect for him and wish him well in his new role.
Shields is a town defined by its geography, standing as it does on the mouth of the River Tyne and facing out to the North sea. As a port, it has welcomed seafarers from far-flung locations. Its magnificent coastline and award-winning beaches are one of the north-east’s great natural spectacles. Each year we host one of Britain’s greatest human spectacles, serving as the finishing line for the tens of thousands of runners who participate in the great north run.
It is a town with a proud history of political organisation and vibrant community and trade union activity. It is a town that knows the dignity and reward that work brings and understands the duty we each have to provide not just for ourselves and our families, but for the world around us. It is a town enriched by a diversity of outlooks and traditions, dating back to the days of the Roman empire but continually refreshed by the arrival of foreign traders and settlers. I hope that my contribution to the House will reflect those virtues and do credit to the community I represent.
As the constituency’s first woman MP, and the first MP to have been born within its boundaries, I feel that I am something of an innovation. But the people of Shields have always been great innovators. My great-great-great-grandfather, William Wouldhave, was the inventor of the lifeboat. The constituency is also home to Souter lighthouse, the first to use alternating electric current. We have Britain’s oldest daily newspaper, The Shields Gazette, first published in 1849. We have one of Britain’s first mosques, in Laygate, and for over a century the constituency has been home to a significant Yemeni population. They have been joined by Bangladeshi and Indian communities, who have become part of the fabric of our town and continue to make important contributions.
Work is underway on a £100 million regeneration of the town centre, which will include a new cinema, library and arts centre. That will add to our already vibrant creative industry, comprising the South Shields museum and the Customs House. Since the 1800s, the Customs House has developed into a premier arts venue, with a theatre, cinema and gallery. Through its chartered programme, the Customs House, under the fantastic leadership of Ray Spencer, known locally as “Tommy the trumpeter”, offers what is at the core of today’s debate: an opportunity for all people to engage and learn from the arts. That opportunity is strongly valued by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The port of Tyne continues to thrive, providing employment and vital trade links to Europe and beyond. It thoroughly deserves its recent accolade of north-east business of the year 2013. Our young people are achieving their highest ever GCSE results. Despite challenging financial times, South Tyneside college and its world famous Marine school continue to play a part in offering first class vocational education to students of all ages.
South Tyneside district hospital, where I was born, continues to provide vital services for our community against a backdrop of cuts and reorganisation. South Tyneside Homes has won the training and development category of the “Best Companies to Work For” awards run by The Sunday Times. In the last financial year, almost 3,000 council homes across the borough were improved and the number of apprentices that we boast is increasing steadily. It is little wonder that the Labour-controlled South Tyneside council was commended by The Municipal Journal as one of a handful of best achieving councils nationally and that Shields has recently been singled out as one of the country’s 30 best places to live by the sea.
Notwithstanding that, Shields continues to suffer one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. We need investment in infrastructure and industrial and commercial development. It makes no sense economically to allow my constituents’ potential to go unrealised; a skilled and knowledgeable work force give far more back to the country than they cost to train.
I put myself forward for election to represent the people of Shields at Westminster so that I can fight our corner during these difficult times. I know that I am only one person, but I am the voice for everyone in my constituency. I will make sure that those who voted for me are proud that they did. I will try to win the confidence of not only those who did not vote for me, but the people who did not vote at all. I will work to give them confidence not just in me, but in this House.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
As one who represents a port, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and congratulate her on a first class maiden speech. Like seafarers across the nation, many people in my constituency owe a great debt to the hon. Lady’s grandfather. We can all be proud of the invention of the lifeboat and the subsequent lifeboat service, which has saved countless lives around our shores.
Given the passion with which the hon. Lady spoke, about her ancestors and the place from which she comes, I am sure that she will proudly represent her community. Her great sense of history, place and public service shone through her speech. She must be particularly pleased to be the first woman to represent her seat. As a woman Member of Parliament, I am pleased to welcome other women, whatever side of the House they sit on. Having more women Members of Parliament can only be a force for good. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Lady on what will undoubtedly be the most difficult speech that a Member of Parliament makes; I assure her that all subsequent speeches will be much easier. Well done.
I turn to the subject of the debate. Like the Secretary of State, I believe passionately in the intrinsic value of the arts, which are a fundamental expression of our human nature and important for our sense of health and well-being. As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, arts and the creative industries are also important to our economy. In the south-west, the creative economy is worth more than £1 billion and the region employs more than 94,000 people in the sector.
In the limited time available, I want to share the terrific success story of creative arts in Cornwall and my constituency in particular. Cornish people are naturally creative and innovative, as well as self-reliant, and we are used to working in partnership. Despite the difficult economic times, we are very much rising to the challenge; I refute the “gloom and doom” scenario introduced by Opposition Members.
I am grateful for the personal support of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who has made positive interventions in respect of the National Maritime museum and Royal Cornwall museum in my constituency. I am happy to report that both are alive and kicking and have positive plans for the future. They are joined by the Hall for Cornwall in Truro, which has ambitious plans to go from strength to strength and create the national theatre of Cornwall. I could not make this speech without mentioning the award-winning Falmouth art gallery. Despite the Opposition’s dreadful picture of doom and gloom, I can report on organisations that are alive and kicking and going from strength to strength.
The Government’s introduction of beneficial tax arrangements for the film industry means that Cornwall is now being used as a site for a lot of extremely good films, especially by crews from overseas. The Cornish writer Rosamunde Pilcher is a firm favourite with Germans and film crew after film crew has pitched up in Cornwall to make films of her popular books. This is exciting for us in Cornwall and it is producing a lot of very welcome jobs. If hon. Members have not seen the film “Summer in February”, which was shot in Cornwall, I urge them to do so, because it shows Cornwall at its best.
Damian Collins
Does my hon. Friend agree that that type of commercial investment from the film and television industry—similar to that from philanthropists in the arts—is creating a vibrant cultural scene not just in central London, but right across the country?
Sarah Newton
Absolutely. I am happy to back up that point. As far west as we are in Cornwall, that is a very important part of our economy and our quality of life.
In the couple of minutes I have left, I want to draw the House’s attention to another way in which the Government are supporting the creative industries. We are extremely proud that Falmouth has just gained university status. Falmouth university has an international reputation for excellence in art, design, media and performance. It has 4,000 students and employs people. Far from the doom and gloom of the Opposition, it is seeing increased applications and full rolls. Over 100 hundred years, the institution has provided a great deal of people and skills for our creative industries. It has had more than £100 million of investment over the past 10 years, supported by successive British Governments and the European Union. The merger with Dartington college of arts in 2008 brought a wealth of new opportunities for students and secured the future of Dartington’s internationally renowned portfolio of performance courses.
All of that investment means that a lot of graduates are not only going on to be employed in our vital creative industries, but setting up businesses themselves. Falmouth graduates do not simply get jobs; they make jobs for themselves and others. Recent investments by the university, working in partnership with Cornwall council, have led to innovative projects, such as the academy for innovation and research and the innovation centre, where graduates and undergraduates work with local businesses, using their creativity to help grow even more jobs. A target for 2015 is to support 185 companies, which should create 122 new jobs and generate £18 million for the local economy.
Creative industries in Cornwall, the south-west and around the country have enormous potential to help contribute to the rebalancing of our national economy. We are creating and developing things, and creating more jobs in the private sector for export all around the world. We should be proud of these industries and celebrate their continuing innovation to put the “Great” back into Britain.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have to reduce the time limit to five minutes. [Hon. Members: “Aww!”] Well, it could be four, if you wish.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
May I add my welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and congratulate her on her maiden speech? The innovation that she talked about in her constituency is similar in many ways to the passion for innovation that fired my city of Birmingham in the early days. It is there to this day and it is changing. Many of the traditional industries are still there, although they are different in the 21st century.
In addition, our creative industries are really interesting and dynamic, focusing on such things as design—from designing cars to fashion design. We see innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises in the Custard Factory area in Digbeth and in firms such as Maverick, which is a dynamic independent company working in film and TV. We see it in Birmingham’s Symphony Hall and the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, which Sir Simon Rattle made his own all those years ago, and in the Birmingham Royal Ballet and the Hippodrome theatre, which attracts more than 500,000 visitors a year to the city.
We also see it in the development of community arts. My constituency of Northfield is not normally regarded as a hotbed of the arts, but I can tell hon. Members that one of our city’s foremost poets, Spoz Esposito, a former Rover worker, is today nurturing young talent in slam poetry in schools there. There is also an arts forum in the area which this summer will provide an open-air theatre for young people aged 16 to 25.
Another name—the BBC—should be not only part of the list, but on top of it. There are good news stories. The Drama Village is the centre for the “Doctors” TV programme and other programmes might be in the pipeline. However, there is a “but”, and it is a big “but”. One of the BBC’s six public purposes is to represent different nations, regions, communities to the rest of the UK. What does that mean in practice? The midlands region, which has 16% of the UK’s population, receives just 2% of the BBC’s programme making. No other nation or region of the UK receives as little. Where are the midlands voices and characters on our TV screens? That is why there are legitimate calls from the Campaign for Regional Broadcasting and others for the midlands to receive its fair share.
We have heard words before—the previous Conservative leader of the council came out with a lot of words, as did the previous director-general of the BBC. However, we must go beyond words and into action. We must have investment in our people—in the writers and crews, in Equity members; actors and production talent, in our Drama Village and beyond.
We have a strong heritage—everybody still talks about the great days of Pebble Mill in the midlands—but the fanfare that accompanied the BBC’s relocation to the Mailbox has not been followed through with action. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and I met the director-general of the BBC to say, “Things have got to change.” The early signs have been positive, but they must lead to action.
Birmingham is one of the youngest and most diverse cities in Europe. If the BBC and other programme makers are looking to where broadcasting needs to be in the next decade, they need to look at Birmingham’s population, and at what our young people are saying today, tomorrow and next year. That means action to commission and produce more programmes in Birmingham.
It also means action from the Government. I hope that they talk to the BBC, but they must also end the growing disparity between regional investment and investment in the capital. They must also think again about the impact of their cuts to Arts Council funding and to local authorities. I want young talent to be nurtured, not snuffed out. I want the Government to help our creative industries to live up to Hamlet’s call to the arts to
“hold…a mirror up to nature”.
That means fostering our cultural ecosystem, not undermining it by neglect. Unless the Government change course, I fear the latter will happen.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I begin by associating myself with what the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), said on the Opposition motion, which I did not have an issue with, and with what he said on the need to maintain our strong position on intellectual property.
The debate takes place at a time when “austerity” is the buzz word. Austerity is not a bad policy, but rather the result of previous bad policies. I therefore congratulate the Secretary of State on the funding settlement she managed to achieve. Many people from the arts to whom I have spoken are, like the rest of British society, fully aware that money is tight, and that they need to do their bit to help to eliminate the deficit.
I should declare some interests. I am the vice-chairman of the all-party group on dance. I have a specific dance style—it is a bit like a spider trapped in a sink—but I will be appearing in “Strictly Daventry” on 5 July, should any hon. Members wish to come and see said style. Tickets are available online or from me afterwards.
I am also the chairman of the Northampton Theatres Trust and will spend the rest of my contribution talking about regional theatre.
The Northampton Theatres Trust has the huge Royal and Derngate theatre complex, which contains two theatres and a cinema that is just about to open. In fact, “Summer in February” will be on tomorrow as its first show. The Royal, an old-fashioned theatre, has a 583-seat capacity. The Derngate has a capacity of 12,000 seats and is a multi-purpose auditorium that can be configured for a variety of events, including theatre, opera, live music, dance, fashion and sports. Like many regional theatres, it is abuzz; it is alive with talent and fantastic creativity.
I want to demonstrate how important the theatres are to the local economy. Not long ago, in 2005, the theatres were closed for an 18-month, £14.5 million redevelopment, which saw the merging of the two venues. I reiterate that it is a fantastic complex. While the theatres were shut, the local economy of the area suffered, including the restaurants and even the local council because of the lack of parking revenues. Everybody suffered because the knock-on effect of the theatres on the local economy is so large. We must take that into account when we talk about regional theatre.
From 2006 to 2013, we had a fantastic regional artistic director in Laurie Sansom. We now have an even better one in James Dacre. To prove how important regional theatre is, in 2012-13, the Royal and Derngate presented 767 performances and welcomed 236,000 audience members, which is up a couple of thousand on the previous year. Of those, 89,000 were young people, which is up from 50,000 in the previous year. We delivered activities in schools, from drama and dance workshops to residencies by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, which reached 10,000 young people. We work closely with the university of Northampton and hope to do more with it in the future. We employ 58 full-time staff and 99 part-time staff. We are part of the big society, with 127 volunteers providing 9,228 hours of voluntary support.
The income of the theatres is £7.6 million, so this is not an insignificant business. Of that income, 73% is earned income—something we want to improve—14% comes from the Arts Council and 11% comes from the local authorities, which are doing their bit. I want to thank Northampton borough council and Northamptonshire county council very much. Only 2% of our income comes from sponsorship, trusts and individual donations, which is something else that we want to improve.
We need to talk about balance and culture, but many fantastic things are going on in regional theatres up and down the country already. We should not knock them and should always be there to praise them. It has been said that there are not many decent actors from the midlands. Well, Alan Carr, who may not be an actor but is a very good comedian, and Matt Smith are just two of the people who come from Northampton. I am sure that there are millions more people like them across the midlands. That is why we need strong regional theatres in which they can perform.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) on choosing this subject for an Opposition day and on the timing of the debate, given the important decisions that are about to be made in the comprehensive spending review.
For the Government, arts and culture must never be a fluffy, luxury add-on, but should be central to our industrial and economic policy and to our health and well-being policy, as well as being celebrated in their own right for their unique power to inspire and speak to what makes us human. They are sectors in which Britain excels. They are our biggest export after precision engineering and financial services. No other country in the world has a bigger creative sector as a proportion of its GDP.
During the Labour Government’s years in office, the creative industries grew at more than twice the rate of our economy as a whole and they continued to grow through the global financial crisis. They were central to the industrial strategy that that Government published in response to the crisis. As we have heard from many Members, British culture benefits from our unique combination of a mixed economy of public and private support, respect for artistic freedom and innovation, and the natural creativity of the British people. I see such things daily in my constituency where, in spite of the tough climate, Exeter’s Labour council has sought to maintain support for the arts because it recognises their vital contribution to the city’s economy and quality of life.
With the help of the previous Government, Exeter invested big sums in the redevelopment of our Victorian municipal museum, and was criticised by some at the time for doing so. Last year, that museum won the prestigious national art fund prize for the best museum in the country, and we have seen a huge increase in visitor numbers and spend as a result. Just in the past few months, the museum’s new global reputation helped attract national portrait and wildlife photography competition works on tour, as well as the wonderful British Museum touring exhibition, Warriors of the Plains. Exeter sustains a brilliant edgy theatre scene, an annual theatre festival, galleries, arts cinema, as well as food and cultural festivals to celebrate the city’s diversity. All that cultural capital makes Exeter an attractive place to live and work, provides training, boosts jobs, and helps keep talented and creative people in the city, rather than losing them to Bristol or London.
I believe the Culture Secretary recognises and understands all of that, and if the reports that she fought hard to minimise the next onslaught from the comprehensive spending review are true, I congratulate her on standing up for her Department. That makes a welcome contrast to her predecessor, who almost seemed to take pride in the fact that he offered the Treasury one of the biggest cuts in the last spending review, and that he was one of the first Cabinet Ministers to settle in that review.
May I tell the Culture Secretary, through her Minister, that there are three more important battles that she must fight and win? The first is for the survival of her Department—I hear what she said today but I tell her, through the Minister, that the philistines will come back. The Minister knows the arguments; we cannot have a Cabinet without a strong voice for arts and culture around the table. When colleagues, and others, come back and try to abolish his Department, I recommend he suggests that there are several other Departments it would make more sense to abolish before the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Secondly, the Culture Secretary must go to battle with the Education Secretary because of his apparent desire to destroy cultural and creative subjects in our education system. We are already seeing evidence of the impact that his changes to the curriculum and performance measurement systems in schools are having on arts subjects—a worrying and dramatic decline. Will the Culture Secretary please tell the Education Secretary that a student who leaves school at 16 with two arts qualifications is more likely to get a job by the time they are 19 than one who leaves with two science qualifications? Britain’s fantastic creative economy is built on an education system that has allowed and encouraged creativity and the arts to flourish. If we lose that, we lose everything else we have talked about in this debate.
Finally, the Culture Secretary must get tough on copyright. We know what needs doing; we legislated for it collectively in the House three years ago but the Government have still not implemented those measures. Copyright theft loses the creative industries billions of pounds a year, and it if is not tackled it will have a lasting, damaging effect on our culture and economy. I do not believe that the Secretary of State or the Minister wish to leave such a legacy behind them.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
My direct personal experience of the creative industries was shaped during the 10 years I worked in the advertising industry. Anyone who has worked in that industry is well aware of the famous remark, attributed to Lord Leverhulme, that he knew that 50% of his advertising was working but did not know which 50%. Anyone who looks at the arts and creative industries across the country can see they bring huge economic benefits, and we have heard a lot about that today.
However, the creative industries do not exist just for the economic benefit they bring but because they have intrinsic worth in their own right. There is nothing wrong with celebrating art for art’s sake. Art and creativity allow us to express ideas in a way that adds more meaning than words can simply allow. We will see that later this year when the Royal Opera House puts on the Wagner opera “Parsifal”, dealing with complex issues of sacrifice and hope. At the first Folkestone triennial arts festival in my constituency, the poignant sculpture by Tracey Emin, “Baby Things”, dealt with the difficult issues of teenage pregnancy and single parenthood in coastal towns around the country. One also thinks of Hogarth’s masterpiece, “A Rake’s Progress”, which is about the dangers that can befall someone who spends recklessly, beyond their means and with no hope of supporting themselves.
The reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), like my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, could agree with much of the Opposition’s motion was that the motion misses out the key component of the argument being advanced by Opposition Members. Labour Members, particularly the shadow Secretary of State, talk principally about money, insinuating that there should be more money for the arts and that cuts are damaging the arts, so people following this debate might be surprised to notice that money is not mentioned at all in the motion. The nearest we get to it is where it states that the Government should ensure that the creative industries have access to finance and funding. No one is saying that funding should be cut, but Labour is not saying how much funding. Should it be more? Should cuts be reversed? Should it be extra money? There is no mention of that at all. People following the debate will wonder, “What are they getting at?”
Listening to speeches today, I was reminded of some of the works on display at the fantastic, record-breaking Damien Hirst exhibition at Tate Modern last year during the Olympic games. I was reminded, however, not of the beautiful butterfly paintings or the shark in formaldehyde, but of the striking giant ashtray filled with a lifetime’s supply of cigarette butts generated by a smoker—a large vat of ash and butts. Instead of the cigarette butts, however, it could be the spending commitments and promises made by Labour Members in defence of projects that, as they well know, they have absolutely no means of paying for or supporting.
I am not one to disagree in public with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), but he announced today his decision on the shortlisted cities for the city of culture programme, and I congratulate the final four that made it on to the shortlist. Despite the wonderful Folkestone triennial arts festival, the wonderful new Turner Contemporary gallery in Margate, Kent and the wonderful new Marlowe theatre in Canterbury, alas the east Kent bid did not make the final four. I can only imagine that he thought that east Kent was already such a towering beacon of arts and creativity in this country that it would have been unfair to give it yet another accolade. As many towns and cities have done, I am sure that we will use the experience of putting the bid together to bring together arts organisations and investors in the creative industries in our area to strengthen them all.
I congratulate the Opposition on bringing the arts and the creative industries together in the same motion, because they exist within a delicate web of business. Film studios and television production companies, which benefit from the production tax credits, also employ, directly and indirectly, other artists and creative people, be they set designers, costume makers, photographers or film makers. We see that in how the advertising industry works, not just in London but around the country, by drawing in that same wealth of talent. So, yes, support and funding for the Arts Council and from local authorities is important, but so too is having a vibrant industry of creative people working in businesses, producing and making things, generating jobs and income for this country and giving a massive boost to creativity and the arts.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). His was a masterclass in how to get ahead in advertising.
It is even more of a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who is no longer in his place, because last year his constituency won the museum of the year award. I must declare an interest in that I sat as a judge on the museum of the year award this year. We visited the great Narberth museum, the great Horniman museum, close to the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the William Morris gallery, in the north of London, the latter winning with a great display of excellence, scholarship and curatorial skill—and this was a museum that was threatened with closure in 2007 on the grounds that William Morris had nothing to offer the modern, multicultural, urban community of Walthamstow. How wrong they were!
Arts for all is the Labour tradition. As William Morris put it in 1877:
“I do not want art for a few, any more than education for a few, or freedom for a few.”
What we achieved in government was for the many: we increased visits by children to museums and galleries by more than 2 million; provided a solid funding infrastructure for both national and regional arts organisations; supported creativity in education through creativity partnerships; and established the spectacularly successful UK city of culture, which my hon. Friends from Liverpool will no doubt explore in greater detail.
Ian Mearns
Rather than doom and gloom, we need to celebrate the previous Government’s achievement in the arts. I remind the House that the Conservative party visited the Sage Gateshead, and that the Northern Sinfonia was last week granted the title “Royal” by Her Majesty the Queen.
Tristram Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. One had only to read Bagehot in The Economist last week to know of the great economic impact of the arts in the north-east, exactly on the template that Richard Florida has explained for urban economies.
Sadly, much of that achievement has been undermined by the current Government. Their assault on the British economy—stripping out demand and growth and fomenting unemployment—has hit the arts hard. They have cut the Arts Council budget by 35%, condemned philanthropists as tax dodgers and abolished the future jobs fund, which did so much to bring new talent into the arts. Meanwhile, their assault on local authority budgets has been passed down to the arts, libraries and galleries.
It is a question not just of funding, but of ethos. We have a Government who give a direct subsidy to local authorities to ensure that they can empty dustbins rather than keep galleries and libraries open—it is garbage not galleries under this Government. We have a Government who think libraries are only for luvvies and that those who are campaigning to save them are somehow misguided. What we also have is a dramatic and, frankly, Stalinist purge of personnel in the arts community. Sadly, we know that the Prime Minister has a terrible problem with women. We have seen the purge of Liz Forgan from the Arts Council and Baroness Andrews from English Heritage. Many of us now worry about the future of Jenny Abramsky at the Heritage Lottery Fund, who has done a great job.
Tristram Hunt
Indeed. We are seeing a massive loss of talent and skills from our arts sector on the back of a purge led by the Prime Minister. The lists go into Downing street and the names are struck off. Meanwhile, the poor Minister with responsibility for the arts has to trawl around the clubs and back streets of London trying to find prospective trustees for the arts community. We know that the Conservatives’ interest in the arts is a limited gene pool, and we will have deep problems in managing our arts and galleries in the future.
Another element to the philistinism of the Government has been the assault on creativity in the classroom. We in the Labour movement have always supported rigour and excellence in our classrooms, but we are a creative nation and that comes from a young age, which is why Singapore and South Korea are interested in our educational system, to foster exactly the kind of creativity that feeds into the creative arts. What we have seen from the Secretary of State for Education is an undermining of that creativity in our schools. Since the Government came to power, we have seen a fall in GCSE entries of more than 5% in design and technology, more than 6% in drama, 3.5% in music—I could go on. They have abolished the creative partnerships initiative and cut the ring-fenced school music funding by nearly 30%, and their disastrous higher education policy has seen applications for creative subjects fall by 16%.
It is not all doom and gloom, however. In north Staffordshire there is a ray of hope, and it exists in the great city republic of Stoke-on-Trent. I thank the Minister for his hard work in the past two years in trying to keep the Wedgwood museum open. We are also grateful for the support of the Victoria and Albert museum, as we try to find a way through to keep that world-class institution open. I also pay tribute to Stoke-on-Trent city council’s great achievement in winning a silver medal in the Chelsea flower show. No doubt the Communities and Local Government Secretary would regard that as a grotesque waste of money, but it was a great display of the creativity and excellence that the soil of north Staffordshire has been producing since the age of Spode and Wedgwood in the 1760s and 1770s.
Let me end with an advert. Early next year, the Potteries museum and art gallery will be opening a wonderful new exhibition on the empire of ceramics: the story of the place of Stoke-on-Tent in the history of the British empire and how its ceramics went right around the world to Melbourne, Bridgetown, Bombay and Boston, shaping global culture from north Staffordshire. That is the kind of creativity that will happen under a Labour Government.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), but I must remind him that, under Labour, education and creativity were too often seen as the functions of failing schools and failing children who found strictly academic subjects to be a challenge—[Interruption.] That was what went on in his constituency and others. Unfortunately, he missed the point of what was going on in this debate. There has been a lot of cross-party agreement, and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, we all recognise the contribution of the arts.
I do not want to repeat what others have said, but I must point out that a good part of the arts and the creative industries is non-subsidised. In my own town of Lancaster, I can see the cross-cultural relationship between the subsidised and non-subsidised sectors. We have three theatres. The university theatre, the Nuffield, and the Dukes theatre are subsidised by the Arts Council, but the oldest theatre, the Grand, is still commercially run and receives no subsidy. Many of the artists who flow out from Lancaster and its great university do not ask for subsidies and do not get them. Instead, they make a contribution, and we underestimate that at our peril.
To be fair to Opposition Members, most of them have made positive contributions to the debate, but some have underestimated the success of the Secretary of State and the Minister in achieving the return that they have done, and in working behind the arts. I fully support the amendment, although I would also have mentioned the support that we have given to superfast broadband, which will add a great deal to the creative industries.
I want to make a couple of points about the Arts Council. I know that Ministers inherited the previous Government’s funding of the Arts Council. I want to ask some questions as a northern Member of Parliament. The southern average per capita funding from the Arts Council is £7.93, the midlands average is £5.78, and the northern average is £4.66, yet the London average is £21.42. I accept that London has great theatres such as the National Theatre and the Royal Opera House, but the Arts Council must be questioned about the continuation of this historical funding. The Labour Government did nothing to challenge it during all their years in office.
The per capita funding for the north-west is £3.50 and the funding for Lancashire is £1.45, and we wonder why there are suggestions of a north-south divide. There seems to be an historical north-south divide in the arts as well. Lancaster has seen a decline in Arts Council funding from £674,000 to £462,000 in recent years. Most of us in Lancaster accept austerity, however, and acknowledge that we have to pay for the grand schemes that Labour attempted to pay for by borrowing in previous years.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central defended the leadership of the Arts Council. I tabled a number of questions to the Minister, in which I asked how much lottery funding the Arts Council got. I was told that it received £152 million in 2010-11, but spent £123 million, leaving £29 million in its pocket. Where did that money go? In 2011-12, its lottery funding was increased to £182 million, of which it spent only £115 million. That left £67 million unspent while groups in my area such as Ludus Dance, the Dukes theatre and the Nuffield theatre were suffering cuts. I know that the Arts Council is an independent, arm’s length body, but I have to ask the Minister some serious questions about the Arts Council’s management and the regional balance of its funding, given that, over those two years, it could afford to underspend by £96 million.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). If he is looking for something to have a go at Labour about, there is only one thing he needs to refer to: the calamitous Licensing Act 2003, which introduced the disastrous three-in-a-bar rule. That came from the Labour Government.
I want to talk about the drift of the current Government. I was concerned about the response to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) when she talked about the first major speech that the Secretary of State gave on culture and the arts, in which the right hon. Lady seemed to give the clear impression that arts spending and investment would be predicated on economic growth and would have to demonstrate an economic return for the money given. When we are talking about nations and regions, which the Labour motion mentions, thank goodness that arts management and cultural organisations are devolved in Scotland and that we will not be part of that, because we take a contrary view. We recognise the intrinsic value of the arts and heritage, and we reject the idea that the return on investment in the arts somehow needs to demonstrate economic growth. I am glad that we refuse to do that.
We have our own cultural body in Scotland: Creative Scotland. It has had a few difficulties, as I think the Minister will have noticed—we lost our first chief executive officer. We have had a healthy debate about what economic growth means when it comes to the arts, but we have resolved that. We now respect the sacrosanct value of art for art’s sake, and we have been able to combine that with economic growth, because we have to. It is essential that we get the terrain right to grow our creative sector and ensure that our cultural businesses continue to grow, and it is the job of Government to provide that.
Other speakers have mentioned this, but here in the UK we have a fantastic creative sector, whether it is music, film, television or design, but the success of these creative industries does not exist in a vacuum. There are important but fragile pillars supporting them, and that comes down to support for intellectual property and copyright protection. If we are to continue to grow those sectors, we have to ensure that that is nurtured. We are the largest producers of content in Europe and the second largest in the world after the United States. By head of population, we probably create more content than any other nation in the world. One would think that practically all our effort as a Government would be about ensuring that those industries can continue to grow, but not a bit of it. Sometimes this Government actively work with other nations that have a contrary interest on these issues. Let me say to the Minister that we have to get behind the sector.
When those in the industry turn up to speak to the Minister, they always get a positive response—they always seem to enjoy the experience of seeing him—but sometimes they are almost casually dismissed. When they present their case, it is almost as though they are engaged in some form of “lobbynomics”. When the Government ask for evidence, those in the industry produce it, even when, in the case of the Hargreaves report, some of the evidence supporting some of the Government’s proposed copyright exceptions was something approaching bunkum.
Sometimes it seems that the artist—the creator—and those who are prepared to invest in that talent have become a massive inconvenience that must be grudgingly accommodated and managed. The idea of the inventor or creator as the owner of important intellectual property rights is sometimes barely recognised, while it seems that whatever rights they wish to assert must be collectivised for the greater good. The creative industries are often even told that they do not understand the business environment in which they are working. They ask for protection in intellectual property when there is evidence to inform the Government, but what they get is the Government pursuing further exceptions.
We need to take a look at who has the Government’s ear when it comes to being informed on these issues: self-serving, self-appointed digital rights champions and those with extreme libertarian agendas when it comes to online issues. Practically everything that the Government do is predicated on support for, and a desire to please, massive, multi-billion dollar west coast United States companies, particularly those such as Google. I do not know why Google has such access to the Government, but it certainly does, and nearly everything the Government do to support intellectual property is predicated on their view of Google.
This is a huge industry. We have to do what we can to continue to grow it. We are brand leaders when it comes to creative sectors and some of the cultural industries that support them, but the industry is fragile. The Minister should do what he can to ensure that the measures in the Digital Economy Act 2010 are put through. That is the one thing that the Government can do. It is three years since the Act was passed, by a vast majority in this House. We have waited for it. All the legal issues are resolved and the internet service providers have been taken care of. The Minister should just get on and do it. That is the one thing that he could do to ensure that the sector is supported.
We need to ensure that we grow the sector. That could lead to re-industrialisation thanks to the imagination, talent and creativity of the people of our country. Let us do it. Let us make sure we continue to grow the sector and do what we can to support our industries.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I pay tribute to him for his comments about copyright, which is a very important issue. It is also good to see that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) is still in the Chamber. I suggest that, when he is next touring museums and judging them on their qualities, he should visit SeaCity museum in Southampton; I strongly recommend it. It is just a shame that neither Southampton nor Portsmouth succeeded in their bids to become city of culture.
As an executive member for culture on Test Valley borough council, I spent 10 years championing arts and culture throughout the borough, and I vividly recall how important they were to its residents. Perhaps we in Hampshire are lucky to have—in the main—local authorities with a real commitment to the arts, and a thriving voluntary sector which ensures that a wide range of activities are available, not necessarily funded by the public purse, but brought together by the community. We have the brilliant Test Valley Arts foundation, which has a community outreach programme encouraging young artists, and in Romsey we have the Plaza theatre. There is a genuine appreciation of the arts in every form, and, dare I say, a love of them.
I do not want to portray the Plaza theatre as the domain of luvvies, for it is not. The Plaza theatre youth group has been one of the fastest-growing youth groups in the area, and is determined both to keep up with demand from young people and to put on an exceptionally high-quality programme of activities. The Plaza has launched an ambitious Plaza Future campaign, which is raising funds to increase the capacity of the 230-seat theatre, which already sells 10,000 tickets a year, to install a new revolving stage, and to bring the facilities of the 1930s art deco building up to the standards of the 21st century. The campaign is supported by Sir Ian McKellen and honorary patron Mark McGann. The Plaza demonstrates how a community theatre, operating with no subsidy from the local authority, can work successfully and provide a focal point for the arts in a relatively small town.
However, it is not just one theatre that provides the cultural heart of a community. In Hampshire, the arts have long been supported by town, borough and county councils. The Romsey arts festival, which is held every three years, is a great example of that, as is Rum’s Eg, a community interest company. Rum’s Eg has set up an arts and crafts gallery in Romsey, which promotes the crafts of Hampshire artists and others in the region. It has been supported not just by local authorities but by Waitrose’s community fund, which has brought private money into the arts sector. It is a great example of mixed funding, of which we have heard much this afternoon and which enables the arts to have a viable future.
Of course, Hampshire is very lucky. Formerly on the county council and now working with the Minister as national adviser on public libraries is the wonderful Yinnon Ezra, who is also one of my constituents. Perhaps it is no surprise that we have such commitment to the arts and culture in our little part of Hampshire. The pioneering Discovery Centre programme has brought major changes to the library service, and has served as a flagship in showing how to attract new audiences to libraries and bring them up to date. If we are all in this together—and I believe that we are—we should note some fantastic examples of community-run libraries in Hampshire, such as the one in North Baddesley in my constituency.
However, it is not easy, at local or national Government level, to decide on priorities and make the difficult choices when it comes to how best to spend limited resources. I was saddened by the reaction of the main opposition party on Hampshire county council to the council’s allocation of £250,000 to restore one of only two remaining first world war gunboats. HMS M33, a Monitor gunboat, is berthed in dry dock in Portsmouth, and, in the centenary year, provides a real link for today’s generation with the great war. Surely that is one example of exactly what a cultural budget should be spent on: projects that can link us to our history, particularly in the great naval city of Portsmouth.
Culture and the arts mean different things to different people, and what appeals to some does not necessarily float the boat of others, but there is real value in the arts, whatever form they may take. In the remaining minute available to me, I want to comment on the play, later film, “War Horse”. In my constituency, it has led to a fantastic community project involving young people making their own clay model horses. The War Horse project will hopefully provide a memorial for the town’s remount depot, which provided 120,000 horses for the great war. It is another example of a community coming together and using arts and culture to provide a lasting memorial for the future.
I could, in my remaining 20 seconds, talk about all the other fantastic examples in Hampshire. Let me, however, commend them to the Minister and, indeed, to the Secretary of State, who is from the same county as me, and who knows full well that a thriving arts and cultural sector requires mixed funding, community involvement, volunteers and seedcorn funding from the Government.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to talk about the key ways in which our cultural institutions and the creative industries that feed off them are crucial to our economy, our standing abroad and the education of our children. I believe that nowhere provides a better example of the importance of these industries than Greater Manchester, in which my constituency lies.
The late Brian Redhead, editor of the Manchester Evening News and presenter on the “Today” programme, once said:
“Manchester…is the capital, in every sense, of the North of England, where the modern world was born. The people know their geography is without equal. Their history is their response to it”.
Greater Manchester’s history and its future are both inseparable from its culture. The same city that hosted the largest ever art exhibition anywhere in the world in 1857 is still the thriving cultural capital of northern England today—although I appreciate our neighbours to the west may dispute that at times.
More than 20,000 people are employed in cultural businesses in Greater Manchester, the city region containing the nation’s largest concentration, outside London, of jobs in the media and creative industries. Art and creativity are woven into our economic fortunes as much as they form our city’s culture.
The value of the arts, however, is more than just a crude measure of gross domestic product. Let me provide the example of the Cornerhouse, a contemporary arts centre and independent cinema in central Manchester, which is run by my constituent, Dave Moutrey. Alongside its contemporary visual art exhibitions and the 30 titles it screens each month by independent, international and avant-garde film and documentary makers, it is also a hub for budding creative talent. Through a programme known as “micro-commissions”, the Cornerhouse has helped 60 budding creatives to launch their artistic careers over the last three years, with small commissions for work that get them an audience and allow them to make their first step in the industry. It is institutions such as Cornerhouse that are important both economically and culturally—not just to our city, but to our country as a whole.
Andrew Gwynne
As part of a £25 million investment in the arts, the Cornerhouse is going to be located with the Library theatre on a new site at First street in the city centre. Is that not a real testament to Manchester’s investment in the arts and in particular to how much Manchester values the Cornerhouse?
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely. I am as delighted as my hon. Friend and, indeed, everyone in Greater Manchester is at this exciting development, which will ensure that this site, building and institution go from strength to strength.
Culture can attract people to an area—I know that, because as a shy, young 18- year-old, the crucial factor that led me to choose to study in Manchester over anywhere else was probably my deep love of the Stone Roses, and Manchester is also home, of course, to The Smiths, Oasis, Joy Division and New Order. I could go on, but I fear I would lose some of the more venerable Members of the House!
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Would not my hon. Friend like to mention the Hallé orchestra as well?
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely, but I do not have time to mention all of Manchester’s cultural attractions and would probably get into substantial difficulty if I tried to fit them in.
According to research by YouGov, young people from other countries are substantially more likely to be interested in work and business opportunities in the UK if they have been exposed to British art or cultural activities in some way. Our culture reaches investors and overseas markets that our diplomats and trade envoys cannot, boosting trade and encouraging foreign investment.
There is an even greater example of Greater Manchester’s cultural wealth, which until yesterday seemed to be at risk of closure. I refer, of course, to our beloved Museum of Science and Industry—MOSI—and I echo the previous remarks about it. It is a huge, universally recognised success. With between 600,000 and 800,000 visitors each year and more than 100,000 school visitors, its popularity reflects its quality. Anyone who has never been there is losing out. It is a museum for anyone who is interested in our nation’s history—anyone fascinated by stories of the extraordinary people whose remarkable feats built the Britain we know today and forged a revolution that would shape the world. It is a place of learning, inspiration and pride in our city’s —and our nation’s—industrial revolutionary past.
My favourite section of the museum, the Cottonopolis exhibition, tells the story of the cotton industry. It contains many original pieces of equipment from the mills, but MOSI is not just about the past, as it is also about inspiration for the future. It inspires people to remember a time of invention and technological breakthrough and the tremendous social change that followed it—and, indeed, our response to it. Every recess, I take my daughter to MOSI, and I can see a spark of inspiration in her eyes. She loves it, and so do I, and the idea of closing it down is simply unconscionable. The soul of our city is wrapped up in that museum, so it is no surprise that 40,000 people have already signed a petition organised by the Manchester Evening News to save it from closure. I absolutely welcome what the Minister said yesterday, but for me there is still some uncertainty about those remarks. Will he specifically address the situation of the northern museums and assure us all that they are safe from closure?
Our cultural institutions are invaluable educational resources and powerful economic multipliers. We must not overlook the value of museums like MOSI in the difference they make to the education of our children and the inspiration they give to greatness. We must protect the cultural hubs in our regions—the museums, the galleries, the music venues—because they are the breeding grounds of the cultural icons who become global adverts for our country, its economy and the opportunities within it. They spark the imagination of our children, foster the talents of our creative people and capture the attention of the whole world. We must not allow those opportunities to wither on the vine.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
First, I draw the attention of Members to my declared interests.
The creative industries are our lifeblood. This is the third largest sector after manufacturing and financial services, but manufacturing is in decline, as we know, and financial services could move elsewhere at the drop of a hat. We are magnificent at the creative industries. They employ 1.5 million people and add £36 billion to the UK economy, and 10% of UK exports derive from the creative industries, but they are under threat from weak intellectual copyrights.
Let me explain. A Member of the other place once said to me he considers it to be the patriotic duty of every person who creates music to put it on the internet for free within two weeks. At the Vilnius UN Internet Governance Forum, which the Pirate party attended, many people said, “The internet is too complicated. Let’s just give everything away for free.” We must not do that; we must resist all attempts to do that. Instead, we must strengthen intellectual copyrights.
There are three steps to doing that. The first is the carrot. We need to change the business models. Kids will pay if they have the opportunity to do so, but if we make it too difficult, they will go elsewhere, to the free sites. The second step is education. Members may be aware of my competition, Rock the House. Over 300 constituencies are now involved in it, and the finals are next week. It educates MPs and the public at large. They see young bands putting forward their music, and they understand that those contributions need protecting. The Intellectual Property Office has a programme for extending education about intellectual property around the country, but I urge the Government to beef it up to give it more importance and make it more dynamic.
Thirdly, if the carrot and education fail, we must resort to the stick. I ask the Government to push forward with the proposals in the Digital Economy Act 2010. No matter how hastily it was pushed through under the last Government, we should still be looking to implement its good parts.
There are things we can do in respect of credit cards, too. One publishing company has all its product copied in an eastern European country, and people can pay for it through a monthly £10 subscription via a credit card, but the company does not see a penny of it. The credit card companies must be held accountable. Search engines must also be held accountable, and if internet service providers have been told they should block a certain site and they do not do so, they must be accountable, too. The stick must be a final resort, but it must be used if necessary.
I ask the Government to look at the practicality of the copyright extension measures. I was chatting to someone at Universal Music who said that the rules are impractical given the way that some of them are being implemented. I also ask them to consider secondary ticketing rules, which have been admirably championed by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), and urge swifter progress with the Digital Economy Act proposals.
However, having said all that, I do think the Government are basically on the right track and have made good progress on the creative sector. I mentioned live music in licensed premises earlier, and how the maximum attendance figures are being increased from 100 to 200 and up to 500. That is good; it will support pubs in our communities and live music in the creative sector. We are on the right track, therefore, so I will support the amendment.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister is aware that today is the first day of the Edinburgh international film festival, which is just one of a number of film festivals around the UK. The Edinburgh festival will this year have 146 films from 53 countries. That serves to demonstrate the interest there is in film across the UK. Film festivals are important, and they drive that interest in film in the UK.
I want to speak briefly about a different film festival in Scotland—the Glasgow film festival. It is not a rival to the Edinburgh film festival, which is largely industry-driven, as Glasgow’s is a strongly, and highly successful, audience-led festival which has taken place over the past 10 years—I believe next year’s will be the 10th. Fortunately for me, the festival has coincided exactly with the February recess in the past couple of years, which has meant that I have been able to enjoy a number of its films.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I welcome what my hon. Friend is saying. I know that he is a keen supporter of the Glasgow film theatre, as am I, because I was involved when it was opened and when I was assistant director of the Scottish Film Council. Does he feel that the renaissance of the British and Scottish film industry owes a great deal to the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who rightly judged the need for tax concessions?
Tom Greatrex
Of course, my right hon. Friend is too modest to mention his own role in that as a distinguished former film Minister during that period. I hope to get time to make a point about the enduring nature of that support and the importance of its continuing into the future.
First, I wish to make a couple more remarks about the Glasgow film festival. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) talked about the contribution of film making to the city of Glasgow. At last year’s festival, I saw “Cloud Atlas” and it was interesting to see streets just three or four blocks away from where I was sitting being represented as 1970s San Francisco. That demonstrates the ability and technical expertise in the film industry. The Drovers Inn, on the A84, where I have spent many a Hogmanay, was also in that film. It was not the greatest of films, but it was interesting to see. Those things are an indicator of the ability of Glasgow as a city, and as a city region in the west of Scotland, to drive that interest and investment in film, and of the greater contribution that film development makes to the wider economy. A number of people are in the city centre when some of these films are being made, just to see that happening. People came in during the early hours of the morning, when the streets were being shut off and the American taxis were around George square. It was amazing, and it really caught the interest and imagination of people.
The Glasgow film festival is a regional one and it has applied for lottery funding, to which the Government amendment refers. I place on the record that that support is very valued and I know it has been heavily oversubscribed. I am sure that the announcements are due soon and I hope that Glasgow will be successful. The film festival brings in very many people. It brings in not only people from in and around Glasgow, such as myself, but people from outwith Glasgow, from more widely in the UK and from overseas. The boost that that brings to the wider economy in terms of tourism and the hospitality industry is tangible and recognised, and it has helped to generate some sponsorship to go alongside the funding that the festival needs. It does need funding to be able to continue to bring that festival to life each year. I pay huge tribute to Jaki McDougall, Allison Gardner, Allan Hunter, Seonaid Daly and all the others who have been involved in the film festival over the past few years and have built it up to be the fastest-growing film festival in the whole UK. It certainly does deserve the support of lottery funding and the British Film Institute because of its approach.
For those reasons, I wanted to touch on the BFI-commissioned report by Oxford Economics indicating the very real contribution that film brings to the wider economy. This debate is about the economic contribution, and a huge amount comes to the UK through the film industry. We are talking about: 117,000 jobs; British film’s 15% share of the worldwide box office; the £1.7 billion in royalties in 2011 from British films shown overseas; and £2.1 billion in visitor spend in the UK from film tourism. So the industry has made a huge contribution, and it has been successful largely because of policies that developed over time—policies from the previous Government that have so far been continued. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) made that point very well. That has happened because of that support, which must continue. The wider economic and cultural benefits are clear to see. I want to see many more representations of Glasgow as San Francisco and actors as zombies, to repeat the clarification that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) made earlier, so that I do not offend any of my constituents. Those benefits can come about only with sustained and continued support for the film sector. It is vital. It brings so much culturally and economically, and many are concerned that in the drive to reduce support for arts, the film industry will suffer, although it provides a great deal that we should all be hugely proud of.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence. I had to pop out of the Chamber at the beginning of the debate for a long-standing parliamentary engagement.
Given the time constraints, I shall make three quick points about why Liverpool has kept its clear commitment to the cultural sector, despite the unacceptable budgetary pressures foisted on it by this coalition Government. First—I speak from the unique perspective of having been the Lord Mayor of Liverpool during our year as the European capital of culture—it is evident that the creative industries and tourism continue to drive economic well-being at a time when the ability of pubic bodies to spend money on the sector has, unfortunately, been significantly reduced.
Secondly, during 2008 I saw at first hand arts and culture used as a catalyst for the creation of tangible benefits across the city, which included its physical transformation, infrastructural improvement and economic regeneration. In so doing, the creative industries brought about a civic pride and a renewed collective confidence that engaged people and inspired them to participate in imaginative activities. I do not mind admitting that I had never truly appreciated Gustav Klimt, for instance, until an exhibition of his works at the Tate gallery in Liverpool opened my eyes. I, like many hundreds of thousands of people, had their appetites whetted and to this day we are seeing record numbers of visitors in our museums and galleries across the city. I think we are the only city in the UK to build a brand-new museum in the past 80-odd years, with the development of the purpose-built museum of Liverpool on the world-famous banks of our waterfront. The net result was that culture in its widest sense helped draw disparate sections and generations of our community together and provided a focus for creativity, education and health and well-being.
But the progress that we have made is in severe danger, and this is my third point. The arts in the regions are under threat and they will remain in a critical condition until the Government outline a clear strategic vision of how they intend to support the arts and creative sector across the whole country. Unfortunately, there remains uncertainty about whether the arts in the regions will be able to sustain themselves and in some cases even survive, let alone expand their visitor offer. This is not simply an arts question that can be dismissed by the Minister and nonchalantly passed over to the Arts Council to deal with. I agree with arts for all, but this is a fundamental economic question about the role of individual cities and organisations within those cites, that both provide jobs and attract inward investment to places outside the capital.
We have seen today that it is only the Labour party that is making the economic, business, educational and council-led argument for the sector. The acute danger for Liverpool and the whole of England, which the Government must begin to address, is that the scenario in which large swathes of city centres could become devoid of theatres, galleries and other cultural institutions is becoming ever more real. The Government must establish and promote a clear vision for the role of culture and creativity in UK cities and recognise that London is the world leader in the field—we do not argue with that—and its ability to generate money through philanthropic contributions is far greater than cities such as Liverpool. In fact, philanthropy remains one of the killer ingredients in the funding cocktail for regional arts organisations. According to the latest arts and business private investment in culture survey, which was released last month, more than 90% of all private giving goes to arts organisations in London. By anyone’s standards, that is phenomenally disproportionate. It is time for leadership for the regions, and it is time for the three Ministers, all representing seats in the south-east, to think again about the regional implications of their cuts before large parts of the cultural sector in cities such as Liverpool are lost forever.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I will not talk about the wider economic benefit of regeneration by the use of culture, which I hope will be demonstrated in my constituency and which is admirably demonstrated by many other places around the country, particularly in Gateshead. I am particularly impressed by how it has used cultural services to regenerate an area. Instead, I want to focus my remarks on libraries. Any debate about the arts and creative industries worth its name must include a focus on libraries, contributing as they do so fundamentally to social mobility, literacy and skills development, creative and cultural activity, building economic capacity and helping to safeguard intellectual property. Sitting at the heart of our communities, public libraries are for everyone. They enrich lives and support the wider arts and creative industries, and our economic well-being.
I want to give three examples of why I believe that libraries are so important and why I am absolutely passionate about them. First, they are a gateway for personal development. They fuel aspiration and creativity and they contribute to economic capacity. Secondly, they bring people together in a way that other institutions simply cannot do. They are a safe space where people can congregate. They build the fabric of our communities. They are a real communal space that is free for all. Thirdly, they are a means to reduce social exclusion, which in itself carries an economic benefit for our communities.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful defence of public libraries. Does she share my concerns about Croydon council, which is not only proposing to privatise its libraries, but to hand them over to the bidder that offered the worst value for money of the three bids that it received?
Lyn Brown
I am sad to hear that about Croydon libraries. I visited Croydon libraries in my role as a Local Government Association libraries spokesperson and I thought that they were rather good. That they are being privatised is distressing, especially given that the previous Tory Government did not go that far with its compulsory competitive tendering. It is a real shame that Croydon feels that that is where it needs go.
Libraries make such a contribution to our economy and society that spending on them should be seen as an investment. They host job clubs and Open university access. They provide computer training and internet access for families and micro-businesses that would otherwise be excluded. They provide literacy and numeracy classes that help combat disadvantage and allow people to thrive. All of that is at the grassroots level, at the heart of our very community.
Yet libraries are under more stress than ever before. On top of library closures, surveys uncover reduced hours, higher charges and less outreach to schools. School holiday activities are being cut and volunteers are replacing trained, skilled library staff, as if a librarian is like someone at a checkout counter at Asda or Morrisons. Being a librarian is so much more than just giving out a book.
But my main focus today is to talk to the Minister about how libraries might be developed and safeguarded in the future, in the context of a strategy for the arts and creativity. Libraries absolutely deserve leadership, attention and support, and I am concerned that they are not getting them.
Ministers will recall breaking up the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. I must say that I did not mourn the passing of that organisation, but I am disappointed that the Government reduced the libraries budget that was transferred to Arts Council England and think that they missed a trick. I believe that they should have followed the approach widely advocated in the sector at the time by establishing a development agency. It would have been quite realistic to do that within the available financial envelope and would have made a better and more effective use of the moneys that previously went to the MLAC.
Indeed, it has been argued that such a development agency could provide the leadership that would enable local library services to make the necessary savings or to demonstrate their contribution to the wider social good in a way that allowed councils to understand their economic and social value. I want to see a development agency created because I think that we need confident leadership of our libraries in order to secure future library evolution, the development of our libraries and the success of a modern library service in England.
I think that there are indications that the Minister shares my analysis of the problem. In a recent speech he talked about the Government appointing a specialist adviser on libraries to work with local authorities and Arts Council England to consider different approaches to library service provision and new ways of thinking about sustainability. I believe that a development agency would have delivered on that for him. Forgive me for saying it, but appointing a recently retired head of service on a part-time basis, however good he might be, will hardly address the leadership vacuum that continues to bedevil the public libraries sector. Furthermore, I understand that Arts Council England is about to be restructured, with the result that it will have not a single post focused solely on libraries. That is massive disappointment and can lead only to the dilution of libraries.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Arts and culture enrich everyone’s lives and, importantly, enable our children to learn and develop their potential, and they bring communities together. We heard about an excellent example in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who talked about how the history of Greater Manchester is embedded in its arts and music venues, although I was slightly surprised that he did not include the Hacienda.
One of the best examples of all those benefits is the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, which was mentioned earlier. The museum, like others in the Science Museum Group, has been under threat of closure due to a proposed 10% cut in the group’s funding. The threat has been countered by a great campaign run by the Manchester Evening News. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, tens of thousands of local people came out to support the museum.
What I want to discuss is the impact on Greater Manchester’s communities if we lost the Museum of Science and Industry. Free access to museums, introduced when Labour was in government, had a dramatic effect on visitor numbers at the museum. In fact, the annual visitor total grew from 289,000 in 2000-01 to 833,000 in 2011-12. Visitor numbers could grow further, because refurbishments will mean that the museum could support 1 million visitors annually, making it not just an important regional museum, but a national museum, which is what it is.
It is not just about numbers. As we heard earlier, those of us who visit museums with young family members—I have visited them with family members under five—know that they get a great deal out of a visit, both in fun and in learning. Of over 800,000 people who visit the museum annually, 100,000 are children, and 22,000 children visit its workshops. The workshop events and resources are provided up to key stage 4 in history and science, but there are also science-themed workshops for the under-fives to enjoy. The museum is a major centre for the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Network—STEMNET. Some 70% of Greater Manchester’s schools have benefited from expertise in STEMNET subjects, and that is an important link for our schools. The museum also established the Manchester science festival to inspire and engage people in science. Indeed, in 2011 the festival reached 113,000 people, with 200 events in 50 venues. Supporters of the museum have been clear about the impact of closure. Dame Nancy Rothwell, president of the university of Manchester and one of Britain’s most esteemed scientists, said that the museum had an international reputation and, importantly, that it
“can also help inspire young people…to become enthused by science”
and engineering.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the museum’s value to young people across Greater Manchester in respect of how we proceed with the area’s economic development. Greater Manchester is the home of the world’s first passenger railway station—the Liverpool and Manchester railway opened in 1830 and is now the base of the museum—and has seen the development of graphene and future technological advances. The museum is at the heart of that and education is key to its success.
Barbara Keeley
Absolutely. My hon. Friend echoes the words of Dame Nancy Rothwell. She thinks the museum is responsible for making young people consider careers in science and engineering. Her views are echoed by Tim O’Brien, the astrophysicist from Jodrell Bank observatory, who said:
“Museums like Mosi play a vital role in celebrating modern day science as well as our industrial heritage…I have no doubt at all that these places make future scientists and engineers and are vital to our future productivity.”
The museum is free, so everyone can visit. The growth in visitor numbers that I mentioned shows that we must maintain that. Part of the threat coming from the 10% cut has been a discussion about introducing some form of charging. Two-thirds of the 800,000 visitors to the museum came in family groups. Many of the parents supporting the campaign to save the Museum of Science and Industry have made it clear that turning up as a family to the museum if it charged, as it used to, would make for a very expensive day out.
Given MOSI’s importance to families and the future students of science and engineering in our region, it is vital for me to seek reassurance that it is not under threat of closure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) would say the same if she were here; I am very much putting forward points that she would have made in this debate had she had the opportunity.
I understand that the Minister has told the BBC that the Science Museum Group is not to receive 10% cuts. Will he confirm that in this House? It is all right to make those points to the BBC, but they should be made here. If there are announcements about the funding of important museums such as the Museum of Science and Industry, we should, frankly, hear about them first in this House—that, of course, is a point that we Opposition Members are always making.
We have also heard in this debate that the Science Museum Group has a large and growing structural deficit. Will the Minister also address not just the immediate threat of the 10% cuts but how MOSI and other museums in the group can maintain their buildings and connections? The Museum of Science and Industry is truly part of the fabric of the city that was the birthplace of the industrial revolution. We have to maintain and develop it.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The people of north-east England hold a tremendous passion for the arts. Since the late 1990s, the region has developed a budding significance in the creative industries, spurred by finances made available under the last Labour Government, as well as from the EU and the national lottery.
The placing of the now-iconic Angel of the North welcomed in a new era for the region.
Ian Mearns
Does my hon. Friend recognise that we owe a debt of gratitude to the people of Hartlepool, where the Angel of the North was made? Last weekend marked the sculpture’s 15th birthday.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend is also an angel; I congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)—who personally constructed the angel, if we are to believe some of the stories that I have been hearing.
During the decade that followed the erection of the Angel of the North, some £350 million was invested in new and established arts venues, which saw the beginning of an under-recognised British success story. It has provided a major boost to the regional economy and resulted in the creation of not hundreds but thousands of jobs across the culture and tourism sectors. The result of that clever combination of investment and foresight is that the north-east, often one of Britain’s poorest and most deprived areas by many other measures, has established some of the finest creative arts infrastructure in the entire country.
We can boast of not only international attractions such as the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art and the Sage Gateshead concert hall, both in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), but national and regional establishments such as the ARC in Stockton and the Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am not from the north-east myself, but it strikes me that this is being driven by many visionary Labour councillors in the area.
Alex Cunningham
That is very much the case, none more so than in the work of the leader of Gateshead metropolitan borough council.
A huge variety of other events and festivals grace our region every year, such as the Stockton international riverside festival, and we celebrate some of the largest-scale street festivals in the world. The Billingham international folklore festival, which also takes place in my constituency, will mark its 50th anniversary in 2014.
It is a colossal failure that the Government do not grasp the importance of the sector to the regions. They are missing an opportunity to integrate cultural programmes into the agendas of multiple Departments to safeguard the legacy that previous investment has produced. Culture and the arts not only enhance our lives and promote the ability to achieve our potential; they also support a creative sector that was forecast to grow by 31% by 2020. The additional cuts to the DCMS budget will therefore come at a huge cost, threatening to kill growth stone dead and denying many the opportunity to access the artistic and cultural experiences that shape individuals and help define communities.
The basis for the severity of the cuts is framed in a simple economic argument—that spending on the arts is difficult to justify—yet last week the Arts Council published independent economic analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research that found that the sector currently makes up 0.4% of GDP compared with just 0.1% of investment. For every pound of subsidy provided to the arts and culture industry, the sector returned a £7 contribution to GDP. That is a higher return than that from the health and wholesale and retail industries, and it blows the economic viability argument out of the water.
Stockton, at the heart of my constituency, is renowned for delivering a host of arts and culture events with great success. Audiences at events such as the riverside festival and the Stockton Weekender continue to grow year on year. The riverside festival—which this year features “Prometheus Awakes”, a model that is almost as high as this Chamber, and various other performances by local, national and international participants—was central to bringing the Cultural Olympiad to the north-east. Some 80,000 people flocked to the town to experience the events.
It is important, however, to see beyond the obvious economic benefits. The impact of the sector can be seen in many ways, not least in the increased involvement in the arts. ARC arts centre in my constituency is a case in point. Since opening 13 years ago, ARC has developed into a flagship, multi-purpose cultural venue, hosting hundreds of events a year, from music and dance to theatre, film and comedy. As a direct result, engagement has increased substantially. ARC hosted 230 professional performances, as well as 80 community performances, last year alone and this attracted more than 100,000 visitors. It is of real benefit to our economy.
Similarly, more than 100 artists are employed to provide 1,000 creative learning opportunities, enjoyed by more than 14,000 people. That has provided professional development and training opportunities for more than 200 artists and practitioners. With evidence showing that emerging partnering between creative industries and schools has the potential to improve the productivity and learning and earning potential of young people, our future would be markedly bleaker without proper access to the arts.
Just across the River Tees, at the Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art, 18,000 people took part in formal and informal programmes last year, and it delivered a series of creative workshops in conjunction with Teesside university occupational therapy students for dementia patients and their carers. That highlights perfectly the level of innovation that the creative industries can generate, ensuring significant benefits and stronger communities.
To hammer home the case for Stockton and everywhere else, and in case naysayers have any doubt, recent figures suggest that ARC now generates about £4.5 million annually for Stockton’s local economy. If that does not signify value added—both socially and culturally, as well as economically—I do not know what does.
The arts are a valuable commodity—this much is true. Their real value, however, lies in the wealth of other benefits that they bring. Support for our creative industries is key to encouraging and nurturing the talents and appreciation that were unearthed only relatively recently. Slashing funding to the Arts Council and local government while sidelining creative education is not the way to do that.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to participate in the debate. I am a passionate supporter of our arts and creative industries, not just because I love them, but because the sector employs 1.5 million throughout the country and is worth £36 billion a year. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts research estimates that the sector could generate up to 9.7% of UK gross value added. Many hon. Members have made vibrant contributions in the past couple of hours—we have heard inspiring stories of great British imagination, ingenuity, creativity and design.
The social contribution that our regional arts and creative industries make is tremendous. They bring communities together, enable us to express our identity, assist people with health and well-being, and help people to fulfil their potential in so many ways. Nowhere do our arts and creative industries make more of an impact than in Liverpool, where we have such a rich, vibrant and dynamic cultural hub, which has deep historical roots. Liverpool was awarded capital of culture in 2008, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) mentioned, and has gone from strength to strength.
Liverpool city council has a portfolio of 47 cultural organisations, which between them receive an annual core grant. They include the big seven Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium organisations: Bluecoat; the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology; the Liverpool biennial, which is the second largest visual arts festival in Europe; the Liverpool Everyman and Playhouse theatres; the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, which is the oldest in the country; and Tate Liverpool. In 2011-12, they delivered 1,278 performances, exhibitions and events, sold half a million tickets, supported more than 1,000 people in full-time jobs in the Liverpool city region and gave opportunities to 881 volunteers. As a group, they are involved in specific programmes to educate young people within the city region, and to support the vulnerable, including work with veterans. They promote health and well-being, and improve and support aspiration.
The other 40 organisations in the hub include many of our annual festivals—I am looking forward to celebrating and enjoying Africa Oyé this weekend. Not a weekend goes by in Liverpool when we do not have a festival or something to celebrate and enjoy. We have had the river festival and music on the waterfront. We had the Liverpool Calling event just last weekend. Those events bring people together, provide education and make people feel good. They are crucial when many people up and down the country are having a difficult time.
Our local music industry is vibrant. The Liverpool Sound City event brought 40,000 people together. More than 360 artists performed on 25 different stages. Liverpool is perhaps the only city that has its own music awards, which we had back in November. We also have a vibrant film sector. Hon. Members might have seen the most recent “Fast and Furious” film, much of which was filmed in Liverpool. Many BBC dramas are filmed there—most recently, “Good Cop”.
In my constituency, our video games sector includes the fantastic Sony, which is developing many games that people play daily. I should also mention the dance sector and the Merseyside dance institute. Many organisations—I cannot do them all justice—do so much fantastic work, but they do so despite the onslaught from central Government. Liverpool has had a cut of £1,250 per person. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said in her opening speech, that fantastic work is testimony to the leadership of Joe Anderson, our mayor, and the cabinet lead, Wendy Simon, who have done their best to maintain the support those organisations receive. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the sector is the rocket fuel of our economy. I implore the Government to consider seriously what more they can do to support the sector, which is so important for us locally within Liverpool and throughout the country.
The Secretary of State talked a lot about philanthropy. I welcome the generosity of so many people, but 70% of that philanthropy is in London. I therefore urge the Government again to consider seriously what more they can do to support our arts, culture and creative industries in the regions.
Barbara Keeley
The Secretary of State made a point about the national lottery, which supports projects in the Westminster constituency some 300 times more than it supports projects in my constituency. I am sure the situation is the same for her constituency. That is a key factor.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. That is the reason for the debate that we are having. Although there have been fantastic contributions from Members from Greater London, we need to look beyond London and the south-east and think about how we can support creative industries across the UK.
I have one specific question that I hope the Minister will respond to at the end of the debate. He will know that the International Festival for Business is coming to Liverpool next year. That is a national event that is supported personally by the Prime Minister and is receiving a lot of financial resources from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Will the Minister consider and share with the House what support he can extend to that event on the cultural side? There is concern that although Liverpool is well equipped to provide a fantastic cultural offer to support the event, which will do a lot to attract inward investment to the country, that offer will not be possible without the support of the DCMS.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I will focus on the industry part of the creative industries. The creative industries should be a key part of any industrial strategy. They employ 1.5 million people in this country, generate more than £36 billion for the UK and account for a 10th of all UK exports. I will go through the different sectors.
The British film industry directly employs 44,000 people and generates £2.1 billion of foreign sales every year. Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Government’s continuation of Labour’s film tax relief, which provides long-term certainty to investors and allows the filming of international blockbusters to take place in Britain. I particularly welcome the fact that “Star Wars: Episode VII” will be shot in the UK. I hope that it will be more like “The Empire Strikes Back” than “The Phantom Menace”.
The UK music industry is also an astonishing international success story. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) stole my thunder by mentioning the Stone Roses, who I went to see at Glasgow Green on Saturday night, as well as Joy Division and New Order. Given that I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), perhaps I should mention that yesterday was Sir Paul McCartney’s 71st birthday. Why he is not yet Lord McCartney of Penny Lane baffles me.
Our strength in music is not confined to the Beatles or even to the Stone Roses and New Order. British artists had 13.3% of global album sales last year, which is the highest on record. British music accounted for one in seven of all artist album sales in 2012, which is again the highest share ever recorded. UK artists have claimed the spot of the world’s No. 1 selling album for five of the last six years. Last year, five of the top 10 global sellers were by British artists. British music leads the world.
Paul Farrelly
Does my hon. Friend agree that our creative industries, especially music and film, are under severe threat from piracy? On Google, the top sites for music downloads are pirate sites. Does he agree that we must encourage Google to make greater efforts and be more co-operative in the fight against piracy?
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. If I have time, the central part of what I want to say is that a strong and stable intellectual property regime, with protection for copyright, is vital.
Our publishing industry is the fifth largest on Earth. More than two-fifths of the revenue from the publishing sector is generated from export sales, which is more than in any other nation. The video games industry is one of the fastest growing parts of the world economy and Britain is seen as the pioneer in games design and innovation.
Mr Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is making a great case for the strength of the cultural and creative industries in the UK, and the music industry in particular. Will he join me in congratulating the BRIT school, which is located in the constituency that I have the pleasure to represent, for the great contribution that it has made to the music industry, not least through artists such as Amy Winehouse and Adele?
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the themes that I hope to get to in my contribution is that there must be co-ordination in Government policy to support our leading industrial sectors.
The creative industries are complementary to our manufacturing sector. In many ways, modern British manufacturing has a leading edge because we emphasise the importance of design and innovation. Jaguar Land Rover is able to sell its cars around the world because the UK company is designing beautiful well made and engineered cars. Our publishing industry both reflects and fuels our country’s strong scientific research and university base. A vibrant film and TV industry facilitates engineering and production skills and jobs. The emergence of 3D printing will unleash creativity on an unprecedented scale, emphasising even more the importance of great design and innovation combined with bespoke manufacture.
I went to see MakieLab, a firm in Shoreditch that manufactures personalised dolls using 3D printing. The company’s computer programmers and designers have fine arts degrees. In 21st-century global manufacturing, those countries able to combine design and creativity with manufacturing and engineering will have the competitive edge. Britain is well placed to take advantage of that combination as we traditionally enjoy skills in those fields, but it needs a proper industrial strategy, backed by a Government who are committed to growth in our leading sectors such as the creative industries.
Just as business policies should not merely reside in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, so cultural industries cannot be the sole preserve of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Co-ordination across Government, with an emphasis on helping our leading sectors such as the creative industries, should be the Government’s priority although I see precious little evidence of that. The Government’s education reforms are not helping creativity with their emphasis on learning by rote, and changes to things such as the design and technology curriculum work contrary to the country’s economic strengths and the skills needed to compete in the modern, technologically literate age.
The Government’s policy on intellectual property is misguided, and I am pleased it is referenced explicitly in today’s Opposition motion. Britain has always succeeded best when it has embraced innovation and originality, from the industrial revolution to the internet. We have never rested on being copycats, but that originality and innovation requires a stable and strong IP regime. An incoherent or ad hoc framework for intellectual property, made on the hoof, prevents investment and jobs from coming to these shores, undermines competitiveness and inhibits innovation. Sadly, we have exactly that approach from this Government. For example, the manner in which they are dealing with exceptions to copyright has undermined certainty and deterred investment in this country. The provisions recently published by the Government propose forbidding the contracting over of exceptions, which fundamentally alters contract law, almost as a casual consequence of the secondary legislation, and that will put off even further potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of investment.
It is important that the Government view the creative industries not only as socially and culturally significant, but increasingly as a means to pay our way and define ourselves with the rest of the world. That requires recognition of how important the industry is, and a co-ordinated approach across Government. I think we lack that with the present Government, and our competitiveness is being undermined as a result.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am pleased to contribute to this debate as a Northern Ireland MP, and I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on tabling this motion—[Interruption.]
I am blessed that less than a minute’s walk from my constituency office in Newtownards is the Ards Arts Centre in our historic town hall. Within that centre are some of the most unique and I believe magnificent expressions of art—from people all over Northern Ireland, but more specifically from my constituency. If someone takes the time to wander through that area, they will experience all the emotions that the artists intended, which is a beautiful thing.
There is a difference of opinion in the Chamber about how funding for the arts and creative industries will continue, but we have a commitment from everyone on the importance of the arts in their constituencies. I know that schools in Northern Ireland—in particular many grammar schools—may have a compulsory art class, but there is more emphasis on science, technology, engineering and maths than on artistic subjects. There is nothing wrong with that, because it is important to have job opportunities, but it is also essential that funds are available for after-school and community clubs.
In my constituency the local council pays for artists to go to community groups and help people learn how to express themselves through art and the creative industries. I am aware that the Eastend residents association in Newtownards in my constituency had a project with its women’s group that saw the ladies crafting butterflies and other animals. Those butterflies were exquisite by themselves when the ladies showed each individual piece, but when shown as a collection they were stunning. In that art project a clear message was given: an individual can be enhanced by being an intricate part of a community—in other words, part of a team.
In order to achieve such results and allow people who felt they had no artistic talent to learn that they could be part of creating something visually pleasing, those programmes must have funding, which is why I support the motion. Those who are ill and not able to work should be reminded that they can create and do something precious with their time. That building up of self-esteem can change lives.
There are, of course, economic benefits to be had from the creative industries, but we have not yet fully realised their potential. Nick Livingston, director of strategic development at the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, recently said that a growing number of local businesses were recognising the benefits that the creative arts could bring to their organisations. It is encouraging that in the past year Arts & Business Northern Ireland has invested more than £170,000 in supporting such partnerships via its investment programme, which, through the Arts Council and supported by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, has invested £1 million over the past five years. In addition, there has been funding to support businesses of more than £5.2 million.
There must be more of that kind of investment to unleash the potential and enable people to realise what they can achieve through the arts. The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly recently produced an interesting report on the creative arts in Northern Ireland stating that within
“this Inquiry report, the Committee has illustrated its awareness of the close economic relationship between the Creative Industries and other sectors including tourism, hospitality, museums and galleries, heritage and sport, and the social economy and community and voluntary sectors. As a result of these links the Committee has been very specific in calling for increased co-operation between Executive Departments, their arms-length bodies, agencies etc., and local government, industry, educational bodies and the community and voluntary and social economy sectors.”
It says that we must all work together, which Departments have shown a willingness to do.
The regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a vast range of cultures: the Scots have theirs, the Welsh have theirs, and in Northern Ireland we have ours in the Ulster Scots culture, and there is also the Irish influence from the Republic. The Northern Ireland film industry is growing. “Game of Thrones”, which I hope many in the Chamber watch, is an example of that. Many film companies are shooting in Northern Ireland—a different sort of shooting from what we are used to in Northern Ireland. It is the sort of shooting we want to see; the sort of shooting that creates prosperity through the film industry without creating the pain there was in the past. The creative industries are active in my constituency—in jewellery, books, tourist gifts, clothing and ceramics, all of which are encouraged by the Arts Council and supported by the local council and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Jobs have been created and opportunities have been made available, resulting in a boost to the economy from the money generated.
There are benefits to be reaped, but we must first sow the seeds, and I believe that that should begin and continue. If it does, the harvest will be significant.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great privilege to speak on the day that Swansea was shortlisted for the city of culture 2017. People will know Swansea Bay city from people such as Richard Burton, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, R. T. Davies, who wrote “Dr Who”, the people from “Gavin and Stacey”—the list goes on. Of course, Dylan Thomas was born in Swansea 100 years ago next year, so there will be a great celebration there then. I spoke with the Minister yesterday about the need to amplify that globally. We will have a reception to which ambassadors will be invited.
We hope that Swansea Bay city will be open for business now and into the future to celebrate literature, music and dance. There is enormous cultural momentum in Swansea. People will be aware of the beautiful sands of the Gower beaches and of its sporting excellence—Swansea City are now in the premier league, which means that billions of people will now know about Swansea. To that known name, we are attaching these cultural brand values. We also have thriving universities at the cutting edge of various technologies. People have mentioned 3D printing, but there is also Tata Steel, which is working with multi-layered steel that insulates new buildings in a way that creates heat. On top of that, we have an enormous amount of tourism. It is a hub of cultural activity. The second university, the Met, is at the forefront of 3D animation, computer graphics, glass staining and so on.
That enormous amount of activity underlines how huge are the opportunities to invest in culture and creativity. We are in the middle of a political struggle over growth and cuts to get down the deficit. Over 10 years, the last Labour Government increased British GDP by 40% and doubled the gross value added of the creative industries—as people have mentioned, it is now worth £36 billion.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Lottery funding is a crucial part of how we fund our arts and culture. My hon. Friend will know that the national lottery provides constituency breakdowns for where the cash is spent. I would also like to see constituency breakdowns for where tickets are purchased, so that we can see whether areas such as Ashfield are getting their fair share of the cash.
Geraint Davies
That is a critical point. When I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office published figures that showed that the poorest areas pay for the richer areas who have cricket clubs and so on. Middle-class communities put in bids and take the money from people who are investing elsewhere. There should be progressive redistribution from the lottery. I hope there will be more bids to the heritage lottery to support initiatives to celebrate the Dylan Thomas centenary, but the point is well made.
The so-called middle classes, as measured by the OECD, are growing at an enormous rate in developing countries. In China, they have grown from 3% to 20% of the population; in India, they have grown from 2% to 10%. With that growth, we see much greater visitor numbers. The amount that visitors are spending has gone up by 30% in the past five years. It seems strange that we are not investing in marketing and infrastructure to maximise these opportunities, but are penny pinching instead.
On the film industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) mentioned that a scene from the film “World War Z” was filmed in Glasgow. “Da Vinci’s Demons” is being filmed in the Swansea Bay city region, and is providing an enormous number of new jobs. Filming “The Hobbit” in New Zealand led to a 40% increase in visitors, and there was a 17% increase in average spend due to the “Lord of the Rings”. We therefore need to invest.
We also need to have the right sort of education, unlike what is being pioneered by the Secretary of State for Education, who is going back to a sort of “Tom Brown’s Schooldays”. James Dyson recently mentioned that the Secretary of State’s removal of coursework will harm creativity and problem-solving. That does not just affect modern manufacturing. Our added value is about applying creativity and problem-solving to the arts, music and the whole mix to have a point of difference in the global marketplace. Going back in time will not prepare us for an ever-changing world.
I am proud that Swansea has done well today. It is part of a growing cultural British offer. Culture and creativity define our identity and past, and are an engine for growth in an ever-fiercer global marketplace. Without further ado, I will leave my remarks there.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This has been an interesting and varied debate, ranging from libraries to museums and to more contemporary issues. It has been a pleasure to sit through it all.
We have heard how many jobs there are in the creative industries, the contribution they make to GDP and how they account for around £1 in every £10 of the UK’s exports. The sector is one of the fastest growing in the economy, and is forecast to grow by 31% by 2020. The arts budget is tiny, but brings big returns. The current investment is 14p per person per week, which is equal to approximately 0.05% of total Government spending. I was told that the former Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) described the budget as equivalent to
“a rounding error at the Department of Health”,
his new Department. That is why it would be entirely counter-productive to cut arts funding at this time. Cutting investment makes no sense when we need to kick-start the economy. We have seen this in Bristol, where cultural investment is helping to attract visitors and drive regeneration.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is, like me, a strong supporter of the cultural hub developing between Bristol and Cardiff in the south-west of England and south Wales. Is she aware that 60% of the funding for the Welsh National Opera, which is based in my constituency, comes from the Arts Council England, because it does 60% of its work in England? Damaging the arts and creative industries in England could have a negative impact on Wales. We need a strong and thriving industry on both sides of the border.
Kerry McCarthy
I think in Bristol we have not yet quite forgiven Wales for stealing “Casualty” from us, but I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the links between cultural institutions and the important work that Cardiff does elsewhere.
It is impossible to talk about Bristol without mentioning the Oscar-winning Aardman and the amazing output of the BBC’s natural history unit, which is a real money-spinner for the BBC and funds its other work. It is estimated that the Banksy exhibition in 2009 brought £10 million into the city and doubled the turnover of local businesses during the height of the recession.
