House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
1. What assessment the Office for Budget Responsibility has made of the effects on the economy of recent changes in energy prices.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
The Office for Budget Responsibility has not published any assessment of the effects of the recent energy price increases on the economy. The OBR’s last published forecast, “Economic and fiscal outlook” was issued in March 2013, and an updated forecast will be provided alongside the autumn statement. The Government are committed to doing all we can to keep energy bills down to support hard-working families.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. Is she aware that last year wholesale energy prices rose by 1.7%, but energy bills by 9.1%? Is it not time that the Government stopped defending the big six energy companies and actually called for a freeze on prices while we reset the energy market?
Nicky Morgan
It is very interesting to hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the first thing he needs to do is explain to his constituents why he voted for the decarbonisation target, which is going to add £125 to energy bills. Secondly, it was the last Labour Government who created the big six. We started off with 20; they left us with the big six. Thirdly, this Government have set out very clearly how they will help households—by reviewing green levies, by encouraging switching, which I am pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition has taken up, and by increasing competition.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Minister to her post. She will know that one of the energy bills that my rural constituents have to struggle with is for petrol. Will she tell us whether the Office for Budget Responsibility has done an assessment of how much families are saving by our avoidance of the 13p fuel hike planned by the Labour party?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The OBR does an assessment of all taxes and their impact on the economy. The policies that this Government are pursuing in recognition of the pressures on household budgets mean that filling up the average car is costing families £7 less at the moment, and by the end of this Parliament it will cost them £10 less.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the best answer to this question is to freeze energy prices? Surely that is the answer.
Nicky Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed for his question, but the energy price freeze suggested by the Leader of the Opposition is actually an energy price con. It has been made very clear that the prices will go up beforehand and up afterwards, and the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that if wholesale prices go up, he will have to stop the freeze. That is a price con; it is not sustainable; we are fixing the problem.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer join me in congratulating the Eastleigh Liberal Democrat borough council on the large part it has played in bringing the local unemployment rate down below 1,000?
Mr Speaker
Whatever the worthiness of the efforts of the council to which the hon. Gentleman refers, unfortunately it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with Question 1.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the effect of freezing fuel duty on the price of petrol.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
Thanks to this Government’s action, pump prices are 13p a litre lower than they would have been under the previous Government’s plans. Provided we can find the savings to pay for it, my intention is to freeze fuel duty for the rest of this Parliament.
Paul Maynard
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The cost of fuel is of great concern to many of my constituents. If he can freeze the price of fuel for the remainder of this Parliament, how much cheaper will petrol be, come the next election?
Mr Osborne
If we are able to freeze petrol prices for the rest of this Parliament, the price will 20p a litre lower than it would have been if we had stuck with the plans that the shadow Chancellor advocated at the last general election. That would mean, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary was just reminding us, a saving of over £10 every time people filled up their average car. That is what this Government are doing; by fixing the public finances, we are able to help people.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
When the Chancellor became Chancellor, unleaded petrol was £1.19 a litre. Can he tell us how much it is today?
Mr Osborne
It depends, of course, where you buy it. The last price I saw at a petrol station was around £1.35, but it would have been 20p higher if we had stuck with the last Government’s plans—the hon. Gentleman voted for them—in the last Labour Budget. That is the truth, and it is because we are fixing the public finances and fixing the economy that we can avoid these disastrous Labour tax rises.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The freeze on duty makes a crucial contribution to improving business competitiveness, and will have been welcomed by all our constituents throughout the country. Will the Chancellor undertake, as part of his work on the autumn statement, to publish the Treasury’s own estimate of the full amount by which both motoring and energy input costs have been increased by climate change-related measures?
Mr Osborne
Of course the OBR provides an assessment of the impact of Government policies on the economy, and I will consider my hon. Friend’s specific suggestion that we look into the impact of climate change policies on energy prices. We are currently examining the charges and levies that the last Government, among others, added to energy bills, and seeing what we can do to roll them back in order to provide relief for customers.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I welcome the action taken by the Government to freeze fuel duties, but UK taxes on petrol and other fuels remain among the highest in any country in the European Union. What will the Chancellor do to remedy that much unwanted achievement?
Mr Osborne
I looked at the plans that this Government inherited, and then cut petrol duty in March 2011. We have frozen the duty ever since, and I intend to continue the freeze for the rest of the current Parliament, provided that we can find the savings to pay for it. That is the crucial point: if we do not sort out the economy, if we are not fixing the public finances, if we do not have an economic plan, we cannot have a living standards plan.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Notwithstanding the excellent news of the fuel freeze, petrol pump prices are still under threat from hard-liners at Grangemouth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that extremism in the pursuit of hard-pressed motorists is no virtue?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The greatest threat to fuel supplies recently has been the threat of industrial action from the Unite union, led by the chair of the Falkirk Labour party. We now hear the former Labour Chancellor and the former Labour Foreign Secretary saying that Labour should open its inquiry and publish what it finds, and a Labour Front Bencher saying that Labour does not “publish internal documents”.
Mr Speaker
Order. That has nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Chancellor. [Interruption.] Order! In the name of respect for parliamentary process and the traditions of the House, I ask Ministers not to behave in that way. We deserve better.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I shall return to the actual question of duties. Has the Chancellor found the £750 million that is needed to pay for the freeze? At the party conferences, he also promised to spend a further £700 million on school meals, a further £300 million on his Work programme, and a further £600 million on a marriage allowance. That is £2.3 billion of promises. Let us be clear about this. Is the Chancellor going to raise taxes or cut services to pay for those promises, or is he planning simply to borrow even more? Which is it?
Mr Osborne
What a question from a Labour Front- Bench team that wants to spend £27 billion more, and to borrow every penny of it. If this is the hon. Gentleman’s debut performance as shadow Chief Secretary, I am afraid that he will have to do a lot better. His job should be to control the promises that he makes. As for our side, we are paying for the commitments that we are making to the hard-working people of this country.
Mr Osborne
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how: by sorting out the mess that he created.
Chris Leslie
Despite all that hot air, it seems that there are still £2.3 billion of unfunded promises. Would it not be far easier if all those promises were fully costed and funded and independently checked by the Office for Budget Responsibility, just to ensure that the Chancellor’s sums add up?
We have proposed that all the main political parties should be able to submit tax and spending plans to the OBR ahead of the election manifestos. Surely we can all agree that—as the Chair of the Treasury Committee has suggested—an independent audit by the OBR for all the main political parties would be good for the democratic process, so will the Chancellor now join us in a cross-party consensus on that?
Mr Osborne
As to a cross-party consensus, I remember when I was speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box and the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government that it opposed the creation of the OBR—opposed it time and again. I believe it is important that we preserve the independence and integrity of this new body, which is working well but is entrusted with the very important task of providing the economic forecasts for whoever is in government. That should be its primary purpose and the changes to the primary law that the hon. Gentleman is proposing are not very practical.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
3. What his policy is on the issuing of Government bonds in the form of sukuk; and if he will make a statement.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Government want the United Kingdom to become the first sovereign state outside the Muslim world to issue an Islamic bond. The Treasury is therefore working on the practicalities of issuing about £200 million of sovereign sukuk as early as next year. The Government see sukuk issuance as an excellent opportunity to promote London as the leading centre for Islamic finance.
Roger Williams
As chairman of the all-party group on Islamic finance and diversity in financial markets, I welcome the Government’s decision to issue a sukuk. It is something the group has campaigned on. I also congratulate the Government on their part in hosting the World Islamic Economic Forum in this country, the first time it has been held in a non-Muslim country. What else are the Government doing to promote Islamic investment in this country and sustain the Islamic banking sector?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing work in promoting Islamic finance and diversity in financial markets. London is already a global player in Islamic finance, which brings in significant investment and creates thousands of jobs. Last week I also announced that we are bringing together a global Islamic investment group. This group will have the expertise to help Islamic finance grow globally, as well as developing London as one of the leading centres for Islamic finance.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I also welcome what the Government have done? It will make this country the first anywhere in the western world to provide sharia-compliant bonds. We do not just want people to invest from outside, however. Although the last census showed that Brecon and Radnor had 116 Muslim people, I have 21,075 in my constituency. How does the Minister intend to sell those bonds to the people of Leicester East?
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his warm words. Britain already has 20 banks offering Islamic financial products. We also have 49 sukuk listed on the London stock exchange, valued at over £25 billion, and 25 law firms that have significant Islamic practices. We will bring all this experience together to further develop Britain as an Islamic finance centre, and I am sure that will help his constituents with their investment decisions.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
4. If he will introduce a time-limited exemption from air passenger duty on new long-haul routes from uncongested airports.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
The Government are always open to ideas that promote regional growth. The Airports Commission will shortly publish a report on the best use of existing airport capacity in the short to medium term and the Government will take its findings into account in our response.
Paul Goggins
I am grateful to the Minister for her answer, and I welcome her to her position. As part of the growing links between the north-west and China, Manchester airport is seeking to develop a new route to Beijing, but one of the major obstacles is the very high level of UK APD. Will she take a careful look at new research by York Aviation, which has concluded that a time-limited exemption from APD on new long-haul routes from regional airports would make the Manchester-Beijing route immediately viable?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The Government will always take a look at the evidence. In fact, we debated APD in the House only the week before last. In October 2012, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published modelling on price differentials at UK airports, and it showed that even large price changes have a relatively small impact on total passenger demand, but I am sure he will welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement of the £800 million investment in Airport City in Manchester, which will create over 16,000 jobs. The involvement of Beijing Construction Engineering Group as a partner in this project is the latest in a line of new partnerships being forged between the UK and China.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)
Manchester airport is second only to Heathrow in terms of airport capacity, but it is operating at under half capacity, yet Heathrow is full. Boris Johnson talked yesterday to the CBI about getting these new routes out to China and Asia, but instead of forcing people from the north-west to fly down to London in order to fly to China, why cannot we get people to come from London up to Manchester to fly out on all these new routes that we need?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I said, we will always look at any evidence that people want to send us. We want to encourage new links between the UK and China, and the Mayor of London made some interesting points. The point is that we have to change prices a lot in order to change passenger behaviour, and we would need to look at that further.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Is the Minister aware of the success of Barcelona airport in gaining more than 20 international routes in the past year because of a 100% APD reduction? Does she think that such a reduction would help Scotland to regain the millions of passengers it has lost owing to this Government’s APD costs?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is no APD charge from airports in his constituency. As he knows from our recent debate, APD makes an important contribution to the deficit reduction plans; we will always keep it under review, but it is a very important part of this Government’s attempts to rebalance the economy.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
APD can also have a disproportionate effect on regional airports operating lifeline routes with modest passenger numbers, such as Newquay’s. Will the Minister factor that into the discussions she is having with colleagues on the future of APD?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will always look at the evidence, and if cares to write to me, we will certainly take that into account.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
5. What estimate he has made of the number of jobs created in the private sector in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
11. What estimate he has made of the number of jobs created in the private sector in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [R]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
In the past year, employment in the private sector has increased by 380,000, more than offsetting the fall in public sector employment of 104,000. For every public sector job lost, more than three have been created in the private sector. That confounds the predictions of those who thought it could never happen.
Graham Evans
Unemployment in my constituency is lower than it was when I became the MP. With the further good news that Waitrose is creating 140 new jobs in Northwich later this month, will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out how small and medium-sized enterprises will benefit from a reduction in national insurance contributions?
Mr Osborne
I am delighted by the news of the new jobs being created by Waitrose in Northwich; as my hon. Friend well knows, I represent part of that town. That will be good for the people who live in it, and I hope that some of my constituents will find work there. The employment allowance, which we debated in this Parliament this week, is going to take £2,000 off the national insurance bill of every firm, but the biggest benefit will be felt by the smallest companies; 450,000 firms will be taken out of employer NICs altogether. That is a real boost for business, and it shows how we can help to support the recovery.
Nigel Adams
Unemployment is down by almost 30% in my constituency since the last election. Given that Selby lost almost 2,000 jobs in 2004 in the mining industry, that is very encouraging. Given UK Coal’s recent troubles and its callous decision to withdraw concessionary fuel from some ex-miners and their widows, what comfort can the Chancellor give to these pensioners, who potentially face fuel poverty this winter?
Mr Osborne
I know that this difficult situation has been brought about by the failure of UK Coal. I congratulate my hon. Friend on leading this campaign to do something about the situation, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) have joined him in coming to see me about it. We are looking very carefully at the case for what we can do to help those who have had their concessionary fuel allowance taken away because of the failure of UK Coal. I am personally looking at this case and I hope to have some good news shortly.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
Evidence shows that it is not just having a job, but having the right job and the right level of pay that lifts someone out of poverty. So can the Chancellor tell us how many of those new jobs that have been created are full-time jobs, how many do not involve zero-hours contracts and how many actually pay the living wage?