Back in 1975, the Arnolfini centre for contemporary arts was an important part of the regeneration of the Bristol harbour site. In 2002, Andrew Kelly, the director of the Bristol Cultural Development Partnership described it as
“one of the first examples in the United Kingdom of the arts used for encouraging inward investment and economic regeneration leading…to a likely total investment in the site of £600 million and the creation of over 3,500 jobs”.
Now, we are creating an enterprise zone in the Bristol Temple quarter with a focus on the creative and digital sector, and Arts Council funding has been approved for artworks at the historic Bristol Temple Meads station, which will act as a gateway to the quarter. There are also plans for a long-awaited and much-needed arena. When Sir Peter Bazalgette, the chair of Arts Council England, visited Bristol earlier this year, he said that it was a city that had “got things right”, highlighting strong partnership working in particular.
It is important that funding for the arts in Bristol should continue. Bristol Old Vic and the Bristol Cultural Development Partnership, which was praised by the Arts Council chair as an example of a “great regional arts alliance”, have both already received significant cuts. Funding cuts are disproportionately affecting educational programmes such as the Acta community theatre in Bristol, which last year worked with 1,000 people of all ages and backgrounds, over 80% of whom had never been to a theatre.
In Bristol, it is not just the highbrow, publicly funded, mainstream creative scene that is thriving; the city is also renowned for its counter-culture scene. Banksy is obviously the most notable example of that. A 2010 PRS for Music survey showed Bristol as the UK’s most musical city, with more songwriters per capita originating from the city than from any other place. Bristol is probably best known for the groundbreaking group of musicians that emerged in the 1990s and included Massive Attack, Tricky, Portishead and Roni Size. I have talked to DJ Krust, who was involved in that scene, about its DIY ethos. Those involved started by putting on events in empty warehouses and no one turned up. Eventually, however, they started selling tickets and created an incredibly innovative scene that influences people to this day. It emerged in a similar way to the punk scene that sprang from squats in London and elsewhere in the 1970s.
DJ Krust told me that those involved did not need or want public funding. That raises interesting questions about how we can ensure that such creativity thrives without the stultifying effect of trying to get funding, assessing outcomes and all the bureaucracy that goes with that. We need to support it, perhaps simply by not repressing it. The Minister once confessed to me that he was an ardent fan of the Redskins, and he will understand the point that I am making. As well as the Adeles and Coldplays of this world, we need acts that are innovative and edgy and that have something important to say.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I join my neighbour in celebrating the artistic creativity of our city. Perhaps she would like to visit the Bristol Institute of Modern Music, which is based in King Square in my constituency, where a lot of the pop musicians of the future are being trained without public subsidy.
Kerry McCarthy
I am well aware of the institute, and I hope to visit it at some point.
My final point is linked to what I was just saying. It is increasingly difficult for musicians to make a living these days, due to the growth of piracy and illegal downloading and to the growing prevalence of low pay and no pay in the creative industries. Recent research by the Musicians’ Union showed that more than half of professional musicians worked for less than £20,000 a year and that 60% had worked for free over the past year. This is not just a problem for musicians; it is an issue across many creative industries. Equity’s most recent survey of members found that over 69% earned either nothing or under £10,000 a year. We need to get a grip on this situation; otherwise, we could end up with a British music scene that, although still successful, was dominated by the privately educated, the winners of “The X Factor” and products of the BRIT school. A survey in 2010 found that 60% of acts in the charts had attended private school, compared with just 1% two decades ago.
A number of Members have mentioned the Stone Roses. Someone told me earlier that they had seen the brilliant Shane Meadows film about them that has just come out. They said that we just do not get bands like that any more—working class lads who have made good and really inspired other people from the same background as them. Now, it is all Mumford and Sons. I do not know whether the Minister is a fan of theirs, but I know the Prime Minister is. It would be sad if that was the only music that could thrive in Britain today.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly. As a former member of the Musicians Union and a current member of the board of the National Youth Jazz Orchestra, I will speak primarily for music, musicians and the wonderful music culture we have in Britain.
We are undoubtedly the leading nation in Europe when it comes to popular music, jazz and, I would argue, classical music, but that culture is in danger from cuts. Music is sustained by the Arts Council, but also by local authorities. The local authority in Luton sustains the Luton music service, an absolutely wonderful service that provides opportunities for literally hundreds and possibly thousands of working-class youngsters who would never have the opportunity to play or learn an instrument if it was not for the support of the local authority.
There is a class component in all this, because middle-class youngsters have their instruments bought for them by their parents and professional lessons paid for by their parents, but working-class kids need the support of local authorities. Local authority support for music is fundamental to sustaining, for the foreseeable future, the wonderful musical culture of which we are rightly proud. Luton is a prime example of what we do well. I want that to continue, which means that we must sustain local authority support and resist cuts to local authority music.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
In our country, when we describe ourselves to others, we often rightly turn to the cultural and the creative. This debate, just before the comprehensive spending review, is timely because the arts and the creative industries are facing great challenges. That matters, because as David Lan, artistic director of the Young Vic theatre, has said:
“The arts and culture are not just what you do…at the weekend…They are everything that makes us see the world and live in it in the way we do”.
Our commitment to the arts is a reflection of the type of society we want to live in.
This has been a good debate, with a number of fine contributions. I am sure that all Members will be heartened by the interest in it. Let me begin by highlighting the brilliant maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). As the first woman to represent her constituency, she spoke with great passion. I know she will be a highly effective champion for her constituents and I am sure we all look forward to her contributions for many years to come.
We have also had some particularly timely contributions from those who have championed the value of their local cultural institutions. In particular, we heard some fine speeches about the future of the Science Museums Group, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for York Central (Hugh Bayley). My hon. Friend the Member for York Central spoke about the crossover between science and the arts, perfectly illustrating the point by talking about the influence that the National Railway museum had had on his son, who went on to become a railway engineer.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) rightly pointed out that it would be a mistake to go back to the days when national museums charged for entry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) spoke with passion about the impact of the National Media museum on Bradford and pointed out the importance of forging new partnerships to help to reinvigorate the museum.
A number of contributions were about the positive impact of the arts and the creative industries on constituencies and regions. My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and the hon. Members for Hove (Mike Weatherley), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) all demonstrated the interest in the arts that exists among Members.
We also had some particularly valuable contributions that reflected more generally on the value of the arts. The Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport rightly paid tribute to the last Labour Government’s support of the arts. Obviously I completely agree with him. He also raised the issue of the flexibility of national lottery funding, which is something we should definitely consider. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) spoke with great passion and knowledge about the value that the arts add to our national life. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) rightly reflected on the importance of cross-Government co-operation to support the creative industries.
Finally—I know that he would not want me to miss him out—the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) rightly raised the importance of the video games industry and the huge contribution it makes to the economy. He also rightly raised the important subject of libraries. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) correctly said that libraries bring us together as a community. Libraries provide a unique public space for individuals and communities to access services, to read and to learn, but cuts to local government mean there is rightly concern about their future.
As has been reflected in the debate, we believe that the arts are of intrinsic value to us as a people and as a nation. They help to include those who feel disfranchised and to inspire those without hope. We have rightly discussed the importance of the arts in the context of education, and our young people can expect to undergo several career changes in their lifetimes, requiring them to possess a flexible skill set. Children who play in orchestras or sing in choirs learn the value of team work, and the discipline of rehearsal develops confidence and character. Those who dance learn the importance of practice, and the ability to reproduce routines with skill and precision.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has mentioned the importance of involving children and young people. As he knows, the Prime Minister takes delight in slagging off Wales at regular intervals. Will he pay tribute to the Urdd eisteddfod, which persuades young people in Wales to come together every year to celebrate culture and the arts?
Dan Jarvis
I am delighted to do so. My hon. Friend is right to raise the important issue of the arts in the context of education.
All the skills to which I have referred are crucial in a modern world, and all of them feed into our creative industries. The arts and the creative industries provide huge economic benefit, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). The creative industries are worth more than £36 billion a year, and employ 1.5 million people in the United Kingdom.
Since 2001, free entry to our museums and galleries has seen the number of visitors more than double to over 18 million a year, and we earn vital revenue from overseas tourists who visit us for our acclaimed theatre companies. Our thriving music industry is the second biggest exporter of music in the world, and in 2011 the total revenue from the international sale of UK television programmes was £1.5 billion. We compete with the best in the world when it comes to animation, video games, fashion, radio, publishing, architecture, design and advertising.
Culture has helped to revitalise many of our grey city and town centres. As our cultural scene has developed, so have the jobs and the social well-being of the people who live there. That point was made eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger).
We live in tough times and tough choices need to be made, but we also need to make decisions about the kind of society in which we want to live. Labour has therefore been working on a strategy for jobs and growth in the creative industries, which focuses on areas in which we believe the Government should be leveraging effort.
First, the Government should nurture creative skills in education and develop talent. By giving young people the opportunities and skills provided by a creative education, we can ensure that our creative industries have the widest talent pool available from which to draw. Secondly, the Government should explore innovative ways of giving the creative industries access to finance. Thirdly, they should champion intellectual property. By protecting content creators and the rights of the consumer, we can provide a sound basis for investment.
Fourthly, the Government need a regional strategy to support the arts and the creative industries in all regions—not just in London—and to ensure that opportunities are available in every town and city. What work is the Minister doing with local authorities to safeguard investment in the arts locally? May I ask him specifically to repeat his assurance that none of the Science Museum Group’s museums, including the National Coal Mining museum for England, in Wakefield, will close as a result of Government spending cuts?
Fifthly, the Government need an international strategy that promotes our culture and creative industries around the world. Finally, they should champion equality of access and opportunity, ensuring that all people, whatever their background, have access to the arts and culture.
There has been speculation recently that in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be abolished and its constituent parts moved elsewhere. The Secretary of State stopped short of thanking Opposition Members for our campaign to save her job, but in a recent debate about the future of her Department, one well-known commentator reminded us that the DCMS is a Department in which the Government can assert their culture, define their mission, and set the tone of their term in this place.
We need a devoted voice in government and at Cabinet for the arts and the creative industries, and DCMS is the place for that voice. The arts and creative industries are vital to Britain both socially and economically, and we need a strong and influential DCMS working closely with the arts and creative industries. Our commitment to the arts as a country can be a reflection of the type of society we want to live in—one that is innovative, creative and productive. I commend the motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on her excellent maiden speech. She is not in her place and is no doubt already working for the people of South Shields elsewhere in the building. I thought she talked about—I will check the record—a new library opening in her constituency. That was music to my ears, because what we have today is a slightly surreal situation: because Opposition Members are determined to attack the Government, they end their speeches by saying that everything is doom and gloom, yet the majority of their speeches were taken up with extolling the cultural vitality of the areas that they represent.
As one would expect, I heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about the vibrancy of films, film-making and museums and galleries in Cornwall, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) about his chairmanship of the Northampton Theatres Trust, with 700 performances and audiences of 250,000. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) about the Folkestone triennial and the huge work that the great philanthropist Roger de Haan is doing there, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), a former local government cabinet member for leisure, about the thriving scene in Hampshire.
We heard, too, from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who has taken a tour as a judge for the ArtFund to see the great museums all over the country, but he failed to mention the CBE that has recently been awarded to Emma Bridgewater, who runs the fantastic Bridgewater Pottery in his constituency. We heard from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), about the municipal museums and theatres in his constituency, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) about the vibrancy in his area. We heard from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) about how successful Manchester is, and I look forward to visiting Manchester next month for the Manchester international festival.
We heard, of course, from two Liverpool Members—the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger)—about the success of culture in that city. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) spoke about the Riverside festival and made reference to the success of Gateshead. And so it goes on, from Swansea West and from Strangford, where we heard about the success of both television and film investment in Northern Ireland, and specifically about Derry or Londonderry. [Interruption.] Opposition Members try to shout me down, but the virtues and vibrancy of culture throughout this great nation will not be silenced.
I could talk about Margate, Wakefield, Houghton hall in Norfolk, the Yorkshire sculpture park and the Zurbaran painting saved by a great act of philanthropy by Jonathan Ruffer. The fact is that the arts are thriving in this country. That is because of the success of our policies. If we talk about support in the regions, I would mention the Cultural Olympiad, chaired by Tony Hall, that happened under this Government—a huge success, bringing culture all over the nation.
Today, we announced the four cities on the UK capital of culture shortlist—the UK capital of culture created by Phil Redmond, who did so much to make the Liverpool capital of culture such a success. I have just finished reading his excellent autobiography, “Mid-Term Report”. Eleven different places around the UK applied to become the UK capital of culture. That is not a country on its knees culturally; it is a country where all parts of the nation are celebrating the success of cultural and creative industries.
A lot of hon. Members’ contributions were about the northern museums. We have an Adjournment debate on that very matter straight after this vote, so I will say a lot more about it in a few minutes’ time. We heard contributions on this issue from the hon. Members for York Central (Hugh Bayley), for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). On national museums in general, I can first of all assure hon. Members that there is absolutely no reason at all for any of the northern science museums to close.
The Science museum has taken responsibility for MOSI, with visitor numbers going up by 30%. It is striking a deal with Tyne and Wear museums, too, and the Victoria and Albert museum is working with Dundee. There is the new Tate extension and the rehang, and there are Tate partners all across the country. There is the Imperial War museum in Salford, and the Imperial War museum in London is currently closed because of new galleries to commemorate world war one. There is the new extension at the Natural History museum. During all of this there is the maintenance of free admission to our national museums. [Interruption.] That is another success story. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can try to shout me down, but they cannot deny the truth: success in the regions, success in our towns and cities, success in our national museums.
Because the Opposition cannot deny that, they claim it is their success. I do not deny the successes of the last Government, but nor should they deny the successes of this Government, because we are the ones having to make the difficult decisions because of the budget deficit they left us. They are forced to put forward policies that are imaginary and to suggest we are doing nothing, so they talk about skills and education without acknowledging the first ever national music education plan or the extension of the In Harmony scheme—set up by the last Government, extended by this Government—and they do not acknowledge the achievements of our cultural education plan, the first youth dance company, Film Nation bringing together the film charities, which is a £7 million fund, and Heritage Schools, which is a £3 million fund.
The Department for Education and DCMS are working together to put £50 million a year into education, too. There is also our creative employment programme, run through the Arts Council, and 6,500 creative apprenticeships being supported by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Next Gen report is changing the teaching of computer science in schools, and acknowledging the importance of the arts. Creative Skillset has been given £16 million to support skills, and there are the BRIT schools, set up by the last Conservative Government, and acknowledged in this debate.
Paul Farrelly
I want to pay the Minister a single, straight-edged compliment. He is very well respected across the creative industries. He has got energy, and from our experience in north Staffordshire with the Wedgwood museum, we know he is a man of action, so could I press him on this? When is he likely to take action on the recommendations of the Sieghart review to extend the public lending rights to e-books and audiobooks in our libraries, and so help authors and this vital element of our creative economy?
Mr Vaizey
That was a good question, asked just as our brilliant Education Secretary, who does so much to support reading in schools and libraries, takes his seat. We will be making an announcement on that soon.
On skills, we are delivering; on access to finance, we are delivering with the enterprise investment scheme; and on tax credits, I have not even had time to mention not only the maintenance of the film tax credit, but its extension to television, and the rejuvenation of our animation industry and, soon, the video games tax credit.
The case for our regional strategy has already been made from the Opposition Benches, with Members talking about what is happening throughout the country. Also, my Secretary of State is putting together our international strategy to work with our national museums and performing arts organisations to fly the flag abroad and help Britain punch its weight. May I take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of Ian Livingston, chief executive of BT? He runs a successful company, and he is joining a successful Government to make the case for Britain abroad, to help our companies export abroad, and to help companies invest here because of the skills we have in our creative industries.
Let me say one last thing: DCMS is here to stay. We have moved buildings, but that is a metaphor for this Government. We have better offices, and they cost less, because with this Government we get more for less. We get the tough decisions being made. Opposition Members cannot get on their feet and have a debate about the arts until they come clean. Are they going to put more money into the arts? Are they just going to give a nudge and a wink, and say we do not like this cut here and we do not like that cut there, because they have to go on the record and tell the country and tell the arts what financial support they are going to give? I will give way to any Front-Bench Member who can tell me now—
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House proceeded to a Division
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union Documents
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I would like to present a petition signed by 723 residents of south-east London who are concerned about the proposed closure of Downham fire station. Today is the final day of the Mayor of London’s consultation on fire station closures in the capital. These closures, if they go ahead, will lead to average response times increasing by 31 seconds in the London borough of Lewisham. Signatories to the petition therefore urge the Department for Communities and Local Government to appeal to the Mayor of London to prioritise public safety and keep Downham fire station open.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of South East London,
Declares that the Petitioners regret the £30 million cut to the grant received by the London Fire Brigade for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15; express concern about the proposed closure of Downham Fire Station as set out in the Fifth London Safety Plan; and note that the proposed closure of Downham Fire Station, currently subject to consultation, will increase the average Fire Brigade response time to incidents in the London Borough of Lewisham by 31 seconds.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to appeal to the Mayor of London to prioritise public safety and to keep Downham Fire Station open.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001187]
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I would like to present a petition against Leeds city council’s proposed closure of the Suffolk Court care home in Yeadon.
The petition states:
The Petition of a resident of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioner objects to the proposed closure of Suffolk Court Care Home in Yeadon; further that with the increase in numbers and age of older people in our community, Suffolk Court is a vital resource, providing security and practical care for those unable to be sustained at home by community services; further that closing Suffolk Court would undermine services to the elderly and vulnerable in Yeadon.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons call upon Leeds City Council to reassess its priorities and keep this essential service open.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P001188]
National Media Museum
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
I am relieved, up to a point, that I do not have to come to the House this evening to savage the Minister as an enemy of the people, or to denounce him as a philistine and cultural vandal. I am relieved because I have always considered him rather an adornment to the Government of brutes with whom he sits—a civilised man; a kind of lipstick on the pig.
I am also relieved because, in a meeting the Minister graciously gave my colleagues and I just a day or two ago, up to a point, he rather shot my fox. There I was, with my parliamentary colleagues—four parties are represented in Parliament from the Bradford district—absolutely united and leading what looked like becoming a mass campaign of the entire city and district against a proposed act of cultural vandalism, but the Minister disarmed it in the first line of the meeting by telling us that the Bradford National Media museum would not close.
We are grateful to the Minister for that, although he will forgive us if we want to look the gift horse a little closer in the mouth, because there are, of course, more ways of closing somewhere than simply locking its doors. However, we are grateful that the Minister had the sense to listen to the public, led by the five parliamentarians from four parties, the city council, and the local newspaper, the Telegraph and Argus. There was, as I have said, a crescendo of opposition to the proposed closure, and it is only right to commend a Minister who listens. I hope I do not spoil his chances in the forthcoming reshuffle—I wish him well, and am grateful to him up to this point, when I must part company from him.
The National Media museum is fundamental to Bradford. It is a national treasure, but it is fundamental to Bradford, a city with a sea of troubles, with mass unemployment, mass poverty, mass child poverty, record infant mortality rates, record deaths in hospitals and so on. Bradford has so many problems that it could not afford another. If the closure as leaked—I will come to that point in a minute—had gone ahead, it could have been a death blow to a great city, which in 1903 was the richest city per capita in England, but which now, in 2013, does not have its troubles to seek, particularly in the city centre, where we have a hole in the ground where Westfield was supposed to be. When I arrived there at least 15 months ago, the iconic Odeon building was crumbling and shrink-wrapped, looking like it was going to fall down. If the National Media museum had closed on the back of that desertification of the city centre, it could have been a death blow, so I am grateful that the Government have announced that it will not close.
In part, it will not close because the public expenditure cuts in this age of austerity, which the Government are imposing on the country, have turned out, in the case of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at least, not to be as severe as planned. We are told in authoritative media briefings that 10% has been reduced to 5%, but, as the late and lamented trade union leader Alan Fisher once said, 5% of bugger all is bugger all. Five per cent. off our shrunken budget will be a serious blow none the less, so my first question to the Minister, which I hope he addresses, is this: the museum will not close, which is wonderful, but what will happen to the capital programme and capital expenditure on the building? Will the building be not closed, but allowed to crumble? Will the vital physical changes in the building not be possible? As my colleagues and I will advance, and as we advanced in our meeting with the Minister, many things about the National Media museum need to change. That is the first question.
To move on to my second question for the Minister, I have doubts as to whether the National Media museum belongs in the Science Museum Group at all. Media to me is an art rather than a science. The science of how film, radio and television get into the living room or the cinema is interesting, but not as interesting as the content of the film, radio and television. The National Media museum in Bradford is the repository of the national BBC archive, but who knows about it, who can access it and who can see it? The whole notion of the national Science Museum Group should be brought into question by this debate.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Minister will know that there was a radio station supported by the BBC in the National Media museum. That station left in March of this year without any fight from the museum. That is why we all smelt a rat. My hon. Friend might want to comment on that. That surely had an impact on visitor numbers to the museum.
George Galloway
Undoubtedly; that was one of the most popular attractions. It was interactive: people could get behind a desk and conduct make-believe interviews. Future politicians were being groomed in that studio in Bradford. Now it is gone and no fight was put up for it.
To skip ahead in what I was going to say, I belong to the Deng Xiaoping school of socialists: I do not care whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. The state must of course be a major stakeholder in museums, and free admission must be defended at all costs. The National Media museum has half a million visitors. That is down from 1 million, but it is not nothing. The overwhelming majority of those half a million visitors are from Yorkshire and Humberside. Most of them, very unusually for a museum, are from lower socio-economic groups. Charging would be a death knell for us and the state must be there to guarantee that that does not happen.
However, the BBC is a national institution that is deeply in need of a new lick of paint to renovate its tattered public reputation. Why does the BBC not help to pay for the National Media museum? Why can the BBC logo that used to be at White City not be up on that building? Its archive is there. The public pay for the BBC. Heaven knows, any money that it spends on the National Media museum might save us from hours of tripe that, I am sorry to say, would otherwise be included in its output.
Perhaps other media outlets could be involved. I am not arguing for the rehabilitation of Mr Rupert Murdoch, but I have written to His Highness Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, with his great media interests, and asked him to sponsor the museum. That is how desperate I was. Perhaps, I am glad to say, he did not reply.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman, my parliamentary neighbour, not only for securing this debate, but for the way in which he has worked with all Bradford MPs to secure the future of the museum. Does he agree that this matter shows that although we may disagree wildly on lots of issues, we all have the best interests of the Bradford district at heart? It also shows what we can achieve when we work together. Will he join me in saying to the Minister and the Science Museum Group that Bradford MPs will continue to work as a united front not only to secure the short-term future of the museum, but to ensure that it has a viable long-term future?
George Galloway
I am grateful for that intervention. What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely true. It is a rare species, the northern Tory MP, but our district has two of them and they have turned out both to be able and dedicated parliamentarians. They were ready, without qualification, to throw themselves into a more obvious popular front led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), the Liberal Democrats in the shape of hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and me. We all came together as one hand and we moved mountains. The leak of a closure at least gave us the opportunity to show what politics and public opinion can do, and how Governments can be influenced and made to listen.
Thinking along the lines I described earlier about the media paying something towards the National Media museum, this country gives a fortune to the privatised train operators, so why can we not force them to help my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) ensure that the future of the National Railway museum in York is secured?
The point we are keen to make is that these museums should not just be kept open, because keeping something and letting it crumble and die is no use. These are national treasures. If our country can strut around the world at the G8 and G20—when we are not bugging people; I am sorry, there is a D notice on that—saying what an important country we are, it can certainly pay for the upkeep of those national treasures.
The Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, which I visited a week or so ago, is another national treasure. Imagine Manchester, the workshop of the workshop of the world, having its museum of industry closed. Why is industry not helping pay for that museum—it is, after all, a showcase of British industry? Indeed, why is it in the Minister’s Department at all? The museum in Manchester could more than satisfactorily fit into the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—or as it used to be, the Department of Trade and Industry—thus relieving the pressure on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by making the necessary investment in our museum.
Some may say, “What’s in a name?” but why is our museum called the National Media museum? Indeed, in the age of Leveson, the word “media” does not have immediately attractive connotations. Why should we not call it the national museum of film, radio and television? Then it would do what it says on the tin, and everybody loves film, radio and television. Moreover, with the archive already there, there is no reason why we could not fill that museum every afternoon by showing some of the jewels in the crown of the BBC national archive.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I, too, express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) for initiating this debate. A little earlier he referred to the leaking of the state of the group as a whole, and the media museum in particular, and I am annoyed that we should have to rely on a leak, rather than a more mature approach that would have involved MPs at a much earlier stage. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of suggestions tonight, but I believe that collectively we could have worked much harder, much sooner, and that the hysteria and huge anxiety created across the Bradford district could have been avoided.
George Galloway
Indeed, and the hon. Gentleman was right to be cross about that in our meeting, although being a glass-half-full man, I saw it as giving us an opportunity to shine. The hon. Gentleman is right, which brings me to the only discordant note I intend to make—the Minister must listen to this please.
The performance of the leadership of the Science Museum Group has been sadly lacking in this affair. Indeed, we had the spectacle of the leadership of the group rubbishing the performance of museums under their own purview, apparently oblivious to the obvious fact that if the museums were underperforming, they themselves were being paid rather a lot of public money to preside over that underperformance. I do not normally attack public servants because they have difficulty responding, but I was not impressed by the leadership of the museum’s group before our meeting this week, and I was less impressed after it.
There is a serious question mark and I am not confident about leaving the fate of the National Media museum in Bradford in the hands of the leadership of that group, and that is in part because of the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward). It is obvious that it leaked the potential closure of one or more of these three museums, which makes its position now—negotiating in public—much more difficult. When the Minister said, in that first sentence, that the museum in Bradford would not close, I could sense that sinking feeling on the part of the officials, as he shot their fox—just as, in a way, he shot mine, given that I had already applied for this debate. I believe the Minister. I agree with Nick, as they used to say—or, in this case, Ed. It is all very well these panjandrums of the culture industry sitting in London, in the Victoria and Albert, deciding which of their northern chess pieces they can dispose of, but it is Ministers who must decide, and it is Parliament, to whom Ministers are accountable, and democracy, to which we are all accountable, that really count.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am grateful for the chance to respond to this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) on securing it. I thank him for his kind comments about me at the beginning of the debate—I am sure they were very career-enhancing for me.
I have not worked closely with the hon. Member for Bradford West in the past, but I would echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said: I was expecting a potentially difficult meeting with the hon. Gentleman and I knew from his reputation that being savaged by him would not be akin to being savaged by a dead sheep, but something somewhat worse. I must say, however, that he has behaved in an entirely constructive fashion on this issue—and that, of course, goes for all the other hon. Members in the area. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) has been exceptionally helpful. I should also mention the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. It is also good to see in their places the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who represent one of the science museums in York.
It is clear that the hon. Member for Bradford West spoke for all his colleagues in the area, but they also made it clear, in their own interventions, that they believed passionately in the value of our museums and cared deeply about the museums that have their homes in the regions they represent. They spoke eloquently of the relationship between the national museum in Bradford and the people of that city. They paid tribute to the work of the museum in educating and engaging and contributing to the economies of the regions where they are based and in creating a focal point for inquiry and enjoyment. I share the concern expressed in recent weeks that any of these museums—in York, Manchester or Bradford—might be in danger, and I understand the strong feeling it has caused among all those who care about and benefit from everything that these museums do for us.
Ironically, the hon. Member for Bradford West called this debate the week after the national museum celebrated its 30th birthday, and it is worth reminding the House that the museum holds collections ranging from the earliest surviving photographic negative to John Logie Baird’s original television apparatus and the camera used to create the first moving images. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Bradford South said that he was sad that BBC Radio had left the museum, but it is also worth noting that the BBC recently gifted its collections of almost 1,000 historical objects to the museum as part of the BBC’s 90th anniversary celebrations. As Members have said, the media museum also hosts the Bradford international film festival, as well as animation and science festivals, and the BAFTA young designer event, which was streamed live over the web and marked 100 years of Indian cinema with a series of events, including appearances by Bollywood stars. These are good news stories and show the impact that the museum continues to have on the region, particularly Bradford.
As the hon. Member for Bradford West said, however, things have to change. I am not sure I necessarily agreed with his diagnosis. I would not change the leadership of the Science Museum Group. I have complete confidence in Ian Blatchford, its director, who took over about one year ago, and let us not forget that the leadership took over the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, which has seen visitor numbers increase by 30%. What I recognise, and what we must all recognise, is that attendances have fallen from a peak of nearly 1 million between 2000 and 2001 to just under half a million now. Educational visits are also declining while investment from the Science Museum Group has continued to rise.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the director of the Science Museum Group and I met the hon. Members who are in the Chamber tonight. It was clear from that meeting that there is huge support for the National Media museum, as well as the branches of the Science museum in Manchester and York. We agreed that further study was needed, and that a working group representing the Science Museum Group, MPs and Bradford city councillors should come together to look at supporting a sustainable future for the museum in Bradford. As the hon. Member for Bradford East so eloquently put it, this campaign has shown—we in this House know this, but it is worth saying—that MPs can be valuable. They can make a difference and bring constructive and useful ideas to the table. Above all, they can bring their communities together to look for constructive solutions. Again, I must emphasise how constructive everyone has been in this debate on what I think has been an unnecessary cause of concern for their communities.
These are challenging times. The only silver lining that I can think of from the past few weeks is that this has brought people together. It is important that the local council comes to the table and makes an important contribution to the future of the National Media museum. It was said at the meeting that the local council has its own strategy to promote science and technology to young people in Bradford. There, sitting in the middle of Bradford, is the National Media museum. It is part of the Science Museum Group, and has an opportunity and a remit to promote science and technology. I hold my hand up, too. As a Government who are promoting science and technology, we should recognise the huge opportunity that the presence of the National Media museum in Bradford offers us to further our agenda to promote science and technology among young people.
We have to consider a range of options. In the meeting, the idea of a five-year plan was discussed, which perhaps echoes the earlier reference to the brand of socialism favoured by the hon. Member for Bradford West. A five-year plan to turn around the National Media museum would be a brand of socialism that I would potentially sign up to. I think that is a point on which we are all agreed. I again echo the words of the hon. Gentleman: it is simply not good enough to have a sticking-plaster solution that keeps the doors open, saves face and gets people off our back. We must use this concern to look at all the opportunities that could present themselves for the National Media museum. For example, in November it will have an exhibition on the large hadron collider. The group continues to attract income through corporate activity and is looking to stage a range of live theatre-style events across all branches, including in Bradford.
It is important to talk about the spending review. In the last spending review, the Government protected our national museums so that they could continue to deliver free access to their important collections. The cut was limited to 15% in real terms over four years. Indeed, the grant in aid provided by the Government is conditional on the national museums providing free admission to their permanent collections. This has been a spectacularly successful policy. In my closing remarks in the entertaining debate that we have just had on the importance of the arts, I made the point that it is important to recognise the previous Government’s achievements, just as I hope the current Opposition will recognise this Government’s achievements.
There have been some further reductions to the original settlement of 2010, but taken overall they do not amount to the 25% cut that I have been hearing about recently. There has also been speculation that the outcome of the spending review for 2015-16 will deliver deep cuts to museums. We now know that in the overall settlement for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport the national museums will see resource grant funding reductions of just 5% in 2015-16. In the context of this spending round, that is a significant success story. There is absolutely no reason for any of the museums in the Science Museum Group to close because of funding levels.
George Galloway
Will the Minister now address my point about the capital programme? We are very worried about it. He has acknowledged that keeping the museum’s doors open but allowing it to crumble would be no use. Will he now put his money where his mouth is in that regard?
Mr Vaizey
I am not yet in a position to say what the capital spend will be, following the spending review announcement that the Chancellor is due to make at the end of this month. At the risk of getting a savaging, I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but whatever the capital settlement might be, there are other opportunities, particularly through the Heritage Lottery Fund, which makes huge grants to our museums regularly. There are also opportunities to work with corporate partners, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier. It was made clear at the meeting that it is not simply a question of keeping the roof on the museum; it is also a question of reconfiguring the building in order to take in exciting touring exhibitions.
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Science Museum Group will certainly stay within the DCMS family as part of the 13 national museums that we fund directly. His intervention gives me the opportunity to elaborate on a point that I made earlier. The Science museum is the most formidable organisation in this country for promoting science and technology in exciting ways to young people, so we must use it not only as a repository for a science collection that is unparalleled almost anywhere in the world, but as an opportunity to excite young people and the wider population and engage them with science. On the basis of that intervention and others, I will certainly undertake to sit down with the Science museum. There was a lot of talk earlier about joined-up government, and I take that point on board. I will sit down and discuss how my Department and others can work together to make use of the Science museum’s fantastic resources.
I pay tribute to the way in which all our national museums have coped with the difficulties that they have had with ongoing funding. We have done the best we can to limit the cuts in these difficult financial circumstances, and they have risen to the challenge. We have not been remiss in coming up with innovative ideas such as catalyst match funding with Arts Council England to support the creation of endowments and to help promote philanthropy.
On the point about capital funding, it is important to say that the regional branches of the Science Museum Group have received more than £1 million of support from the joint Wolfson Foundation-DCMS fund. Indeed, the National Railway museum recently received £100,000 for its station hall project. The joint Wolfson Foundation-DCMS capital fund will be getting a further £4 million for this funding programme in 2014. It is also important to note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently said that he will grant our national museums the freedom to borrow and to set pay scales.
I shall conclude by thanking yet again the hon. Member for Bradford West, all his colleagues and my hon. Friends for their constructive approach to what has been a difficult two weeks for their communities. They have been concerned about the loss of a much-loved institution. Let us take what has happened and turn it to our advantage. Let us work together to transform the National Media museum into what it could and should be.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speech, Language and Communication Education
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am delighted to secure a debate on an issue that is of great importance to me personally, as a parent of a child in receipt of speech and language therapy services and as vice-chair of the all-party group on speech and language difficulties, chaired ably by the noble Lord Ramsbotham, whose track record in this field is second to none.
Let me set the scene by discussing the seminal importance of communication skills in modern society. We are living in an increasingly complex world, where more and more information is available to us. Therefore the ability to communicate effectively is becoming ever more vital in securing employment and gaining skills. Communication is about having the ability not just to use language, but to understand and assimilate information being conveyed to the individual; it is a two-way process. For many children it is a given that the importance of communication is understood at an early age, but for a significant cohort that is not the case, which is where invaluable help from speech and language therapy comes in, to teach the child the value of communication itself.
As many as 10% of children in the United Kingdom—more than 1 million—have speech, language and communication needs that are not caused by language neglect or English as an additional language. That means that, in the average classroom, there are two or three children with such communication difficulties. Of that group, a large cohort—some 5% to 7% of the child population—has a specific language impairment, which means that they have difficulties acquiring, learning and using language that are not associated with factors such as cerebral palsy, hearing impairment or autism spectrum disorders. We are talking about children whom we would all describe as bright, but who struggle to listen to and understand the language being used in the classroom, or who struggle to express themselves effectively. Perhaps we politicians should draw the distinction between being articulate and being bright. One can be both, but sometimes one can be either/or.
The Department for Education annual special educational needs statistics demonstrate that speech, language and communication needs are the most common type of primary need for pupils with full statements of SEN in maintained primary schools. In January 2011, nearly 28% of pupils in maintained primary schools had speech, language and communication registered as their primary need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing an important debate that all hon. Members can relate to in respect of their constituencies. In Northern Ireland, we have some 8,650 pupils with learning difficulties: there are three in every class of 30, which illustrates the magnitude of the problem. Does he agree that it is best to have a co-ordinated approach in schools, with families as well, so that the capacity to help and teach children can be reached and they can have that wee bit extra help when they need it most?
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us some of the Northern Ireland figures: the three-per-classroom figure reflects the United Kingdom average. He makes an important point, which I will come back to in discussing examples in Swindon, because I am familiar with the services there.
In areas of social deprivation, upwards of 50% of children are starting school with language delay. That does not mean that their general cognitive abilities are below the national average, but their language skills are delayed. That delay can often run into secondary school and that has an impact on literacy and general attainment. It is clear from research that reading difficulties can be made worse if children are taught written language before their spoken language skills are developed enough to access this teaching.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. The figures that he has given us are startling: almost 1 million children across the United Kingdom have difficulties. In Northern Ireland, we have a major problem owing to the shortage of speech therapists. Does he agree that, for children to be helped in the classroom, it is vital that we have trained staff to identify the difficulties at an early age?
Mr Buckland
The hon. Gentleman is right. He talks realistically about the fact that, although it would be wonderful to have a speech and language therapist in every classroom across the country, it is about increasing staff training so that generally, whether they are teachers or teaching assistants, they have awareness and understanding of how to manage and help children with identified speech, language and communication disorders. However, having link speech and language therapists for each mainstream school, such as the one we have in Swindon, is an excellent way of making sure that there is a network of specialists who can provide support when needed for teachers dealing with children in the mainstream environment.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I apologise, Mr Dobbin, because I must leave in a few moments to attend other meetings in the House. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate.
In Stoke-on-Trent, Stoke Speaks Out has done fantastic work addressing speech and language needs in a deprived community. The hon. Gentleman talks about linking schools and organisations in Swindon—I think he was going to give examples—but what is his view on linking all groups, such as Stoke Speaks Out and the groups that work in Swindon, to have a national approach to this matter?
Mr Buckland
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that, because there is an opportunity to do that through the Government’s response to the better communication research programme, set up under the previous Government as a result of the Bercow review. I pay tribute to Mr Speaker for the work that he has done in this field. The report published by this Government at the end of last year, entitled “Better communication research programme: improving provision for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs”, led to the creation of a communication council, which I believe will address the hon. Gentleman’s legitimate question. The council will involve the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Communication Trust, which is an organisation comprising more than 40 bodies in the field of speech, language and communication. The aim of the council will be to promote best practice, to share the good work of councils, such as Stoke and Swindon, to work out ways in which the research that has been obtained can be shared with as many councils and agencies as possible and to promote a better awareness of speech, language and communication needs. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister provided an update on the progress being made with regard to the work of the new communication council.
I was talking about primary school. It is important to note that there is an attainment gap. Although nearly 80% of all children achieve the expected level in English at the end of key stage 2, just 25% of children with speech, language and communication needs reach that level: a gap of 55%. The gap in maths is similarly dramatic—it is 46%—and in science it is 41%. In key stage 4, when young people are doing their GCSEs, just 15% of children with speech, language and communication needs achieve five GCSE A* to C or equivalent, compared to 57% of all young people.
As I said, we are not talking about children who are not cognitively able—they are—but their communication impairments mean they lose out big time when it comes to achieving the qualifications they need to progress into further education, training and employment. We talk a lot in this place about young people who are not in education, employment or training, and this issue is part of the problem. Unless we nail it here and now, we will not do justice to the hundreds of thousands of young people who are still not in education, employment or training.
An Institute of Directors skills survey reveals that businesses suffering skills shortages named communication skills as among the most difficult skills to obtain, with 22% of businesses experiencing difficulties recruiting people with oral communication skills and 18% experiencing difficulties recruiting those with written communication skills. That evidence reinforces the point I made at the beginning of my remarks that communication skills are becoming vital to not only social interaction, but the economic contribution young people can make to society. This issue is not, therefore, just a question of social good, but a fundamental question of economic activity and this country’s future economic prosperity, so there is a hard edge to all this.
Jim Shannon
In Northern Ireland, 51% of school providers have indicated that speech and language difficulties are a serious problem, which shows the magnitude of the issue. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should be better co-ordination between schools, education boards and business to ensure we have follow-through?
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I like his point about linking up with business so that the skills young people acquire, such as communication skills, match what businesses need. We need to look at that in terms of young people, in 2015, coming to their GCSEs and, indeed, reaching the age of 17 or 18 and remaining in some form of learning environment.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I, too, apologise to my hon. Friend because I have to leave shortly for another meeting. I have two brief points. Does he agree that we must start picking up the problems in pre-school and nursery? Otherwise, we get intense behavioural problems, which is not a good start to the child’s period at school. On GCSEs, does he share my concern about the potential impact of Ofqual’s proposal to remove the speaking and listening assessment from GCSE English language?
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for both those points. I will come to the concerns I share with her about Ofqual and GCSE English language in a little while, but let me deal with her first point, about early years. Often, we are talking about a pre-education setting and a health setting. I have long advocated the need for a proper, health-based assessment of speech, language and communication needs at the age of two, and I am supported by people such as Jean Gross, the communications champion. The Government are similarly committed to moving in that direction. With the increase in health visitor numbers—an extremely welcome initiative, which is already having an effect in places such as Swindon—and with extra training for health visitors and other professionals, we can start to identify a cohort of young people who, at the moment, are not being identified until early years education or, sometimes, even later.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On pre-school and pre-early years, he makes an important point. A couple of constituents recently approached me with their son, who is pre-school age. As parents, they found it incredibly difficult to find the correct signposting for speech and language therapy for him. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the increase in the number of health visitors may well help, it is imperative that they have the knowledge to allow them to refer parents and children on to the specialist help that can nip the problem in the bud and, therefore, prevent the significant problems he identified at key stage 4 and later life?
Mr Buckland
I entirely agree; indeed, I would go further. In Swindon, we are training staff in early years settings and children’s centres. We are training our health visitors in the skill of early identification and in the support strategies that can be put in place there and then. Despite the fact that Swindon’s child population is rapidly increasing—our population generally is increasing, and we expect it to grow from 209,000 last year to 240,000 in the next 15 years—the need for specialist referrals is staying stable. That is clearly important, because we are saving valuable resources by putting in early support to prevent issues from becoming acute and prevent the need for more specialist referrals. That is good for the child, good for the family and good for the provision of local services, at a time when resources are increasingly tight.
In that context, I am glad to commend my local authority for being flexible about the use of health and education funding, so that there is a link speech and language therapist in each mainstream school—in other words, the artificial division between sources of funding for health and education has been broken down, there is proper joint commissioning and people are intermeshed, rather than just working side by side. For example, speech and language therapists have been TUPE-ed over to the local authority, and there is a genuine coming together of services around the child. That must increasingly be the way forward for local authorities.
Let me deal briefly with the Children and Families Bill. In recent weeks and months, we have had much debate about it—I see that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), the shadow spokesperson, is in her place, and she joined in much of that debate in Committee and on Report last week—so I do not want to go over old ground. However, from the point of view of speech and language communication, it is important to deal with some of the concerns that remain, despite the general welcome for the Bill, and the warm welcome for the approach taken throughout Bill proceedings by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for children and families, and for his engagement with the sector, as well as with families, children and young people who have an interest in, and passion for, this issue.
We have talked about early identification not only at pre-school level, but at the first opportunity, when the problem is identified. There are still concerns about how the Bill will ensure that the identification mechanisms will work across all phases of education. There needs to be clearer guidance across health, education and social care about how speech, language and communication needs are identified. Paragraph 11(a) of schedule 1 in the draft regulations in the indicative code of practice makes it clear that local offers must set out what speech and language therapy provision is available. That is welcome, but it would be helpful to have further clarity about how the draft regulations would ensure that those responsible for the quality and delivery of services can be held to account. The Minister has indicated that those are draft regulations and that there will be a full consultation later in the year, but today is a golden opportunity to highlight some of the work that needs to be done.
I have made the point many times to the Minister that it would be helpful to have a common framework in which local authorities could be guided to construct their offer. That would help us to have a consistency of approach to speech and language therapy. I am not asking for uniformity, but simply for a common framework within which local authorities can be guided towards best practice.
I welcome the Minister’s comments that children and young people with SEN who would not be eligible for a full education, health and care plan will continue to be tracked under the new framework, but further reassurances as to how that will function in practice would be welcome. We must avoid any compromise over the identification of the need. The imposition of a duty on health providers, which was the subject of an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Minister, was good news. That clearly reinforces the existing commitment in the Bill to impose a duty jointly to commission services. We had a long argument about the phrase “wholly or mainly”, and my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with the issue. Until now, speech, language and communication needs have been identified as educational needs, and we hope that that will remain the case, and that it will be clear.
I welcome the declaration that communication and interaction are a primary need, in the draft code of practice, but there are concerns that the role of schools in SEN provision remains at the edge of the Bill; there is not a huge amount of detail about what responsibilities schools will have. That is important, bearing in mind the welcome move to the creation of academies and free schools, and the unintended consequence that that may have on long-term provision of speech and language therapy services locally. There is a tension, is there not, between the need to employ therapists on a medium or long-term basis and the short-term spending priorities of schools that must spend to budgets? Some further clarity about how academies can work collaboratively to commission services would be extremely helpful. It would regrettable if, through the welcome and admirable ethos of the new academy structure, we lost some of the long and medium-term thinking that is necessary in the commissioning of services from speech and language therapists.
My hon. Friend the Minister will, I know, update us on progress as much as he can, but I want to mention a couple of issues that I hope he will deal with. Early identification is the key to improving educational outcomes for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs, so will the Government introduce clear guidance to all health, education and social care providers on identifying those needs, to ensure that the needs of those we are dealing with—10% of the cohort—are met?
The creation of childminder agencies comes under part 4 of the Bill, but is relevant to the debate. I would welcome some clarity about how children with speech, language and communication needs will be identified and receive the support they need—particularly with respect to early years non-maintained settings.
Training has come up in some interventions, and I have already made a realistic acknowledgement of the limitations of resources. It is clear that staff knowledge of speech, language and communication needs is crucial for parents and young people with those issues. Currently, the universal work force has limited knowledge of speech, language and communication issues, and low confidence in identifying and supporting children with those difficulties—particularly hidden difficulties. However, historically, staff knowledge of speech, language and communication needs has been worryingly low.
That was demonstrated by research undertaken by Ofsted on the skills and knowledge of qualifying teachers, which identified that fewer than half had good or better skills, and concluded that
“not enough new teachers had consistent high-quality training during initial teacher education and induction to ensure that they developed good teaching skills, underpinned by a deep understanding of language development and the acquisition of literacy skills.”
Additionally, the research showed that 32%
“did not have sufficiently in-depth training in assessing pupils’ skills and knowledge in language and literacy to be able to use their judgements effectively”
for the planning of lessons and the provision of extra help. Evidence also shows that many early years staff feel inadequately equipped to help children with language delay, with more than 60% of teachers reporting that they lacked confidence in their ability to meet children’s language needs. Those are 2012 figures, so they are relevant and important. I should be grateful for further clarity about how teachers’ knowledge of speech, language and communication needs, and that of the wider education work force, is developing.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I join in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. Does he agree that UK devolution presents a double-edged sword when it comes to these difficult issues, in that the devolved institutions and the Westminster Parliament progress at varying speeds, but that we could benefit from best practice in the communication and cross-fertilisation of ideas and projects across the United Kingdom? That could only enhance the way we deal with the issues.
Mr Buckland
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and hope that the work of the communication council will include consideration of the devolved nations, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
I want briefly to consider low-incidence, high-cost specialist need, and approaches that can help with communications. One such approach is augmentative and alternative communication. It is estimated that about 0.5% of the population may need that approach at some point in their lives: that is about 260,000 children and adults. In addition, it is estimated that 0.05% of the population need access to regional specialised augmentative and alternative communication services, and communication aids. I am talking about the sort of technology that you may have seen, Mr Dobbin, when meeting speech and language therapists. It would include iPads, and apps developed to assist with communication. I have had a go at some of them; they are incredible, and, frankly, rather fun to use, to begin with. They are a great tool for young people, who are extremely adept at using the touch technology that is now available. The technology is evolving all the time, of course, and the problem for local commissioners is that often they make expensive decisions that quickly become obsolete. We must address that, and I would welcome support for local health and wellbeing boards to deal with such problems.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech so far. Does he share my concern that many education authorities give children quite complex and expensive AAC equipment, which is removed when they leave the education system, leaving them bereft in adulthood? What thoughts does he have on how we can ensure a better transition for them from school to adult life?
Mr Buckland
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his work on the all-party group for young disabled people. He makes an excellent point. We need to think of new models and frameworks to deal with the issue of ownership of the technology. We should remember that some of it is expensive, and we cannot put an undue burden on the children and their families; however, perhaps with a joint ownership or lease-back approach we could make the transition to adulthood much easier for those young people. I would welcome further debate on my hon. Friend’s point about making sure that it is not all about the equipment, but about the young person. It is clear that as technology develops we can get things right and avoid expensive mistakes by local commissioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned Ofqual’s proposal to remove the speaking and listening assessment from GCSE English language. There is huge concern that that proposal will damage one of the most important drivers for giving speaking and listening due consideration in secondary education, and significantly reduce the incentive to teach oral communication in schools; there will be no chain of accountability for pupils’ performance if that assessment is removed. I believe that that will lead to further disadvantage for the 10% cohort that we are so concerned about, and it could be considered an admission of defeat, as it suggests that schools and teachers cannot be held accountable for how speaking and listening are assessed. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could comment on that proposal, and suggest a way forward that might ensure that those skills are still at the heart of secondary education in a way that meets the needs of children and young people who have speech, language and communication needs.
It has been a pleasure to open this debate, and I have spoken for a considerable time, but I will end on this note. I moved amendments to the Children and Families Bill on inclusion. At the time, I said that, in general, inclusion is not some sort of buzz word used by the politically correct; for tens of thousands of young people with disabilities, their right to access not only mainstream education services but mainstream social provision, and indeed a whole range of mainstream services, is vital if we are to value their contribution to society.
I will give an example of where I believe inclusion works well: a playgroup for young pre-school children that can incorporate speech and language therapy within its weekly schedule. What does that mean? It means convenience, not only for the child but for their family, who do not have to go to two separate appointments during the week, with all the concomitant disruption that that causes. That is what inclusion means, and I very much hope that, when the Bill is considered by the House of Lords, there will be a return to what I regard as the important and integral right for children and young people to be part of the mainstream of our society. That is what this debate is all about: children and young people attaining speech, language and communication skills, so that they can be part of the mainstream of our social and economic life. They deserve nothing less.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing this debate and on the way in which he raised these issues in relation to the Children and Families Bill on Report. I am sorry that I was unable to attend that debate, but I read his speech with great interest because I have been approached by a number of constituents about the difficulties they have faced with their children who have speech and language impairments.
As a consequence of those approaches, I convened a meeting in my constituency. The meeting was on the wider issue of autism, but nevertheless I heard many very moving accounts from parents about the difficulties they face under the current fragmented system, which makes it unclear to whom they can turn, and presents difficulties in accessing the help their children need. For those reasons, I welcome the recognition implicit in the Government’s introduction of the Bill that the current system for addressing special educational needs is not fit for purpose and that we need a system that better integrates the provision of services for parents and, frankly, just stops making it so difficult for parents to achieve what they need.
My hon. Friend, for reasons I understand, emphasises the economic benefits of ensuring better provision, but there is a more fundamental question about our duty as a society to ensure that parents who face difficulties that other parents do not face are spared being repeatedly put through the ordeal of finding it impossible, or at least very difficult, to access the services they need. The transitions through the different phases of a child’s life present repeated hurdles that parents must clear.
In the specific case of speech and language impairment, what do parents want to ensure? First, they want to ensure that the problem is diagnosed and picked up early. Secondly, the diagnosis having been made, they want to ensure adequate provision of the therapy and the particular, specific and, yes, sometimes resource-intensive services that such children need, without having constantly to petition different agencies and providers and without the difficulties that they have experienced. And thirdly, in the event that they do not feel a service is being provided adequately, they want to make certain that they have the ability to appeal, that the appeal is clear and that providers are therefore held to account for the services they are obliged to provide. We should judge the new measures in the Bill against the yardstick of those three tests.
I welcome the Bill and the Minister’s particular commitment to it and to these issues. He has made enormous strides in setting out a new approach that will produce a much better system. From his response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon in Committee and on Report, I think the Minister recognises that there is still some concern about speech and language therapy and whether the new system will have the accountability that I describe.
I know the Minister is considering the code of practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon mentioned. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure those groups and parents who are engaged with this issue that the move to the new system will indeed secure an improvement for parents and not make things more difficult for them? First, will the new system ensure that the issues that children might have are picked up at the earliest possible stage?
Secondly, will there be no room for doubt in the new integrated assessment, so that where speech and language therapy is identified as being needed, it will be treated as an educational provision that cannot be gamed or passed over by providers? The concern is that if that is not the case and if for some reason the existing case law that has built up in this area can be bypassed or ignored, parents will be left in a position of being told that a particular form of provision has been identified as necessary but that, because the provision is not held to be an educational provision, it will not actually be provided and will instead be passed over to another provider that sidesteps its obligation. The concern is that the Bill’s aim to ensure that there is an integrated assessment and that agencies work together, which is exactly what parents want, might be sidestepped.
Thirdly, as a consequence of ensuring that speech and language therapy is treated as an educational provision, where there is a lapse or where parents are unhappy with the provision, is the appeals system adequate to ensure that their concerns will be answered?
I know my hon. Friend the Minister has indicated his willingness to address those concerns, but there is still anxiety out there about whether the transition to a new system will produce exactly what the Government intend. The Bill is an important opportunity to achieve very different provision of essential services. We know the gains that can be made when the agencies work together, and we know that they can produce a tailored, integrated service that not only produces a better service for the children but hugely reduces the anxiety that parents face when they constantly have to navigate their way around the different services.
There is a huge opportunity here, but there is also a need to reassure parents about the move to the new system. If my hon. Friend the Minister is able to do that, with particular reference to the code of practice, and to address the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon has now raised on two occasions, I would be very grateful.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is as ever a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, just as it is to debate matters with the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and the Minister, which is just as well given how many times we have done so over the past few months. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon on securing the debate and for his comprehensive and passionate speech. He is becoming a real expert on the issues we are discussing, for which he is becoming the go-to Member in the House, and he is to be commended for that. We had some good-quality discussions on this area of policy when the three of us served on the Children and Families Bill, with other Members—no longer in their place—who also served on the Bill Committee.
Today’s debate allows us to go into further detail, with specific reference to children and young people with speech, language and communication needs. The topic—to be more specific, speech and language therapy—was the subject of the first parliamentary debate that I spoke in as a shadow Minister, way back in 2010. That debate, which was secured by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is present this morning, was oversubscribed, as he might remember, but we heard a lot of personal stories about the need for and the value of speech and language therapy, including from the hon. Gentleman and me.
I have a son who had speech therapy until the age of seven. Sadly, that therapy did not cease at seven because he was cured, but because we moved south to a London borough that decided his speech was within the normal realms. It was not, but that is what we call the postcode lottery, which we hope will be addressed to an extent by the local offers, especially if they are underpinned by a national framework, as we called for in Committee. I will return to that point in more detail.
Since I have been a Member of the House, there has been a small number of opportunities to debate and discuss this important topic, not least the excellent debate on the Floor of the House in the previous Parliament following the outstanding Bercow review into speech, language and communication needs. As we all agree, it was a seminal report on the situation throughout the country of children and young people with speech, language and communication needs and on the support, or lack of it, available to them. I am interested to hear an update from the Minister on where we are with regard to the recommendations made in the Bercow review and whether they have all been met or are under way. Once again, we have had an excellent debate, with a great deal of interest from Members in all parts of the House and some excellent contributions.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Swindon mentioned augmentative and alternative communication aids and equipment, because that area is often not discussed in the House, perhaps because it is so specialist. For the children, young people and adults who rely on such AAC equipment, however, it is fundamental to their lives and to the quality of their lives.
Paul Maynard
I recently had an Adjournment debate on that very subject, which was replied to by a Health Minister. Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the problem is the lack of clarity in Government about where AAC should sit? Should it be a Department of Health or a Department for Education priority?
Mrs Hodgson
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. As the name suggests, the education, health and care plans are a combination of education, health and social care. The Minister must be commended for his excellent work in that regard, to get the involvement of the Department of Health and that collaboration and cross-departmental working that in the past has been lacking, leading to confusion about whether AAC sits under Education or Health. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point when he winds up. Under the new plans, I hope that things will become clearer, if only in the sense that the different parts of government work better together to meet the needs of the child or young person. The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) asked for assurances from the Minister that the new system will bring improvements and not make it more difficult for parents to access the support that their child needs. We all agree that that is what we want to see from the new system, which I hope will be the case.
Speech, language and communication needs are highly prevalent: more than 30% of those on school action plus schemes have been identified as having speech, language and communication needs, and around a quarter have statements. Only 44% of pupils with speech, language and communication needs achieve their expected progress in English; as we heard from the hon. Member for South Swindon, even fewer—35%—do so in maths by the end of their school life. Even by age 19, little more than half those young people have achieved level 2 qualifications, which means a C or above at GCSE. Obviously, fewer still go on to get A-levels: just one in five young people with speech, language and communication needs has achieved a level 3 qualification by the age of 19.
Shockingly, those statistics suggest that speech, language and communication needs hold back children and young people more than other special educational needs and disabilities that we might otherwise think have a bigger impact on educational outcomes. The proportion of children achieving level 3 qualifications is lower for those with speech, language and communication needs than for those with hearing or visual impairment, multi-sensory impairment, physical disability, autistic spectrum disorders and specific learning difficulties. Such statistics clearly indicate that we have a real problem with how we provide support for such children and young people. It is therefore little surprise that they are so over- represented in exclusions from school and the youth justice system—about 65% of young offenders have speech, language and communication difficulties, according to the Communication Trust.
Mr Buckland
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for those shocking statistics about 65% or more of young people in custody having such need. Is it not essential that we use the Children and Families Bill as an opportunity to reach in to those young people in custody, to rehabilitate them and to reduce the risk of reoffending? That is what it is all about.
Mrs Hodgson
The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent point, which we discussed at length in Committee and on Report. Noble lords will return to the issue in the other place, and Lord Ramsbotham will be seeking some commitment from the Government, specifically to amend or even scrap clause 69 of the Bill. The area is vital, and I am sure that we and others will return to it time and again until that figure of 65% comes down to a more representative level.
Paul Maynard
I am afraid that my point might be slightly political. Will the hon. Lady put some pressure on her Front Benchers about the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill? They are opposing abolition of the antisocial behaviour order—ASBOs trap many young people with speech and language needs in a cycle of breach that ends up in imprisonment—and its replacement with the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance or IPNA, which will enable a positive requirement to be imposed on the individual and might help to tackle some of the conditions. Will she have a discussion with her shadow Front-Bench team, please?
Mrs Hodgson
The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but I will not test the Chair during this debate by expanding on antisocial behaviour or on my discussions of the subject with Front-Bench colleagues. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, however, and it will have been heard by my colleagues.
That failure—all those young people being excluded and ending up in the youth justice system and then adult prisons—is a significant cost to the public purse, through lost productivity and taxes from children not reaching their potential, and the cost of welfare or of keeping the young person in youth justice or in the prison system, if it comes to that. Therefore, early intervention and getting the right support in place as soon as possible are important not only to the individual child or young person, but to the whole of society. That is why I pushed the Minister so hard, as did everyone who spoke on these matters during Committee consideration of the Bill, on the provisions that will be in place under the new system, and particularly on the role that early years settings and early years area special educational needs co-ordinators working across those settings will be expected to play.
The Minister resisted my calls for local authorities to have a duty to co-operate with private, voluntary and independent child care providers with regard to children in their settings whom they believe to have special educational needs, saying that he believed it would place a burden on those providers. However, as I have heard from such providers, the problem is that they are often completely ignored by local authorities when they try to refer a child for an assessment or some other form of help. That is the problem that I was trying to solve with an amendment. I hope that our noble colleagues can address it in more detail in the other place.
I would also like early years area SENCOs to be given a statutory role to ensure that PVI child care settings are given the support that they need to identify and adequately cater for such children. As we discussed in Committee, the draft code of practice includes a heading on that role, which I welcome, although there is no content yet. I am sure that the Minister and his officials are working on that now, so I would be grateful if he could tell us what progress has been made on developing that guidance since our discussion in March.
Obviously, the vast majority of children and young people with identified SLCNs do not qualify for a statement at present, and will not qualify for an education, health and care plan when the new system is rolled out. At present, their teachers and parents have school action and school action plus as a graduated response to meeting their needs, which will become a single SEN category under the new code of practice. We are still not sure exactly how that will look in practice, but the Minister assures us that the 1.4 million children on school action and school action plus will continue to be supported, and we must take him at his word.
Clearly, though, the level of support that children receive will owe much to the quality of the local offer in their area, which is why I have sought at every stage of the Children and Families Bill to strengthen the wording of the legislation on that issue. In particular, the Minister and I, along with the hon. Member for South Swindon, have had many debates about what standards we should expect from local offers in terms of provision and accountability. I am sure that such debates will rumble on as the Bill continues its passage through the other place.
I reiterate a point made in last week’s debate by the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). The success of this raft of reforms rests on getting local offers right. I do not believe that the Department for Education can afford to take the chance that 152 flowers will blossom if cash-strapped councils are left to their own devices.
Finally, teacher training is crucial in making every school a good school for children and young people with high-incidence SENs such as speech, language and communication needs; the hon. Member for South Swindon mentioned that as well. Every teacher is a teacher of children with speech, language and communication needs, but not every teacher knows how to be. Fewer than half of newly qualified teachers surveyed by Ofsted had good skills and knowledge of language development, and about one third did not have sufficient training to enable them to plan how to give such children extra help in the classroom. That is clearly not satisfactory.
Again, I feel that the Department for Education should be leading on that issue by requiring improvements to teacher training and continuing professional development so that every teacher has the skills needed to teach the class in front of them rather than just the subject. The Department is going in the opposite direction, saying that people do not need a teaching qualification to teach, or even to head a school in some instances. Labour Members restated our opposition to that idea this week.
That said, I hope that the Minister, outside the Children and Families Bill process, will consider our calls to make such improvements to the quality of the work force. He has made a lot of improvements to the Bill during his relatively short time in office, for which Members from all parties are grateful. During his remaining time in post, however long or short it may be, I hope that he will continue to listen to the concerns of parents and practitioners and take the actions needed to ensure that the unacceptable outcomes for children and young people with SLCNs that the hon. Member for South Swindon and I described will be improved in the years to come.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
I am sure that the Minister will take this opportunity to stay in place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, for the remaining 35 minutes of this debate. I hope that my time in office will be longer than that, so I can reach the end of the debate still in post.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing this important and still timely debate—it follows Report of the Children and Families Bill last week—which has been well attended by Members on both sides the House. I know that he speaks from a voluminous amount of personal experience, as he does valuable work with children and young people with special educational needs and their families in his constituency.
As my hon. Friend rightly reminded us, he is also the vice-chair of the all-party group on speech and language difficulties. He has been championing the cause not just through that group but through the work that he has done on the Bill. As a member of the Committee that considered the SEN provisions in the Bill, he helped to shine a bright light on many of the key issues by tabling amendments and making wise and measured contributions to the discussions. I thank him again for his engagement. I also thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has been another constructive participant in those debates.
I will try to cover as many of the points raised as possible. In the usual way, I will be happy to write to hon. Members to provide full answers if any points remain outstanding. I will deal at the outset with the specific points raised. The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on behalf of his constituents exemplify why it is necessary for us to push through these important reforms, so that parents in his constituency and across the country do not face the battles that form the downside of their experience in trying to access special educational provision for their children. Those problems prevent them from feeling that the system is working with them rather than against them, which happens on too many occasions.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West raised the importance of the local offer in trying to drive improvements on the ground. The local offer will set out in one place information about all the services that the local authority expects to be available in the local area and beyond for local children and young people with special educational needs and their parents. We have been clear in the indicative regulations that it must cover support for all children and young people with SEN, not just those with education, health and care plans. That could include provision from small specialist services providing outreach support to schools, such as those offering support to children using alternative and augmentative communication, as well as the provision normally available in mainstream settings and on offer in special schools and specialist colleges, including those in the non-maintained and independent sectors.
The local offer will also let parents know how to access services, what support is available to enable them to do so and what to do if they are unhappy with the support on offer. My approach is to make that engagement as clear and simple as possible for parents to access, so that they do not have to navigate through what I have described in the past as a labyrinthine array of different organisations and processes. We must have a single, easy entry into ensuring that those services are properly provided.
Regulations and a new SEN code of practice will set out a common framework for the local offer, but the key to the success of the local offer in each area will be the transparency of information and the involvement of local parents, children and young people in developing and reviewing it. That will help to ensure that it is responsive to local needs. Arguments have been made for stipulating minimum standards for the local offer. I believe that that would weaken local accountability and lead to a race to the bottom, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said in Committee.
We made an indicative draft of the code of practice available to the Committee to aid consideration of the SEN provisions in the Bill, and we are revising the guidance in the draft to take account of the points raised in Committee and the wider discussions that we are having and continue to have with others. To that end, I had a productive meeting recently with the Communication Trust, another key interest in the speech, language and communication sector. I also had the privilege, only last week, of visiting Springfield special school in my constituency, which makes excellent provision for children’s speech, language and communication needs, particularly for those who need alternative and augmented communication. If I have time, I will explain a little more about how that experience has enriched my understanding of this important area. My officials will shortly meet the Communication Trust and many of its constituent groups—I believe it is made up of 47 such groups—to discuss the code of practice. That will offer the opportunity to consider the guidance on the local offer and the issues raised this morning.
Important points were raised about the need to ensure that we identify and provide for children’s speech, language and communication needs as quickly and as early as possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon, for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) all made that point.
Age two is an important time for children and their parents because it is when problems with language development and behaviour become readily identifiable and when intervention may be more effective than for an older child. That can make a real difference to a child’s future. The early years progress check that we introduced at age two and our work with the Department of Health to develop an integrated health and development review at age two to two and a half will make a real difference. Developmental delays, including in speech and language, will form part of that review and the training of clinicians will include assessing speech and language needs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said, by 2015, we will recruit and train an extra 4,200 health visitors to identify disability and special educational needs, to provide advice and support and to suggest activities to enhance language development and communication skills, including referral for speech and language therapy when appropriate. We have also commissioned the Early Language Consortium to deliver a £1.4 million three-year early language training programme to train practitioners to identify language development problems and to work with children and families. We aim to train nearly 13,000 professionals and to reach 95,000 families through that programme.
Ofsted evidence points to over-identification of SEN. The better communication research programme was funded by the Department for Education and arose from a recommendation by the Bercow review. We are continuing to take forward many of the key recommendations, including our work with the Communication Trust, our grants and contracts with the trust, to help to disseminate much of the good practice that came out of that research programme and to ensure that all that is brought together in one place, with the involvement of the royal colleges, and used effectively and pragmatically where we know it can make a difference on the ground.
That research also shows that some groups, such as those with speech, language and communication needs, are under-identified. We plan to replace the present system of School Action and School Action Plus in schools with new guidance to help schools to ensure that they identify children with SEN more accurately and put the right support in place as quickly as possible. The new SEN code of practice will include clear expectations for schools on the processes for identifying and assessing pupils, setting objectives for them, reviewing progress and securing further support. That will not change the legislative duties on schools to use their best endeavours to secure special educational provision, to have an SEN co-ordinator, to notify parents of such provision and to publish information on how they are implementing their policy on SEN and disability. Those are all set out in the Children and Families Bill.
The local offer presents clear opportunities for local authorities and schools to reflect approaches with good evidence of positive impact. I CAN’s programme, “A Chance to Talk”, which is supported by funding from my Department, is one example. It provides a comprehensive approach to children’s speech and language development across clusters of schools and through the involvement of NHS speech and language therapists. It incorporates a joint commissioning approach to ensure that children with the most complex needs receive specialist help at school. That is very much the model that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon talked about and it has flourished in his constituency. It provides flexibility in health and education, breaks down many of the barriers that my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs spoke about in relation to his constituency, and starts to bring about the culture change that we need to see on the ground.
Teachers tell us that the quality of their training is increasing, and many hon. Members have spoken about the importance of training the work force. Through the school direct programme, we are giving schools greater control over how they recruit and train teachers to meet the needs of their pupils. For example, ARK school is working with Canterbury Christ Church university to train 54 teachers through school direct. The programme includes intensive training during the first three years of a new teacher’s career, with additional training in inclusion behaviour and the teaching of reading and writing. They have a clear focus on SEN and equipping teaching to meet the range of pupils’ needs.
I am aware that the practical tools for schools developed by the better communication research programme, including those for developing communication supporting classrooms, are being widely disseminated by the Communication Trust as part of its work with the Department and elsewhere. The Department is also supporting the development of teachers’ skills in meeting SEN in other ways. A national scholarship fund for teachers has helped 600 teachers to obtain a qualification related to SEN, and there have been specialist resources for initial teacher training and new advanced level online modules for serving teachers, including on dyslexia, autism and speech and language skills. Funding has been provided for new SENCOs to complete the master’s-level national award for SEN co-ordination, with 10,119 between 2009 and 2012 and a further 800 in 2013-14.
Additional training for established SENCOs has been offered through NASEN, formerly the National Association for Special Educational Needs, to 5,000 teachers to date and there has been funding for several sector-specialist organisations, including the Communication Trust, to support the implementation of SEN reforms and to provide information to schools and teachers. The Institute of Education was awarded a grant in 2013-14 to explore the development of a scalable pilot to increase knowledge and skills in SEN within initial teacher training for trainees who wish to study this area in greater depth as part of their programme.
There has been a strong effort in initial teacher training and the current work force to develop skills and expertise in special educational needs, so that the ambitions set out in the Green Paper are reflected in the draft code of practice, which states that all teachers should be special educational needs teachers. That is becoming a reality following the work that I have mentioned.
A key change to the Bill, which several hon. Members have mentioned today and in Committee, is the introduction of a specific duty requiring those responsible for commissioning health provision to secure the health care provision in education, health and care plans. That significant change has been acknowledged and widely welcomed. The new duty builds on the joint commissioning duty in the Bill which requires local authorities and clinical commissioning groups, as well as NHS England when appropriate for national commissioning, to assess the needs of the local population of children and young people with SEN, and to plan and commission services to meet those needs. Joint commissioning arrangements must include those for securing education, health and care needs assessments, and the education, health and care provision specified in education, health and care plans. The new health duty requires health commissioners to ensure that the health care elements of those plans are provided for each individual. That provides direct clarity to parents that the support their child needs will be provided.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon raised particular concerns in Committee, on Report and again today about clause 21 of the Bill and about when health provision is to be regarded as special educational provision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs also made that point. Clause 21(5) states:
“Health care provision or social care provision which is made wholly or mainly for the purposes of the education or training of a child or young person is to be treated as special educational provision”.
That was included to fulfil an undertaking I gave during pre-legislative scrutiny that we would maintain existing protections, including case law, and preserve the current position where there is no duty to secure the health provision in plans.
Under the broader, integrated assessments and plans in the Bill, decisions will be based on special educational, health and care provision. Without clause 21(5), it may be difficult for a tribunal to say that, although speech and language therapy is health care provision made by health care providers, it is in fact special educational provision. The clause also enables appeals to the tribunal in respect of health provision when it is defined as special educational provision, as now. However, as I said on Report—I am happy to reiterate it for the purposes of this debate—we want to get things right, so that the position is clear for parents and for young people and children with a special educational need. I am content to continue listening to the views expressed in this House and in the other place to ensure that that is the case.
Mr Buckland
I applaud the Minister for his efforts, but will he look again at the Bromley case that I referred to on Report? Although I accept that it was in the context of the old system of statements of special educational need, there, we had a very clear exposition from Lord Justice Stephen Sedley, as he then was, of what is necessary for the purposes of provision. As for my wording, I agree that just removing “wholly or mainly” may not be the right approach, but we all need to strive together to get the wording absolutely right, so that we avoid the nice legal arguments that the Minister and I might enjoy academically, but which are no good to families.
Mr Timpson
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which reminds us lawyers that sometimes we need to look beyond the boundaries of a legal document and reflect more on what it seeks to achieve, as a way of ensuring that it does what we intend it to. I will look carefully at the Bromley case that he mentioned, not only in context, but as a demonstration of where we need to think through the implications of the clause as drafted to ensure that some of those eventualities do not still pertain in the new environment and in the reformed system that we all want to see work. I am happy to do that, and I have clearly indicated my intent to continue thinking carefully about how that aspect of the Bill will fulfil all those objectives.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West that young offenders, including those with special educational needs, need to receive the right support and access to education, both when in custody and when they return to their communities. Clause 69 is necessary because it prevents our legislation from coming into conflict with existing comprehensive statutory provisions governing how education support is delivered in custody, as set out in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, which I am sure the hon. Lady remembers well.
Duties placed on local authorities by that legislation are fulfilled through contracts held by the Education Funding Agency that are funded by the Ministry of Justice. As hon. Members will know, the MOJ is clear that the current system is not working, which is why it recently consulted on transformational reforms to how education and support in youth custody should be delivered in future. I have ensured that the education element for children, including those with SEN, in the care system and elsewhere, is being properly considered as part of the review. That provides an important opportunity to be absolutely clear about what role the time that a young person spends in custody plays, both as a form of punishment and in rehabilitation, so that when they come out of custody, they have every prospect of moving on in a positive direction. We have done that elsewhere in the prison estate. There are some good examples, but we can do much better, which is why I have given a commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon that we want to make progress, both in my Department and across Government, as the Bill moves on and as other work is done by the Ministry of Justice on the consultation that is taking place.
Mr Buckland
I know that the Minister was a family practitioner, but does he agree, perhaps from his experience dealing with criminal cases, that, very often, crimes of violence are precipitated by communications misunderstandings and young people resorting to using their fists—or worse—instead of being able to communicate with each other to resolve any differences?
Mr Timpson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know—as do I, from my family’s experience of fostering many children—that some manifestations of the inability to communicate result in outbursts of anger. I have spoken before, on one occasion, about when someone who appeared to be, on the surface, a quiet, unassuming young man ended up smashing every single pane in my Dad’s greenhouse, because he did not know how else to communicate his anger, frustration and worry about what had happened to him in the past. I am very alive to that fact, which is why I am determined that we make progress in that important area.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—I am looking forward to coming to his working group later today on speech, language and communication needs—on the importance of ensuring that children and young people who need specialised communication aids have access to them. I know that he has raised that vociferously on a number of occasions, including in Prime Minister’s questions, in which the Prime Minister was clear that he wanted to help bring about the important changes that my hon. Friend wants.
My hon. Friend made the point about whether the interest in Government in the issue lies in health or education. The best answer I can give is that it is in both, which is why, in both those Departments, there is a strong interest from Ministers, who work not only individually, but collectively. I have met the Minister of State, Department of Health, who has responsibility for care, on a number of occasions to discuss that and other matters that transcend the Children and Families Bill, to ensure that we are moving in the right direction and in a way that will bring about the best results.
For lower-level alternative and augmentative communication needs, it will be up to health commissioners and their local authority partners to work together—we should lead by example by doing that in national Government—to ensure that the right services are in place locally to meet the needs of the population, and to reflect those services in the local offer. Highly specialist services needed by only a very small number of children will be commissioned centrally by NHS England, as my hon. Friend will know.
Prior to 1 April this year, there was no national commissioning of AAC services. There was no standard or nationally consistent definition of the services that were the commissioning and funding responsibility of the NHS. As a result, there was variation in organisations and in the commissioning and funding of specialised AAC services, and inequitable access to such services. A key priority must be to ensure that commissioning arrangements for specialised services are placed on a much more robust and equitable footing across England. That is currently being undertaken by NHS England’s area teams.
Work is under way to establish the required baseline for AAC services. Area teams are working with colleagues in clinical commissioning groups to identify the value of contracts for communication aids. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon mentioned the work of the former communication champion, Jean Gross, whose 2010 report suggested that a national budget of £14 million was required for 2012 to 2014 to bring the required baseline into effect. Working with experts on its AAC sub-group, NHS England will be looking at the report’s assumptions and other available data. We need to be clear that the progress on AAC has to be fulfilled to a degree that ensures the greatest level of equitable access that we can achieve. The development of the national commissioning of those services provides an opportunity to have much more consistency. I hope that that will be an important step forward.
One reason why I am pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys in trying to improve the situation is that I saw for myself, on my visit to Springfield school in Crewe, some of the incredible aids that are now available. Those are quickly coming on stream all the time. I was given a number of demonstrations involving buttons and click mouses, and I was also told about gaze technology—I confess that I cannot remember the exact phraseology, but that is the term that I have decided to use—in which the length of time a person keeps their eyes fixed on the screen determines their command to the device. That is an astonishing way of providing anyone, whatever their level of communication, with an opportunity to communicate.
As the technology advances, some of the costs of the technology, certainly in the early stages, prove quite significant, so we need to think carefully about how we ensure, as my hon. Friend rightly said, that the equipment can still benefit the individual as they move on from compulsory education and, we hope, make the transition to a fulfilling adult life.
Mrs Hodgson
There was recently a reception, which some hon. Members may have gone to, about the gaming industry. One company there, SpecialEffect, is developing some of this eye-movement technology. It works in the gaming industry, but also on the educational opportunities provided by that technology. A lot of people may think that gaming is not necessary, but this is a very important move, with regard to cohesion, and young people feeling included in society, and able to play games and take part in other online activities in the same way that their peers can. The cost of the technology could be prohibitive, so I am pleased that the Minister is aware of it and has availed himself of it. I hope that we can ensure that where these technologies can help children with their education and the social aspects of their life, they will not be deemed too prohibitively expensive all the time.
Mr Timpson
The hon. Lady is a great advocate of the role that information technology can play in the lives of many children and young people with special educational needs. That even led to her persuading me, in Committee, to include elements relating to IT in the code of practice. This is another example of where we have the chance to widen the opportunities for many young people with speech, language and communication needs who, not many years ago, would not have had any of that at their disposal. Yes, there will be costs that must be taken into account, but with some of the new commissioning arrangements that are coming on board, including the joint commissioning in the Bill, and with personal budgets, there is a raft of ways in which, with the right support, many families can start to consider that as a reality, rather than a pipe dream. It is incumbent on all of us to think carefully about how we can help them to achieve exactly that.
I want to touch on an important issue that my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole, and for South Swindon, touched on—the Ofqual consultation proposal not to assess formally speaking and listening skills at GCSE. Clearly, pupils need speaking skills for their future progression, and employers value good communication skills and want them to be taught. The subject content of the new English language GCSE will strengthen the requirement to teach pupils how to become more confident in using spoken language in formal settings. The key point is how speaking skills are taught. Often, we dwell on the subject matter, rather than how that will be put across and absorbed by each individual child in such a way that it will endure. We do not want it to be just an exercise in process.
Improvements to the new national curriculum key stage 2 and 3 programmes of study for English will result in students being better prepared for the start of their GCSE courses. We do not want to undermine the robust standard of this subject by including assessments that cannot be externally validated, and that is reflected in Ofqual’s proposals. We have consulted organisations representing students with special educational needs as part of the equality analysis that we published in March. Overall, we believe that the benefit to all students will be positive. Students will follow more robust and challenging GCSE courses that will have real value for their future progression to further education and employment. Those with special educational needs can, through the Equality Act 2010, be supported in their exams through reasonable adjustments, such as extra time or supervised rest breaks. Ofqual, as the independent regulator, will monitor access arrangements and reasonable adjustments as the reformed GCSEs are introduced.
The consultation is still open. I know that the Communication Trust and others have submitted their own reflections on the proposals, and I have no doubt that Ofqual will take those reflections extremely seriously. We shall have to wait for the outcome of the consultation to see what steps are to be taken next, but it is important that Members of the House have the opportunity, both through the consultation and through the debate today, to make their feelings known, so that every angle is properly considered when understanding the ramifications of any changes on which Ofqual is consulting.
The changes that we are making in relation to special educational needs through the Children and Families Bill and through the 20 pathfinders across 31 local authorities are a key feature of our determination to ensure that all vulnerable children, whatever their background, have the chance to reach their full potential, not just in their education but in their wider life socially, culturally and otherwise. It is encouraging that we have reached the halfway point of the Bill’s passage and there is strong consensus on much of what it is designed to achieve and how we are going about that.
We are not talking about a small cohort of children in our country. We are talking about a significant number of children, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon rightly pointed out on a number of occasions, we have a duty to ensure that they have every opportunity to reach their goals, academic or otherwise, that we would want for our own children. I know that as the Bill moves on, many Members here and in the other place will want to continue this dialogue, which has been extremely constructive to date, to ensure that we meet our responsibilities in Parliament to provide the best possible framework for the local agencies that are working so hard on the ground, in the public, private and voluntary sectors, to help to bring about these important changes. I am confident that we have set our stall out in a way that will drive reform and bring about the culture change that we all want and that, as a consequence, many children and families will feel that rather than the system working against them, it is much more on their side.
We are already starting to see, in some of the evaluation of the work that the pathfinders are doing, reports from parents who are starting to feel more included. They are being properly consulted. They are seeing changes in attitude, particularly in the health service, towards their involvement in not just the assessment process, but the delivery of services. The building blocks are starting to be put in place. Some of the relationships are starting to be recalibrated and are starting to mesh; my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said that was happening already in his constituency.
We still have a huge amount of work to do. We are under no illusions about the fact that it will be a monumental task for all of us to ensure that this is a lasting and fulfilling change for many families, but the signs are encouraging, and I look forward to working with hon. Members on both sides of the House to continue to do all that we can to ensure that these important reforms really do hit the mark.
Dorset Police (Funding)
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Good morning, Mr Dobbin. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today and to see the Minister in his place. He and I have communicated on several occasions on this subject. He has been extremely accommodating to date, and I am sure that our good relationship will continue despite what I have to say this morning. I plan to speak for no more than 15 minutes to give him time to reply and to take some interventions. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) will intervene and make points, and I am happy to take their interventions.
Let me praise and thank Dorset police and all its officers who serve with great distinction and honour and who keep the residents of Dorset safe. Dorset police force is one of the best in the country; I have met many of its officers and am impressed by their devotion to duty and their dedication. We are all extremely grateful to them for what they do.
Dorset is now the lowest centrally funded police force out of the 43 in England and Wales. While some forces receive three quarters of their grant from central Government, Dorset receives less than half. The rest of the burden is placed on the local taxpayer, and that inequity is repeated year after year and will worsen when a further £1.9 million is lost in so-called formula damping.
The 2013-14 grant settlement has seen Dorset receive less funding than the formula calculates as appropriate. Had the formula been followed, we would have had an additional £16 million to spend this year alone, which equates to nearly 850 more police officers on the beat at today’s starting salary of £19,000 a year. The reality is that, through cuts, we have lost an astonishing 340 officers since 2007, which is 23% of our total officer strength. By 2018, anticipated further cuts suggest that we will lose 468 warranted police officers, which is 31% of our numbers. That is equivalent to losing every single officer in Weymouth, Portland, Dorchester, Bridport, Lyme Regis, Sherborne, Blandford, Shaftesbury, Gillingham, Sturminster Newton and Beaminster—it sounds a bit like a train journey I have been on a few times. On the urban side of our county, cutting 468 officers would mean losing every officer in Bournemouth and Christchurch and some of those in Poole.
Proportionally, Dorset has lost the highest number of police officers and staff in the country. Back-office functions are already pared to the bone; that was done by the previous chief constable who did a wonderful job in meeting Government expectations and targets. None the less, Dorset police are expected to do more with less. To their great credit, they have one of the highest levels of public confidence in the country, but they will not be able to sustain that because they face unique policing challenges, which are increasing every year.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am reluctant to ask my hon. Friend to give way because he is making such a powerful case. May I join him in congratulating the emergency services—not just the police but the fire and ambulance services—for the work that they do in Dorset? He is right to say that Dorset is not only one of the best performing constabularies in the country, but one of the worst funded. Does he agree that one aspect of this damping formula is that it does not include visitors or tourism? Places such as Bournemouth and his constituency have an influx of people coming in, giving police extra work to do, which then hinders them from taking responsibility for the residents, and that concerns police.
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I will come to it later on. Dorset gets no recognition for the fact that it receives 14 million visitors a year.
Evenly split between a large conurbation on one side and a scattering of rural communities on the other, the “two Dorsets” demand very different styles of policing. Rural policing involves greater distances and time and, therefore, costs, and the night-time economy in our seaside towns, particularly when summer numbers peak due to tourism, demands a significant police presence. That is an area of great concern as stretched resources have to be targeted at weekend trouble spots, leaving the rest of the county with minimal cover. Resources are stretched even further to cope with the 14 million visitors who come to Dorset each year. Added to that, we have thriving sea ports and a busy international airport. None of those factors is recognised in the police funding allocation, which, by 2018, will allow us barely to fund 1,000 officers to police the lot.
Our police and crime commissioner, Martyn Underhill, has fought valiantly for increased funding and continues to do so. As he says:
“We are the lowest funded force and have seen the worst cuts. This is wrong. I will continue to fight this.”
However, in the absence of any new funding, he is obliged to look at sponsorship, which is anathema to most police officers and to me. It has been tried elsewhere in the Met, but there is naturally great concern about the independence of the police when sponsors’ names are emblazoned on every police vehicle, station and letterhead. Admittedly, the rules are strict: sponsorship must not amount to more than 1% of a force’s total income; none of the statutory functions of the force should depend on the sponsorship; and sponsors may not interfere with police duties.
However, the potential for conflict of interest, or at least a perception of conflict of interest, is evident. I should like, if I may, to inject a note of levity here. In the future, when someone asks, why do all police officers look so young these days, the answer will be, because they use Camay! I inject a note of humour, Mr Dobbin, but I think it makes the point rather well. Policing is a serious matter, and this sponsorship business does not bode well. If the police lose their independence through sponsorship deals, can privatisation be far away? Will the Minister tell us whether there are any plans to privatise the police?
Surprisingly, the Treasury seemed less embarrassed than perhaps it should have been over the news of the Dorset police sponsorships. It may even be policy. Chief Inspector Tom Winsor, in a recent speech to the Royal United Services Institute, said:
“The provision of services to police forces by private sector organisations, and agencies and organisations in the public sector, is likely to increase markedly as efficiencies and economies have to be found.”
Whether or not sponsorship is used—and I hope it is not—the funding formula remains profoundly flawed. Its original purpose, which is to achieve a reasonable balance across counties in police service delivered and council tax paid, manifestly no longer works.
Along with Dorset police, I welcome the review of the police funding formula, which I understand from my conversations with the Minister is due in September. Police treasurers met the Home Office yesterday as the first stage in that review. As we are on this subject, may I, on behalf of our police and crime commissioner Martyn Underhill, remind the Minister of the undertaking that he gave him at their meeting on 15 May? In a significant change to the Government’s position, the Minister agreed that PCCs can now be involved in the review, and several will be invited to join the table. As the greatest losers in the funding settlement nationally, and one of the best performers despite it, Dorset should be represented. Mr Underhill would be a worthy representative and if the Minister will kindly give some kind of acknowledgement when he responds, both Mr Underhill and I would be grateful.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and I endorse his congratulations on what all our public services achieve with such scarce resources. It is commendable, and I agree that when an organisation is already cut to the bone, it is very serious to have to tackle further cuts. What is most important to my constituents, who are in the next-door constituency, is their safer neighbourhood teams. If there were any further threats to those teams, we would be in danger of losing public confidence. They have been built up with our scarce resources but are now potentially affected. I endorse my hon. Friend’s request for Martyn Underhill to join the table, because he is hard working and someone who has his feet on the ground and will know what he is talking about when he gets to that table.
Richard Drax
I agree with every one of my hon. Friend’s words. The safer neighbourhood teams are key to policing in Dorset, as I am sure they are around the country, and we are now getting to a point where even they are stretched, with officers being removed to deal with the night-time economy and, as I have already indicated, the other target areas of potential crime from which all towns suffer to a certain extent.
I am concerned about the Government’s plan, as I understand it, to begin the review this autumn but not report back until after the next election. We cannot wait any longer to get a proper and fair settlement, and I ask the Minister, most respectfully, to speed the process up considerably and report back before 2015. Need I remind him that there is no guarantee that he and I will be serving in government in 2015, or even be MPs? Policing is a serious matter, and the resources must be there to do the job effectively. Crime may well be down in Dorset, but that should not be an excuse to keep cutting. The previous chief constable told me repeatedly that every time Dorset police did well, more resources were taken away. I am afraid that I do not understand the logic that if someone is doing well they should lose the resources with which they can keep up the extremely high standard they have attained.
I believe, and my constituents tell me—as, I am sure, do the Minister’s—that people ideally want to see police officers on foot, patrolling their towns and villages day and night. I have argued strongly for a return to the days when each village had its own bobby living in the community. Costly though that may be in the short term, catching a potential offender in their childhood would save countless millions of pounds in the longer term.
I would like to dwell a bit on that point, and speak from my previous experience as a soldier patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland. The way in which we dominated the ground, gathered intelligence, fought against the IRA and protected the good people of Belfast and the other places in which I served, was by presence, by showing a face, patrolling the streets, being there for people to talk to, and being there to reassure, listen and pick up intelligence. The modern world relies more and more on technology, but the CCTV cameras, precious though they are, cannot possibly pick up on a patrol on the ground, on the atmosphere, the feedback, the communication and the observation, on the shop that is a bit different this morning from what it was last night because there is a gunman inside with a weapon to the shopkeeper’s head. CCTV cameras will not pick that up; police officers on foot will. When they come back, a huge amount of intelligence can be obtained by asking, “What did you see during that two-hour patrol?” When our soldiers came back everything was logged, pictures were taken and checks were done, and all the intelligence went up the line, meaning we were better informed and could do a far better and more effective job on that mission.
I am glad to say that policing does not carry the threat of being blown up, although police officers in this country tragically lose their lives in the line of duty. In Dorset, however, we are most fortunate not to have had such an incident, as far as I can recall, for many years, if at all, and long may that be the case. Nevertheless, the threat is there. I urge the Minister carefully to consider the funding formula, and to give a fairer deal to the people of Dorset, who must be treated more equitably. We are not asking for more money. We understand the restrictions that the Minister, the Government and the country face—the austerity we all face. We have heard about that again and again. What the people of Dorset are asking for is a much fairer share of the cake.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax)on securing the debate and on continuing his assiduous pursuit of the issue. I understand, not least through that pursuit, how important police funding is for Dorset and, as he said, we have corresponded on the subject. I very much welcome the interest he has shown in the specific needs of the Dorset police, who of course do much of their work in rural areas. I also appreciate the significance he attaches to the forthcoming review of the police allocation formula.
I had a very positive meeting last month, not only with Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill, but with Chief Constable Debbie Simpson, and I assured them that the Dorset police and crime commissioner, along with PCCs across the country, will be able to engage fully with the review process. I am happy to repeat that reassurance today.
I should just say that this is not the change of policy that my hon. Friend presents it as; the Government have always intended the process to be a full one, and that is why it has to be longer than he would have hoped. As part of the process, we want to engage as many people as possible, precisely because everyone, understandably, comes to the issue from their individual point of view, and we want to hear all their voices.
Richard Drax
Is the Minister able to guarantee that Mr Underhill will be one of the delegates during the review? It would be most helpful if he could confirm that.
Damian Green
What I can confirm is that all PCCs will be able to contribute fully to the review, and therefore his own commissioner will, I am sure, make an important contribution.
Mr Ellwood
While we are testing what might or might not be included, could I provoke the Minister even further and invite him to say that tourism will at least be considered as part of the formula? Bournemouth swells by up to between 15,000 and 20,000 people on Friday and Saturday nights. That places huge pressures on Bournemouth police, and with half of them focused on the town centre, the rest of the town does not get the attention that residents believe it deserves.
Damian Green
I am very conscious that each area has its particular pressures. The pressures can be rural or tourism ones, and there are clearly night-time economy pressures in big cities as well, and I am absolutely sure that during the review people who feel such pressures locally will urge us to take them into account more than the current formula does. I can only repeat that that is why the review will be complex and will take some time.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset made the point that we have the financial background that we do. The action taken has secured stability, and we have positioned the UK as a relatively safe haven, with interest rates at near-record lows, benefiting businesses and families. We have, however, had to make tough spending decisions, and as a service that was spending more than £14 billion a year, the police service must take its fair share of the funding reductions. Nevertheless, in the financial year 2013-14, we have sought to protect the police as far as possible.
Richard Drax
On the fairness that the Minister talks about, because Dorset has been at the bottom of the pile for so many years, we do not regard any further cuts across the board as fair. Our cuts do not equate to those for another force that has had a lot more money for a lot longer. I hope that the Minister follows my logic.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes that point powerfully, but as he would expect, those in other parts of the country make equal and opposite points just as powerfully. It is in the nature of applying a national formula to 43 forces that there are obviously winners and losers. To repeat myself for about the fourth time—I apologise, Mr Dobbin—the formula is an extremely complex instrument, so changing it to make it fairer will be a long and complex process.
There were further cuts to most departmental budgets last December, but we protected the police from those additional reductions in 2013-14. The Home Secretary decided not to pass on reductions relating to the November 2011 announcement on pay restraint that would have resulted in a fall of £66 million in overall police funding. The further reductions announced in the 2013 Budget have not been passed on to the police. In 2013-14, the police will therefore receive the amount of funding agreed in October 2010.
I understand that PCCs are keen to know their funding allocations for 2014-15 and, in particular, the implications of the last two autumn statements and the March Budget. As hon. Members would expect, we are looking carefully at all Home Office budgets for 2014-15 to ensure that every penny is spent where it is most needed, and we will announce our decision as soon as we can. Obviously, the spending review is next week.
Mr Ellwood
The Minister mentioned the Home Office budget and the Home Secretary. I was delighted to read the ideas she advanced in The Sunday Times about savings that could be made in not just the police, but the emergency services, not least because they are my ideas that I presented to her about six months ago in my report on improving the efficiency, interoperability and resilience of our blue light services. Will the Minister say, for a couple of seconds, where those ideas are going, because greater savings made in the Home Office budget as a whole will have an impact in Dorset?
Damian Green
I should indeed congratulate my hon. Friend on the creative and stimulating ideas about more efficient ways of providing blue light services across the board. As he is aware, we are looking at them carefully, but it is a long-term process. For example, many people have asked whether PCCs could merge the fire and police services in their area, but there is currently no legal power for them to do so, so that will not happen tomorrow. As he knows, the Home Secretary and others are interested in those ideas.
Let me turn specifically to Dorset. As has been said, the overall funding settlement for the police is challenging, but Dorset police and the vast majority of forces are demonstrating that it is manageable. The latest report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary makes it clear that forces are making the necessary savings, while front-line delivery to the public is largely being maintained. As has been said, recorded crime in Dorset was 13% lower in the year to December 2012. Overall crime is down more than 10% since this Government came to power, and in the last set of figures the downward trend was replicated across every police force in England and Wales.
I appreciate that funding reductions have meant all forces having to consider where savings must be made in officer and staff numbers. In Dorset, the number of officers was reduced by 6% in the year to September 2012. Ultimately, decisions on the work force’s size and composition, which are important, are for individual chiefs and PCCs. However, I emphasise that, across forces, the proportion of officers on the front line is increasing. That, together with continued improvements in victim satisfaction levels, shows that the police are rising to the challenge of maintaining and improving services to the public while delivering their share of the savings required, and I congratulate them on that.
Richard Drax
I have to make the point that we are at the very bottom of the pile. Yes, Dorset police force is doing a good job, as the Minister said. I question his figure of 6%: it does not tally with mine—I am just thinking on my feet—but perhaps he is looking at a shorter period. The figure of 30% has stuck in my mind, and that would be even bigger if the planned cuts, whereby we would lose nearly 500 officers, are implemented by 2018. We are now at the point where the force is doing a good job, and there are officers on the front line—no one is left in back offices; they have gone now—but we do not have any more to put on the front line. The idea that we do is a complete fallacy for us, because the point is that we are at the very bottom of the pile. With all due respect to the Minister, he seems to be talking about forces across the country, but we are a very exceptional case.
Damian Green
All I can say to my hon. Friend is that at a time of austerity, all Ministers discover that everyone is an exceptional case. He projected the numbers out to 2018, but I do not share his degree of clairvoyance about public spending. I am conscious that we will get the figures for 2015-16 next week. Anything beyond that can be only speculation, but he cited numbers out as far as 2018. I am not saying that there will be an instant turnaround in the public finances—we will need to maintain suitable discipline—but on Wednesday we will know about the numbers for as far as 2016.
Central Government are not the only source of funding for the police, who receive an average of 25% of their funding from the police precept component of council tax. The exact proportion varies from force to force, and the level at which it is set is a matter for individual PCCs. In Dorset, as my hon. Friend said, the proportion, at more than 40%, is much greater than average, which means that it is in a much better position than the majority of forces to manage central Government funding reductions.
I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend and the Dorset PCC have raised, in that the specific nuances of policing in Dorset may not be reflected fully in the police allocation formula. That includes the various challenges that he and others have referred to about rural policing, visitor influx and the demands created by the night-time economy. The current formula accounts for the needs of police forces that do much of their work in rural areas, and it should ensure that local police forces get funding to compensate for the policing required in areas with high concentrations of pubs and bars. Those and all other elements of the formula will be considered as part of the forthcoming review.
Mr Ellwood
I am pleased that the Minister has mentioned the point about high concentrations of bars. The formula does not work properly because the mathematics are for the whole of Dorset. An awful lot of its rural areas have no pubs and clubs, which are collected closely together in certain pockets. If we look at the maths, and consider the number of pubs and clubs in the area covered by Dorset, it works out that we have about one every square kilometre, but of course that is not the case. That is the dilemma with the current formula.
Damian Green
Indeed. I hear what my hon. Friend says, and there will be a review, as I have said.
On sponsorship, I am aware that the Dorset PCC has said that he wants to ensure that his force takes full advantage of all funding streams. The Government’s position is that it is for the PCC and the chief constable to determine whether any sponsorship is appropriate. There is a financial code of practice, meaning that every force should have its own guidelines about the acceptance of gifts and sponsorship.
I am happy to assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset that that is not privatisation. We do not want to privatise the police, but sensible use of private sector skills can help forces to discharge their duties and ensure that officers are on the front line, not trapped behind desks, so improving the protection we give the public. Core functions, such as patrolling and leading investigations, will always be done by sworn warranted officers. The police will remain accountable to the people, and any decisions to engage the private sector will be taken by elected PCCs, which gives local people a say. I am afraid that I do not share his view that it is anathema: if PCCs think that that is a good way to get more resources on to the front line effectively, we should look at it.
The challenge for Dorset police force, as for all other forces, will be to continue to transform its organisation and to build a modern, flexible and resilient service that delivers for the public. I commend the work that it has already done to rise to that challenge, and I hope and expect that it will continue to do so.
Family Migration Rules
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Owen, to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful for this welcome opportunity to discuss this important matter in this timely debate. Last week, the all-party parliamentary group on migration launched its report on the impact of the income requirement for those sponsoring a partner or spouse from outside the European economic area, and the new rules on adult dependants, almost a year after the new family migration rules were introduced. The media coverage of the rules and the numerous e-mails and phone calls received in my office over the past week suggest that there is great public interest in the matter, which makes this debate even more important.
I thank the APPG on migration and its secretariat, the Migrants Rights Network, for the dedicated and professional support provided to the inquiry and to the group’s members. Thanks are also due to the 280 or so individuals and organisations that took the time to submit evidence to the APPG inquiry. Submissions were received from more than 175 families, who reported that they had directly experienced difficulties as a result of the new family migration rules, and I keep receiving more every day in my office from both constituents and other families who have the same concerns.
One of the main concerns is that the income requirement—£18,600 to sponsor a non-EEA spouse or partner, more if there are also children—is high for many British people and permanent residents of the UK. According to the accounts we received, the income requirement has affected some British people who appear to have more than adequate means to support themselves and family members. Some people seeking to sponsor a non-EEA spouse or partner told us that they were not receiving any benefits and were living well within their means, but that the application process did not allow them to reflect their self-sufficiency.
Many individuals who submitted evidence said that they were in employment in the UK and being paid a wage above £12,850, which hon. Members will recognise as the current level of the national minimum wage. We heard from the Migration Observatory at Oxford university that 47% of the UK working population would now be unable to meet the income requirement through earnings alone.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
That fact has led people in my constituency to say—although this would not suit the hon. Gentleman’s area—that there should be some regional recognition of the fact that in low-wage areas, the problem is even worse.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
This seems a pertinent moment to say that it is not just the low-wage areas of the country that are affected. There are so many people in my constituency in Lewisham, Deptford, in London who are getting only the minimum wage. I have a case of a woman whose husband cannot be reunited with her. She is a support worker, which is a valuable job in the community, on £12,800 a year. She is on the minimum wage and fully legal, but she cannot bring in her husband. Surely that cannot be fair.
Mr Sharma
I quite agree. The amount highlighted in the report and stipulated in the rules has clearly impacted on many families, irrespective of where they live—London or the regions. Some of the British people seeking to sponsor a spouse stated that they were working in key occupations as auxiliary and health support nurses, security guards, clerical assistants and even ordained ministers.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The average wage in both the private and the public sectors is around £13,000 to £14,000, which is not high at all.
Mr Sharma
It is clear that jobs and the income from those jobs are not relevant when families are forced to live apart. The income requirement would exclude almost half the UK working population from living with their husbands or wives if they were from outside the EEA. That seems unfair. Should they have to move overseas? We heard from a number of families whose child care commitments prevented them from relocating overseas, or who had other caring duties in the UK—for example, for elderly parents—that meant that the family had compelling reasons to wish to settle in the UK.
In addition, we heard from a number of hard-working, tax-paying British citizens who were determined that being effectively forced out of their own country should not be the only way in which they could live with their spouse and children. I think most of us would have the same reaction, were we in that situation.
Another issue close to those affected by the family migration rules is the manner in which the income requirement can be met. The limited list of permitted income sources has delayed and prevented even those families with clear means, or access to means, from entering the UK since last July. In the case of families who have been living overseas and wish to return to the UK, if the couple wish to meet the income requirement from the employment-related income source, the UK sponsor must show prior earnings of that amount, which may well be difficult for those who have been working in lower-income countries. The prior earnings or prospective income in the UK of the non-EEA partner is not taken into consideration at any point, regardless of whether he or she is the main earner in the family. Even if the non-EEA partner has strong chances of employment in the UK, or has a firm job offer here, it will still not count towards the application. One submission to the inquiry raised the case of a family based in Dubai; the non-EEA national was earning £250,000 per annum, which could not be counted in any way towards meeting the income requirement.
We have also heard that meeting the requirement through one of the other permitted sources is not always possible, even for high net worth families.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for serving with distinction on what was an all-party inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) is making a powerful case about families being torn apart and children being indefinitely separated from one of their parents. Does he agree that we are seeing some perverse outcomes, in that reunited families could help people go out to work? As the rules stand, even if the combined family income enables them to support an individual with whom they wish to be reunited, they cannot do so.
Mr Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I quite agree with him; he has made a very powerful point. Yes, these rules are keeping families apart, not helping them to unite and support each other, even where uniting them could help them to progress in their family life. Hopefully, the Minister will make a note of that point.
The prior earnings and prospective income in the UK of the non-EEA partner are not taken into consideration at any time, regardless of whether he or she is the main earner in the family. The cash savings source requires sponsors and applicants to take up to £62,500 out of investments in stock and shares, and to place it in a bank account, which is difficult for people whose assets cannot be liquidated. Again, does that not exclude a substantial number of hard-working families from being united in this country, because the income requirement is not a proper reflection of the resources that will be available to those families once they are together in the UK? The great number of colleagues who are present in Westminster Hall shows the interest in this issue, both inside and outside Parliament.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is coming close to the end of his remarks, and there is a particular issue—one that I know he is aware of—that should be highlighted. It is the very significant number of circumstances in which a couple who are living overseas might want to come back to the UK to support and care for a vulnerable family member, thus reducing the cost to the general taxpayer of the care needs of that vulnerable family member, and yet they are not able to get through the hoops that the rules require them to get through. Frankly, that is an example of the state cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Mr Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I accept the point that she makes. There are many other areas of concern, which I am sure Members will highlight. I am just making a few points, so that other Members have the opportunity to speak. I know for certain of the interest that was expressed during the inquiry by the all-party group. Members who took part in that inquiry have already raised those points, and I am sure, having listened to what the Minister for Immigration said last week, that he has taken note of them and will reflect on them—hopefully favourably—in his response to the inquiry’s report.
These families are being kept apart; children are kept from living with both parents, and elderly relatives cannot be cared for by their families.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point, because the issue of elderly relatives is another one that many of us have come across in our constituencies; of course, I also agree with what he has said about spouses. Under the new rules, it is almost impossible for a relative over the age of 65 to be admitted to the UK, because their sponsor may not have the income—may not meet the cash requirements—to allow them to come to the UK; if the sponsor does meet the requirement, they will be expected to support their relative in the foreign country, thereby keeping away grandparents and parents who will not cause a major impact on the UK population. It is a very cruel and inhumane thing to do. Would my hon. Friend agree that that is another thing that the Government should review?
Mr Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I quite agree with his point. It was a very appropriate intervention, because it highlights the fact that we generally expect families to be united, with grandchildren living with their grandparents, so that heritage can be passed on. That applies not only to people from outside the EU, but to people everywhere—wherever we feel that families need to come together. However, these rules are keeping families apart and forcing them to remain apart.
I hope that the Minister will note the intervention by my hon. Friend and by other Members, as well as the contributions that will come later in the debate. We would like to hear positive things from the Minister. I hope that, in the light of this unfairness, the Minister and the Government will allow for an independent review of the impact of these new migration rules, so that the situation can be reassessed.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this debate, and I congratulate him on doing so.
I served on the all-party inquiry with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for—is it Stretford?
Sarah Teather
I have actually got the hon. Lady’s constituency correct.
Many of us on that inquiry were really horrified by what we found, despite my own experience as a constituency MP and having encountered the frustrations of an awful lot of my constituents as they tried to deal with the new rules. Of course, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall said, the new rules have been in place for a year now and there is no doubt that they are proving a significant source of frustration and tension for family life without providing any obvious and immediate benefit to the UK. When the Minister responds to the debate, I will be very interested to see if he can tell us what benefits he considers the new rules have brought to the UK, because they are not immediately obvious to me; I can see many of the harms but I cannot see many obvious benefits.
The first thing that is very apparent about the new rules is that they represent a distinct philosophical shift in approach from the old rules. The system used to be tilted in favour of family life, subject to certain basic conditions being met, such as the ability to support a spouse coming into the UK and the ability to meet a basic income threshold, which was pretty much tantamount to a basic income threshold that we would expect around income support levels. Now, the system is tilted entirely in the opposite direction, and against family life, unless someone can meet certain requirements to demonstrate that their spouse who is coming into the UK is desirable in some way and meets some extra criteria. So rather than having a system that was very much about keeping families together, the system now is about serving an overall objective on immigration policy, with family life being significantly relegated in importance. Of course, it is not only family life that is being relegated in importance, but relationships, children’s best interests, basic human compassion and a certain level of common sense.
The consequence is that we have created a system that is highly inflexible and incredibly rigid, and that fails by its own narrow criteria in terms of preventing a burden falling on the taxpayer. What do I mean by that? The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall raised many of these issues, as did a number of the Members who intervened on him. One of my own reflections from having been on the all-party group’s inquiry was, “If you’re self-employed, woe betide you. You might be earning a fortune, but it’s incredibly difficult for you to demonstrate that you meet the Government’s criteria.” Money must be in certain very specific bank accounts; it must be accessible in a very specific way. Parents’ wealth is disregarded, so someone may have a very wealthy family who are more than willing to support them but that is not taken into account.
As the hon. Gentleman said, someone may have wealth tied up in other ways; for example, it might be tied up in capital. Once again, however, that is not adequate under the new rules. It is only someone’s earned income in the UK that is taken into account, so even if someone has been earning a small fortune abroad that is not taken into account. Equally, even if someone’s spouse earns a small fortune, if they come to the UK that is not taken into account either, and nor are their projected future earnings. Even by the incredibly narrow criteria of wanting income to be the most important factor and wanting people to demonstrate a level of wealth that the Government have decided is desirable, the system at the moment fails to deliver.
That is not to mention the hidden costs, which were highlighted by hon. Members in a number of interventions—the costs that are incurred by refusing someone permission to come to the UK. The obvious ones that we heard about during our inquiry were around caring burdens, particularly if the person who is here in the UK has some health problems, or if they have very young children and they have been separated from their partner. They might be able to go back to work if their partner was here in the UK to share child care. Without the partner, however, it is much more difficult.
Then there are the obvious things that the rest of government knows about. For example, if people are separated from their partner and families are divided up, the effects on mental health and on children failing to bond with one parent or another have a wide-ranging impact on behaviour and educational attainment. Of course, none of those more subtle things is taken into account either.
Dame Joan Ruddock
Among African and Caribbean parents, it is common for a child to be left at home with grandparents, but when the grandparents die, the child is left vulnerable. I have heard about one young girl being abused by the uncle, and the mother is in despair because the rules prevent her from getting the child into this country. Has the hon. Lady also heard about such examples?
Sarah Teather
I have not seen that specific situation with regard to the rules we are discussing, but I have seen such a situation elsewhere. We heard all sorts of examples in the inquiry, such as one parent being separated from children and children being left in other places. The impact in terms of the splitting up of families and the effect on children is potentially devastating and, of course, none of that is being taken into account at the moment.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Has the hon. Lady, or the inquiry that she participated in, considered the instance of UK citizens coming back to the UK, having married abroad, often in complete ignorance of what the rules now say? Such people are finding that their spouse and child are simply stranded thereafter. Someone in my constituency has done exactly that and is now faced with the prospect of trying to get a job in the UK that will pay £18,000, not being able to access any of his parents’ assistance, and his wife and child remaining outside the UK perhaps for several years, even though he has done everything right in terms of his life and work, and all other factors.
Sarah Teather
What the hon. Gentleman mentions is absolutely the story that we heard over and over throughout the inquiry.
Sarah Teather
The hon. Gentleman nods in recollection.
One of the most interesting aspects of this policy is that people being caught up in this change in immigration rules would never have imagined that they would come into contact with the immigration system; they are British citizens who went abroad to work as a teacher, perhaps, or to do development work, or were sent abroad by their company for business purposes, then met somebody and came back. This is the first time that they ever thought that they might come into contact with the immigration system.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
In my constituency in Leicester, a city with a tradition of welcoming people, these new rules are causing considerable concern. A British citizen came to see me last week who has been living in Syria and fled from there with her children, for obvious reasons, yet her husband cannot get out because of the rigidity of the rules. People might think that, given the circumstances and what is happening in that part of the world, there should be some flexibility in how the rules are implemented.
Sarah Teather
I agree. Leicester is my home town, so I sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The rigidity of the rules makes it particularly difficult for people. Under the previous rules—I will not say that they were perfect; as a constituency MP, from time to time I pleaded for people’s cases to be accepted and reconsidered—there was at least some flexibility to look at somebody’s case, based on compassionate grounds or common sense, whereas now there appears to be no flexibility whatever.
Why are the rules being so rigidly and inflexibly enforced? It is because income probably has nothing to do with it. It is not really about trying to prevent a burden on the taxpayer; it is actually about the Government trying to demonstrate that we are reducing the number of foreigners coming into the UK. That is driving it. If anything else were driving it, it would be implemented in a far more common-sense way, there would be much more flexibility around it, and it would not have been set at a level to keep out as many people as possible.
Sarah Teather
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) first.
Dr Huppert
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this important debate on the work of the group. Does my hon. Friend agree that the rules are not only keeping foreigners out but causing some good British people to leave? The response of a number of people in my constituency has been simply to leave the country. These are successful entrepreneurs, those at early stages of what will be well-paid careers, and people coming back, as my hon. Friend said. We risk losing some of our best people, who are internationally experienced, as a result of the rules.
Sarah Teather
The classic story that we heard in the inquiry was that people are going somewhere else in Europe to make a home, and waiting until their partner gains EU citizenship there. During that time they donate their skills, wealth and significant social contribution to another European country, and they may or may not return to the UK.
Kate Green
It was a pleasure to serve with the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on the Committee. Does she agree that one reason why these rules may be being applied so rigidly is a lack of confidence in the decision-making powers and abilities of Border Agency officials, and that investment in training them to make sensible decisions, rather than imposing blanket rules, would be a fairer and more sensible approach?
Sarah Teather
I think it would. I have to say that it would be wiser if we were not being driven entirely by an objective to keep numbers down, but that is perhaps another story.
I should like the Minister to respond to what I am now going to say about the best interests of children. When I was a Minister in the Department for Education, we committed the Government to standing by and meeting our commitment on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and to take into account children’s best interests when decisions are made. What account is being taken of that now by the Minister’s Department, as it looks at the rules and their impact? Has any assessment been done and has any discussion been had with Department for Education officials on this point? If he is unable to answer that question today, I should be grateful if he wrote to let me know.
The impact of the rules on bringing in grandparents and elderly dependants is just as shocking as that of the spousal rules. Almost no approvals have happened since the new rules came in. It was described to me by one lawyer as a ban masquerading as a rule, which is probably a rather more effective way of describing the problem. If almost nobody can come in, that demonstrates what the Government want to do, and it might have been more honest if that had been done in the first place. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), who is no longer in his place, intervened on the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall and made a similar point. It is almost impossible to meet the rules. People must have a high income and must be clear that their family member will not have recourse to any kind of benefits, and sign something to say that that will not happen. They must also demonstrate that the family member is so sick that they must come here, and cannot possibly have their care needs met in the country where they are, even if they were to pay for it.
Almost nobody will meet those criteria. One lawyer said that he had been thinking through all the possible scenarios and the only example that he came up with where somebody might meet such criteria was if they had an elderly dependent relative in Monaco and had enough money here to meet the first part of the rules, but because care is so expensive in Monaco they would not be able to afford to pay for it there. That would probably be the only way we would allow such people to come to the UK. If we are going to have a ban, let us at least be more honest about it.
The consequences of the rules were drawn to our attention in the inquiry most notably by the British Medical Association, which said that they were among the biggest challenges in planning resourcing around consultants and senior doctors, many of whom are second-generation south Asian and want to bring a relative. For example, two people who are partners, both of whom may be highly paid consultants capable of supporting an elderly dependent relative but with no means of meeting the rules, might end up moving to Singapore. If such highly trained, highly valued people go somewhere else to work so that they are able to be with their family members, that is a significant drain on our national health service.
The current system seems to me to be inhumane and lacking in basic common sense. It cuts across a whole set of areas that the Government say are a priority: it cuts across our commitments on family policy, on early intervention and on our obligations under the UNCRC. We heard in our inquiry that the rules disproportionately affect those from poorer communities in the UK, such as Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, and that women, who struggle to earn the same wages as men, are particularly affected. The system affects not only those people but many highly paid British citizens who may never have thought that they would meet the full force of the immigration system preventing them from having a happy family life. I strongly urge the Minister to review those rules properly and to reconsider them.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather). I am sure she will not mind me reminding her of this, but it is the coalition Government, of whom she was a member, who originally proposed the rules and put them through the House. I respect her late conversion to condemning the Government publicly for what they are doing, and I know she feels sincerely about that.
Sarah Teather
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as I am sure the Minister would accept, I say nothing in public that I did not say in private.
Keith Vaz
I am sure that is the case, which is why I gave the hon. Lady a wildcard. Of course I am sure that, privately, she was very much against the rules when she was a Minister in the Government who put them through the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), whom I have known for more than 35 years, on securing this debate. Even before he became a Member of Parliament, he took up immigration issues in Southall for almost a quarter of a century through the Indian Workers' Association, as a councillor, as the lord mayor of Ealing and as a prospective parliamentary candidate, so it is no surprise that he should be introducing this debate and that he served on the inquiry organised by the all-party group on migration.
All those who served on the inquiry, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the hon. Member for Brent Central, the noble Baroness Hamwee and others, have done the House a great service. I wish the Select Committee on Home Affairs had time to consider the rules, but being pressed so often by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) to take up new and exciting inquiries, we just did not have time to do so. The all-party group has produced a stunning report, which everyone needs to read with great care.
For those of us who do immigration cases every day, and I see Members here who represent constituencies in Birmingham, Manchester and Leicester, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and others—I cannot name every constituency—there is the line in the Lord’s prayer that says
“Give us today our daily bread.”
Immigration cases are our daily bread and butter. Every single Friday, immigration cases are 90% of the work I do in my surgery. Although the Minister, who represents the Forest of Dean, and the shadow Minister, who represents Rhondda, do not have the casework that we have, those of us who have seen the Minister perform before the Select Committee and have heard the shadow Minister’s comments know that they understand our concerns on immigration. For us, as constituency MPs, immigration is a big deal. I am glad to see the Minister here today, and I am sorry that he is on crutches. It is better to be on crutches before the debate than after.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall and the hon. Member for Brent Central have already stated the facts—why bring in an arbitrary figure? Tony McNulty was wrong to bring in the points-based system, and I told him so at the time. He thought it was a great invention. I went to see him when he was Minister for Immigration, and he said, “It is very important that people tot up the points, and then you know whether they qualify to come in under the points-based system.” I said, “Where is the discretion in all this? What about those cases that don’t reach the number of points but where there might be grounds for compassion?” The hon. Member for Brent Central talked about that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall talked about other issues. What about those issues that the entry clearance officers cannot address because the migrant does not have enough points?
Here is another example on the arbitrary figure. Yes, we know that the Migration Advisory Committee advised on the figure and, yes, we know there are lots of statistical surveys that say the sum should be £18,600, but as the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), said, the average wage in his constituency is not £18,600. The average wage is certainly not £18,600 in Leicester East and Leicester South; it is about £16,000 or even less—in fact, it is £4,000 less than the national average according to the Office for National Statistics. I have people coming into my surgery who will never get their spouse into the country—even those who are working very hard indeed. I say to them, “Why don’t you get another job?” They cannot get another job because they are exhausted from working up to 60 hours a week. I know that is not the minimum wage, and it may not be lawful, but that is what is on their little slips.
Dr Whitehead
My right hon. Friend might be surprised to learn the results of a survey carried out among the members of a Southampton mosque by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham). Some 95% of the mosque’s members earn less than £18,000 a year. The rules therefore effectively ban an entire community from rights that we would accede to any other community in this country.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Thousands of people who wish to bring their spouse into this country now cannot do so. For a Government who came to power saying that they wanted to engage with the ethnic minority communities—I have seen the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and every senior member of the Government at big functions for the ethnic minority communities so many times, and they really want to reach out like no other Conservative Government have ever done before—introducing a rule that will cause huge damage to the Government at the next election is electorally disastrous for the Conservative party, not that the Government need advice from me on electoral disasters ahead of the next election. That goes against everything the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have said at Diwali and Eid functions, which is that they want a community in which people feel at peace with each other and get on well together. Introducing an arbitrary figure disfranchises thousands and thousands of people.
As the hon. Member for Brent Central said, why do it? Is it because the Government want to stop abuse? I do not think so because, as I discovered this morning—even I did not know about this, which just goes to show how quickly such things happen—the Government have increased the probation period from two years to five years. People cannot get indefinite leave to remain if they are on benefits, so it is not a question of people arriving and going on benefits, because doing so means they cannot get to the next stage on the way to citizenship. Abuse is better dealt with through face-to-face interviews, such as those the Minister saw when he went to Sheffield—he saw people who are coming here as students being interviewed. If we do that for spouses, we can address abuse much better than putting in an arbitrary financial limit. The purpose, of course, is to limit the number of people coming here.
We are an island, and we all understand that we cannot have unlimited migration to Britain. We understand that, and I hope the Labour party understands that when it was in government it made mistakes in its operation of the UK Border Agency. From what the Select Committee has heard from the Minister, we know he understands that he needs to address the problem. I think he is genuine in his desire to try to address the organisational issues. The fact remains that there is no coherent and cogent reason for the limit. I would like an explanation from the Minister. I would understand it if entry clearance directors were given discretion to tell applicants who had an offer of a job in this country, “You haven’t reached the limit, but you have a job offer in Leicester. You’ll go over the limit as soon as you arrive in the United Kingdom, so we’ll grant you a visa.” However, there seems to be no explanation for the current arrangements.
Dame Joan Ruddock
Let me tell my right hon. Friend of a case I have. A man who has been made redundant cannot get his Canadian wife into the country in the normal way. She was a teacher in this country for three years before she returned with him to Canada and they married. She could get a job immediately she sets foot in this country, but she is not allowed to move here.
Keith Vaz
I can well understand that case. We all have similar cases, which are heart-rending, but there is nothing we can do, because the rules are so rigid.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the shadow Immigration Minister, stands up, I hope that he will say that the Labour party will look again at the threshold at the next election. I am sorry to tell him that I think the Labour party has been very quiet on this issue. Now that we have the report on migration, which points to the problems experienced at a practical level, we would like to know what the official Opposition will do about the rule. My hon. Friend came to Leicester and listened carefully to what my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South said, but we need to have some thinking on these issues, rather than blanket, rigid rules that seek to stop people coming into this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and the hon. Member for Brent Central said that getting dependants into this country is no longer on the agenda and that people simply cannot do it. Frankly, the dependants I know who have come to this country have come only from east Africa, because of the nature of Leicester. They stay only a short time, and then they want to go back; they are just grateful to be able to come here whenever they can.
My last point is about rights of appeal for people who are visiting, which the coalition Government are about to take away. If they do that, they will put even more pressure on our immigration service—this will, I am sure, be the subject of the next report by the all-party group on migration. If they remove the right of appeal, which is extremely important because it means that a judge, rather than the Home Office, can make a determination, they will take away the one guarantee of absolute fairness in the system. I put it to the Minister that there needs to be an independent review when cases are turned down. An entry clearance manager and director should not be reviewing a decision by an entry clearance officer, when they see them every day, in the evening and in their post.
I am not casting aspersions on anyone in any case, but the perception is that things are not fair. We have some fantastic entry clearance directors, such as Janice Moore in Mumbai and Mandy Iveny in Pakistan, but there are only a few we could name as being people to whom we could go to solve a problem. I ask the Minister to look again at the issues of discretion and review. In the time he has been doing his job—certainly in his dealings with the Home Affairs Committee, as the hon. Member for Cambridge will confirm—he has shown that he actually listens and considers what is put forward. I therefore hope he will listen to what the all-party group has said and to what we are saying today.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Mr Dan Rogerson, I remind Members that I will call the Front Benchers no later than 3.40 pm.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
Let me reassure you, Mr Owen, that I do not intend to take up a great deal of time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing the debate. I also congratulate all the Members and advisers who put together the report, which has featured very much in our discussions today.
It is a great privilege to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, whose work as a constituency MP and on the Committee means that he brings a great deal of experience to the debate. I was struck when he indicated the range of constituencies represented here, but he probably would not point to North Cornwall as one of those we would expect to feature. That is a measure of the change we have undergone in the system.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, there are issues about the rise in the number of people who have come into the country in recent years. The Government are determined to look at how the issue can be managed differently, and the approach they have taken is to set targets and rigid rules.
Over the eight years I have represented my constituency, the number of immigration cases I have had has been very small, and I suspect I spend much more time talking to the Rural Payments Agency about single farm payments than the right hon. Gentleman does in Leicester East. In recent months, however, a number of people have come to see me about immigration issues. They have mainly grown up in my part of the world, and their circumstances are similar to those other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), have described. These people have gone overseas and fallen in love, or they have met someone who has come to this country as a student or to work for a time. They have formed a relationship and married, but they now have a problem—one that they and their families never thought they would encounter. They assumed it would be relatively straightforward to sort out, but they then found that it is not.
To help the Minister appreciate how we, as constituency MPs, are being affected, I want, without mentioning names, to highlight some of the cases that have been brought to me in recent weeks. One constituent grew up in my area and has been living in Canada. She is now in a permanent relationship with someone in Canada. They both have skills and want to bring them to this country, but they cannot come here together. Given the industry in which they work, and given the wages in places such as north Cornwall, there is no way they can come here and meet the threshold. They would be able to live without recourse to benefits because they would have access to housing and so on, but they cannot meet the threshold. Effectively, someone who wants to return to Cornwall will be unable to do so, and she will have to stay in Canada. That is very painful for her family, who would like the couple to come here. There are no children involved, but it is just as painful for the extended family that the couple have, effectively, had this ban imposed on them.
In another case, a woman who was born in the Caribbean married a British man. She had children here, and she has been here for more than 20 years. Unfortunately, the marriage came to an end. A number of years later, she got back in touch with someone from her home country. They formed a relationship, and they have married, which is a source of great happiness to them and her family, because she has children and a grandchild in this country. However, if the couple are to live together, she will have to leave her children and her grandchild, taking away the support that she could offer them as a grandparent, and return with her new husband to the country in which they grew up. She has a business and the means to provide the foundation for a life together in this country if he joined her. Indeed, he is a skilled tradesman, and there are opportunities here. He has been able to come over, and they have spent some time together, but the system is now saying that he has to leave.
In another case, a young woman born in the constituency married an American citizen. They have a child here, and they have a life together, but he will have to return to the United States. He gave up the job, the base and the support he had there to start a new life here, but it is not possible for him to stay. I could go on with this list of painful cases, which are affecting people who want to make a real contribution here as the new spouse or partner of a British citizen. These cases also affect those who are keen to welcome that new person into their family and to make sure they are part of the community. That is a real shame.
One of the big strengths of places such as Leicester is their diversity and the fact that people are from all sorts of backgrounds. Although I grew up in Cornwall, I spent my first six or seven years after leaving university in the town of Bedford, which is a very diverse place. It was a great experience and education to be part of a community such as that. Cornwall has many strengths. Those who have come from overseas to live there have often done so because they have married someone from the area, and that has added to diversity and enriched the local community. However, we will lose that because, given the wage set-up in Cornwall, there will, effectively, be a ban on people doing that in future. That is a great tragedy; it is not only a personal tragedy for the families, but an issue for society as a whole.
I said I would be brief. I just wanted to give a perspective from an area outside the cities with their more noticeable patterns of migration, and mention that the policy is becoming an issue for us too. I hope that in considering what to do about immigration policy the Government will examine such cases and come up with a system that allows families to stay together and contribute to British society.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, Mr Owen. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for arranging it, and for serving as vice-chair of the inquiry. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who added a great deal of value to our discussions. I also thank Migrants Rights Network, which was useful and supportive in briefing the inquiry committee and gathering evidence for us, and the many people who shared their experiences, either in person or in writing.
For me, as for other hon. Members taking part in the debate, this is a constituency issue. Many of the constituents who have talked to me about the rules’ effect on them and their families are particularly upset, because they have been preparing for family weddings, or have planned for a long time to bring a relative back to care for them. They feel strongly that the rules cut across their strong attachment to the importance of family ties and family life. We recognise, as other hon. Members have said, the need to manage migration and protect the public purse, but the rules must be fair to families, and effective. We have heard of many instances where they were neither.
I recognise that the income threshold, at £18,600, is at the lowest end of the range suggested by the Migration Advisory Committee to take households out of reliance on benefits. However, as the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—and other hon. Members have said, the threshold will have a differential impact on different sponsors, and it will create a significant disadvantage for those who, by definition, are likely to be on low earnings. That includes women sponsors, who typically will be on incomes lower than men’s. They often work part time; also, taking time out of the labour market to care for family members may have depressed their ability to progress at work. Young people will also be disadvantaged. Let us not forget that many who want to bring in a spouse will be young, because they will be starting out on their adult and family life.
The people who would want to make such an application are often precisely those whom the rules will most effectively work against. Others who will be disadvantaged are those who struggle to earn well—people with low levels of qualifications, people with disabilities and those outside high-pay areas such as London and the south-east. Last week in my constituency, I was told of a young woman who has been forced to take three jobs to try to meet the income requirement and bring in her spouse.
It is important to understand that we are not talking just about poorly paid, poor-quality, low or entry-level jobs. The inquiry committee heard evidence from the Royal College of Nursing that health care workers can typically earn between £14,153 and £17,253, so they would be below the income threshold of £18,600. Pay levels in many other sectors, such as retail, security, administration and customer service, and in the public sector, are likely to mean people will not meet the threshold. That is unfair to UK sponsors, many of whom have lived here all their lives—people who are British-born, of British families—who cannot fulfil the income requirement. Those people make a valuable contribution to the economy and provide services that we all depend on. They are being told, in effect, that they cannot carry on living in their own country with their spouse. They are shocked and surprised to find that out.
As to the impact of the rules on the public purse, the picture is more complicated than the Government’s analysis and impact assessment may suggest. The Government suggested in their assessment that there would be savings to the overall welfare state—health, benefits, education and so on—of £660 million over 10 years. However, we must remember that most migrant partners would work and pay taxes. They would therefore be contributing to the public purse. Evidence presented to the committee by researchers at Middlesex university suggests that by preventing up to 17,800 migrant partners from coming to the UK and working here, the income requirement could lead to a cost to the UK Exchequer and economy of as much as £850 million in lost economic activity.
The Government impact assessment took account of tax forgone by reducing the number of migrant partners entering the country, but failed to consider the loss of the wider economic benefits of partner earnings: lost output, lower consumption and spending in the economy, and the loss of their overall economic contribution. Nor is it clear that the benefits bill will reduce as the Government expect.
Dame Joan Ruddock
If the resident person was on a very low income, so that they qualified for housing benefit, and they were joined by a partner who was in work, would not the benefit be set aside and no longer claimed? That is a different picture from the one that the Government always go on about, of people depending on housing benefit.
Kate Green
That is right, and that is one of the perversities in the operation of the rules. Some families who could be floated off benefits if there were two adults in the household are being forced to remain on benefits because a second earner will not be coming to support the family—which may be a family with children. The hon. Member for Brent Central alluded to the fact that in some cases parents are forced to rely on benefits because they cannot share the responsibility for care of children with the other parent. Also, not being able to bring a spouse into the country to share the balance of parenting and working will affect the ability of the parent who is already here to enter the labour market or increase their working hours. We know sharing those roles is a feature of lifting families out of poverty; those two sets of earnings are important in keeping families off out-of-work benefits.
Quite a large part of the Government’s assessment of the benefits that would be affected has to do with benefits for children—child benefit and child tax credit. They are paid for children who are British citizens. In some cases they will continue for those children, but in a family in which only one parent is here to support the child; so the overall benefits impact is rather more complicated than the Government suggest.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Did she find that mostly, in the case of people who gave evidence to the inquiry committee and wanted to bring in male spouses, those spouses wanted to work when they arrived, not sit at home? Obviously, they could not claim benefits, because it would be against their undertaking, but most want to arrive and work, so they would soon be over the threshold anyway.
Kate Green
That is right. Indeed, we already know that migrant male workers are more likely to be in work than non-migrant people of working age. The history of migrants, and particularly male migrants, arriving in this country is that they want and intend to work, and contribute to our Exchequer and the wider economy. Women migrants may be less likely to work than non-migrant adult women, but their earnings tend to be a little higher; so, again, the labour market picture is more complicated than the simple notion that may have been assumed—that a spouse coming to this country will simply be dependent. In fact, the opposite is often the case.
As the hon. Member for Brent Central said, we need to recognise some of the more indirect costs that we are piling up for society. I absolutely agree with her about the potential long-term impact on the public purse of separating children from their parents for long periods. We know that separation can have long-standing and detrimental effects on children’s health, including their mental health, and on their educational attainment and behaviour, all of which will increase costs to the public purse down the line. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England has made a strong case for children’s right to have their best interests taken into account as one of the factors considered by the Government, but it is important to recognise that not only a moral and legal but an economic case can be made in relation to children. The Government should also consider the long-term economic impact.
The committee and I ask Ministers for a much more comprehensive review and assessment of the fiscal and economic impact of the policy, in both the short and longer term. The rules are causing hardship. They are riddled with inconsistencies. In some cases, I believe them to be discriminatory under our equalities legislation, and in terms of protecting the public purse, it seems that they may in fact be having a perverse effect. For those reasons, the committee strongly urges the Government to take the time to conduct a full review of the impact of the new rules on families and communities, and specifically to examine further the effect on the public purse.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I will be brief. I am grateful to you, Mr Owen, for allowing me to speak, and I apologise to Members for not having been here at the start of the debate; I was on a Committee considering a statutory instrument. Members will know that I have a great deal of interest in this subject. I will limit myself to two minutes, because I see that an hon. Member who has been here from the start wishes to speak.
I have two points to make. The first is broadly in support of what the Government are trying to do. There is growing consensus across the House that net migration levels in recent years have been too high and need to be reduced. My view is that that should be done in a way that prioritises the forms of migration that are most economically beneficial to the country. The family migration route needs to be looked at. I say to Opposition Members, with apologies for not having heard all their speeches, that it is not enough just to will the aims; we must also consider the means of achieving any reduction.
I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on one specific point: the income threshold at which the rules kick in. There is a perfectly defensible intellectual logic to what the Government have selected: essentially, the income level at which people no longer need recourse to public funds. However, I have raised the issue privately with the Minister; an individual working full time on the minimum wage would be below the threshold set. The test set by the Prime Minister was that people should be doing their best. Preventing someone who has taken a full-time job that only commands the minimum wage from bringing a partner with whom they have fallen in love into the country seems to me to fail the test of fairness.
I support the principle behind the Government’s tightening of rules, but there is an issue at the margins about the point at which the threshold is set. I hope that Ministers will go away and look at it. I will be true to my word and stop at that, so that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) can speak.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I did not come planning to make a speech, but I saw a few minutes remaining and thought that I would jump up. I wanted to ask the Minister a specific question.
I referred earlier to a constituent of mine whose wife is Canadian. I want to fill in a few points about his case. His wife had the right to be in this country; she had taught here for three years. He was a high earner. The two of them established a relationship that led to marriage. They went on honeymoon to Canada completely unaware of the rules, and he, unfortunately, had been made redundant. They were shocked. He wrote an e-mail to me, which I have just received, saying, “Can you imagine a worse way to start your married life?”
He has tried everything. She has a job to go to and his parents have money, but that cannot be accepted. He is now raising the sum that must be lodged as capital—I think that the Minister will confirm that it is £62,500—because he cannot get a job at the moment. He is missing their first wedding anniversary, and he tells me—I have not checked this—that once the money is assembled, it must remain in his bank account for six months in order for the Government to find it acceptable.
That is not how we should behave. A civilised country should not be separating people who married in good faith and have their future ahead of them. All the cases that we have heard from hon. Members are unacceptable. The most tragic cases with which I am concerned are ones in which a split involves children, or children are left alone. It is just not acceptable. I urge the Minister to hear the important message from the committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this debate, which has been invaluable, and which demonstrates that this policy is against all human rights and must be changed.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I join the congratulations that have been rightly heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this debate, and on those involved in the all-party parliamentary group and the report. Without the vast resources that the Government would have for a full investigation, the all-party group has produced an important piece of work, and I was delighted to be at its launch last week.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—who made an important contribution to this debate, just as she did to the process of bringing together the report—and the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather). It was a delight to hear from a Conservative as well, in the shape of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who, as we all know, has taken a strong interest in these issues and pursued them with an open mind and an interest in getting to the truth rather than dealing with the facile arguments that we sometimes hear about immigration in the media.
I take issue slightly with the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). He said that because the Minister and I represent constituencies without large amounts of immigration casework, we somehow might not be as kosher in this debate as others. I say to him, first, that I suspect that people in the Rhondda take as great an interest in the issue of immigration as people in his constituency, but may come to a different set of conclusions about it. Secondly, in the Rhondda, we would not have the population that we currently have were it not for migration: particularly from Ireland and England, but also from Italy in the 19th century. Learning long-term lessons about immigration and migration is far more important than chasing daily or monthly headlines on those issues, and that is certainly what I hope to do as shadow immigration Minister.
I make one other point to the Chair of the Select Committee. The average wage in my constituency is considerably lower than the £18,600 threshold, so the immigration cases that I do have all arise from the rule change.
Keith Vaz
I would never accuse the shadow immigration Minister of chasing headlines. The point that I was making is that the Members here today, apart from those on the Front Benches, have a heavy case load. I said—he can check Hansard; I know that he is keen on people reading it—that despite the fact that he and the Minister represent the Rhondda and the Forest of Dean, they do have an understanding of the issues. I urge him to look at Hansard before he gets on his high horse again.
Chris Bryant
I was not very much on my high horse; I was just using an opportunity to tease my right hon. Friend. Anyway, he has risen to the bait, which is a great delight for us all.
I agree with many of hon. Members’ remarks. Largely thanks to several campaigning organisations, my inbox for the past year has been absolutely full of individual cases, not from my constituency but from all around the country. I will quote a few words from various people; I will not name them. One man wrote:
“I am at breaking point and I can see no chance of being a family, it is breaking our hearts”.
Another wrote:
“We feel trapped by our circumstances. I feel like I’m a prisoner in my own country!”
Both are British people unable to sponsor people to come here. Another wrote:
“This makes me feel extremely angry at the present government and very sad to be a British citizen treated in this way.”
There is certainly a great deal of distress out there. That might be because there has been a change in the law and many people were proceeding on the assumption that there would not be, so they have been suddenly caught out, but we should not underestimate the pain caused. At the same time, I accept that a fundamental duty of Government is to protect the public purse, which I do not think anyone would dispute. When there are real financial problems in the UK, which we need to sort out, it is all the more important for our public services to be protected and for the taxpayer to be protected. Furthermore, everyone accepts that a fundamental duty of Government is to ensure that the system is not open to abuse.
Use of the family route to circumvent immigration rules is small; it does exist and, indeed, I have had cases in my own constituency, but we need to look at it as the years go forward. Women have married someone from abroad, and the man has come to the UK, but, as soon as the marriage has happened, he disappears. We need to tackle that, however, as a form of exploitation and criminality—we need to look at whether there are further changes in the law we need to make.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
My apologies; I have been in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I was due to speak, so I am sorry about that.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extraordinary thing is the ordinariness of our cases? We have all come armed with cases; when we read them, they are about a husband, or a child, and how the situation affects an uncle or a carer. The consequences are not unintended; they are things that were obvious to anyone who knew anything about the circumstances.
Chris Bryant
In political life and legislation, in many cases the effect on an individual is indirect; in this case, the effect is direct, and that is true of immigration policy generally—we pull a lever and something happens. It is, therefore, all the more important to look at our process for changing rules in Parliament. My point is not partisan; we, in the past—it is certainly true in this instance—have brought forward immigration rule changes involving an enormous screed of material, but with a negligible parliamentary process. We need to look at how we do that in the future.
Hon. Members have already referred to some of the real elements of hardship experienced. Inevitably, a significant number of children have been involved, because many of the relationships at issue are those of people who are just getting married and having their first children. My real concern is that children might be growing up now without either a father or a mother for the first three or four years of their life, and I do not know what that is storing up for the future in Britain, in particular in areas where there are already multiple layers of deprivation. That might become a bigger social problem in future than we have estimated thus far.
Mr Virendra Sharma
I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the new rules are against the basic principles of family life, with husband and wife not being able to live together and children kept apart at a time when both parents are needed to support their future.
Chris Bryant
The right to a family life is obviously an important part of what we all accept to be intrinsic to humanity, but it is a qualified right—it always has been under human rights legislation. If it were not a qualified right, we would not be able to imprison someone who was married. I do not want to say that the right is categorical and exists in all positions, but my hon. Friend makes a fair point.
A Catch-22 now arises for many people: if they are the carer of a child and the other parent cannot be present, they might not be able to engage in a full-time job, so they cannot earn the £18,600 that enables them to bring the other parent in. That puts many parents in a difficult situation, and might end up placing a further burden on the state, rather than removing one, and would be a mistake.
As Members have said, it is also true that the effect of the changes is harsher in some parts of the country than in other parts. I suspect that that is why we have a large number of people from the more deprived constituencies in this Chamber today, rather than those from the country’s leafier suburbs. It is also true that the effect on women is disproportionate to that on men; because of the pay gap between men and women, many fewer women than men can achieve the £18,600 figure. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Brent Central mentioned, the report rightly makes the point that to all intents and purposes the adult dependent relative route has been closed: people have to be able to prove in this country that they have so much money, they can care for those dependants; in which case, people should care for them in the country in which the dependants live, unless they are so ill that they cannot stay there, in which case they probably could not travel anyway. We need to look at such issues.
Chris Bryant
I will, although I am about to disagree again with my right hon. Friend.
Keith Vaz
When he does so, will he tell this Chamber what the official Opposition’s position is on the limit? Will it be removed if the Labour party gets into government, or is he planning to review the limit anyway in the next two years, to look at the impact that it is having on people?
Chris Bryant
If my right hon. Friend did not intervene, I would have more time to lay out what our plans are. I was about to say that he said the figure was arbitrary, but it is not arbitrary; it is deliberate. The Migration Advisory Committee advised on a range between £18,600 and £25,700—I suppose we should be grateful that the figure is not £25,700—and laid out that, according to its interpretation, at the lower bound of the range, 45% of applicants would not meet the income threshold. In other words, it is deliberate that 45% of people are caught by the limit. It is, therefore, important for us to look at the full impact of the policy—to look not only at the short-term implications, because I understand that it helps the Government to meet their net migration target, but at the full implications in the long run for the public purse and family life.
We undoubtedly have to examine some of the existing anomalies. Many who have written to me made the point, “It is fine if you can come in as a European economic area national; you don’t have to prove anything”, but that seems grossly unfair to someone coming in from outside the EEA. We need to look at such anomalies. We also need to look at what flexibility can be brought into the system. As many Members have said, a non-EEA partner’s earnings cannot be considered at the moment, even though they may be considerable. Ministers sometimes reply that people will be able to come in through a different route—a work route—but that does not apply to many, unless they have a specific job offer and so on. The way in which cash savings are estimated and the earnings of those who are self-employed similarly need to be looked at, as does whether third-party support can be brought into the equation, as it has been in several other countries.
I have already referred to the matter of the parliamentary process. I want us to engage in a proper process, so that Members can go through the legislation for any future change. We also need to assess the effect on the NHS, not only of people coming to this country, but of losing people who are working in the NHS—they might be worried about their elderly dependent relatives elsewhere in the world and decide to leave this country to go there. That issue is already affecting recruitment in south Wales and other places. Also, categorically, we will seek to repeal the Government’s recent abolition of the right of appeal for family visits. It seems quintessentially fair that someone coming to a funeral, wedding or some such occasion should have a right of appeal.
I have one final point to make. The honest truth is that in future there will be more British people falling in love with foreigners. That is simply a fact: more people go on holiday—one in four people go on holiday to Spain each year and one in six to Greece—and they go much further afield for their holidays than they ever have done before. Many of those people are not on vast incomes, but they end up falling in love. That is why we need to—we must—keep the issue under permanent review.
Jane Austen wrote:
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”
I do not entirely agree, but I suggest a different version: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that every family’s set of circumstances is different.” The law needs to be able to cater for that, rather than the opposite.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this debate. Before responding to him, I want to respond to points made by other hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) took well over half the remaining time, so I will probably not be able to take many interventions, and I will struggle to cover some points. In response to the point that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) ably made, apart from the commitment by the Opposition to repeal our changes to the family visa appeal route, I struggled to hear any commitments from the Opposition on what they would do about our policies. That may be a disappointment to Opposition Members, but the Labour party does not seem to think that it will change any of the rules that we have laid out. That is the impression I got from the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda, so I suspect that he will be popular with people wanting to bend his ear. Despite saying nothing about the Opposition’s policies, he took a long time in doing so.
I will say a few words about the intentions of our policy, and then try to pick up some of the points ably made by the wide range of hon. Members who spoke. A general point about the immigration system is that we are determined to take control of it and to restore public confidence. We have made considerable progress with the changes on numbers, reducing net migration by more than one third since the election. The issue is not just about numbers—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) touched on this—but about preventing abuse and setting out sensible rules that people can follow. That was the context in which we implemented the reforms to change the rules for family migration for non-European economic area nationals seeking to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family life.
The rules have three aims. The first is to tackle abuse. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall referred to the extension of the probationary period from two years to five years before partners can apply for settlement. That is to test whether the relationship is genuine and should help to deter applications based on sham marriages. That not only deals with abuse, but protects people who are often forced into sham marriages to provide a mechanism for someone to come to the United Kingdom. That is a welcome change.
Secondly, we want to ensure that family migrants are better integrated into British society, which is why, for example, from October 2013 they will have to pass the new “Life in the UK test” and demonstrate that they can speak English at intermediate level. Our view is that no one can properly integrate into British society without at least intermediate English language skills.
The third aim, which hon. Members largely focused on today, is to prevent a burden on taxpayers, which is why we have introduced the minimum income threshold of £18,600 for those wishing to sponsor the settlement of a partner.
Mr Harper
No, I will not give way because the hon. Lady has not been here for the whole debate and I want to deal with points raised by hon. Members who have been here, if she will forgive me.
The central point, which came into all the contributions, is that we welcome people who want to make their family life in the United Kingdom, but we expect them to pay for it and we do not expect taxpayers to pay for it. This may be one area where our welfare system interacts with the immigration system. The £18,600 figure is not arbitrary—I agree that the Migration Advisory Committee did some serious evidence-based work. It is broadly the figure at which a couple are no longer able to have income-related benefits. If the argument is that that figure is high and that many people in this country will not earn that much, we must remember that they may have a level of income at which they may receive income-related benefits. That is the challenge.
I would turn the question that some hon. Members have asked around. If someone is on a very low income and wants to bring a partner to the United Kingdom, they are really saying that they want the taxpayer to support them. Hard-working families around the country would ask why their hard-pressed taxes were being used to fund someone else’s family, because that is what they would be asked to do.
Dame Joan Ruddock
The Minister said “a couple”. Our argument is that we should let the other person in on the basis that they will take work, and then be above the threshold and not claiming public benefits.
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Mr Godsiff
That is kind of the Minister. I was waiting for his speech so that I could ask my question. Will he tell us how many applications have been made by spouses who come here for the two-year probationary period to try to access benefits? He must have some figures, so can he tell us?
Mr Harper
The point I was making was about people who come here when they are not entering into a genuine marriage. I will not have a chance now to find the data. If the hon. Gentleman had asked me earlier, or made a speech, I would have been able to find them before the end of the debate. I want to try to answer the questions that hon. Members have already asked.
I turn to some matters that will address the point made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock). There are some areas where we have been flexible already. I had a meeting with the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who were here earlier. We looked at some flexibilities, which I agreed to take away and consider. They were about the length of time for which savings must be held if they arise from the realisation of an asset that can be clearly traced to that family. The example that was given to me was someone selling a property that was clearly their property. I also said I would consider the situation where people hold savings in an investment-based account, such as a stocks and shares ISA, and whether that counts as cash.
I am prepared to consider whether we can put in place some rules that are not vulnerable to abuse. The best argument was the example of a couple, one of whom would be working here but was insufficiently skilled to meet the criteria to apply under the tier 2 scheme. I thought one of the examples in the report was a bit odd. I struggled to see how someone who earned £400,000 a year and had £3.5 million of assets could not come here on a tier 2 visa, or would be unable to organise their finances sufficiently to meet the rules. If people can get here under a tier 2 visa, that is fine. However, clearly there are people who could make a contribution but could not meet those criteria.
The situation is not quite as straightforward as people say, because we must guard against abuse. If all people have to do is to show a piece of paper saying that they have a job offer, I know from the number of cases I have seen that it will not be long before people are setting up vague companies and offering jobs that do not exist. There must be a way of putting in place processes that do not lead to abuse. I think that is worth doing and I am prepared to go away and do so. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said that I listen, and I do. I see details of cases that colleagues write to me about, and I am keen to ensure that the rules are fair. They have been in force for less than a year, and we have already made some changes to make them more flexible.
Another suggestion was to have a different income level across the country, and the Migration Advisory Committee looked at that. We do not have a regionalised benefit system, with the exception of housing benefit. Most benefits are consistent throughout the UK. The logic for having a different income limit would mean a different benefit system throughout the United Kingdom. I do not know, but I am guessing that most Members who argue for a regional income level to be taken into account for this process would probably not be in favour of a regionalised benefit system.
Mr Harper
I have only 50 seconds left and I have not covered all the points. Let me pick up two specific points. The hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) asked whether there had been any discussion with the Department for Education on children’s best interests. Yes, there has been. Our family consultation and the statement of intent that we published were discussed with all relevant Departments in the way that one secures agreement across Government. Our rules and policy on leave outside the rules take into account a child’s best interests. I will give an example. In exceptional cases, those circumstances can be taken into account. Since I have been doing this job, I have authorised the grant of leave outside the rules to an applicant who, with their British partner, was unable to meet the income threshold but had serious concerns about the health and welfare of a child.
Car Clamping (Private Car Parks)
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, and I am pleased, on behalf of many of my constituents and many people throughout Northern Ireland, that the Minister is here to provide a response on this vexatious issue.
I have been made aware of the serious problem of dubious and irregular charges being levelled by private parking companies on customers who use private car parks, for example, near shopping centres. There is often little oversight or regulation of the marketplace and many companies seem to operate in a dubious manner. My constituents have made me aware of the problem, which I know exists across Northern Ireland. I am therefore delighted to have secured the debate, and again, I thank the Minister for coming to address the Chamber on the issue.
I am aware that the matter partly falls under devolved competencies, but given that the Department for Transport, or more specifically, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, provide such companies with driver and vehicle information, it is important that the UK Government address these concerns.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way so early on in her speech, and I congratulate her on securing the debate. I reassure her that the concerns are not restricted to Northern Ireland; they are UK-wide. Is not the critical point the role of the DVLA, which she just mentioned, and how, in a largely unfettered way—sometimes inappropriately, it seems—vehicle licence details from the DVLA are released to these companies?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is absolutely correct, and the Minister needs to look into the unfettered handing-out of that information to private parking companies, because it is placing a lot of people, particularly the elderly and those who are disabled, in great distress.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the Chamber; it is important, as she said, to all of us across the United Kingdom, and especially to those in Northern Ireland. Does she agree that many companies seem to have no care whatever for people? In particular, they seem to have a zealousness for clamping the cars of those with blue badges, who are clearly disabled. Does she feel that perhaps the Government should take that on and train them, so that we ensure that they do not do a job that aggravates people, and pick on those who cannot necessarily defend themselves?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with him. He highlighted areas that I will move on to in my speech. These car parking companies are particularly zealous in their desire to overcharge people, and when they are taken on, they withdraw the charge. That makes me ask whether it was ever valid in the first place. He will be aware of some of the experiences that my constituents have had in his constituency, in the town of Newtownards.
I accept that we are talking about a legal marketplace, within which there are many reputable companies, but I would like to highlight the most pertinent examples of bad practice and the existence of less reputable companies. From the outset, it must be clarified that private operators do not have the right to levy a statutory fine. Instead, they are effectively levying a charge for loss incurred by the operator due to breach of contract. However, in practice, in the cases brought to my attention, it would appear that some companies often go to every length to give the appearance to the customer that they are being fined, and that the fine is non-contestable.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. There is a related issue, and I wonder whether it should be put out there as public knowledge. The Government need to come clean about whether we can tidy this matter up. These pieces of land were given a zero rateable value when the companies were given planning permission, or whatever permission it was, and now an income is being made from that land. The Government need to look closely at whether the Valuation Office Agency should try to revalue pieces of land where car parking charges are being applied, on the grounds that as there is now an income from it, the rateable value should be reviewed. I hope that the Government look at that, and I want to put that on the record.
Ms Ritchie
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have found instances of that in Northern Ireland, but the rating of particular properties or pieces of wasteland now used for car parking purposes in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. In this debate, I want to concentrate on the issues that are particularly the reserve of the Minister and the Department. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point. There is a certain over-zealous attitude on the part of many of the players, but the bottom line is that the ordinary person, whether they are elderly, young with a family, or disabled, is placed at great disadvantage—particularly a financial one—some months down the line.
I would like to give some brief examples of the way in which certain companies go to every length to put a significant amount of pressure on people to settle up as quickly as possible, without querying the nature of what they may perceive as an inescapable fine. Often the correspondence, especially the initial notification letter to the customer, will be designed to look like an official statutory notice of the kind issued by a council or a local authority. For example, they will commonly refer to “parking charge notices”, otherwise known as PCNs, mimicking the “penalty charge notice” title of official council tickets, and that will often be accompanied by an official-looking logo, such as the scales of justice. Such notices are clearly designed to make the person feel that this is something they have to pay, and that its source is a body other than a private company, thus making the person—it could happen to any single one of us—deeply uncomfortable.
In addition, companies will present the possibility of the Debt Recovery Agency becoming involved as early as the first correspondence with the customer. Such a threat is clearly vastly out of proportion for what amount to relatively small civil claims. Again, the purpose of that is clearly to get the person to pay up as soon as possible and not to question the source, reasonableness or accuracy of the claim. People are made to feel under pressure and that they have no right to recourse.
Such tactics are reprehensible, especially in that many of those being pursued are elderly or vulnerable, and they have even been employed in my constituency against people with disabilities who have very specific parking requirements. Surely the Minister agrees that his Department should not facilitate things for companies that operate in that manner, and surely he will confirm that he would act on evidence that companies are harassing members of the public over dubious claims.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. Is she aware in her constituency, as I am in mine, that when the companies are pressurised on behalf of our constituents, after a period of time, on many occasions, they back down and renege on the original clamping that they did? Does she feel that that underlines the fact that the Government need to be more aware of what the companies do within the law?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In my experience, the companies do back down and withdraw the fines, but that is after a considerable period of time in which my constituents or other people in other areas have felt deeply under stress—
Ms Ritchie
Deeply harassed by the companies. These people feel that they are criminals when they are not.