Mr Osborne
We have 1.4 million new jobs in this economy. To take on the point about part-time work, there has also been an increase in the number of hours worked in the economy, and a lot of the recent increase in employment has come from full-time employment. Let us compare that with the disastrous situation we inherited from the Labour party, where unemployment was rocketing and youth unemployment was rocketing. Unemployment is now lower than it was at the general election, and many thousands—[Interruption.] That is the fact. Many thousands of young people have come off the claimant count for youth unemployment, too.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Can the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the number of people working part time because they cannot get a full-time job has risen over the past year to 1.45 million and is now at a record high? With prices rising faster than wages for 39 of the past 40 months, is this not just another reason why so many working people are facing a cost-of-living crisis after three wasted years under this Chancellor?
Mr Osborne
The best thing we can do for anyone’s cost of living is make sure that they have a job. Jobs are being created under this Government, after they were destroyed by the Labour Government. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not thank us for creating an economy in which, in her constituency, unemployment is falling, and has fallen over the past year, and the claimant count is falling, when it was rocketing in the last years of the Labour Government.
Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)
The Chancellor made some important announcements last week about the future of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Although we are absolutely right to keep pressing the bank to improve its poor lending record, will he also put on record the need for us to recognise the hugely important private sector jobs underpinned by RBS in Scotland and elsewhere, and the fact that we see a strong future for that company?
Mr Osborne
I have discussed RBS and what we can do to ensure that it supports the Scottish economy with my right hon. Friend on many occasions. The plan that the management has proposed, which we and the Governor of the Bank of England support—it is the first time since RBS collapsed in autumn 2008 that all those groups agree on a single strategy for the bank—will mean a strong, healthy future for RBS as a bank that supports the entire United Kingdom economy and, in particular, the Scottish economy. It is an important part of Scottish economic history and of Scotland’s economic future, too.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the rate of increase in (a) average earnings and (b) consumer price inflation.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Disposable income increased last year at the fastest pace since 2009. In March, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that real household disposable income growth would accelerate each year from 2014 to 2017, reaching 2.3% in 2017. The best way to raise living standards is to stick to the Government’s economic plan and deliver a recovery that works for all. Britain is back on the path to prosperity, the economy is growing, the deficit is falling and jobs are being created.
Julie Hilling
I do not understand how the Minister and the Chancellor can think that their economic policies are a success. After three wasted and damaging years of flatlining, working people are on average £1,500 a year worse off. Is it not clear that his plan has failed hard-working families?
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
On the subject of the cost of living, does my hon. Friend think it astonishing that Opposition Members do not understand that this Government have done so much to keep council taxes down? If we were still subject to their policies, the average council tax cost would be £210 a year higher.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Why does the Minister think that April 2013 was the only month on this Chancellor’s watch in which pay rose faster than prices? Does he agree with the ONS that it is because people deferred their bonus payments to make the best use of the Chancellor’s millionaires’ tax cut?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of tackling rising prices is to leave people with more of their own money in their pocket? Will he confirm that the 50% tax cut we have given to those on the minimum wage has done exactly that and shows that we are on the side of hard-working people?
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
7. What recent fiscal steps he has taken to help people who want to buy their own home.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many people as possible. That is why we recently announced that participating lenders will be able to offer high loan-to-value mortgages supported by their Help to Buy mortgage guarantee schemes three months earlier than planned. I was pleased to hear that Lloyds Banking Group recently announced that the first such mortgage was taken out by a first-time buyer in Dartford, Kent.
Alec Shelbrooke
Will my hon. Friend update the House specifically on helping the hard-working people in my constituency, where there is 77% home ownership, which is increasing, compared with 65% across the UK?
Sajid Javid
Under Labour, the number of first-time buyers fell to its lowest level for 25 years, from an average of 470,000 a year in the early 2000s to around 190,000 by 2008. That destroyed the hopes and aspirations of many hard-working families. This Government’s two Help to Buy schemes will help thousands of hard-working people to get on the housing ladder, including those in Elmet and Rothwell and those throughout the UK.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
16. Is it fair for taxpayers in my constituency to subsidise a London property bubble that has already increased by 10% since the introduction of this scheme?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady should know, as she would if she looked at the facts carefully, that the Help to Buy scheme is priced on commercial terms; it is designed to break even and it will not cost the taxpayer anything.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concern that, reportedly, some young people have actually given up saving for a deposit, and will he ensure that those of us on the Government Benches will stand with those people who have a dream of home ownership to make sure it can be fulfilled?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some Opposition Members believe that only people who have rich parents that can help them meet some of the large deposit requirements should be able to buy their own home. That is not the policy of this Government, who support hard-working families.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
On the issue of fiscal steps to help people buy homes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year that people buying homes through a company to avoid tax was unacceptable, and he would come down on it
“like a ton of bricks”.
Has he investigated reports that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), has avoided tax in that way, and will he come down on him like a ton of bricks?
Sajid Javid
I welcome the hon. Lady to the shadow Front Bench team. I look forward to debating with her. The Government have already taken steps to ensure that property buyers pay more in tax, by increasing stamp duty and by dealing with purchases through companies, and it would not be appropriate for any Minister to make a comment on any individual’s tax circumstances.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
8. What recent steps he has taken to increase investment in infrastructure.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Investment in infrastructure is a key priority for this Government. In June, I set out a pipeline of investment in specific projects, worth over £100 billion out to 2020, including the largest investment in our railways since the Victorian era and the biggest investment in roads since the 1970s.
Jason McCartney
I welcome the support of my local Labour leader of Kirklees council for the new north-south railway, but does my right hon. Friend agree with the leader of Manchester council, who said that politicians need to stop taking cheap shots at HS2
“unless we want an increasingly disconnected North…slowly grinding to a halt”?
Danny Alexander
I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments. My hon. Friend could have added to that list the leader of Nottingham city council, who said that the Labour Front Bench should get off the fence on HS2. The project is needed to promote growth, and connectivity outside London. I agree with that, and so should they.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
22. When the Chancellor talks about increased investment, is that what he meant to cover the £10 billion increase in the HS2 costs, which have gone up on his watch?
Danny Alexander
We set out in June the budget for HS2. We will absolutely stick to that budget. Using the excellent leadership we have brought in, with Sir David Higgins and others, we will make sure that the project is delivered under budget. The hon. Gentleman should be committed to the project because it will support growth all over the United Kingdom. It is the most significant investment in our railways for 100 years, and his party should support it.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
17. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.I congratulate the Chancellor and his Government on their investment in infrastructure in the west midlands, which helped to deliver the Jaguar Land Rover plant, and thousands of manufacturing jobs in the process. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the A50, a key corridor in my constituency, connecting Stoke to Derby, which involves a number of manufacturing businesses that could hugely benefit from road improvements and infrastructure spending.
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is right that targeted infrastructure investment can unlock job creation in enterprise zones, including at JLR and in various places around the country. I am well aware of the particular scheme that he is promoting and I look forward to discussing it further with him to see how we can take it forward.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary will be aware that several conflicting and not very encouraging cost-benefit analyses for HS2 are currently in circulation. Could he not clear the air by commissioning and publishing a genuinely independent internal Treasury cost-benefit analysis of the project?
Danny Alexander
The Government have set out various cost-benefit analyses of the project. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, what is needed in this project is not more procrastination, delay and extra reports, but a commitment in all parts of the House to get on with this north-south railway and allow economic growth in every part of the United Kingdom.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
9. What recent fiscal steps he has taken to support small businesses.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are very supportive of small businesses. We demonstrated this support again at Budget 2013 through the introduction of the new £2,000 employment allowance for small businesses and charities from April 2014.We have extended the small business rate relief from April 2013. We have increased the small business research and development tax credit to 225% and the lifetime limit on entrepreneurs relief to £10 million. In addition, we have launched a £1 billion British business bank to improve access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK.
John Howell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that the new employment allowance will mean that 450,000 small businesses pay no national insurance contributions at all. Is this not a positive help to small businesses such as those in my constituency as they seek to take on more employees?
Mr Gauke
I entirely agree. That £2,000 for every business will feed through by helping businesses take on new staff, invest in their business or pay higher wages. It is a positive contribution, which contrasts with the proposals that we inherited for an increase in employer’s national insurance contributions.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Why since 2011 has SME investment and lending to SMEs fallen by £30 billion?
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good news that, due to the investment in small businesses, unemployment in Morecambe has fallen by 10% in the past three months?
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Why should we believe from the Minister that the present scheme for dealing with national insurance contributions will be any more successful than his previous scheme, where take-up was extremely poor and did nothing to increase jobs?
Mr Gauke
I do not know whether Labour is opposing the scheme. That was not the impression I got. This is a very simple scheme. It does not require applications or involve any of the complexities that we saw with two of the Labour national insurance contribution schemes. We are confident that the current scheme will work. It has been widely supported by business groups and I think it will make a big difference to small businesses.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
10. What assessment he has made of the effect of his spending plans on the cost of in-work benefits.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
The latest forecasts of benefits and tax credits are available online via the website of the Department for Work and Pensions. They are consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts and reflect the Government’s wider policy.
Mr Watts
Will the Minister explain why she is allowing companies that are making massive profits to pay poverty wages that need a subsidy from the taxpayer through in-work benefits? Why does she not stop those companies sponging off the taxpayer and adopt a Labour policy of requiring companies that can well afford it to pay a living wage?
Nicky Morgan
It seems that even the shadow Chancellor has questions about a living wage policy, saying in 2010 that he was not sure about it. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not talk about the fact that in the north-west and Merseyside 306,000 people have been taken out of paying income tax altogether as a result of this Government’s policies.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
It was the case, was it not, that under the previous Government work simply did not pay because people who got into work found that a huge proportion of their extra income and, in some cases, all their extra income was clawed back by the complex benefits system? Will my hon. Friends redouble their efforts to make sure that work pays?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right. This Government believe that work should always pay. By 2010, nine out of 10 working families had been made dependent on the state by the previous Government. This Government believe that families should keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on the things that are important to them.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on the level of youth unemployment.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The UK labour market is showing some signs of recovery. Youth unemployment, excluding those in full-time education, fell over the last quarter and the number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance is lower now than it was in 2010. The Government are committed to supporting long-term unemployed young people, which is why we launched the Youth Contract in 2012 and why we have increased the number of apprenticeships, with over 1 million starts so far.
Bridget Phillipson
The Chief Secretary refers to the Youth Contract, but does he not accept the assessment of the Government’s own social mobility adviser that it is having a limited impact on the
“appallingly high levels of youth unemployment”?
Danny Alexander
I certainly accept that there is a great deal more that we have to do to get people off benefit and into work, but if the hon. Lady looks at the work experience programme within the Youth Contract, she will see that it is having a significant effect on the number of young people getting off benefit and into work, and at one 20th of the cost of the future jobs fund, which I think is good value for money.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Is not the single most important measure we can take to tackle youth unemployment the creation of jobs? I therefore welcome the creation of over 1.5 million new jobs and 600,000 new apprenticeships and the news that last year this country had more small businesses than ever before. Does that not show that we have a Government who are seriously tackling youth unemployment, after it rose for 13 years?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is right. In fact, there are now more people in work, including more women, than ever before in our country’s history, and there are now more households in which someone works than in any year under the previous Government. There is a lot more to do, but that is a record to be proud of.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
13. What representations he has received on Yorkshire bank and lending to small and medium-sized businesses.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
All meetings between external organisations and Treasury Ministers are published on the Government’s website. However, it is not the Treasury’s practice to provide details of all representations Ministers receive. Lending to small and medium-sized businesses is an important issue, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it receives the Government’s highest attention.
David Mowat
I thank the Financial Secretary for that answer. He might be aware that two years ago the owners of Yorkshire bank announced their intention to downsize in the UK and invest more money in Asia. Since then they have aggressively reduced the size of their UK loan book, despite assurances made to small businesses. That has affected many businesses across the country, including Arley Homes in my constituency, which has been forced into administration, with the loss of many jobs. Is there more we can do to make them behave responsibly?
Sajid Javid
I know that my hon. Friend raised this issue with my predecessor on behalf of his constituents, and he was absolutely right to do so. The way in which a bank structures its business is a commercial decision, as I am sure he appreciates, so I am unable to comment on it. However, if a bank decides to restructure its business in a certain way, I would expect it to pay due regard to the interests of all its customers and to treat them fairly.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Small businesses in my constituency used to borrow from Yorkshire bank, and many have told me that they never missed a repayment, but now the bank simply will not lend to them, despite excellent credit histories. Why are the banks refusing to lend to small businesses that have a strong history of repayment?
Sajid Javid
May I give the hon. Gentleman some advice on how he can help small businesses in his constituency and elsewhere? The SME appeals process that the Government set up with the banking sector has been very successful, with 40% of businesses that appeal finding decisions overturned. He can help to advertise that, as the Government will be doing shortly to banks.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The point of capitalism is that people who take risks should be rewarded when they are successful and should lose money when they fail. Yorkshire bank has been among the worst for penalising its good customers to try to make up for its own losses. That is an abuse of capitalism. I hope that the Minister will take steps to ensure that Yorkshire bank treats its customers fairly, because in too many cases it has been treating them terribly unfairly.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend has made a number of representations on this issue, and he is right to do so. As I have said, we want all banks to treat their customers fairly, and the Government are absolutely committed to that.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). Following an article I wrote for the Yorkshire Post, I have received dozens of complaints about Yorkshire bank from small businesses, particularly about being locked into tailored business loans with very high interest rates and very high redemption clauses and payments to get out of them. Will the Minister look at involving the Financial Conduct Authority to see if there could be an investigation into what has been going on?