Having considered the manner in which some claims are pursued, we need also to consider the fairness and reasonableness of the claims. Again, it seems that certain companies are pressing claims that are spurious at best. Previous court guidance has said that charges must be proportionate and that an owner is entitled to seek only damages relating to actual loss. For a start, the existence of tiered levels of payment depending on how quickly fines are paid suggests that any real evaluation of loss is not being used. The charges also seem excessive against any determination of an actual loss incurred. The fact that some companies are charging up to £150, which is more than 50% higher than, in our case, the Roads Service’s fine, or a council fine, indicates that it is not actual loss that is being charged to the customer.
Graham Jones
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so generously. She makes a valid point about the loss. How is the loss quantified? In Hyndburn, there is free car parking everywhere, so how can a car park actually lose money? How can these companies fleece motorists for £100, £60 or whatever, as happens in the case of Eastgate retail car park in Accrington, when there is simply no loss of income? The comparator is that there is free car parking everywhere.
Ms Ritchie
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree; that is another point that needs to be investigated and explored by the Minister.
There is an associated issue about the prominence of the terms of use of private car parks. Those signs must be clear and of a certain size, but too often the terms are hidden in small print within a lot of other text. Surely there should be more of an onus on the operator to make clear to the customer the terms and conditions for using the parking space, and what action will be taken should those be breached. Instead, people often receive notification that they are being charged up to a month later, with very inconsistent evidence as to what their infringement was. What evidence there is normally consists of using automated registration recognition techniques, which are often highly contestable, and there are real fears that such machines are not being operated within the terms of the guidance provided by the Information Commissioner.
Graham Jones
I want to press the issue of the Equality Act 2010. How do these car parking companies square what they do with the Equality Act when they are indiscriminate in their charging? Surely it is illegal to discriminate against disabled people with these car parking charges—and with time limits, when disabled people need more time. It is absolutely outrageous that disabled people are treated in exactly the same way as others when the law of the land says that they should be treated in a different way because of their disability.
Ms Ritchie
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that an area of the Equality Act needs to be investigated, but perhaps because these are private car parks, they sometimes fall through various loopholes. None the less, the issue requires investigation.
Mr Mark Williams
I concur with the comments of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones). Mr and Mrs Sheldon, a disabled couple from Aberystwyth who visited me in my constituency surgery last week, had exactly the same experience. With regard to taking these complaints further, may I ask the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) what her experience has been of the British Parking Association, the body that is supposed to regulate the conduct of its member companies?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that part of the problem lies with the British Parking Association—he is right—because it is not doing the job that it is supposed to do. It is letting things fall through the net.
Let me explain some more of the background. People may well be asked for proof of purchase from the car park’s associated store. I do not know about the Minister’s shopping habits, but it would be very rare for me still to have a receipt, months later, for every small item of shopping that I had bought. None of this seems to constitute a fair claim or burden of evidence, and I would like to know whether the Minister agrees.
Given the very uncertain regulations that cover this area, consumers caught in such cases have very little access to recourse, and companies seem to obfuscate where possible. If the operator is approved and controlled by the British Parking Association, there is a more formal appeal mechanism, but it must be recognised that the BPA is not an independent body; it represents the parking industry. Moreover, many of these companies operate outside the BPA.
Surely the Minister agrees that there should be a requirement on companies operating in this market to be BPA registered, at least, and that there should be a clear set of independent guidelines that require companies to provide information on the right of recourse for those being charged. I put it to the Minister that any such guidelines or regulations should also put clear limits on the nature of letters that can be sent to consumers and put a robust burden of evidence on the company demanding the charge.
What exists currently is not fit for purpose and damages not only consumers, but those companies that seek to operate in a reputable manner. We have a private parking regime that is highly inadequate. The Government claim to want people to return to their city and town centres to support small business and the local economy. We have had the Mary Portas report, and we have had an emphasis on regeneration of our town and city centres, but what message does it send when people return from shopping trips and a month later are served with parking notices such as these? I will tell the Minister exactly what they think: “I’ll stay at home and do my shopping online.” That is only those who are fortunate enough to have that option. People will simply stay at home or go elsewhere, where there are not these impediments or hindrances, but they will not go back to the town or city that placed that burden on them through a parking operation.
I have come here today hoping at the very least to gain assurances that the Department for Transport is aware of the problems and, more specifically, will take remedial action to prevent companies that are operating in a disreputable manner from accessing the DVLA’s database. I know that in the Northern Ireland context, my party colleague who is the Minister of Environment there, Alex Attwood, has been talking to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), about this issue, but also about the very important need to devolve the DVLA to Northern Ireland, so that we have our own base there. Perhaps the Minister wants to take that issue away and talk to his colleague about it, but surely there should be a degree of concern that the DVLA information system—
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. I know that the hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way on a number of occasions, but to give the Minister the opportunity to make a full reply, could she make her concluding remarks?
Ms Ritchie
I was about to do that, Mr Owen; I have just one more sentence. The DVLA information system is being used to help process very dubious claims. I want to know what discussions the Minister has had on this matter, and what the DVLA considers when dealing with requests from private car parking companies. Private firms have no right to impose a fine or penalty, and anything that purports to be a charge but is in reality a fine or penalty should be outlawed.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I call the Minister to give a thorough reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
Thank you, Mr Owen. That is quite a challenge, given that my time has been reduced somewhat. May I begin by saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship? I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to discuss in detail a matter that is clearly of great concern to her and her constituents and to other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I will give the hon. Member for South Down the assurance, because this is a highly complex area and she has covered a considerable amount of ground, that I will get the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), to write to her on those issues that I am unable to deal with specifically in the limited time left to me.
The management of private parking and the release of vehicle keeper details to allow car park operators to apply parking controls can, understandably, be emotive matters. Receipt of a parking ticket is never popular, and some drivers become very annoyed when they are subject to enforcement action, particularly if they disagree with the principle of vehicle keeper information being provided to private companies for such purposes. Unpopular though receipt of a parking charge may be, measures to control parking on private land are necessary to ensure that parking facilities remain accessible and provide value to all who use them. Drivers who choose to park their vehicles on private land do so in line with terms and conditions that should be clearly displayed on signage at the entrance to the car park and around it; I take the hon. Lady’s point about the size of displays and their accessibility.
Mr Burns
I will not be accepting any interventions from the hon. Gentleman. This is the hon. Lady’s debate; I do not have much time and I want to address as many of her points as I can.
Typically, conditions relate to the need to pay a fee and display a valid ticket, and to observe the maximum permitted time for parking. There may be other conditions, such as a stipulation that parking is for patrons only. Parking control is necessary to allow landowners who invite drivers to park on their land to exercise their legal rights and gain the benefit to which they are entitled from the use of their property. Without any form of control, I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that errant drivers might park as they liked, breaching reasonable terms and conditions, without fear of any recourse arising from their misuse of the land and the detrimental effect that their actions might have on the availability of parking spaces for more considerate motorists.
It is important to bear in mind that UK law specifically provides for the release of vehicle keeper information to those who can demonstrate that they have a reasonable cause for requiring it. There is no statutory definition of “reasonable cause”, but our policy is that requests for such information should relate to the use of a vehicle, following incidents where there may be liability on the part of the driver. Where a parking infringement may have taken place, it is considered reasonable to provide the vehicle keeper’s contact details to allow the matter to be taken up with the driver responsible.
Those procedures are fully in keeping with the terms of the Data Protection Act, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is fully apprised of the release of information for such purposes. Although the law provides for the release of information, we are committed to striking the correct balance between protecting drivers from unfair or unscrupulous practices that some parking management companies may employ, and ensuring that land owners are able appropriately to control the use of their land and benefit fairly from it.
The management and control of parking on private land has been under considerable scrutiny over recent years, and the activities and standards of operation in the sector have changed substantially. Despite perceptions to the contrary, I assure the hon. Lady that significant control is already applied to the operation of private car parking companies. Unscrupulous operators can no longer put a sign up in a car park that sets outrageous charges and harass motorists for payment. Rogue operators might once have been able to request vehicle keeper details, but that is no longer the case. Unlike in the past, control is now exercised over the charges that can be imposed, the standards for signage and the operating standards for the conduct of staff employed by parking management operators.
Since 2005, when the previous Government were in power, the issues raised by motorists aggrieved by private parking enforcement have been carefully scrutinised. As a result of the first review, the systems for accessing vehicle keeper data were totally changed and formal safeguards were introduced. The review led to the introduction of a requirement for companies that receive keeper data via electronic links to be members of an accredited trade association. The conditions have been strengthened by making ATA membership a requirement for all car parking companies as a prerequisite for access to data. Since 2009, all private car parking companies that want to request vehicle keeper information for private car parking management have been required to be ATA members, regardless of whether they make such requests via electronic or paper channels. That requirement has delivered a regulatory regime for the parking industry where none previously existed.
An ATA must have a code of practice based on fair treatment of the motorist, which requires its members to operate to high professional standards of conduct while allowing them to take reasonable action to follow up alleged parking contraventions. We would expect any organisation that wanted to become an ATA to be able to demonstrate that it has a code of practice that ensures that only a fair parking charge is asked for and that prominent signage is present, which outlines clearly the restrictions on parking and the charges and conditions that apply. There should be no hidden charges or ambiguity for the motorist as to what is and what is not permitted on the land. The code also helps to ensure that contact with motorists is not threatening and that parking charge notices are issued promptly so that a driver can recall the circumstances surrounding the event. A reasonable amount of time must be allowed for payment to be made before any additional charges are imposed or the matter is escalated. That is the case in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom
Even though strong requirements are in place to regulate the actions of parking companies, disclosure of data is also tightly controlled. Even when a company can demonstrate full compliance with the code of practice, the DVLA and its Northern Ireland equivalent, the Driver and Vehicle Agency, operate to the same standards and must be assured that there is good reason to believe that a parking contravention is likely to have occurred and that the company is acting with integrity when requesting data.
Parking management companies are visited to audit their operations and further in-depth checking of individual cases is undertaken to make sure that requests have been submitted for genuine reasons and with reliable evidence to back them up. All requests for keeper details of Northern Ireland-registered vehicles are written requests, and the information provided in support of the application is examined to confirm that the release of the information requested is fair and lawful.
Car parking operators pay fees when requesting keeper details. The fee levels are set to recover the cost of processing requests, so that those costs are not passed on to the taxpayer. The Government do not gain financially from the provision of such information.
It is inevitable that motorists who feel that they have been unfairly treated will complain. The first port of call is usually the ATA, and I have mentioned that an operator needs to demonstrate compliance with the code of practice in order to retain its membership. The ATA is there to investigate and ensure that, where appropriate, remedial action is taken. It is for the ATA to decide whether the operator needs to be placed on notice with additional scrutiny, follow-up audits and checks to monitor future actions closely. In more serious cases, a decision may be taken to terminate an operator’s membership of the ATA, without which they cannot operate. That consequence is serious for a company’s survival and it is an incentive for them to behave responsibly.
The agencies that supply data to operators also play a key role. Where sufficiently serious concerns are raised or ongoing issues are identified, agencies will consider whether continued access to vehicle keeper data is appropriate. Several parking management companies have had their ability to request vehicle keeper data suspended where shortfalls in the standards expected have been identified. In addition, trading standards departments can prosecute companies if they have breached consumer protection law. In short, if a company is not meeting the standards expected, there are serious consequences.
I trust we can all agree that we have come a long way in providing proportionate regulation for the parking sector. I do not have enough time to deal with the hon. Lady’s other points, so I will ensure that my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, writes to her. I conclude by urging her to forward to the responsible Minister the details of any cases experienced by her constituents and others that have involved questionable actions and bad behaviour, and where the expected standards of operation have not been met, so that those cases can be investigated.
SMEs (Middle East and North Africa)
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.
The United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world, yet we are, I believe, only the 12th largest exporter. Many colleagues will know about my passion for British exports. Having come from an exports background, I take a strong interest not only in exports but in the region we are discussing, namely the middle east and north Africa.
I have spent the past eight months undertaking a report into UK Trade & Investment—UKTI—and into how it interacts with small and medium-sized British companies in assisting them to export to the middle east and north Africa. Of great interest to me is that we have interacted with more than 220 such companies, which have come from all over the United Kingdom into the House of Commons to give evidence in a very positive and enthusiastic way, about their experiences of UKTI. Small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs—are keen to improve the service they get from UKTI, and I pay tribute to all their work in helping me to write my report, which will be published in seven to 10 days’ time. I will give a copy of the report to the Minister, for his consideration.
I would like to put on record my thanks to Mr Nick Baird, UKTI’s chief executive, who has been extraordinarily patient with me over the past eight months. I sometimes think he must stick pins into a voodoo doll of me in his office, because of the number of issues that I constantly raise with him. Extraordinarily, I have had to take a lot of the companies that I have interviewed to meet with him directly—and he will testify to that—because they simply have not had the traction that they expect and deserve from interacting with UKTI on the ground in their various regions. I am delighted to help them by taking them to meet Mr Baird, but that should not be for a Member of Parliament to do; they should automatically get the traction and support on the ground that they so rightly deserve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman shows genuine zeal, and I congratulate him on his great interest in and passion for the issue. The agri-food industry in Northern Ireland is worth some £4 billion to the economy. Most of that comes from sales in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, and just some of it from sales overseas. Does he feel that the time has come for a UK-wide promotion of all the regions together, for the agri-food industry to market itself and get those markets in the middle east and north Africa? There is clearly the potential there to do even more for the economies back home.
Daniel Kawczynski
I very much concur with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that British agricultural products are among the best in the world. The British brand is extremely strong in the middle east and north Africa—they are crying out for dairy, beef and other products—and there should be a concerted approach, promoting the best of British of agricultural products in the region.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his impressive work in this field. He mentioned agriculture and SMEs, but does he also think that important links need to be made between UKTI and the higher education sector, regarding the expertise in the sector and the work we are doing there? Wearing his hat as Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Wales Office, does he acknowledge that Welsh universities can offer a lot to UKTI in boosting our economy?
Daniel Kawczynski
I agree with my hon. Friend on that point, and I very much hope that he will engage—as I do—with the Minister in bringing directly to him, and also to Mr Nick Baird, examples of how UKTI can get involved with his constituency in Wales.
We must always be evaluating the structure of UKTI, its reporting processes and its accountability to Parliament. We must never forget that the organisation receives more than £400 million of British taxpayers’ money every year. We must also, and I will not flinch from this, be assessing, as with any other organisation, the calibre of its staff, in the United Kingdom and overseas. We must consider whether UKTI should remain in its current form, become a stand-alone entity along the lines of the Technology Strategy Board, or be brought, rather than being between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, into a new external relations department of the Foreign Office, UKTI and the Department for International Development, focusing on our foreign relations interactions.
What there must be, however, is greater scrutiny of UKTI in the House of Commons. Since the general election, this is only the third debate—two of them initiated by me—that Parliament has had on UKTI and British exports, and I certainly will not be able to say everything I wish to say in 15 minutes. I am pleased that there is a Labour Member—the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith)—here today. In the previous debate there were none, so I welcome the fact that a Labour MP is taking an interest. I do not know what mechanism could be used for that greater scrutiny. I do not know if an independent Select Committee just evaluating UKTI would be feasible, but we must always challenge UKTI and its Ministers and raise concerns when things do not go right.
I shall now turn to the subject of the debate—north Africa. I feel passionately about French-speaking north Africa because of its proximity to the United Kingdom and its importance strategically, for security reasons, and from an economic perspective. When I went to Mauritania two years ago, I was the first British MP to do so since 1960, when the current Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), went there for its independence day celebrations. Regrettably, most MPs I talk to do not even know where Mauritania is, yet it is an important and rapidly growing country. It is close to Morocco, and is part of the Arab League and of north Africa. There are huge opportunities in its oil and gas sector, as well as in mining, education and construction, yet on the UKTI website no opportunities whatever are listed for the country.
I know that we have representation in Mauritania. Following my report about the country, the Foreign Secretary visited Mauritania, and we have now established a diplomatic presence on the ground in Nouakchott. As UKTI has a website for SMEs to look at and interact with, to find out what opportunities there are in a country, it is rather daunting to look up Mauritania and find nothing there. We must ensure that if we have a website it is properly populated.
Last week I took Nick Baird to have lunch with the Moroccan ambassador, Princess Lalla Joumala, and we talked about the importance of partnering with and working constructively with Morocco in joint venture operations. Morocco has tremendous relations from a banking, cultural and linguistic perspective with the other countries in the region—not just in north Africa—including Senegal, Mali and Niger. The Moroccans are keen to engage with us, so I was pleased that Mr Baird came with me to that lunch. I hope that there will be an increased focus on the Moroccans and on partnering with them to work constructively on penetrating the French-speaking north African market.
Luckily I speak French, because I studied it at university, but we are too guilty in this country of going only to places where English is spoken. If the first national language of a country is not English, we tend to gravitate away from it, and we cannot afford to do that any longer. All of the north African French-speaking countries are very keen to interact with the United Kingdom.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on his work on the report, which I look forward to reading when it is produced. I share his enthusiasm for the effort that must go into backing up and making a success of exports by our SMEs. Does he agree that everything he says about French should also apply to Arabic, a language to which more attention needs to be given in our country?
Daniel Kawczynski
I absolutely agree, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. A recent media report expressed concern at the number of British diplomats operating in Arab countries who do not speak fluent Arabic. If we are to send such people overseas, they must speak either fluent Arabic or fluent French.
I have been to Tunisia, where 60 British companies operate compared with 1,700 French ones, which I emphasise because it is a staggering difference. Interestingly, by far the biggest investor there is British Gas. I want to ask the Minister what we are doing in conjunction with British Gas to ensure that its network of contacts, particularly in the petrochemical industry, is harnessed so that more of our companies are encouraged to operate in Tunisia.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It is important because if we are to get out of this recession well, we have to look to other markets, and UKTI is absolutely fundamental to that. I recently received a delegation from French-speaking Mali, which is desperately keen for our mining engineers and electricity people to go there to provide power and infrastructure in a country that has been in turmoil, but is now doing much better. We need to encourage such people to come and give presentations, and UKTI could play a much bigger role than it does currently.
Daniel Kawczynski
I completely agree. We have seen what happens in countries such as Mali. When we are not present, not trading with them and not on the ground, a vacuum is left for others to fill, and the costs involved in sorting out the mess are greatly increased.
I met the President of Niger when he came to the Foreign Office. He informed me that bilateral trade between Niger and the United Kingdom was £4 million per annum—only £4 million with an incredibly important strategic country that has a rapidly growing population.
On Libya, I met Deloitte yesterday and was informed that it is setting up offices in Tripoli. I am very pleased about that, and I want to pay tribute to Deloitte for taking that plunge. I am concerned that media coverage of instability in Benghazi is preventing more British SMEs from exporting to Libya. I have a small company in Shrewsbury that has successfully managed to win contracts to provide metal piping to various projects in Libya. I urge the Minister to ensure that UKTI does more to encourage British companies to go to Libya, which is a hugely important market for us. We have spent nearly £1 billion helping the Libyans to throw off the shackles of dictatorship, and we must not fall behind our German, Italian and French counterparts, who are banging the drum for their companies in that country.
I am frustrated that UKTI does not engage more with parliamentarians. I have been the chairman of the all-party group on Libya for the past eight years. I have led many delegations to Libya, and I have an extensive network of contacts throughout the country. Before the revolution, I even wrote a biography of Colonel Gaddafi. Yet I have not had a single exchange with UKTI about anything to do with that country or the delegations I go on. It is almost as though it is impervious to, ignorant of or has no interest in what parliamentarians are doing.
Having prime ministerial trade envoys is a very good step that I want to be expanded. There are also catalysts—they are hired by UKTI as such—who have expert knowledge of a country. I want to mention one to the Minister: Mr Ali Mosawi, who came to see me, has been selected as an Iraqi catalyst. He has expert knowledge of the country, being from one of the best-known Iraqi families and having a network of offices throughout the country. He is an official UKTI catalyst, but he came to see me because he is getting very little traction with UKTI, which is not using his services at all. He has even offered UKTI free use of his extensive network of offices throughout Iraq, but nobody has responded to his very generous offer. I want the Minister to investigate that and I want his officials to ensure that Mr Mosawi is contacted.
On inward investment to the United Kingdom, I want to know—I will ask a series of parliamentary questions to find out—where UKTI staff are based and what areas they cover. I think that the UK is still No. 1 for inward investment in the European Union, although Germany is rapidly catching us up. It seems to me that the vast bulk of inward investment from the middle east, particularly Qatar, comes into London.
With the Shropshire chamber of commerce, I recently met UKTI staff in Shrewsbury. I asked them who was responsible for ensuring inward investment into Shropshire, and I was told that there is nobody. We have huge opportunities in Shropshire, with both the council and the chamber of commerce for Shrewsbury and Shropshire. It is vital that inward investment to the United Kingdom is spread more evenly and that professional staff in UKTI cover more rural constituencies. For the record, I will not rest from badgering UKTI until at least one of its members of staff is responsible for and dedicated to working with my local companies and authorities to attract inward investment into Shropshire.
The Prime Minister has set a target of £1 trillion of exports by 2020, which is a hugely important issue. We spend so much time in this House debating between Labour, Liberal Democrats and ourselves and having huge arguments about how to cut up the cake. I respect that, but we must come together as three political parties—with those from Ulster—to talk about and work collectively on how to increase exports. That should not be a party political issue; we should come together and work together to ensure that SMEs, which are the lifeblood of our country, are given every assistance to export.
The Prime Minister’s target of £1 trillion will not be met unless we radically change the way exports are carried out. I met Lord Green over breakfast at 8 o’clock this morning, with other parliamentarians, and he told me that the £1 trillion target would be rather challenging. He seemed to give the impression that it would be good to get to 80% of it, but I think that we should aim to exceed that target. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
On behalf of us all, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Owen. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for giving me the opportunity to explain in more detail the breadth and depth of support provided by UK Trade & Investment for UK SMEs in the middle east and north Africa. Let me reassure him that there is a very good story to tell. This is a large and growing marketplace, in which there are tremendous opportunities. We export more to the United Arab Emirates than we do to India, more to Saudi Arabia than to Brazil and more to Qatar than to Mexico. Equally, there are challenges, particularly in markets such as those in Iraq and Libya that he mentioned, where the business environment is clearly more challenging.
My hon. Friend will be familiar with some of the services that UKTI provides. A typical example is support for trade missions, of which 20, involving 150 SMEs, have visited Saudi Arabia alone since mid-2012. Indeed, independent research undertaken on UKTI’s behalf demonstrates that, for the year to September 2012, the organisation delivered 4,500 services to businesses across the region. Some 60% of businesses surveyed reported that those services generated significant business benefit, including an average additional profit of £84,000.
In addition to supporting companies in-market, UKTI brings its specialists from the region back to the UK to speak directly to SME exporters. For example, earlier this month, in partnership with private sector sponsors and other partners, UKTI organised a UK tour for specialists from the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that they met more than 200 companies in four cities—Glasgow, Manchester, Bristol and London. Those events were organised in association with UKTI’s extensive domestic regional network, which is dedicated to supporting exporters across our country. I do want to reassure my hon. Friend, because he asked this specific question, that there are UKTI staff in every region, if not in every council area.
The work of UKTI officials to support SMEs is increasingly enhanced by the activity of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys and our British business ambassadors. As senior business leaders, they are well known internationally, and they consistently generate significant interest in overseas markets. For example, one of our business ambassadors, Malcolm Brinded, recently led a trade mission to Jordan, significantly helping the companies concerned to position themselves to secure a share of Jordanian business.
I should also highlight that SMEs in the region will benefit from another UKTI initiative—its high value opportunity campaigns. Those campaigns cover 100 of the world’s largest commercial projects, 19 of which are in the middle east and north Africa. Each will open up for our SMEs huge supply chain opportunities in projects as diverse as Qatar’s World cup stadium infrastructure, Dubai’s airport expansion and huge oil and gas projects in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. We want success in those major overseas projects to mirror the positive benefits of investment in our national infrastructure by Gulf sovereign wealth funds. Indeed, we are tendering for the provision of private sector support in the Gulf to help to grow that opportunity.
Looking forward, my hon. Friend will want to know that my colleague, Lord Green, and UKTI’s chief executive officer, Nick Baird, intend to build on the excellent services already provided to make the organisation more attuned to what its competitors offer, in line with their desire to bring more private sector expertise to bear in support of exporters. One of the key differences between us and our major competitors, especially Germany, is the range of business-to-business services available in overseas markets from organisations such as chambers of commerce. That is a difference that we need to address. Lord Green and Nick Baird also want to see a much stronger connection between domestic and overseas business networks. A strong case has been made, and British chambers and other British business groups offer a potential means to extend such services to UK SMEs. However, in most cases, that will require a substantial upgrading of those business groups’ own capacity to offer the requisite level of service, which is why the Prime Minister announced last year a transformational change to the support that business can offer to business.
UKTI has now launched a pilot campaign in 20 markets that will radically enhance the support to UK SMEs over the next three to five years. The pilot focuses on high growth and emerging markets and includes Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Our aim is that by 2017 the support available to UK SMEs from Government and business groups will have significantly increased in range, quantity, impact and quality in at least the first 20 markets. It is then planned to roll out the programme to include all markets and connect our overseas business-to-business support to UK business networks, so that we have one global British business network that is operating on a par with our competitors.
At home, UKTI’s broader official business offering needs to adapt to the actual needs of business rather than to what we think they need. UK Export Finance understands that and continues to provide invaluable support to UK companies, many of which are SMEs, during turbulent times in the region. It was one of the first export credit agencies to resume cover for Libya, and even at the height of the Arab spring uprisings, UK Export Finance took a long-term view of the risks involved and remained on cover for the majority of countries.
I hope that my words demonstrate to my hon. Friend that UKTI intends to continue to build on its success in supporting SMEs in the middle east and north Africa, while at the same time developing new programmes of assistance. We want, for example, to be able to help more companies such as Apton Partitioning Limited of the west midlands, which designs, manufactures and distributes office partitioning systems for commercial offices.
The Apton story shows how a British business, dependent on the UK construction industry, lost 50% of its business in 2008, but emerged, with the help of UKTI, to be an international business operating in countries with major construction growth across the world. It is now exporting to Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
My hon. Friend raised a number of specific points, which I will touch on if I may and write to him if I miss. He announced the publication of his report. We all look forward to reading that when it appears in the next few weeks. He asked about scrutiny of UKTI. I think today has been about scrutiny, but I take his point that there have not been sufficient debates on that important issue. It is of course open to the Select Committees to take up the work of UKTI.
My hon. Friend asked me specifically about Libya. We were one of the first to open an office again in Libya. Some 250 British firms have been to Libya since the end of the conflict, but I wholly accept that we need to do more than that. He mentioned Mr Mosawi in relation to Iraq, and I will certainly follow that up and reply to it. I repeat the reassurance that there are UKTI staff in every region of our country.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that UKTI takes seriously any scrutiny and comments on its activities. I hope he has had engagement with senior UKTI staff in response to any concerns that he has had. The fact that some companies occasionally feel that they are not getting the service they expect is, in my experience, the exception rather than the rule. Across the globe, countries that have used UKTI sing its praises. There may of course be exceptions to that, and if there are we need to learn why that is and to build on it. Nick Baird has made improving all levels of customer satisfaction one of the top priorities for him and his top management team. They are challenging the organisation and are seeing a response. Current indications are that, over the last calendar year, UKTI hit its target of 32,000 businesses assisted, up from just 25,000 the previous year. This year, UKTI aims to help 40,000 companies. Its target for 2015 is 50,000 businesses.
I hope that hon. Members will be reassured to hear that, of the tens of thousands of businesses that were helped and supported by UKTI in the year to September 2012, 90% of which were SMEs, more than 75% were either satisfied or very satisfied, and those companies say that UKTI has helped them generate additional sales of £49 billion. I hope that my hon. Friend and others will agree that that is an impressive performance. It is not a performance that we are complacent about, but one to which we should none the less pay tribute.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nutrition Labelling
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
Today we are launching the new front of pack nutrition labelling scheme across the UK.
This will introduce more consistent nutrition labelling across the UK by providing, on the front of food and drink products, clear information on energy and those nutrients of public health concern that the majority of us should be aiming to limit in our diets.
The scheme incorporates reference intake (previously known as guideline daily amount) information together with the levels of energy and the levels of fat, saturates, sugar and salt, highlighted by red, amber or green colour-coding. The combination of this information will allow people to judge how much energy and nutrients a portion of the labelled food will contribute to their overall diet, and also enable them to compare products and make healthier choices.
Two new public health responsibility deal pledges are also being launched today in order to enable food businesses to commit themselves to adopting the new scheme and, more widely, to enable businesses, non-Government organisations and others to help promote it.
The “Guide to creating a front of pack (FoP) nutrition label for pre-packed products sold through retail outlets” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper office.
It is also available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments[]=department-of-health.
Copies of the two new responsibility deal pledges have also been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper office.
The two pledges are also available at: https://responsibilitydeal.dh.gov.uk/.
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will be held on 20 June 2013 in Luxembourg. I will represent the UK.
The Council will finalise its contribution to the European Council to take place on 27 and 28 June 2013. The European semester 2013 discussion will focus on a number of documents linked to the European semester. There will also be a separate discussion on youth employment.
Council will seek a general approach on the European globalisation adjustment fund regulation (2014-20) and will provide an update on the fund for European aid for the most deprived regulation.
Council also seek a general approach on the proposed directive on minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights. There will be updates on directives on equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation; posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services; and gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges.
Ministers will consider two sets of Council conclusions on social investment for growth and cohesion and on women in the media.
Under any other business the presidency will provide updates on legislative files and other issues. There will also be information on public employment services (PES) and state of play regarding preparation for the G20 Labour and Employment Ministers’ meeting and joint meeting with Finance Ministers. Finally, the Lithuanian delegation will outline the work programme of their forthcoming presidency.
Grand Committee
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, as usual, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 7 : Appointment of local auditor
Amendment 14ZA
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(1) Unless regulations that apply to a relevant authority have been made by the Secretary of State under subsection (9), a relevant authority shall appoint an auditor (a “local auditor”) to audit its accounts for a financial year not later than 31 December in the preceding financial year in accordance with subsections (2) to (8).”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
In speaking to Amendment 14ZA, I shall speak also to Amendment 14ZC. These amendments take us back to the debate at the start of our proceedings on Monday. When speaking to Amendment 1, I indicated that we had tabled a further amendment covering the same essential point: that of retaining the capability of enabling national or central procurement. These two amendments adopt an equivalent formulation to that provided for in Clause 5 relating to smaller authorities. It provides the Secretary of State with the opportunity to specify a person to appoint auditors for relevant authorities, and potentially provides relevant authorities with the opportunity to opt into or out of such arrangements. Absent the activation of such a capacity, the provisions on a local appointment would run. The amendment is not prescriptive of the person or persons whom the Secretary of State can designate to undertake these appointments.
I do not propose to restate in detail the arguments in favour of retaining a bulk purchase capacity. These were well aired on Monday and, I believe, well supported. In fact, I think it is fair to say that they found favour with the Minister, who said:
“It has been made clear that there is some appetite for developing this national procurement arrangement. If such arrangements for this national procurement maintained choice for local bodies—which is effectively what I have said—and allowed them to take part or appoint locally then we would be willing consider the scope for allowing it under the Bill”.—[Official Report, 17/6/13; col. GC5.]
We entirely accept that the Government would need to be assured about how such arrangements would work and be effective. However, these amendments offer a framework for this, and indeed the framework on which the Government are themselves seeking to rely in relation to smaller authorities. I look forward to a favourable reply, again, from the Minister.
I will wait for the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to speak to their amendments, the thrust of which I understand. However, for the idea to be credible it would presumably require the other body appointed to be subject to the rigours of this Bill. I am sure that was the intention. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14ZAA and its co-runner Amendment 14BZA, both of which are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
The principle behind these two amendments is relatively simple; they seek to allow for a measure of delegation of the duty to appoint an auditor so that the actual procurement of auditors and their formal appointment can be made by another body on behalf of the authority. The issue arises by virtue of Clause 7(1), which states:
“A relevant authority must appoint an auditor”.
This, if taken literally, could be taken to mean the direct appointment of a named auditor in person on an exclusive and non-transferrable basis. I am sure that it is not intended to be quite as tight as that. It is certainly felt by the LGA, and others who have briefed me on this matter, that this might prevent any appointment as authorised proxy by an external person or body.
In reality, a firm is appointed to the task and nominates one of its number, often a partner or director, to head up a small team to handle the matter. The appointment of an auditor, to use that singular term of art, and as a specific named individual, is in any event customarily carried out per pro the authority by this means. For instance, most small charities and similar bodies appoint a firm rather than an individual. In the realms of a collective appointment via a national or sector-led service, this becomes more important. A large consultancy firm bidding for a sector-led contract will ultimately make an appointment itself of the named auditor as overseer and signatory to the auditor’s report
The gist of Amendment 14ZAA is quite simply to provide for the procurement of an auditor by way of a duly authorised proxy, including a large firm, a sector body or other similar large concern dealing with possibly several authorities. It does not make this mandatory, simply an option.
Amendment 14BZA follows from this. If the procurement is by way of another body charged with meeting the requirements of the Bill and thus delegated from the authority, it is unnecessary, or should be unnecessary, to have an audit panel, because the oversight of the auditor is carried out in accordance with the relevant rules of engagement via the proxy. The authority always remains responsible for whatever measures it has put in place. The appointed procurer of the audit service must observe all the criteria in the Bill for that activity.
The LGA, as I said, provided a useful brief on this and it is worth picking out a few salient points. The amendments would be consonant with the authorities’ need to have flexibility to procure their audit nationally, or in some form of grouped manner. It would make collaborative audit procurement more attractive and produce, as we heard on the previous day of this Committee, the potential for significant savings. That would be to the direct benefit of local finance. Some of the reasons why this is so have already been rehearsed, including the Audit Commission’s own modelling and its calculated saving of between £205 million and £250 million over a five-year period.
The Government’s own impact assessment does not refute this. Indeed, it concedes that local appointment may not procure the level of savings secured by the Audit Commission during its last procurement round. It seems obvious to me that each authority procuring its own auditors on a recurring basis replicates a cost base. There is an opportunity to save money here.
I will not go into the other details that have been discussed before, save to say that I agree that local appointment does not necessarily increase competition or cut costs. I have no proof of this, but my hunch is probably that not many firms would undertake a municipal audit in the first place. In reality one is probably looking at one of the larger firms, a point that we have heard before. I register the point made by the Minister on Monday. A paraphrase of her words is that there will be no recreation of the Audit Commission by the back door, but if the reality of this Bill’s proposals is to create some form of suboptimal procurement with waste by duplication, I have to say that I am against that as a principle. I hope the Minister will feel that subject to any safeguards that might be necessary to eliminate the risk of a “son of” Audit Commission coming about, the principle is acceptable, in which case we can work out the detail as we go forward. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I will speak to these amendments, although sitting next to me is my noble friend Lord Tope, in whose name Amendment 14ZA stands. I hope the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will confirm that we have already dealt with the collaborative basis and the fact of buying centrally. Even I was a late adherent to this, but I think we agree that in one form or another that is the way to go forward, however it can be arranged, although there were numerous alternatives. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has said, there are going to be significant savings, which is something that we cannot ignore.
I have one question about a sentence in Amendment 14ZA on the appointment of a new auditor, or the re-appointment of an existing auditor, to,
“audit its accounts for a financial year not later than 31 December in the preceding financial year”.
Both the Bill and the amendment say that that appointment should be made not later than 31 December in the preceding year. I cannot work this out in practical terms. Let us say that KPMG is the auditor of a local authority or group of local authorities; it has not finished its accounts and the accounts will not be signed off until, at the earliest, the end of January the following year. That company could be under notice, according to the amendments, that it may not be, or could not be, the auditor for the ensuing year. While KMPG is finishing off its audit—the accounts will not have been finished and signed off by the relevant person in the local authority, who in my local authority is me, so I am told; I have done it three years in a row—a new auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, perhaps, will have been appointed.
I worry about how that will affect the mindset of the auditor who is being replaced. Enshrining within the Bill that the auditor has to be appointed by 31 December within that year will cause moral, and sometimes practical, difficulties. Perhaps the Minister will take this issue back and consider whether the wording should be “could be appointed by 31 December” or “as soon as possible by that date”. I worry how the changeover, if there be a changeover, will affect the performance of the outgoing auditor.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for these amendments, which take up the points that we made on Monday about the possibility of a centralised audit process for both larger and smaller authorities. As I understand it, the larger authorities will be run, more or less, by the LGA and the smaller authorities by the NALC. I made it quite clear that we were content to have discussions with the LGA and the NALC, to whom we are talking already, on the strict understanding that there could not be, in either case, mandatory schemes. The amendments brought forward today by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are flexible enough to take account of that. As I said on Monday, we are willing to continue the discussions that are already taking place. I am sure that we can come back to this issue at a later stage if anyone feels that they are not going in the right direction.
Amendment 14BZA would specifically exclude bodies that opted into such an arrangement from the need to have an auditor panel. We agree with that. If there is a centralised system it is plainly not sensible for those who are being helped by it to have their own audit panel. However, it is essential that if they are appointing their own auditor, independently or in conjunction perhaps, with another authority, they have to have an audit panel. We have discussed the make-up of an audit panel and its independent membership, and they would be required to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, raised the question of the date of appointment of auditors. The reason behind the auditor needing to be appointed by 31 December is to ensure that if for some reason the local authority fails to make an appointment, there is time for the Secretary of State in particular to take action under Clause 12, which allows him either to direct a body to appoint or make an appointment on behalf of the authority. We will discuss this later, but it will certainly apply to health authorities, and I understand that the situation is similar in local authorities. I hear very clearly what the noble Lord says about the auditors possibly lacking the enthusiasm to carry on if they are about to be replaced, but I think the audit bodies are pretty professional, and they would need to continue.
We will discuss the appointment of auditors when we reach the amendments that are a couple of groups further on, but I think those are the main points that have been raised. As I said, I hope that we shall be able to return to this matter at the next stage with some further ideas on how the centralised but not mandatory system might work.
I hope that with those explanations, and if I have covered the points that were made, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister for a very clear steer on where the Government are on this. I hope that by the time we get to Report we can make progress on seeing how it is working out in practice, particularly if there is a provision in the legislation to take it forward once the Bill is enacted.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made an interesting point about the handover arrangements between auditors. I am sure that it does happen. I read the other day that Land Securities changed auditors for the first time in 60-odd years. I think that PricewaterhouseCoopers went out, but I cannot remember who went in. However, it does happen, and I think that the professional arrangements of the bodies that supervise these organisations include a code of conduct that covers that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
“(1A) A relevant authority may appoint another body to procure the appointment of auditors for purposes of meeting the requirements of this part of the Bill.”
The Earl of Lytton
First, I thank the Minister very much for her comments. Secondly, as I understood her, Amendment 14BZA might be acceptable with modifications. I appreciate that, but obviously, pending such modification, I shall not move that amendment at this juncture. I hope that at some juncture the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, will explain to a mere ignoramus like me what the arrangements are when one auditor hands over to another. It is certainly something that I had not considered at all.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment addresses the question of the appointment of local auditors, covered by Clause 7. The procedure requires the local authority to appoint an auditor. Clause 7(2) provides that an auditor may be appointed,
“to audit its accounts for more than one financial year”.
Clause 7(2)(b) states that,
“the authority must make a further appointment of a local auditor at least once every 5 years”.
The amendment would remove the following subsection, which states that the paragraph to which I have just referred,
“does not prevent the relevant authority from re-appointing a local auditor”.
The object of my amendment is to ensure that there is a change after a five-year period. In my submission, it is possible for the auditor and the local authority to have too cosy a relationship. As I read it, there is nothing in the procedure for appointments set out in Clause 8 even for a tendering process to be entered into by the local authority, although I may be incorrect in that regard.
Clause 8 provides that:
“A relevant authority must consult and take into account the advice of its auditor panel on the selection and appointment of a local auditor”.
If a panel did not recommend a competitive tendering process, or even if it did, as long as the local authority had regard to that it would not necessarily follow that there would be such a process.
I agree that five years is a sensible sort of period for a firm to be engaged. However, it seems unfortunate, to put it mildly, that people could be reappointed for a substantial period of five years and then be reappointed with, or particularly without, a tendering process. That would be an invidious and unfortunate position to have arrived at. We are aware, of course, that the market for the larger authorities is likely to be dominated by a handful of firms. That was one of the reservations expressed on Second Reading and during our previous day in Committee, and I think that most of us, possibly including the Minister herself, are not entirely comfortable with that. To see such a process as a repeat appointment, particularly in the context of these large national outfits, is anti-competitive, if I might put it in that way. It also raises an issue about the kind of relationship that might develop when a firm is anxious to retain the contract.
For those reasons, in my submission it would be better to require not simply a reappointment process but a process that excluded the original firm. There might have to be a backstop position in case nobody else presented. That matter might require, for example, the agreement of the panel and the authority or even, potentially, of the Minister or the department. I suppose one might need that safeguard, but the important principle is that there should not be indefinite appointments of the kind that, as I see it, the Bill would facilitate. I beg to move.
Baroness Eaton
I find it somewhat surprising that there is this perceived idea of auditors being too cosy with their client, a local authority, because all the probity and requirements of audit mean that they would be being professionally negligent if they did not do the job they are supposed to be doing. I really do not think that this is quite as much of an issue as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is suggesting.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am struggling to understand the implications of what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is proposing. I think we all share his concern—I accept that it might not always be a widespread concern—that sometimes, maybe after five years, it could become too cosy. I hope we would all accept that a tendering process after five years is certainly desirable; whether it should be mandatory is something that we can debate. However, in such a tendering process, would the existing auditor be precluded from taking part in that process, or, if it was to take part in it and was clearly to submit the best value tender, would the authority then be prevented from reappointing it on that basis? That is the point I struggle to understand.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps I might respond before the Minister replies, since we are in Committee. My preference would be for exclusion but as a fallback, at the very least, to have a proper tendering process, as I have explained.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for raising this interesting point, but I am bound to say that I have the same scepticism about this as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and my noble friend Lord Tope. It is scepticism about whether it is necessary.
The Bill currently requires local authorities or local bodies to make a new appointment every five years, as the noble Lord said. In most cases, this will require them to go through a full EU tendering process. We expect that most authorities would have that as a requirement, if not in their code of procedure then in their code of conduct. They will also have to go through the process with the independent auditor panel, which will have to manage the tendering process so that it is both independent and transparent. The independent auditor panel will also look regularly at the quality of the audit from the auditors currently doing the job. If they are not doing the job, it will not recommend that they are allowed to proceed. The Financial Reporting Council has ethical standards as well, and will require that key audit staff are rotated on a regular basis. The Government believe that the requirements for a maximum five-year term and the rotation of key staff provide sufficient assurances, along with the other measures on auditor appointment and removal, to safeguard auditor independence and the local bodies’ independence of view in taking on their auditors.
I know that there have been wider discussions about, for example, a recent Competition Commission report on the need for mandatory auditor rotation. However, we understand that the evidence that mandatory rotation supports improved auditor independence and auditor quality is inconclusive. Bearing in mind what my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said, sometimes there is benefit in the continuation of an auditor, not on a cosy basis but because of the mere fact that, particularly with bigger authorities, you have somebody who understands the processes and what has been happening during the past five years. In any event, I think it would be wrong to exclude them from being able to tender, to bring down the barricade and say, “No, you can’t do that”.
There is sufficient professional involvement to ensure that auditors are not reappointed where they are unsuitable, where they have not done the job properly or where the local body thinks that they could do with a change of auditor and makes that clear. I do not think we need to make it mandatory that they cannot go beyond five years; that would be too draconian. I am satisfied that we have the processes in place to ensure that a full appointments system takes place every five years. If the current auditors were seen to be the most successful, they should be able to be reappointed.
I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, I am not easily satisfied, and I am not completely satisfied by her reply, although I am grateful. In particular, there is still an issue about market share and the domination by large firms, which I fear will not be addressed by allowing the system outlined in the Bill. However, having heard the debate, of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a very straightforward amendment, which is intended to ensure that the Secretary of State will consult before producing regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to share with us what the broad content of the regulations will cover, or say when we might expect to receive a draft. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Here I am acting as the Minister, jumping to my fifth subject today, although I am happy to do so. As has just been explained, Amendment 14ZD would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant authorities and representatives of local government before exercising powers as set out in Schedule 3 to make further provision about the appointment of an auditor to certain bodies.
We are sympathetic to the concerns behind the amendment, which we understand are to ensure that bodies are suitably consulted before further provision is made on auditor appointment. Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarify the scope and purpose of this power, which I understand to be the purpose of this probing amendment. The power is limited to bodies not covered by paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 3. It therefore does not apply to local authorities, police bodies, or the GLA.
Schedule 3 already makes provision in relation to these bodies to ensure that the appointment process reflects their specific governance arrangements. In the case of local authorities, it prevents the delegation of the appointment decision below full council. This ensures that the appointment of the auditor is made in a transparent manner and with proper accountability. The power at paragraph 4 is simply intended to allow the Secretary of State to make similar minor provisions for other bodies covered by the Bill to support accountability. This might mean preventing the delegation of the appointment decision for other bodies as set out, as the noble Lord will know, in Schedule 2.
As set out in the statement of intent that the Government laid earlier this week, we will work with delivery partners and interested parties to consider what specific provisions are needed. With these reassurances on the scope and purpose of the clause, and on our intent to consult affected bodies, I hope that this provides sufficient additional information for the noble Lord to be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. I certainly intend to withdraw the amendment. However, perhaps he could be a little more specific about the other bodies covered by this. I am not sure that I fully grasped his point about particular bodies. Does he have an example?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Schedule 2 sets out a range of other bodies. The minor bodies that are set out range from waste management boards to drainage boards to parish councils and to others but do not include the major local authorities or the GLA et cetera. Schedule 4 relates to Schedule 2. I hope that is clear.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for that further exemplary clarification. I have not had a chance to read the statement of intent in detail yet, which came on Monday when we were in Committee. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the procedure for the appointment of auditors provided for in Clause 8 seems overly bureaucratic, but if that is the Government’s approach, I suppose this amendment simply adds to that bureaucracy. Amendment 14ZF would require that the term of the appointment be part of the notification. Indeed, it might specifically cover the point probed by my noble friend Lord Beecham as to whether it is a reappointment.
Amendment 14ZE would require that the appointment process be set down. Transparency on this matter is for the Government, not unreasonably, of high importance, and we agree. The process will have an impact on competition and pricing, so making the interviewing process clear, assuming there was one, and what firms were involved would be an indication of the relevant authority’s commitment to these issues. It might also provide an indication of the commitment to trying to open up the market, an indicator of whether local or regional firms have been included.
Doubtless the Minister will tell us that this amendment is unnecessary and will flow from the process set down. That is fine, but it would be good to have an idea of the Government’s expectations over these areas.
Lord Tope
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, began by describing this process as overly bureaucratic, but then I think he went on to say that, since it is overbureaucratic, let us have an amendment that makes it even more bureaucratic. That is not the most compelling argument that I have ever heard from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, as I suspect he knows very well.
The amendment certainly seems to describe what is good practice and what I hope would happen in practice. I am moderately confident that that is what would happen, certainly with any good authority. Whether we need to have an even more bureaucratic process to enshrine all this in legislation, I am very doubtful, and whichever Minister is replying they will no doubt tell us that we do not want to make it too bureaucratic.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps I may just ask whether it would remain open to authorities to combine in placing audit contracts. The Audit Commission identified substantial savings having been made by central commissioning, and it anticipated that if extended to the remaining 30% of contracts, a significant further saving of some £400 million over five years could be made. I am not necessarily saying that that is the way to go but, under the provisions of the Bill and this whole appointment process, would it still be open for such an approach to be adopted by authorities coming together, for example, in a particular region or a particular class of authority, obviously with the support of their independent panels? Would it still be open to them to move in that direction, getting a sort of bulk purchase by agreement rather than it being imposed externally? It would be helpful to have some assurance on that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance. That is entirely acceptable and to be expected within the Bill. Often small authorities in particular will find it convenient and useful to combine how they approach this matter. However, as the noble Lord has just said, this is by voluntary co-operation rather than by imposition from the centre.
I have to reprimand the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for making exactly the first point that I was going to make, thus cutting down on what I have to say.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The Government understand and support the intentions behind the amendment—to ensure that there is transparency over the appointment of the auditor—but they are not convinced that this is the sort of thing that needs to be in the Bill. The Bill already includes a requirement for the notice to include the advice of the auditor panel, which is required to advise on the selection and appointment of the auditor. This might cover issues such as the length of the appointment and the process for appointment. Under the Bill, auditor panels must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State on their functions. We expect that such statutory guidance, or wider guidance on best practice, might cover the sorts of issues that should be included in any advice from the panel.
With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister. I certainly do not intend to press the amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I did not honestly expect the Minister to rush to accept the wording; it was a mechanism to open up a debate, particularly about the process and there being transparency in the extent to which other firms are invited in—in a beauty parade or whatever the mechanism is. That may be some measure of the determination of the local authority, if it has one, to broaden and open up the market. However, I entirely accept that that will be the expectation and that it will be set down in some of the guidance that will flow from this Bill. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(1) Each relevant authority shall have an audit committee to exercise the functions conferred on audit committees by or under this Act.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this group of amendments would in essence delete the requirement to have an auditor panel and require that each relevant authority had an audit committee. The audit committee would undertake the role envisaged for the audit panel under the Bill. Other amendments in the group are consequential, substituting “audit committee” for “audit panel”, although I acknowledge that more of these would be necessary in practice. Our following amendment, Amendment 14BB, would require that any audit committee must have a majority of independent members and be chaired by an independent member.
The role of audit committees in the public and private sectors is well understood. It would be good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, who has particular experience in chairing his local audit committee. In the private sector, the audit committee has become one of the main pillars of corporate governance. Its aim is enhancing confidence in the integrity of processes and procedures relating to internal control and corporate reporting, and it has a key role in providing oversight of the work of the external auditor.
Equally, in the public sector, audit committees are an essential element of good governance. They help to raise the profile of internal control, risk management and financial reporting, as well as providing a forum for the discussion of issues raised by internal and external auditors. They can enhance public trust and confidence in the financial governance of an organisation.
The CIPFA guidance is that audit committees should be chaired independently of executive and scrutiny functions. CIPFA has issued non-statutory guidance that draws on best practice, including that issued by the FRC. That practice makes clear that audit committees should consider the effectiveness of the auditor’s risk-management arrangements, the control environment, and associated anti-fraud and anti-corruption arrangements. They should seek assurances that action is being taken on risk-related issues identified by auditors and inspectors. They should be satisfied that the authority’s assurance statements properly reflect the risk environment and any actions required to improve it. They should approve internal audit strategy, and plan and monitor performance. They should review summary internal audit reports and receive the annual report of the head of internal audit. They should consider the reports of external audit and inspection agencies. They should ensure that there are effective relationships between external and internal audit, inspection agencies and other relevant bodies, and that the value of the audit process is actively promoted. They should also review the financial statements, external auditor’s opinion and reports to members, and monitor management action in response to the issues raised by external audit.
We will discuss the matter of audit committees for health bodies in our debate on a subsequent amendment, but the Government’s intent, in paragraph 32 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, seems to be that the existing audit committees of health service bodies, which already satisfy the independence requirements, will be the auditor panels for a health service body; so we are half way there. Audit committees in local government are not currently mandatory, although most authorities have one, or an equivalent.
This would seem an ideal opportunity to rationalise matters by requiring all local authorities, certainly principal ones, to have independent audit committees and to subsume the proposed narrower role of audit panels within this. Although the Bill allows for an audit committee to act as a local audit panel, the position could end up with an authority that has an auditor panel and an audit committee, just an auditor panel, or an audit committee that is properly constituted. This is a recipe for overlap and confusion. Has the time not come when we should require principal bodies at least to have a proper audit committee independently organised, following CIPFA guidance? I beg to move.
Baroness Eaton
It is not often that I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, says in this context, but I fully agree with much of what he has said about the role of the audit committee. Having chaired the audit committee of a large metropolitan authority myself, I see great value in it. The proposal for an audit panel in addition is really a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It adds again to the bureaucracy.
I have slight concerns about the requirement for a majority of independent members. I see fully the value in the noble Lord’s suggestion of an independent chairman, but it is extremely difficult in many authorities to find suitably knowledgeable and qualified people to take these roles. I know that under the old standards regime, finding suitable people to chair those bodies was quite difficult. In some cases, they had the desire to take over the world and gradually grew, like Topsy, the role of that body. If we could have independent chairmen, that would satisfy what is perceived as the body’s independence. I certainly do not see the need for an additional body in the audit panel to decide who should audit the authority. There are many checks and balances already within local authorities on probity issues, as I said earlier, so this is an unnecessarily bureaucratic step. The audit committee could happily perform that role.
Lord Tope
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has raised a very important and useful issue. We will discuss in relation to a later amendment the actual composition of a committee or panel and the number of independent members on it. I would guess that most principal authorities have an audit committee. I do not know, but it had not occurred to me that they would not until now. In many cases, as in my own authority and as that of my noble friend Lord Palmer of Child’s Hill, that committee is chaired by a member of the opposition. That is very much not the same as an independent chairman. Nevertheless, it is a good practice that is followed by many authorities. In my case, it is a Liberal Democrat authority, while in my noble friend Lord Palmer’s case it is a Conservative-controlled authority. It is therefore a useful extension to have a panel or committee chaired by an independent member.
There is room now for further discussion and consideration about whether we really need to have completely separate and independent auditor panels, as proposed in the Bill, or whether there is some way of meeting that through the existing audit committees and amending that practice. Rather than reinventing something that in most cases is working quite well in practice, I would rather see us adapting it. It can certainly be adapted without too much difficulty to meet the Government’s requirements through the Bill, which I think we all broadly support. We are all trying to achieve the same ends, so having poked a little fun at the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for the previous amendment, I thank him sincerely for raising a very important issue with this series of amendments.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just said about the principle, which my noble friend also referred to, of combining these two roles. It does not seem at all necessary to have panels on the one hand and a committee on the other. As the noble Lord has reminded us, most authorities have established audit committees. I ought to declare an interest again as a member of Newcastle City Council and as an elected member serving on the audit committee, which is independently chaired and has a majority. It works very well and it seems to make absolute sense that that body should also have oversight of these appointments.
Perhaps I may refer to the noble Baroness’s observations. Although technically the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right that it is not for this amendment, as the remarks have just been made I shall endeavour to rebut the thrust of the argument. This is really a matter of perception. It is important that the public are convinced that in the matter of the propriety and regularity of an authority’s financial transactions, the oversight of the process—not just the appointment process, but the whole job of audit—is carried out without the conflict that might arise from, for example, a controlling group in an authority having a majority of members on a committee.
Whereas of course in many cases there will be a mix of members, in some councils the political position is that there is no opposition, or there is insufficient opposition to be represented on the committee. It is desirable that we should go that further step, to which we will no doubt address our minds shortly. The cardinal point is that the Government are right that there should be audit committees, but they should do the whole job, including the appointment process. I very much welcome my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I failed to declare that I am also a member of the audit committee of my council.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I have an amendment coming up, Amendment 14BBA, but had I known how the discussion on this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would proceed, I would have asked for it to be grouped with these amendments, so it is possibly better that I make my comments now and consolidate the entire process somewhat. Otherwise, I fear that Amendment 14BB will have stolen a large part of my thunder, apart from anything else.
I queried the majority of independent members issue on Second Reading. I am mindful of what the Minister said on Monday: that the panel would not need to be large but that independence was important. I can certainly relate to the question of whether you have a committee and a panel as a term of art, with the duplication that that involves, to which I referred earlier. I think that the principle of an independent chairman is a given, but it appears to me from my much lesser knowledge of these procedures than that of other noble Lords that some councils might have few politically independent members. I do not know how many would have none at all, but there must be some. Even political independence, it seems to me, is no guarantee of freedom from bias, if that is the point that the Bill is intended to address. The subtitle of my amendment would be, “Precisely what do we mean by independent in this context?”. That ought to be explained.
Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, it seems to me that objectivity and competence, rather than independence, would be a better test for this purpose. I am bound to admit that I am at a loss to know which would be the more readily capable of definition and, if necessary, enforcement, so to some extent I can see it from the Government’s side. I think we are all agreed that we are trying to get a true and fair picture of an authority’s financial affairs. Up to a point, that works back to the basis of oversight from within the council.
Apart from asking the Minister whether she can enlighten the Committee on the question of independence, I remind your Lordships, who all know it far better than I do, of the veritable layer cake of qualifications and eligibility criteria that already applies to audit and to auditors, to which the Bill in this respect risks adding further complexity. I relate to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about the independence and objectivity of auditors as professional people embedded in their culture, training and ability to retain their professional status. As a member of another profession altogether, I very much relate to that. Ultimately, it is the auditor who is doing the scrutiny, not the committee or panel. They are there simply to select—if selection be needed; we will get to that later. If the auditor is given the proper tools and the freedom to act and attacks it with the independence of mind necessary, that is the fundamental safeguard sought by the Bill.
Lord True
My Lords, I declare an interest myself, as leader of a local authority, and apologise for not being able to take part in these proceedings before. I shall make a very small point, which need not be clarified now but perhaps could be before Report.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the tenor of comments being made universally around the Committee about the risks of overlapping. I strongly follow the noble Earl’s comments about the importance of the integrity and role of audit as it is practised by local authority officers at the moment. I was going to raise my query later, but I shall follow the noble Earl, because it affects independence, which is the subject of this amendment. Paragraph 2(2)(b) of Schedule 4 would not disqualify somebody from being a member if,
“the panel member has not been an officer or employee of an entity connected with the authority within that period”—
that is, for five years.
The only thing that needs to be made clear and perhaps can be made clear on Report is whether that means the authority or the individual. Let us posit a case of somebody who has been an officer of a body and has gained a great deal of lifetime experience, and has retired early, perhaps eight years ago—we do not want any age complication, so let us just say that he no longer works for that authority. After his departure, some years later, that body becomes a connected authority, whereas he has had no connection with it for some time. His experience might be useful, and one does not want to exclude potential individuals by idle wording. I take it that the Bill means that somebody who has been working for, or connected with, the authority in the past five years should be excluded. However, the way in which it is written could mean that if you have worked at any time for a body that becomes connected in the previous five years, you would be excluded. I think that the second category might be considered, as somebody could be useful in pursuing this role.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the definition of independence is set out in Schedule 4, which says that a person is independent if they are not a member or officer of the authority and have not been within the past five years, or a “relative or close friend” of such a person. Questions of objectivity and competence, particularly competence, are, apart from qualifications in accountancy, a little more subjective. Professional competence is defined by qualifications rather than by other things.
The intention here is to allow flexibility rather than to be too prescriptive. I am told that 80% of local authorities already have audit committees; 31% have at least one independent member and 15% have more than two independent members. If panels can be constituted from members of the audit committee, that is fine, provided that they are independently chaired and have an independent majority. There could be two independent members of the local audit committee, plus one other, to make the specific appointment for external audit. I assume we all accept that there is a difference between the continuing internal audit process and the appointment of external auditors. We are trying not to be too prescriptive on this, but that is the distinction that we are drawing.
There are concerns that audit committees will get in a muddle about having audit panels alongside them, but that is not at all necessary, particularly in larger authorities. We are not convinced that we need to make audit committees a statutory requirement in local government, although, of course, practice is such that the overwhelming majority of large and small local authorities have audit committees. Local authority audit committees may wish to set up a small auditor panel, which may be connected with the audit committee, provided that it has an independent chair and an independent majority. There can be important links between the role of a panel and the audit committee, but their specific roles are distinct.
We do not think that there is a wider case for imposing statutory majority independent audit committees on local government for internal audit, for some of the reasons mentioned, but for a panel that appoints the external auditors that case should stand. Under the accounts and audit regulations, local authorities are already required to ensure that a committee, or a meeting of the whole body, reviews arrangements for the internal control and effectiveness of internal audit, approves the annual governance statement and considers and approves the statement of accounts. That is what the audit committees in most local authorities already do, usually led by back-bench councillors and, as noble Lords have said, very often by opposition councillors. However, the Government are not prescriptive about the precise structure that local bodies use to meet these requirements. Based on these existing functions, guidance from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy suggests that members of audit committees should be independent of the executive but need not be fully independent of the council.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the Committee. I just hope to have a response in writing before Report. My point about paragraph 2(2)(b) to Schedule 4 was simply whether it meant that,
“the panel member has not been an officer or employee”,
within the past five years,
“of an entity connected with the authority within”,
the past five years, rather than, as it reads,
“the panel member has not been an officer or employee of an entity connected with the authority within”,
the past five years: namely, that he could never have worked for that authority at any time in his life. That is the point that I was hoping to clarify, but it can be clarified in writing.
Baroness Eaton
Perhaps I may raise one small issue about the independent members of an audit panel. I do not see, unless I have missed it, how the process is expected to take place, and I have some concerns about the clarity of the job description and expectations. In some local authorities, particularly in the appointment of people such as coroners, these have not always been as transparent as they should be. It would be helpful if we knew what process is expected for authorities to achieve the genuine independence and quality suitable for the needs of the panel.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps I may add some more questions. I am sorry that they come so late. While paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 deals with a number of issues, it helpfully defines what is meant by a “relative”. Although seven categories of relative are referred to at page 40 of the Bill, there is no definition of the words “close friend”, which appear in paragraph 2(2)(c). Is it possible to define what is meant by “close friend”? If it is not, I suggest that the words should be taken out of the Bill, because this could lead to a ridiculous situation.
What is the rationale for dealing with health service bodies in a different way under paragraph 3 of Schedule 4? It seems to be a parallel process, and I wonder why it is regarded as separate. Why is the process not the same for the two bodies? In particular—I should know, but I do not—what are the current audit arrangements in health service bodies? We know what they are in councils—they either do or do not have an audit committee—but I do not know whether, at the moment, health bodies have audit committees as such. If they have, just as many of those who argued for the panel concept to be incorporated in the audit committee would argue for the same in health. At least my noble friend and I think that these two bodies are one more than is necessary, and if that is true for local government it is also true for health bodies. I am slightly puzzled by the potential parallel structure here.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we will move on to the question of health bodies in our discussion of further amendments, and I hope that the noble Lord will allow us to return to the issue when we deal with them.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord True, the Bill would not prevent someone who had worked for the local authority but had finished working for the local authority more than five years ago acting as an independent member of the panel. That is certainly my reading, and I state that as the Government’s clear understanding of the position.
On the question of a close friend—I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is querying this—I am told that the phrase is already in the Localism Act. It is, to some extent, a matter of perception, but we all understand, from having dealt with local authorities over a long period, that this is one of the areas where one needs to make sure that panels look independent and are assured to be independent. Where someone seems like a close friend, it is clear that we will give guidance that that sort of person ought not to be appointed to a panel in that area.
There is more on the definitions in the letter of intent that was circulated on Monday, which I hope noble Lords have seen, and there will be more in the guidance provided to local bodies. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am slightly confused, because the group of amendments with which we are dealing is about the relationship between audit committees and auditor panels. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, as the mover of the amendments, will comment on that in a moment. However, I am quite sure that we will return to this issue, if only to seek clarification about the distinction and whether the two bodies should be, or have to be, separate. My noble friend Lord Wallace seemed almost to be saying that the auditor panel could in effect be a subcommittee of the audit committee. I do not think that that was quite what he meant, but maybe it was. We still need to clarify that role.
My confusion started when my noble friend went on to reply to Amendment 14BBA, which is not only in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but in mine. That amendment has not been moved yet, so I am not quite sure whether we are dealing with it. If we are, and for the sake of preventing us from dealing with it later on—if and when it ever gets moved—perhaps I might say that the noble Earl is vastly more expert than me on the case of small bodies, such as parish councils and the like. However, the amendment comes from the Local Government Association, which represents primarily the larger authorities that do have these concerns. Personally, I have no great problem with majority independent members, but the LGA is concerned about it on a number of grounds.
First, the LGA quite rightly makes the point about the professional integrity of auditors, which the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has already made, as has the noble Lord, Lord True, and others, and which I think we all accept. They are already fully regulated, quite rightly and properly, and therefore the perception of independence is, in a sense, already covered to a considerable extent by the regulation.
Secondly, there is the rather more important, practical problem of whether in some areas it will be possible to find a significant number of truly independent people. That does not mean somebody elected to the council as being independent of a political party; it means somebody who is truly independent of the council in a way that is defined in the schedule. In some areas, it may not be possible to find sufficient people of relevant experience. That does not mean that they have a professional qualification necessarily, but that they have relevant experience and are also able and willing to put in the necessary time to serve on this. That may be less of a concern in some London boroughs that many of us know. However, I can well see that in more rural areas or smaller district councils, it may well be quite a significant difficulty. That is part of the concern that the LGA was raising and which we need to include in this debate, whichever amendment we are debating at this moment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Since we are not sure which amendment it is, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I say just a word, having come in late on this section. I hope it will. I want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about close friends. I feel that whatever legislation these Houses of Parliament pass should not be capable of ridicule. That must surely be paramount in people’s minds. Can one imagine the situation in which people vehemently deny that they are a close friend: “I am not a close friend, let me on it.”? It is quite nonsense. The idea of having to justify not being a close friend is capable of being ridiculed.
We are not putting these words into the Bill; we are trying to say that the relationship of someone in this position should not be such that they could influence the person on the panel. Imagine a court trying to decide whether this person was a close friend when they were denying it. Mr Saatchi and his wife might have problems saying whether they were close friends, given that he put his hands around her throat—he has been cautioned, so I think I can say that. It really is a worry. As I say, I understand what the Bill is trying to do and it is absolutely right to do so. However, to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said, the words are unfortunate.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what was a wide-ranging debate in the event. I also thank the Minister for his reply, but I am bound to say that I do not feel reassured by it. There are two sorts of issues flowing through this debate. One is whether, as the amendment proposes, the audit committee could not take unto itself the role of the auditor panel. Then there is the separate but obviously related issue of composition, whether it is of the audit committee or the auditor panel, and whether that should be independent as defined, quite apart from the definition.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asserted that 80% of local authorities have audit committees. I accept that. I know that it is not currently mandatory, but it is certainly encouraged and there has been a substantial development of them. Their role is not limited to internal audit, controls and processes. That is part of their role, but the CIPFA guidance makes clear that part of their role is reviewing the financial statements, the external auditor’s opinion, and reports to members, so they should already have an engagement with the external auditors and be able to take a view on how they should proceed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(1) A relevant authority, other than a health service body, shall determine the membership of its audit committee, provided the committee—
(a) consist of a majority of independent members (or wholly of independent members), and(b) must be chaired by an independent member;subject to sub-paragraphs (1A) and (1B).
(1A) An individual shall be ineligible to act as a member of an audit committee if that individual has any disqualifying interest.
(1B) The Secretary of State may by regulation determine interests that would disqualify an individual under sub-paragraph (1A).”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to introduce arrangements to prevent individuals with a disqualifying interest from sitting on an audit committee. In this context, the term “audit committee” is being used but, if we reverted to the context in the Bill, it would be the “auditor panel”. We have just discussed the fact that there is a requirement for the auditor panel, or auditor committee, to be independently chaired and, as we have also discussed, for there to be a majority of independent members.
However, as the Bill is currently drafted, whether somebody is independent for the purpose of being able to serve is determined broadly by whether they have been a member, officer or employee of the authority, a connected entity or, indeed, a close friend, whatever that may mean. These relationships which preclude someone from serving on the committee or panel do not appear to encompass a person with a significant business relationship with the relevant authority. This might be someone who is a major supplier to the authority—a significant landlord, for example—or a major client of one of the audit firms being considered for appointment.
We have not attempted here to define these disqualifying attributes exhaustively because it seems to me that that is a job for parliamentary counsel. However, another issue is raised about the obligation, if any, on audit panel or audit committee members, whether or not they are members of the authority, to declare any interest which, if prejudicial, would require them to withdraw from any meeting if they were a member of the authority. Obviously that could upset the balance of dependent and/or independent members. It may be that this is all closed off through other regulations but perhaps the Minister will put it on the record.
In summary, the question is whether a business relationship between an individual and a local authority could be deemed to make them not independent of the authority and how that is encompassed within the Bill? Also, what guides the activities of such members when they serve on one of these bodies and might have a conflict of interest arising from something that is on the agenda of the meeting? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)
I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment 14BB is agreed I cannot call Amendment 14BBA on the supplementary list because of pre-emption.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are, in a sense, continuing the previous debate. Before I directly address the amendment in terms of defining “independent”, I shall speak with another hat on. As noble Lords will know, I speak for the Cabinet Office on issues of civil society and I am struck by the fact that the largest single part of the population that is becoming more active in all civil society activities is the fit retired. There is a very large and growing element there and it is precisely the area from which local bodies are likely to find the independent members that they are looking for. Looking around this room, I note that many of us would fit into that category but, unfortunately, we are not retired. Therefore we have less time than we would otherwise like to have. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is particularly fit, although I like to think that I am fitter than he is.
We are happy to look into the question of how one defines “close friend” and of course we will have discussions on a range of these issues between Committee and Report. However, I reiterate that a third of audit committees already have independent members and 15% have two independent members. We see the independent panels which will appoint external auditors as not having the heavy weight of work that audit committees have but as fulfilling a rather more distinctive function.
The proposal in the amendment for mandatory audit committees is addressed more directly in other amendments but, as I understand it, this specific amendment is intended to ensure that, as well as being independent of the authority, members of an auditor panel or audit committee do not have wider conflicts of interest that might compromise their independence. I agree that potential conflicts of interest should of course be taken into account in appointing members of auditor panels. However, the Bill already includes a duty for relevant authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to their independent auditor panels.
We intend that such guidance will cover exactly these sorts of issues, such as how auditor panels will operate and who should sit on them. We intend to work closely with the sector and interested parties on developing such guidance and identifying what wider interests should be considered in appointing members of a panel. I hope these reassurances are sufficient for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, or perhaps to ask for further discussion between the Committee and Report stages.
Lord True
My Lords, I should apologise to the Committee. It was probably my fault that we got confused. I was following my noble friend Lord Lytton and my eyes went to page 40, and we therefore drifted on to the next group.
Perhaps I may ask a brief question. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised the question of a “close friend”—it is good to know that the noble Lord has many close friends—and he is right to be concerned about the definition. Where is the question of political friendship dealt with in this? While it is good practice in local authorities, including my own, to have an opposition chairman—we are conscious of the political issue—is the situation of independents having close political associations but not close personal ones dealt with, in this or other legislation, in a way which would enable the work of panels not to be distorted by political considerations? In some authorities which are perhaps not as well governed as others, those kinds of considerations can be just as important as personal friendships.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are willing to look at that as well and I will write to the noble Lord. After all, we are talking about panels that may consist of two independents and one member of the audit committee. We are not talking about a vast number of people to be found outside. However, my understanding is that “independent” will exclude close political friendship. My experience of close political friendship also tends to mean close personal friendship, but we could discuss that in the bar or on another occasion.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, perhaps I can come back on that because I am probably the only person in your Lordships’ House who is a chairman of an audit committee. The present situation in many audit committees, of which mine is one, where the chairman is a member of an opposition party, which I am, gives an incredible independence. You are not part of the ruling party and when we were in power we did the same the other way round.
As the noble Lord mentioned, we already have two independent members, which is very good. However, the trouble is that if you appoint an independent chairman or chairwoman of the committee, that person could well have a political affiliation. Therefore, when the controlling party in that local authority was looking for an independent chair of that committee or panel, not unnaturally it would look to people whom they know or know of. The current situation where the person is of an opposition party, where that is relevant, seems to get over that point because that person is not a close political friend. I just wanted to pick up that point from my personal experience as something to think about that when we are considering this point.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I think that we are trying to achieve the same thing here and therefore further discussion will be helpful. I pick up on the Minister’s example of an auditor panel that has two independent members, in the terms defined thus far, and a member from the audit commission. Whether they are friends by any definition, they could easily be members of the same political party. In a slightly different context, we said earlier that all of us are concerned that that should not happen in terms of elected members, with a majority party having a majority on the committee or sometimes even all the places on the committee. If we are talking about a small auditor panel, with the three members suggested, it is possible—this is not in the realms of fantasy in some areas of the country—that all three could be members of a political party. That does not necessarily imply a conspiracy or corruption; that is merely how it is in that area.
Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord True, we have moved to an area to which we may have to give greater thought if we are to achieve the objectives we all share.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am very happy to look at this again between Committee and Report and make sure that the definition is as clear as it can be.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response and for the undertaking to look at this again. The points that have been made around the Committee today emphasise that there is less clarity than there should be on how this is all meant to operate and some of the nuances that could flow from just a strict reading of the legislation as it is.
I understand the point about making a judgment about whether someone was independent from an authority because of a business relationship. As the Minister said, you would seek to deal with that through guidance and it would be an issue as to whether they should be appointed to serve on the committee or the panel. In a sense, we are differentiating between someone who is not independent in that category and someone who is a relative, where they are not precluded from being appointed to the panel or committee. However, there cannot be too many of them or the requirement for a majority to be independent would break down. I am not quite sure of the logic in that. However, rather than stretch the debate this afternoon, I ask the Minister to look at that as part of the broader discussion. Maybe we could have a meeting of all noble Lords who have contributed before we get to Report because it would be difficult to repeat this discussion at Report without some interim deliberations. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I am going to be incredibly brief and thank the Minister for his reply in the previous debate, as well as for his comments on the bit that I did not actually ask about, which were very informative. Secondly, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for lifting this amendment from where it was and sticking it three groups further forward. Thirdly, I apologise to the Committee for my confusion on the definition of independence. I see that the jury is out on that. On that basis, I do not propose to move the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment touches on something that my noble friend began to address in an earlier debate. It addresses paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, and the making of regulations about a health service bodies auditor panel. These regulations would enable the Secretary of State to determine whether any of the members of the health service bodies auditor panel must be independent and, if so, what proportion must be independent, as well as the definition of independent.
A health service body means a clinical commissioning group and special trustees for a hospital. These powers are subject to the negative procedure. The amendment would require there to be consultation with representatives of health service bodies before regulations are produced. This seems to be a significant paragraph to be dealt with by the negative procedure, particularly given the prescriptive nature of the constitution of auditor panels for other relevant authorities.
The Explanatory Note to the Bill, to which I referred earlier, states:
“The intention is that these panels will be the existing audit committees of health service bodies which will meet the independence requirements of best practice for central government audit committees”.
I took the opportunity to raise this in advance with the Bill team, and I had a helpful reply, which I have not had a chance to get my mind fully around yet. Perhaps the Minister might take the opportunity to put something on the record. If I understand the position, it is accepted that the audit committees of health service bodies, as currently constituted, which they are required to have under legislation, will serve as the auditor panels. In a sense, we have achieved for health service bodies what we have been seeking to achieve for local authorities. Therefore, it should not be too great a step to complete the journey. I should be grateful if the Minister would put something on the record generally about why there is this differentiation between health service bodies and local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the direct answer to the noble Lord is that there are different arrangements in the various bits of legislation. As he has said, the clinical commissioning groups have governance arrangements that say that their audit committees can carry out this duty. That is how it has been set up in the health service. The composition of the clinical commissioning groups and local authorities’ arrangements are different. I want to make it clear that where local authorities have audit committees with independent members on them, it is possible for them to appoint the panel from the audit committee as long as they use the independent members. The arrangements are not and do not have to be totally different from those available as regards the health service.
I have pages of response to a question that the noble Lord has not asked. Is he reasonably happy that I have addressed the amendment? If not, I will give him the reams of pages that I have in response.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the noble Baroness remind me of the question which I have not asked?
Baroness Hanham
I am tempted but I will not rise to that. If the noble Lord does not know what question he has not asked, I am not about to tell him what he might have asked.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I shall ponder that response but I think that I would hang on to the basic point. It seems to me that the regulations that will flow from this provision will be, as has been said, a creation of the audit committees as the auditor panels. There will be only one body for health service bodies, which, in a sense, is the clarification that I was seeking as to what would flow from the broad powers set out in that paragraph. Obviously, there is a broader issue to which we will return about why that cannot be replicated for local authorities.
I am struggling to remember the question that I should have asked. Perhaps in the interim, I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. The amendment would remove the requirement on the auditor panel to advise on the maintenance of an independent relationship with the local auditor. Indeed, it makes it discretionary. When I prepared for this debate, I could not for the life of me immediately recall why we tabled it. Obviously, the circumstances where a relevant authority ends up with an auditor panel and an audit committee, as we have discussed, would give rise to overlap and confusion, and possibly conflicting advice.