Sajid Javid
I believe that my predecessor raised this issue with the FCA, but I would be more than happy to do so again.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
14. What recent comparative assessment he has made of trends in real wages in the UK and in similar economies.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
This Government recognise the pressure on households, but the fall in living standards is a consequence of the economic crisis left to us by Labour. The only way to raise living standards is to stick to our economic plans and deliver a recovery that works for all. Britain has turned a corner: the economy is growing, the deficit is falling, and jobs are being created. Last year, UK take-home pay was the highest in the G7 and the third highest in the OECD.
Steve McCabe
That is a very interesting answer. Why does the Minister think that the 15% cut in wages suffered by British workers over the past five years is more than in any comparable five-year period and the second biggest in the G20?
Nicky Morgan
It is interesting to note that the main fall in wages and salaries came in 2007-09, when growth fell from 5.7% to less than 1%. Of course the Government understand that the situation is very difficult, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not welcomed the fact that the claimant count in his constituency has fallen by 11% under this Government, whereas it went up by 75% under the previous Government.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell the House by how much those on low and middle incomes are going to be better off because of this Government’s decision to raise the personal allowance to £10,000 from April 2014?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The average taxpayer will be better off by £700 a year as a result of these changes.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
15. What recent steps he has taken to increase competitiveness in the banking sector.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Government are driving a wide-ranging and ambitious programme of reforms to make the banking sector more competitive and to give consumers a better deal. This includes reducing market barriers, encouraging current account switching, and putting competition at the heart of the regulatory system.
Sir Tony Baldry
Will my hon. Friend commend the Church Commissioners for their investment in Williams and Glyn’s as a new competitive bank that intends to have the highest ethical standards? As well as increasing competition in banking, is it not also crucial that we have a system of banking regulation with clear accountability and responsibility, avoiding mistakes in the system designed by the previous Administration?
Sajid Javid
I congratulate the Church Commissioners on their role and the expertise that they bring. Given that my hon. Friend is a commissioner, I take this opportunity to congratulate him too. He is right to highlight the fact that the previous Government’s changes to financial regulation contributed significantly to the banking crisis in 2008. That caused misery and hardship for millions of hard-working families, yet I notice that the Opposition have yet to apologise.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Minister will agree that a level playing field is important for competition. Why, then, did the Chancellor make the misguided offer to the Chinese Government to give light-touch regulation to Chinese banks operating in this country? If we are going to have competition, will that approach be extended to all other banks?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that such decisions are made by the independent regulators—in this case, the Prudential Regulation Authority, which has made the reasons for the decision absolutely clear.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy. Today I can also announce another step in the fight against tax evasion. This afternoon we will sign a tax information-sharing agreement with the Cayman Islands—the first ever with an overseas territory. As a result, information on UK taxpayers held in the Cayman Islands will automatically be provided to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which will use it to collect the tax that is due.
Mr Campbell
Is it still the Chancellor’s intention to withdraw jobseeker’s allowance from all young people under the age of 25?
Mr Osborne
That is not part of the Government’s programme. We are seeking to help young people into work through the Work programme and the Youth Contract. The good news is that the youth claimant count has fallen by many tens of thousands. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would use this opportunity to get up and point out that unemployment has fallen in his constituency over the last year, and there are—[Interruption.] Unemployment has fallen in his constituency, and every job created is one that he should be celebrating. He should remind his constituents of the enormous damage done to the north-east economy by the previous Labour Government.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
T3. The most important financial issue in the lives of many young families is mortgage interest. Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agree that the best way—indeed, the only way—to keep mortgage rates low is to stick with the Government’s economic plan of cutting the deficit?
Mr Osborne
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, one of the consequences of the higher borrowing that the Labour party is advocating would be not just higher taxes, but higher interest rates, which would be absolutely disastrous for families. That is precisely why we have to stick with the economic plan that is delivering the recovery.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Economic Secretary and the shadow Financial Secretary to their new jobs, and let us not forget the former Treasury Whip, the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who has finally got the promotion we have been urging him to get for three years.
On this Chancellor’s watch, the UK is experiencing the slowest recovery for more than 100 years, and with prices, including energy prices, rising faster than wages, for millions of people this is no recovery at all. Yet from the Chancellor’s earlier answers to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, he seems to think he can get away with cutting energy bills by simply shifting the burden of his green levies on to the ordinary taxpayer. Let me ask the Chancellor—[Interruption.]
Mr Osborne
First, I join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the two hon. Ladies to their new Front-Bench positions, although I think he got the title wrong of his new shadow Exchequer Secretary. By the way, while I am at it, may I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not move in the reshuffle, because he is exactly where we want him to be?
Perhaps one of these days the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that GDP is increasing, that unemployment is coming down and that today we had the best services purchasing managers index since May 1997. I believe we should roll back some of the levies and charges that have been imposed on energy bills. I am not clear whether he agrees.
Ed Balls
After three years of flatlining, people are worse off because of this Chancellor of the Exchequer. As for ordinary people’s rising energy bills, he just does not give an EDF.
Is it not the case that, over the past year, energy prices in the euro area fell by 1.7% while in the UK they have risen by a staggering 7.7%? Simply switching green levies on to the taxpayer is giving with one hand and taking with the other. Why does this Chancellor always hit ordinary families while standing up for a powerful few?
Mr Osborne
With questions like that, the right hon. Gentleman is never going to be npower, is he?
The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman created a situation in our economy whereby living standards were hit hard, because he destroyed jobs and economic prosperity. Like a bonfire on Guy Fawkes night, every single one of his economic predictions has gone up in smoke, and he has nothing credible or serious to say about the British economy.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
T4. Is it not true that the only way to improve considerably our standard of living is to focus on the economic situation of the country to boost growth and pay down debt?
Mr Osborne
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that unless we have a credibly economic plan to grow the economy, deal with public finances and support business rather than tax it, we will get the reaction the shadow Chancellor got from the CBI, whose members said that the hairs on the backs of their necks stood up as they listened to all the terrible things that a Labour Government would do to them. The truth is that we are fixing the economic mess the shadow Chancellor left behind, and that is the best way to improve people’s living standards.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
T2. The Chancellor was warned that his cuts would choke off the growth that had returned to the UK economy when he took the job in 2010. Of course we welcome the fact that Britain is finally returning to growth, but does he not realise that if he had taken the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) earlier, we would not have had three wasted years, the average working person would not be £1,500 worse off, and the talents and potential of 1 million young people would not have been laid to waste?
Mr Osborne
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the shadow Chancellor said that our economic policies would choke off the recovery in the spring of this year—the very moment when the recovery was under way. When will a Labour MP welcome the fact that our GDP has grown by 0.8% and unemployment is coming down? When will Labour acknowledge that it is our economic plan that is delivering that?
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
T5. One of the frustrations of losing ministerial office is that one cannot see through the things that one started. Will the Chancellor look carefully at the recommendations of the independent future of farming review, which I commissioned, because it has made far-reaching suggestions for changes in taxation that will benefit rural areas?
Mr Osborne
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend did in government. I will make it a personal priority to ensure that his review sees the light of day and is acted on.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
T7. Why has the number of the working poor doubled since the Chancellor took office?
Mr Osborne
The key thing is that people are getting into work. That is another Labour MP who has not acknowledged the fact that unemployment has fallen in his constituency. When will Labour Members acknowledge that our economic plan is repairing the mess that they left behind?
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
T6. On behalf of brewers everywhere, I thank the Chancellor for being the man who scrapped Labour’s hated beer duty escalator and who cut beer duty for the first time since 1959. Last month saw the biggest growth in beer sales this century, with 1 million extra pints being sold and £60 million extra going to the Exchequer. I ask him to keep supporting Britain’s pubs and brewers.
Mr Osborne
This is a case of teamwork, because my hon. Friend has led a brilliant campaign involving many Members of Parliament in support of the local pub industry in their constituencies and the brewing industry, which is so important in Burton. The work that he has done has been fantastic. It was thanks to his campaign, which drew the evidence to my attention, that we were able to take the action that he has welcomed.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
T10. Will the Chancellor make a statement on why the decision has been taken to extend HMRC’s pilot of the new customer service model in the north-east by two months until the end of December?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We want to look at the evidence further, so that seems to be a sensible approach; we want to see whether the model is working. The final decision has not been taken on whether to extend it. This is about improving the service for the people who need it most. We believe that that is an important objective.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
T8. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am of a nervous disposition. I was therefore alarmed this year—not three years ago—to hear predictions that 1 million jobs would be lost, there would be a decade of lost growth and the recovery would be choked off as a result of the Government’s plans. Will the Chancellor allay my fears and explain what has happened in the real world?
Mr George Osborne
My hon. Friend is right that there were a lot of predictions from the Opposition Dispatch Box. They said that there would be a decade of lost growth, but the economy is now growing and we have had the fastest growth in the G7 this year. They predicted that 1 million jobs would be lost, but 1.4 million jobs have been created in the private sector and unemployment is down. Above all, they advocated—indeed, they continue to advocate, because it was in the speech that the shadow Chancellor made yesterday—increased borrowing, which would lead to higher taxes and higher interest rates. The biggest threat to the British recovery is sitting right opposite me.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
What progress has been made on the extension to the fuel duty rebate scheme, which is due for further implementation via a submission to the European Commission?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
We have completed a call for evidence on that subject and have put forward an initial list of locations that meet the strict criteria that are required to make a successful application at the European level. Further work is needed to ensure that we have all the information that is necessary to submit the application. That will be the subject of a supplementary piece of work and we will submit the application early in the new year.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T9. I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend to Hainsworth mill in my constituency recently. Will he join me in welcoming the news that production output increased by 0.5% in the last quarter, and does he agree that that shows that British business is rising to the challenge of rebalancing the economy after an unsustainable decade under the Labour party?
Mr George Osborne
I was very impressed by the work being done at Hainsworth mill, which is one of the oldest textile mills in Britain and has been going for a couple of hundred years. It is now exporting textiles from west Yorkshire to China, which shows that the British economy can achieve remarkable things if we get the investment and economic policy right. My hon. Friend is right: we must stick with the economic plan that is continuing to improve the situation in his constituency and across the country.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Every newly created job in the private sector is very welcome, but will the Chancellor tell the House how many public sector jobs have been redesignated as private sector jobs in the past three years?
Mr Osborne
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with that number. Let us be clear: the Labour party and the shadow Chancellor said it was a complete fantasy that private sector job creation would outstrip the loss of public sector jobs required by fiscal consolidation. That is complete nonsense and we have not yet had an apology from the shadow Chancellor.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Companies up and down the country have been investing in manufacturing capacity for the green infrastructure of tomorrow. Those in the north-east Energi Coast consortium have already invested £400 million. Will the Chancellor confirm the Government’s commitment to support the renewable energy industry?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question, and I congratulate him on his new appointment in this House. I can reassure him on his point. We are, of course, looking at the range of support that exists in terms of people’s energy bills, but we will not compromise on our commitment to renewable energy and green infrastructure investment. That means we remain absolutely committed to the renewables obligations and the contracts for difference, and that will not change as part of this process.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that more than 1 million more children will be living in poverty in 2020, which absolutely wipes out the number of those lifted out of poverty under the previous Labour Government.
Mr George Osborne
The best approach to lifting children out of poverty is to ensure that they live in working households. We now have the lowest number of workless households since records began, which is due to the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and of the economic plan that is getting the parents of children into work.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Given that the cost of the EU will double in this Parliament, and the huge current account deficit with the EU, does the Chancellor agree that our current economic relationship with the EU is wrong and that we should renegotiate?
Mr Osborne
I certainly agree that we need to reform the European Union so that our entire continent is not priced out of the global economy. We must also make reforms to the European Union, and Britain’s relationship with it, so that British businesses can thrive, compete and create jobs. I point out to my hon. Friend—he knows this anyway—that the cost of the European Union would have been much higher if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had not secured a very good deal. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) says, “We did it,” but Labour gave up the rebate. The Prime Minister went to the EU battling for Britain and delivered for Britain.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the past six months more than 350,000 people, many of them in work, have accessed emergency food aid from a food bank. When will the Chancellor visit a food bank so that he can see for himself the impact of his cost-of-living crisis on hundreds of thousands of people across the country?
Mr Osborne
I have visited a food bank in Northwich in my constituency and seen the excellent work it does. I commend the volunteers at that food bank, and indeed across the whole food bank movement.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
If Scotland chooses to vote for independence next September, how will handing over control of the Scottish economy to a foreign bank, namely the Bank of England, benefit Scotland’s economy?
Danny Alexander
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It would be very foolish indeed for anyone to vote for independence on the basis that Scotland will keep the pound. It is highly unlikely that a currency union would be workable, and therefore highly unlikely that any euro-style arrangement for the UK would be in the best interests of either Scotland or the rest of the UK. The only way to be sure of keeping the pound is to keep the UK together.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but, as usual, we have bust the box office for Treasury questions. There is nothing unusual about that.