However, on reflection, we tabled it as a probe to establish a definition of “an independent relationship”. The Bill defines who is independent in establishing eligibility to serve on an audit panel and/or committee, but this definition does not appear to help in defining the parameters of an independent relationship between the relevant authority and its auditor. Is it proposed that guidance will be available, or is it expected that audit panels or audit committees will work that out for themselves? This issue is of particular relevance to the provision of other services by audit firms and how this is to be managed.
Amendment 14BJ would make a minor wording adjustment to advice related to liability limitation agreements. By referring to proposals for an authority to enter into such an agreement, it implies not that the proposal must have originated from the relevant authority but that it is more likely to have come from the audit firm.
Amendment 14BK would remove subsection (7), which seems superfluous. If subsection (6) requires the panel to advise on proposals for liability limitation agreements, why must there be the extra stricture for it to respond to requests for advice? It is not clear to me. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, perhaps I may first deal with the description of “independent” which, I understand, will be a matter of consultation. There will be consultation on what “independent” means in health bodies and how it should be defined. We all need to be clear about what “independent” means, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and others. This is in relation to health bodies, not local government bodies, but that consultation will be carried out. I hope that that is helpful.
On the main question about the auditor panel’s duty to advise on a proposal for an audit authority to enter into a liability limitation agreement, Amendment 14BJ would require that the panel should advise where there is a proposal for the authority to enter into such an agreement, rather than a proposal by the authority to do so. Amendment 14BK would remove the requirement that a panel must give advice on such a proposal if the authority asks for it. Amendment 14BE would require that an auditor panel “may” advise on auditor independence whereas the Bill currently states that a panel “must” advise on it.
The intention behind the amendments, to remind the noble Lord, relates to separate amendments that we had proposed to allow for a central body to appoint auditors on behalf of any relevant authority which had opted in to this structure. Where such arrangements applied, it would not be necessary for—I am sorry, something seems to have gone seriously wrong with my notes.
I will reply on the basis of the independent relationship but I am afraid that I am going to have to ask the noble Lord to come back on Report on this so that can I fulfil his right to a proper reply.
As to advising on the maintenance of the independent relationship, it is important that the panel maintains an ongoing oversight of the auditor’s relationship with the relevant local body. As in the company sector, this might include, for example, an annual assessment of the independence and objectivity of the auditor and setting policies for the provision of non-audit services.
The noble Lord asked about limited liability agreements. I ask him to raise the issue again. I shall certainly write to give him an answer. I apologise.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that response and am happy to follow up on those points. They were quite narrow points concerning the wording; they were not substantive points of principle. I am happy to send the noble Baroness an e-mail or drop her a line. I am sure that we can deal with that before we get to Report.
In relation to the definition of an “independent relationship” with a local auditor, I obviously accept the importance of the maintenance of such a relationship—I think that we would broadly understand what that means—but, as I said, I could not find a definition of it anywhere in the Bill. I think that the noble Baroness said that, certainly in relation to health bodies, that issue was going to be the subject of consultation, and presumably that would give some guidance on the definitions that would apply for the purposes of local authorities. If there is anything further that on reflection the noble Baroness wishes to follow up on, perhaps she can write to me. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, I need not speak at length on this because I made a relatively lengthy intervention at Second Reading setting out the reasons for my concern about the need to be assured of proper public accountability for the actions of NHS bodies. I think that public accountability is important, and there is material in the Bill about what should be done with reports, but it is essential that a body cannot just receive a report and sit on it.
Reference has been made to a case in which a primary care trust lost £28 million. At Second Reading, I described to noble Lords what happened. A supervisory body called in an auditor but the audit report was not ultimately published. Instead, a commentary was published with various recommendations—some good and some bad—but it was written on the basis that, as no one had really lost any money, we could all proceed and other bodies would make up the money. It was entirely unsatisfactory.
Since speaking at Second Reading, I have been contacted by the leader of another local authority, who thought that I was rather mild in what I said and felt that I should probably have named some names in connection with this affair. I have reflected on that. I think that my decision not to do that at Second Reading was right, and I maintain that position. Since Second Reading, I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to meet with my noble friend Lady Hanham and with officials from the Department of Health. My noble friend had very kindly drawn the attention of her colleagues in the Department of Health to this issue.
We have a fast-evolving world in health and local government, and these worlds are now encouraged to overlap. Indeed, my own authority, along with another local authority, is currently negotiating with clinical commissioning groups and, we hope, a foundation trust to set up an integrated commissioning organisation. That is the way in which the Government wish everyone to go within eight years. Alongside that, other elements of the health service will continue.
I believe that we now have the very odd situation where there is one strand of law which is semi-engaged in this legislation and which derives from the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended in 2012, and a whole strand of local authority-related legislation concerning audit and accountability. As the two empires come together, so should those two worlds come together. In my judgment, they need not necessarily be identical, but the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made a fair point when he said that the clinical commissioning group is being treated very differently in this Act from the way in which local authorities are treated. I do not make a case for identity but I do for accountability.
Local authorities have a public responsibility to ensure that what is done in their area is done for the good of their local populations, and that it is done effectively and openly, as we would expect it to be done ourselves. I made the point at Second Reading that there were various issues relating not only to audit but to scrutiny and its important role. I would like to think that while it may not be possible to achieve it in the short term, as I understand it from my discussions so far with my noble friend, in the time that this Bill is before Parliament—perhaps even when it is in the other place—it might be possible to think with a little more foresight about how we are going to adjust to this world and ensure full accountability. It is simply not acceptable that a body existing in an area and other parts of the health service, as happened in the case that I reported to noble Lords at Second Reading, should simply refuse to respond to questions from a public authority about the use of resources, certainly considering the scale involved.
We have to find a method somehow, whether or not it is through guidance—and there is existing guidance—although I would perhaps prefer it to be stronger than that. This Bill should provide us with opportunities, as local accountability is not just about local authorities and neither is this legislation. I am encouraged by what my noble friend has said so far. We may be able to find some improved structures, which may be simplified in some respects, as other noble Lords have said in Committee. They should be structures which ensure proper behaviour in the first place, effective independent audit and effective and open accountability. All those strands need to be addressed. If an internal audit document is published with a commentary and then scrutiny is refused, it is not a satisfactory outcome where there is evidence of large-scale ineptitude. That is a kind way of putting it regarding the use of £28 million of public resources. I am sure that there are other examples.
I am not going to repeat all the circumstances of the case but I urge the Committee to see those great public entities of local government and the National Health Service as two great elements of the state, providing vital services to our country and overlapping in many ways. We should therefore find the opportunity to construct an architecture that meets those three strands: effective and proper governance; effective and ultimately independent audit, although internal audit is vital in all those things and I do not denigrate it; and the strand of openness and, ultimately, scrutiny. This is really a probing amendment although my noble friend encouraged me to think that were this to be laid, she might perhaps be able to give some encouragement to me and to the Committee that the Government would be prepared to look at these matters in the months ahead. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I would simply urge the Minister to give some encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord True, who has raised a very important point, as he did at earlier stages in our deliberations. I hope that the Minister can help him at least a bit.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for having introduced this amendment because it opens up the relationship that exists between local authorities and health authorities, particularly in relation to what is required of scrutiny. As my noble friend has said, the primary care trusts and the clinical commissioning groups have now come into being, while the local authorities still have a health scrutiny role since that changeover. If I may, I will refer to the duties in the health scrutiny regulations as I go through what I have got to say.
Failure to comply with a duty under the health regulations will place the relevant body in breach of its statutory duty and render it at risk of a legal challenge. The regulations provide that the local authority can require attendance of a member or employee of a relevant health service provider or commissioner to answer such questions as appear to the authority to be necessary for discharging its health scrutiny functions. It is the duty of that member or employee to comply. The regulations also require a health service commissioner or provider to provide a local authority with such information about the planning, provision and operation of health services in the area of the authority as the authority reasonably requires in order to discharge its health scrutiny functions. To focus particularly on attendance, if a local authority was to require the attendance of members of a clinical commissioning group, it could do so under the health scrutiny regulations.
On employers’ actions, we would expect employers to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the relevant member or employee complied with the local authority’s requirements. It would be highly unlikely that an NHS body, as a public authority, would refuse to take action to ensure that its members or employees complied with a request from a local authority. I think that these provisions are part and parcel of the health service legislation which recently passed through Parliament. The emphasis put on this since the noble Lord’s problem arose may have changed.
Any refusal would not be in line with the duty of co-operation that applies as between the National Health Service and local authorities. Section 82 of the National Health Service Act 2006 imposes a duty of co-operation between National Health Service bodies and local authorities and requires them, in exercising their respective functions, to co-operate with one another in order to secure and advance the health and welfare of the people of England and Wales.
As regards the attendance of particular individuals, identification of the appropriate member or employee to attend may depend on the type of scrutiny review being undertaken and its aims. To take a theoretical case, where the local authority has required attendance of a particular individual—let us say the accountable officer of a clinical commissioning group—and it is not practical for that individual to attend, or if that individual is not the most suitable person to attend, we would expect the clinical commissioning group to suggest another relevant individual. In such situations, both the local authority and the commissioning group or provider, as the case may be, will be expected to co-operate with each other to agree on a suitable person for attendance and, in doing so, to act reasonably.
Therefore, in the interpretation of the health scrutiny regulations and on the basis of the duty of co-operation contained in the National Health Service Act 2006, there are existing principles that guide how the National Health Service and local authorities conduct themselves in relation to the discharge of the local authority’s health scrutiny function.
We share my noble friend’s desire to ensure that everything works as it should in the future and, although we feel that the duties and powers already in place are correct, we believe that we can take further action to ensure that the responsibilities on NHS organisations and local authorities are clear. We shall shortly be publishing updated guidance to support the health scrutiny regulations and to emphasise these responsibilities. If my noble friend would find it helpful, I know that the Department of Health would be happy to work with him on the development of this guidance.
I appreciate that this was very much an individual case to which my noble friend brought our attention, but it flows widely across the health scrutiny role. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that there are requirements on people to come, that the health authority can require them to come and that they are truly expected to appear. I know that that was not the situation that he described but the regulations are there. If my noble friend is willing to give his experience and help to the Department of Health, I know that it will be very willing to take it up. With that, I hope that he may feel that he has enough to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said. Certainly, I would be extremely interested in seeing this guidance in draft. I am sure that the leaders of the other five local authorities involved might also be interested as well, and perhaps other people in the local government world. I do not know whether it might be possible to extend that offer but, as far as I am concerned, I accept the courteous proposal and am very grateful for it.
As for the individual case, my noble friend referred to the 2006 legislation. The blunt truth is that the body concerned was happy to volunteer one individual, but the unfortunate thing was that that individual was not involved at all. Those who were involved—some of whom no longer worked for the body and therefore could not be volunteered by the body—need to be accountable. Others declined to be presented. Effectively, the authority was told that it could have this individual, but those who had actually given the instructions and done things were not available.
I would have to examine very carefully the wording of the guidance and the regulations to ensure that that situation could not be replicated. What we do not want is a kind of legalese compliance—that of saying, “We sent someone along who stonewalled at the scrutiny committee, but you have to be satisfied with that, not act unreasonably and not want to actually hear from the people who were involved”. That is a very important rider. It is very easy to say that the body can do something, but scrutiny must go to the individual. It is no good the Government saying, “You can talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer”, when it is actually the Minister of Defence whom you want to talk to. That is an issue that I would want to elucidate in the discussions that my noble friend has kindly offered with officials.
I am very grateful for what she said and for the earlier discussion. With a warning that I will be coming to look in those corners, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this was a very straightforward amendment, which probes the difference between deadlines in relation to the appointment of auditors to health bodies and local authorities. One is set at 25 March and the other, as we touched on earlier—or the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, did—at 31 December. Perhaps the Minister can just give us an explanation for that difference in approach.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this goes back to what we were discussing when we were talking about local authorities. If the clinical commissioning group has not appointed an auditor by December and has no reasonable expectation of employing one by the end of March, the Commissioning Board will have to notify the Secretary of State and he, NHS England or the commissioning group will have to ensure that an auditor is appointed. There is no question that the clinical commissioning group should not have an auditor in place at the beginning of the financial year.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification. The Bill states:
“by the end of 25 March in the financial year preceding the financial year to which the accounts to be audited relate”.
So, if the relevant year is to 31 December 2012, as I understand it, the auditor will have to be in place by 25 March 2011 because that is the financial year preceding the financial year to which the accounts to be audited relate. Is that right? I would have thought it should be in the financial year to which the accounts to be audited relate, not the preceding year. This is bringing the date incredibly far forward and I wonder whether I have misunderstood it. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can elucidate.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have misled the Committee, for which I apologise. As the noble Lord said, it is the preceding year. If the clinical commissioning group fails to appoint an auditor in the preceding year at the end of March, the Commissioning Board will have to notify the Secretary of State. This gives time for an auditor to put in place the provisions for the following year. The Secretary of State has to be notified by the commissioning board by 25 March that the clinical commissioning group has failed to appoint an auditor. The provisions are intended to ensure that a clinical commissioning group has a local auditor in place in a way that is consistent with their respective roles. I agree with the noble Lord that nine months seems a long time to get someone in place.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister. I am going to have to read the record on that. The potential discrepancy that I was probing was the difference between using the 25 March and the financial year preceding it. As I understand it, if the financial year ends 31 December 2014, it would be the 25 March 2013 that would count. However, the difference is between the 25 March for the clinical commissioning groups and 31 December for the relevant authority’s appointment date. Why is it 31 December in the preceding year for the relevant authority and 25 March for clinical commissioning groups? I am happy to receive a follow-up letter if that is easier. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in seeking that Clause 14 should not stand part of the Bill, I should say that this is a probing measure to seek government assurances about the appropriateness of facilitating the limitation of local auditor liability arrangements. The impact assessment and other documentation records that the Audit Commission currently provides an indemnity to audit firms for certain aspects of their work. This is, presumably, their statutory audit function. It also appears that it covers irrecoverable legal costs. We are told that the indemnity has been used only twice over the past five years and that auditors have faced legal action four times over a five-year period. Perhaps the Minister will let us know the amounts involved in the use of the indemnity and how much was paid.
What benefits ensue from limited liability arrangements which relieve auditors of liability in respect of negligence, default or breach of trust when conducting an audit? What are the benefits of that? The limitation of auditors’ liability has been permitted under the Companies Acts since 2008, although reports suggest that there has been little take-up. I am indebted in this regard to a Mr James Herbert, who is a corporate partner in a law firm who wrote an interesting article in Accountancy Age back in 2009. I took the opportunity of speaking to him to see whether the view he expressed then had changed. It had not.
Part of the reason for little take-up of those arrangements is attributed to issues with the SEC prohibiting UK companies registered with them from entering into those arrangements. Under the Companies Acts, any limitation must be fair and reasonable. A separate agreement is reached for each year and each agreement must be approved by shareholders. On the face of it, there is no reason why auditors should be protected from the consequences of their negligence or default in the public or private sectors. However, one of the public policy objectives was to enhance competition in the UK audit market and to address concerns about auditor concentration. As we have discussed before, the big four have deep pockets, are better able to bear the risks and have more clout with professional indemnity insurers. There are concerns that the smaller and mid-tier firms have been least able to benefit from the agreements.
Another reason for allowing such agreements might be its impact on the price of an audit. If the risk on the audit firm is less, the cost of the audit should go down. However, it is difficult to gauge whether there will be any real downward pressure on fees in the public sector, particularly given the infrequent calls on the commission’s indemnity. We can see some merit in allowing limitation of liability agreements if tightly regulated and if they can be demonstrated to help to open up the markets and put downward pressure on fees. However, we are sceptical that they will deliver that outcome. Perhaps the Minister can say when we might see a draft of the proposed regulations referred to in Clause 14 or what else might be provided in the key elements in the regulations. How do the Government propose to monitor and assess the effects of the clause?
I emphasise that in my discussions with that particular lawyer, it appeared that limitation of liability agreements have simply not taken off, certainly not in the private sector, so one wonders about the merits of introducing them to the public sector.
We might wish to return to the matter on Report, but it seems to me that, at the very least, there may be an argument for a sunset clause on the provisions, or at least a very clear process of assessment so that one can see whether what should be the benefits—downward pressure on audit fees and an opening up of the market to smaller firms—is actually achieved. We remain sceptical.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
We have already mentioned that the number of accountancy firms capable of carrying out these audits is quite small—five to seven, probably. The maximum would be 13, and most of those would probably not achieve those audits. All of those in the top echelon of firms of audits are now limited liability partnerships. The days of my times in practice when we were personally liable have, for the large firms that we are considering, long departed.
I ask my noble friend: if there is a liability, where should it rest? Should it rest at the end with the Government as a short-stop? Should we say, at the end of the day, if things go sour, the Government will pick up the liability? Bearing in mind that no partner of one of those firms would be personally liable, and that they are firms of great size with considerable power, I wonder whether they should not bear that liability.
We had the example within the corporate sector of Arthur Andersen, which messed up on an audit—not a local authority audit but a public audit—and that ended with the demise of that firm. Are we trying to say that, in terms of local or public health authorities, these firms should have this protection, or are we saying that these are the professionals and they must do their audits, work correctly and cover themselves? We are not talking about anyone being responsible for fraud or errors within local authorities or the health service; we are talking about them not having carried out their work properly to an extent where they can cover themselves. I ask the Minister to reconsider whether the liability should ultimately rest with the Government, or whether it should rest with these five to seven very large limited liability concerns.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, perhaps I can pick up the questions as I go along. However, it would probably be helpful if I gave the justification for the clause and then we could look at the impact.
As in the companies sector, auditors appointed under the Bill will, by agreement with the audited authority, be able to limit the extent of their liability to the body in relation to negligence or breach of duty or trust. This clause gives the Secretary of State powers to place restrictions on such agreements to ensure that they are reasonable and proportionate.
The decision to allow liability limitation agreements in the companies sector was made following extensive consultation. Such agreements aim to ensure that auditors are not held liable for consequences beyond their control and responsibility. Under the joint and several liability principle in UK law, auditors may be held liable for damages beyond that for which they are directly responsible. The Financial Reporting Council has welcomed provision for such agreements.
Clause 14 mirrors the Companies Act 2006 by providing that any such “liability limitation agreement” must comply with certain conditions. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that the agreements do not unreasonably limit the auditor’s liability and are entered into transparently. Without such a provision, there would be no limits on an auditor limiting their liability and nothing to stop them removing all liability completely. As I said, it is right that auditors are held responsible for their actions in a fair way.
Subsection (2) requires that:
“A liability limitation agreement must comply with regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
Such regulations may address the duration of an agreement or the amount to which it may limit the auditor’s liability, or require it to contain, or not contain, certain provisions. Under subsection (5), regulations may provide that any limited liability agreement not complying with regulations is void or has effect only in so far as it complies with them. In the interests of transparency, subsection (6) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the disclosure of any such agreement. Subsection (7) excludes compliant agreements from wider provisions in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which set out similar but more general provision and conditions around limitation of liability.
With regard to the amounts of money involved, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord. I think that the amounts are very small but I will provide them to the noble Lord. As the Bill proceeds, there will be further details on the various matters that have been raised. We will, as with all new legislation, be undertaking a review of monitoring to see what the situation is.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about who should pick up the liability, the Bill includes provisions that enable auditors to recover the costs of their time in exercising their functions from the body being audited. It does not replicate the Audit Commission’s indemnity scheme, which covers the costs of auditors taking or defending legal action. We believe that it is appropriate for private companies to bear the risks and costs of that. We do not believe that it would unduly deter auditors from exercising their functions. The Audit Commission has rarely indemnified its suppliers. On the noble Lord’s question as to whether the Government should pick up liability, the answer would be no. With that, I urge that the clause remains part of the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I think that we understand a bit better that the regulations will broadly follow the Companies Acts requirements and what flows from that. I found her response confusing in some respects. We are talking about something that is not beyond the control of the auditors. These arrangements are predicated on a breach in respect of any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust occurring in the course of the audit of accounts, so it is a failure of an audit firm which triggers them. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, raised a very important point. If there is a breach or damages and if that is not to be visited on the auditor, or what is to be visited on them is restricted, who bears the cost of the rest? I do not think we understand that from the Minister’s response.
I thought that the public policy issue about this was partly to do with making sure that another big four company did not go under. The ramifications of those four big beasts going down to three would be significant over a whole range of areas, as we learnt from the demise of Arthur Andersen because of Enron. I thought that a key point was to make it easier for smaller firms to enter the market because their risks were, in a sense, capped. There is no great evidence to suggest that that has happened in the private sector. We do not yet know whether it will happen in the public sector, but if it does not, that raises the question: why have these agreements in the first place? All they do is to protect audit firms. Why? These are sophisticated organisations. They have excellent training programmes, generally recruit very good staff and have been around the block a few times. If they mess up, should they not bear the consequences? If not, the question of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is absolutely right: who should? Part of the rationale may be that it would produce downward pressure on audit fees, but that is difficult to justify, particularly if the use of the commission’s indemnity was pretty restricted.
We may return to that issue, perhaps in terms of a sunset clause, if these things are to continue. I hope that the same arrangements as in the private sector, where I think they have to be annual contracts, will persist in the public sector in so far as they are used at all. I hope that guidance is given to firms when faced with such a request from their auditors as to how they should respond. We have probably taken this as far as we can this afternoon, but for us it is an outstanding issue to which, one way or another, we will wish to return.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) the right of the local auditor to make representations to the authority’s auditor panel or supervisory body”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Clause 16 concerns the resignation and removal of the local auditor, and the amendment refers in particular to circumstances relating to the removal of a local auditor, although on reflection it could refer equally well to circumstances in which a local auditor resigns.
The purpose is to ensure that the procedure specifically encompasses the right of a local auditor to make representations to the auditor panel or supervisory body, or the audit committee, if that is what is in place, and that might encompass a right to make representation to members. The removal or resignation of an auditor is a serious business. Under the Companies Act 2006, an extensive process is set down where somebody is removed or resigns. These include, in the first case, the right to make representations to members when removed and a statement of circumstances when resigning. It is these Companies Act processes which the Government are seeking to import into the Bill, and we support that.
Under the current regime, there is no need for regulation on the removal or resignation of local public auditors because it is the Audit Commission that appoints and removes them. However, a change in auditor could be straightforward—arising, say, from a new potential conflict of interest—or it might be indicative of a fundamental difference of view as to the accounts, where an auditor feels that they can no longer carry out the audit effectively because of concerns over the governance of the body or a fundamental breakdown in the relationship. Ensuring that there is a right for auditors to make their case at an appropriate level is therefore very important.
The Bill includes, at Clause 16, regulation-making powers which cover a range of issues. Doubtless, the Minister will say that they are broad enough to cover the thrust of this amendment. So be it, but perhaps we can hear from the Minister what the plans are in respect of resignation and removal to cover circumstances where the appointment has been made by the local body, jointly with another body, or in transition by the Audit Commission. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point which in certain circumstances could touch on issues of public accountability, although referred to on another matter. It may well be that he could be satisfied in that Clause 16(3)(d), at the top of page 12, allows a regulation-making power in relation to,
“the role of the relevant authority’s auditor panel or … supervisory body”.
On this issue of a right of audience, or a right to make representations, my noble friend might well be able in discussion to consider including the point which the noble Lord has raised. It is a significant one and he is right to refer to Companies Act procedures. Perhaps it could be clarified whether it is potentially encompassed in that area, which might help some of us on the Committee.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendment 14E would add to the regulation-making powers under Clause 16(1)(b), which relate to the circumstances of an auditor being removed, as the noble Lord said, by a local public body before their term of office expires. It would enable regulations giving local auditors the right to make representations to the authority’s auditor panel or to the auditors’ “recognised supervisory body” in those circumstances. The noble Lord asked what would happen if it was the Audit Commission; as we have already said, that commission will have an interim body between it being abolished in 2015 and when this changes. That will be a responsible transfer, which is the main thing.
We are sympathetic to the intention of this amendment, which is to ensure proper scrutiny of the removal of an auditor. However, as the noble Lord suspected, we consider this amendment to be unnecessary. Subsection (3)(c) already provides a regulation-making power about,
“the steps that may be taken by the local auditor in connection with the local auditor’s removal from that office”.
As set out in our consultation paper on the draft Bill last year, we intend by regulations to enable the auditor to respond to a relevant authority’s notice of intention to remove them, with that response to be considered by the relevant authority’s auditor panel. So the auditor panel now has a role in overseeing that in an independent way.
The auditor panel would then be required to advise the authority on the proposal to remove the auditor. In light of the auditor’s response, we intend that the authority’s final decision to remove the auditor would be subject to that advice. As with appointment, we intend that where a body does not follow the audit panel’s advice it would need to publish the reasons for not doing so. We also intend to require that the recognised supervisory body is notified of a removal. Therefore, we do not consider that it is necessary to include this additional wording in the Bill. We think that there are enough safeguards in it. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that reply. I did not assume that she would accept the wording, but I wanted to get something on the record. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his acknowledgment of this issue. The Minister has dealt with it wholly satisfactorily. I beg leave to withdraw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The question is that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I think that we agreed to draw stumps at the end of Clause 16. We will get on to Clause 17 next week.
House of Lords
Alternative Business Structures
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they propose to take action to prevent the re-emergence of the payment of referral fees through the use of alternative business structures.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, alternative business structures allow for increased competition and the provision of more cutting-edge services, helping to lower costs while maintaining high standards. However, they are required to comply with the rules of their licensing authority and the law in respect of the ban on referral fees.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. In doing so, I congratulate the Government on the progress made in banning referral fees, which has led to a 5% reduction in motor insurance costs with a planned reduction of as much as 15%—an achievement in no way to be sniffed at. Is the Minister aware of the extent of the current challenge to this new plan of the Government, which may undermine all the good work so far? For example, is he aware that Tesco, through its insurance company Fortis, has set up a new joint venture with a company called New Law, a personal injury claims specialist based in Cardiff? Will my noble friend accept that it is not doing this for its health? Will he have a word with the Legal Services Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the body that authorises new firms, to see what their view is of new firms being established, apparently with the sole purpose of frustrating the will of Parliament?
Lord McNally
My Lords, if they are established with the sole purpose of frustrating the will of Parliament, they will break the law. I will certainly take up my noble friend’s suggestion and talk to the Legal Services Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We have had experience before of putting a law in place and some clever person trying to get around it, but we will take a close look and if they are trying to get around it, we will stop it.
Baroness Deech
Does the Minister agree that referral fees are a bad thing in all areas of the law, not just personal injury? They mean that professionals buy in services that they would not otherwise have and the consumer is deprived of choice. Will the Minister lend his support to the regulators, who are trying hard to maintain a broad ban on referral fees? I declare an interest as a regulator of the Bar.
Lord McNally
My Lords, referral fees are viewed with a certain suspicion, particularly when, as in the case of motor insurance, they were rising to about £800 a pop. That obviously fed into the cost of the insurance. After the first look, it was decided that the greatest abuse took place in motor insurance, and so we concentrated on that area. However, we will consult the regulators and consumer groups to see whether our experience of the ban should be extended to other areas.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has approved licences for a number of alternative business structures, where claims management companies and even legal expenses insurers have joined forces with solicitors’ firms. In this way, solicitors effectively get personal injury cases in return for a commercial benefit—precisely what LASPO sought to avoid. Will the Minister make it clear to the SRA and the profession that if ABSs clearly undermine the referral fee ban, further legislation is an option?
Lord McNally
My Lords, more than that, LASPO already allows us to extend the powers, if necessary. We therefore want to see the evidence that is emerging. If these groupings of separate facilities and companies seem to be using means to bypass the ban on referral fees, we will revisit our powers under LASPO. I understand the concern of the House on this matter.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a solicitor whose practice is a major participant in referral schemes has recently been reported as saying that if a fee is paid for indirect referrals, whereby the client is merely given the name of the solicitor but has not received the name from the referring organisation, it would be outside the scope of the scheme? Is that a correct view?
Lord McNally
I do not think so. However, a lot of examples have sensibly been raised in the House today, some of them hearsay and some from direct experience, which suggest that what we intended to do in LASPO may not exactly be hitting the target, or that, as a result of organisational devices used by companies, the target has been moved. I can tell the House that we will talk to the regulators and look at some of these examples. If necessary, we will look at the powers that we were given under LASPO to make sure that we do what the House intended, which was to stop the practice of referral fees, particularly in the area of motor insurance.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, is the Minister regularly invited, as I am, to commit fraud, by which I mean that telephone calls are made by companies inviting one to sue for accidents that did not occur? Do the Government have any plans to deal with this, and are they aware that this is a frequent problem?
Lord McNally
I have not had direct experience of that particular problem, but within my family I have had direct experience of just how casually the law is treated in this area and how that has had a direct impact on the cost of motor insurance. Parliament tried to address part of this problem through the ban on referral fees, but there are many murky practices around this area and the House is right to raise these issues. I will return to the MoJ with the clear message ringing in my ears that we should poke a little further into these murky businesses.
Children: Adult Material Online
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to protect children from easily accessing pornography and other adult material online.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash)
My Lords, through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, jointly chaired by three government Ministers, the Government have gained commitment from the five main internet service providers actively to encourage new and existing customers to switch on parental internet controls if children are in the household. Public wifi providers are now filtering pornography in public places, and there is work under way with device manufacturers and retailers to encourage greater availability of parental controls.
Baroness Benjamin
I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Unfortunately there are many vulnerable children without parents, or who have uninterested parents, so no amount of awareness education will do anything for these kids. Many are already re-enacting pornographic behaviour on other children, as highlighted by the NSPCC. So will the Minister tell the House, as the service providers are working on filtering for new customers, why the Government do not insist that they offer filtering for their existing customers, and block porn and adult material by default as part of the solution to protect all children before they end up in a moral wasteland?
Lord Nash
We have asked the ISPs actively to encourage people to switch on parental controls if there are children in the household, whether they are new or existing customers. The ISPs regularly contact existing customers through e-mails and on their bills. We also want the ISPs to put in place measures to check that the person setting up the parental controls is over the age of 18. The five main domestic ISPs, which cover 90% of households in the UK, have committed to ensure that these measures are in place for existing as well as new customers by the end of this year.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that we are faced with harm to children, not only in this country but also overseas? For example, in south-east Asia, children can be kidnapped or bought and subjected to horrific abuse for the making of pornographic films. Does he further agree that action is needed on both the making and viewing of such films?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree. The fact that this happens is shocking, and the fact that it is so easy for our children to access these dreadful images is shocking. Certainly, a step change in attacking images of child abuse on the internet was secured yesterday at a meeting with the Culture Secretary, Maria Miller; companies agreed to increase funding substantially to the Internet Watch Foundation so that it can now actively search, block and remove child abuse images. It will no longer have to wait for illegal material to be reported. Anyone trying to access a page blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation will see a warning message, known as a splash page, saying that they are trying to access illegal material. The industry will commit to sharing technological knowledge to enable all corners of the industry to tackle the availability of these appalling images online.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho
I thank the noble Baroness for her Question, which is a fundamental one. While the corporate sector has an immensely important role to play, so does education, and so do schools. I refer the Government to the work that Professor Tanya Byron did on this subject under the previous Government, which is extraordinarily sensible, and a simple way for schools to adapt to the learning that is incredibly important around this issue.
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that schools have a big role to play, and I am aware of Tanya Byron’s work. Parents have a big role to play as well. It is quite clear that too many members of our modern generation are exposed to unacceptable sexual images, and they should be taught about the importance of relationships.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the Government’s initiatives in this field are clearly welcome. The question is whether they go far enough. Why is so little effort being put into working with the industries to ensure that there is a robust system of age and identity verification available for those who try to access services of all sorts on the internet? Not only could those who use child pornography be identified, it would also protect children from seeing things that they should not see, and it would no doubt solve all sorts of other problems that we might have in respect of material which is available online.
Lord Nash
The noble Lord is quite right. The Government want the industry to develop robust age verification systems to prevent children and young people being able to access these images. ISPs are bringing in closed loop e-mails so that when the filters are changed in a home, an e-mail is sent to the account holder and therefore to the adult. There is a major piece of work going on through UKCISS, but it is true that it will be difficult to ensure that all pornographic sites have robust age verification systems in place as many—indeed, most of them—are hosted outside the UK.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, in light of yesterday’s question about sex education, and the important Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, can the Minister tell the House whether there is interdepartmental working that involves the Department for Education, the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Justice?
Baroness Sharples
Why do parents allow their children to have computers in their rooms, and even encourage them?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, schools are also central to safeguarding children in this area. Yesterday the Minister said that teachers should be able to teach internet safety effectively in computing classes. With respect, I doubt that anyone knowledgeable in this area agrees with that view, because it requires teachers trained in addressing these difficult personal and social issues with young people—and that will not happen in a computing class. One of the most compelling arguments for statutory personal, social and health education within the national curriculum is the provision of specially trained teachers. Will the Government now consider making these important child safety issues part of the national curriculum?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness and I entirely share that view about the importance of teaching children PSHE. We are bringing in e-safety for the first time in both primary and secondary computer science—and we trust teachers to deliver the pastoral care that their children need. Oddly, the Opposition, who are the party of the unions, do not seem to do so. However—I said it twice yesterday and I shall say it again today—we are not going to make PSHE statutory.
Armed Forces: Reserve Forces
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Shrewsbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of the Army Reserve Forces and in particular for the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry and its component squadrons.
The Earl of Shrewsbury
My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as a former honorary colonel of A Squadron RMLY.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, the 2011 independent commission on the Reserve Forces reported that they needed to be brought up to date to meet the needs of the new security environment. The Government published a Green Paper followed by a consultation, which generated around 3,000 responses from reservists, their families, regulars, employers, employer organisations and other interested parties. These have helped to shape the way forward, which we shall set out in a White Paper, with a ministerial announcement shortly.
The Earl of Shrewsbury
I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. However, is he aware that the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, which is based in Telford in Shropshire, has a fine recruitment record and currently enjoys a local regimental laydown with its component squadrons? This would be completely lost should the regimental headquarters be moved out of the area. Is he further aware that, bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s recent commitment to expand the role and establishment of the Reserve Forces, there is a simple low-cost solution to this problem? That is, simply do not change the current structure of the yeomanry.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for the very important work he does as an honorary colonel. To meet the likely scale of the security challenges the nation is likely to face, we are configuring our Armed Forces into a new structure under Future Force 2020. Reserve Forces will be central to this and will in future form a great proportion of the whole force delivering a range of capabilities and skills, some of which will be held only in the reserves. This will involve changes to some units but it is too early to say what those will be.
Viscount Brookeborough
Would the Minister not agree with me that in increasing the number of reserves, one of the most important things is the employer and employer relations? We still have not managed to provide the right recipe for them in every case to support members of their businesses in becoming reserves. I declare an interest in that I was on the National Employers’ Advisory Board and in the Army.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a very important point and we realise that this is a key area that we must get right. We are grateful to those employers who play a very important role. We recognise that the needs of employers must be understood and respected. That is why we are moving to relationships with employers based on partnering, giving greater predictability and certainty to when reserves will be required for training or, indeed, deployment.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, in the House of Commons on Monday, the Minister for the Armed Forces said:
“I am relatively confident that enough people will come forward to join the reserves and that we can look forward to having a vibrant reserve Army”.—[Official Report, 17/06/13; col. 609.]
Does the Minister share the doubts of his ministerial colleague, betrayed in that answer, that the target figure of 30,000 for our Reserve Forces may not be achieved? Can the Minister give an undertaking that the size of our Regular Army will not be reduced to the intended figure of 82,000 unless and until our Reserve Forces have been increased to 30,000 and have been appropriately trained?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we are confident that the reinvigorated reserves will deliver the quality and the number of reservists we require in future, both in training and in operations. Over the next 10 years, we are investing £1.8 billion to revitalise the reserves. We have also appointed a three-star general whose job will be to deliver this transformation, including the engagement that will be required with employers. Unfortunately, I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the undertaking that he asked me to give on the numbers.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, the policy on this particular regiment highlights the many questions arising about our Reserve Forces as they grow to meet the demands of the Army 2020. Can the Minister say what thought has been given to the proposals to involve those Gurkhas now quite rightly in Britain in our Reserve Forces?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the Government place great value on the contribution of Gurkhas, both past and present. Gurkhas already serve in the TA and ex-Gurkhas living in the UK can apply to join the reserves. The recent launch of the TA Live campaign encourages ex-regulars, including Gurkhas, to join. While we are not minded to have an exclusive ex-Gurkha reserve unit, the Brigade of Gurkhas is working with recruiters proactively to recruit ex-Gurkhas into the reserves.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, in addition to ensuring that our Reserve Forces are sufficiently numerous, is it not also important that they are properly equipped and do not just have to make do with hand-me-downs from the Regular Forces? Can the Minister give that assurance?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, yes, I can. This is central to achieving a fully integrated force. Reserves will train and develop a competence on the weapon and vehicle platforms common to their roles. Some of the most modern equipment currently in use—for example, the amphibious bridging—will only be used by the reserves.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, can the Minister advise the House what percentage of our doctors serving with our forces in Afghanistan are reservists? Is it envisaged that certain specific roles within the medical services will be designated entirely for reservists?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, this is one of the areas that we are looking at very carefully at the moment. Meetings take place frequently in the Ministry of Defence and I hope to come back with an announcement on this important issue before the Summer Recess.
NHS: Accident and Emergency Units
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of closures of Accident and Emergency units in Buckinghamshire on neighbouring hospitals; and how that compares with the impact of closures of Accident and Emergency units elsewhere in the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we know that there have been increasing pressures in A&E across the country. In October 2012, a GP-led 24/7 minor injuries unit was introduced in Wycombe to deal with cuts, bruises, sprains and other minor injuries and illnesses. A modest increase in the number of patients going to neighbouring A&E units was expected as a result of local changes. Commissioners provided £4 million to these hospitals to address that increase.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, the minutes of the Heatherwood and Wexham Park National Health Service Trust disclose that the downgrading of A&E and medical emergency departments in neighbouring hospitals led to a fivefold increase in the number of people having to wait more than four hours—the national target—in Wexham Park A&E and a dramatic increase in the number of cancelled operations. Indeed, I am told that that number doubled. What is the point of making this national policy of closing these A&E departments when all it is doing is upsetting people all over the country and making them extremely angry?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have to emphasise to the noble Lord that, although I understand his concerns in relation to Wexham Park and other hospitals, there is no government policy about the closure of A&E departments. The whole thrust of government policy since we were elected to office has been that there should be no top-down direction of this type of decision. Rather, we are clear that any changes to healthcare services should be locally led, clinically driven and involve the local population in a consultation. All patients have the right to high-quality urgent care at whatever time they use the health service. The key for local commissioners and decision-makers is to ensure that that happens. I am aware that the situation at Wexham Park has improved and money is being invested to ensure that there are enough beds for the future.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust. I was in my A&E department at Barnet Hospital this morning for two hours. In addition to the concerns that my noble friend has expressed, the real issue is that people are turning up at A&E who really should not be there, do not need to be there and ought to be able to get treatment elsewhere. Obviously, government policy is to ensure that we have more services outside, but can we make sure that that happens more quickly than is currently the case?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. There is no doubt from Sir Bruce Keogh’s urgent and emergency care review, published this month, that attendance at an A&E department often reflects the lack of availability or the lack of awareness of alternative sources of help. Some patients may default to A&E departments when they are unsure about which service is most appropriate to their needs. That has to be addressed and is being addressed in Sir Bruce’s review. It will look at the entire system of emergency care and how we can make sure that it provides the right care, in the right place and at the right time.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Will this review include an audit of the number of patients who are in A&E but cannot be sent back to their normal place of residence, whether that is their home or a care home, because of the lack of immediate transport and an absence of immediate referral systems to community services that could monitor and review the patient back in the community?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to enlighten us as to whether Ministers are under instructions these days to blame the NHS and its different levels for failings but to accept no responsibility for putting it right? I watch with increasing fascination the number of Ministers who are now attacking the way that A&E operates, although they are to blame. I heard a Minister the other day attacking GPs for failing to act in the way they should. At the end of the day, I wonder who is responsible for putting this right. The noble Earl said earlier that this is a not a “top-down” operation now. Who, then, is going to accept responsibility for the failings which are now starting to take place within the health service?
Earl Howe
My Lords, Ministers are responsible to Parliament for the provision of the health service so I do not duck that responsibility for a second. Nevertheless, Ministers do not manage the health service day-to-day and have never done so. We are involved day-to-day in the plans to ensure that we have a health service that is properly configured to meet the needs of patients. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State could not be more assiduous in the work that he is doing to make sure that that happens. Responsibilities are not being ducked; nobody is being blamed. The fact is that demand is going up considerably, and has been for a number of years. We need to address that and we need to do it cleverly. It is not always a question of piling more money in; it is looking at how the services are configured and delivering care in the right place.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, does the Minister agree that drunken and aggressive people are putting great pressure on A&E departments across the country, especially at weekends? Can he do something about it?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is right. Quite a considerable proportion of people who attend A&E do so at weekends after heavy drinking, and in some areas, that has overloaded the system. I am aware of many hospitals that are working with the local police force and others to keep such people out of hospital if they do not need to go, but to make sure that they do not disrupt the work of an A&E department if they do go.
G8 Summit
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the G8. The Government decided to hold the G8 in Northern Ireland to demonstrate the strength of this part of the United Kingdom. We wanted to show the success of the peace process, the openness for business and investment and the potential for tourism and growth.
I want to thank my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the First and Deputy First Ministers for all they did to help with the conference. I want to congratulate the Police Service of Northern Ireland and all those responsible on delivering a safe and successful G8 and to thank everyone in Northern Ireland for giving everyone such a warm welcome. Northern Ireland put on its best face, and the whole world could see what a great place it is.
We set a clear agenda for this summit: to boost jobs and growth with more open trade, fairer taxes and greater transparency—what I have called the three Ts. I also added a fourth T—combating terrorism. We reached important agreements including on support to the Libyan Government and ending ransom payments for kidnap by terrorists. Despite our fundamental differences, we also made good progress agreeing a way forward on working together to help the Syrian people achieve the change that they want. Let me take each of these points in turn.
We started with the issue that matters most to our people—jobs, growth, mending our economies. First, we agreed that each country needs to press on with sorting out its public finances. Dealing with our debts and securing growth are not alternatives. The former is an essential step in achieving the latter. In fact the communiqué that we agreed unanimously reflects all three parts of the plan that we have for growth in Britain: not just fiscal sustainability, but active monetary policy to unlock the finance that businesses and families need, and structural reforms to increase our competitiveness so that our young people can get into work and succeed in the global race.
The UK’s G8 also launched a bold new pro-business agenda to drive a dramatic increase in trade and to get to grips with the problems of tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance and corporate secrecy. This was a distinctive British agenda, to shape the way the world economy works for the benefit of everyone. We believe in free trade, private enterprise and low taxes as the best route to growth, but that is only sustainable if ambitious trade deals are agreed, the taxes owed are paid and companies play by the rules. This agenda has now, I believe, been written into the DNA of G8 and G20 summits, I hope for many years to come.
On trade, we started the summit with the launch of negotiations on an EU-US trade deal. This could add, as has recently been said, as much as £100 billion to the EU economy, £80 billion to the US and as much as £85 billion for the rest of the world. We should be clear what these numbers mean: more jobs, more choice and lower prices in the shops—the biggest bilateral trade deal in history, launched at the G8.
On tax, the Lough Erne declaration that leaders signed yesterday sets out simple, clear commitments. Tax authorities across the world should automatically share information so that those who want to evade taxes will have nowhere to hide. Companies should know who really owns them and tax collectors and law enforcers should be able to obtain this information easily—for example, through central registries—so that people cannot escape taxes by using complicated and fake structures. In a world where business has moved from the offline and the national to the online and the international but the tax system has not caught up, we are commissioning the OECD to develop a new international tax tool that will expose discrepancies between where multinationals earn their profits and where they pay their taxes.
The declaration also makes clear that all this action has to help developing countries too, by sharing tax information and building their capability to collect taxes. Crucially for developing countries, we agreed that oil, gas and mining companies should report what they pay to Governments, and that Governments should publish what they receive, so that natural resources are a blessing, not a curse. Charities and other NGOs have rightly campaigned for years for action on these issues and for the first time they have been raised to the top of the agenda and brought together in one document.
The agreements on tax made at the summit are significant but it is also worth noting what has happened on this front since I put this issue to the top of the agenda. On 1 January there was no single international standard for automatic exchange of information. Now there is such a standard and more than 30 jurisdictions have already signed up, with more to follow. After years of delay, the European Union has agreed to progress the sharing of tax information between member states. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies have signed up to the multilateral convention on information exchange. They have agreed automatic exchange of information with the UK and action plans for beneficial ownership. Taken together, all the actions agreed with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies will provide more than £1 billion of revenue to the Exchequer, helping to keep taxes down for hard-working families here in the UK.
People around the world also wanted to know if the G8 would take action to tackle malnutrition and ensure that there is enough food for everyone. The pledges at our nutrition and hunger summit earlier this month will save 20 million children from stunting by 2020. But crucially at our G8 we also took action on some of the causes of these problems. This is why the work we did on land, extractive industries, tax and transparency is so important.
Turning to the fourth T—terrorism—we agreed a tough, patient and intelligent approach: confronting the terrorists, defeating the poisonous ideology that sustains them and tackling the weak and failing states in which they thrive. The G8 leaders reached a ground-breaking agreement on ransom payments for kidnap by terrorists. In the past three years alone, these ransom payments have given al-Qaeda and its allies tens of millions of dollars. These payments have to stop and this G8 agreed that they will.
We also discussed plans to begin direct talks with the Taliban. Britain has long supported a peace process in Afghanistan to work alongside our tough security response, so we welcome this step forward. We also discussed support to Libya. I believe that we should be proud of the role we played to rid Libya of Colonel Gaddafi, but we need to help that country secure its future. So we held a separate meeting with the Libyan Prime Minister, which included President Obama, and European nations have already offered to train 7,000 troops to help Prime Minister Zeidan disarm and integrate the militias and bring security to the whole country. More contributions will follow from others. Let me be clear that the Libyan Government have now asked for this and that they will pay for it.
Finally, let me turn to Syria. It is no secret that there are very different views around the G8 table. I was determined that we should use the opportunity of this summit to overcome some of these differences and agree a way forward to help the Syrian people achieve the change that they want. This did not happen during just one night in Lough Erne. The talks between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov have been vital. In the weeks before the summit I flew to Sochi and Washington, and I met again with President Putin and President Obama in the hours before the summit began. These conversations were open, honest and frank, but we were all agreed on what must be the core principle of the international approach to this crisis. There is no military victory to be won and all our efforts must be focused on the ultimate goal of a political solution.
Together with our G8 partners we agreed almost $1.5 billion of new money for humanitarian support. This is an unprecedented commitment from Lough Erne for Syria and its neighbours. We agreed to back a Geneva II process that delivers a transitional governing body, crucially with full executive authority. So a core requirement for success that had been called into doubt in recent weeks has now been reasserted unanimously with the full authority of the G8.
We pledged to learn the lessons of Iraq by making sure that the key institutions of the state are maintained through the transition and there is no vacuum. This sends a clear message to those loyalists looking for an alternative to Assad. The G8 also unequivocally condemned any use of chemical weapons, and following an extensive debate, we reached for the first time a united position, including Russia, that the regime must immediately allow unrestricted access for UN inspectors to establish the full facts on the use of chemical weapons by regime forces or indeed by anyone else. All of these agreements are absolutely fundamental to saving lives and securing the political transition that we all want to see.
Let us be clear on what is happening in Syria and what we are trying to achieve. We are faced with a dramatically escalating humanitarian disaster with more than 90,000 dead and almost 6 million people having had to flee their homes. There is a radicalisation of terrorists and extremists who will pose a direct threat to the security of the region and the world. There is a growing risk to the peace and stability of Syria’s neighbours, and the long-standing international prohibition on chemical weapons is being breached by a dictator who is brutalising his people.
None of this constitutes an argument for plunging in recklessly. We will not do so, and we will not take any major actions without first coming to this House. But we cannot simply ignore this continuing slaughter. Of course it is right to point out that there are extremists among the opposition. There are, and I am clear: they pose a threat not just to Syria but to all of us. The G8 agreed they should be defeated and expelled from their havens in Syria.
I also understand those who fear that whatever we try to do could make things worse, not better. Of course we must think carefully before any course of action. But we must not accept what President Assad wants us to believe—that the only alternative to his brutal action against Syria is extremism and terrorism. There are millions of ordinary Syrians who want to take control of their own future, a future without Assad. That is why I made sure that the G8 agreed that the way through this crisis is to help Syrians to forge a new Government that is neither Sunni, Alawite nor Shia.
We are committed to using diplomacy to end this war with a political solution. This is not easy, but the essential first step must be to get agreement between the main international powers with influence on Syria. That is what we have done at the G8 in Lough Erne. We must now turn these commitments into action. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement given earlier today in the other place by the Prime Minister on this week’s G8 summit.
I commend the Prime Minister and the Government for holding the summit in Northern Ireland. Fifteen years ago, even at the moment when the Good Friday agreement was being signed, holding a G8 summit in Enniskillen would have been unimaginable. Peace has transformed Enniskillen, and the location of this summit alone is testament to what can be achieved through politics and dialogue, and is a credit to the people of Northern Ireland.
I shall take the G8 issues in turn. On hunger and nutrition, it is completely unacceptable that there is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry and 2.3 million children die every year from malnutrition. We therefore welcome the agreements and commitments made during the hunger summit. The task now must be to ensure that these commitments will be delivered. Does the Leader of the House agree that we are right to stick by our pledge of 0.7% for aid as a proportion of national income? Does he further agree that we should be using all the moral force that we gain from that position to urge others to follow suit?
On trade, we welcome and support the launch of negotiations on a free trade agreement between Europe and the United States. The prize here is enormous. Can the Leader confirm that the Prime Minister will tell his colleagues that this is a timely reminder of the importance for jobs and prosperity of Britain staying in the European Union?
The Government were right to put tax and transparency on the agenda. The question is now how to translate good intentions into action. On tax havens, the Prime Minister has said that one of his goals was to make sure that there will be public knowledge of who owns companies and trusts. What blocked getting agreement on this at the G8? What progress was made on ensuring that information that is being shared between rich countries is also being shared with developing countries? Does the Leader agree with these Benches that, given the importance of this issue for developing countries, it cannot be justified that rich countries agree to share this information with each other but not with the poorest countries of the world?
I turn to the devastating situation in Syria. According to the UN, more than 93,000 people have now died in this brutal conflict. It was right for the Government to prioritise this and make it the focus of this week’s talks. We welcome the announcements of additional humanitarian aid, particularly the doubling of UK aid. However, the answer to this humanitarian crisis is a political solution. We all recognise the scale of the challenge of bringing together an international community that has been divided for over two years. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the summit’s outcome on this issue was,
“a strong and purposeful statement on Syria”.
The centrepiece of that statement was a commitment to the Geneva II conference. Could the Leader therefore explain why there was no agreement on a starting date for the conference? Indeed, it is being suggested that the conference is now being pushed back from June to July, and now even to August. Based on this week’s talks, when does the Leader expect the conference to take place?
I turn to the substance of that conference. The Prime Minister has spoken today about the importance of the agreement in Enniskillen on a transitional government, including the maintenance of government institutions and an inclusive political settlement for Syria. This we welcome; but do the Government accept that every one of those commitments featured in the Geneva I conference back in June 2012? The Government talk of this providing a moment of clarity on Syria, but how in concrete terms does this communiqué move us closer to that political settlement? Based on discussions at the G8 on securing access for weapons inspectors, securing access for humanitarian agencies and tackling terrorism, can the Leader set out how these laudable and very welcome goals will be achieved?
The Prime Minister went into the summit having allowed speculation to build that Britain was in favour of arming the rebels as a means to encourage diplomatic progress. Given the limited progress achieved, do the Government still maintain that focusing so much time and effort preceding the summit on lifting the arms embargo was the right approach?
The Prime Minister now says that it is not his policy to arm the rebels. Given that the Geneva conference has already been delayed, can the Leader envisage any circumstances in which the Government would seek to arm the rebels before the conference takes place? The reality is that we did not witness the long hoped-for breakthrough on Syria at the G8 summit, a hope that noble Lords on all Benches share.
None of us should doubt the difficulties of the choices that confront the Government. The Government know that on the steps agreed this week to tackle terrorism and on the issues of Afghanistan and, indeed, Libya in particular, we gave the Government our full support. On these Benches we urge the Government in the months ahead to proceed with the greatest possible clarity as to their strategy, and to seek to build the greatest possible consensus across Parliament. I trust that the noble Lord the Leader will continue to keep the House informed.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, first, I associate myself very strongly with the point that the noble Baroness made about holding the G8 in Northern Ireland in the first place. A long time ago, when I worked for one of my former bosses, John Major, he started this whole process in Northern Ireland, which the Labour Government then built on. It shows that if people are brave enough and stick at it, they can achieve great things. It was a tribute to the work of many people to have brought that about. It helped boost the economy, and it was a very powerful message all around the world of what can be achieved.
I agreed with the points that the noble Baroness made about the importance of the hunger summit, which happened the week before the G8 summit in Lough Erne. I was very glad that more funding was provided at the summit and that more ambitious goals were set down on what we might be able to do to tackle the problem of children suffering from malnutrition and, indeed, to prevent the deaths of young children. We believe that there may be 1.7 million children whose lives we may be able to save through that programme.
On our approach generally to international aid, we have kept that pledge. I think that that is right and that it lends us moral authority—which I think was the phrase that the noble Baroness used—and helps us deliver some of the other important policies that we are trying to take forward.
On trade deals, the beginning of a negotiation between the EU and the US on a trade deal was announced. It is only a beginning but if it comes in it will lead to many billions of pounds. The Prime Minister was clear earlier today on the benefits to the UK of being in the single market. I think that it is in the interest of all of us to try to make sure that this deal is concluded.
As for public registries of beneficial ownership, every country at the summit agreed to an action plan. Some have said that they will move straightaway to have these registries. So far as Britain is concerned, we have said that we will consult on the question of whether or not they should be public. We clearly need to keep pressing. I think that six of the G8 countries have already published an action plan on this at Lough Erne, and we have moved quite a long way on it.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of information sharing applying to developing countries—I agree with her entirely on that. The whole point about this is that it is not just about the developed countries making sure that we all get the proper tax but that if we can deliver that across these countries, those developing countries which need to have their tax revenues paid would benefit as well.
On Syria, I was glad of the welcome that the noble Baroness gave to the increase in humanitarian aid generally and to the UK’s contribution specifically. We need a political solution, as she said. I am not able to give a date for when the Geneva II talks will start. It was discussed at Lough Erne but the decision taken there was to try to get agreement on the substance rather than on a specific date. However, it was clear that there was a sense of urgency, and the G8 called for it to happen as soon as possible.
As for the G8 summit moving us closer to a political settlement in Syria, I think that it is fair to say that before the G8 summit the Russians seemed to be backing away from a transitional authority with full executive powers, but they have now reaffirmed their support for one. We also now have the language, for the first time, on our approach to the use of chemical weapons. That is new and I think that it will help. As for the time and effort spent on lifting the arms embargo, we felt that it was right to do so. We think that it has helped to increase the diplomatic pressure on that.
As the noble Baroness knows, no decision has been taken to arm the rebels at all—the Government have been very clear about that. It is a hypothetical question. However, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that, were the Government to make that decision, Parliament would obviously have a say in it. On her final point about whether I would seek to make sure that the House is kept informed on all these developments, the answer is yes, of course, I will seek to do so in the normal way.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne
Will my noble friend agree that the last time a serious attempt was made to reach a wide-ranging trade agreement between the United States and the European Union it foundered on the absolute refusal of the US regulatory agencies to agree to any degree of mutual recognition, let alone harmonisation, and that unless at the very highest level action is taken to deal with that blockage, this attempt will be no more successful than the last? Is it not therefore absolutely necessary that there should be a focus on this issue?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am sure that that advice from my noble friend is extremely wise. I know how closely involved he has been over the years with many of these negotiations. It is clear that this issue was given a great deal of importance at the highest level, during the conversations between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States at the G8. Obviously we are at the beginning of the negotiations; I think the first meeting is due to start next month. However, I am sure that all those charged with the responsibility of trying to bring about this extremely important deal will know of the history. If they do not, they will have been reminded of it by my noble friend and will bear that in mind as they try to secure this important deal.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Does the Minister agree that the question of regime change now bandied around in our newspapers gives people a sense of déjà vu, when at the same time we are looking at a peace conference? The idea on the Arab street that the West can be involved in regime change will possibly only have the result that the dispute between Alawites and Shia and Sunni Muslims will not be left to them but will also become our dispute.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand the point the noble Lord makes. It was said at the G8 that if we can get the G8 and other countries working together to bring about a political situation by bringing their different pressures to bear—whether it is the Russians, the Americans, or whoever—that must be worth trying.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Statement. This was one of the most successful G8 summits of recent times. The Minister was right to point out the three factors: trade, transparency and tax. Does he accept that they would considerably help not only developed but underdeveloped nations, and would make a real difference to the lives of ordinary people? There is a serious concern about our involvement in Syria. We certainly welcome the idea of and the arrangements for a peace conference, whenever it will take place. However, more than 93,000 people have been killed, and extremism has surfaced from both the Assad Government and the opposition. The Minister was slightly hesitant, but does he accept that Parliament will decide whether there is a need for further involvement in relation to the supply of arms, or any further action the Government takes?
Lord Hill of Oareford
On my noble friend’s first points about the importance of trade, tax and transparency for the developing world, he is of course entirely right. We are aiming for more trade and to break down the barriers. Coming out of the G8 we are very keen to make progress at the WTO conference this December. For instance, we will try to break down trade barriers in Africa, where they have a terribly detrimental effect on the ability of people to do business and also affect the tax revenues that flow from that. We aim to make that easier and more straightforward so that tax is paid. We also want to make the system more transparent so that money from industries such as the extractive industries will go into legitimate purposes to help those economies and societies, rather than into a small number of very deep pockets. I agree with him on that.
On Syria, I hope that I gave a clear answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. Both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have made clear that, were a decision taken by the Government to arm one side in Syria, which it has not been, that Parliament would certainly have its say.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, I have warned many times in the past 15 months, as have many others in both Houses, against the folly of military intervention in Syria and I have no need to repeat that warning this afternoon. However, if there is any substance behind the allegation in the Times today that the West is trying to engineer a coup in Damascus, I hope that the noble Lord’s right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, distinguished historian as he is, needs no reminding of the disastrous results of some previous attempts by outsiders to change regimes in the Middle East. Not only would such attempts, if successful, almost certainly produce a Government in Damascus of much greater threat to British interests than the present regime, it would directly contradict the Government’s repeated view that any future regime is for the Syrian people to decide. Can the Leader of the House assure us that HMG are playing, and will play, no part in any such attempt at regime change—what the Statement describes as helping Syrians to “forge a new Government”? Finally, I ask the noble Lord for an assurance that if, as we all must hope, a peace conference can be arranged, HMG will not oppose the participation of Iran.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the noble Lord, as he said, has been very clear and consistent on his position on this issue for 15 months and, I am sure, longer. I recognise that and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be aware of that. On the noble Lord’s specific questions, I do not think it sensible for me to go any further than the Statement; I am obviously not involved in those negotiations. I know that those who are involved will have heard what he has said and I will make sure that his consistent warnings about this are relayed to them. Clearly, as we have already said, we are seeking a political solution that is acceptable to the Syrian people. That is what we are working for.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome the direction of travel on taxes, trade and transparency. Can the Minister tell us what steps Her Majesty’s Government will take to ensure that these three Ts figure strongly on the agenda of the G20 summit later this year?
Lord Hill of Oareford
That is an extremely good question. I can tell the right reverend Prelate that the hope, expectation and intention coming out of the G8 is very much that some of this detailed work on tackling tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance and transparency will be taken forward by the G20 and the OECD. Behind the simple, 10-point declaration that summarised the headline points at the summit is a much longer, more detailed communiqué that sets out the much more detailed steps of the sort to which the right reverend Prelate refers.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Does the agreement at the G8 to ban ransom payments to terrorists, which is very welcome, include banning payments to pirates who capture individuals? The noble Lord has probably heard me say several times in the past three years that this problem is of at least equal dimension.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I will need to come back to the noble Lord on whether the agreement covers such payments. Its intention was to eliminate the scourge of ransom payments, but how they are defined in detail is something that I will have to follow up with him.
Lord King of Bridgwater
Does my noble friend recognise how much I echo what has been said, how much I welcome the fact that the conference has been held successfully in Enniskillen—having been all too close to the outrage and tragedy that took place there—and how I am reflecting on the irony of how the world has moved forward? That outrage was almost certainly committed with Libyan explosives, but the new Prime Minister of Libya was present at the G8. I hope very much that one of the outcomes of the G8 will be a better future for Libya. I echo what the noble Lord said. There must be political discussions about the future of Syria; they must be held by everybody without preconditions, which is one of the lessons of Northern Ireland for making progress; and obviously it would be enormously helpful if Iran were present as well.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand the second point made by my noble friend, which echoed that made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright. On the first point about Northern Ireland, the noble Lord knows better than most in the Chamber what the situation was and the extent of the work that had to be done. He was closely involved with that. It is a powerful symbol of what can be achieved if people are prepared to take those brave decisions.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, perhaps I may explore the assurance in the Statement that Parliament will have its say on Syria. Do I take it that there will have to be specific parliamentary approval, as the convention has now grown?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Yesterday, at some length, and earlier today, the Prime Minister set out what that means: were the Government to decide that they wanted to arm the rebels—which they have not—it would be subject to a vote.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, coming from Northern Ireland, perhaps I may say how delighted I am at the success of the G8 conference in County Fermanagh. It has promoted Northern Ireland as a stable society. It has been good for our tourism. We should pass on from Northern Ireland our appreciation to the Prime Minister for selecting Northern Ireland as the part of the United Kingdom where the G8 conference would be held. Is the Leader of the House aware that this has been not only good publicity for Northern Ireland but also successful economically? In the past 10 days we have had another 1,500 new jobs announced in Northern Ireland. Just this morning, the Japanese Prime Minister, who remained in Northern Ireland following the conclusion of the G8, announced a further investment of 400 new jobs in County Antrim.
Turning to the question of transparency in our banks, we know that new standards will be introduced. Since international companies within the United Kingdom have been transferring their corporation tax payments to other countries to avoid tax, and British overseas territories have been fingered as possible places to avoid tax, can the Government guarantee that the five small sovereign states within Europe that use the euro—Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, Lichtenstein and Andorra—will be subject to the same standards of transparency?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I had not heard those latest figures on Northern Ireland, and I am delighted to hear them. They are further evidence of the benefits of holding the G8 there and the wisdom of doing so. I am very grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord. On his more general point about tax avoidance and so on, this whole approach will clearly only work if it is applied on a level basis across all countries. The aim of much greater transparency is at the heart of this approach. An example is publishing information on where countries pay tax in order to work out where the profits are. Trying to make that approach across a broad front lies at the heart of what was agreed at the G8.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, this has been an usually successful and constructive conference. The proposals being made on taxation regarding transparency and so on should certainly have a pretty rapid and significant effect on tax evasion, but they will have only a relatively limited effect on aggressive tax avoidance. Consulting internationally is certainly welcome, as the Statement says in relation to the OECD. However, at the end of the day, it is a matter for taxation in this country. Multinationals which use these aggressive techniques in this country have said that doing so is within the law. This is true, but it means that our law needs to be changed, which is a very technical subject. The law needs to relate to profits made in this country, and in some way enact a tax on the profits of online transactions which originate in this country. I hope that we will not overlook that side when looking at the international aspect of the matter.
Lord Hill of Oareford
That point is well made. I hope that the drive towards greater transparency will flush out and illustrate some of the problems to which my noble friend refers, solutions to which can then be worked on in the way that he suggests.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, all of us who took part in the debate last Thursday will be delighted that there has been some progress on tax and transparency at the G8 summit. I hope that the steps that were agreed will prove to be significant. I have questions about two of these steps in particular, the first being the agreement made with the UK dependencies and territories last weekend. If they do not fulfil the promises made at that meeting, what further steps will the UK Government take to ensure that they do so? Secondly, I welcome the statement in the communiqué that there will be capacity building in the developing world, to help those countries legislate for and collect taxes under this new system. What will the UK do to help countries build their capacity for tax revenue collection?
Lord Hill of Oareford
On the second point, concerning the specific detail of what we will do, I will follow that up with the noble Lord. There are some specific steps being taken. We are making available people who understand the detail of how the system works in order to help in precisely the way that the noble Lord says is necessary. We will do so because it is obviously right to help developing countries understand the complexities of the tax system and the kind of behaviour that goes on. It is not only Britain, but also other countries which will help to do that. If I can provide more detail, I will do so.
On the first point, about what do we will do if Crown dependencies or the overseas territories do not live up to their promises, my answer is, “Let us hold their feet to the fire and ensure that they do live up to their promises”. They made that commitment. It came out of the G8 very clearly that not only the United Kingdom but all G8 member countries will hold them and other jurisdictions to account on that, and will want to see progress made.
Lord Soley
I urge the Government not to raise too many expectations on the quick arrival of a Geneva conference. Listening to Mr Putin’s comments in Russia and at the summit, he has made it very clear that he intends not only to continue to arm the present regime but also to, in his words, draw up new contracts for arms with it. That, to me, conveys very clearly Russia’s intention to argue at a Geneva conference for a regime which is in control of as much territory as possible. I am afraid that means continued fighting and refugee problems for the Middle East, and little hope of a successful outcome. We need to face up to the fact that Mr Putin has again managed to take us back to that old system whereby we prop up dictators, whoever is the strong one in power.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Obviously, I hope that the noble Lord’s warnings will turn out to be wrong, and not like Cassandra’s. However, I understand why he makes the point. He is clearly wise to say that one should not set unrealistic timescales and all the rest of it in terms of Geneva II, which was one of the conclusions that the G8 reached. Notwithstanding his points, it is fair to say that progress was made at the summit in terms of Russia making commitments that it had not previously made. We all have to hope that, on the back of that, we will be able to make the progress that I know the noble Lord and the whole House would like to see.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Loan
“( ) For the purposes of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, no regard may be had by any public authority to—
(a) any decision by a person whether or not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, relevant marriages; or(b) the expression by a person of the opinion or belief that marriage is the union of one man with one woman.”
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I reiterate my membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose report on the issues on which I will speak is before your Lordships’ House today.
Amendment 13 provides for amendment to Clause 2(5) of the Bill. Despite all that was said on Monday in respect of the Equality Act, and I listened very carefully to all the contributions, there is a significant risk that religious organisations and individuals could be treated less favourably by a public authority in the exercise of its functions, for example, as regards funding, as a result of the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This could occur in two rather different situations: first, following a decision by a religious organisation,
“not to opt-in … be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of”,
same-sex marriages; and, secondly, following the expression by an individual or organisation of an opinion or belief that marriage is,
“the union of one man with one woman”.
This amendment would protect religious organisations and individuals from unfavourable treatment in both these circumstances.
Under Section 149 of the Equality Act, public authorities such as local authorities are under a duty to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. In particular, public authorities must have due regard to the need to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic. Since the enactment of the first public sector duty in 2001, there has been extensive litigation and an expansion of the discretion of public authorities in this context. The courts have consistently interpreted the duty of due regard as a duty to further equality of opportunity and not just a duty to avoid discrimination.
Public authorities have in practice used this discretion to pursue broad equality aims and the courts have been reluctant to second-guess the discretion of public authorities. Public authorities have, for example, denied public contracts to organisations which they regarded as unsuitable—for example, on race equality grounds, and the courts appear to have deemed this entirely lawful. As noble Lords will already be aware, the public sector equality duty now imposes duties on multiple grounds, which include sexual orientation and religion. This means that public authorities now have significant discretion in deciding how best to balance these grounds if they clash, and they will clash.
In relation to the first scenario—unfavourable treatment of a person following a decision not to opt in—the amendment is needed for three reasons. First, the Bill does not expressly state that a public authority will act ultra vires if it penalises a person following any of those decisions. Clause 2 protects from compulsion; it does not appear to protect religious organisations from being treated less favourably by public authorities under Section 149. The Government appear to think that less favourable treatment should be ultra vires. In the Secretary of State’s response to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, she said:
“In all circumstances a person who has suffered detriment for the reason that they have not done one of the acts specified in Clause 2, will be able to rely on the protection in Clause 2 to show that such conduct is unlawful”.
During the Public Bill Committee, the Minister stated,
“as the law stands, a public authority would in fact be acting unlawfully … if it attempted to treat a religious organisation adversely simply because that organisation refused, as is explicitly allowed in the Bill, to conduct same-sex marriages. If, for example, a local authority withdrew meeting facilities from a Church only because it did not offer same-sex marriage, that would be likely”—
likely, my Lords—
“to be unlawful direct religious or belief discrimination”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 5/3/13; col. 349.]
This is not clear in the Bill because an ordinary dictionary definition of “compelled” does not include treating someone less favourably. Nor is it at all clear, for example, that it would be unlawful direct religious discrimination for a local authority to withdraw meeting facilities from a church on the ground that it does not offer same-sex marriage. At most, it is likely to amount to prima facie unlawful indirect discrimination and that would then be subject to the justification defence. We know that the results which flow from judicial scrutiny of such defences are uncertain.
Secondly, Clause 2(5) and Clause 2(6) of the Bill provide explicit protection from Sections 29 and 110 of the Equality Act, despite the comprehensive protection from compulsion which Clause 2 is supposed to provide. The presence of these extra exemptions in Clause 2(5) and 2(6) casts serious doubt on the scope of the protection from compulsion. If it is necessary to have exemptions for these sections, it is also necessary to have a separate exemption for Section 149, to give the protection provided for in this new clause.
Thirdly, even if it were established that the actions of the public authority were ultra vires in the scenario described, such a clarification would come only as a result of a judicial review being taken by religious organisations, which would be time-consuming and expensive. What is more, domestic courts have been reluctant to second-guess the discretion of public authorities, where allegations have been made that more weight should be given to a particular ground of equality. The Secretary of State has been careful not to state that a judicial review of a public authority that engaged in this less favourable treatment would be successful. The Secretary of State has said only that the decision would be vulnerable to challenge. This amendment will provide the necessary clarification, and thus protect persons from unfavourable treatment, by making it explicitly clear in the Bill that public authorities cannot have regard to decisions by persons not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in or consent to the taking place of same-sex marriages.
In relation to the second scenario, in which persons may be treated unfavourably under Section 149 following an expression of the opinion that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, the amendment is necessary for two reasons. First, the Government have repeatedly stated that teachers will not be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. The Minister stated at the Public Bill Committee:
“It is therefore perfectly lawful for a teacher in any school to express personal views on sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, provided that it is done … in an appropriate manner and context”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 28/2/13; col. 305.]
However it is not clear from the Bill that a teacher would be able to teach that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, because some parents, pupils or other teachers could find such teaching deeply offensive. The public sector equality duty could force a school to review, for example, its anti-bullying strategy to ensure that such expressions of opinion are not given. A teacher could thus be disciplined for expressing such an opinion to his or her pupils.
Secondly, if a school’s curriculum positively presents only opposite-sex marriage, there is a danger that the school could fall foul of the Section 149 positive duty on schools to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between people with different protected characteristics. The public sector equality duty could consequently compel schools to endorse same-sex marriages, not just to teach the fact that they exist.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 13. As was mentioned on Monday and has been mentioned today, the public sector equality duty rightly requires public authorities to eliminate discrimination, work for equality of opportunity and foster good relations. It is a welcome measure that makes ours a fairer society.
However, we all know that those in authority can, and often do, misuse their authority to intimidate or bully others in employment or those who approach them for goods and services. As Shakespeare and Dickens observed, office can be intoxicating, particularly if you feel that you are working for the greater good. It can lead to a messianic zeal to convert others to your way of thinking. There is a real danger that if this legislation comes into force, some will use it to try to convert those who believe in traditional marriage to their way of thinking. I believe that the amendment is necessary to draw attention to and protect sincerely held beliefs that harm no one—beliefs that will with hindsight be seen as having important implications for family cohesion and the well-being of children. Clarity of the law benefits everyone; lack of clarity benefits only the lawyers.
Lord Hylton
I shall speak to Amendment 17. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for adding her name to it. I hope that I can be fairly brief. Despite assurances and the amendments made by the Minister in Committee and on Report in the other place, I believe that there is still uncertainty about the meaning of compulsion and the word “compelled”. The amendment is designed to remove that uncertainty. It aims to make things clear, and thus protect religious organisations and their members from all legal penalties. It would prevent public authorities treating such organisations less favourably if they decide not to opt in. For example, in some sphere completely unconnected and separate from marriage—such as the provision of a youth club or a night shelter—public authorities would be acting ultra vires if they penalised religious bodies for not opting in, and thus co-operating with the Bill when it becomes law.
It is important that such assurances should be plain in the Bill. My amendment tends to consolidate and reinforce the Government’s quadruple lock. I urge the Minister to take away all three amendments in this group to see whether they can result in improved amendments on Report.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I declare an interest because I, too, was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and had the great misfortune to find myself in a completely opposite place from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, as she knows. During the 10 years I have been on that committee, I have never before had such an experience, where we were totally unable to secure a totally common position. Unlike previous committees, we decided not to take a vote, but to produce a compromise document. I did so in the spirit of conciliation and compromise, but I have to say that I do not agree with the views expressed by the committee in some of its parts.
I also do not agree with the very detailed speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. That would be quite impossible in a debate of this kind, before a body of people who have the great fortune not to be lawyers, judges, experts on the Equality Act or experts on the Marriage Act 1949, and who do not really understand the argument that the Catholic Church deployed and which has been deployed before us today.
I do not propose to answer that with the seriousness that it requires and I advise my noble and learned friend who is replying also, perhaps, not to answer every single point today. A sensible outcome of this might be to give a rebuttal in writing before Report stage on some of the detail. In my view, none of the amendments is necessary; all would create uncertainty and obscurity. The approach adopted by the church reminds me of a curious kind of person who goes around wearing trousers with not just one belt, not just two belts, not just—as in the case of this Bill—four belts, but also with a pair of braces. It is completely unnecessary.
I totally agree with the Government’s legal analysis, as expressed by the Minister in her evidence to us and in writing. On these issues, the Equality Act is quite clear. Of course, you can never prevent people bringing challenges in courts on any basis whatever; that is true of all legislation. I think that if these amendments were carried, it would create great uncertainty.
The document that is being discussed in the dinner hour, produced by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, When Laws Become too Complex, states:
“Good law is necessary, effective, clear, coherent and accessible. It is about the content of law, its architecture, its language, and its accessibility—and about the links between those things”.
That is all there in the architecture, language, content and accessibility of the Equality Act—this is a tribute to the Opposition, whose Act it was, with our support—and in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. Quite honestly, if these amendments were accepted, it would create great uncertainty and damage the object of the Bill.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 17 and 18, which are in my name. Although they have both been given the heading, “Meaning of ‘compelled’”, each raises distinct points. First, I wish to state my appreciation that the Government are keen to listen to concerns over the current drafting of the religious freedom protections in the Bill. The Secretary of State said in the other place that she,
“would never introduce a Bill that encroaches or threatens religious freedoms”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/12; col. 157.]
The Government’s impact assessment helpfully outlined that the Bill should,
“ensure that protections are in place for religious bodies who do not want to perform same-sex marriages, not just from successful legal claims, but from the threat of litigation”.
I am grateful for the Government’s stated intentions but put my name to both these amendments as I believe that the Bill may encroach on such freedoms and that there is a threat of litigation.
I will deal first with Amendment 17. The Government have widely publicised the quadruple locks that supposedly protect religious individuals and organisations. One of those so-called locks is the protection from compulsion, which is supposed to ensure that religious individuals and organisations will not be required, under any circumstances, to conduct same-sex marriages if they object to them. This protection from compulsion is given for two different situations. First, in Clause 2(1), there is a prohibition against compelling any organisation to take the necessary procedural step of opting in, which would enable them to go on to conduct the actual ceremonies. Secondly, in Clause 2(2), there is a prohibition against compelling any person to “conduct” or “participate in” the same-sex marriage ceremony. At first sight, the lock appears comprehensive and wide-ranging, and the Government would have us believe that this is so. However, in reality, the lock is very narrow in scope because there is absolutely no definition in the Bill of “compelled”. That omission creates uncertainty and possibly limits the scope of protection offered by the clause.