Points of Order
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Guardian newspaper has constantly denied sending details of UK intelligence agents overseas, particularly to The New York Times, and yet, this weekend, The New York Times published highly specific information regarding UK intelligence teams operating in the middle east. Is it in order, Mr Speaker, for a national newspaper constantly to refuse to answer questions from the House and to threaten the security of our constituents in that way?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for the fact of his point of order and for notice of his intention to raise it with me. However, the issue he has raised, though of seminal importance, is not an issue of procedure with which the Chair can deal. The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to what he believes to be, and what I think I can probably best describe as, an equivocation by The Guardian. That is a matter he must pursue by other means. I know that he has already led a well attended debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. He may well wish to try to continue that debate by other means. He is well aware of the location of the Table Office in the House, and he is a dextrous user of parliamentary procedure. We will leave it there for today.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will keep it brief. The last time we had an opportunity to debate the badger culls linked to bovine tuberculosis was in an Opposition day debate on 5 October. In that debate, the evidence on which the House made its decisions included statements from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in which he said:
“Evidence suggests that at least 70% of the badgers in the areas must be removed.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 836.]
I further quote:
“It would be wrong to go ahead if those on the ground cannot be confident”—
Mr Speaker
Order. I recognise and respect the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to brevity but, unfortunately, his attempted point of order was not as brief as I would wish, especially as it was an attempted point of order rather than a genuine point of order. I would say to him, in so far as he is alerting me and the House to statements that he believes to have been in any way incorrect, erroneous or partial, that Ministers and all Members are responsible for the accuracy of their remarks in the Chamber. What we cannot have is the continuation of debate by the ruse of a bogus point of order. If I did not know the hon. Gentleman better, I would think that that was his game plan, but as I know him as well as I do, and know him to be a person of the highest moral probity, I feel sure that he had some other mission in mind. We will not continue the exchange now. He will deploy the resources of the Table Office to advance his purposes. We can leave it there for today.
Benefit Claimants (Automatic Transfer to Alternative Benefits)
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure that individuals claiming state benefits are automatically enrolled onto alternative benefits to which they are entitled when a benefit ceases to be applicable; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is needed because worrying and growing numbers of people find themselves without income, stuck in a bureaucratic benefits-bungling muddle or benefits limbo for extended periods for technical reasons.
I have become aware of the problem through a number of constituency cases. Mrs N lost her entitlement to employment and support allowance on 15 March but, owing to a wholly official error, the benefit continued to be paid until 1 August, causing an overpayment of £1,431. Having approached me for help in early September, Mrs N was left with the option of appealing the appeal without any income during that time or of making a new claim for ESA from 16 September, which she did—it was once again granted. My constituent was left without income for almost six weeks, from 8 August to 16 September, and was not advised to apply for an alternative benefit at any point between March and September. She managed to keep debt collectors at bay only by borrowing money from family and friends, and was barely able to avoid the debt trap that is payday lending after she found herself in benefit limbo.
There is the case of Mrs A, whom I saw at my surgery on 12 October. When her benefit entitlement was stopped in July, she did not receive a decision assurance phone call or written notification informing her of her entitlement to claim jobseeker’s allowance. She has not received any income since July. She, too, has been stuck in benefit limbo. Her doctor advised her that she is not fit for work and provided documents to that effect, but the Government say she is fit for work, and, because of an error in the system, she was not informed of what she should do. Had she been automatically enrolled on to jobseeker’s allowance at the moment her previous entitlement ended, she would not have been left without income. She would have been entered into the system to either find work or be enrolled anew on appropriate state support. What is important about this case is that I have previously asked the Department for Work and Pensions what it does when ESA entitlement ceases, and was told that it tells people to claim JSA. That, however, clearly does not happen in all cases.
We then encounter the passporting problem. The system is efficient when it comes to people automatically qualifying for housing benefit. However, it also efficiently knocks people off housing benefit when they wrongly fall out of the support system. That means that when they finally ask for help, they are probably also facing an eviction notice. That is unnecessary. The Department could simply start them on the new benefit, which it already knows they qualify for. I have been told that the law does not allow that, for data protection or other reasons. The Bill would cut the Gordian knot.
There is significant delay in the system. I am aware of one constituent who, having been referred by the jobcentre to a local food bank, missed an appointment at the jobcentre. As a result, he was sanctioned. An appeal would take up to 10 weeks—three times longer than the sanction itself.
We should not overlook the effect on the health of those left in benefits limbo. The uncertainty, stress and choices for those without income experience do nothing to help their mental or physical health. They do not face a choice to heat or eat; they are left reliant on handouts and charity—a lack of dignity no one in this House would wish to impose on anyone.
There is the case in Westminster of child EG, who died of starvation after his mother, Mrs G, referred to in the serious case review, suffered a serious illness and died shortly afterwards. She was a survivor of domestic violence and, with her children, successfully sought asylum. After many months, however, she had still not been placed on mainstream state support. The serious case review reflected on the effect on her health, and that of her children, of ad hoc sources of income from charities and the local authority, the failure of the UK Border Agency to hand over necessary papers, the absurd requirement that she become homeless for the local authority or benefits agency to assist her, and the insecurity of her housing situation. The case review concluded that the situation was
“worrying for anyone; it must have been extremely difficult and contributed to her difficulty in managing her children and their collective health needs”.
This young mother found herself in a desperate situation. The failure of the authorities to get into gear and provide the support she needed contributed to a tragic outcome, yet in the months leading up to her death she was relatively well. I have examples of people left in similar situations—unable to pay the rent, in fear of debt collection and forced to rely on charity and food banks—because of the same bureaucratic delay and befuddlement that contributed to those deaths.
My office is authorised to hand out food vouchers for the local food bank. However, I have a case of someone who refused food vouchers, because he could not pay for the cost of cooking the food as he was destitute. Aside from the stress and anxiety an appeal causes to a person who is, in many cases—if not the majority—not fit for work and really rather ill, the Government announced in February that they were introducing a mandatory reconsideration pending appeal during which benefits were to be stopped. A freedom of information request issued in April this year revealed:
“If the claimant wishes to dispute this decision they must request that the decision maker looks at it again (mandatory reconsideration). Whilst the decision maker is reconsidering the decision, ESA cannot be paid as there is no legal basis to do so.”
ESA may not be paid, but at least the Department for Work and Pensions could ensure that people are not destitute by paying them JSA. The principle is the same when it comes to transfers from disability living allowance to personal independence payment, or indeed the payment of discretionary housing payments or other situations, such as the case of EG. At times, the Department clearly has evidence that people qualify for benefits, but does not manage to pay them and they end up destitute. I do not think that is the Government’s objective; however, the Bill is one way of resolving the issue. Another would be to introduce a legislative and regulatory reform order to remove the burden of a formal application.
It would be preferable to ensure that a claimant continued to receive regular payments and had any overpayment recovered over time, rather than leaving people at the mercy of the debt traps of payday loans or to be forced to rely on charity, food banks or emergency support. As the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), told me in a letter dated 23 October, there are stigmas and confusions associated with the system at present. As she told me, many claimants of ESA, having been found fit for work, fear making a claim for JSA because they think it might prejudice an appeal.
Although the Minister assures me that this fear is misplaced, I think it would be far better for the user if we removed that fear. Such a move should have no impact on the benefits budget, because it would be money someone is entitled to and a replacement for a benefit they would be getting otherwise. It would allow decision makers to make informed decisions in the time they need without leaving a claimant without income. Indeed, it would create a bureaucratic saving, because not having to process a backdated claim for housing benefit and council tax support would reduce the amount of effort for the state.
We need to remember that although some people have abused the benefits system in the past, there are also people who are confused about what is going on. As I have explained, that confusion can lead to tragedy, and the Government should support my Bill in order to avoid such tragedies. As I said, there are various routes towards this objective: the DWP might be able to manage it under current legislation and rules—although this is not clear—but a legislative and regulatory reform order would achieve the same outcome, and would also be quite a rapid process. As a member of the Regulatory Reform Committee, I am sure the Committee would welcome the work. Alternatively, I would be happy for the Government to take over the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Hemming and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
John Hemming accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November, and to be printed (Bill 125).
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
British remote gambling regulation is currently conducted on a point-of-supply basis. Only operators with at least one piece of their remote gambling equipment in Britain require a Gambling Commission licence and are subject to the required standards. This means that overseas operators offering gambling services to consumers in Britain are currently regulated not by the commission, but by the regulatory regimes in the countries in which they are based. In consequence, there are different regulatory standards and UK consumers might experience varying levels of protection, depending on the operator they are dealing with.
The Gambling Commission estimates that about 85% of remote gambling activity by UK consumers takes place with operators that the commission does not regulate. The Bill aims to regulate remote gambling on a point-of-consumption basis. With this change, all operators selling into the UK market, whether based in Britain or abroad, will be required to hold a UK Gambling Commission licence, making them subject to robust and consistent regulation, increasing protection for UK consumers, supporting action against illegal activity and establishing fairer competition for British-based operators.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Minister says that this is about regulation and stopping illegal activity. What proportion of people is currently estimated to bet illegally in the UK, and what will that estimate be after the Bill has been introduced?
Mrs Grant
At the end of the day, this is about establishing a level playing field. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me for a little while, because I shall go into that matter in greater detail.
The Bill aims to regulate remote gambling at the point of consumption. Under the new regime, overseas-based operators will be subject to the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005, its regulations and the Gambling Commission’s social responsibility and technical standards requirements. This will mean, among other things, that all licensed operators will be required to contribute to research, education and treatment in relation to British problem gambling, and to comply with licence conditions that protect children and vulnerable people.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
Just to help the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), may I point out that this is an important part of the licensing objectives of the Gambling Act, and that the Bill is consistent with those objectives?
Mrs Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
The Bill will also level the playing field for the advertising of remote gambling. At present, operators based in the European economic area or in a country on the “white list” can advertise remote gambling to consumers in Great Britain. The 2005 Act allows the Secretary of State to designate non-EEA jurisdictions that have strong regulatory systems comparable to Britain, and to give them permission to advertise remote gambling services in Britain. Those jurisdictions form what is informally known as the “white list”, and they include Antigua and Barbuda, the Isle of Man, the States of Alderney and Tasmania.
The Bill will repeal section 331 of the 2005 Act, removing the offence of advertising foreign gambling and, consequently, the distinction between EEA and “white list” countries, and non-EAA jurisdictions. Instead, all operators who hold Gambling Commission remote licences will be able to advertise to British consumers, regardless of where the operators are based. As now, gambling operators who wish to advertise in Britain will need to comply with the advertising codes of practice. Overseas operators that are required to hold but fail to obtain a Gambling Commission licence will be committing the offence of providing facilities for gambling or the separate offence of advertising unlawful gambling. The Gambling Commission is empowered to pursue and bring appropriate action against the operator concerned.
The repeal of section 331 will also have an impact on Northern Ireland, where gambling is a devolved matter. New provisions creating an offence of unlicensed advertising of remote gambling have been included in the Bill to ensure that Northern Ireland continues to have the same protections for the advertising of remote gambling as we have in Great Britain. The Northern Ireland Assembly formally agreed these changes through a legislative consent motion on 17 June. Gambling is a reserved matter with regard to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. Scotland, England and Wales will all receive the same protection in relation to the advertising and regulation of remote gambling.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Minister has kindly outlined the situation in Northern Ireland. Has she had discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive about the regulation of remote gambling in Northern Ireland? I know this is a devolved matter, but did the issue arise in the discussions on the legislative consent motion and, if so, what was the outcome?
Mrs Grant
I have not personally had any such discussions, but I am sure officials will have done so, and I know that the Gambling Commission and others will continue to liaise on this matter.
Clause 1(4) of the Bill confers a power on the Secretary of State to make provision, by statutory instrument, about
“the making, consideration and determination of advance applications”
for a remote operating licence. This will allow robust interim measures to be set up, permitting a smooth transition between the current regulatory regime on remote gambling and the proposed new regime. Similar powers were used as part of the 2005 Act.
I would like to thank the Culture, Media and Sport Committee for its thoughtful and thorough pre-legislative scrutiny of this small but important Bill, and for its support for the move to regulate remote gambling on a point-of-consumption basis.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I support the Bill, and I agree with its aim to ensure that there is a level playing field. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what financial benefits the Bill will bring to the Government and the taxpayer?
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the level playing field; that is certainly what the Bill sets out to achieve. However, this is about consumer protection, which is an important feature of the legislation. Taxation matters are ones for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Regrettably, a number of my friends have got into huge difficulties through gambling on smartphones, because the situation is so liberal. I appreciate that companies operating remote gambling will be brought onshore and regulated at UK level, but how will the Bill prevent individuals from getting into thousands of pounds-worth of debt and losing their homes, families and livelihoods?
Mrs Grant
This is exactly why we are seeking to regulate remote gambling. The process is quite circular in many ways. Unfortunately, according to the Gambling Commission, 85% of the remote gambling that takes place in Britain is unregulated. Many people are therefore not protected. The Bill will enable them to enjoy a more consistent and robust level of protection. That is exactly what the Bill is about.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
The Bill will also ensure that remote gambling organisations are paying something towards dealing with the outcomes of problem gambling.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Regarding the level playing field for domestically based businesses, the Minister will know that casinos pay tax and employ local people, yet they cannot undertake remote gambling from their premises. Will the Government look at what the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has said on this matter, and consider whether there should be changes to allow them to do so?
Mrs Grant
We will look at all the relevant information, and I am certainly happy to take another good look at what the Committee has said. The important thing for casinos is that they maintain a proper balance between table play and machine play, because we do not want them to become machine sheds, as some have suggested they might. I can confirm today that I am happy generally to review the issue of gaming machine provision in casinos.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Minister tell us how the measures in the Bill are to be enforced?
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
If a company set up in, say, China or America, and advertised only through the internet, would it be covered by the scope of the Bill? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that it would.
Mrs Grant
I must make some progress now.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for his sterling work on developing the Bill and getting it to where it is now. It is fitting that he should be sitting near to me, if not quite next to me, on the Front Bench today. I also want to pay tribute to the previous Administration’s review of the remote gambling regulatory framework, and I am pleased that the Bill has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Bill is largely a prudential measure to prevent what is currently a risk from becoming a major issue in future, especially as accessing online gambling products is becoming much easier—as has already been mentioned this afternoon—with the growth of smartphones and other portable devices.
According to the latest Gambling Commission statistics, remote gambling is very much on the increase—year after year, all year round—and increased by 10% in the last year alone. We must therefore take this opportunity to ensure that the Gambling Commission has the power to intervene if problems occur now or at some point in the future. The Bill will do just that, providing public protection for consumers based in Great Britain by tightening current legislation to ensure that all remote gambling, whether provided by UK or overseas suppliers, is a licensed activity subject to Gambling Commission standards and controls. I commend the Bill to the House.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I start by welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), to her new post, which I neglected to do under pressure of time at questions last week. I look forward to debating with her over the coming years. [Interruption.] Well, she may well keep her position in opposition.
The Bill has been a long time coming. The need for changes in the licensing of remote gambling operators was first identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) when he was Minister for Sport. Online gambling was first regulated in the UK in 2007. Since that time, in order to avoid taxation, all but one of our major online betting companies has moved offshore and they justified that by claiming that that is necessary to remain competitive. The consequence has been that these operators are outside UK regulation, which is one of the reasons why we are here debating this Bill today.
In 2009, my hon. Friend ordered a review of overseas gambling operators who advertised in the UK. In 2010, we began the consultation on extending Gambling Commission licensing to include online gambling operators offering services in the UK. Consultation responses were published after the general election in July of that year by the then Minister with responsibility for gambling, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), whom I see in his place. It was then a full year before he issued a written statement on the Government’s plans to legislate. The draft Bill was published in December 2012, and the Select Committee published its report on the draft Bill in May 2013. Four years and four Ministers later, we have finally got the Bill, so what was all the waiting about?
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I agree that there have been too many delays, but if the Labour party had not messed around with large-scale casinos and the accompanying shenanigans, could this not have been achieved under the last Government?
Clive Efford
As I said, the regulations on online gambling were introduced in 2007 and the issues relating to online gambling were identified in 2009 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South, who then began the process of dealing with the situation, and nothing was held up at all by casino gambling. We now have before us a five-clause Bill that deals with the licensing of remote gambling operators at the point of consumption. That is not contentious. Virtually everyone, including large parts of the gambling industry, is in favour of that.
The delay in bringing the Bill forward could be understood if it addressed many of the issues that have come to light since 2007. For instance, does the Bill include clauses to introduce financial penalties for companies that breach licensing codes? Does it set out detailed methods for enforcing compliance with new powers for the Gambling Commission? Does it require all licensed operators to display a kitemark to inform consumers that they are using a UK licensed online operator? Does it introduce a whole new set of penalties for operators who fail to report suspicious activities? Does it deal with betting advertising before the 9 pm watershed? Does it include requirements on operators to contribute to research on, and treatment of, gambling behaviour and problem gambling?
Does the Bill define what a betting shop should provide before it can advertise as such? Does it deal with unmanned betting shops providing self-service betting terminals? Does it create the framework for a single form of self-exclusion across the industry for those who need help with their gambling addiction? Does it deal with the anomaly of spread betting being regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority? Does it require every operator taking bets on horse racing from UK-based customers to contribute to a horse race betting levy? Does it require the betting industry to make some contribution to all sports from which it profits yet to which it makes no contribution? Does it deal with the issue of dormant accounts, on which the Government promised to legislate? This Bill deals with matters that have been under consideration for four years and on which there is pretty much unanimous agreement, so it is difficult to understand why we have had to wait so long, when the Bill is so limited in what it seeks to achieve.
James Duddridge
What the hon. Gentleman says is completely incoherent. He started by arguing that things should have happened faster, but then raised a whole series of issues that would have delayed the Bill even further. Which of those two things does he believe?
Clive Efford
My point is that if the Bill addressed those issues, we could understand the delay, but it does not. It deals only with something we all agreed with nearly four years ago. I am highlighting a number of issues about which people who monitor the gambling industry are concerned. It is perfectly legitimate for the House to raise and debate those issues, particularly when we are intending to legislate in a very important area of gambling activity.
Philip Davies
I wish the hon. Gentleman the best of luck with all the questions he peppered with the Minister, most of which seem wholly irrelevant to me. I hope he does better than I did when I posed a question to her, which did not seem to get an answer. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could answer my question, which is rather important for the purposes of this Bill. Can he tell us what proportion of gambling in the UK he estimates takes place with illegal operators, and what proportion of it will take place with illegal operators after this Bill has been introduced?
Clive Efford
The hon. Gentleman will know that the chief executive of the Gambling Commission said in the evidence she gave to the Select Committee on which he sits that there was very little reporting of illegal gambling activity from 80% of the market that was unlicensed—a point for which I shall return. The gambling prevalence survey, which last took place in 2010, has been abolished, so we have very little empirical evidence on which to base our views. What we do know, however, is that people have raised entirely legitimate concerns and we should address them in our consideration of legislation.
We could understand the delay if we had had a full legislative timetable from the Government, but we have not, so why have we waited so long? We want to say that we welcome the Bill and that we particularly welcome the adoption of Labour’s policy of regulating online gambling, but we are disappointed, given the time that the Government have had to consider these issues, that a number of them have not been included in the Bill.
Guy Opperman
I have been listening with fascination to the hon. Gentleman’s great speech. Will he assist us by explaining why, given the multitude of things that he would have liked to see included in the Bill, the Labour party did not introduce any of them when they were in government?
Clive Efford
Let me explain to Government Members that the Gambling Act 2005 was a major piece of legislation that has largely stood the test of time. When the legislation was put in place, the then Government said that the issues in the Bill would be kept under review. A number of areas have subsequently come to light, such as online gambling, which has grown exponentially over the last few years, that present some challenges to Government, in respect of which regulation might be necessary.
Mr Sutcliffe
The 2005 Act was the first parliamentary legislation on gambling since the 1960s. Betting changed dramatically between that period and the Budd report of 2000. This Bill represents the first time the present Government have allowed us to discuss gambling as an issue, and it may be the last time before the next election that we have an opportunity to look at the many issues affecting the gambling industry.
Clive Efford
I am grateful for the benefit of my hon. Friend’s knowledge of this issue. As he says, the Bill has been a long time coming. The Department has few opportunities to find time on the legislative calendar, and we should not waste this opportunity to explore all the aspects of online gambling that may need to be addressed.
Gambling is enjoyed by more than 56% of the population, and the figure rises to more than 70% if the purchase of lottery tickets is included. Obviously we welcome the move to create a level playing field between operators who have remained onshore and those who have moved offshore, have based themselves offshore, or have recently entered the market and wish to trade with United Kingdom customers.
However, when we consider legislation on matters of this kind, we tread a difficult path between our wish to promote an industry from which people gain a great deal of pleasure and our responsibility to protect the vulnerable. Online gambling is of particular concern because of its very nature. It is possible for vulnerable adults to indulge their addiction without leaving their homes, and hence to suffer alone while running up debts that they cannot hope to pay. It is our duty as legislators to create a safe and well-regulated environment in which people can enjoy the pleasure that they experience from gambling.
The online industry has grown to be worth more than £2 billion a year in a relatively short time, and with that has come a relative increase in the capacity of online gamblers with an addiction to lose money before anyone becomes aware of their problem. Unlike codes of conduct in other jurisdictions, the Bill contains no requirement for licensed operators to monitor the behaviour of their customers and intervene if they think there is a problem.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Is there not a potential for illegal sites to crop up all over the internet, left, right and centre, because of the lack of consumer protection in the Bill?
Clive Efford
I think that we shall be seeking assurances from the Government on the issue of consumer protection. We shall want to see exactly where the lines will be drawn, and where the Government feel that action should be taken if any form of illegal activity is taking place or there is no protection for vulnerable people.
Online gambling is an important issue of public concern, and we are entitled to know how the Government intend to monitor it. The Bill does not specify a point at which operators would be required to intervene, and to discuss directly with their customers whether there is a problem. Some people have expressed concern about the fact that we have a weaker regulatory framework than that which operates under the regulators in white-listed countries such as Alderney and Gibraltar. There is new technology designed to identify people who may have problems, but there has been no indication from the Government that they intend to use it to protect vulnerable consumers.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
One of the problems of the current system is that, while the likes of Gibraltar may have a fairly good regulatory system, those of other white-listed countries may be less than desirable.
Clive Efford
I have seen no evidence suggesting that any white-listed countries have a significantly lesser regulatory system. Indeed, the position appears to be quite the opposite when it comes to protecting vulnerable people. The Bill, however, opens the market to people who currently cannot operate within the United Kingdom, and that is one of the main points of concern. What steps does the Minister expect the Gambling Commission to take, and at what stage does she expect it to intervene if operators fail in their duty to monitor gambling activity?
There is widespread concern about pre-watershed gambling advertising. Although most gambling is not advertised before the watershed, there are exceptions for betting during sports fixtures that are televised before 9 pm. Can the Minister assure us, given the amount of concern about the issue, that she will consider reviewing that aspect of advertising regulation?
Although it is welcome that every gambling operator who advertises in the United Kingdom will be required to be licensed by the Gambling Commission, the Bill will open up the market to operators outside the European economic area and the white list. In her evidence to the Select Committee Jenny Williams, chief executive of the commission, said that
“the Gambling Commission received one or two reports per month from its online gambling licensees, who handled…20% of the market, but from the 80% licensed overseas the Commission had received a total of about ten since 2007. Ms Williams suggested it was implausible there were so few suspicious transactions.”
In that context, the Bill is a giant leap in the dark. What will be the demand on the commission’s resources? No one can say for certain what the scale of the problem may be. The Government have allowed themselves scope to regulate in the future, but given their reluctance so far to act to protect the consumer, we must insist on some indication from them of what they are prepared to tolerate before they will take such action. What will be their response if the commission says that it cannot cope with money from licence fees alone, and asks for extra resources? What if it needs extra powers with which to tackle the problems presented by the opening of our market to companies that are currently excluded? The Minister must explain what benchmarks the Government will set themselves, according to which we can hold them to account. It has taken so long for them to present the Bill that we cannot pass up the opportunity to secure from them clear guidelines explaining how they expect the market and the regulators to deal with these important issues.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I do not by any means agree with everything that is said by the Remote Gambling Association, but I do believe that the enforcement issue needs to be explored further during the Bill’s subsequent stages. According to the RGA, not only is the lack of enforcement measures problematic for the licensing regime, but the Government may experience problems in collecting the revenue that it expects to receive as a result of the change in the system overall.
Clive Efford
There is a great deal of concern about the details of the Bill. It is easy to understand why it is desirable, and, as I have said, we support it, but its application may present problems. As my hon. Friend says, during its further consideration we need to look into exactly how it will be enforced.
Any company that is paying the licence fee and doing its best to operate according to the highest standards has a right to expect the integrity of the licensing system to be rigorously enforced. There should be a kitemark on the website of every UK licensed operator to indicate clearly to the public that the company is a registered, licensed operator that is overseen by the Gambling Commission. We need to see some evidence that the Government have thought that through. Does the commission have enough scope within its powers to take action to protect consumers? What does it mean when it says that the provision of a kitemark will effectively happen? What form will the kitemark take, will it be easy to recognise, and will it provide links to information and advice from the commission, particularly information about the dangers of using unlicensed sites?
According to the Select Committee’s report, when asked why the Bill did not include measures on enforcement, such as provision for financial blocking or the blocking of specific internet protocol sites, the Government assured the Committee that “most were already available”. What does that mean? Will the commission have the power to request financial blocking? Will it be able to request an internet service provider to block an IP address? We should be expecting matters to move on considerably as a consequence of the Bill. Why should we miss this opportunity to give the commission the full range of powers? Why should we risk being behind the game and having to wait again for time in which to legislate?