This concern was recognised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, in its recent report on the Bill. The report is perhaps interesting in that it is unanimous, despite members of the committee holding different views on the principle of the Bill. Paragraph 69 recommends that the Government reconsider the issue,
“as to whether religious organisations”—
or people—
“may suffer some form of detriment as a result of their position on same sex marriage in a number of contexts which fall outside the scope of the Bill”.
Such reconsideration would, in my view, include considering whether to bring forward amendments such as those that we see today.
The new clause proposed in Amendment 17 would clarify the meaning of “compelled” for the purposes of Clause 2 and thus ensure that the lock provides the breadth of intended protection. The need for clarification was made more evident by the Minister during the Public Bill Committee, when he said that the meaning of “compelled” was,
“absolutely not borrowed from the Matrimonial Causes Act”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 28/2/13; col. 280.]
This statement makes it unclear where, if anywhere, the word “compelled” has a legislative precedent. In the limited case law that is available in other contexts, protection from compulsion essentially provides protection only from the imposition of a criminal penalty.
For example, individuals are protected from being compelled to incriminate themselves when giving evidence in court. Clause 2 is therefore likely to protect individuals and organisations from criminal punishment but it is unclear what else individuals and organisations are protected from. The Explanatory Notes state that compulsion,
“would include, but not be limited to, attempts to use criminal or civil law, contractual clauses, or the imposition of any detriment to force a person to carry out such an activity.”
However, Clause 2 as currently drafted does not reflect the Explanatory Notes and may not prevent public bodies treating religious organisations less favourably if they decide not to opt in to the same-sex marriage provisions.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
I just want to ask my noble friend to look at history and recall the number of times—as I made clear in the earlier debate—promises have been broken with regard to the conscience. Time and again, from the Abortion Act onwards, people have been promised that they would be protected and that their right to a conscience would not be taken away. However, we have watched that happen for the past 50 years. We must look not just at the Bill when it comes to promises, but at this road full of broken promises that has led up to it.
Baroness Berridge
I am grateful to my noble friend for her intervention and I will look back—I am afraid as a newer member of your Lordships’ House—at the history to which she refers.
The decisions where an organisation can be treated less favourably can be in situations where they are refused contracts, denied the use of public halls or denied funding. The Minister reiterated the narrowness of the behaviour covered in the Bill in the Public Bill Committee when he said that Clause 2 would have,
“the effect of preventing any type of conduct that would have the effect of forcing a person to do something protected under that clause”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 28/2/13; col. 280.]
Therefore, as long as the local authority is merely registering disapproval of the organisation’s views, or penalising the organisation, but is not attempting to compel it to opt-in to provide same-sex marriage, then the religious organisation has no protection under the Bill as currently drafted.
However, the Government’s response is that the religious group need not worry as such detrimental behaviour falling short of forcing it to do anything would be unlawful discrimination by the local authority and the charity would have a remedy for this under the Equality Act. As I mentioned at Second Reading, expecting a charity to swap money, potentially from food banks, to legal fees to fight legal claims is not consistent with the state’s duty, performed in this instance by the local authority, to promote a plural civic square. Such funding reallocation is not, of course, in line with any growth in the big society and is diametrically opposed to the impact assessment of the Government which is the aim of removing the threat of litigation. The impact assessment means that the Government do not want religious groups being defendants in proceedings, so why are they advising the same religious groups to be the claimants in discrimination proceedings?
Just on a straightforward dictionary definition of compulsion, such unfavourable treatment as I have outlined is not, despite the Minister’s comments, covered. It is vital that the meaning of “compelled” is clarified in the Bill because the concept of compulsion is central to the Bill’s religious freedom protections and is not as readily understood as the Government assert.
In Committee on Monday there were many assertions about the effectiveness of the Equality Act, ranging from “foolproof” by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to “shot through” by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey. This amendment would remove the need for a small charity to incur the expense of legal proceedings to establish that such detrimental behaviour is discrimination under the Equality Act. Surely the avoidance of litigation is a good thing.
This new clause will provide the necessary clarification and thus protect religious organisations from all legal penalties, criminal and civil, if they decide not to opt-in. It will ensure that religious organisations do not suffer at the hands of public authorities by making it clear that public authorities will be acting ultra vires if they penalise religious organisations for not opting-in. The onus is properly placed on the state not to act to the religious group’s detriment and not on the religious group to take action against the state. The new clause enshrines in statute the Government’s assurance that religious organisations will not be penalised in any circumstances for deciding not to opt-in to providing same-sex marriages if they object to them. Without further clarification in the Bill, the lock may not turn out to be much of a lock at all.
In relation to Amendment 18, it may be helpful if I turn from locks to keys. The key to a claim under the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act or judicial review is that the decision or action carried out by the religious organisation is clarified as a public function. Amendment 18 is necessary because, without it, religious organisations will be at risk of legal action on the ground that the decision to opt-in may be held to constitute a public function. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has already explained, ministers in religious organisations outside of the established church can be authorised persons and thus conduct marriage ceremonies that are both religious and legally recognised. Such ministers, therefore, perform a public function. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, outlined, that was the understanding of the right honourable Jack Straw when he introduced the Human Rights Act and spoke in the other place. However, in the context of the established church, this was also the view obiter of four Supreme Court judges in the case of Aston Cantlow v Wallbank. In delivering his judgment, Lord Hobhouse said:
“Thus the priest ministering in the parish may have responsibilities that are certainly not public, such as the supervision of the liturgies used or advising about doctrine, but may have other responsibilities which are of a public nature, such as a responsibility for marriages and burials and the keeping of registers”.
Lord Alli
I am a little confused again. Is the noble Baroness saying that the quadruple lock is not secure? Unless I am absolutely wrong, I understood the position of the Church of England to be that the quadruple lock is robust and secure. I am not sure what she is arguing.
Baroness Berridge
I thank the noble Lord for that helpful intervention. That has been the Government’s position looking at the established church but there is a different situation for those who are authorised people. Generally in our law, you can get married at the registry office, or at the hotel with the registrar there, or you can marry without any intervention of the state when the banns are read in the Anglican Church. In addition, there is a whole group of people and religious organisations—for example, the Catholic Church and Pentecostal churches—which do those marriages as authorised people. They can decide whether to opt in to do this. First, that places them in a different legal context for conducting marriages. Secondly, the Anglican Church can make no decision at all to opt in; in the Bill it is not allowed to. These groups in the middle, many of which are in the ethnic minority community, are in a very different legal position from the Anglican Church.
The risk that religious organisations face when they move from conducting only heterosexual marriages to also conducting same-sex marriages as a public function is exacerbated by the fact that the decision to opt in is not like a decision by a private members’ club where you can look at the rule book and say that the decision was made based on the rules. The discretion to make a decision is in this statute which lends to the argument that it is a public discretion that these organisations would be acting on. The Joint Committee on Human Rights did not come to a firm conclusion on this matter because of a divergence of opinion. However, I believe that helps the case for this amendment. The divergence of opinion makes this amendment necessary because the basis of litigation is a divergence of legal opinion. The Government need to give some reassurance to these religious organisations because without this amendment the lock provided in Clause 1 could be ineffective.
Lord Alli
I apologise again to the noble Baroness. I am trying to get to the core of the mischief here and I am just not getting there. Is she saying that Church of England registrars are not covered by this and that this is for the general pool of registrars who are conducting the registration?
Baroness Berridge
If you attend a Catholic church, the authorised person is the registrar. No one comes from the local authority’s office. That person performs that public function and the registry office is not involved. It is the obligation of the priest to fill out the register and to return it quarterly to the local authority’s office. No local authority official is present at all. Interestingly, the Catholic Church expressed concern to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I have heard this concern from other religious organisations—that unless we get clarity in the Bill religious organisations may consider not conducting these marriages at all because they believe the only way to protect themselves is to not be the registrar. That, of course, would have resource implications for the Government.
I am asking the Government to throw away the public function key—the key to actions under the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act and judicial review—and avoid this threat of litigation which would discriminate against some of the nation’s smallest charities. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has urged the Government to consider formulating a new clause to provide additional reassurance to any religious ministers or office holders who perform the dual function of officiating at a marriage in a spiritual capacity as well as performing the public function of the registrar under the Marriage Act 1949.
We have ended up in a situation, by responding quite rightly to the concerns of the established Church, whereby other Christian denominations and other faith groups believe that they do not now have the same level of protection as the Church of England and the Church of Wales. It is important that other religious organisations and individual ministers of other faith groups have the same level of protection as the Government have now afforded in this Bill to the Church of England and the Church of Wales.
Lord Deben
I want to try to bring two sides together on this issue. I hope people will recognise that I am entirely in favour of this legislation and I am a practising Catholic, so I understand exactly what has been said. I have great sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Lester has said about how this might be approached by the Government. Let me say two things to the Minister. First, there is a history here of promises made and broken, as my noble friend made clear. So even if this is absolutely okay, there is a feeling that it might not be okay and we have to recognise that fear.
Secondly, there is also a history of campaigning people who seek all the time to push their point further than is reasonable. For example, campaigners have recently argued that we should withdraw aid from youth clubs run by organisations that take a strong view about homosexual practice. That is a campaign that people have suggested—that if you take that view you should not get any help from the state for your youth club. I say to my noble friend that I understand the fears that people have on this issue.
The position of the Catholic Church is particularly difficult because we have a very odd and rather noble system in Britain that has come out of our history: to ensure that it was no longer true that only Anglicans could marry, we extended it to other people via the mechanism of enabling approved persons to act as registrars. There may be an issue here and it may be that the fears that people have are correct. However, I also recognise what my noble friend Lord Lester has said: sometimes, when we try to correct this, those of us who are not lawyers—and I am proud not to be a lawyer—add things that make it worse. That is the danger here. If we are not careful we will have a sort of argument of the deaf, with one side saying, “We want to do what you want, but if we do it that way we will actually make it more difficult for you”, and the other side saying, “You may say that but we’re still worried about it”.
I ask my noble friend to recognise that even those of us who are not just marginally but very much in favour of this legislation are concerned that we should be very careful about the nature of toleration. Unfortunately, “toleration” has become a very curious word. People talk about toleration as if it means tolerating views that you happen to agree with. One of the things that we have to do is produce legislation that enables a tolerant society to accept that some people have very different views. That is not helped, if I may say so, by some of the language used by people opposed to the Bill. Some disgraceful statements have been made by people who have really not come to terms with the fact that we live in a society that should be inclusive and accepting. The churches have sometimes spoken intolerably and intolerantly. However, the truth is that there is intolerableness and intolerance on the other side as well. I will give way to my noble friend .
Lord Cormack
I agree very much with my noble friend, whom I thank for giving way, but I hope that he was not suggesting that there has been intolerance in the debates in this House. That is something that he would find very hard to prove.
Lord Deben
I listened to the whole debate almost without exception, and there were one or two sentences that I think ought to have been withdrawn by the people who made them because there was clearly a misunderstanding about the nature of what we are talking about. However, I do not in any way suggest that my noble friend spoke in that way. I am merely saying that there is a great need at this moment to make people relearn what toleration is. Toleration is accepting the views of people with whom you disagree fundamentally and totally. We need to do that in our society.
Let me be clear: I think the amendments are unnecessary, I do not see the legal basis for them and I am not worried about this issue. However, some people are worried about it. There is another word that I would like to bring into this: “courtesy”. There is a great need in our society for courteousness to other people, and there are people here who are legitimately worried. We need to ensure that there is no reason for them to be worried. I wonder if my noble friend might do the following, which is largely to follow what my noble friend Lord Lester said: not to argue this case because, frankly, a legal case of this sort across the Floor would be unhelpful for all of us, but to go back and produce a document that answers specifically the points that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has made, so that we know exactly where we are.
If there is a concern, the bit that seems to me to have had some truth about it is the nature of the official person—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was pursuing. I think he would agree that if the official person gets denominated in a particular way, what we all want in terms of a tolerant society could easily be overcast. I wonder if my noble friend might take it away in that way, instead of continuing the legal debate, and then come back with a document, which we might all peruse, and see whether we could not, at least on this, come to a common view across the House.
Lord Alli
I apologise to the noble Baroness for taking more than my usual length of time to understand the issue. I think I now understand where the issue arises. What worries me is the nature of what the noble Baroness seeks. It seems to me that she wants cast-iron guarantees and, although I am not a lawyer, I assume that we cannot give those in law. Certainly no government Minister, no Member of this House and no Member of the other place can give cast-iron guarantees that any religious organisation will not be subject to vexatious legal actions.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that there is a whole range of people thinking of ways to progress their own politics through the courts, and when they have not succeeded either at the ballot box or in Parliament, they continue to do so. I can put it no better than the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in Monday’s Committee in his rather complex and detailed legal argument. He said:
“The fact that idiots in the public sector or private sector misunderstand it is no reason for us to have to amend this Bill to deal with such idiots”.—[Official Report, 17/6/13; col. 69.]
The question is not whether these people will take up a nuisance case; that is a matter for them in a democratic society. They must have the right to take up that nuisance case. I like it no more than anyone else, but they have that right in a democracy. The clear intention of this House and of the other place can be in no doubt. We have specifically created a process to opt in so as to protect religious organisations. The Minister in the Commons made it quite clear during the Commons Committee stage when he said:
“The imposition of any penalties on or subsequent unfavourable treatment of a religious organisation or individual in order to compel that organisation to opt in to same-sex marriage is already unlawful under the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee; 28/2/13; col. 280.]
The locks in this Bill are strong and robust. The intention of this House has to be beyond question. I believe those locks are secure, and I am not sure that we can help the noble Baroness with an assurance that there will be no legal action over these cases.
Baroness Berridge
I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I am not seeking a cast-iron guarantee. I have previously been a lawyer, so I know how people can look at us, but there seems to be a case for some sensible, straightforward language in the Bill that could avoid—as we have put it—a situation in which small charities have to take discrimination claims to deal with that kind of behaviour, and it would provide that reassurance.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I entirely understand the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady O’Loan, and others. My view is that those concerns are unwarranted. As I understand it, three issues have been raised. The first is the public sector equality duty, under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which requires:
“A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard”,
to equality considerations. “Due regard” must require primary consideration to be given to other legislation—in particular, the legislation before us. I regard it as unlikely in the extreme that this public sector equality duty could impose a duty or even confer a power on a public authority to penalise a person or a body for declining to be involved in same-sex marriage, when the whole point of this legislation, and a fundamental feature of it, is that a person should not be compelled to do so for religious reasons. It would be extraordinary for a court to rely on a public sector equality duty.
The second concern was about Clause 2(6) and the exclusion of public functions, and that this does not cover the decision whether to opt in. There is a good reason for that. In very simple terms, marrying a person may well be a public function, as Clause 2(6) recognises. However, a decision to opt in or not is not the exercise of a public function. It is not, of itself, a service to the public but a decision whether to rely upon and maintain a statutory immunity given by this legislation. Any argument to the contrary would conflict with the content and purposes of this legislation, and so is extremely unlikely to be accepted.
The third concern that we are dealing with in this group of amendments is the suggestion that the legislation should clarify the meaning of “compulsion” in Clause 2(1). For a public authority to impose a detriment on a person for refusing to undertake an opt-in activity or to refrain from undertaking an opt-out activity would plainly amount to compulsion in this context. The reason for that is very simple: it would impose legal pressure on that person when one of the central purposes of this legislation is to protect religious freedom.
I entirely understand—I hope courteously—noble Lords’ concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, rightly reminds us that we should be courteous about this, but let us be not just courteous but realistic about the risks and concerns that have been expressed.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I courteously recognise the forensic skills and deep legal knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and of my noble friend Lord Lester. However, my noble friend Lord Deben mentioned times in the past when assurances were given, in good faith, from Dispatch Boxes in both Houses, but have not measured up. Therefore, the recognition of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of the validity of the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lady Berridge should be taken a step further. I should like to make a suggestion that builds upon what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. He and I do not agree on the fundamentals of the Bill, but he made a conciliatory and helpful speech this afternoon and we should thank him for that.
I inferred, from the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lady Berridge that neither is likely to push this to a Division today. I hope that is the case. As I said on Monday, this House is at its best when it has long debates in Committee and votes on Report, when there has been proper opportunity to reflect on what has been said. I shall not be able to be present later today, for which I apologise. I hope that after this, when my noble friend Lady Stowell responds to this debate, she will undertake not only to reflect most carefully on what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lady Berridge, but to call them in, with others who share their concerns, to ensure that on Report we will be able to make it plain in the Bill, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the assurances that have been given will not only be honoured but be capable of being honoured.
I withdrew an amendment on Monday night following assurances from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and my noble friend Lady Stowell, when I sought to add Roman Catholic priests to the definition of the clergy. I did so for many of the same reasons advanced by my noble friend Lady Berridge. There is concern—real worry and anxiety—in this House and in the country. The Bill will make its way to the statute book; of that I have no doubt. I regret that but, as a good democrat, I accept it. However, I want it to give the strongest possible protection to those who in all conscience cannot accept the fundamental statement that same-sex marriage is the same as marriage between a man and a woman. I urge my noble friend, when she comes to wind up this debate—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I hope I am not interrupting at the wrong moment, but will my noble friend agree that we have to think carefully about the role of judges and the role of the legislature? It is the legislature’s role to make the law and the judges’ role to interpret it. Having heard, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with whom I entirely agree, I cannot imagine—I do not know what these breaches of faith in the past amount to; no one has explained what they are talking about—that the independent judiciary would not interpret the legislation as it is now drafted in accordance with its object and purpose. Were there to be any breach of assurances by Ministers, under the Pepper v Hart regime that could, if necessary, be brought to the attention of the courts and they would take that into account. Should we not, when we are making laws, try to make them clear, but at the same time recognise that in the end they are to be interpreted by a wise, independent, enlightened judiciary?
Lord Cormack
Of course, but it is not unknown for a wise, enlightened, independent judiciary, which I strongly defend, to conclude that Parliament has not indeed been clear, and therefore it is very important that Parliament should be clear. We talked about locks, triple locks and quadruple locks. I think that there are very few locks that my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are not capable of unpicking. We want to bear that in mind. It is very important indeed that this Bill, when it passes on to the statute book, has the full guarantees which I am sure my noble friend, in all honesty, wishes it to have.
To return to the point that I was making when my noble friend Lord Lester so courteously interrupted me, I hope that my noble friend, when she comes to wind up, will not only reflect on the concerns, and undertake further to reflect after this debate, but that she will give an opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lady Berridge and others to meet her and her officials to discuss these points in detail.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, although this has been an immensely courteous debate, I would start by wholeheartedly agreeing with the statement from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the need for tolerance and respect for the views of people with whom we fundamentally disagree, both inside and outside this House. It is important that all sides of the House recognise that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, quite rightly said that it is important for Parliament to be clear so that the judges can take a view as regards what happens in the courts. From this side of the House we believe that the Bill as drafted is absolutely clear, including the meaning of the word “compelled” as referred to in Amendment 17. We believe that it would be readily understood and interpreted by the courts as such and that it needs no specific definition in this context. As my noble friend Lord Alli said, the Minister in the other place has given some helpful assurances about the Government’s intention regarding protection against compulsion, which I am sure the noble Lord will reinforce today, as well as clarifying that the definition has not been borrowed from the Matrimonial Causes Act.
Clarity is important but, as I said, there is already clarity in the Bill. That is not to say that I dismiss the concerns expressed around the Committee today. I am sure that the Minister will be able perhaps to assuage those concerns today but, if not, that he will come back on Report and, in the mean time, perhaps put something in writing. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that there should be something substantive before Report was a good one.
On Amendments 13 and 18, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that I was confused about whether she was speaking on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is clear from the exchanges across the Chamber that there were disparities of view in the committee.
Baroness O’Loan
My Lords, for the sake of clarification, I did not speak on behalf of the committee but declared my membership, as I thought appropriate.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon. It is interesting that both noble Baronesses, and the noble Lord, are members of the committee.
We are clear that Amendments 13 and 18 are unnecessary. We believe that they would add confusion to the law. As the noble Baroness said, the public sector equality duty is a duty to have “due regard”, not a duty to act. The due regard must balance discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation equally with discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. It would not permit a public body, even with the intention of eliminating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, lawfully to treat a religious organisation less favourably on account of its beliefs about same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the authority would be in breach of the clear protections in the Bill that will permit religious organisations to remain outside the system of same-sex marriages.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the Equality Act 2010 is a carefully crafted piece of legislation, thanks to many noble Lords present in the Chamber today. It established a balance between protection against discrimination on grounds of religion or belief and protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. To single out one belief—that marriage should be between a man and a woman—risks undermining the protection afforded to religion as a whole, with its entirety of beliefs and practices, because it sets up this one belief as requiring explicit protection. Therefore, Amendment 13—and Amendment 18, which seeks to achieve a similar effect—would prove unhelpful and unnecessary.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I will start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lady Berridge, and the noble Lords, Lord Singh and Lord Hylton, for bringing the amendments before your Lordships’ House in Committee. It has given us an opportunity for a very useful debate, which has been conducted in a very courteous fashion. It was clear that genuine concerns were being expressed. What is interesting is that there is no distinction anywhere in the debate between the objectives of what noble Lords wish to see. It is very clear that religious freedom, including the rights of religious organisations that do not wish to opt in, should be secured.
I will take the advice proffered by my noble friend Lord Lester and not reply to every point. However, it is important that I reply to some of them. My noble friend referred to Pepper v Hart, but we cannot get to that stage if we do not in fact say anything. I will also take up his suggestion, echoed by my noble friend Lord Deben, of putting in written form the points that were raised and my responses.
Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that no religious organisation or individual is penalised by a public authority simply because it has exercised its rights under the Bill to not offer or facilitate same-sex marriages, or because it has expressed the view that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. My noble friend Lady Berridge indicated that there was an anxiety that other religious denominations wished to have the same kind of safeguard and security as has been afforded to the Church of England and the Church in Wales. As I indicated to my noble friend Lord Cormack when he moved an amendment on Monday, there is a historic reason for the distinction for the Church of England and the Church in Wales: namely, the duty on priests in these churches to marry people in their parish. This duty is not incumbent on priests, ministers or imams in other religions and faiths.
The specific context of this amendment is Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which places a duty on public authorities to,
“have due regard to the need to … eliminate discrimination … advance equality of opportunity … and … foster good relations between persons who”,
hold or do not hold a particular protected characteristic.
It is absolutely right—I think that this has been echoed on all sides of your Lordships’ House—that religious organisations and individuals should be free to express their beliefs about same-sex marriage, and to make the decisions protected by this Bill about whether to conduct or participate in same-sex marriages, without fear of repercussion or penalty of any kind. I hope I can clarify for your Lordships that, as the law stands, a public authority would in fact be acting unlawfully if it attempted to rely on the public sector equality duty to treat a religious organisation adversely simply because that organisation did not wish to conduct same-sex marriages, as is explicitly allowed under this Bill.
A policy of penalising people or organisations which have religious or philosophical beliefs with which a public authority disagrees would in itself be discriminatory. One element of the duty is to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination. It is not meant to be itself an instrument to discriminate unlawfully. For a local authority, for example, to withdraw meeting facilities from a church because it decided not to offer same-sex marriage would be likely to be unlawful direct discrimination because of religion or belief. We believe that it would be subject to successful legal challenge, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, commented that there is nothing in the Bill which states that it would be unlawful for a public authority to punish a religious organisation which had not opted in. The courts have considered the question of whether a local authority can use equality legislation to punish an organisation with views of which it disapproves. In the case of Wheeler v Leicester City Council, the council banned a rugby club from using its ground after some of its members attended a tour of South Africa. It used the then Race Relations Act to justify its decision. The case went to the House of Lords, which held that the decision was irrational and that it was an improper purpose, because the members of the rugby club were legally entitled to go on a tour, just as an organisation is entitled not to opt in. I believe that the reasoning in that case to have a clear read-over in this particular case. Similarly, a local authority could not have a policy of refusing to promote staff who have expressed a belief that marriage should only be between—
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
On that very point, why is it that registrars who from conscience, from their heart and beliefs, will not conduct this kind of marriage have been sacked?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, obviously they cannot yet have been sacked because of this legislation, because it is not yet an Act. As my noble friend may recall, we debated the position of registrars at some length on Monday evening. The explanation given then was that registrars perform a public function. As was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, judges, who also exercise a public function, are not allowed to pick and choose which cases come before them. Similarly, a local authority could not have a policy of refusing to promote staff who have expressed a belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This would be unlawful direct discrimination, and the equality duty requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate such discrimination. The equality duty cannot make lawful an otherwise unlawful or oppressive act.
My noble friend Lady Berridge quoted the impact assessment regarding the threat of litigation. It is of course not possible completely to rule out any possibility of somebody bringing legal proceedings. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who pointed out—and as my noble friend Lord Lester quoted on Monday—some authorities do idiotic things. No legislation can provide for every eventuality. However, we believe that the Bill minimises this possibility as far as possible by making it absolutely explicit that those relying on Clause 2 are permitted to refuse to be involved in solemnising same-sex marriages. There would indeed be no cause of action. We believe that an application for strike-out could be made early in any proceedings, as there would be no reasonable prospect of success in such claims. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said that the inclusion of Clause 2(5) and (6) and the protection they provide undermine the protection which we believe is already in place with regard to Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
The amendments to the Equality Act 2010 in Clause 2 provide that it is not unlawful discrimination to refuse to carry out acts specified in Clause 2(2). These specific exceptions are provided to ensure that the Equality Act is not in conflict with the protection provided in Clause 2, so that the law is clear and consistent. This aspect of the Equality Act is the only area of legislation which requires this explicit treatment, as otherwise it would conflict with Clause 2.
We should also remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, that the equality duty is a duty only to have regard. It is not in itself a duty to act, but rather a duty to think. It does not require that particular action is taken or that any specific objective or outcome is achieved. As the noble Lord said, “having regard” also means that we have to have regard to primary legislation, such as what would be in this Act if the Bill is enacted. I hear what my noble friend Lady Knight says about concerns that sometimes guarantees do not always seem to follow through many years later. However, what we are dealing with here—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made this point—is a fundamental part of the architecture of this legislation: namely, that there should be religious freedom not to opt in. Therefore, it would be unthinkable for a court not to have regard to a fundamental piece of the legislation we are passing. I certainly hear what the noble Baroness—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Does my noble and learned friend also agree that the Human Rights Act compels this legislation to be construed compatibly with religious freedom as defined in the European convention?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Indeed, my noble friend is right. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives that right to freedom of religious belief and expression. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said that sometimes the courts are reluctant to second-guess public authorities. It is highly unlikely that the court would do something which is in direct contradiction of what Parliament has clearly expressed and intended not just in the Bill but in all the statements that have been made by Ministers and, indeed, by almost everyone who has participated in these debates.
It is also important to note—again, this point was made by my noble friend Lord Lester and picked up by my noble friend Lord Deben—that amendments can sometimes have unintended and adverse consequences. I know that is certainly not the intention of the noble Baroness who moved this amendment, but the equality duty applies to and protects equally various protected characteristics, including religion or belief so a public authority has to bear in mind the impact of its policies on people holding different religious or philosophical beliefs, such as the belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. If, as the amendment proposes, a public authority is prevented from having any regard to individuals’ or organisations’ beliefs about same-sex marriage, it would be unable to consider how its own decisions could potentially discriminate against, or otherwise disadvantage, people who believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. That would remove an important protection for people who hold such a belief. I know that this is not what the noble Baroness intends but it illustrates the fact that when you try to solve one problem you can create another.
As I say, I recognise the concerns that some public bodies might be overzealous or mistaken in their exercise of the equality duty or misuse it to the detriment of those who do not agree with same-sex marriage. As I have indicated, no Government can give a copper-bottomed guarantee that some public authorities will not act irrationally. It is important that we ensure that public authorities understand their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 correctly, and how these relate to beliefs about marriage. With that in mind, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has undertaken to review its guidance for public authorities to ensure that the position is as clear as possible. As I have said, while I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, it is unnecessary and could have adverse consequences quite at odds with its intention.
I turn to Amendment 17. The concept of compulsion is readily understood in its natural meaning, and to subject anyone to any type of detriment or unfavourable treatment because they refuse to participate in any way in religious solemnization of same-sex marriages would clearly be understood as a violation of their legal right under this Bill not to participate. We are therefore confident that Clause 2 provides strong and effective protection to ensure that religious organisations and their representatives cannot be forced to participate in same-sex marriages against their belief. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill set out the position, as quoted by my noble friend Lady Berridge: the concept of compulsion is a broad one, which would include, but not be limited to, attempts to use criminal or civil law, contractual provisions or the imposition of any detriment to force a person to carry out the activities protected in Clause 2. The clause provides no specific remedy, but makes clear that no attempt at such compulsion would be upheld.
Less favourable treatment by a public authority of a person or organisation who does something which the Bill makes clear they are legally entitled to do would, in itself, clearly be unlawful and open to judicial review. The imposition of any penalties—civil or criminal —on a religious organisation or representative in order to compel them to opt in, or to participate in, religious solemnisation of same-sex marriages is clearly unlawful under the Bill.
Clause 2 will clearly prevent criminal or civil action being taken against any religious organisation or representatives merely for refusing to undertake acts protected under this clause. This includes, but is not limited to, disciplinary or other action taken in the employment context. In all circumstances a person who has suffered a detriment simply because they have not done one of the acts specified in Clause 2 will be able to rely on the protections in that clause to show that such conduct is unlawful and to obtain a remedy within the context of the particular claim.
Lord Cormack
Perhaps I could remind my noble and learned friend of my other suggestion: that detailed conversations should be offered to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lady Berridge and others on this point.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If my noble friend had allowed me to finish the sentence that I had started when he intervened, I would have said that, having received it, those who wish to pursue this matter further in discussion with myself and my noble friend Lady Stowell—
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I do not wish to be consulted, but I suggest that the document or letter is put into the Library so that it is in the public domain. Otherwise it will not appear in Hansard.
Lord Elton
May I suggest that all those who have taken part in the debate should have a copy sent directly? Could my name be added to that list?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My noble friend has taken part in the debate and I usually make it a matter of practice to send a copy to everyone who has taken part. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, makes a constructive suggestion. I will make sure that it is put in the Library and if, on the basis of the letter and follow-up, it is thought that a discussion would be necessary or wanted, I would certainly be happy to accommodate that. In the light of these comments and the reassurances that we have sought to give, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this debate. The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Alli, and various other noble Lords have emphasised the need for clarity in legislation. The Bill, as drafted in the House of Commons, is already subject to amendment by the Government. It is clear that there are situations in which law which is drafted in the first instance by draftsmen requires clarification. That is why the House exists.
This particular piece of legislation falls at the interface of a number of different human rights—rights of religion and other rights. That is why it is so difficult for the House. The Bill seems to be based on the assumption that the act of marrying is separate from the act of registering a marriage, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, demonstrated quite clearly that that is not the case. It is one single act. It is that which raises the whole spectre of public function. I raised this issue and specifically asked the Minister at Second Reading about the risk attached to the public function obligations of religious organisations that are in that hybrid position—those other than the Church of England and the Church in Wales. I did not get any answer to that question.
In the context of the Bill, we are looking not only at the acts of marriage but at the unintended consequences of the legislation before your Lordships’ House. They go much further than the act of conducting or permitting the conducting and so on of a marriage. They go to the whole remit of public authorities in funding, enabling and resourcing organisations such as youth clubs and schools, and in teachers’ ability to speak freely. We have a number of amendments still to come before the Committee in this context. My amendments would have dealt with some elements of these issues but there are other amendments that relate to them. I put it to the Committee that the issues are not quite as clear as some noble Lords would wish to state.
The fact is that there is a clear distinction in the legislation between the Church of England, the Church in Wales and other churches that solemnise marriage, which is that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are not in a position in which they will decide whether to opt in or out without further legislative process outwith this Parliament. That is what makes the difference and it is why we have the quadruple lock for the Church of England, which is not a sufficient lock for other churches. That is why I have tabled these amendments.
I do not wish to be in any way contentious or to delay the House but I cannot help remembering that the Catholic adoption agencies that have now closed as a consequence of legislation were also argued for on the basis of religious freedom. That argument was lost and there is no religious freedom there in the provision of services. It is profoundly important that we ensure that we do not further create very difficult situations. I will therefore, for the moment, withdraw and not move my amendments but reserve the right, having heard what the Minister had to say, to come back to the House on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carey of Clifton
“( ) A person does not contravene section 29 only because the person—
(a) does not conduct a service of blessing for a relevant marriage, or(b) is not present at, does not carry out, or does not otherwise participate in, a service of blessing for a relevant marriage, or(c) does not consent to a service of blessing for a relevant marriage being conducted, for the reason that the marriage is the marriage of a same sex couple.”
Lord Carey of Clifton
My Lords, before I address the amendment, perhaps I may refer to an earlier speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, in which she referred to me personally, I think in relation to Amendment 9. What she did not know was that I had withdrawn my name from that amendment and I think that the reference should have been to the noble Lord, Lord Dear.
The Government have been at great pains to stress that the Bill constitutes no threat to religious liberty in the sense of how religious organisations conduct themselves. I am greatly reassured by the Government’s comments and we have heard them repeated this afternoon. Nevertheless, it is an important test of the Bill that religious liberty, so defined, can stand varied tests in line with the view expressed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the other place. She said:
“Our proposals will ensure that all religious organisations can act in accordance with their beliefs because equal marriage should not come at the cost of freedom of faith, nor freedom of faith come at the cost of equal marriage”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/13; col. 128.]
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, told us that,
“no religious organisation or individual can be forced to conduct or participate in a religious marriage ceremony of a same-sex couple. The religious freedom of those organisations and individuals is protected”.—[Official Report, 3/5/13; col. 939.]
I welcome those statements. It is absolutely right that no religious body or minister of religion should be compelled to choose between a readiness to act in violation of their faith by withdrawing from the provision of marriages or getting into trouble with the law.
In following through on this intention, however, it is important for the Government to recognise that marriage ceremonies are not the only relevant service that a religious body or minister of religion might be asked to conduct. Increasingly today people who marry outside a religious context come afterwards to a place of worship asking for a blessing. If Members of the Committee are not sure what I am getting at, they may go online and type in “blessings” and see a very good one on the Church of England site, which I have used in the past after a civil marriage. I am particularly thinking of the predicament of nonconformist and minority ethnic churches.
A blessing ceremony may sound less weighty than a marriage ceremony but the Government must understand that officiating at a blessing would be just as problematic for a faith community whose celebrants could not officiate at a same-sex marriage ceremony without violating their conscience as would officiating at a marriage ceremony. Doing so would involve the religious body or minister of religion authenticating, celebrating and affirming something that their conscience forbids them from doing. The provision of a blessing ceremony in such a context would involve the minister of religion and the religious body in question acting in direct violation of their religious identity. Such a religious body or minister of religion would have to decline to provide such a service in just the same way that they would have to decline to marry a same-sex couple.
As things stand, however, if the Bill becomes law, Section 29 of the Equality Act means that religious bodies that cannot perform same-sex marriage blessings will be in just as much trouble as a church that could not provide same-sex marriages, were it not for the fact that Section 29 is being amended for that purpose by Clause 2. The point that I am making, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who is not in his seat, has no belt and no braces whatever. It is entirely vulnerable. If the Government—
Lord Alli
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for giving way. I know that he will know the Church of England a lot better than I do but in order to conduct a religious blessing, let us say of a civil partnership, in a religious building, it is up to the House of Bishops and the General Synod to approve a liturgy. Without that approval there is no approved blessing by the Church. There is surely, therefore, a mechanism because if I am a priest I cannot conduct a blessing without a liturgy and, therefore, the synod would have to have pre-agreed that it was permitting the blessing, and without such a blessing it could not do so.
Lord Carey of Clifton
Yes. I thank the noble Lord for that intervention but I am referring to nonconformist churches which have liturgies that are laid down. In some cases, the very fact of an extempore liturgy is a liturgy itself. The point is whether it is done in a house or a church is immaterial. I am referring to a specific area that is not covered by the Bill. Such bodies would therefore be vulnerable to litigation.
Lord Carey of Clifton
The noble Lord is exactly right but I am not talking about the Church of England because there are liturgies for blessing. I am talking about other areas of church life.
Amendment 15 addresses this problem by amending Clause 2, which already inserts an appropriate protection into Section 29 of the Equality Act with respect to marriage provision. It uses an identical form of words to extend a similar protection in relation to the provision of same-sex marriage blessing ceremonies. In amending Section 29, as Amendment 15 makes clear:
“A person does not contravene Section 29 only because the person (a) does not conduct a service of blessing for a relevant marriage, or (b) is not present at, does not carry out, or does not otherwise participate in, a service of blessing for a relevant marriage, or (c) does not consent to a service of blessing for a relevant marriage being conducted, for the reason that the marriage is the marriage of a same sex couple.”
I cannot conceive of any reason why the Government or any Member of your Lordships’ House, who agrees with the Government’s commitment to protecting religious bodies and ministers of religion from officiating at same-sex marriages, could oppose Amendment 15. It applies exactly the same principles to the increasingly important area of blessing ceremonies that seem to have been overlooked in the drafting of this Bill.
I commend Amendment 15 to the House and hope that the Government and all sides of the House will feel able to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, this is entirely misconceived. This Bill is not about blessings. The church has a right to bless or not as it likes. In my case I am referring to the Catholic church, and not the Church of England, and you can bless without any difficulty. The idea that somehow by refusing a blessing you would be subject to the law because of this Bill seems totally fallacious. You might be subject to the law according to other Acts, but we have not found that, and if you want to change those Acts, no doubt that would be sensible. But really, this is otiose. That is what worries me. It seems perfectly proper that people who disagree with the vast majority of both Houses on this subject will seek proper protection in areas where one might be uncertain. However there is also a degree of courtesy—I am sorry to have raised that word because it will now dog me for the rest of my life—about not loading this Bill with all kinds of statements about how you do not want to be pressed in this or that way.
It is quite clear what a blessing is. It is something which the churches give as a generous offering to people who ask for it. There is no compulsion; they do not have to do it. If they refuse it, as they can in many cases, there is no question of there being any recourse to law. My father was an Anglican clergyman; he would give blessings in certain circumstances and not in others. That was because in some circumstances he thought they were suitable, in others he thought they were not. Nobody could, would, or should ever have taken him to court. Imagine the court case: “Well, old father, what did you do this for?” and the response, “These two people have been living with other people as well at the same time and so I decided not to give them a blessing”. On what possible basis does the court then say, “You should have given them a blessing”?
I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, that we have to be very careful. There is a great deal of unhappiness among decent people about the attitude of some churchmen to this Bill. Therefore, for goodness’ sake, do not let us load this Bill with all sorts of bits and pieces which are not necessary. Let us protect people where the Bill affects them. Do not let us try to protect people where the Bill does not affect them, otherwise we will be doing something which is the bane of American legislation: because there is no concept of the Long Title, you can add anything you like to any Act. You say, “If you want me to vote for this, I want you to include my bit about a bridge in my constituency”. I fear that this is precisely that kind of addition. It seeks to squeeze something into the Bill which has nothing to do with it at all.
Lastly, I will say why this is very serious. If we are to take seriously the contention of some churchmen that same-sex marriages are uniquely unacceptable, those same churchmen have to be very careful that they do not spread that unacceptability to other things. A blessing is manifestly something which the churches have used to overcome the reality of pastoral care as against the reality of doctrinal belief. It ought to stay there. The last place where it ought to be reflected is in the legislation of this House and of this Parliament. Blessing is a mechanism whereby the Church of England, for example, has overcome the fact that doctrinally it believes that marriage is indissoluble, but on the other hand it has to deal with marriage as it is. That is what blessing is. Do not, for goodness’ sake, try to muck this up by adding to this Bill something which is entirely extraneous.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this amendment is concerned with Section 29 which is related to the exercise of public functions. Whether you give a blessing or not is plainly not a public function, it is a religious function. It is subject to a higher authority, no doubt, but that higher authority is not the Queen’s Bench Division, the administrative court and the Court of Appeal. It would be very damaging indeed to religious bodies for this legislation to suggest that Section 29 could apply to the exercise of what are plainly and simply religious functions.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, used the word “courtesy”. I wish to make a plea for clarity. I have said already twice during our debates that I utterly support the rights of religious organisations to take a very different view of same-sex marriage than me, as passionately as I believe that public functions need to be open to all. I regret that none of the Methodist mafia is here today—they are usually around when I need one of them—but I want to make a particular point about the nonconformist churches. We spend an awful lot of time talking about the Church of England for obvious reasons, but I do not want any of the nonconformist churches to be left in any doubt that they will be subject to some kind of compulsion when the Church of England will not be. That is absolutely not the case.
One of the reasons I wished that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, or the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, were here would be to confirm my understanding that—on a slightly different point—the Methodist Church, at its conference, is being asked to uphold the view that it will not bless civil partnerships. That is its right and, along with any other church, it will have the right to exercise the same judgment in relation to same-sex marriage.
I want to go slightly further; I hope that churches that take those decisions make it known publicly and loudly that that is their decision. I have spent my life very seriously observing the rights of religious people and trying not to offend them. It is not my intention, as a gay person, ever to offend somebody who holds that religious viewpoint, but I would like churches to make it abundantly clear to me, as a gay person, what their view is, so that I may lead my life in a way that does not directly offend them.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that, as legislators working on the Bill, our duty is to protect those who will be affected when it is enacted and not others. Section 28 of the Equality Act 2010 provides for a clear exemption for services provided in relation to marriage and civil partnership from the Section 29 duty not to discriminate. This will not change under this Bill. I therefore expect the Minister to confirm that a refusal to conduct a blessing of a same-sex marriage would be considered a “related service”, and thus protected under existing provisions within the Equality Act 2010. Therefore we believe that Amendment 15 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, is unnecessary.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, for flagging this issue so that all of us can answer it with clarity. Amendment 15 seeks clarity that the refusal by a religious organisation or its representative to conduct a service of blessing of a marriage of a same-sex couple would not be considered unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The amendment distinguishes between the legal act of solemnisation of a marriage and a religious blessing which does not have legal effect. The amendment is intended to ensure that there is no requirement to conduct such blessings. As with the last group of amendments, we are in agreement on the aim of protecting religious organisations, and I am glad that the noble and right reverend Lord was reassured by much of the previous debate, on that matter.
As the noble and right reverend Lord recognised, the Government are determined that, in opening up the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, they will protect and promote religious freedom, as other noble Lords have said. The Bill ensures that religious organisations and their representatives will not be forced to conduct or participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies. The quadruple lock in this respect amends the Equality Act 2010 to make clear that it is not unlawful discrimination for a religious organisation or representative to refuse to marry a same-sex couple, and I remind the noble and right reverend Lord that these protections apply beyond the Church of England, as my noble friend Lady Barker made very clear.
The amendment is unnecessary because it is already covered by the Bill, and I thank my noble friend Lord Deben and other noble Lords for their support. Clause 2(2) provides that a person cannot be compelled to carry out, attend or take part in a “relevant marriage”. A relevant marriage is defined in Clause 2(4)(a)(iv) as “including any ceremony” connected with the solemnisation of a marriage of a same-sex couple according to religious rites as well as—this is most important—a religious ceremony after a civil marriage of such a couple. The existing religious protections in Clause 2 therefore apply to a blessing of a marriage, which is the same target of this amendment.
In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, explained, and I can confirm, in any event, the conduct of a service of blessing is not something on which the Equality Act 2010 bites, as being purely a religious matter outside of the scope of that Act in the same way that baptisms or the provision of communion are religious issues not covered by discrimination law. So any kind of blessing of a marriage which has no legal effect would not be covered by discrimination law and does not need protection in the way that the amendment envisages.
Lord Tebbit
My noble friend referred to Clause 2(2) which states that:
“A person may not be compelled”.
Is she able to say where in the Bill or elsewhere it is provided that a person who does not conduct a relevant marriage and so on may not be penalised in any way?
Baroness Northover
I am not sure if my noble friend was in his place for the earlier debate, but we had quite an extensive discussion. He may be interested in reading the letter that will be put together by my noble and learned friend.
Lord Tebbit
I was here for a substantial part of that debate, but not all of it. I ask a simple question: is my noble friend able to confirm that a person would not be penalised?
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My noble friend is able to offer free advice on this.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Yes, it comes free. When the noble Baroness replied to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, she may have had in mind not only what was said in the previous debate but the fact that at common law, as was said in that debate, it is quite clear that for a public authority to misuse its powers punitively is itself a public law wrong. The case quoted was that of Wheeler, but there have been others such as, for example, when Rupert Murdoch was penalised by a public authority so far as advertising was concerned. It was also when Shell was penalised because of a boycott. They were cases where public authorities were doing public law wrongs, and in my opinion that would apply equally at common law so far as this is concerned.
Baroness Northover
I find it amazing that my noble friend Lord Lester knows what is inside my head when I myself do not necessarily know what is inside it, and I appreciate his understanding. Coming back to the amendment that we are addressing here, I hope that the noble and right reverend Lord is reassured by what I have said, and by what other noble Lords have said in addition, and that he will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carey of Clifton
My Lords, I am grateful for this brief debate and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that courtesy and respect are very much at the heart of what the House of Lords does and the way in which we do our business. However, as a House we have to listen to the concerns of many of the people out there; people who we know. I can assure noble Lords that I did not concoct this amendment because I was personally associated with it. I did so because of the many concerns that people have. I would differ from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in his view that this is quite different from the Marriage Act 1949. It is not, because the people who do the blessings are doing so over the marriage itself. Nevertheless, what I gained from this brief debate is a clear assurance that people have nothing to fear. That is now on the record, particularly the view of the noble Baroness that it is unnecessary because it is covered by the Bill. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harrison
“(cc) a marriage of any couple conducted according to the usages of an approved organisation;”
Lord Harrison
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 22A and 27A. I am so sorry that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, has departed because I was reminded during the course of the debate today that one of the shorter and most interesting aphorisms of William Blake was, “Damn braces: Bless relaxes”. Given the necessity for belt and braces which has been expressed by so many colleagues, perhaps it would have been apposite today. I, too, seek a blessing for the amendment that I would like to introduce.
The amendment would allow humanists to have a wedding fashioned to reflect their humanist beliefs. It would allow those marrying to have a celebrant who is himself or herself a humanist—one of their own kind. The amendment would also allow such humanist marriages to be open to both gay and heterosexual couples, which is consistent with the Bill, for which I am a strong advocate. Indeed, it would have allowed me and my wife, who have been happily together for 40 years, to have celebrated our own commitment and unshakeable love in a marriage of true minds. This amendment is, indeed, an affair of the heart, which brings heartache to none.
This amendment is in line with a succession of reforms over the centuries that have responded to inequalities of the law, or rather to growing sensitivity to such inequalities. The modern law started with Lord Hardwicke’s Act of 1753, but since then there have been 45 items of primary legislation that are still on the statute book, 27 of them in the present reign, as well as many that have been completely repealed. Many of them widen the choice of methods by which one can marry, gradually relaxing the original rule that virtually everyone had to marry at their parish church.
Today, any Christian denomination, or indeed other religion, can register its place of worship for the solemnisation of marriage. At the most recent count in 2010, there were in excess of some 30,000 registered places of worship. This total excludes the Church of England and the Church in Wales. They range from the Methodists with more than 7,000, the Catholics with 3,600, to more minor denominations such as the Unitarians with 176 and the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion with 15. They take in the main non-Christian religions. The Muslims have more than 900 places registered for marriage while devotees of Krishna are content with but one. Then there are the spiritualists with 323 places registered for marriages and there is the somewhat bizarre Aetherius Society with one place registered for weddings, whose website proclaims that its philosophy and teachings come largely from highly advanced intelligences from higher planes of Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn, and that these cosmic masters, or gods from space, visit earth probably in flying saucers.
Every religious taste appears to be accounted for, but as the census reminds us, at least a quarter of us have no religion. What of us? Many of us are reconciled to settle for the one size fits all civil marriage introduced in 1836 in the most significant by far of those Acts that have since vanished from the statute book. Indeed, civil marriage by registrar now accounts for two out of every three marriages. For most people, it is perfectly satisfactory, but if you want to have a ceremony that reflects your own belief, then the registry office can be very unsatisfactory.
The fundamental restriction that it may not include any religious content now under the current laws of equality and human rights means that it may not either include on the part of the registrar or any other participant any content distinctive of a non-religious belief, such as humanism—added to which, of course, the presiding registrar may in fact be an ardent Christian, Muslim, or indeed a member of the Aetherius Society.
The most significant group by far of non-religious people in England and Wales who hold a positive non-religious belief are the humanists. They find it vexing that while marriages according to all religious beliefs are legally recognised, those conducted by humanists are legally invalid. A humanist ceremony may express their profoundest sentiments and commitment to each other, but it counts for nothing in the eyes of the law. To be legally married, you have to go off to a registry office and go through a second procedure.
Moreover, the British Humanist Association finds that there is a growing demand for its marriage ceremonies. The British Humanist Association will be known to many of your Lordships for its funeral ceremonies, which are highly regarded, to the extent that they are now copied with more or less success by funeral directors and even by some clergy. Its marriages, of which it conducts more than 600 a year, are notably even more special. They express humanist values and beliefs, but are individually shaped around the commitments that the humanist couple wish to make to each other in front of their families and friends. Some of your Lordships will have seen the eloquent testimonies from couples who have had such BHA weddings and how much they mean not only to the couples themselves, and to other humanists present, but even how highly they are regarded by their religious relatives who attend. If we want to underpin the importance of marriage in these changing times, one way is to make more marriages like these humanists ones. I speak as someone who has had the joy and honour of being a celebrant and conducting such a humanist marriage, albeit informally.
In order to clarify humanism and the kind of marriage we would want, I will describe what makes it distinctive. The marriage is conducted by a celebrant who shares the beliefs and values of the couple. The celebrant spends time with the couple prior to the marriage itself to know them better and better to shape the subsequent marriage. The marriage ceremony in general reflects specific humanist convictions; for example, that there is no supernatural side to this reality and that human beings in the here and now are the source of value and meaning. These are specific non-religious belief elements. Beyond the general reflection of humanist values that underlie the ceremony, the order of service is created in line with the specific beliefs and values of the couple. This itself reflects a humanist conviction about the creation of meaning in human lives. The marriage is conducted in a place of particular meaning or significance to the couple.
Scotland is relevant only because it shows the pent-up demand for humanist marriages. Since they were legalised in 2005, humanist ceremonies have soared from a few hundred a year to approaching 3,000. In 2011, there were 2,846 humanist marriages, but only 1,729 Roman Catholic ones. Only Church of Scotland and civil marriages are more popular. In 2011, humanist marriages amounted to 8.5% of all marriages and 18% of all religion or belief marriages. Moreover, if one looks at the past few years, since humanist weddings became well established, the picture is striking. In the latest three years for which figures are available—2009 to 2011—the total number of marriages in Scotland has been rising again, by 1,611, with humanist ceremonies contributing 942 marriages, 58% of that increase. Humanists stand ready to boost the pattern and practice of marriage in this country.
It is difficult to think of any reason why England and Wales should be different from Scotland. I mentioned in passing that Ireland has recently legislated to recognise humanist marriages, that a similar change has occurred in Iceland, and that Norway, Ontario, Australia and New Zealand already have such humanist marriages.
In the other place, humanist marriage was strongly supported at the Report stage of the Bill but encountered an obstacle when the Attorney-General pronounced that the version of the amendment under debate there fell foul of the European Convention on Human Rights. That version mentioned humanists specifically and the Attorney-General ruled that it would give rise to claims by other non-religious belief organisations of discrimination. As it happens, the British Humanist Association has legal advice that no such claim could have succeeded. Be that as it may, my present amendment has been redrafted to be proof against any such objection and Matrix Chambers has provided the BHA with written advice to that effect.
The present draft refers not to humanist organisations but to those advancing a non-religious belief. It might be thought that this would open the field to bodies other than humanists—there have been silly scare stories in the press about Jedi weddings and the like—but in fact it is difficult to think of any other organisation with a belief system that can meet the criteria set out in the amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of my noble friend’s amendments and of this Bill. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, asked noble Lords a few moments ago to listen to the people out there. We live in an increasingly diverse society and are observing shifts in our lifetime from one generation to another. When most of us were young, it was assumed that most people were Christians—or at least claimed to be. Nowadays, among young people at least, the opposite is true, and surveys and polls show that the majority are not religious. Even in the census, which was very conservative, 25% of us said we had no religion. Among the under-50s, more than 40% said so.
There are, of course, those who do not welcome this move away from religion. One consequence is that among young people with no religion—I suspect among older people, too—many nevertheless have strong beliefs and commitments that are not necessarily religious but still provide answers to questions about the importance of relationships, respect for others and moral standpoints. I would maintain that most young people have strong moral commitments at the personal and social level. What for many previous generations was expressed in Christianity, many young people today express in beliefs about respect for each other, the world and future generations.
This is relevant to the amendments that we are debating. These young people, when they marry, often wish to do so in a ceremony that expresses their humanist commitments and beliefs, and their respect for other people. Just as for many religious people the idea of a wedding in a register office is a mere legal formality compared to the vows they make to each other and to God in a church wedding, so for these young humanists it is second best to settle for a civil wedding conducted by a registrar who, regardless of his faith or lack of it, is not allowed by law to give expression to any religious belief, including humanism.
The Bill is about equal marriage. It is also about equal weddings and allowing this growing segment of our population—already growing in size, as my noble friend said—to conduct their own legally recognised weddings within the framework of their own humanist beliefs and commitments. The proposal has wide support. In Scotland, as my noble friend said, humanists conduct more weddings than any religious body apart from the Church of Scotland. A YouGov poll tells us that more than half the population support the proposal, with only 6% strongly opposed and another 6% tending that way. I understand that the Church of England told the British Humanist Association last week that they would not oppose it.
The British Humanist Association was accommodating in drafting the amendments proposed at earlier stages of the Bill and in responding to suggestions made at meetings with government Ministers and officials. The difficulties that were expressed then now seem to have been resolved. The amendment breaks no new ground in being based on an organisation rather than a building: the Jews and Quakers are already in this position. The principal concern expressed by officials at Church House last week to the British Humanist Association was that the public nature of marriage should be preserved. That is something that we can surely all endorse but it does not require a registered building, only that the place intended for the wedding is known and open to all who wish to attend. The amendment specifies “with open doors” and the location for all weddings is already included in the notice of marriage required under the Marriage Act 1949.
The proposal is not for a celebrant-based system; what the amendment says about nominating registering officers is precisely what the law says about non-Anglican churches nominating their clergy as such. There are no implications for the safeguards for religions not wishing to conduct same-sex marriages.
I am told that Bills about marriage come along about once in a generation. Let us not, through excessive caution, allow the injustice of the present system to wait for another generation to be put right.
Lord Garel-Jones
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and the new schedule proposed in Amendment 27A.
Whenever I am asked what my religion is I reply, “I am a Church of England atheist”. I hasten to say that this is not some glib witticism, but a true reflection of my position. I do not believe in God and I am a member of the All-Party Humanist Group. However, the King James Bible, the Cranmer prayer book and Hymns Ancient and Modern are a part of my DNA. Their role in our history and their language are part of what makes our country what it is today. Consequently, when noble Lords talk about traditional marriage, I understand and respect where they are coming from.
I am a little concerned, as was my noble friend Lord Deben, that a number of religious believers in your Lordships’ House may, with the greatest courtesy, have been attempting to load up the Bill. I shall concentrate my remarks on the allegation that this amendment undermines, as it were, the whole basis of the law on marriage. As the law stands, any religion may conduct legally recognised marriages so long as they have use of a registered place of worship. Any sect of any religion that can afford a building can register it as a place of worship, and then re-register it for marriages without any obstacle whatever. In effect, provided you are a religion, you get a bisque.
Putting aside the 11 main Christian denominations—the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, made reference to this—there are almost 4,500 places registered for the solemnisation of marriage by minor Christian groups, and more than 650 by non-Christian groups. Many of these, to put it as kindly as I can, are a little eccentric. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, referred to the Aetherius Society, which believes that gods from outer space visit the earth in flying saucers—and, yes, the Aetherius Society is registered to perform marriages.
This amendment simply proposes approval for organisations that, unlike religious bodies, which sail through unimpeded, meet a number of serious criteria. The first one in Amendment 22A—it is printed on the Marshalled List so I will not tire the Committee by reading it all out—makes a series of requirements. They must be registered charities of good repute, they must have been established for at least 10 years, the ceremonies must be rooted in their belief, written procedures must exist and so on. In other words, a simple visit from a flying saucer will simply not suffice for the humanist group. A serious list of terms and conditions is set out in the proposed new clause.
On the registration of buildings, to which the noble Baroness has just referred, I think this is a bit of a red herring. Any marriage needs to be preceded by a public notice—either banns in a parish church or a notice under Section 27 of the Marriage Act 1949. The amendment ensures not only that the place is known but that the marriage is to be celebrated under open doors. I believe, therefore, that this objection is without substance. The proposal is organisation-based in the same way that the law already recognises the organisations of Jews and Quakers. I recognise that what we, as humanists, are seeking to do is, as it were, to slipstream in behind the Bill, which I strongly support.
In conclusion, I say with respect that the two main Christian religions in our country are in some danger of falling out of step with civil society. For example, any corporation that made it clear that women were excluded from top positions in its organisation would find itself in court. Consequently, the debate about women bishops now going on in the Church of England raises a few eyebrows in this day and age. Most young married couples are involved in family planning and yet, as I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church continues to regard this as a mortal sin.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
On the question of religions falling out of step with civil society, religions are there to give values to society, lasting and ethical values, on which society should be based for its own good so that responsibility and consideration of others is there. I see dangers in civil society falling out of step with that guidance.
Lord Garel-Jones
With the greatest respect, I agree except that I would put it the other way around. The danger that I see for religions, particularly the one to which I feel sentimentally attached, the Church of England, is that they will fall out of step with civil society. For example, the progress that has been made over the past 100 years in rights for women is widely supported in civil society. Therefore, as I said earlier, it seems a little odd to see the Church of England debating whether women should be bishops. It is, of course, a matter for them and for their religious beliefs.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
I apologise, but the noble Lord refers to religions—he has clarified the issue now—and gives the example of women. Women were given full equality in the Sikh religion from day one.
It is not a question of marketing. Religions and value-based systems should not go for marketing. They are offering something, and that must not go with the tide. That is absurd.
Lord Garel-Jones
As I say, I am not the best person to be advising churches on how to handle the like. However, religions evolve and have, over the centuries, evolved along with society. I would suggest that they might be wise to do so.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that I very much hope that she will be able to give consideration to this matter. I recognise that we are attempting to slipstream behind the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which I strongly support, and which has been strongly supported both in this House and in the other place. We also know—I think we all know this—that even with a piece of legislation of this kind, which is non-party and free vote, officials look to their Ministers for guidance. I have no doubt that if my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place were to suggest to their officials that they would like to find a way of accommodating humanist marriage within the Bill, they could and would do just that. I very much hope that the Government will move such an amendment on Report.
In the mean time, if I may paraphrase a lyric from Hymns Ancient and Modern, I can assure the House that we in the humanist movement,
“will not cease from mental fight”,
until we have achieved full recognition in the law for humanist marriage.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I greatly appreciate both the humour of the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, and the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. Conversations have just been referred to. There has indeed been a conversation, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, but it was only a few days ago and it was just with officials. There is not yet, I think, a formal Church of England view on this matter. Your Lordships should take account of that in hearing what I have to say.
Personally, I am open to this proposal. Nevertheless, I have a serious question as to whether it is right—to use the phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones—to slipstream this into this Bill, which is about same-sex marriage. I have three reasons for seeking to avoid confusion at this point.
First, as has been recognised already, this amendment would intrude a celebrant-based recognition, or at least a partly celebrant-based recognition, into the marriage law of England and Wales. I declare an interest: according to the law of England and Wales, I am one of the persons in this Chamber who can and do solemnise marriages in the Church of England, in parish churches and, with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s special licence, anywhere at any time, which is more than civil marriage allows; that is an aside. There is nothing wrong with the celebrant system—
Baroness Thornton
I thank the right reverend Prelate for allowing me to interject on the subject of the celebrant-based system. This amendment is not about introducing a celebrant-based system into the arrangements for humanist marriages. It is quite important that the right reverend Prelate does not develop an argument about the celebrant-based system when actually this amendment does not seek to do that. It seeks to follow the Scottish arrangements for humanist weddings.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
I am grateful for that point of information and I accept that clarification.
The other issue I was going to put before the House is the professional quality of our registrars, and a very significant change in breaking what is a monopoly of either clergy of religious faith communities or our registrars. That sort of change needs more consultation than has taken place thus far on this issue. I repeat that I am actually open to the issue in principle but I do not think it is right to put it into this Bill.
I must confess some confusion—even Church of England bishops can be confused sometimes—at the way in which many humanists wish to have what seems to be a non-religious church. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, is assenting. For me, that is, in the words of Alice, “curiouser and curiouser”, but it will be for the House to decide whether or not to slipstream this in. There is a question mark on this Bench.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I would like to pick up on the right reverend Prelate’s last point about the curious distinction between a humanist celebration of marriage and one for those of us of faith. I refer back to the very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, about those of us of faith who have been very moved by humanist funerals, where without the liturgy and the solemn elements that are very important to those of us of faith, it has been possible to absolutely capture in a particular style and format that is relevant—in the case of a funeral, for the family and friends of the bereaved, and, we hope in the future, in the case of a marriage, to the absolute wishes of the couple—in a form that is almost like liturgy. I suspect that the humanists would not like that word but it gives a sense of the importance of the act that the couple are about to go through.
The case studies that the British Humanist Association has sent through have drawn the distinction very clearly between the clinical process that can happen in a civil registry office versus the extremely moving ceremony that a humanist celebrant can create with a couple to mark the day in the way that they want. I would regret it if we picked up the French style of having to have two ceremonies. In France, of course, they celebrate both in style; weddings go on for whole weekends there, it is never just one event. But I have been very moved by the accounts in these case studies where it is absolutely apparent that the handfasting and the words that the couple have chosen mean as much to them as the marriage ceremony means to me as a Christian. If this Bill is about the coalition’s commitment to equality, and indeed the previous Government’s commitment to equality, now is the time to address this and accept that this organisation should be considered an approved organisation.
To reassure the right reverend Prelate, I know the Watford Area Humanists quite well—I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, does as well—and I am constantly assured of their sincerity and seriousness in not just the debate they engender locally but in understanding the role that they are performing for the rites of passage within our community for those who do not have a faith. I can think of no better organisation to be able to celebrate a marriage and I really hope that, despite the Government’s concerns, it can be looked at.
Wearing my Liberal Democrat hat, I would like to add that the party has been very clear for some time that this is something we would like to see.
Lord Elton
The noble Baroness is very persuasive and I am not at all against what is proposed. But perhaps I might intervene in the mini-debate that my noble friend had with the noble Lord, Lord Singh. The element that my noble friend has not given credit to is that whereas people in his position regard society as being the final moral authority, those in religious faiths see a higher authority but are apt not to mention the fact quite enough. We are trying to handle this in a faith where we acknowledge one leader and one saviour, and trying to reconcile what is proposed now with what he taught us.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, I am a secularist, but I accept that many people are religious. We have spent a lot of time previously talking about the necessary protections to ensure that people who are religious have their right to a religious conscience properly protected. We have spent a lot of time on that again today. I do not object to that because I accept that people feel strongly about their religion and, while I am not religious myself, I accept the right of people to preach their religion if they want to. My only objection is if there is an attempt to impose those beliefs on people like myself who do not accept them.
One of the reasons I have been a member of the Humanist Society for a long time now is because there seem to be people in that society who are concerned with human values, tolerance, good will among people, and so on, but who nevertheless do not go along with what I can only regard as the supernatural part of most religions. Also, in my view many religions, including the main ones, are often rather bad when it comes to women’s rights. Women have made enormous progress in the past century in securing equality and a lot of it has been against some of the major religions.
This amendment draws attention to the requirements many people who are not religious may have which can be met by the Humanist Society. It seems to me to be a very good idea to have the possibility of what the Humanist Society provides for people who want to have a proper ceremony when they marry. The Humanist Society has developed arrangements to train people to provide that sort of service to members of the society. My noble friend Lord Harrison has made a very strong case this afternoon and so have other people. I hope, therefore, that what he is proposing is seriously considered because we are talking about a lot of people. Far more people are non-religious than are practising religious people and therefore we have a right to be considered.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am a lapsed humanist. When I was at Cambridge I was a member of the most privileged club which was the Cambridge Humanists and I lapsed because it was too religious. My most memorable experience was asking EM Forster to give a lecture. He said he would give a lecture on whether Jesus had a sense of humour. I said, “That is a splendid subject”. I was just thinking that now you could not give a lecture like that. You could give one on whether God had a sense of humour. I am not sure you could give one on whether the Prophet had a sense of humour. But certainly the proposition at the time was very interesting in Cambridge.
I completely agree with the speeches in favour of these amendments for all the reasons that have been given. One further reason why I am in favour is because both the Equality Act and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognise the rights not only of those of religious belief but also of those of no belief, and the Strasbourg Court has repeatedly explained that in a plural society agnostics, atheists and non-believers have as much right as believers of all kinds to equality of treatment. I have no doubt that there is inequality of treatment at the moment between humanists as a belief system and others. If you look at those registered as religions, they include, for example, theosophists. It is very difficult to distinguish between a theosophist and a humanist except that one believes in God and the other does not. And Buddhists and Jainists are registered but they are not theistic religions. I believe that, in terms of equality and common sense, we must move on this, and not only because my party thinks so.
My noble friend Lord Deben said that unlike the United States we have orderly systems in this country when we legislate and I am a bit concerned that in the other place they do not seem to take Long Titles seriously. I cannot imagine that these amendments would have slipped through if this legislation had been introduced into this House because, as the Long Title says, the Bill is to make provision,
“for the marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales, about gender change by married persons”,
et cetera. It says nothing at all about the rights of humanists or anybody else. Therefore, being boring about it, this falls completely outside the purpose of this Bill. I do not want to do anything to jeopardise the coming into force of this Bill but the poor old British Humanist Association has already gone through hoops to get to the position we are in. Originally, it tabled amendments just for humanists and then the Attorney-General said, “That is discriminatory”. It quite rightly changed the amendments to include all belief systems and now I am saying that this is not an appropriate vehicle for doing so.
It seems to me that there must be movement on this and if this Bill is not to be the vehicle, then either there has to be a Private Member’s Bill with government support on this separate issue to comply with Article 9 and 14 rights or some kind of inquiry leading to action. Noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in particular—will recall that we had similar problems when we introduced the concept of religious discrimination but did not include discrimination based on sexual orientation. He, with my support, found an ingenious way round that with a regulation power which enabled us to deal with homosexuality as well as with religion. Although that may not be the right way forward here, the Government need to be imaginative and think of ways of giving effect to the object of these amendments without being able to support them in this Bill.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I am not a humanist; I am afraid I am a closet believer in God. But I wanted to add my support to the legislation for humanist marriage and the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill. The Bill is about equal marriage, and allowing fellow citizens to conduct their own legally recognised weddings within their own framework of humanist beliefs seems to me to be a proposal that we should support.
I also believe that there is popular support for this proposal. I suspect the other place was minded to move forward with this but the Attorney-General’s advice at the last minute that the amendments as drafted would breach the European convention and put the quadruple lock at risk meant that there was insufficient time to deal with this. As with so many other issues, the ball is now in our court. I understand that these amendments have been changed to address the issues raised by the Attorney-General and I have seen and even read the advice from Matrix Chambers to support that case. There is huge support for this in my own party, in the Liberal Democrats and on the Cross Benches. I think that this House is minded to pass this and would like the Government to find a way to make this happen. The Government should put their best minds together to see whether we can get these amendments through. On behalf of those who have worked in this area for many years, waiting for a Bill to come along that will allow this to happen, I ask the Minister to look carefully at this.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, before the Minister replies to the debate, I would like to follow up the observations made by my noble friend Lord Lester. This touches on the “slipstream” argument brought forward by my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones. I must admit that I am having difficulty enough coming to terms with the Bill as it is and is likely to become, without any further amendments to it of any kind, as I made clear at Second Reading. I believe that what is proposed in the Bill will lead in due course to a fundamental alteration of the concept of marriage in the Church of England such as I have been brought up to know it and indeed as has been the case for many years.
This is clearly not the Bill for an amendment of this kind. None the less, when this matter was considered in the other place in March this year, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities—I am indebted to the Library for a briefing note on this subject—talking about the inability to hold legally valid humanist marriages in England and Wales, said that the Government would,
“consider amendments to marriage law when an appropriate legislative opportunity arises”.
The Minister felt that this Bill was “not the right vehicle” for the proposed change, and that it,
“must not be thrown off its path by attempts to make wider changes to fundamental marriage law in England and Wales”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 12/3/13; col. 475-76.]
Baroness Thornton
Does the noble Lord think that the humanists need to wait another 19 years for another Bill to come passing by?
Lord Eden of Winton
I am afraid that that is not the immediate problem. The problem is the impact on this legislation and whether this legislation is the right vehicle for the sort of amendment that is being proposed. That is certainly not the case; we are talking about same-sex couples getting married and the opportunities that the Bill would provide for that to take place both in a civil setting and, if the Church of England later agrees, in a Church of England setting.
Since it is indicated by the quotation that I have offered to the Committee that the Government are prepared to give consideration to the claims of the British Humanist Association, I hope that the Minister will give a clear indication of just what the Government have in mind when they say they will give consideration to these propositions.
Lord Aberdare
My Lords, I have no specific expertise on humanism and am not a humanist myself. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, for revealing to me that what I might well be is a Church in Wales atheist.
I doubt that at this stage I can add much to the powerful and convincing arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and others in favour of these amendments. I have been very struck by what we have heard about the number of humanist weddings and the seriousness and sincerity with which they are approached, as well as by the number of other organisations that can already conduct weddings, which was explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison.
I say solely that I add my voice in support of the case that has been made, and I hope that the Government will be able to look carefully and sympathetically at it with a view to fulfilling the sincere desire of humanists to have humanist weddings recognised as legal marriages, as they already are in Scotland. I recognise that this would involve stretching the Bill rather beyond what was originally envisaged, but it would be preferable to take the opportunity presented by the Bill or find a another way of doing it rather than waiting yet another 19 years for the next marriage Bill to come along.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Eden, that the amendments that were tabled in the other place and those that have been tabled here have been accepted as being within the scope of the Bill, so we are perfectly entitled to discuss them as being legitimate within this piece of legislation.
We on these Benches support Amendments 19A, 22A and 27A. I am a humanist. I am not a lapsed one, though I have veered between being a member of the National Secular Society and a member of the British Humanist Association all my life.
I also need to declare an interest in that one of my sisters is a British Humanist Association-accredited celebrant. One of the things that I would like to say to the right reverend Prelate, who has made very generous remarks during this debate, is that the ceremonies that my sister conducts are in every way as professional, carefully constructed, personal and beautiful as any other funeral, marriage or naming celebration that you could wish for. The standard of training and accreditation that the BHA undertakes is exceptional, and it has a commitment to ensuring that, were this to become part of our legislative framework for marriage, its celebrants would of course match the very best of the registrars. So that is not an issue here. I am very proud of my sister and her calling, and I think she has every right to conduct marriage ceremonies.
If either of my children wanted to be married at a humanist wedding service, at the moment they would have to go to Scotland, Australia, the United States, Sweden or, more recently, Ireland. In England and Wales they would have to have a civic ceremony and then a ceremony organised by a humanist celebrant with all the spirituality and commitment that they will have chosen to have in that ceremony. Their choice is restricted by—I have to say this although it might seem a slightly odd expression coming from this side of the House—the closed shop that we find in the old-fashioned rules on marriage in this country, to say nothing of the fact that they would have to pay twice for the pleasure of getting married.
This is an issue that the Government should embrace. The Red Tape Challenge, a commitment to competition and, indeed, the Minister’s commitment to equality should lead one to the view that this is an area where there is injustice and unfairness and it needs a remedy. I hope that she will accept the principle behind the amendment or, even better, accept the amendment itself, or that the Government will come forward with an amendment at a later stage that will achieve the objective of remedying this injustice. Bearing in mind, as noble Lords have already said, that it is 19 years since the previous marriage Bill, one cannot blame the humanists for thinking it reasonable not to have to wait another 19 years before this anachronism is addressed. Indeed, legal recognition for humanist marriages was given in Scotland in 2005.
Given that legal recognition for humanist marriages is the party policy of the Liberal Democrats, is supported by the Labour Party on this side of the House and by our shadow Cabinet, and was supported in the Commons by MPs on all sides, the amendment to recognise humanist weddings as legal marriages was one of the first to be tabled when the Bill received its Second Reading in the Commons. In Committee, the amendment to give legal recognition to marriages conducted by humanists and religious charities, meeting certain conditions, was introduced but fell after a 7-7 tie on the voting Committee, which was resolved against by the casting vote of the chairman—as it would be, and I accept that those are the rules. However, that shows that there is significant support for this issue.
The redrafted amendment on Report addressed all the concerns raised in Committee as well as further concerns raised afterwards by government officials, and was debated. Again there was strong support from all sides, but the amendment was withdrawn after the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State stated that the measure would not be compatible with the Human Rights Act and that passing the amendment could lead to a declaration from the Government to that effect. The Government published their legal arguments as to why that was so and specifically asked that the legal arguments should represent the comprehensive statement of the Government’s concerns.
The British Humanist Association has taken all of this on board and the amendment before us now addresses all the matters raised in the Government’s document. Written advice from Professor Aileen McColgan of Matrix Chambers has confirmed that the revised amendment addresses all the points of law that were raised in objection to the Government. I will not go through all the proposals now because I think that the House fully understands the issues.
It is time to stop giving reasons for not allowing humanist weddings and to give reasons why they should happen and to give proposals on how we can find a way through this. I finish with a quote from something circulated in the evidence that the British Humanist Association gave.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I wonder if the noble Baroness can explain the position on Long Titles, because it may well be that her party will form part or the whole of a future Government. On the question of Long Titles, I realise that the pass was sold in the other place, and that therefore it is quite okay for us to debate this. However, in terms of House of Lords procedure, how can the matter possibly be within this Long Title? Is not the better point that there should be a Private Member’s Bill, with government support, that deals with this as a discrete issue and that can get through speedily?
Baroness Thornton
The point that I was making at the outset of my remarks—the noble Lord is an expert at getting legislation through this House—is that if it has been accepted by the clerks at both ends of this building, in the Commons and in the Lords, then it is within the scope of the Bill. We can have discussions about Long Titles and their meanings, and indeed we occasionally do, but it seems to me that this is fairly straightforward. It is accepted by the clerks in the Commons and in the Lords. It is therefore before us and is a legitimate thing for us to discuss.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that it is not without precedent for a Long Title to be amended in this House.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the noble and learned Lord for that remark. That is indeed the case.
I conclude my remarks by quoting from somebody who got married. He said:
“I got married twice in a week. My first marriage was conducted by someone who had interviewed my wife and me twice, at length, before the wedding; who spent hours (and several emails) exploring the key elements of the connection we wished to celebrate during the ceremony; and offered her guidance when we requested it, based on her knowledge of us as individuals and as a couple”.
Actually, that is exactly what a vicar would do—of course it is. He went on to say:
“My second wedding–to the same woman, I should hasten to add–happened two days later. It was conducted by an official who had met us for the first time minutes before, and was conducted with the polite efficiency of a market research interview. My first wedding was conducted by a Humanist Celebrant; my second by a registrar. Needless to say, when I think of my wedding, and the vows I committed to, the second set I gave that week rarely cross my mind. Yet it is this exchange currently recognised in UK law”.
The question that I put to your Lordships’ House is: which date do you think that couple celebrate when they celebrate their wedding anniversary?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for introducing the amendment and for explaining how important it is to humanists that they be allowed to conduct their own marriage solemnisations, according to their beliefs, by someone who shares their beliefs and in any place of their choosing, which could include the outdoors. I have no doubt that a celebration conducted by the sister of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in the way that she described is one that would be enjoyed by those involved.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and talked about the importance of humanist weddings being able to take place. I feel that this issue warrants a careful reply from me. I want to cover quite a bit of ground in my reply, so I hope that the House will indulge me if I am not as speedy as noble Lords might like me to be, but I think this is important.
First, it is important for me to remind noble Lords about the purpose of this Bill. It is about allowing people to marry who currently cannot marry, and the only people who cannot marry at this time are gay and lesbian couples. When we decided as a Government to bring forward legislation to allow that to happen, we decided to do so by making as little change as possible to existing marriage law. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has described quite clearly how different humanists might celebrate their weddings, so I will not go through all the details. However, it is important to make the point that humanists can marry in England and Wales. They might not be able to have at this time the wedding celebration that they would like but, even if they do not want to follow the route that the noble Baroness suggested, where some people go first to a register office and then have a separate celebration, because humanists are non-religious, they have the option, within a civil marriage at a register office, of being able to adapt that service to include vows and readings that reflect their humanist beliefs and values. Although that might not be ideal, they are not alone in sometimes having to adapt their arrangements.