It is surprising that the Bill contains no measures to ensure that spread betting is licensed in the same way as other forms of betting. It rightly requires all betting operators, wherever they are based, to comply with Gambling Commission licence condition 15.1, which means that betting operators will have to share irregular betting patterns with the commission and with sports bodies. The licence condition will then be integrated across the industry, with one notable exception. Spread betting is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, but it currently has no licence condition 15.1, although compliance with that code is cited—rightly—as one of the main justifications for the Bill. Just today I looked at the Sporting Index site. It offers a range of sporting spread bets, including on shirt supremacy. The specific example I looked at involved the Tonga versus Cook Islands match in the rugby league world cup. For anyone who is unclear, I should explain that shirt supremacy bets are about the difference between the totals of the numbers on the shirts of the try scorers of each team. Unlike traditional bets where people can win or lose a set amount, spread betting allows potentially unlimited losses. If I place a bet on Tonga and it loses on shirt supremacy by 23 points, I will be liable for 23 times my stake money.
Action on spread betting is strongly urged by sports bodies including the English cricket board, the Football Association, the Premier League and the Rugby Football League. They are experts in this field and work together on sports betting. Will the Minister accept an amendment to the Bill to require those who offer spread betting and who advertise to comply with licence condition 15.1, or will she give a commitment to work with her ministerial colleagues at the Treasury, who have responsibility for the FCA, to get it to introduce its own version of licence condition 15.1 as soon as possible?
Ian Lavery
Is there any reason whatever why spread betting, which is very complex and is different from any other form of betting, is regulated by the FCA rather than the Gambling Commission, and if so, should that prevent an amendment from being introduced to bring the regulation of all the gambling companies together?
Clive Efford
It is my understanding that because spread betting is seen as a financial transaction and commitment, rather than straightforward betting, it was felt it was better regulated by the FCA. However, there are requirements on those companies that are licensed to report any suspicious betting activity they identify—that is covered by licence code 15.1—and the anomaly created by this current situation is that every online gambling operator who wishes to advertise for custom within the UK will be licensed by the Gambling Commission, except for spread betting companies. The intention of this Bill is that everybody will be brought under one regime, thereby creating a system that is easily understood by the public. That intention is undermined by the lack of action in bringing spread betting into line in the same way.
James Duddridge
In terms of introducing amendments on spread betting, should we not distinguish between sports betting and, for example, foreign exchange spread bets, which may be covering an underlying financial transaction? That is materially different from betting on Southampton to win against Portsmouth.
Clive Efford
It can be difficult to draw a distinction between such transactions, and the hon. Gentleman has identified one of the reasons why spread betting is treated differently from straightforward betting. Some spread betting is provided by companies that also provide betting services, however, and therefore people might be confused about how this form of betting is regulated. We should consider how to deal with that. If the FCA is going to continue to be the regulator for spread betting, we must consider how it will comply with licence condition 15.1.
As I have said, there is a great deal of concern about problem gambling. Is the FCA able to deal with this issue? Is this a form of activity that would normally concern it? Does it have the power to require operators to have appropriate systems in place to identify individuals with problems? How will it monitor how the operators apply that?
If a scheme were introduced for people with gambling problems to self-exclude, how would it be implemented across two different enforcement regimes? If the Minister cannot satisfy herself that we can safeguard vulnerable people through the FCA, she must take steps to ensure that spread betting is regulated in the same way as all other forms of betting. In the meantime, however, will she give an assurance that spread betting operators who have a betting licence will be monitored by the commission for compliance with licence code 15.1? Should they be found to have failed to notify the FCA of suspicious activity, that must call into question whether they are fit and proper to hold a UK gambling licence, and the commission should have the power to take away their betting licence.
The European Parliament has recently passed a resolution calling on Governments to make match fixing a criminal offence. That has been taken up by Michel Platini, UEFA president, who has called for all European Governments to legislate. The request of Mr Platini is also supported by the Sports Rights Owners Coalition and David Collier, chief executive of the England and Wales Cricket Board, who, through his sport, is at the forefront of trying to ensure that every country across the world has as effective a regime as possible. So what is the response to Michel Platini’s request?
Is it possible to introduce a new clause into this Bill to amend section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 on cheating? The Minister may be aware that the report of the Sports Betting Integrity Panel in 2010 chaired by Rick Parry recommended that the definition of cheating in the 2005 Act be reviewed. The power in that Act to tackle match fixing is too loosely defined and is not used. Indeed, it was not used in the case of the Pakistani bowlers. They were prosecuted under fraud laws, because the definition of cheating did not cover that form of match fixing sufficiently for it to be used in that case.
The Parry report also had recommendations for sports governing bodies to improve their act. The sports have done what was asked of them. We are all now waiting for the Government to act, and we have to ask why this is: why, when we are attempting to create the most robust system for regulating the gambling industry here in the UK, would we fail to introduce this specific form of sanction? Will the Government consult the sports governing bodies to address the problem of match fixing?
Given the international nature of the remote gambling industry, it is not possible to monitor how operators act in other jurisdictions when reporting suspicious activities. If they fail to notify the relevant licensing authority in any jurisdiction in which they operate of suspicious gambling activities, not just those related to UK-based sports, the commission should have the power to consider whether to revoke their licence to operate here in the UK.
The Bill proposes to amend section 33 of the 2005 Act so that a person providing facilities for remote gambling without a licence in the UK is guilty of committing an offence only
“if the person knows or should know that the facilities are being used, or are likely to be used, in Great Britain.”
Similar assumptions should apply to the reporting of suspicious activities. If an operator has been found knowingly to be providing facilities for unlicensed remote gambling in another jurisdiction, the Gambling Commission must have the power to consider that and remove a licence. Similarly, if the operator is found to have failed to notify the appropriate licensing authority in another jurisdiction of suspicious activity, in the interests of protecting the consumer, the Gambling Commission should be able to revoke the licence of such an operator.
The Minister will know that the issue of overseas betting operators paying the horse racing levy has been a cause of frustration for Government over many years. In answer to a debate on this issue on 20 January 2011, the Minister’s predecessor but one, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, said:
“It is absolutely right for the House to urge the Government to come up with concrete proposals before the end of the year, and I am happy to accept that challenge, in line with the mood of the House.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 1067.]
It is now November 2013, and no Government solution to this issue is in sight.
At last Thursday’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions, the Minister said in answer to a question from me about whether she will review the Government’s legal advice in the light of the European Commission’s ruling on the French betting levy:
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a certain extent”—
so there is progress there—
“because the levy was created 50 years ago and does not completely deal with modern betting and racing practices, so, as I have previously said, I will consult. We will take evidence and look at the situation very carefully indeed, and try to find a modern, sustainable and enforceable legal solution.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 1062.]
The Bill, in effect, brings online gambling under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 in exactly the same way as bricks and mortar betting shops are covered. I ask her again to review the advice on this, because a simple solution may be available. The Government rejected previous attempts to regulate for a betting levy that includes online betting, which has had the support of those from all parts of the House, on the basis that it would not satisfy European state aid rules. I believe that all parties would like betting operators to pay a levy on all bets, as the 1963 Act says they should.
We now have a rare legislative slot and we cannot afford not to get this Bill right. I am talking about a policy that the Minister’s colleagues, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who is no longer in his place, have recently tried to pass into law, and I hope she will listen to them. There is a considerable legal view that the Bill will require levy payments automatically, as it will bring betting operators back into the regulatory environment and, de facto, within the scope of the 1963 Act. There is much concern in the industry that this should not be left to the courts to judge, as it inevitably will be.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
May I gently take the hon. Gentleman back to one clause of the Bill and leave aside the things that have been omitted from it just for a moment? As he will know, clause 4 applies specifically to Northern Ireland. Did he take time and the opportunity to consult the relevant Department in Northern Ireland about the provisions of the clause and, in particular, about the penalties for breaching it, as six months’ imprisonment seems light indeed?
Clive Efford
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Government are introducing the Bill, not me. I understand that we have been given evidence sessions for the Public Bill Committee, so perhaps there will be an opportunity for people to give evidence and speak on that issue.
On the 1963 Act, it would help considerably if the Minister could make a clear statement and commitments about the levy. Alternatively, she could work with all parties to consider a simple amendment to the Bill to finally address the issue. The recent decision by the European Commission approving the French levy on remote operators gives us further reassurance that a legislative approach is valid. There is considerable good will among Members from all parts of the House, and in the other place, for such a measure. If we all work together, we should be able to ensure that this issue does not drag on too far into the future.
The Government have said that they will legislate on unclaimed winnings and dormant betting accounts held by operators—[Interruption.] I assure the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that I will soon be coming to a conclusion, and I thank him for his contribution from a sedentary position. The 2010 report by the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) on dormant betting accounts and unclaimed winnings said:
“It is important to be able to establish whether betting operators and bookmakers are able to accurately identify the number of dormant betting accounts and others, such as unclaimed winnings that their business creates.
Unfortunately, the Gambling Commission do not hold figures on the number and size of dormant accounts.”
I say to the Minister that we are missing an opportunity to require betting operators to record exactly how much and what they hold in dormant betting accounts and unclaimed winnings, so that when the Government come to legislate, as they have promised to do, they will be able to deal with the issue.
The Bill could also have included a definition of just exactly what constitutes a “betting shop”. The Gambling Commission definition of the “primary gambling activity” has permitted Trafalgar Leisure to introduce self-service betting terminals alongside fixed-odds betting terminals—FOBTs—in unstaffed premises, albeit against the better judgment of the commission. The commission is consulting on a new definition for the primary gambling activity test for its licence conditions and codes of practice, and anticipates being able to deal with the issue. However, it has unsuccessfully tried to interpret the primary purpose rule to require over-the-counter betting rather than move towards automated betting shops. At a time when there are concerns about single manning in betting shops, it is unacceptable that gambling organisations are seeking to remove the necessity to have staff at all. Will the Minister consider setting out in this Bill what services should be offered by betting shops if they wish to be licensed as such, and remove this loophole once and for all?
In conclusion, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but more needs to be done. I hope that the Minister will consider the issues I have raised with her today and enter into cross-party discussions, so that we can all agree on a Bill that will protect vulnerable people and create the licensing system that is the gold standard for the world.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
May I begin by reminding the House of my entry in the register showing that I paid a visit to Gibraltar in September, at the invitation of the Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association, to discuss the provisions of the Bill?
Mr Whittingdale
I am not sure that there is anything on that point, but I am happy to give way.
Paul Farrelly
Following the hon. Gentleman’s discussions over the summer with the Gibraltar-based companies, can he tell the House whether they are still minded to launch a last-minute legal action in Europe against these provisions? When he was there, did he discourage them from doing so?
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Gibraltar gaming authorities whether they intend to launch legal action. They have certainly expressed concern as to whether the Bill’s provisions are legal, and it is obviously up to them whether they take legal action. I made it clear to the authorities and the gaming associations that I supported the Bill, and that therefore I would certainly discourage them from doing so. They did raise some concerns, which I shall discuss in the course of my remarks.
I wish to make it clear that my Select Committee supports the Bill’s general provisions, as do I. The Committee has spent some time examining gambling. We carried out post-legislative scrutiny in 2011-12 of the entire Gambling Act 2005. Although we examined online gaming, which is obviously the most rapidly increasing form of gambling, inevitably the main focus on the 2005 Act related to casinos, the previous Government’s abortive attempt to introduce regional casinos—super-casinos—in the UK and the provisions relating to fixed odds betting terminals in betting shops. I do not propose to explore the latter issue at great length today, although it remains one of some controversy.
Hon. Members may recall that when that Gambling Bill became an Act, the then Secretary of State declared that one of its purposes was to make the UK the world centre for online gaming and that that would be of great benefit to the UK economy. Unfortunately, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer holed the then Secretary of State amidships by setting the tax rate at a level that led to almost every operator moving offshore. There is a single exception, which I am sure the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), my friend from the Select Committee, will mention: bet365 remains the last operator headquartered in the UK. Almost all the others have moved to offshore jurisdictions such as Gibraltar, Alderney and some European Union member states.
The system that existed at that time of operating a white list to recognise the regulatory authorities of different jurisdictions appears, in the main, to have worked reasonably well. The Government, in putting forward the arguments for this Bill, have raised one or two concerns about how the current regime works. In particular, they have said that there is some confusion about the different regimes in different jurisdictions, and that consumers may sometimes be confused as to where responsibility lies and where they should go with their complaints.
There are undoubtedly some differences between the rules applied in different jurisdictions. I agree with the Remote Gambling Association that, in general, the industry is reasonably well regulated in the white list countries. As CARE—Christian Action Research and Education—has pointed out, one or two jurisdictions, particularly Gibraltar, operate slightly stronger regulatory conditions than those in the UK. In particular, the Gibraltar rules governing the reporting of suspicion that individuals might have a problem with their gambling habits are slightly stronger. The UK Gambling Commission might want to consider whether it can tighten its licensing conditions, particularly on problem gambling, which is rightly a great concern to everybody who considers gambling and the policies governing it.
Philip Davies
I challenge my hon. Friend, who does a fantastic job as the Chair of the Select Committee, to stand there and say with a straight face that he believes that the Bill is all about regulation. Might he concede that it is more to do with taxation than regulation?
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend has made his view known during the course of our debates and I shall reach a conclusion on that point very shortly. As I say, however, the Government have advanced the argument that the Bill will result in major gains in consumer protection.
Paul Farrelly
Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the example of Full Tilt Poker, which was licensed by Alderney but not, as we understood it, by Malta, demonstrates the scope for greater regulatory co-operation, particularly in Europe?
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman anticipates the next two words on my notes, which read “Full Tilt”. He is, of course, correct. Something went badly wrong with Full Tilt Poker, which was regulated by the Alderney gambling control commission. It is right that there should be a review of how that happened and I understand that lessons will be learned. There have certainly been concerns about some incidents in white list countries, and for that reason there might be some advantages to consumer protection of bringing the entire remote gambling industry under the licensing rules of the UK Gambling Commission.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) spent some time on match fixing and licence condition 15.1. He is quite right that the Select Committee received evidence on that and there is no doubt that all the major sporting bodies support the Bill, because they have expressed concern that some of the other regulatory authorities outside the UK have not always been particularly good at reporting suspicious activities. Indeed, if we consider the statistics, we can see that there have been far more reports of potential suspicious gaming activity from UK-licensed operators than from offshore operators. If licence condition 15.1 is applied to all those offering online gambling facilities to UK customers, I hope that that will result in more attention being given to the issue.
I was also interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about spread betting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) points out, there is difficulty in drawing a line between where sports betting stops and financial transactions begin. If it were possible for the Financial Conduct Authority to require suspicious activity to be reported to the relevant regulatory body, that would seem to be a sensible move.
Mr Sutcliffe
Would not having sports betting rights be a good idea, so that we could sort out the definition of financial transactions related to the market? If sports had their own betting rights and the ability to sell their sports to the betting operators, that would clarify any problems with the definition.
Mr Whittingdale
I think that would go rather further than defining sports betting and financial speculation and would have other implications that would need further consideration. I am not sure that I am convinced by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I would certainly be happy to debate it with him later.
Let me return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. The Government have made it very clear that the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen consumer protection and, of course, the Committee accepted the evidence given to us by the Minister on that point. It is important that that is its purpose, because if it had other purposes the Government might, as has been pointed out, be vulnerable to legal challenge. However, it seems entirely acceptable to argue that those people who sell gambling services to UK consumers should be required to pay UK tax. Although that might not be the purpose behind the Bill, if the consequence is that they come within the tax net, that would benefit the Exchequer and create a level playing field, which it is important we should have.
Some operators might even choose to return to the UK once the new licensing regime comes in. I realise that the level at which the tax is set is not an issue for my hon. Friend the Minister, but that is what will determine whether they return. Many of the remote gambling operators in Gibraltar and other jurisdictions have expressed concern that there is a danger that the tax will be set too high, which will have an impact on their operations and create an incentive for consumers to look elsewhere—to go outside the licensed operators to the black market. That is a serious threat, which I want to talk about.
Philip Davies
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Treasury has already given some estimates of the amount of money it expects from this measure? It believes that if the tax is imposed at a 15% rate, 20% of the UK market will be unlicensed, unregulated and not paying tax. That will mean that a higher proportion of people will be playing on unregulated sites.
Mr Whittingdale
That is a matter for the Treasury, but I agree with my hon. Friend that a 15% rate would have a damaging impact. The Remote Gambling Association has suggested 5% as a reasonable level, but the Treasury will obviously have to examine that and strike a balance. The Treasury will need to bear in mind the risk not only that its revenues might suffer if consumers were driven from the licensed market to the black market but that consumers would suffer, as they would have none of the protections that would result from the new licensing requirements in the Bill. That seems to be at the heart of the issue, so although it is important that we should debate all the provisions in the Bill, the critical question will be determined not by the Minister but by her colleague in the Treasury.
One or two other concerns have been raised, particularly about the fact that this is an enormous new responsibility for the UK Gambling Commission, which will have to issue licences to a huge number of operators based in all parts of the world. The Select Committee had some concerns about the commission’s ability to do that and about the resource implications. The Gibraltar betting and gaming association has raised the concern that the change could result in brass plating, with the Gambling Commission merely giving an operator a tick because it does not have the resources to go to the other jurisdictions to question the regulating authorities. The UK Gambling Commission will have to rely on other regulators in a way not dissimilar from its reliance on those on the white list, so if it is to accept the regulatory approval of other regulators in different countries it is important that it satisfies itself that those regulators are doing a good job. That might require additional resources, and we expressed some concerns about the degree of the extra responsibilities that will be placed on the commission.
Let me return to the question of the consequence of consumers being driven into the black market. The industry is highly competitive and a very small difference in cost can result in operators offering more attractive odds than the licensed operators. On those grounds, there is a risk that people will look towards the black market.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making a succinct point, but does he agree that online customers are more promiscuous than their retail counterparts and will follow prices more closely than those who have a loyalty to the shop and the shop manager?
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman is almost certainly right. Obviously, people go to high-street betting shops to bet, but they also do so for other reasons. They form friendships and it becomes a social environment. None of that exists in online gambling; it is being done in bedrooms by gamblers on their own, and they will look for the site where they can get the best odds. Therefore we need to look at measures to ensure that they do not go into the black market.
Paul Farrelly
Before the Chairman of the Select Committee perhaps over-eggs fears of the black market, will he explain why, in the last year, the gambling revenues of bet365—he was right that I would mention bet365, and I will do so again later—have risen from £12 billion to £20 billion, when it operates in the UK and pays tax on its sports betting activities at 15%, rather than the near 1% in Gibraltar?
Mr Whittingdale
I am delighted to hear of the success of the company based in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but he will remember that when witnesses from bet365 gave evidence to the Committee they said that it was becoming increasingly difficult for them to remain in the UK, and unless something was done soon, they might very reluctantly have to follow the exodus. Happily, I hope the Bill will address that, but as I said earlier, it all comes back to the rate of tax that is levied. We want a rate of tax that is attractive to online operators, so that they license themselves in the UK, and does not drive people into the black market.
However, other measures are also required, and one or two of those who have made representations on the Bill have said that the Government must consider taking other measures to prevent illegal gambling online. There are several ways in which that could be done. They are not dissimilar to the measures that we have been looking at in order to tackle online piracy.
There are three potential ways forward. The first is to work with payment companies to ensure that unlicensed sites cannot use the payment facilities offered by credit card companies. The second is IP blocking—actually, URL blocking—preventing access via the internet to certain websites. That has technical difficulties but is certainly worth exploring. In the third, search engines have a role. I expect that my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the vigorous debates that have taken place with Google about the extent to which it is willing to take responsibility to ensure that illegal websites, or websites offering illegal products, do not appear at the top of their search engine results. That too is an area where more work could be done to make it harder for consumers to be tempted by illegal online operators once the new regime is in place. Those are genuine concerns, which I hope the Government will address in the course of debate.
I shall flag up one more issue. An anomaly was identified to the Select Committee, about which we had considerable sympathy. Casinos are among the safest places to gamble. They have strong measures in place to prevent money laundering, to identify those at risk of problem gambling and, if necessary, to exclude individuals and so on. They also have experienced, well trained staff on the premises. For all those reasons, a casino is one of the safer places to gamble—certainly considerably safer than in a bedroom alone, where people are able to gamble for lengthy periods without any controls and to lose a huge amount of money.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. Does he agree that we could usefully employ British bricks-and-mortar casinos, which have an excellent reputation for responsible gambling, to operate some of the online gambling on their premises, to allow them to monitor how it is working and, indeed, then help to frame any regulations that we might need in future?
Mr Whittingdale
That is an interesting idea, but my hon. Friend’s suggestion runs straight into the problem—the anomaly that the Select Committee received evidence about—that it still will not be possible for casinos to offer their own remote gambling facilities within their buildings. I could go into a casino and place a bet using my own iPad or iPhone or other online device, but when the Bill is passed, the casino will not be able to offer that facility through remote terminals, or by giving out their own devices. That seems an extraordinary anomaly, so the Select Committee suggested that the Bill should be amended to remove it, and to allow casinos to offer a remote gambling facility as well. I was disappointed that the Government appeared not to accept our argument, and I hope they will still think about that and perhaps allow an amendment to the Bill in the course of debate.
However, having said that, I have no doubt that the Bill is desirable because it strengthens the protection available to UK consumers who indulge in online gambling, and may have the additional benefit of resulting in some additional revenue, in due course, to the UK Exchequer. On that basis, I and the Select Committee support the Bill.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a trustee of the Responsible Gambling Trust, a great organisation that promotes research, education and treatment for problem gamblers. The entire gambling industry contributes to the fund on a voluntary basis. As the former Minister, I threatened that if it did not do so voluntarily, we would introduce a compulsory levy, but I am happy to report that it agreed and has raised over £5 million for research, education and treatment.
I mention that because I think the gambling industry is a very fair industry. Before I set out the context of the Bill, I notice that the deputy Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), has arrived in his place, so I put it on the record that the Bill had its origins in my time as the Minister with responsibility for gambling and sport, on the prompting of the right hon. Gentleman. It was his idea to tackle the anomaly of remote gambling, so I place on record my thanks to him for his support during that time, when we were considering these issues.
I welcome the Minister to her position in the best job in government—the Minister for sport. It is unfortunate that it comes with gambling, tourism and other things on top, which is a bit of a problem. I am pleased that she has been able to get the Bill to the House today for its Second Reading; notwithstanding the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made about the time that that has taken, at least we are here today.
We seldom have opportunities to discuss gambling in such a context. There is a lot of hysteria about fixed odds betting terminals and the proliferation of betting shops—topics that I am sure we can discuss in a quieter environment sometime soon—but gambling contributes a lot to our economy in jobs, taxation and betting companies’ support for sport. In our efforts to protect the consumer, we should not lose sight of the context of where the industry is and how good it is. Those are the principal points around the licensing objectives of the Gambling Act 2005—to protect the vulnerable, to provide consumer support, to keep crime out of gambling and to give a fair and open opportunity for the industry.
The 2005 Act came about following the Budd report in 2000. As I said in an intervention, the previous piece of legislation was in the 1960s. To those of us old enough to remember that, betting and gaming was seen as something dodgy—something associated with crime. It was illegal to advertise it. Betting shops were behind closed doors and frosted glass windows, and it was a very male-dominated environment. Gambling has changed tremendously over that period. One needs only to look at the success of the national lottery to see how gambling has become part of the psyche of people in the UK.
We need to ensure that people who have a problem with gambling are supported. The last prevalence study showed that 0.7% of people had problems with gambling. I say that to the Minister, because I remember from my time No. 10 and No. 11 saying, “Keep gambling off the front pages.” They were worried about the Daily Mail; they were worried about the anti-gambling media. Sometimes, that does not help us to have a legitimate debate about some of the issues that flow from the development of gambling.
I am delighted to be a member of the Select Committee. The former gambling Minister, Richard Caborn, was brave enough to tell the Committee that we did not get it quite right in the 2005 Act. What he meant was that the Act had got caught up in the wash-up at the end of the Session, where deals are done to try to get Bills through. The deal on numbers of fixed odds betting terminals and shops was not a worked-out formula—it is just that that was the debate at the time—so it is right and proper that we look at all the issues around the Gambling Act 2005. Although her officials will be guiding the Minister to view the detail of the Bill in terms of online issues, I urge her to look at wider issues and to try to put right some of the wrongs in the 2005 Act. The Minister will be waiting to hear the outcome of the research by the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, which will be ready next year and should give a detailed solution to the problems associated with fixed odds betting terminals.
I return to the subject of casinos, which the Chair of the Select Committee raised. The problem of the portability of the licensing of casinos has been around for a while. There are 68 licences, some of which have not been taken up, but buildings are maintained because the licence applies to the building. I hope the Minister will accept some amendments relating to casinos and the unfair treatment that casinos have received as a result of the Gambling Act. Casinos are some of the most highly regulated places in the gambling sector and consumers are well looked after by the casino operators. I hope there will be some flexibility on the issues of portability and online opportunities.
The Bill puts consumers at the heart of gambling. We considered the issue in 2008, with the support of the right hon. Member for Bath, now the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household. There was a need to make sure that consumers were protected. I know that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is concerned about taxation and he is right to be concerned about the level of that taxation, but that should not take away from the fact that the Bill needs to be enacted for consumer protection.
One of the things I did as Sports Minister was look at sports betting integrity, which is a parallel issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), speaking from the Front Bench, raised the issue of the Pakistani cricketers. There have been numerous problems in relation to cheating, match fixing and so on, so we set up the sports betting integrity panel chaired by Rick Parry, which produced a report calling for education in sports for players of all age groups to make sure that they were aware of the risks from the type of gambling that could take place. Some footballers, for instance, think it is not cheating to kick the ball out to get two corners or two throw-ins, because some people bet on that, but it is cheating and we have to make sure that people are aware of that.
I hope that when we go through the detail of the Bill in Committee we will look at bodies such as the Sports Betting Group that were set up after the Parry report. Such bodies included people from football, cricket, rugby union, horse racing and many other sports, who have followed some of the recommendations of the Parry report. One of their great concerns is spread betting, a topic that has been raised. The issue of how spread betting is defined needs looking at. The Chairman of the Select Committee did not take up my offer of looking at sports betting rights, but I hope the Minister might consider including that in her discussions with the sports.