Baroness Thornton
The noble Baroness needs to acknowledge that humanism is a system of belief. It is quite wrong to suggest that, because humanists do not want to have a religious wedding, somehow it is all right for them to have an adapted civil service. That is not the point here. The point is that humanists want to have a ceremony that is a humanist ceremony, based on their beliefs and their value system.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I accept that point. Forgive me if I was suggesting anything that was not respectful of what humanists are seeking to achieve. I absolutely understand the point that the noble Baroness is making. I was trying to explain that some people who follow a religious faith might argue that because humanists, although belonging to a belief organisation, are not religious, they have some opportunity to adapt a civil ceremony in a way that a religious person would not be able to.
Lord Harrison
The amendment sets out the conditions whereby it would be permissible in the particular case of the BHA. It should be recognised that that would be a barrier to other groups which might describe themselves as religious—as has been wrongly suggested in the press—such as the Jedi.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. As I said when I began, there is quite a lot for me to cover in responding to this issue. I beg the noble Lord’s indulgence to allow me to go through my response. I assure him that I will cover everything, giving this matter the justice and the seriousness that it deserves. The point I was trying to make, which has been mentioned in different debates over the past few weeks in the context of this Bill, is that, for a range of people who want to get married, not just humanists, not everyone is able to have a religious ceremony or the ceremony that they desire. For instance, we heard only the other night, when the noble Lord, Lord Martin, was speaking, about a Scottish MP, a member of the Church of Scotland, who was therefore not able to marry in St Mary Undercroft and had to go to a register office first. I am simply making the point to the noble Lord that things are not so straightforward. It is not the case that everything is okay in one scenario and different in another. However, let me move on. I was just trying to make that point.
On my original point about the Bill and allowing same-sex marriage, although it might seem a counterintuitive thing for me to say, clearly for us to allow same-sex marriage to take place is a big change, but we are able to make that change in the framework of existing marriage law.
Lord Harrison
We are proposing this under the existing requirement in Section 27 of the Marriage Act 1949. We did so on the advice of colleagues from the church and also from Ministers in order to ensure that this would not require major change.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I will cover that point in the course of my response.
The point still stands—I will explain why in a moment—that in order to allow organisations to marry in the way that is covered in this amendment, although it seems like a small change, it requires a change in existing marriage law that has wider implications for our system of regulation of marriage law in England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and other noble Lords have referred to the contribution that my right honourable friend the Attorney-General made during the debate on Report in the other place when he made it clear that if the amendment that was being debated at that time was passed, it would make the Bill incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is broader in scope and therefore does not raise the concern that the Attorney-General raised during the debate in the other place. However, at that time and consistently, the Government have been clear that the proposals put forward by the British Humanist Association have wider implications for marriage law. The Government are concerned because of those wider implications. There has been a lot of focus on the Attorney-General’s response to that specific amendment put forward on Report, and how that would have made the Bill at that time incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, that was not the only issue that the Government have raised, and continue to raise, about this proposal. I will explain all this in the course of my response.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry to interrupt and I hope I am not being a nuisance by doing so. Is not one reason in favour of these amendments that they would make our law compatible with Articles 9 and 14 of the convention by removing a discrimination which needs to be removed?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I was trying to make the simple point that the concern that the Attorney-General raised at that time has been addressed. That amendment was very narrowly defined around humanist belief. This amendment is much broader in scope because it is not narrowly restricted just to the British Humanist Association. However, that does not remove from what is at issue for the Government: that by introducing a change this amendment would have wider implications for marriage law in England and Wales. I intend to explain this to noble Lords.
As we have acknowledged throughout our debates on the Bill, marriage is clearly an important institution and a legal recognition through which the state confers rights and obligations. We therefore need to regulate carefully the process by which we allow this important legal status to be established.
Baroness Thornton
I am very puzzled by what the noble Baroness is saying. She is now saying that there are other grounds. In the Commons—and it is on the record in Hansard—the Minister specifically said that the letter that she would send to the British Humanist Association would be comprehensive and would cover all the Government’s concerns. This amendment and the discussions that the British Humanist Association has had since then, in good faith, have met all those points. I am very puzzled as to why the noble Baroness is now leading us into what sounds like the answer, “The Government have concerns about other matters”. It seems like we will never reach the end of this.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I do not have the copy of Hansard in front of me for the debates that took place in the other place. However, I am confident that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Maria Miller, made it clear in those debates that there were other concerns about this proposal that went beyond those raised by the Attorney-General on that specific amendment at that time. In the letter that my right honourable friend sent to Kate Green, she was also clear that there were issues of principle which went beyond the narrow point that the Attorney-General raised in those debates.
Beyond civil marriages, which now form the majority of marriages, where we give other organisations—that is, other religious faiths—this power to marry, the authorisation is subject to specific safeguards that are well established and embedded in current law. In the case of religious ceremonies—though I absolutely understand that the British Humanist Association is not a religion but a belief organisation—registration is generally linked to a particular building or, in the case of Quakers and the Jewish religion, by a longstanding arrangement that took account of the particular position of those religious organisations. Historians in this House will know that the Marriage Act 1753 recognised the Jewish faith and Quakers as having a special status, which they have retained since that time.
For every other religion except the Church of England and the Church in Wales, a building must first be registered as a place of worship, then a place of marriage. If that is agreed to, the supervising registrar attends all marriages for a year to ensure that compliance with all regulations takes place, including safekeeping of duplicate marriage registers in the relevant premises to accurately register marriages. Religious faiths have very little freedom because the integrity of marriage in England and Wales relies on this system to ensure that marriages are not registered that should not be, and that status is accurately recorded.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, would mean that eligible non-religious belief organisations could hold marriages wherever they wished and have greater freedom to appoint those who conduct and register marriages. As the noble Lord says, the amendment does not specifically define the British Humanist Association but goes wider in order to address the concerns that were raised by the Attorney-General.
I will be absolutely clear on the point that the noble Baroness was pressing me on earlier. Our concerns are not about entry to the system of marriage, but spring from opening a new route to marriage and a new system of regulation. In the course of this debate, noble Lords have expressed views on religious groups who can marry now. However, the key point is that they must all comply with the existing system in terms of their being approved. I do not suggest for one moment that there is any concern about any of the groups we may be discussing. However, the reason why the system we have is so important, and why we consider that there would be wider implications if we were to change the way in which we authorise people to marry, is because that could have an impact on things such as, for example, the way we are able to police sham marriages conducted by criminal wedding arrangers.
The noble Lord is shaking his head. I stress that I understand the reason why the amendment is drafted as it is, but because it would allow for other organisations there are implications that we need to consider.
Baroness Thornton
Are these implications deal breakers or are they administrative and technical details that could be cleared up? Is the noble Baroness going to say anything positive here?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The responsibility I have as the Minister responding to this debate is to make clear that something which on the face of it seems quite straightforward would significantly change our marriage law. We have to consider the implications of that before a decision could be made as to whether to change this law. The system we have of registering and authorising people to marry based on religious premises has been in existence since 1898. To introduce a new system for new organisations to be authorised in a different way is a significant change. If we are going to make that change we need to make sure that we have properly considered all the implications.
Lord Alli
There is huge respect for the Minister in this House and for the way in which she has conducted the passage of the Bill. We all want the Bill to go through. However, the noble Baroness should take the temperature of the House and of the other place. There is a will in both Houses that this should go through. You see this sometimes when the Front Bench are making their response: the explanation of why it should not go through has been crafted by the Civil Service and does not feel like one any of us understand. The unintended consequence argument, the argument that it could delay the Bill and a whole range of financial arguments are the standard set of arguments put forward generally to stop amendments going through. We would be very sympathetic if we understood what was worrying the Government about this amendment but as yet I, like many others, am lost as to what it is that cannot be done in the timeframes that we are talking about.
Lord Garel-Jones
Before my noble friend replies to that, she will, I am sure, have observed that not a single voice in your Lordships’ House has been raised against these amendments. She will have observed that the right reverend Prelate, while unable yet to tell us precisely what the position of the Church of England would be, spoke with, one could say, sympathy towards the position. I think what we are all asking is that if the Ministers, both my noble friend and the Secretary of State in the other place, were to say to the civil servants that they would like to find a way of accommodating this, we know that they could it. We would really like an explanation as to why that cannot be done.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I was about to conclude my remarks in any case. I am grateful to my noble friend. The noble Lord is right that there has been a great deal of support from all sides of the House, as there was in the other place. Of course I acknowledge that but I am still obliged as the Minister responsible for the Bill to explain when an amendment is put forward that it will have a significant effect—as we think this one could have—so that noble Lords are aware and properly apprised of the seriousness of the issues at stake. While the British Humanist Association and a lot of this House feel strongly that this change should be made, there has not been the kind of consultation and proper consideration of the impact of making that change and that has to take place.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am trying to helpful. Why can the Government not adopt the same approach as the previous Government on sexual orientation discrimination, or that of the present Government on caste discrimination, and say that there should be a proper consultation and then have a power included in the Bill to deal with this by regulations with the affirmative resolution procedure, with proper exceptions put in for things such as sham marriages?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am not in a position to offer to noble Lords today the kind of specific response that my noble friend has suggested.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I have sat listening to this for an extremely long time. I do not have any views at all about whether humanists should have a marriage. I have heard very good reasons why they should and I have not heard any reasons why they should not. That seems to me quite an interesting point. No one has stood up and said there should not be a humanist marriage. Can the Minister at least say—and it is 7.45 pm—that she will take it away and have a look at it. Then she could come back on Report or before and say, “No, we are not going to do it”. She is not going to make any progress in the House at this moment with her arguments, because nobody is going to accept them if the Government do not go away and have another look at it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Very briefly, before I finally sit down, of course everybody would support humanist marriages. The point is—please let me finish making this point—that it would require a change in law that would have implications that have not been fully thought through. That all said, having listening to the debate today, I will of course report back to my ministerial colleagues and ensure that they reflect further on the points made in this debate.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, I am in severe danger of letting the nice side of my character come to the fore at this conclusion to the debate. I sincerely thank those from all sides who have risen to support the amendment. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his constructive approach. I invite him to have discussions with me and the British Humanist Association himself, rather than sending an official.
I have watched the Minister struggle. I would like to struggle with her. I want to get round a table and discuss this matter and find the solution that this House most clearly needs. In the mean time, I beg leave—and give notice that I shall bring it back on Report—to withdraw this amendment, showing the nice side of my character to the whole House.
Legislation: Complexity
Lord Bates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the review by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, When Laws Become Too Complex, published on 16 April 2013.
Lord Bates
My Lords, in the report that we are considering, Richard Heaton observed:
“The volume of legislation, its piecemeal structure, its level of detail and frequent amendments, and interaction with common law and European law, mean that even professional users can find law complex, hard to understand and difficult to comply with”.
If Mr Heaton were an instantly forgettable Back-Bench Peer such as myself, that might be a mildly worrying but not an alarming observation. However, Mr Heaton is First Parliamentary Counsel and Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office.
Courageous though the admission may be, one might ask, if Mr Heaton finds the legislation piecemeal and hard to understand and to comply with, what hope has the classroom teacher, the doctor, the police officer, the small businessperson, the social worker, the homeowner or the benefits recipient for whom we spend our time legislating—let alone the legislators who are supposed to scrutinise the laws and the courts that struggle to interpret and apply them?
It is not just the complexity that baffles and bewilders but the volume. When Her Majesty made a historic visit to the Cabinet to mark her jubilee in December last year, it is reported that there was a forward item on the agenda relating to the Queen’s Speech. Her Majesty apparently suggested—I am not sure how constitutional it was to report this—that it should be,
“on the shorter rather than the longer side”.
At the time it was reported as a joke that everybody enjoyed, but, having read the report, I suggest that it should be seen not as a quip but as wise counsel from a Sovereign that should be heeded by her Government.
Halesbury’s Statutes is the nearest thing that we have to a statute book. At the beginning of Her Majesty’s reign in 1952, Halesbury’s Statutes ran to 26 volumes. This was the result of 740 years of legislating, stretching back to her predecessor King John and the Magna Carta. In the 60 years that she has been on the Throne, the number of statute volumes has increased from 26 to 74.
It is not just the number of Acts that has sharply increased but the number of pages. In 1952, the average number of pages for a government Act was 22. In 2009, the average number of pages for an Act was 122. The unrelenting rise in the volume of legislation was pointed out in the House of Lords brief. Reading the appendix at the back, one gets a momentary frisson of Thatcherite zeal when one comes to 1986-87 and sees that the tide of legislation momentarily abates, before resuming its upward course. Then one looks at the footnotes and finds that it was in that year that the Queen’s printer moved from using the A5 page size to A4.
Of course, Acts of Parliament are not the only source of legislation. Parliament has also seen a huge increase in the amount of secondary legislation presented to it. In 1952, 29 statutory instruments were laid before Parliament. By 2012, this number had risen to 3,328. Alarmingly, the trend has seen a very sharp increase under this Government. I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain why this has been the case. In 2008, the number of statutory instruments considered by Parliament was 1,395; in 2010 it was 2,971; in 2011 it was 3,133; and in 2012 it was 3,328.
We should consider also what happens to laws once they leave this place. Every year, new legislation results in more than 30,000 legislative effects, according to the report. One area where this is felt more than most is in the tax code. In opposition, I made a little bit of a living chipping away at the then Government and pointing out that, according to Tolley’s yellow and orange tax handbooks, the volume of the UK tax code had doubled between 1997 and 2010, and had overtaken the Indian code as the longest in the world. In a spirit of cross-party examination of these issues, I was alarmed to find that since 2010, the length of the Tolley’s guide has increased, and gone on increasing, by several thousand pages. What was intended on its launch some 50 years ago to fit into a pocket would now barely fit on to a shelf.
The Government came in with very good intentions. They announced the Office of Tax Simplification to cut a swathe through this complexity. We know that complexity reduces compliance and the tax take. If you simplify the system, you increase compliance and the take. I was amazed when researching for this debate to learn that the number of staff employed by the Office of Tax Simplification is, to quote the Minister, “slightly under six”. I presume by that he means five, or perhaps four. Perhaps he will give the figure today. It compares with 25,000 HMRC staff working on enforcement and compliance.
Other measures are under way to reduce the burden of legislation. I pay tribute to the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, whose 2013 Act was the largest Statute Law (Repeals) Act ever. It did away with 817 whole Acts, along with sections of 50 other Acts. That was a great triumph. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that the Streets (London) Act 1696, which required Londoners to sweep and clean the area in front of their house every Wednesday and Saturday between 6 am and 9 am on pain of a 10 shilling fine, has itself been swept away. However, we should not get carried away and think that we are in a libertarian free-for-all, because between 1983 and 2009, Parliament approved more than 100 criminal justice Bills and added more than 4,000 offences to the criminal code. We are still pretty heavily regulated.
I am sure that Europe will be touched on in forthcoming speeches. For every one page of directive, we produce 2.6 pages of regulation and guidance, whereas Germany produces a page for a page—logically. It would be good to know what progress the Government are making here.
There are many reasons for the increase in the volume of legislation. I will mention a few. Some cynics might suggest that Governments of all persuasions find it useful to focus the attention and time of Parliament on considering future legislation rather than on determining whether past legislation has done what it said on the tin. However, there are other issues. The courts have played a part, as a result of the breakdown of trust in society between government and the governed, service providers and customers, and employers and employees. We have become much more litigious. As a result, an increasing volume of legislation is going before the courts. In return, the courts are showing some reticence in passing judgment and are referring back to Parliament for clarification—and so the circle goes on.
There are other drivers. The 24-hour news culture demands that something must be done every day. There are also a huge number of lobby organisations, such as trade unions, trade bodies and charities, all of which are well resourced and able to demand changes in the law to suit their particular concerns.
We should have one thing uppermost in our mind. Every time we add a law or a regulation, we incur a cost—not only monetarily and legislatively but morally. The more we legislate for what people should do and the less we trust them to behave as good citizens, the more we take away. Parliament is creaking at the seams as it seeks to digest the fruits of a burgeoning statute book and, almost 800 years after Magna Carta, the flow is increasing, not reducing. This is bad for the country, bad for business, bad for people and bad for Parliament. It is time to turn the tide, and I hope that the high calibre of contributions that will follow mine will help reverse the process.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bates for this debate. I confess that, since I entered this place in 1998, I have been what some might call obsessed by excessive law-making and excessively complex law-making. That obsession has its roots in my earliest days in the law. I started in a country town solicitor’s practice in 1957. As I went around the local magistrates’ courts, within months it was blatantly clear to me that we already had a system of law that was way beyond the understanding of the normal citizen. Indeed, the lay magistrates had great trouble as well. That realisation led me to get a headmaster to allow me to teach bored 15 year-olds in his school in the 1960s. I found that they were not bored by the law; they were quickly enlivened and engaged. That in turn led me to set up the Citizenship Foundation in the 1980s with the financial support of the Law Society, and so it goes on.
We must not forget the late, lamented David Renton. Lord Renton was a lovely man who presided over a very thorough review of all this in 1975. When he asked me to give the Statute Law Society’s annual lecture in 2001, I spoke on excessive law-making. It is a massive, profound problem, and it is rather depressing that there are only 10 of us present in this debate, and six of those are speakers. Maybe it is because we follow on the heels of the sex debate, but it is depressing, because it is of the hugest, profoundest importance to us all.
We heard some vivid statistics from my noble friend Lord Bates. The statistic about the creation of 4,000 new criminal offences in the space of 16 years—far more than in the previous 1,000 years of our island history—is a warning. We would be more worried were we to know just how many of those laws have ever been implemented, which nobody does know. I enthusiastically congratulate Richard Heaton and his colleagues on their report, When Laws Become Too Complex. It is a brave report for the parliamentary draftsmen to produce, but it is from the horse’s mouth. What is more, it is a warning to us not to too easily blame the draftsmen for the situation we are in, which I am afraid we sometimes do too eagerly. It is not their fault. I think this report will answer anybody who doubts that.
Other Members of the House are perhaps aware that on 9 May the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee produced a report, Ensuring Standards in the Quality of Legislation. To me, it is striking that neither report refers to our failure to contrive a system of legislation that contains that volume and complexity. I suspect the parliamentary draftsmen felt they had to hold back from criticising the functioning of Parliament as such. I shall go on to talk about the manifesto theory of government, by which we are plagued, and the use of the guillotine in the other place.
I will quickly read to the House what I thought was the sage nub of When Laws Become Too Complex. In the foreword, Richard Heaton writes that,
“we should regard the current degree of difficulty with law as neither inevitable nor acceptable. We should be concerned about it for several reasons. Excessive complexity hinders economic activity, creating burdens for individuals, businesses and communities. It obstructs good government. It undermines the rule of law”.
That last point is crucial: it undermines the rule of law. If we contrive a system in which the average citizen feels put upon by the law, resents the law and feels outside the law in the sense of any engagement with its passing, then that is all bad and it is too true of today’s society.
I quote again from the foreword:
“Good law is necessary, effective, clear, coherent and accessible”.
I want to talk about two of those characteristics, because I agree with that list of criteria. I start with effectiveness, because I do not believe that we can have effective laws if they are not fairly and equally implemented and enforced. As a lawyer in his 54th year, I can tell your Lordships that you would be scandalised if you knew both how uneven the enforcement of the law is, and how in some very important respects the law is not implemented at all. It is getting worse. We must address that, and part of doing so is to properly resource the law implementers. I was at the Charity Commission today. It was given huge responsibilities by the Charities Act 2006, and given many more since. What has happened? It has sliced its personnel, including its most senior personnel. How on earth can that commission do the job we force on it if we take away the resources it needs to do so?
Turning to accessibility, it has two aspects, does it not? First, there is the citizenry’s understanding of the laws by which they are supposed to lead their lives. Secondly, there is the question of access to legal advice when people need it. We cannot blather on about equality before the law if we leave poor people in the lurch when they desperately need legal advice. I am afraid that with the cuts in legal aid this has happened, and it is getting worse. I understand the problems of austerity, but I believe that if we constantly refer to the rule of law as the bedrock of our civilisation, we cannot then deprive needy citizens of essential advice when they are in deep trouble.
The issue of broad understanding of the law brings me back to the Citizenship Foundation and the few other organisations that seek to give pupils in our schools some broad understanding of the complex society of which they are supposed to be citizens and, most of all, the processes of the law, in terms of both its creation and its implementation. I am informed by the foundation’s chief executive, Andy Thornton, that over the past two years the number of schools that carry out schematic citizenship education has dropped by two-thirds. We need to be on our guard, because it is hopelessly hypocritical of us to go on about equality before the law and all the rest of it, yet not to give our young citizens any opportunity to come alongside and feel that it is their law, giving them an understanding of the law that is, of course, broad rather than detailed. In our time there is a huge problem of political disconnectedness, and we must deal with that.
I turn now to the component of necessity in the list of five criteria, and return to the number of laws we put before this place and the use of the guillotine. The guillotine has become a scandal. A quarter or a third of the Bills we see here have never been considered on the Floor of the Commons. That is a scandal. It is the primary House, for goodness’ sake. I ask the House to consider figures from the House of Commons office, showing that the effectiveness of the Commons in holding the Executive to account is now so enfeebled that over the past 11 years only six votes of over 3,000 went against the Executive. What sort of democracy is that? What sort of effectiveness is that? Here, I may say, we defeated the Government more than 500 times in the same period, and we are the inferior House.
Lastly, I make the point that we as legislators need more help. We cannot have these big, complex Bills without a Keeling schedule. We have not got the time to spend two days in the Library looking it all up. I hope that we will remember that as well.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Bates on raising this important and timely Question. In the time available, I want to focus on a number of points arising from, or prompted by, the useful review by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
As the report acknowledges, and as my noble friend stressed, legislation is complex both in its form and in the manner by which it becomes law. The complexity is multifaceted and is an impediment to members of the public—indeed, anyone, as my noble friend stressed—wishing to make sense of our law.
Like my noble friend, I want to focus on the volume of legislation and the problems with the means by which we enact it. As we heard, there is by common consent too much legislation. We generate too much law as a result of a “something must be done” mentality and by individual Ministers wanting to get through their own big Bills. Until we get the Government to accept that sometimes more legislation is part of the problem, not part of the solution, we will continue to overburden Parliament not only with too much legislation, but rushed legislation.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said of criminal law:
“For too many years now the administration of criminal justice has been engulfed by a relentless tidal wave of legislation. The tide is always in flow: it has never ebbed”.
The problem is not just quantitative but also qualitative. There is not just more law, but more complex law, especially where one is dealing with regulation. This creates problems for Parliament. There is more complex legislation, but there is no commensurate increase in the time and resources available to deal with it. There is a finite number of Members available to sit on committees. There is only so much time available for the different stages of Bills.
There is also a problem with government in how it views Parliament and the legislative process. This is acknowledged in the report, which states on page 27:
“The legislation secretariat within the Cabinet Office is working with Parliamentary Counsel to promote learning within departments about legislation and the legislative process”.
That is a pretty stark admission that government departments are not well versed in the legislative process. Officials and parliamentary counsel do not always appreciate one another’s difficulties, but it is not simply a case of each needing to understand the other: there is a need for officials to understand how Parliament works. I have been pursuing this for some time. There is still a considerable way to go in educating officials about the significance and the processes of Parliament. The replacement of the National School of Government with Civil Service Learning has not necessarily enhanced the capacity for such learning. Given that, it will be helpful if my noble friend the Minister can explain what steps are being taken by government to ensure that officials who advise Ministers are fully aware of the importance of Parliament and the legislative process as well as the difference between the two Houses.
The legislative process is also flawed. There has never been a “golden age” of legislation, and the present procedures actually have some benefits over what went before, but they remain inadequate. Let me adumbrate what in my view needs to be done.
The way in which we undertake legislation, frequently by amending earlier legislation, makes for some complex and impenetrable Bills. One means to aid parliamentarians is that referred to by my noble friend Lord Phillips, which is to produce Keeling-like schedules—he referred to Keeling schedules, but it is more appropriate to refer to Keeling-like schedules—showing how the proposed changes affect extant legislation. Where they have been produced, they have been enormously helpful. I think there is a strong case for arguing that where most of the clauses of a Bill amend legislation, and where that particularly is one or two Acts, the expectation should be that the relevant department will produce a Keeling-like schedule. Perhaps my noble friend could take back to his colleagues the value of such schedules.
It would also aid Parliament and act as a valuable discipline on government if Ministers were required to publish with a Bill the purpose of the measure and the criteria by which it can be assessed to determine if it has fulfilled its intended purpose.
More generally, pre-legislative scrutiny should be the norm and not the exception. I welcome the number of Bills submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny in this Parliament but would like to see the use of such scrutiny taken further. As we have heard, there needs to be a joint legislative standards committee as recommended by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place. Such a Joint Committee would oversee the application and effectiveness of a code of legislative standards. I know that the First Parliamentary Counsel has doubts about the value of such a Joint Committee, but my view is that it would ensure consistency and provide a useful discipline for government.
I also commend another recommendation of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, namely that there should be agreement between Parliament and government as to what constitutes constitutional legislation. This builds on the report of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House that there needs to be a distinct process in government for identifying and dealing with measures of constitutional significance. The position of government at the moment, namely that measures of constitutional significance should be treated in the same way as all other Bills, is unsustainable and, indeed, dangerous in terms of ensuring adequate consideration of changes to our constitutional framework. Not surprisingly, I endorse the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s endorsement of the test I produced when I was chairman of the Constitution Committee, namely the two P’s test: does a measure affect a principal part of the constitution and does it raise an important issue of principle? If both tests are met, it should trigger special consideration.
We also need to look beyond the process of passing a Bill into law. For too long, both Ministers and Parliament treated legislative success as Royal Assent. That was the end of the process. We should be treating success as when an Act of Parliament achieves its intended purpose. We now have post-legislative review, which I greatly welcome, but we need a committee on post-legislative scrutiny. In this House, we have now established ad hoc committees to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of particular measures, which again is a great step forward, but a dedicated post-legislative scrutiny committee would ensure that nothing fell between the gaps and serve as a body for ensuring best practice in departments in undertaking post-legislative review.
Those are but some of the things that need to be done. We are making some progress. Having clearer Bills will be a major step forward. Having fewer Bills will be an even greater one.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bates and endorse enthusiastically not only what he said but what has been said by my other two colleagues who have contributed to this very timely debate.
I want to take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips about the context and the consequence for the public of some of the work that has been undertaken for this report. In doing so, I refer to the Audit of Political Engagement published recently by the Hansard Society, of which I am a vice-chair, which I think is extremely important and, in some respects, encouraging. Mostly, however, it is discouraging. Mostly it says that people are disengaged for some of the reasons to which my noble friends have referred. However, in a number of ways there is new engagement and increased engagement. For example, 42% of the public say that they would like to be involved in national decision-making—up 9% compared with the previous year—and 47% agree that Parliament holds government to account, up from 38% last year. Fifty-five per cent agree that Parliament debates and makes decisions about issues that matter to them, up from 49% the previous year. But most important of all, 55% of the public agree that politics and government seem so complicated that,
“a person like me cannot really understand what is going on”.
That is the critical consequence of the complexity to which this excellent report refers.
I want to refer to one or two of the examples given in the report. Incidentally, the authors of the report show that they are masters of complexity. I am not allowed to wave about my visual aid but page 16 sets out the legal effects of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004. I do not understand how that got past anybody seeking to reduce complexity.
Mr Heaton’s foreword to the report is extremely salutary. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I refer again to his absolutely critical paragraph. He says:
“Excessive complexity hinders economic activity, creating burdens for individuals, businesses and communities. It obstructs good government. It undermines the rule of law”.
That is the context in which we should look at this issue. I pay tribute to the work that has already been done, I understand, as a result of this activity by the parliamentary draftsmen. I shall refer to one particular example of the way in which they have looked at this issue: gold-plating, which my noble friend Lord Bates spoke about briefly. Gold-plating has been around for a long time and I congratulate the Government on seeking to deal with it. When I was responsible for agriculture for my party in the other place, I recall looking at a number of directives as they emerged from Brussels, then looking at the regulations as they appeared in the United Kingdom.
I was not at all surprised to read in this document that in 2003 there was an average “elaboration ratio” for the UK of 330%. In an extreme example, directive 2002/42/EC consisted of 1,167 words in its original English text, but resulted in 27,000 words of implementing regulation in the UK. I recall talking to a previous Minister of Agriculture shortly before that, who told me that he got so fed up with the gold-plating going on in his department that he instituted a format for reviewing every directive that came from Brussels. Alongside it, his civil servants had to put what they proposed to add and the resulting consequences in terms of length and complexity. He or one of his Ministers then had to tick off and approve the sequence as acceptable.
The most significant thing he told me was that within three days of losing office, the civil servants abolished the system that he had instituted, because they were so pleased with the way in which they could add excessive requirements to what emerged from Brussels. It is a well-known fact that throughout the other member states of the European Union, directives, for example on abattoirs that I was concerned with, were a matter of reducing responsibilities at a more local level, but in the United Kingdom everything was centralised and imposed much more rigorously.
As has already been said, pre-legislative scrutiny is an extremely important way in which we should take responsibility for removing unnecessary complexity. It should be absolutely explicit at the outset that one of the responsibilities of a Joint Committee is to reduce complexity in draft legislation. I am an enthusiastic supporter of Joint Committees—I sat on several of them—because MPs and Peers educate each other when we sit together. As my noble friend Lord Norton has said, it is also true that both Houses have been asked to think carefully about improving the quality of legislation, most recently by the Select Committee in the other place, but before that the committee chaired with such distinction by Dr Tony Wright. Our own Leader’s Group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, looked hard at this and made a substantial suggestion, which I am afraid has so far not been implemented in this House. It is about improving the quality of legislation and recommended a legislative standards committee in recommendation 16 of its report. Sadly, that has not been pursued, which is a great pity.
I have one simple, practical suggestion to make. Again, I am not allowed to wave my visual aid, so I shall have to ask the Minister to look at it later and take it seriously. In preparing a recent draft Bill with assistance from Members of the other two parties in the other place, my extremely able and far more technically competent assistant Alex Davies, found it was quite possible to put the Explanatory Notes alongside the clauses. That one small step, allowing you to read across from Clause 9 to what Clause 9 actually means, would be hugely more accessible to the general public—indeed to professionals and those in business outside this House—than the present arrangements. With draft Bills, government Bills, Private Members’ Bills and secondary legislation, the Explanatory Notes can without great difficulty be side-by-side with the appropriate part of that legislation.
That is a very practical suggestion which I give to your Lordships’ House. I will sell it to the Government for only a penny, but I would like to make sure that the credit is not given to me, but to my extremely able assistant. This is a timely debate. What is so interesting about it, referred to by the three previous speakers and me, is that we in this House could do more to improve the situation. It is not just a question of passing the buck to the professional parliamentary draftsmen. It is not even just a government responsibility, it is the responsibility of the two Houses of Parliament to make our legislation more accessible and less complex.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I add my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for this debate. I gather that he has taken the Minister away from the Countryside Alliance summer ball and me from a farewell to the Fabian Society office where we have been for 80 years, but we shall forgive him. There is, of course, a difference between legislative burden and legislative complexity. I do not think that the former is the problem, it is the latter that is the subject for today.
We must remember that for consumers, legislation is about making roads, offices or homes safer, safeguarding children from danger or preventing consumers being ripped off. So we must stop the idea that legislation is a burden. It is not a burden to consumers if it means that they do not die from carbon monoxide poisoning, if children are protected or provided with decent schools, or if consumers have access to an ombudsman when a service or product goes wrong. It may be that some legislation should have stayed, such as cleaning the path outside our doors. I am not certain that that was the right one to get away. However, let us drop the idea that legislating is bad: it needs to be done, done well, and for a specific purpose.
Today we have heard a good debate, and along with others, I welcome the report—with the exception of one small line—and its analysis of an important area. Of course, it does not propose solutions for us, so I will take time to suggest a couple for the Government to think about. First, however, perhaps I may say that my one difference with the report, which echoes what has already been said, is the idea that the public is a new—and it uses that word—audience for legislation. On the contrary, in answer to the question, “Who is the user of legislation?”, I was going to use the word people. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, used the word citizenry, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, talked about small businesspeople and shopkeepers. Absolutely: surely, they are the real users of legislation.
The rest of us—legislators, judges, lawyers or advisers —are basically intermediaries, or maybe implementers. If we hold that in mind, which is what others have said today, our laws will be better drafted and understood. It is notable and, for me slightly regrettable, that the Good Law guidance produced in April by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, boasts that it is talking to,
“lawyers, the judiciary and legal educators”,
but it makes no mention of the general public. It is beginning to listen to users through a project run by the National Archives, but that does not feel core to its work. Surely if the Cabinet Office wants, as it states, to write laws that “can be readily understood”, then users ought to be one of the drivers of a new approach?
I turn to the report. As we know and has been said in the debate, unclear law often arises out of either unclear policy or perhaps an overhasty reaction to events. Even before drafting starts, it is important for politicians and policymakers to engage with relevant experts to ensure real clarity in thinking and in writing, including those who know the subject concerned and those in bodies such as the Law Society who have a wealth of experience in interpreting Parliament’s words. It also means not bringing clauses here, as is happening today in this House with the Energy Bill, before consultation on them has been completed.
There are some “to dos” or “to be thought abouts” that are ripe for government discussion and perhaps for cross-party attention, especially given that the quality of legislation and its scrutiny should be of concern to government as well as opposition. First, always set out the objective—or, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, the purpose—for each Bill whereby it is clear what it is meant to achieve, and drafters and legislators can check that it achieves those objectives and the reader knows what it aims to do.
Secondly, unless there is a very good reason or emergency, always have pre-legislative scrutiny, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others have stressed. We have witnessed the success of where it has happened, for example in the Defamation Act, on which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I spent a good few hours. Such pre-legislative scrutiny ensures that a Bill’s drafting really provides for the Bill’s clearly stated objectives.
Thirdly, endorse the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s recommendation last month that,
“the Government should publish the reasons why a bill has not been published in draft and cannot therefore be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny”,
where that is the case.
Fourthly, do not introduce “Christmas tree” Bills. Some of us spent a long time dealing with the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which was actually five different pieces of legislation.
Fifthly, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, do not revise existing Acts wherever you can but try to start from scratch. Some of us here, including my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and I, spent a long time on the Financial Services Bill, which was hung on to another Bill and sometimes left us none the wiser as to what it was seeking to achieve.
Sixthly, please think of the audience. It is interesting how a Draft Consumer Rights Bill should end up being 104 pages long.
Seventhly, do not try to legislate for 25 years hence. Here I do not blame the Government, but there was an interesting amendment to the Succession to the Crown Bill, not in the name of the Government, that tried to deal with what happened if a child yet to be born of the current Prince William turned out to be gay, have a gay marriage and then had a child. Trying to write such legislation was unnecessarily complicated 25 years off.
Eighthly, we should implement another recommendation of the Commons Select Committee, that there should be a code of legislative standards.
We have all heard that this subject is a matter for this House, perhaps even more than the other place, given how much time we spend on scrutiny. It is a matter for government as well as for opposition and I hope that we can move forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bates for the opportunity to debate the important matter of complexity in law. The report is part of parliamentary counsel’s good law programme, which aims to improve the quality of legislation by identifying ways to improve further its drafting, reduce complexity and make the law more accessible.
I have sympathy with my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury who previously spoke of never-ending “cascades of legislation”. Indeed, my noble friends Lord Bates and Lord Norton of Louth spoke of volume. However, this is clearly a long-term trend, as demonstrated by the statistics cited in the report. In 1959, Parliament agreed to 1,163 pages of primary legislation. By 2009, 50 years later, the figure had doubled to 2,247. That is why the report by the parliamentary counsel is timely and will help us to understand why the statute book has grown so much. I am mindful also of what my noble friends Lord Bates and Lord Tyler said about Europe, and I am pleased that the Government are committed to ending the so-called gold-plating of EU rules.
I can assure your Lordships that we do not find ourselves in a unique situation in the United Kingdom. Expanding statute books and complex laws are a problem encountered around the world. Parliamentary counsel’s report helpfully cites examples of some European countries that have set up processes, or even whole ministries, dedicated to simplifying legislation.
I am very conscious of the eight-point plan of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Indeed, the Government are currently considering the report by the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee on its inquiry into standards in legislation, and we hope to respond to this next month.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of a standards committee. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons has said that it is not clear exactly what it would add to the processes we already have, whereby Bills are often published in draft for consultation and scrutiny. Nor is it clear at what stage a legislative standards committee would be involved. It would add another layer of process, duplicating the efforts of other committees that already examine both the policy and the drafting. However, the point has been made by noble Lords tonight, and we will need to await the response next month.
We should be clear that a conversation about good law is not the same as a conversation about policy. This issue should not be clouded by partisan politics about the merits of policies in specific Bills or orders. Parliamentary counsel’s report aspires to “good law”, which is defined as,
“necessary, effective, clear, accessible and coherent”.
This is a sentiment I am sure we share across all sides of the House.
This Government are committed to legislating in a better way. While there is always more that can be done, in recent years we have taken a number of steps to tackle complexity in legislation. Parliamentary counsel are now drafting legislation in plainer language. My noble friend Lord Bates raised secondary legislation, and we do seek to stem the tide. The Red Tape Challenge is taking stock of unnecessary regulations, and the “one in, two out” rule is limiting the new burdens that can be imposed. This Session, we will be publishing the draft deregulation Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by Joint Committee. The purpose of this Bill is to remove a raft of unnecessary burdens on businesses and individuals. I trust my noble friend Lord Bates will approve of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the National Archives. It has greatly improved its website, legislation.gov.uk, which 2 million people a year use to access the statute book. I agree with the noble Baroness: we are talking about people—our fellow citizens—who wish to be more engaged with seeing what is on the statute books. It is a good move. Within government, we have been working to increase the capability of Bill teams and make sure we learn from previous lessons. I hope this will go some way to reassuring my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, although perhaps not in full, but this includes best practice on how to engage with Parliament. The Legislation Secretariat in the Cabinet Office and parliamentary counsel run a regular “lessons learnt” exercise, and we need to continue with that. Obviously, where there are gaps in knowledge, we need to fill them.
This Government want to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise legislation in full. If we are to achieve better legislation, we need to tap into the wealth of expertise that exists in Parliament, particularly in your Lordships’ House. To this end, more legislation is now published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, a point made by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. In the previous Session of this Parliament, 17 Bills or measures were published in draft, more than ever before. Of those 17, six were scrutinised by Joint Committees, again more than ever before. This Government have also continued the practice of providing post-legislative scrutiny memoranda, usually five years after an Act has been passed. This is a useful opportunity to take stock of legislation and consider how it has worked in practice. In the other place, committees have started to make use of these memoranda and publish post-legislative scrutiny reports. These are valuable and I hope that this activity will continue and increase.
In the previous Session, at the instigation of the then Leader of the House, and on the recommendation of the Liaison Committee, your Lordships’ House appointed the first dedicated post-legislative scrutiny committee, to look at adoption legislation. Two more such committees have been established in this Session to consider mental capacity legislation and the Inquiries Act 2005.
Of course, there is always more that can be done. The parliamentary counsel report found that users of legislation often expect it to be more complex and more difficult to use than it actually is. Clearly, there is a challenge for the Government and Parliament to be more open and accessible. To this end, the Government are already reviewing—I hope this will be music to many of your Lordships’ ears—Explanatory Notes, which should help make legislation more accessible to the lay reader.
I now turn to Keeling or as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth described it, “Keeling-like”. We will also consider whether there is scope to provide “as amended” texts of Bills more frequently, for example as we did for part of the Education Act 2011. By reaching out to users of legislation, we can assist them, allay some of the concerns and give people the confidence to use the statute book, which we all want.
There is no single cause for overly complex legislation. The report acknowledges that sometimes complexity can be introduced by the drafting. Parliamentary counsel have made great progress in their use of plainer language and are committed to drafting effective legislation that is easier to navigate and understand. However, complexity can be added to legislation at all stages of the process, not just in the drafting. The good law programme is looking at the way in which policies are taken from inception to the statute book. It is not a finite project and it will not present all the answers any time soon, but it has begun a dialogue about how we can improve legislation and shows the Government’s willingness to work with everybody to improve the quality of the legislation produced.
Sometimes complexity can be the product of a robust scrutiny process. There is an understandable tendency for Parliament to seek further safeguards and more assurances in a Bill. Each instance is no doubt for a good reason, but in total these can add to complexity and result in laws which are hard to use. The growth of judicial review has also had an impact. As a result, the Government may draft cautiously or include more detail on interpretation and intention. As such, further legislation, occasionally fast-tracked, may be required following a court case, which again can add layers of complexity.
Throughout this process, we in government and Parliament often forget who makes use of the statute book. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Bates in a lengthy list mentioned this point. It is not just lawyers and judges; small businesses, charities, volunteers and consumers, to name only a few, also use the statute book. A new small business does not have a large legal department to rely on and must itself deal with the legislation. Overly complex law hampers enterprise, deters entrepreneurs and adds to the general weight of red tape. There is, therefore, a strong economic case for good law, to which my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury referred. There is also a strong moral case. Citizens should have ready access to the laws of the land which set out their rights and responsibilities. When the law is too complex and inaccessible, it can be held in contempt by the public, again a point highlighted by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It also diminishes respect for the rule of law, which is necessary for a civilised and well functioning society.
The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel’s report represents the start of a collaborative process that will need to include parliamentarians, lawyers, the judiciary and academia to understand and tackle what are often long-standing problems. It is self-evident that Parliament has a crucial role to play in forming the laws of the land, but Parliament and the Government need to work in partnership to create better laws. Your Lordships’ House has a strong track record in scrutinising and, indeed, improving legislation. As a revising Chamber, it has an important role in ensuring that the legislation it passes is necessary, effective, clear, accessible and coherent.
I am conscious that I have not answered fully, or indeed some questions in their entirety, and I will write to noble Lords to ensure that there is a full record of what has been asked. However, I am grateful to all the noble Lords because this debate forms part of a dialogue, and I have taken away a great deal that needs to be considered. We have made a good start, but there is always more to do to ensure that legislation is proportionate and appropriate to its aims, and that the statute book is accessible and understandable.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
““recognised” means recognised according to the ordinary customs and usage of the organisation and in the event of a dispute between the members over which person or persons are recognised for the purpose of giving consent for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State shall consult all members of the relevant religious organisation to determine which person or persons are recognised, and this shall include power to order a ballot of members in which a quorum of 66 per cent shall be required and recognition shall be determined by a majority vote;
“members” means those whose names have appeared on a formal membership roll kept by the relevant religious organisation for a period of at least 12 months prior to written consent being given, and if no such roll is kept, then the members shall be deemed to be those who have attended worship at the place of worship for a majority of services of worship during the 12 months prior to written consent being given.”
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
My Lords, I am deeply concerned about the potentially divisive nature of this Bill. Mention was made a number of times at Second Reading and has been made again in the two days when we have been considering amendments of the serious potential for unintended consequences. We need to consider this very carefully indeed. There is a huge risk that faith communities and church congregations find themselves in dispute as a consequence of this Bill where no dispute existed previously.
Given the strong differences of views on same-sex marriage, there is enormous scope for minority elements within congregations to seek to register premises for same-sex weddings against the wishes of their denomination or majority. The vague drafting of this clause leaves too much to chance. Under the Bill as drafted, it is not clear what “recognised” actually means. What does it mean for members of a religious organisation to recognise an authority that is competent to give consent on this issue? Who are the members of a religious organisation? It is impossible to catalogue the variety of ways in which churches and religious bodies identify their membership. What mechanisms are local authorities and courts to use in attempting to address this question?
The governance arrangements that exist within different churches can be quite complex and sometimes unclear. Some churches may require a member to have fulfilled a formal process. Some will use written lists. Others will use an electoral roll. Even these lists might not reflect the number of people in attendance at any meeting. Some churches are structured in such a way that it is considered best not to have a formal system of membership. Church structures are very complicated. It is possible for the situation to become confusing, with claim and counterclaim being made about who possesses authority to speak for the organisation in binding its membership to conducting same-sex marriages.
There will be huge pressure on churches which do not want to opt in. Local authorities may be strong advocates of same-sex marriage and may happily take the consent of a liberal faction as being binding on the whole organisation. It is necessary to set out clear statutory principles to handle inevitable disputes. Local authorities must hold the tools to assess or reject applications to register a building for same-sex marriages, but the local registry office that receives the application has no legal basis on which to determine an application.
It could be very easy to register the church for same-sex marriages, just by the proprietor making an application accompanied by something that seems to show consent. Consent may be given by a wing, a faction, a sub-committee of a denomination, but that does not mean they are representative or legally and morally competent to give consent. It is not clear what constitutes evidence of consent? Under the Bill, a letter is sufficient, but given the internal complexities involved, have the Government considered any additional requirements to verify the issue of consent? Is there any guidance on the consequences of the local authority wrongly approving an application?
It is unrealistic to expect that all local authorities will have a grasp of the internal politics and structures of every religious body. Without a clear framework they will not have the ability to ascertain who exercises the proper legal responsibility for such decisions within each of a wide range of churches with their innumerable variations of governance, locations, interests, hierarchies and systems.
The purpose of Amendment 20 is to define “recognised” and “members” and the consent that would apply to issues on registering buildings, filling gaps in the Bill and reducing the potential for problems down the line. It promotes consistency across the boundaries of different local authorities. It provides mechanisms for achieving clarity when there are opposing claims about who is legally able to speak on behalf of a particular church or faith organisation.
The amendment makes it clearer whether applications are in line with the respective church’s typical decision-making methods. Because of the sensitivities involved, in the event of an unresolved dispute, Amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to become involved and therefore establish a uniform approach across central and local government. The Government have created the problem by their drafting, so they should take ultimate responsibility for solving individual problems that may arise.
If it is evident that proper processes have been ignored or deliberately manipulated, the Secretary of State should have the power to order a ballot of church members, as set out under the amendment. In such a ballot, a majority vote of two-thirds would be required to authorise the religious body to either opt in or opt out of the same-sex marriage registration system. This, of course, may come with its own complications, which is why it is so crucial to attempt to define in statute what constitutes membership.
Two words have been repeated again and again in debate on the Bill: “divisive” and “discriminatory”. It is possible that, despite reassurances, if the Bill is introduced, it will create more discrimination than it seeks to solve and cause divisions where none existed before. The amendment proposed by the Minister—Amendment 21—is helpful but it needs to go further. I hope the Minister will give this amendment very serious consideration.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendment 22, which is in my name. Very detailed consideration has been given to the impact of this legislation on the Christian and Jewish religions. However, no consideration whatever has been given to the difficulties that may arise for other faiths. Can the Minister enlighten the Committee as to why members of other faiths, each more numerous than the Jews, are being treated as if they did not exist? Was this omission inadvertent or was it thought that newer faiths in this country were less important? Either way, the less than favourable treatment of other faiths, including my own, appears to contravene both the Equality Act and human rights legislation. It seems that some minorities are more equal than others.
The substance of my amendment is best understood through a little story, which is true. An opinion pollster knocked on the door of a house in Birmingham and asked, “Do you belong to an organised religion?”. A man in a turban responded, “No, I’m a Sikh”. Sikhs do not easily submit to authority. The day-to-day management of each gurdwara is by democratically elected committees. There is no hierarchy of authority in the Sikh community other than the democratically elected Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee in Amritsar, which, after years of deliberation in the middle of the last century, produced what we call the Rehat Maryada—the Sikh code of conduct, which gives definitive and universally accepted guidance on Sikh marriage, defined as the union of a man with a woman.
I head the Network of Sikh Organisations UK—the NSO—which is the largest umbrella body of Sikhs in the UK, with over 130 affiliated members. Its purpose is to facilitate co-operation between gurdwaras in promoting Sikh values and living true to Sikh teachings. However, neither it nor any other organisation in the UK has any authority to vary the Sikh Rehat Maryada. Amendment 22 is necessary to make this position absolutely clear to the relevant authorities.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I have been listening with great care to many of the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Singh, has made during this debate, not least because his is a voice that has not been heard for very long in this House. I will take away and contemplate at greater length his statement in one of our earlier debates that it is not the job of religious organisations to adapt to modern society.
I listened very carefully during our deliberations on Monday, and the noble Lord, Lord Singh, indicated that he spoke for all Sikhs. I asked some other people what they thought about that. They said that in many ways, the organisation is as he described in that different gurdwaras do have some autonomy, although there are common principles around which members of the Sikh faith coalesce.
However, there is one group, called Sarbat, which is a lesbian and gay Sikh group. It takes a very different view of this legislation from the one that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Singh. It is not my job, or the job of this House, to determine who is right and who is wrong. However, I do think it is for this House to note that there are different opinions within his religion, which is not surprising as there is a great variety of opinions within the religions to which many of us belong. I wanted to put that on record, and this seemed like an appropriate point to do so.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
I did not say that it was not the job of religions to go along with society. Religions are formulated and their purpose is to give a sense of moral direction to society that, being human, we sometimes lose. It is to remind us of basic values, such as concern for others before concern for yourself. That should not be subject to public opinion, which today is becoming very much about “me and my rights”. Looking to others is very much a part of religion.
As to the other aspect of fringe groups within the Sikh religion, there are such groups. I am talking about the tenets of the Sikh religion as enunciated in the Guru Granth Sahib, the teachings of the gurus, and the code of conduct derived from that. That is the code which 99.9% of Sikhs follow.
Baroness Barker
I do not wish to enter into what I think is something of a distraction. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Singh, about the role of religion. I merely make the point that the rest of us do not live in a moral vacuum. The rest of us also subscribe to values, some of which are very strong and which he would be familiar with and would share. I simply wish to point out that within his faith, as with all faiths, there are different shades of opinion, and I think the House should be cognisant of that.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
Again, I have not for a moment said that the rest live in a moral vacuum. I simply stated what religion is all about, because that seems to have been lost in this debate. Very often the debate is religion against society, and it is not that.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I will address the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle and Lord Singh of Wimbledon, in a moment, but I start by speaking to government Amendments 21 and 51. Government Amendment 21 specifies the relevant governing authorities for giving consent to same-sex marriages according to the rights and usages of the Jewish religion. It replaces the provisions currently in the Bill with a definition that reflects the current arrangement for the Jewish community.
During the Committee evidence sessions in the other place, Sarah Anticoni of the Board of Deputies of British Jews’ Family Law Group referred to drafting issues which it had brought to the Government’s attention. This amendment is the result of discussions with the Board of Deputies of British Jews about those drafting issues, and the Government are very grateful to the board for its helpful and constructive contribution to the completion of this amendment, despite representing a wide range of views on same-sex marriage.
The Marriage Act 1949 already provides a definition of “secretary of a synagogue” in respect of the registration of Jewish marriages. This is because the Jewish religion already has specific provisions for its marriages in the Marriage Act which date back to 1753. This amendment ensures that the new provision in respect of the relevant governing authority reflects the modern structure of the Jewish community.
Government Amendment 51 provides that, where a governing authority has given consent to marriages of same-sex couples, that consent will not be affected purely by a change in the person or persons constituting that governing authority. Where a governing authority provides consent and thereby opts into conducting marriages for same-sex couples, a change in the person or persons who make up the authority will not render the consent void, negate it or remove it. The consent will still stand. However, this does not prevent the new governing authority from revoking the consent and deregistering the building, but this amendment makes clear that that would not happen automatically.
Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Singh, provides a specific reference to the governing authority of the Sikh religion in relation to opting into same-sex marriage. I assure the noble Lord that no disrespect is intended towards the Sikh religion, or towards any other denomination or faith that is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, and that this amendment is not needed.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
It may be that no disrespect is intended, but disrespect has been taken and many people are extremely upset about it. I still do not know why the omission occurred. Was it inadvertent or was it deliberate?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I apologise if any disrespect has been taken; it was certainly not the intention. A general reference to the governing authorities of religious organisations other than the Church of England, the Jewish religion and the Quakers is already included in the Bill—not by specific reference, but it is covered. The governing authority for the Sikh religion would be covered by this and would enable the members of the Sikh religion to determine who would be their relevant governing authority for the purpose of consenting to same-sex marriage.
The Government do not think it desirable to specify in legislation the governing authority for any particular religious organisation. That is properly a matter for the members of the religious organisation themselves. For the Government to seek to prescribe this would be an inappropriate interference in the internal governance and autonomy of religious organisations, which should be free to decide, and indeed change, their decision-making arrangements for themselves.
I think it was reflected in what the noble Lord said that he is trying to replicate the specific reference that the governing authorities of the Jewish religion and the Society of Friends—the Quakers—have within the Bill. However, as has already been indicated, they are both in a different position, given their particular treatment under the Marriage Act 1949, which arises from arrangements put in place hundreds of years ago to reflect their particular circumstances at the time. They have long had different arrangements under marriage law and therefore their governing authorities are already specifically referred to in the Marriage Act. In line with that treatment, specific reference must be made to their governing authorities in this Bill. This is not required for other religious organisations, where the relevant governing authority should be determined by the members of each organisation. Indeed, my own religious denomination, the Church of Scotland, which has places of worship in England, is not referred to in this Bill—for the very good reason that there is no historical reason why it should be.
Amendment 20 is similar to an amendment debated in Committee in the other place. It inserts provisions regarding the definition of the relevant governing authority, whose written consent is required to opt into the registration of a religious organisation’s place of worship for marriages of same-sex couples. The amendment provides that where there is a dispute over the recognition of the governing authority, the Secretary of State is required to consult members of the religious organisation and if necessary hold a ballot in which at least 66% of members cast their votes. Members are defined as people who have been on a formal membership roll for 12 months or who have attended the majority of services held over a 12-month period.
As I have already indicated, the Government do not believe that it is right for the state to restrict the independence of religious organisations and interfere with their internal governance in this way. Quite properly, that is a matter for each religious body to determine for itself, and we believe that the Bill as it stands gives adequate clarity about what is required regarding the consent of the governing authority of a religious group to marriages of same-sex couples, since the question of who the governing body is will be a matter of fact in each case. If there is a dispute over the identity of the relevant governing authority, that is a matter for the religious organisation to deal with internally, and we do not wish to create additional burdens for religious organisations. Nor indeed do we wish the Secretary of State and the state itself to become involved in internal disputes within a religious organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Singh, gave us a very helpful explanation as to why he had moved this amendment with reference to the authority in his Sikh religion. It is helpful to have that information about the structure of the Sikh religion, because it illustrates exactly why it would not be proper for the Government to intervene in a religious organisation and its internal workings. It would be quite wrong for the Government to determine which part of the Sikh community should prevail, and it would be a near impossibility for the Government even to identify every religious organisation in the country and make the kind of provision that he would make. Undoubtedly someone would be left off, and that has its own implications. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Singh, that the references to the Jewish faith and to Quakers are for long-standing historical reasons, and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Curry, to reflect on the fact that it is not appropriate for the state and the Secretary of State to intervene in such a way with the internal workings of a religious organisation. On the basis of that, I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
I am grateful for what has been said, but it does not really explain the concerns at all. If there had been any sort of research into the Sikh religion, the Government would have had precise answers as to the state of play in that religion and what and who is the authority. No research whatever has been done. It has been considered unimportant and that is what really upsets. The concern is very similar to that of my noble friend Lord Curry: that any fringe group can say that it is in charge of this or that. If the Government do not wish to take note of someone speaking on behalf of the largest and only relevant authority in India, that is up to them, but this is aiding a “divide and rule” culture that is unhelpful, and that will not be welcome in the community.
Lord Elton
My Lords, this echoes precisely what I was saying at Second Reading. It is a very good example of what is wrong with this whole process. We started off with one unhappy minority and we are going to finish up with 15 or 20 who have not been consulted in the process to the extent that the others have.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Singh, is making, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that the exceptions are exceptions for historical reasons of the Church of England and the Church in Wales where there is a common-law duty with regard to priests in relation to people within their parish. Quakers and the Jewish faith are included for reasons that go back centuries. Every other religion in England and Wales is treated in the same way. Even my own denomination, the Church of Scotland, is treated in the exactly same way as the Sikh faith is treated by the provisions in this Bill for the religious organisation itself to determine what its appropriate authority is.
It is quite clear from what the noble Lord has said that there is no doubt within his faith as to where that authority lies, just as in my own denomination the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland would be the obvious authority. The fact that he has been able to make very clear where that authority would lie just shows the importance of it being determined by the religion itself. I also ask him to reflect on the fact that if we included his amendment, every other faith and denomination would have to be included as well. That would be an impossible task for a Government and would take them into having to decide which the proper authority of some religions is, and I do not believe that is where the state should go.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I would just add that if the state were to conduct such an exercise and purport to decide for religious bodies what the proper religious authority is, difficult questions would arise under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
Having heard that, I will not move my amendment, with the proviso that what I have suggested should be taken as a strong advisory note in any further development of this legislation. The reason given for the Government’s position is that this is too complex, but that is not really a reason. If you embark on this sort of contentious legislation, you should be prepared for the consequences. It is there, through and through; this is unhelpful legislation that is set to divide not only the country, as it is divided, but communities between themselves.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
My Lords, I reinforce that. The Bill itself, as I said in my comments and has been said numerous times, is divisive. Some churches with no clearly defined governing body—and I know many that fall into that category—will find it exceedingly difficult if a minority decides to pursue this. It has the potential to divide church congregations and communities, and that is deeply regrettable. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I would like the Minister to reflect on this. Faith communities need some way of appealing if they believe that a position is being taken against their best interests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The “relevant governing authority” is... | ...if the marriage falls to be registered by... |
|---|---|
the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth | the secretary of a synagogue certified under paragraph (a) of the relevant definition (certification by the President of the Board of Deputies) |
the person or persons duly recognised by the members of—(i) the West London Synagogue of British Jews (“the West London Synagogue”), and(ii) the other synagogues that are constituents of or affiliated to the Movement for Reform Judaism | —either the secretary of the West London Synagogue, as certified under paragraph (b) of the relevant definition—or the secretary of another synagogue in a case where:(i) the secretary is certified under paragraph (d) of the relevant definition by the secretary of the West London Synagogue, and(ii) the synagogue is one of those which are constituents of or affiliated to the Movement for Reform Judaism |
the person or persons duly recognised by the members of—(i) the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, St. John’s Wood (“the St. John’s Wood Synagogue”), and(ii) the other synagogues that are constituents of or affiliated to Liberal Judaism | —either the secretary of the St. John’s Wood Synagogue, as certified under paragraph (c) of the relevant definition—or the secretary of another synagogue in a case where:(i) the secretary is certified under paragraph (d) of the relevant definition by the secretary of the St. John’s Wood Synagogue, and(ii) the synagogue is one of those which are constituents of or affiliated to Liberal Judaism |
the person or persons duly recognised by the members of the synagogue by whose secretary the marriage falls to be registered | the secretary of a synagogue certified under paragraph (d) of the relevant definition (certification by the secretary of the West London Synagogue or the secretary of the St. John’s Wood Synagogue) in a case where the synagogue is not one of those which are constituents of or affiliated to:(i) the Movement for Reform Judaism, or(ii) Liberal Judaism |
(a) “relevant definition” means the definition of “secretary of a synagogue” in section 67;(b) a reference to a person or persons being duly recognised is a reference to the person or persons being recognised for the purpose of giving consent for the purposes of this section.”
“School Standards and Framework Act 1998: consciences of teachers
After section 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 insert—“60A Teaching about marriage
(1) This section applies to a maintained school.
(2) No teacher shall be required to endorse same sex marriage if he has a conscientious objection to so doing based on his religious or other beliefs.
(3) No teacher at the school shall receive any less remuneration or be deprived of, or disqualified for, any promotion or other advantage by reason of the fact that he relies on subsection (2) above.””
Lord Dear
My Lords, I see that Amendments 23 and 24 are grouped together. I had discussions earlier with the Front Bench that in my opinion it would have been better to have split these and discussed them separately. As will become clear very quickly, the only common ground in these two amendments is the classroom. One amendment deals with the position of teachers and the other with parents, but in the interests of time I have had a further discussion with the Front Bench and am more than happy to run these two together and speak to them both one after the other, if that would help. I am looking at the Front Bench and they are nodding so, with the approval of the House, I will do that.
Amendment 23, which seeks to protect schoolteachers, would preserve the position of a teacher so that no teacher was required to endorse same-sex marriage if there was a conscientious objection to so doing, and the same teacher would not be deprived or disqualified by the same action. Under the amendment, teachers with a conscientious objection to same-sex marriage would be protected from being forced to actively endorse it. The amendment would also seek to protect them from being disadvantaged as a result. It offers a conscientious protection similar to that enjoyed by, for example, atheist teachers, who have a legal right not to have to teach religious education. I contend that, unless explicit protection like this is included, the same-sex marriage legislation would jeopardise the civil liberty of teachers holding the traditional mainstream view of marriage.
Discussion about marriage comes up routinely as part of the school curriculum—for example, in English or in history—and there will be pressure, I fear, to ensure that any such discussion includes same-sex marriage. As for sex education, Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 requires sex education to include teaching pupils about the importance of marriage in family life, and will require teaching about the importance of same-sex marriage in that context.
I refer, as I did at Second Reading, to the opinion given by John Bowers QC, a leading barrister in the field of employment law. He stated that Section 403,
“provides no exception for conscientious beliefs”.
He goes on to say:
“Unless this were amended I envisage that there would be a duty on the teacher to promote marriage as newly defined”.
Many teachers undoubtedly will feel unable, in all good conscience, to express such an endorsement. A representative poll, taken earlier this year among teachers, found that 10%—which equates to more than 40,000 teachers in this country—would probably refuse to teach children about the importance of same-sex marriage if required to do so. In the same poll, 17% would teach about its importance but would not be happy in doing so, and 56% expressed concerns that colleagues who take a stance supporting traditional marriage could find their professional careers damaged.
In fairness, the Government have repeatedly sought to allay these fears by insisting that teachers will not be forced to endorse anything that is contrary to their conscience. In fact, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, told the House at Second Reading:
“Teachers will be expected to teach the factual and legal position when teaching about marriage, as with any area of the curriculum, but they will not be expected to promote or endorse views that go against their own beliefs. It will be unlawful to dismiss a teacher purely for doing so”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 940.]
Setting on one side the factual and legal position, and distinguishing it from the promotion or endorsement of views about that same subject, I would think that it is almost a knife-edge position.
In contrast to that view, John Bowers QC, whose opinion I have just quoted from, has suggested that teachers could be required to promote same-sex marriage and be disciplined and even dismissed if they refuse to do so. He states in his opinion:
“If the Marriage Bill becomes law, schools could lawfully discipline a teacher who refused to teach materials endorsing same sex marriage”.
Earlier in the document he states:
“The stark position in my view is that a Christian teacher (or indeed any teacher with a conscientious objection) may have to teach about (and positively portray) a notion of marriage (and its importance for family life) which they may find deeply offensive”.
He goes on to say:
“Section 403(1A) of the Education Act 1996 would also in my view provide a legitimate basis for schools or LEAs which wish to promote a particular vision of equality to require all teachers to teach materials which endorse same sex marriage. The position of the teacher who manifests a conscientious objection to doing so is not enviable”.
I will quote from a letter that was sent to me at the end of last week by a firm of solicitors in Witney in Oxfordshire. It stated:
“I am happy to confirm the attached letter, addressed to you by Mrs X, in relation to an investigation against her in her school, which is an honest summary of a genuine incident. I am aware of the facts of the case. I am also aware that Mrs X wishes to remain anonymous at this stage because an investigation is ongoing”.
The letter from Mrs X is illustrative of this problem, and I quote from it directly:
“I am a teacher at a … girls’ school in South London. I have been employed by the school for 17 years. During March … I was instructed to deliver a presentation, which included material stating, in effect, that any disagreement with same-sex marriage was de facto homophobia. I felt this was not a fair characterisation of the debate and it was one that conflicted with my own deeply held religious beliefs. I raised my concerns with the teacher in charge”.
I will shorthand the next bit. She complained to the teacher in charge, who allowed her her position and let her teach elsewhere. However, another colleague raised a complaint:
“The head teacher investigated the incident and concluded there was no case to answer. Another colleague, who is also a union rep, then followed up the complaint, and has formally raised additional concerns about my Christian beliefs and my membership of a church. The union rep has demanded an investigation of my beliefs and my membership of the church, and whether it had any negative impact on my job as a teacher. That investigation process is currently underway, and at the time of writing I do not yet know the outcome”.
The nub of that was on whether any disagreement with same-sex marriage was de facto homophobia.
I could cite other examples, but I will not take up too much of the House’s time. I will say simply that other teachers have come under similar pressure. One situation involved a primary school teacher who stopped reading the book And Tango Makes Three to her class because it endorsed same-sex relationships in a way that conflicted with her beliefs. When the head teacher discovered that, the teacher was restricted from having her own class because school policy required teachers to promote homosexuality in the classroom. In Scotland, a secondary school teacher was told that he would have to teach a relationships course, promoting same-sex marriage “without exceptions or safeguards”, despite that contradicting his beliefs.
We have a tangle. We have leading counsel on one side saying that the law will not protect teachers, and we have the view from the Front Bench, very obviously, earnestly and faithfully put forward, that the factual and legal position can be distinguished from the promotion and endorsement of views. We then turn to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is as divided on this as it was on other matters we heard of earlier in connection with another amendment. On this particular issue the Joint Committee said:
“We have heard significant arguments about whether existing employment and equality law provisions provide sufficient protection for employees who may wish to manifest their belief about same-sex marriage in the workplace. We note the particular concern for the position of teachers and civil registrars … We welcome the Government’s commitment to review the protections that may be required in relation to the teaching of Sex and Relationship Education. In particular, we encourage the Government to consider whether specific protections are required for faith schools and for individual teachers who hold a religious belief about same sex marriage”.
That sums up the reasoning behind this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, brought to the attention of the House certain remarks made by my noble friend in her speech at Second Reading. I will remind the House of some of her words. In particular, she said:
“Teachers will be expected to teach the factual and legal position when teaching about marriage … but they will not be expected to promote or endorse views that go against their own beliefs”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 940.]
That surely means that the teacher must teach the new definition of marriage and must explain the significance of the change. That may be very difficult for some teachers. The Minister says that the teacher does not have to endorse the new definition, and by that I think she means to accept it as right.
Lord Waddington
I appreciate what the noble Lord has to say and he will be able to say it in his speech. I wish he would just hear me out on this little piece of the action. He surely must agree that this begs the question as to whether it is anything we should complain about; he surely must agree that the teacher must teach the new definition of marriage and must explain the significance of the change. The noble Lord must concede, whether he likes it or not, that that may be offensive to some teachers. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. I should have thought that after all our debates he knows how divisive this legislation is. Some people find it very difficult to accept that a marriage between two people of the same sex is a proper marriage. It is ridiculous him just shaking his head. We have to face the facts.
Lord Alli
I was shaking my head because I do not believe that it is difficult for a teacher to teach the facts. They may not like it, but I believe teaching is a fantastic profession and every teacher I have met is capable of distinguishing fact from opinion. People in this profession are capable of dealing with this issue because that is what they are trained to do.
Lord Waddington
A number of teachers will find it extremely difficult to have to explain the new regime. At Second Reading the Minister said that teachers do not have to “endorse” the new definition—by that I think she means accept it as right. She then went on to say that,
“the expression of personal beliefs should be done in a professional way and not in a way that would be inappropriate or insensitive to pupils”.—[Official Report, 3/6/13; col. 940.]
I wonder whether some people might judge that any statement to the effect that the only true marriage is one between a man and a woman is bound to be thought insensitive to some pupils and that therefore it should not be allowed. When we come to Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, which was again referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, there is a strong case for giving some protection to safeguard the position of teachers who cannot in conscience teach that the union of two men or two women is a marriage.
As to conscientious objection, there was a debate about that the other night. One thing was not mentioned. The Equality and Human Rights Commission was reported on 12 July 2011 as saying that the court should have done more to protect Christians affected by equality laws. In the case then pending before the ECHR the commission was going to call on the European Court of Human Rights to back the principle that employers should do more to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs like they accommodate staff with disabilities. I am quoting from the commission. Later, for quite unexplained reasons, the commission beat a hasty retreat but we can take some comfort in the fact that for a short time it looked as if we were going to get somewhere. Surely if in the dark days of the war you could give people who had a conscientious objection to fighting the right to opt out of military service we could do something similar here.
There have been so many cases where the demands of equality have been allowed to trump the right of people to observe the dictates of their faith. There may be a case in every enactment for protection of those who would find observance difficult on grounds of conscience. I raised that matter in a Question in the House on 8 July 2010. Unfortunately, I got the usual expression of sympathy followed by a statement that the Government had not the slightest intention of doing anything.
I noted the words of my noble friend Lord Deben earlier this afternoon. He talked about tolerance. I do not see much tolerance in this place tonight—not on that side of the Chamber. The Government would be practising tolerance if they gave protection to teachers who find it difficult to teach the significance of the new law on marriage.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I say in a spirit of courtesy that I rather resent the reference to this side of the Chamber, because this debate is not whipped. What I will say is based on my experience as a mother and as someone, obviously, who went to school. For 10 years I chaired the education committee in Lancashire, with a bevy of bishops—perhaps “beneficence” would be a more appropriate word—because Lancashire had, and I think still has, the largest number of faith schools. I think that this is the last week that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool will be in your Lordships’ House. I would like to put it on record that he has contributed very wisely to our debates.
My experience of the education system is that of a parent and an unqualified teacher. I have to say, on the basis of my experience, that the current Government’s use of unqualified teachers serves children ill. I will address this issue and concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. We tangle with the content of the curriculum and what teachers ought to say and do at our peril. I recollect—this may surprise some noble Lords opposite—my faith in the late Lord Joseph, who, in the circumstance of vitriolic debates about whether teachers were telling young people that they ought to support CND back in the 1980s, said that the role of a teacher could be to say that they supported CND or not, but that as a professional they ought also to say that other teachers, parents and people in the community held different views. To my amazement—I admit prejudice prior to his appointment—I found that Lord Joseph was interested in genuine educational debate and discussion among young people as they grew up. Noble Lords would do well to remember his advice that young people need to know about a diversity of views as they grow into young adults.
Nobody wishes to see the promotion of a particular lifestyle, moral view, political view or religious view. Teachers have to teach children who are growing up in a very diverse culture. It is totally different from my childhood, when there was not a diverse culture in most communities. Most diversity was hidden.
I would like to relate the story of a superb head teacher in a Lancashire church school, who came to me at the time of the introduction of Section 28. This head teacher was a devout, practising Anglican. By chance, she was actually a very devout Conservative Party member, if one can be such a thing. She asked to see me about Section 28. I thought she would come in and say, “You’ve got to support this, this is important.” What she told me was a story. It took place in that small church school in a village in Lancashire, where she was head teacher. She asked the children to draw a picture of their Christmas Day morning. She said to me, “Josie, one little girl drew a picture of herself in bed with two women”. She said to the little girl, “Who are they?”, and the little girl said, “My two mummies. I don’t have a daddy, I have two mummies.”
The head teacher said to me that her professional job, given all her views and her devout Christian belief, was to support the family in which this child lived and ensure the child was never in any way victimised for the circumstances of her family life. So she had to explain to other children, “Some people live like this”. I explained that story to Lord Joseph. He understood it because he knew that children grow up in families with very different views and very different circumstances.
To the noble Lord, Lord Dear, I say that it is not a question of endorsing but of recognising. Children are growing up in a diversity of families. They may grow up with a mother and a father who are married within a religious faith. Their uncles and aunts and other people they know, other people in the community such as family friends, will have different patterns of life, different beliefs and different relationships. We have to make sure that teachers are given the freedom and responsibility to respond to the young people in their care.
A long way back I was accused by a then Member of Parliament in Lancashire of presiding over a situation in which teachers were indoctrinating children into supporting a particular view. I refer back to the CND. I never actually got proof of the indoctrination, but I had wholehearted support across the political groups on Lancashire Country Council for ensuring that teachers were able to teach children to grow up in the real world that they lived in.
I may not like particular aspects of life. I am not awfully fond of rap, but that it is an age thing, not an artistic judgment. We have to stop preventing teachers teaching children about the world in which they are growing up. Teachers should not endorse views or indoctrinate children but recognise that the world is real and it is out there. That is why I give the Government my wholehearted support. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dear—
Lord Dear
I wonder whether the noble Baroness could apply that reasoning to the letter that I quoted. I will read out the pertinent point again. The lady in question is currently under investigation in the south of England. She says in her letter, which is endorsed by the solicitor as being an accurate reflection of what went on:
“I was instructed to deliver a presentation which included material stating, in effect, that any disagreement with same-sex marriage was de facto homophobia”.
In other words, if you agree with it, it is not homophobia; if you disagree, it is. I understand that the lady is suspended and is currently the subject of an investigation. It seems to me that the difference between disagreement, agreement and endorsement is a very fine line indeed. I hope the noble Baroness will answer a further question at the same time. What about the 40,000 teachers—10%—who said that they would not be able to teach this matter in good conscience and would probably refuse to do so?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, my experience in my political career is that it is unwise to comment on individual cases. I would need to know the detail. I cannot believe—however, the noble Lord tells me it is a fact—that any head teacher or governing body has insisted on that wording. However, I do not doubt that the noble Lord has evidence which seems to support that.
I am slightly more dubious about opinion polls. I think that the opinions depend on the exact question that is asked. If noble Lords were asked as they left the Chamber whether they agreed with indoctrinating pupils into believing that same-sex marriage was right or wrong, we would probably all say that we do not believe in indoctrination. If we were asked a slightly different question, we might answer it differently. As someone who is very committed to political life, I am saddened that out there a variety of groups of people hold a variety of views, many of which I totally oppose personally. Nevertheless, I defend their right to hold them. That is the issue we are dealing with. I do not want my grandsons to be told that anything is right or wrong in regard to the law. They will be told by their parents and teachers and occasionally by their grandmother—although, as they grow up, they may not listen—about certain things of which we do or do not approve. However, I think it is very unwise for us to start assuming that teachers will be told they have to indoctrinate or put forward a particular point of view. For 10 years I chaired the education committee on Lancashire County Council. I once said to somebody, “If I wanted the whole teaching profession in Lancashire, which I respect and admire, to do something, the best way would be for me to ban it”.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, we all recognise the strength of feeling that these issues command, and pleas for tolerance, such as that from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, always command considerable respect and attention. However, we really need to look at the principle behind the proposed amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dear. As I see it, the teacher’s role is not simply to promote same-sex marriage or propagate his or her views. Surely the only role of the teacher in relation to same-sex marriage is to explain to pupils, where this is relevant, that the law allows same-sex marriage, and to explain that some religions do not recognise it and therefore the law does not recognise same-sex marriage of a religious nature in those circumstances.
I cannot understand why a teacher needs or should have a statutory immunity from performing that educative role. Nor can I understand why parents should be able to prevent their children being so informed about the laws of the society in which they live. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, also referred, in the context of the legal opinion from Mr John Bowers QC, to Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, which was said to cause great concern. I remind noble Lords that Section 403(1A) is about giving guidance in the context of sex education. It requires children in that context to,
“learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”.
The purpose of that statutory provision, as I understand it, is so that when children learn about sex education, they learn that it is highly desirable that sexual intercourse takes place within the context of marriage. I cannot understand why those noble Lords who are concerned about the Bill should wish in any way to prevent children learning—if and when they do—about homosexual sexual relations in that context, as well as about heterosexual sexual relations and the importance of marriage and family life.
Lord Pannick
An atheist may have good reason for not teaching religious education, because by definition religious education is teaching matters relating to religion. However we are not concerned here with teaching religion, but with the role of the teacher in teaching children, so far as it is relevant, about the society in which they live. If and when the Bill is passed, part of the society in which children live will include same-sex marriage.
Lord Dear
With the greatest possible respect, that is dancing on a pin. I am sorry to put it that way, because I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord. Surely it is exactly the same reasoning which gives protection—if one can use that phrase—for the atheist to fall out of teaching religion and the teacher who has a rooted objection to teaching about sex education and same-sex marriage on religious or conscientious grounds. I see no difference.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Dear, please accept that he is referring to two separate issues? One is teaching religious education. Perhaps in some schools this is taught as fact by people who believe, particularly in church schools. As for the other, I do not know if other noble Lords have my experience of children, particularly grandchildren, asking people questions at the most inappropriate moments to get information.
Even if the noble Lord’s suggestion in the amendment was agreed, parents could say, “I do not wish my child to be in the classroom when X is being discussed”. However, then the child at the back of the class suddenly asks a question that the teacher has to answer. It is not formal sex education. “Where did I come from?” is the question that a child is most likely to ask at the checkout in the supermarket, rather than at the appropriate moment at home. Therefore, one cannot subdivide the process of education. Education goes on all the time. The teacher may be asked such questions in the classroom. It may be a scout leader who is asked—it could be anyone; it may occasionally be the grandmother. Then you have the problem of working out not only what you think but what the parents concerned would like you to say.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, perhaps I may put in my 10 cents-worth on this. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that the teacher must teach what the law is. There is no doubt about it. I have the utmost sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has said. As I have said previously, it is the duty of teachers to support the child, whatever type of relationship the parents with whom they are living may have. I have happily granted adoption orders to same-sex couples. They are or can be excellent parents—as good as any other. I start from that basis.
However, I have a concern. It is really what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said about being a grandparent. I am a grandparent and my grandchildren ask awkward questions but the concern is about when the question is asked of a teacher. The teacher is there, trying very hard to give a neutral account of what the present law of marriage is. Then a child asks an awkward question and the teacher answers honestly. It could be a question such as, “What do you think about it, miss?”, and the teacher says, “I have to say that I am a member of the Church of England and my view is that I do not believe in same-sex marriage”. The child goes off and tells the mother, and the mother comes and complains to the school because a member of that family is in a same-sex relationship. That is what worries me. It is the perception; it is the interpretation. It is that which has gone beyond the ordinary, perfectly proper teaching of the teacher. It is for that reason that what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, is asking for is a necessary protection for teachers.
I do not support the noble Lord’s second amendment. I think that children should learn everything. When I was a judge, I remember the father of a Roman Catholic family, who was very devout, telling me that I should make an order that in the Anglican school to which he had sent his children they should not attend religious education because it was Anglican education, not Roman Catholic. I basically told him to get lost and that if he had chosen to send the child to that school it was right that the child should learn what the school was teaching. Children should be learning everything and they will then distinguish between matters.
However, the first of the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, should not be dismissed out of hand. There is a problem here that has to be recognised.
Lord Alli
I wonder whether the noble and learned Baroness has seen the Secretary of State’s Second Reading speech in the other place and what the Minister in the other place said. The Minister said that,
“no teacher is under any duty to promote or endorse a particular view of marriage, and neither would they be as a result of any revised guidance in the future”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples Bill Committee, 28/2/13; col. 311.]
If a loophole exists—and I have said this to the noble Lord, Lord Dear—we should try to close it, but it seems to me that the loophole is not there.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I very much hope that that is true. It may be that this is not necessary in primary legislation. However, there is a potential problem of perception and interpretation. There will be some teachers who will be at risk, perhaps in areas where they do not read what the Secretary of State said, or what the Minister said in Parliament, and have their own views and take the view that the teacher has gone outside what he or she should say, in having answered the question of the child, or whatever it may be. I raise the question, and my concern, in moderate terms. We ought not just dismiss this. That is the point I am making to the House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, does the noble and learned Baroness accept that I have failed to convey the message of the much missed Lord Joseph? Good professional teachers will answer that question and will point out that parents, other teachers, local clergymen or whoever, may hold a totally different view. What is important is that the child knows about the range of views. That is the safeguard for the teacher.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I do not want to keep getting up and down. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, but since she asks me, it is not in fact what the teacher teaches in the class that worries me. It is what is said, probably to the head teacher, about what the child has said, what has gone home, and so on. Although I have never been a teacher I have had experience in different ways of what is said, and what is misunderstood, and the way in which teachers are placed in very difficult positions, when the head teacher has been given the information by a parent, by another teacher, or by somebody else. It is that perception—that interpretation —which worries me.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I have waited patiently and tried about five times to get in, because this part of the Bill is enormously important. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, said quite rightly that if and when this becomes law, teachers will have to teach the law. How does he envisage the situation where a teacher is in a room, teaching the whole question of marriage as it has been known and accepted until now, alongside same-sex marriage, to children within the same class? That is asking a huge amount of teachers under pressurised circumstances. That is my first point; perhaps I may park that for a moment. I hope I can help a little bit more.
Secondly, I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. She and I share many things, and we disagree on many things, but I was very grateful for her input. I have real concerns, and I welcome Amendment 23 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. He has given us instances of cases being heard at the moment. I am worried that there will be pressure put on teachers—they may find they do not get promotion or may find themselves in a difficult situation. We have been dealing with intricacies, and Amendment 23 deserves greater support than it has so far received. I do not find it objectionable. Proposed Section 60A states:
“This section applies to a maintained school”.
Will the noble Lord, Lord Dear, explain a little bit more about that? If somebody really does have a conscientious objection, they should not be jeopardised if they find it very difficult to do what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, wants them to do, within a lesson. All I would say is that it is not easy.
I am sorry that I could not be here on Monday or I would have participated in this debate earlier, but I have only been able to attend since late this afternoon. However, this is a hugely important part of the Bill and there are real and practical issues that need to be addressed. I do not think that what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, wants to do is something that I would want to do, so he knows where I stand. The questions of how we are going to take this forward and how it will work have not really been addressed at all.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I shall be brief because I know that the Committee wants to make progress and there is still quite a lot to be done. This will be handled in exactly the same way as teachers currently deal with the issue of divorce. Teachers in schools up and down the country who hold deeply religious views and do not agree with divorce are free to express those views in the classroom. Nothing prevents them doing so. However, they are required to tell pupils the truth about the world we live in and that divorce exists. I do not think that that causes a problem. The principle applies and it can read across to another set of issues. Teachers have a much better grasp of this than perhaps we are giving them credit for.
Lord Elton
My Lords, there are a couple of things which have not been mentioned that we need to bear in mind before this is resolved. The first relates to classroom teaching. I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, on giving a perfect example of proper and professional conduct, and some perfect examples of how extremely awkward children can be. However, noble Lords have not actually grasped the fact that many teachers are required by their heads to teach to a particular programme which has been produced by a publisher, by some think tank in a comprehensive, or whatever. It will take an attitude to this which to some teachers will appear as though it is promoting a particular interpretation. Teachers need to be able not to have that forced on them.
The other thing is that, of course, a lot of a teacher’s life is spent in the staff room. No doubt they hold to the view that they are highly professional and will do exactly what the teacher the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, told us about did under all circumstances, yet in the staff room may express views contrary to those that we are now going to be told are mandatory. If they express an objection to same-sex marriage which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has said, is interpreted as being tantamount to homophobia, and that sort of conversation is held in the staff room, particularly of a large school, there will be those on the staff who will regard it as making them unfit to teach. Those teachers will find themselves under undesirable pressure. No doubt the Minister will take this away and think about it, and indeed all these exchanges will prove to be useful.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Dear, who said that this is something of knife-edge issue, and I sympathise with that observation. I hope that I will not embarrass her, but I find myself in considerable agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, and I certainly have a lot of sympathy for her whole approach to this subject. However, I have one deeply held anxiety which I would like to express very briefly in the hope that it will be allayed by the response of my noble friend the Minister.
It is not the objectivity of teaching that worries me. It is not the way that teachers will interpret or rehearse the law before their pupils or their classes that is my concern. On the whole, I have enormous respect for the teaching profession, having been associated with it for some time, and I think that teachers will do their job admirably. That is not my worry. My worry lies in what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, said, and certainly others have mentioned; namely, the difference between what I would call the objective teaching or factual teaching, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, and promotion. That is the knife edge. It is done so easily. It is done by emphasis and by inference. We know through our respective interests how easy it is, almost subliminally, to encourage a viewpoint that is held firmly by the particular promoter of that view. It is done carefully and sometimes not quite so carefully. This is my worry and I hope my noble friend will be able to reply.
I have seen, as other noble Lords have doubtless also seen—there is nothing peculiar about me, there is no reason why I alone should have seen this—material in the public domain which is promotional material advertising the good things about same-sex relationships. I have heard it said—I give no particular credence to this; it is hearsay—that teachers sometimes encourage pupils in their class to experiment, to find out in terms of sexual relationships, “what makes you happy”. This is what worries me. There is an undercurrent there of crusading on behalf of same-sex relationships which I think has no place in a school. I accept teaching factually; I do not accept promotion or promotional material.
Lord Alli
In the spirit of tolerance that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asked for, will the noble Lord accept that, for many of us, the use of the word “promotion” and the language that the noble Lord has just used is particularly emotive because of Section 28? Will he therefore accept, in the spirit of tolerance, that where the amendments are crafted in such a way that that phraseology is embedded in them, that is the reason for the perceived reaction that the noble Lord may get? Will the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also accept that where there is a mischief we genuinely want to solve it, but if the language is inflammatory, if the arguments put forward are inserted into the Bill, it is very hard, in the air of tolerance, for us to have a proper and constructive discussion?
Lord Eden of Winton
I am very sorry to hear the noble Lord say that because I certainly do not want to offend him or anybody else of that persuasion. However, he is right to say that I am emotional about the issue, because I feel very strongly about it. I hope he will accept that there are strong feelings on the side that I represent, as strongly as he represents the feelings on his side. I cannot help that. I feel I have to express these views, because we are talking about legislation, which is likely to become the law of the land, in which case my views will be sublimated and the law takes over. Now is the time for me to express these views, and I hope I convey the feelings which I believe represent the views of others beyond this House. I hope that I will get a response from them.
We talk about teachers being required to teach the law correctly. What is the position of teachers in Church of England schools? They will also be required to do this. This is one of the areas of difficulty which I find being developed by the proposals in this Bill, which I hope will be satisfied, if not by the existing protections, at least by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dear.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I remind the noble Lord that the example in Lancashire that I spoke of was in a Church of England school. My experience of church schools is that they not only hold their own strong religious views but respect the communities from which their pupils come and the circumstances from which their families come. Perhaps it is different in Lancashire.
Lord Eden of Winton
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention, which reminds me, if I needed reminding, of her earlier speech. I said at the beginning that I agreed with a lot of what she said and found that I had a lot of sympathy with her point of view. I accept what she says and just hope that when my noble friend comes to reply there will be some comment about the nature of the material that is made available to interpret the various different aspects of relationships in marriage. It comes back to a point made in a previous debate, on an earlier amendment, about the importance of guidance. What is in the guidance material is very significant. If we could have some reassurances about the nature of the guidance that will be given to the teaching profession, either from local authorities or from the centre, that would be very helpful.
Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene because I have not spoken since Second Reading. However, I want to follow up a point which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made about teaching. I have no experience of teaching but it seems to me that a teacher coping with a classroom of pupils, who has to deal with one aspect in a particular way, might need a more individual session with a pupil who displays a lack of understanding about a particular issue. It might need to be put over to that individual pupil in a different way from how it might easily be expressed in a more public way. That would almost certainly draw the poor teacher concerned into expressing much more personal views than he or she might have done if it had been in a public classroom. There seems to be a genuine risk here which could imperil the teacher concerned. It needs very careful thought.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I have a question for the Minister arising from the speech of the noble and learned Baroness, who made very strong points but did not describe something new. The sorts of issues to which she referred have been around for a very long time. We have had guidance for many years about how such sensitive matters should be addressed in school. I believe that bishops and representatives of other faiths have, over many years, been called by successive Governments to contribute to that guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, talked about promotional materials, but there is guidance already. When the noble Baroness comes to summing up—which I am sure she will be delighted to get into fairly soon—can she say whether anything in the Bill changes the statutory guidance that we already have about the teaching of sensitive matters?
Lord Elton
The noble Lord has not, as far as I know, addressed his second amendment at all. I do not think that there is any time for it tonight but, very briefly, I give notice that will we need a debate on the legal opinions that have been expressed on whether the Bill will affect the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education. We may have an opportunity to do that at the next stage. I put it on record that if the noble Lord does not address it, I will table an amendment to give such an opportunity.
Baroness Thornton
I will address both Amendment 23 and Amendment 24, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, himself said—
Lord Dear
I am so sorry. Perhaps I may directly address the Front Bench. We agreed that we would try to hurry this through—and of course we have failed in that. I certainly do want to speak to Amendment 24, having moved Amendment 23. I thought that we agreed that I would then go straight on to Amendment 24 and take that as well. I want to discuss it. However, I am also conscious of the time. It is fast coming up to half past 10. I am in the hands of the Committee as to how we handle this.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I apologise to the noble Lord if I was in any way unclear when we discussed this. I thought, from our last conversation, that we were going to debate both amendments together as a single group, and that is what I was intending to do in responding to this debate. I think that there is real merit in doing so because there are things relevant to the noble Lord’s second amendment which help me to address some of the points that have been raised by my noble friends, particularly points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eden. My intention is to cover both amendments in my response.
Lord Dear
If it is the will of the Committee I will move on to Amendment 24. Yes, the Front Bench is nodding.
Amendment 24 stands in my name as well and I will try to be fairly brief; I can certainly be briefer than I was before. Because of their religious or other convictions, many parents will not want their children to learn about same-sex marriage before a certain age, fearing that they will find it confusing. Others may be concerned that teaching on the subject will not be balanced or might not respect their own convictions on the matter.
Parents, as we all know, have the right to withdraw their children from sex education. However, same-sex marriage could be included in a range of other subjects, across the curriculum, to which the right of withdrawal does not apply. For example, there is no right of withdrawal from history lessons and there has been a growth of schools taking part in LGBT History Month lessons within the last few months.
Stonewall, the leading gay rights group, promotes an extensive list of materials on same-sex marriage for use in primary schools. These resources cover subjects much wider than just sex education. A teacher training guide, also produced by Stonewall, suggests that primary school children could perform some of Stonewall’s recommended story books as school plays. An accompanying teacher training DVD, which was produced with the support of the Training and Development Agency for Schools, suggests that pupils must become “resilient”—and that word is lifted directly from its literature—to the values of their parents and grandparents. This is quite clearly an indirect reference to some parents and grandparents who may have objections to issues such as gay marriage.
There is a danger that without an extension of the right of withdrawal, the deeply held beliefs of parents will be undermined, as will their ability to have their children educated in accordance with their own convictions. Article 2, as some of us know, of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights will be weakened. I could give a number of examples where this sort of thing has happened—I am conscious of the time and of the fact that the House wants to progress—but suffice it to say that there are already examples in this country, and abroad, where children have sought to be removed from school because of this sort of thing, and the council has told the parents that action would be taken against them unless the children were returned to school. It has happened in Waltham Forest in east London and it has happened abroad in Massachusetts.
I am galloping through very fast, and I would have liked to develop the argument to greater effect, but Amendment 24 gives a parent the right to withdraw a child from any lesson that includes teaching about same-sex marriage. It also requires the school to notify the parent a week in advance of those lessons, because being informed in that way is obviously crucial to the effective operation of the right of withdrawal.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, third time lucky. Amendments 23 and 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, address various aspects concerning teaching in schools. I recognise that this is a sensitive issue and of importance to many people. However, we believe that both these amendments go too far.
The obligations of schools, particularly faith schools, in relation to teaching about same-sex marriage were extensively debated in the other place. I will repeat what I said at Second Reading: I think that the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, got it just about right when he gave his evidence to the committee in the Commons. These are not new issues. Current requirements on faith schools around the teaching of PSHE and subjects such as abortion have required schools and DFE guidance to forge a sensitive path between teaching pupils about the facts of life and the law of this country, while still informing them of their faith’s views on these issues.
Noble Lords need to understand that teachers have succeeded in navigating these sensitive issues. We understand the concern of faith schools that they will be required to advocate to their pupils something that their faith does not endorse. However, there is a fundamental difference between teaching and advocacy, which is why the noble Lord’s Amendment 23 is confusing. By providing for an explicit protection for teachers who refuse to “endorse” same-sex marriage, the amendment misconceives the nature of teaching. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained that extremely well and I will not repeat those arguments.
The Education Act 1996 requires that pupils,
“learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”.
It is not the job of teachers to endorse or not endorse a particular opinion, no more than teaching about a subject amounts to their personal endorsement of it. Just as currently all schools are required to teach about the importance of marriage for family life—while being sensitive,
“so as not to stigmatise children on the basis of their home circumstances,
which is what the statutory guidance says on this issue—I put it to those who are concerned about this that schools have already found a way to navigate the sensitive path of teaching children about the importance of marriage without implying that children who come from other arrangements or set-ups, be they single, same-sex or unmarried parent homes, have any less important a family life.
Amendment 24 would allow parents to remove their children from any lesson in addition to PSHE, where they already have such a right, which might involve teaching about same-sex marriage, and would require teachers to give advance notice to parents of any lessons in which this may be of relevance. Disregarding for a moment the complete impracticality of a teacher having to inform parents before any likelihood of a discussion on same-sex marriage—my noble friend Lady Farrington made that point completely clear: you cannot predict what a teacher will be asked by a pupil—will the teacher be forced not to answer that question?
I suggest that the amendment comes close to wishful thinking on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in hoping that some individuals might go through their entire young lives without ever knowing that same-sex marriage was the law of this country and that it would be wrong to go down such a path.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, I am grateful to be able to respond to his Amendments 23 and 24 together because some of the issues arising from his second amendment will help me address some of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate by my noble friends.
The noble Lord, Lord Dear, and my noble friend Lord Waddington quoted quite extensively from what I said at Second Reading. Clearly I am not going to repeat that and quote myself but I will be relying on the same facts that I relied on at Second Reading because they are the facts as they are. I want to be clear from the start that I recognise the concern that there is out there and among some noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I feel the passion that was expressed by my noble friend Lord Eden and recognise that it is a real concern. Therefore, there is a responsibility on me to respond from the Dispatch Box and acknowledge that concern. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
My noble friend Lady Barker asked me a direct question about whether the Bill changes anything in respect of the guidance that currently exists for teachers on how to teach sensitive issues under the heading of “sex and relationship education”. No, it does not. I should note at this point that there is a later amendment, Amendment 46B in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, which relates to religious freedom for faith schools and it is directly linked to Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, which has been quoted by noble Lords in the course of this debate. So I will return to that issue on Monday and, while I hope to be clear and comprehensive in responding to these amendments, this is not the only debate we will have on education in Committee.
Amendment 23 would have broad application to all teachers in all maintained schools. I must stress, as has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that no teacher is under any obligation to endorse a particular view of marriage or would be in the future as a result of the Bill. Teachers are and will continue to be free to express their personal views or those of their faith about marriage or any other matter, provided they do so in a balanced and sensitive way. There is a significant difference between expecting a teacher to explain something and expecting them to endorse it. Teachers are required to explain the world around them in a way that is appropriate to the age and level of understanding of their pupils. This includes explaining some things which may be controversial and with which they may not necessarily agree. The examples that have been used tonight in debate include divorce and contraception. As many noble Lords have said, teachers are already very experienced in dealing with such issues and do so admirably and professionally. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, gave a powerful illustration of how teachers handle these complexities already. They are required to ensure that their teaching is balanced and they take care to ensure that there is no stigmatisation of children based on their home circumstances, their own sexual identity or their own views and beliefs. Teachers are not prevented from discussing their own views, provided they do so in an appropriate way. It is worth reminding ourselves that there are children in classrooms today who are struggling with their sexual identity. This is not just about the teacher; it is also about the pupils and how they respond to the lessons that they receive.
A lot has been said today about tolerance and courtesy. My noble friend Lord Waddington raised the need for that in the context of this debate—we have to continue to respect differences of opinion. I understand the point that my noble friend makes in this context and it has been acknowledged on all sides of the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said, that is precisely what we want children to learn through professional teaching explaining the differences that exist in our society. This is not just about the tolerance that we expect of each other in debating these issues. We want to help our children be tolerant and to respect one another. That is an important part of this process.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, expressed a concern about teachers being criticised by the same-sex parents of a pupil for expressing their personal view that they do not believe in the marriage of same-sex couples. However, that kind of scenario could happen now in the context of civil partnerships. I therefore go back to the debate that we had on Monday about the law protecting people against others who might not understand their freedoms. Clearly we have a responsibility to ensure that people are aware of and understand the freedom that everyone has to express their views, and it is perfectly legitimate for a teacher in a classroom to be able to do that. If it happens that someone decides to pursue a case against someone else, the law exists to protect them from inappropriate discrimination.
Schools, like any other employer, have responsibilities to their employees under equality and employment law. Teachers, like other employees, are protected from being discriminated against or harassed because of their religion or belief. As I have made clear, this includes a belief that marriage should be only between a man and woman. I forget now who it was but it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Dear, who said that they can express that opinion to each other as teachers in the common room or express that belief in the classroom. It is clearly wrong, as I have stated many times, to say that, because someone believes that marriage should be only between a man and woman, that means the person is homophobic. That is not the case, and I will keep saying that because it is important that we help people to know that it is not the case.
In this context, as I have also said in the context of other debates, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s statutory codes and guidance, particularly where they relate to public bodies, will help us to ensure that this understanding is widespread. No teacher is obliged to endorse a particular view and no school should disadvantage a teacher because he or she does not do so. If a teacher feels that he or she has been treated unfairly, procedures are in place for them to seek redress. I would hope that the first step would be to take this up through the appropriate channels at school level.
The noble Lord, Lord Dear, gave a range of examples that he had been informed of where he felt that some teachers were being treated unfairly. I feel that the process and the protection are there for any teacher who may feel that they are being treated unfairly, but it is worth pointing out that the Bill that we are discussing now has not become an Act. This Bill is not what is affecting those teachers of whom the noble Lord has been made aware. Those situations predate what we hope will become an Act in the future.
I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 24, which is about parents having the ability to withdraw their child from lessons. Parents already have the right to withdraw their child from any or all aspects of sex and relationship education, including any teaching about marriage, with the exception of those specific topics that form part of the national curriculum for science, covering biology and reproduction. Parents also retain the right to withdraw their children from any and all parts of religious education and acts of collective worship. That is not affected by the Bill.
If a school chooses to cover aspects of teaching that are outlined in the Secretary of State’s guidance on sex and relationship education—further to that outlined in the national curriculum in a biology lesson, for example—then parents have the right, and will continue to do so in future, to withdraw their children from those aspects. This is where that matter relates to the issue that my noble friend Lord Eden raised about material. It is important to remind the House that parents should be fully consulted about the school’s approach to sex and relationship education to ensure that they are comfortable with what is being taught. This should include both the content of lessons and the context in which it will be presented.
I further reassure the House that such information is already available for parents. Schools are required to have a written policy on sex and relationship education and that policy must be available to parents on request. What is being taught in this context should include parents. They should be able to understand it, and it should inform their decision as to whether their children should be involved in sex and relationship education—although we would urge that all students be allowed to participate in those lessons because of the benefits we believe they can derive from them. I note the view expressed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about ensuring that all students are included.
As regards teaching that is not part of sex and relationship education or religious education, there is no right for parents to withdraw their children from lessons, because the national curriculum is the statutory body of knowledge that every pupil should know. Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said, questions about marriage may arise in any lesson and at any time, and it is not practically possible to know in advance when this may happen. The Government have full confidence in the professionalism of teachers to handle situations in which sensitive topics arise outside sex and relationship education carefully, professionally and in a balanced way.
As I said at the start of this debate, this is not the only debate that we will have on teaching and education in the passage of the Bill. However, it is important for me to be clear that teachers are not required to endorse any belief that they do not have. They are required to explain the law as it stands. They are free to express their personal view as long as they do so sensitively and take into account the context of their lesson. Clearly, what we hope to achieve is the kind of situation that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said the late Lord Joseph talked about in terms of what we hope all our children will be able to achieve from the kinds of lessons that are available to them now. I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton
Did I understand my noble friend to say that parents are not now allowed to withdraw their children from, specifically, sex education?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that parents are indeed allowed to withdraw their children from sex and relationship education. They can do so now and they will be able to do so in future, if that is what they decide.
Lord Dear
I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which she has summed up and the way in which she has handled these difficult issues. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been very illuminating. We have covered a lot of ground, and I take the point that we will be covering educative issues later in Committee.
I will very quickly make four points. First, I ask the Minister to take on board the very considerable concern that the ComRes poll showed among teachers. I ask her to reflect on her words, which were said, of course, in an effort to be helpful when she spoke at Second Reading, distinguishing the factual and legal position on the one hand and promoting and endorsing views on the other. I still maintain that is a very fine balance in the classroom and may be very difficult to disentangle. In fact, I unashamedly lifted the word “endorse” from the Minister’s speech and put it into the amendment. It may be that we can find a different word, but the issue is still there, balanced, as I said, on something of a knife edge. One has to take into account the opinion of leading counsel on this, and that runs straight into the opinion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated,
“we encourage the Government to consider whether specific protections are required”,
and so on.
From what I have heard in the Chamber tonight there is sufficient doubt and concern on these issues for us to carry those forward into later debates on the whole business of the classroom, teaching and parents. I hope that at the end of that debate, between Committee and Report stages, the Government will be involved in discussions. I would be very happy to join in those discussions, if that was thought to be helpful. We may be able to bring something forward that would give a degree of satisfaction to those who are involved.
Lord Elton
“(3A) Regulations under this section shall in particular—
(a) specify the terms of the marriage contract; and (b) make provision for each party to a civil partnership within subsection (1) or (3) to undertake, before witnesses and by oath or by solemn affirmation, to honour the contract and the other party to it for as long as both of them are alive.(3B) The oath or solemn affirmation referred to in subsection (3A)(b) shall be made before not less than three witnesses.
(3C) Neither a registrar conducting the conversion of a contract nor either of the parties to that contract may act as a witness under the provisions of subsection (3A).
(3D) The oath or solemn declaration referred to in subsection (3A)(b) shall be recorded in the certificate of marriage issued by the registrar on completion of the conversion.”
Lord Elton
My Lords, I have gleaned a little popularity that way. I hope that I will now get a good reception for Amendment 24C.
The background to the amendment is that the whole purpose of the Bill is to accord a higher status to those people who at the moment have been limited for permanent unions to resorting to a civil contract. It seems rather absurd that to convert that to a marriage, which is supposed to be a leg-up, as it were, should be left to regulations made not even by the Secretary of State—which I would have dealt with by the earlier amendments in my name—but by the Registrar General, and that there was to be no mention of any sort of formality or ceremonial required of the process. Some form of swearing of an oath of continuity should form a part of anything that calls itself a marriage.
I have set out an Aunt Sally that requires the regulations—made by the Secretary of State or the Registrar General, as the case may be—which specify the terms of that oath in the marriage contract, to make a requirement that both parties to such a marriage shall swear lifetime fidelity,
“to undertake, before witnesses and by oath or by solemn affirmation, to honour the contract and the other party to it for as long as both of them are alive”.
I put a requirement that it should be made before witnesses as that is the barest bones for a ceremony of some sort which incorporates one of the essential elements of a marriage. After all, if they do not want a lifetime union, what is the point of having a marriage? This is a reasonable thing to do, and I do it to enhance the status of what noble Lords opposite are trying to achieve. I hope that it will at least give your Lordships something to think about between now and Report. With those few words I commend this amendment to your Lordships’ House.
The Deputy Speaker
I assume that the noble Lord would like to move his amendment.
Lord Elton
I thought commendation amounted to movement. However, I beg leave to move the amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendment 24C sets out a procedure for the conversion from civil partnership to marriage to take place under Clause 9 of the Bill. My noble friend proposes an oath or affirmation to be made before three witnesses. We already have adequate powers in Clause 9 that would enable the making of provision for a ceremonial element to the conversion, which could consist of spoken statements and/or a requirement for the presence of witnesses. It would be premature to be more specific.
We are still developing detailed proposals for how the conversion process would work and these are not straightforward issues. For example, the more elaborate the arrangement, the more costly this is likely to be for the couple, many of whom may wish to have a very simple, essentially administrative process, given that they may have incurred significant costs when registering their civil partnership. Let us not forget that if marriage had been an option when many couples contracted their civil partnership they might have opted for marriage originally and will consider that they do not need to jump additional hurdles or show more commitment; they have already done that. It is important that we do everything we can not to force such couples down a costly route if they do not wish to take it.
I acknowledge that some would like a requirement for some form of declaratory or contracting words to be spoken in a procedure as an integral part of the conversion, while others would want a minimalist approach. We will be consulting interested stakeholders as we shape the detailed policy for conversions so that the regulations are as inclusive as possible of affected couples’ wishes. We should not lose sight of the fact that a conversion is not, and never has been, intended to signify the beginning of a relationship; rather it is a change of status of an existing legal relationship. Conversion will be an administrative process, although we believe there should be a possibility of an optional ceremonial aspect for those who want it. We will bring forward our proposals in good time so that we can get the process right.
I appreciate my noble friend’s recognition of the significance of marriage to couples who wish to convert their civil partnership. Nevertheless, as the methods of such conversion are very carefully considered, I hope my noble friend will bear with us and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I was very interested in the terms in which my noble friend asked me to do that. I wonder if she is familiar with the fourth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill. Paragraph 6 says:
“We do not consider it appropriate to describe the powers conferred by clause 9 as being administrative in nature”—
which is what she has just done.
“The regulations will set out the entire process under which a civil partnership is converted into a marriage, including whether or not it requires the presence of the parties and (if so) the nature of the ceremony they are to take part in. This is a wholly novel process with no indication given in the Department’s memorandum as to the form that it will take or as to fees which may be required to be paid”.
It seems that not enough thought has been given to this in advance. In bold type the report then says:
“Accordingly we recommend that regulations under clause 9 should be made by the Secretary of State, with the affirmative procedure applying to the first exercise of the powers, and with the regulations thereafter being subject to the negative procedure”.
I hope that my noble friend will warm to that idea as the bare minimum that would induce me at a later stage to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
My noble friend has neatly rolled up his previous amendment as well. I am aware of the Delegated Powers Committee report. We have just received it and will be studying it carefully, considering all its recommendations. I note what my noble friend says and I ask him to await our response to the committee’s recommendations.
Lord Elton
That said, and anxiously awaiting developments, which I hope will be ahead of Report stage so that I can digest them and maybe even have the honour of discussing them with the Minister before Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I apologise. I gave notice that I had a point to raise, but it was drawn inevitably into my remarks after the noble Baroness gave me her answer. I no longer have anything to say.
Lord Alli
My Lords, the effect of Amendment 26A is to remove the schedule that converts same-sex marriages into civil partnerships in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Bill makes legal same-sex marriages in England and Wales. I state from the outset that the amendment does not alter the laws of Scotland or Northern Ireland in relation to conducting same-sex marriages. These are prescribed matters for the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to trespass on their jurisdiction any more than the Bill already does. My intention is not to amend legislation in Northern Ireland or Scotland by the back door.
The effect of the schedule is to state that, even though a couple are lawfully married in England and Wales, they are deemed not to be married in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government’s view seems to be that a couple lawfully married in England should not be treated as such elsewhere in the union where such marriages are not performed. In particular, a couple of the same sex married in England and Wales should not be recognised as married but rather treated as civil partners, even if they have not entered into a civil partnership. If I were to get married in London and move to Belfast—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, would be very pleased about that—the Bill would convert my civil marriage to a civil partnership.
I am not persuaded that the Government are right about this. As the union develops, with increased devolution of the nations and regions, we are all to a certain extent fumbling our way forward together. Our absence of a written constitution has the advantage of flexibility, but there is not always the certainty that would be helpful. There will be times when one of the regions or nations passes a law that does not sit comfortably with the laws of the other parts of the union. The question is how we should resolve that, and whether there are any precedents that might be helpful. I am not aware of any, and the Government are in danger of creating an unhelpful precedent.
In the absence of past guidance, it would be helpful to look at basic principles. A first principle must be that as our devolved union develops, it is very important that it should do so on the basis of what we have talked about this evening: namely, mutual respect. For example, it would be wrong for England to try to force another part of the union to pass laws on which it has devolved powers, but it would be quite appropriate for England to expect other parts of the union to respect English law. A law passed in one part of the union cannot simply be ignored in another part because it is unpopular there.
On the point in hand, it would be a constitutional nonsense for a couple to be deemed to be married in one part of the United Kingdom and not in another. If that were the case, it would be difficult to understand exactly what the union was for. I argue that it is up to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers, to ensure that a couple married in England and Wales are treated as married in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is not for us to presume to convert English and Welsh marriages to Scottish and Northern Irish civil partnerships. I hope that the Minister will agree and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, my amendments are grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The reason is of course that if his amendment is carried, then the schedule to which my amendments attach will be removed. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, with his usual bold capacity for initiative, was going to tangle with the whole question of devolved legislation and what can be done between the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament. In some ways he managed to work around that, although in fact he must recognise that certainly there are separate laws between Scotland and England. Various situations must be responded to according to the law in the country in which they occur. However, at this time of night I shall move rapidly on to my own amendments, rather than trying to unravel some of his proposals.
I found a number of Scottish lawyers with questions about the outcome of what the Government propose in Schedule 2. My amendments were prompted by the Law Society of Scotland, and basically address two issues. First, paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2 states that:
“The Secretary of State may, by order, provide that, under the law of Scotland, a marriage of a same sex couple under the law of England and Wales is to be treated as a civil partnership”.
This would apply to all same-sex marriages. In some ways that is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli: some people might feel that this is unjust, and there would be room for only limited exceptions for whom this was not agreeable. This would only be possible with a further counter-order from the Secretary of State under paragraph 2(b).
The other more fundamental issue concerns the doctrine of the separation of powers. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 passed legislation for the whole of the UK using the full process of Parliament. Schedule 2 gives the Secretary of State the power to make a ruling by order on private right and personal status. Determining how personal relationships are treated under law is properly a function of the judiciary, which has jurisdiction over matters of personal status. Here, we have the Executive taking over a function of the law. Amendment 28 asks to transfer this function of the Secretary of State to the Court of Session, which has the power to make declarations under current family law. Using the mechanism proposed in the amendment will give the court the advantage of ascertaining the facts in each case where the parties seek a declaration as a civil partnership, and bring in the element of individual choice.
If the Government wish to continue with the mechanism they propose, it would be helpful if they would answer three questions. First, what process will be used to produce orders under Schedule 2, and what safeguards will be put in place to address the issue of separation of powers? Secondly, what criteria will be applied to those orders which permit treatment of a same-sex marriage as a civil partnership? Thirdly, what remedies would aggrieved parties have?
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I find this part of the Bill quite extraordinary. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and indeed with that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. If one took the analogy of English law, a marriage which is celebrated in another country according to the law of that country is generally recognised in English family law. I have tried endless cases involving a dispute as to whether or not a marriage is valid in the country where it was carried out. There will be issues of whether or not the two parties were capable of marrying in that country, whether they are domiciled or resident in that country and so on.
However, if those particular points are dealt with, then it is a matter for English law to say whether we will recognise a marriage. Why are we legislating for what Scotland or Northern Ireland will do if in fact it is a perfectly lawful marriage in England and Wales? Is it not for Scotland or Northern Ireland to say, “Yes, we accept it”, or, “No, we do not”? I find it absolutely astonishing that we are dealing with this. As for the suggestion that a marriage lawfully carried out in England is to be called something completely different in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as I say, I find the whole thing quite astonishing.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, Amendment 26A in the name of my noble friend Lord Alli would remove the special arrangements made in the Bill to require the legal recognition of marriages of same-sex couples as civil partnerships in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I sympathise with the sentiment behind these amendments. British same-sex couples who get married in England or Wales but choose to live in Scotland or Northern Ireland will not have their status legally recognised for what it is. However, it is the nature of devolution that we cannot impose the will of Westminster on devolved Administrations in areas where it has ceded authority.
Marriage law is devolved to both Northern Ireland and Scotland, meaning that any desire by Westminster to legislate in this area for the whole of the UK requires the consent of these Administrations. I know that Scotland is in the process of looking at same-sex marriages at the moment, so I hope that we shall shortly see same-sex marriage introduced in Scotland and therefore this issue will become somewhat less relevant.
In Northern Ireland, civil partnerships have been available since 2005. However, Northern Ireland has chosen not to consider extending marriage to same-sex couples at this time. A Motion calling on the Northern Ireland Executive to legislate to allow for same-sex marriage was narrowly defeated in its Assembly last month. I recognise my noble friend’s frustration at this. However, I ask the Minister, what are the implications if the legislative consent Motion is not agreed to by the Northern Ireland Assembly? Does it mean that married couples of the same sex living in Northern Ireland may be left in a worse position, having no legal recognition of their status whatever? What might be the implications for children and pensions? I am concerned about the legal implications of such a disparity of recognition and hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions I have around this issue.
Couples in a civil partnership are prohibited from adopting children in Northern Ireland—a situation which is currently being challenged in the High Court. For those couples who have been married and adopted children in England and Wales and who move to Northern Ireland, what will be the status of their adopted children? Will the couple be recognised as the legal parents where they are living?
In relation to pension rights and accrued survivor benefits, if a married same-sex couple have been living in England for 10 years and then move to Northern Ireland, will they lose the right to those accrued benefits, or will they be carried over to their civil partnership status?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to clarify how the Bill, which makes provision for marriage of same-sex couples under the law of England and Wales, affects Scotland and Northern Ireland. I assure your Lordships that the Government have had lengthy and considered discussions with Scotland and Northern Ireland Ministers and officials to ensure that where the Bill touches on devolved matters, it does so appropriately. I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is coming from on this but it is not possible for us to accept his amendment or, indeed, those spoken to by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, which would cut across the approach that we have been discussing with the devolved Administrations.
Indeed, the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, would be to remove the relevant part of Schedule 2 to the Bill. It might be helpful if I explain the effect, and importance, of Schedule 2. Without the provisions in Schedule 2, if a same-sex couple married in England or Wales, their relationship would not have legal status if they subsequently travelled or moved to Belfast or Glasgow. It is not that their marriage in England or Wales would become a civil partnership; it would have no status whatever under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Lord Alli
But it does not have a legal status in Northern Ireland and Scotland because it is a marriage in England and Wales. What the Bill is proposing is for this Government and this Parliament to request—because that is all we can do—the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Parliament to accord it a lower status in those territories.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the position is that, as things stand at the moment, there is no provision in either Scotland or Northern Ireland for same-sex marriage. Therefore, if a same-sex couple who are married in England and Wales were to move to Scotland or Northern Ireland, their relationship would not have a legal status of marriage in Scotland or Northern Ireland because that provision does not exist. There is no such thing at the moment in Scotland or Northern Ireland as same-sex marriage. Schedule 20 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 lists the overseas same-sex relationships which are treated as civil partnerships in the United Kingdom. This partly answers the question raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
At the moment, overseas same-sex marriages are not recognised as marriages in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. They are treated as civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, and Section 213 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, under which Schedule 20 has effect, also sets out the general conditions which must be met for such relationships to be recognised in the United Kingdom. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, were to be carried, we would have the slightly anomalous situation where a couple moving to Belfast or Glasgow would be in a worse position than a same-sex couple who married in Portugal, or elsewhere overseas where same-sex marriage is permitted, and then went to live in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Under the current law, the 2004 Act, these same-sex marriages contracted, for example in Portugal, would be treated as a civil partnership. If this Bill becomes an Act, we do not wish to see a situation where a same-sex couple married in England would have lesser legal status in Scotland or Northern Ireland than a same-sex couple who married in Portugal. It is for that reason that Schedule 2 exists. As the noble Lord indicated, marriage and civil partnerships are devolved matters. The noble Lord asked why Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland could not get together with Scottish or Northern Ireland Ministers to make them marriages. That is not how devolution works. Legislation would have to be passed by the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As the Bill anticipates, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the Scottish Government have indicated that they will bring legislation before the Scottish Parliament to bring about same-sex marriage as a legal status in Scotland. That is why, if noble Lords look carefully at the provisions for Scotland in Schedule 2, the order-making power would not have effect if the Scottish Parliament passes legislation for same-sex marriage. In many respects, what is there is deliberately framed, recognising the likelihood that same-sex marriage legislation is to be brought forward in Scotland in the relatively near future.
It is probably also fair to say that same-sex marriage legislation does not appear to be on the horizon in Northern Ireland. That is why the position regarding Northern Ireland is that there is not an order-making power, which will lapse in Scotland when or if Scottish law changes, but rather one that sets out in primary legislation the same position for same-sex marriages contracted in England and Wales in Northern Ireland, as is the case for same-sex marriages contracted in other countries, such as Portugal. People there would be in the same position in Northern Ireland as they would at present.
Last week, the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent Motion to the provisions in this Bill which impinge and deal with devolved matters affecting Scotland. The question was asked what would happen if we could not get a legislative consent Motion from Northern Ireland. Our concern would be that this would risk leaving couples with no legal status in a part of the United Kingdom. This could have important European Convention on Human Rights implications. We would need to consider this carefully if this situation arose and whether amendments to the Bill would be needed.
I know that this is not what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, wishes to see, but given the devolution settlement, this Parliament should not legislate for same-sex marriages in Scotland or Northern Ireland and I do not think that anyone in this Parliament is arguing for it. However, in the absence of legislation there, it is important that we give couples who have contracted a same-sex marriage in England and Wales a legal status in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Without the schedule they would have no legal status, so we are putting them on a par with couples who are married in other countries which have passed legislation on same-sex marriage.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I always understood that the first purpose of an order was to be a blanket order to cover all situations. What remains from my questions is: what process does the Minister expect to use for the implementation of the order and what account does it take of the separation of powers? I think that he was saying that the Scottish Parliament has agreed that you can cross-mix the powers.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the Scottish Parliament has agreed a legislative consent Motion to the provisions in the Bill relating to Scotland, which is very much what we are talking about. The procedure is that the order-making power would be subject to the negative procedure. I am aware that the Delegated Powers Committee has suggested looking at the possibility of there being an affirmative power. We will obviously give consideration to that, but the power also requires the consent of Scottish Ministers. That will be the process. Consent will be required from Scottish Ministers and there will be a negative procedure in this Parliament, subject to our considering the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee.
With regard to the separation of powers, I tried to indicate that this is a general position, not a question of the Secretary of State determining the legal status of each couple individually by order. It is a general power that is being given and it is therefore appropriate for the legislature to give that power to the Secretary of State, and for the Secretary of State then to exercise that power. It is not an appropriate matter for the courts because they obviously cannot exercise such a power on a general basis and would have to consider these matters case by case. As I have indicated, that could place a considerable burden on the courts. It would also mean that those who had moved to Scotland and were petitioning the Scottish courts for recognition of their status would, during that period, have no legal status at all. That is not a satisfactory position in which to put these couples.
Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about her question on accrued pensions. There is provision to make some variation of the orders and there may be some situation in which that issue would be relevant. However, I will write to her and confirm that position.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, does it not require a statutory provision in Scotland to make this work? Therefore, it is not a matter for the courts in Scotland; it is a matter for the Secretary of State and Ministers in Scotland to make a statutory order to make the rule part of the statutory law of Scotland.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As ever, my noble and learned friend expresses it far more concisely than I do.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but, as he probably recognises, I am not happy with it. If I got married in England or Wales, I would expect my marriage to be recognised in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is the essence of the union. For us to have found a mechanism in the Bill to convert marriages into civil partnerships feels as though it was too difficult politically to keep them as marriages. It is clearly a nonsense for couples to be married in England and Wales, and then be treated differently in Northern Ireland and Scotland. For us, in this Parliament, to determine that a marriage in England and Wales should not be treated as a marriage in Scotland and Northern Ireland, without putting the question—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, just indicated—to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and those Scottish Ministers for that order, or indeed to the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and Ministers, is for us to be complicit in perpetuating an inequality. Nevertheless, I will read what the Minister said and reflect, but I have no doubt we will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
“Marriages at sea
In section 26 of the Marriage Act 1949 (marriages which may be solemnized on authority of superintendent registrar’s certificate), after subsection (1)(e) insert—“(f) a marriage of a same sex couple conducted by the Master of a British ship registered under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 while that ship is sailing outside of the territorial waters of England and Wales.””
Lord Trefgarne
This is in essence a probing amendment. However, like all good probing amendments, it has the merit of being properly drafted, and could readily form a useful part of the Bill if the probing is not particularly successful or satisfactory. I must say that my research into the legal basis for marriages at sea has been difficult and tortuous, and I am still not entirely clear what the statutory basis is. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell me in a moment. Neither the Public Bill Office nor the Library could identify the particular legislation that apparently authorises marriage at sea. Is there such a thing as a common-law marriage? Oh dear, I am getting into deep water.
Seriously, as everybody knows, captains of ships often carry out marriages. Indeed, one noble Lord—who shall remain nameless—was telling me earlier today that he had indeed been married at sea by the captain. Unfortunately, some years later, when he sought a divorce from his wife, some doubt was cast on the validity of his marriage, which could apparently have been a good thing in simplifying the divorce. None the less, that was a complication that was not looked for.
It is important that, if we are to pass this Bill into law—doubtless we are, even to the regret of many of us, including me—it must be as rational and sensible as possible. If there are to be single-sex marriages in England and Wales at least, marriages at sea—which I believe have formed part of English law for a great many years—should be included in that arrangement. That is the purpose of the amendment that I have tabled.
I have drafted it in a way that I think is sensible; namely, so that it should apply outside British territorial waters. If it were to operate inside our territorial waters, I believe that would create complications. Further, I would suggest that we can extend our legislation only to British-registered ships, although I may be wrong about that. However, that seems both sensible and appropriate. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, should google marriages at sea. It says that captains can perform marriages, but they need a licence to do so, just like anyone else. There are no laws that automatically grant captains the right to marry, although you would not know that from watching the television. Apparently this possibly originates from the days of sail when Europeans would have to travel by ship for months at a time to reach far-flung colonies. A couple might meet, court and marry while en route to their destination.
The same Google search threw up a quote. I am a great fan of “Star Trek” and the Starship “Enterprise”. Apparently, Captain James T Kirk said:
“Since the days of the first wooden vessels, all shipmasters have had one happy privilege, that of uniting two people in the bonds of matrimony”.
Captain Kirk’s successor, Captain Jean-Luc Picard, played by Patrick Stewart, a fellow Yorkshireman and great Labour supporter, said, “Make it so”.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment would enable marriages of same-sex couples to be conducted by the master of a British-registered vessel on the authority of a superintendent registrar’s certificate outside the territorial waters of England and Wales. However, this is not a right possessed by opposite-sex couples, so this would in fact be out of line. I am absolutely delighted to fill in my noble friend on marriage at sea, and I have learnt a great deal about it as well.
At present, the validity of a marriage on board a British merchant vessel is governed by the law of the country in which that vessel is registered. In the law of England and Wales, the Marriage Act 1949 does not provide for marriages to take place on board UK registered vessels at sea, and the Foreign Marriage Act 1892 applies only to marriages outside UK jurisdiction. Neither is it clear that the common law of England and Wales provides authority for the validity of marriages that are celebrated on merchant vessels at sea, although there are historic authorities which suggest that a marriage could be formed under the common law only if it was not possible to wait until the ship reached port. It is unclear whether those authorities still apply, given that there is now statutory marriage law covering both domestic and foreign marriages. However, in any event, such a scenario is extremely unlikely to arise in current times. Therefore, at present, we do not believe that it is possible for a heterosexual couple to have their marriage formally solemnised by the master of a British ship.
I can fill my noble friend in on some additional material, but probably not tonight. The purpose of the Bill is to enable same-sex couples in England and Wales to marry in a civil ceremony, or in a religious ceremony if the religious organisation opts in. It is not intended that marriage for opposite-sex couples should be altered, even if everybody does want them to get married at sea, or that the Bill should bring about wider changes to marriage law. I hope, therefore, that although he is no doubt disappointed, my noble friend will be happy to withdraw his amendment. Lastly, I will supply him with more information than either Google or his own investigations have produced.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have to be honest and say that I am more mystified than disappointed. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talking about the Starship “Enterprise”, I am tempted to ask whether the captains of aircraft might be granted this right, but perhaps that would press the extent of the amendment just a little too far. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
This is an extremely simple point, but possibly of some importance. Clause 11 (1) says:
“In the law of England and Wales, marriage has the same effect in relation to same sex couples as it has in relation to opposite sex couples”.
This is not correct as it stands, because there are all these provisions later in the schedules; therefore, the accurate enunciation of the law will be subject to the later provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend and, as is clear from today’s list, this amendment was debated as part of a group yesterday. My noble and learned friend gave me notice that he wanted to ask a question following on from the debate. I have been given an answer to his question, which I could read out, but I know I would not understand what it is I am reading, and I know we are keen to make progress. The most sensible course of action is for me to ask Parliamentary Counsel to reflect on the points that my noble and learned friend has made and I will then ensure that I write to him as soon as possible and then put a copy of that letter in the Library.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I am very grateful and am happy to withdraw the amendment on that assurance that Parliamentary Counsel will look at this.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 33A in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, which is a probing amendment. Our interest in this issue is to draw attention to people born with an intersex condition; individuals whose anatomy or physiology differs from contemporary cultural stereotypes of what constitutes male and female.
Being intersex is not a disease, it is not a disorder, it is a perfectly normal—and quite common—variation within human development. The need to use the term is made necessary by society’s insistence on maintaining a rigid classification of all human beings as male or female. In many ways, those with an intersex condition can be termed non-gendered. Sometimes a person is not found to have an intersex anatomy until she or he reaches the age of puberty or she or he finds himself an infertile adult, or dies of old age and is autopsied. Some people live and die with intersex anatomy without anyone, including themselves, ever knowing.
If we take the classic stereotypes of what constitutes male and female and consider the biological, social, gender or sexual orientation in the round, there are very few human beings who completely conform in all aspects to the rigid stereotypes. Most people vary from the standard stereotypes in some ways, sometimes in small details, sometimes significantly. Some commentators would now consider sexuality as a continuum with the standard stereotypes as the extremes of this continuum.
One major difficulty with the use of bipolar stereotypes is that there is no precise way of determining into which of the two boxes someone should be placed at birth. All the available yardsticks are flawed: karyotype, gonads, secondary sexual characteristics, appearance—none of these, or even any combination of them, can determine sex with absolute certainty. It is only by ignoring the vast amount of biological evidence to the contrary that this fiction of a strict bipolar sexuality can be maintained. Those who clearly do not fit these classifications—a substantial minority—are dismissed as being disordered or biological errors which require fixing.
It is understandable to discover that, when an infant is born, there is often great pressure on parents and clinicians alike to come up with a clear definition of sex for the newborn. Such people are often subjected by the medical professions to surgical and chemical interventions, usually without their explicit permission, to normalise them and thereby eradicate the evidence of difference.
Your Lordships will understand that, with this amendment, we are talking about a largely hidden and often overlooked minority of people. Estimates of this population run to as many as 1% of live births exhibiting some degree of sexual ambiguity and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births being ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, regretfully including involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.
If we lived in a legal jurisdiction where marriages were defined without reference to the sexual identity of the couples concerned, these complications would not occur. However, the approach underlying the Bill is based on an assumption that the sex of the participants is settled. The UK of course recognises the legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transsexual person to be legally married in accordance with their adopted gender identity. However, those intersex people who identify as non-gendered do not always, if they are allowed to, attempt to transition and are therefore excluded at all levels. Our amendment would specifically include in legislation, for the first time, those who identify as non-gendered.
Unless there is some consideration given to this largely hidden and often overlooked minority, they will be isolated yet again from the rights accorded to other, higher-profile groups. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill would allow individuals who identify themselves as being non-gendered—neither male nor female—to marry. We understand the challenges that intersex conditions can pose and appreciate the difficulties people affected by this can face. The noble Lord has, with great sensitivity, outlined the case for consideration of this group of people. I have great sympathy for their situation but, as the noble Lord is aware, we cannot accept this amendment.
As the noble Lord acknowledges, the law of England and Wales recognises only two genders—male and female. Although we understand that some people do not see themselves as either male or female, none the less everyone has a legal gender status of either male or female. The Bill does not change that, and it would not be an appropriate legislative vehicle in which to seek to do so. However, the Bill, by enabling same-sex couples to marry, will ensure that in future there will be no bar to an intersex person, or a person who identifies as non-gender, marrying anyone whom they choose. The effect of the Bill will be that people will be able to get married, and remain married, regardless of their legal gender. The issue raised by this amendment goes well beyond marriage. Having a gender in addition to male and female, or not recognising gender at all, would change a fundamental aspect of our law. Such a change would need to be considered carefully, in order to understand the implications for the many aspects of law which are based on gender differences.
I thank the noble Lord for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I appreciate his statement that this is simply a probing amendment and I am grateful to him for addressing the concerns of those individuals who feel that they do not have a gender. However, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her understanding response. It is the first time, I think, that a Minister of the Crown has recognised this group in this House. That is an important first step in discussing this issue and addressing the needs of this group of people. I thank her for the sympathetic approach. My understanding is that, through various changes in the environment, this is actually a growing problem and it is an issue that will have to be addressed over time. However, I wholly accept the point that the Minister is making. This is a very complex issue and it will need very careful consideration and a very sensitive approach from all those involved in the debate. I am happy to assure the Minister that we do not intend to take this matter further forward in this Bill, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
Baroness Northover
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 38 I will speak to the other government amendments in this group. These government amendments relate to technical but important provisions of marriage law which determine when a marriage is void—that is to say, considered never to have existed in the eyes of the law. Clarity in these provisions protects both couples and organisations conducting marriages. They also clarify the provisions for courts to issue a declaration of the validity of a same-sex marriage in prescribed circumstances.
I start with government Amendment 38. This ensures that paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Bill is consistent with the rest of Part 1 of Schedule 3 in that it does not limit subsections (1) or (2) of Clause 11. It is necessary because, as a matter of statutory interpretation, specific provision may reduce the effect of general provision. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 11 make general provision and Schedule 3 makes specific provisions related to that clause. The schedule as drafted may give the impression, by omission of reference to paragraph 3, that that paragraph should limit Clause 11. This could cause confusion about the meaning of both clause and schedule.
Government Amendments 42, 43 and 44 clarify the use of the term “declaration of validity” in the Bill. They ensure that when the courts have jurisdiction to make a declaration of validity relating to a same-sex marriage as set out in Schedule A1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, inserted by Schedule 4 to this Bill, the 1973 Act works properly for same-sex marriages.
Government Amendments 49 and 50 make provision for when marriages of same-sex couples will be void in circumstances where the religious organisation concerned has not agreed to same-sex marriages, according to its rights. In relation to the Church of England and Church in Wales, Amendment 49 provides protection to couples to prevent their marriage from being considered to be a non-marriage. If it was held to be a non-marriage, this would mean that the court could not exercise its powers in respect of financial relief, which they can do if the marriage is held to be a void marriage. This amendment also provides clarity for the Church of England and Church in Wales, and I can say that this issue was in fact raised with us by the Church of England, which we have consulted on the drafting of this amendment.
In the case of other religious organisations, Amendment 50 provides that where a couple is unaware that the religious organisation has not opted in to marrying same-sex couples, the marriage will be valid. However, if the couple took part in the marriage knowing that the religious organisation had not opted in, then the marriage will be void. If the couple marry in good faith, believing that the person who solemnised their marriage was representing the religious organisation, and that the organisation had opted in, they may live as a married couple for many years before the mistake comes to light. It is not right that they should be penalised for the mistake of the person who solemnised their marriage.
This amendment mirrors the provisions currently in place to deal with errors and mistakes in relation to the formation of opposite-sex marriages, which will also apply to same-sex couples. Government Amendment 52 provides the same clarity about the status of same-sex deathbed marriage under the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970, which has been conducted by a member of religious organisation which has not opted in to conducting marriages of same-sex couples. Such marriages will be void if the couple knew the religious organisation had not opted in.
Finally, turning to government Amendment 58, the other place approved a government amendment on Report further to ensure that the protection for the Church of England in this Bill is both full and clear. The amendment replaced the power previously provided in Clause 11(5)(c) with an overarching reference to “other ecclesiastical law”, which, on balance, the Government felt would provide the church with more effective protection from the effect of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 11, so that Church of England law should continue to be interpreted as referring to marriage of a man with a woman. Government Amendment 58 is consequential to that substantive amendment and removes from Clause 16 the parliamentary control procedure for the now deleted power in Clause 11(5)(c). I commend these government amendments and hope that noble Lords will support them.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, it is agreed on all sides that parents make the most fundamental contribution to the flourishing and development of children, and that there are many aspects of parenthood and many kinds of parenting in such a complex society as ours. There are many forms of being a family, as was illustrated earlier this evening by the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, from her school.
We have a common-law presumption that a child born to a woman during her marriage is also the child of her husband. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 says that the common-law presumption does not apply in the case of a woman who is married to another woman—for obvious reasons. This is a probing amendment and the question is whether simply leaving matters there is sufficient. I argue that it is not because, in all the debates on the Bill here and in another place, and during the consultation process, there has not been enough concentration on children. Tonight, as briefly as I possibly can, I want to stress a more child-centred approach to the question of children in marriage—all kinds of marriages and especially same-sex marriages.
Currently and in future, in a marriage between a man and a woman any child born to the woman is presumed to be the child of her husband. As her husband, he bears a responsibility for that child, not least if something should happen to its mother. I am concerned that in the Bill there is no equivalent or automatic provision made for children brought up by a married couple of the same sex. If a woman in a same-sex marriage has a child, there is of course a biological father somewhere but, regardless of whether or not the father is in an ongoing relationship with the couple and their child, there is at present no responsibility on the mother’s spouse’s side for that child.
Helpfully, it has been suggested in the Explanatory Notes that the other party to a marriage will be treated as the child’s parent by virtue of amendments that the Bill is making to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. These provide, under certain conditions, for the same-sex partner of a mother who gives birth to a child as a result of artificial insemination or the placing of an embryo in her womb to be treated as the parent of that child. I am sorry for this rather technical intervention at this point in the evening.
However, not all children born to mothers in a same-sex marriage will necessarily be born as a result of treatment to which the HFE Act applies. Such a child might be conceived in the conventional manner by a woman who is married to another woman. In such a case it would be possible for the mother to register the child’s father when she registers the birth, with the effect that he would have parental responsibility for the child. The complications of that are quite interesting. Alternatively, she might not do so and her same-sex spouse might become the adoptive parent of the child. If neither of these things were done, the child would have only one person with parental responsibility for it—this is the point.
There is thus a contrast with a child born to a mother in an opposite-sex marriage and there is a real possibility of children born to a mother in a same-sex marriage being disadvantaged as compared to children of opposite-sex marriages. This is not to say that children always have to have two parents—that is often sadly not possible. Moreover, sometimes a child brought up by a single parent or same-sex parents is actually better cared for than a child brought up by dysfunctional heterosexual parents. I give praise to couples who give love and care to children in same-sex partnerships and eventually in same-sex marriage. However, given the intention of the Bill to extend marriage and to provide equality, why should children of a same-sex marriage— some of them, at least—be at a potential disadvantage in some cases? This is a probing amendment and I ask the Government to consider this question very carefully indeed.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has asked me to speak on his behalf to Amendment 39A, which picks up exactly the same point as the right reverend Prelate’s. The noble Lord is not terribly happy with the wording that he has produced. It is, again, a probing amendment and it raises quite clearly the issue of parental responsibility. I am not sure that it is necessarily appropriate to delete paragraph 2 in Part 2 of Schedule 4 but the Government need to look at the point made by the right reverend Prelate that there will be children born to one partner in a same-sex marriage who will be the only person with parental responsibility although in every other way she and her partner will be married and, were they of opposite sexes, both would have parental responsibility. It is quite an important point. You might say, “Get a residence order”, but in the Children and Families Bill residence orders are going to be abolished. Consequently, I do not consider arrangements made for when parties are in dispute to be appropriate for those who are in harmony. Therefore, I ask the Minister to have a look at this question of how appropriate parental responsibility can be achieved for the female partner of a woman who gives birth during their marriage.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I want to thank the right reverend Prelate for the speech that he just gave. I thought that he addressed some very difficult issues in the most sensitive way. I also think that it is important that we hold this debate, however late it is, not least to put on record the fact that very many gay couples think very seriously about parenthood. It is not something into which they enter lightly at all. Perhaps some of the most distressing of the accusations which have flown around this Bill are that people who are in support of it take the issues of children’s stability and parental responsibility less seriously than those who oppose it. That is absolutely not true. I happen to believe very strongly in marriage and one of the reasons is that I believe that it provides stability for children. That is why I want to see it extended to gay people because I believe that the children of those relationships deserve that stability.
I want to take the opportunity to flag up one thing. I am a veteran of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and the question of registration of birth is one which is becoming increasingly complex. It has been very complex ever since we had planned donor-assisted conception. There is a small group of people who will never be able to find out what their identity is because they were born prior to the legislative changes that require there to be a registration of their biological parentage, and that has done enormous damage to those individuals.
There is a small group of people working in this area who have thought long and hard for some considerable time about the way in which the birth registration system of this country needs to be updated and changed. I do not want to go into it in great detail now, but the right reverend Prelate has flagged up an issue that is not for this Bill or indeed just for gay people. It goes much more widely than that, and it is something that the Government will need to return to. There was a report on this a couple of months ago which I thought might be from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation but was actually by the Nuffield Trust. It is one part of the issue that the right reverend Prelate has raised, and it is one that the Government should return to at some length and in more detail than will be possible within the scope of this Bill.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Royall and I came to the same conclusion as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that we needed to probe this issue, and for exactly the same reasons. It is not clear from reading the Bill exactly what is meant, whether it is satisfactory, whether it covers the point about those children and whether it is adequate in giving those children the stability that they deserve and require. The only way to do that was to put down an amendment to delete this provision, but we have no intention of doing so and merely wish to know that there is no legal uncertainty around the parentage of children of a married couple of the same sex.
All the other points that I was going to make about IVF and the embryology Act have been made. All that remains is for the Minister to reassure us that this point is covered or needs further consideration.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I understand why noble Lords would want to seek clarification on this aspect of the Bill, so I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords who have amendments in this group. I echo what my noble friend Lady Barker said about the right reverend Prelate’s introduction to this debate, and I share his view that it is important that we consider children in the context of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Barker made an important point about married same-sex couples providing stability and security for their children and this Bill therefore being a good thing for children of same-sex couples. That is something that we should ensure is not forgotten in the course of our debates.
Amendment 39, in the name of the right reverend Prelate, would remove paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, which makes clear that the common-law presumption often referred to as the presumption of legitimacy, that a child born to a woman during her marriage is also the child of her husband, will not extend to same-sex marriages. For the clarity of our debate, it is probably worth my reading out what it says in of the Bill, which is not very long:
“Section 11 does not extend the common law presumption that a child born to a woman during her marriage is also the child of her husband … Accordingly, where a child is born to a woman during her marriage to another woman, that presumption is of no relevance to the question of who the child’s parents are”.
This means that where two women are married to each other and one of the parties to that marriage gives birth to a child, the other party will not automatically be presumed to be the parent of that child. That provision does not change the current situation; instead, it clarifies what the legal position would be in terms of the common-law presumption. The presumption is about fatherhood, and the Bill does not change the law on fatherhood.
Amendment 39A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke to, aims to ensure that both parties to a same-sex marriage have parental responsibility for children born to or adopted by that couple, and focuses particularly on the parental rights of the surviving spouse. I understand and share that objective, and I understand why we are having this debate and why clarity is sought. However, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary because the law already sets out specific criteria that must be met in order for same-sex couples to be treated as the legal parents and to have parental responsibility. So in order for me to reassure noble Lords, I will try to explain.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 40 and 41. This is a sensitive issue and we are speaking, of course, at an extremely late stage. It is an issue that also produces embarrassment in some and humour among others of those who hear what is said. I am, however, entirely serious about this matter and I wish to present it to your Lordships even at this late stage.
My early practice at the Bar was against the background of defended divorces, and the matrimonial offence of adultery was treated very seriously. There were allegations of collusion and condonation to try to avoid a finding of adultery. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which caused dramatic changes to divorce law, retained adultery in Section 1 as the first ground, together with irretrievable breakdown, and it remains the law today. Adultery may not be seen as such a serious matrimonial offence today as it was in earlier times, but that, in my view, is a mistaken approach.
Adultery remains a fundamental breach of the trust of those who make the commitment of marriage, and I have no doubt that there will be an equal commitment between same-sex couples, many of whom demonstrate long-term, stable relationships, so the behaviour of one party to a marriage who breaks the commitment to the other by engaging in a relationship with someone outside marriage strikes at the root of marriage and can be a devastating blow to the injured partner. The suggestion has been made that the injured person in a same-sex marriage could petition for unreasonable behaviour as an alternative ground for divorce, but that is not the answer. In current marriages, if one spouse commits adultery, that is the ground upon which the other spouse can pray in the divorce petition. It therefore demonstrates in family legislation the importance of both spouses remaining faithful to each other during the continuance of the marriage.
According to Part 2 of Schedule 4, following the Civil Partnership Act, the same-sex relationship excludes a ground for divorce available to those spouses who have an adulterous husband or wife. They have the opportunity, but the same-sex couple do not. This is inequality, both to erring husbands or wives, who can be sued for divorce on a ground that would not occur if same-sex partners were in the same position. However, more importantly, it is profoundly unjust to the partner who has suffered the trauma of the failure of the marriage through the sexual misbehaviour of an erring same-sex partner and the breach of the commitment of fidelity. Had I been a Member of this House during the passage of the Civil Partnership Bill, I would have made exactly the same point.
I consider it profoundly unsatisfactory and, more importantly, profoundly unjust that adultery is not a ground for same-sex divorce. It undermines the value of same-sex marriage. Why is this the case? I assume that it is because there has not so far been a definition of consummation of a sexual relationship other than between couples of the opposite sex. This is a failure to come to terms with more than one type of sexual relationship and a broader definition of the consummation of a relationship.
The criminal law includes the rape of a male as well as a female. It has been so ever since the Sexual Offences Act 1956. I will read just one sentence from the Sexual Offences Act 2003, from Section 1(1):
“A person … commits an offence if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person … with his penis”.
That goes part of the way with same-sex marriages. Rape requires proof of consummation, and so far 12,000 men have been identified as victims of rape.
I cannot understand why there can be a definition of rape—a recognition of the sexual act of consummation required to prove rape in criminal law—but a seeming inability or reluctance by the previous or the present Government to give it the same recognition in the context of family law. The failure to find a definition of consummation in civil and family law works, as I have said, as a real injustice. It makes a mockery of the so-called equality that is the bedrock of this Bill. If marriage is to be equal for all those who get married, an embarrassed or ineffective approach to this inequality and brushing aside the matrimonial offence of adultery will not do.
Whether it is a religious or civil marriage, promises and commitments are made by one partner to the other in the marriage ceremony. Is the concept of being faithful to one another during marriage a promise to be kept by opposite-sex couples but not by same-sex couples? How can this be? For those not brave enough to recognise different forms of sexual activity, a possible alternative to a revised definition of adultery might be to describe the matrimonial offence as one similar to adultery.
Amendment 41, which looks at the inequality in the matrimonial law of voidable marriages in this Bill, raises the issue of non-consummation. In current nullity law there are two grounds of voidable marriages: inability and wilful refusal to consummate the marriage. A nullity suit on either of these grounds is nowadays unusual. However, the question of inequality and possible injustice arising from the difference in two types of marriage raises the same point as my comments on adultery. If this Government are, as they should be, strong enough to provide a revised definition of consummation and non-consummation, they should deal with voidable marriages as well as adultery. This is not a homophobic point. On the contrary; this is an injustice to innocent partners in a same-sex marriage, who do not have the same rights as innocent partners in an opposite-sex marriage and do not have the specific right to divorce a faithless same-sex partner. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
Again, I support a probing amendment. I am concerned that marriages between people of the same sex should enshrine the same standard of fidelity as marriages of heterosexual couples. As it stands, the Bill does not quite deliver this. Indeed, the Bill enshrines a very important inequality in the way that the virtue of fidelity is manifested in relationships. Marriage between people of the opposite sex is partially defined by the fact that sexual infidelity—adultery—is a recognised and long-standing ground for divorce, as has been expounded very eloquently by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. This is not found in the Bill.
Faithfulness is intrinsic to the promises a married couple make to one another. I feel very strongly that, as we go forward in our scrutiny of the Bill, this House must find some way of including that faithfulness equally for all married couples, if we are looking to something that has been described as equal marriage. On the grounds of equality that is an omission and in terms of the social significance of faithfulness, which is central to marriage, this omission diminishes the status that couples of the same sex stand to receive from being married. As the Bill stands, such same-sex marriages could be accused of being of a lesser standard in terms of faithfulness than heterosexual marriage unless this point is attended to.
Lord Alli
I thank the noble and learned Baroness for bringing forward this amendment. I have listened to what she said most carefully and I can see the point she raises. Unfaithfulness is understandably a cause for which many people seek divorce but I do not think that anything in this Bill will prevent people divorcing their partners for unfaithfulness. In my view, marriage is a contract that varies in its nature, understanding and commitment from couple to couple. The issue and the importance of fidelity is one that, equally, varies from couple from couple, but it is fair to say that fidelity is a cornerstone of most religious marriages. I think the same should be said of civil marriage, too.
The definition of the sexual act that defines fidelity for heterosexuals is outdated and, in my view, very cumbersome. The noble and learned Baroness is very brave to bring the issue to this House. When one looks at penetration as part of that definition, or we try to import the definition of penetration from rape into this, it does not deal with lesbian couples, for example. So much of our sexual law is defined by the male and not by women that a complete class of marriage is ignored by what the noble and learned Baroness is trying to do. If we had had more and broader discussions on the Civil Partnership Act and over the Bill, we may find common ground, but simply importing the definition of penetration—anal, vaginal or oral—into this would leave lesbians at a complete disadvantage regarding fidelity. While I completely understand what is behind this, we come back to the definition of fidelity. I think the Government’s position has been not to disturb the current arrangements as far as possible, to avoid tampering with existing legislation. It is a much wider question, which I certainly welcome. There is no way anyone can accuse the noble and learned Baroness of being homophobic in her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I will merely say that my noble friend Lord Alli has put his finger on the point. This discussion is not about biology but—as the right reverend Prelate said—fidelity. I suspect that the Government have been round this course. I know from reading the record in the Commons that they had these discussions and settled where they did. At the moment I cannot see any way of moving from that point. I do not accept the biological descriptions and solutions suggested by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The Government have probably ended up in the right place.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I was wondering earlier how BBC Parliament would cope if this group of amendments came up before the 9 pm watershed. However, we are clearly okay.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
At least we are not going to be subject to an inquiry by Ofcom.
The effect of the amendment of the noble and learned Baroness would be that the question of how adultery and non-consummation would apply to same-sex marriages would have to be determined over time by case law. The Government believe that such an approach would leave the law uncertain in respect of divorce and nullity, and would not give people adequate protection. The noble and learned Baroness will know better than I that the definition of adultery has developed in case law over many years. In order for a definition to be determined for same-sex couples, it would have to go through a similar process. That would provide uncertainty for same-sex couples, which is not what any of us want.
The Bill provides greater clarity by confirming that only sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex outside marriage will constitute adultery for all couples, both opposite sex or same sex. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, rightly said that the Government had taken the approach, in designing all parts of the Bill, of trying to avoid disrupting existing marriage law as far as possible. This provision confirms that the current case law definition of adultery applies to the marriages of same-sex couples. I make it clear that at the moment, if a married man has an affair with another man, his wife would not be able to divorce him on the grounds of adultery. However, she would be able to cite unreasonable behaviour, so she would not be denied the right to divorce; only the grounds that she relied on would be different.
Equally, for same-sex married couples, sexual activity with a member of the same sex will support an application for divorce, since it will be open to someone in a same-sex marriage to cite unreasonable behaviour. This will not mean that same-sex couples have any reduced right to divorce or will suffer any delay in applying for it, because the same procedures apply to divorces on the grounds of adultery and those on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. If a woman in a same-sex marriage has an affair with a man, her wife would still be able to apply for a divorce on the grounds of adultery. If she has sex with another woman outside the marriage, her wife could not seek a divorce on grounds of adultery but would do so on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. That is what currently happens. As we know, it is not that unusual for someone in an opposite-sex marriage to have an affair outside the marriage with somebody of the same sex.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the right reverend Prelate argued that these provisions in the Bill mean that there is no requirement for same-sex married couples to be faithful, because adultery is not available to them in the way I have just talked about. The right reverend Prelate used a particular word that I cannot remember; I think he talked about “standards”. I think it is worth making the point that we need to avoid assuming that in order to be faithful people need to know they can divorce someone on the grounds of adultery. It is not the possibility of divorcing someone on the grounds of adultery that leads someone to be faithful to the person they are in a relationship with. What makes people faithful is far more complicated than that. The issues around fidelity, the reasons why people stay together, and their trust and commitment to each other are very complex. Even so, in terms of the law, marriage does not require the fidelity of couples. It is open to each couple to decide for themselves on the importance of fidelity within their own relationship. The law does not lay down requirements about the consensual sexual activity which should or should not take place for married couples.
Similarly, the Government believe that not applying provisions on non-consummation as a ground for the nullity of the marriage of a same-sex couple is the correct approach. There has been a lot of discussion of procreation, not so much tonight but certainly at earlier stages of our debates. Historically, consummation was linked to procreation, although now in law it is not. I want to make it clear that there is no requirement in law that a couple should consummate their marriage in order for it to be a valid marriage. We do not consider that there is a need to extend non-consummation as a ground for annulment to same-sex marriage. This also ensures that the law is clear for same-sex couples, as I already noted.
I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in response to the proposal of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to transfer the definition of penetration from that of an opposite-sex couple to that of a same-sex couple, but focusing only on men, serves to demonstrate that we have not addressed what penetration means for a lesbian couple. That is why, as I say, it would take a long time to develop this in case law in a meaningful way. The Government do not believe that the Bill’s approach to adultery and non-consummation for same-sex couples represents an inequality with opposite-sex couples. We believe the Bill makes appropriate provision for same-sex couples, while ensuring that the law for opposite-sex couples remains exactly as it is now.
However, I thank the noble and learned Baroness for bringing forward her amendments because, as she rightly says, this is a very sensitive topic. It is not one that people find easy to debate. I never thought I would stand at a Dispatch Box talking about these kinds of things. She serves the Committee well by raising this matter, but I hope I have been able at least to clarify that by not changing what now exists in law we are not actually creating an inequality. I think the desire of same-sex couples to have a successful relationship through marriage does not require the possibility of adultery for them to remain faithful to each other, if of course that is what they intended when they first married. I hope the noble and learned Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I have perhaps found this topic rather easier to talk about, having been a divorce judge and indeed a judge who tried a lot of nullity suits. However, it is a sensitive subject, and I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which she dealt with it, and to the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I said earlier that I recognised that looking at the issue of penetration was taking only it half way. I also threw out the potential olive branch of saying that you could call it something similar to adultery.
I remind noble Lords that for several thousand years adultery has been the opposite side of the coin to faithfulness for married couples. It has not been an issue only for Jews, Muslims and Christians; it has gone far wider than that. Those who do not believe in any religion do none the less see the importance of making a promise—it has to be a promise, whether explicit or implicit—that, if you marry, whatever your stable relationship is, during that period when it matters, you remain faithful to one another. After nearly 55 years of marriage, I see that as extremely important. However, I see it as equally important for the stable relationships of which I am well aware among those who—
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I hope the noble and learned Baroness will forgive me for intervening very briefly. I absolutely understand the point that she makes and I do not want to give the impression that I do not take the issue of faithfulness seriously because I certainly do. However, it is important for me to make clear for the record that in the context of a civil ceremony it will be possible for those getting married to make promises and commitments in the form of words that they choose. We are not suggesting that we do not think this issue is important. However, we do not think that it is necessary to make provision for adultery in this measure. This is not about denying the importance of fidelity, which is clearly important when people first come together.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I hear what the Minister says and of course I accept that she is saying on behalf of the Government that faithfulness in marriage of whichever sort is important. I do not for a moment disagree with that. However, there are two sides to the coin—faithfulness and adultery. As I say, for several thousand years adultery has been a ground for setting aside a partnership because of the way that one partner has behaved. To call it unreasonable behaviour, or cruelty in the old days, is not the same thing. I am sad that the Government are not prepared to tackle this because something akin to adultery could be achieved to put everybody who is involved in marriage in exactly the same position. Currently, with the Civil Partnership Act, and now this Marriage Bill going through the House, they will be in different positions. You cannot get away from that. I find that very sad, as, I know, does the right reverend Prelate. I will reflect very carefully on what the noble Baroness has said and, indeed, what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said about this, but I remain very unhappy about it. However, at this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Interpretation6 In this Schedule “declaration of validity” means—
(a) a declaration as to the validity of a marriage,(b) a declaration as to the subsistence of a marriage, or(c) a declaration as to the validity of a divorce, annulment or judicial separation obtained outside England and Wales in respect of a marriage.”