One aspect of the Bill that concerns me is the inability to pursue the online gambling organisations for a contribution to the horse racing levy. I was delighted when the Minister was able to announce the agreement reached between the betting companies and the horse racing industry on the levy. Online operators should contribute to the levy as well.
As I said, research, education and treatment are important, so I would welcome opportunities to increase support for the trust in promoting that.
The Minister should look at the European directive on money laundering. Although we are all agreed that money laundering is undesirable, the directive affects on-cost bookmakers and the limits on what they are able to pay out on bets. We require some flexibility on the directive, which went through 27-0 on its last reading. I urge the Minister to speak to the Federation of Racecourse Bookmakers about how the money laundering regulations might affect them.
The Bill is welcome. It is important that we have the opportunity to protect consumers and to do the necessary tidying-up in the gambling industry. I found the gambling sector to be mindful of its responsibilities to consumers and of its contribution to employment and our economy. I support the Bill and look forward to its Committee and remaining stages.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who was an excellent Minister in the Labour Government and is an excellent man. I am not saying that just because he is one of my constituents. I genuinely mean it. I do not think he votes for me, but I have not given up hope on him just yet. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who does a superb job chairing the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and trying to bring a consensus to it, which is sometimes a challenge, but he does it with great skill.
I do not intend to divide the House on the Bill. I support its premise, but we are in a rather strange situation. The basis on which I support the Bill is not the one on which the Government are promoting it. It is the one basis on which the Government are desperate to pretend they are not introducing the Bill, even though it is clearly the case that the Bill is nothing to do with regulation; it is to do with taxation. I will deal with regulation in a moment.
We know what is behind the Bill and we do not need to guess: it is all about filling the Treasury’s coffers, although it probably will not fill them as much as the Treasury would like. The Chancellor made the objective clear in his Budget speech last year, when he said:
“One area where I am today making substantial changes is gambling duties. . . The current duty regime for remote gambling introduced by the last Government was levied on a ‘place of supply’ basis. This allowed overseas operators largely to avoid it, and much of the industry has, as a result, moved offshore. Ninety per cent. of online gambling consumed by our citizens is now supplied from outside the UK, and the remaining UK operations are under pressure to leave. This is clearly not fair—and not a sensible way to support jobs in Britain. So we intend to introduce a tax regime based on the place of consumption—where the customer is based, not the company—and, from this April, we will also introduce double taxation relief for remote gambling. These changes will create a more level playing field, and protect jobs here.” —[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 803.]
It is perfectly clear what the Government are doing—the Chancellor could not have made it any clearer, and I fully support what he said. I thought there was a great deal of sense in it and I think most people here would agree with him.
The problem is that the Chancellor made no reference in his Budget speech to the need to introduce measures to improve player protection or to better regulate the gambling industry. I do not think that was accidental. It was perfectly obvious why. The Bill has nothing to do with regulating the gambling industry or improving player protection.
The Select Committee enjoyed hearing from the chief executive of the Gambling Commission and from the permanent secretary, struggling to think of any reasons why the current regime needed improving from a player protection perspective. I was slightly embarrassed for them. They were in a difficult position. They had come to argue the indefensible—that the Bill was all about regulation. When they were pressed to identify the issues that had caused all the problems and require new legislation, we did not get anything from them. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) made the point about Full Tilt. If anybody can give an extensive list of all the problems that have been created by the current system of regulation, I would be very pleased to hear it, as would the other members of the Select Committee, I am sure. We did not hear much of it from the chief executive or from the permanent secretary.
Paul Farrelly
One of the main problems is the flight offshore. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 2012 Budget statement and the elimination of double taxation. Does he agree that that is extremely important if we are to encourage British firms based overseas to relocate here, because taxing their profits in Britain and elsewhere would make them uncompetitive?
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I intend to talk about taxation more widely a little later, because it plays a crucial role.
My understanding—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that the Bill is all about regulation because that is what is needed to satisfy the European Union and make it fit within its rules. Were the Government to admit that it is all about taxation, the European Union would be all over it like a rash and would rule that it is illegal because it interferes with tax competition and will upset other parts of the EU. That is why the Government have been desperately trying to pretend that the Bill is all about regulation, even though we know that it is not.
I am sure we all agree with what the Chancellor said in his Budget statement—I certainly do—but I am not entirely sure that it was particularly helpful to the Government more widely or to the Minister in this instance. The Chancellor talked about protecting jobs here, and I am sure that he had in mind the company that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme represents, bet365. It should be commended not only for ensuring that it protects all the jobs in his area, but for the commitment it gives to the area more generally, because it sponsors the local football club and is involved in the local community. We should all congratulate bet365 on what it has done.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made clear, bet365’s representatives told the Select Committee in evidence that the company would be under pressure to leave if the current situation continued for much longer. Furthermore, they said that it was only really here because it was a privately owned company. They conceded that it would almost certainly have had to go offshore if it was a public limited company. The fact that it is a private company is what has allowed it to stay. Therefore, I do not necessarily think that we should criticise those that have gone offshore, because it was an inevitable consequence of the tax system and it would be naive to think otherwise.
I would prefer to try to allow bet365 to stay here, which of course we want, but it would be nice if our ambitions were a little grander. I would like to see some of the companies that are already offshore return to the UK, which is why the tax rate is so important. If we introduce a 15% tax rate, there is no chance of any of those firms returning. I encourage the Minister to encourage her Treasury colleagues to indulge in some negotiations with the betting companies to see what agreement can be reached, because I would much prefer us to set a tax rate that enabled them to come back or to bring back some of their operations. That would also mean an awful lot of jobs coming back here. That would be a much more sensible way forward, rather than seeing it as an immediate cash cow.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I want to touch on the levy, because a number of Members have suggested that we should be compelling companies that are currently offshore to pay it, just as onshore companies have to. I think that argument is a bit of a red herring. There is a perfectly clear and respectable argument for those offshore to pay the same as those onshore, including the levy, but I do not think that it would make a fat lot of difference to the money raised from the levy going from bookmakers to racing. I am delighted that an agreement has been reached between racing and bookmakers, but in my view, and that of others, including the hon. Member for Bradford South, who are better qualified than me to decide whether what I am saying is right, it seems that Ministers decide at the start how much the gambling industry should contribute towards racing—perhaps arriving at a figure of around £75 million—and then come up with a mechanism on the levy to deliver that.
If offshore companies are included in the levy, my suspicion is that exactly the same thing will take place. The Minister will think that £75 million is about right and will then change the mechanism so that it delivers that amount. Those people in racing who think that that is a way to get an awful lot more money from the betting industry are simply misguided, although I can see why they think it. It would not generate any more money; it would just change the formula by which these things are calculated.
Chris Evans
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from that point, does he agree that horse racing makes up 23% of betting shops’ business, whereas the entire online business is 23%, and most online gambling is poker, bingo and other things, so we have to be very careful when we involve online companies in the levy?
Philip Davies
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. We should be very careful before going down any of these routes and should look for any unintended consequences.
I do not think that the proposal will deliver the revenue that the racing industry thinks it will. If the Government are concerned that this will entangle them in a huge legal minefield in the European Union, it seems to me to be a pointless battle to get into when it will generate no extra money for racing anyway. I therefore urge the Minister, whatever representations she receives, to resist going down that route, because I think she will be led down a blind alley, whatever the superficial attractions.
I speak as a rather modest owner of racehorses—an owner of rather modest racehorses is probably a better description, to be honest—so I am really arguing against my own interests, because in theory increasing the levy yield is supposed to benefit people like me.
Philip Davies
Yes, the levy would kick in only if my horse won some prize money, and given how rarely that happens I suppose it would not make much difference. It is a distant dream one way or the other.
I want to concentrate on taxation, because I thought that the question I asked at the start of the Minister’s speech was rather simple and got to the nub of the issue. If this is all about regulation and player protection, surely the first question the Government must have asked is how many people are currently playing on illegal betting sites. I cannot believe that nobody has looked into that, because it seems the obvious question to ask. I did not hear an answer, and I am not sure whether there is one, but I venture that it will be at least 95%. If anybody wishes to argue with that, they are welcome to intervene.
Mr Speaker
Order. For the record, that was an intervention from Mr Duddridge, but it was uttered from a sedentary position. It is better to stand up on these occasions.
Philip Davies
I very much agree, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend’s idleness is not to be commended. I will bear that in mind in future and give priority to those who can be bothered to stand up when intervening.
The 95% figure is my hypothesis. Nobody here appears to disagree with it. If the Gambling Commission wants to supply us with information following the debate to gainsay that, I will be happy to read it, but I do not believe that anybody is seriously arguing that at least 95% of gambling takes place with people who are properly licensed and registered. The Government seem to have got themselves into a bit of a muddle. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee, the Government have not made it clear what they think is currently bet with illegal sites, but they have made a very good stab at guessing what will be bet with illegal sites after this Bill has come to fruition. The Treasury, which obviously has pound signs in its eyes as it sees the Bill progressing through Parliament, has already made its forecasts for the revenue it expects to get from it. The assessment of remote gambling taxation in its 2012 Budget policy costings suggests that if a place-of-consumption tax is imposed at a 15% rate, about 20% of the UK market will be unlicensed, unregulated and therefore not paying tax.
Paul Farrelly
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Treasury really knows what it is talking about in making that stab in the dark, or does it perhaps not wish to over-egg expectations of the revenue it is going to raise, so that if it ends up at 95% it will have exceeded expectations?
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman may have no faith in the Treasury. I am happy to go along with the Office for Budget Responsibility, which wants to look at this to see what revenue can be expected. In fact, I am happy to look at anybody’s genuine predictions.
This is a Government Bill that is supposed to be about increasing regulation and player protection. However, the Government themselves admit in their own Treasury forecast that it will result in our moving from a situation where probably fewer than 5% of people are betting with unlicensed and unregulated sites to one where about 20% of people are likely to be betting in that way. Does that sound like a sensible strategy for a Government who are introducing a Bill to improve player protection and the regulation of the gambling industry? It is complete nonsense and it is there for all to see. This has nothing to do with regulation or player protection; it is about taxation and tax rates, as the Treasury made abundantly clear in its forecast.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend think that the reason why the Treasury is using the 20% figure is that it accepts what I and, I suspect, my hon. Friend believe to be the case, which is that punters will seek the best odds and that this Bill will increase the costs on the operators and result in their offering less good odds than those who are not so regulated?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As an occasional punter myself, I can speak with some authority in saying that I am very interested in which bookmaker is offering the best odds—naturally; that is what punters do. In many respects, online horse racing punters have never had it so good in terms of the competitiveness of the odds and offers such as “best odds guaranteed”, which means that if someone backs a horse at a particular price and its starting price is bigger than the price they backed it at, they will get the bigger price—a fantastic offer for punters. All those offers will probably cease once this Bill comes to fruition, when the cost base of bookmakers will go up. That will be a bad thing for punters, who will lose out on the returns they get from their gambling. That is an inevitable consequence of the Bill; it is no good pretending that it is not, and we should be open and honest with people about it. If they still think it is a good Bill anyway, that is fair enough, but at least we should be honest about its implications. There are no painless panaceas whereby everybody will get more money out of it; somebody has to lose, and the loser is undoubtedly going to be the punter.
Because of the competitive nature of the market and the fact that many punters have become used to betting with concessions such as “best odds guaranteed”, some online betting sites will obviously see an advantage in going somewhere else—in being unregulated, not applying for a licence, and hoping that the fact they are not advertising on Sky TV, or wherever it might be, will be overcome by their offering concessions that punters have come to love and that give them much greater value. That is clearly what the Treasury has factored into its predicted revenues. Because it has built its prediction on a tax rate of 15%, it is crucial for everybody concerned that the tax rate introduced when the Bill comes into being is not 15%, because the lower the tax rate, the less the chance of people using unregulated sites and of companies that are currently licensed and regulated becoming unlicensed and unregulated. I support the Bill in principle, but the key part of it is not this Minister’s responsibility but the relevant Treasury Minister’s. I hope she will keep his feet to the fire to make sure that what she intends is not undermined by the Treasury.
Mr Laurence Robertson
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. He talked about people being tempted to bet illegally, possibly because of the withdrawal of special offers. I am sure he is aware, because he has greater knowledge of this than me, that in several countries there is monopoly betting, usually a tote monopoly, and it is illegal to bet beyond that, yet because the internet is so very difficult to control, people in those countries do bet illegally every day, all the time.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He undersells how much he knows about this subject; he is far more of an expert than me. When the Select Committee took evidence on gambling during a visit to Brussels, where we met European Union regulators and others in Europe, it was clear that levels of illegal gambling in countries with much greater restrictions than ours were far higher. We can predict what happens if the restrictions imposed are too onerous, because we have seen it in other countries. People go on to illegal sites. As my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee explained, the efforts made to try to stop people doing that are not particularly successful, as they can be got round. If the focus is on closing down internet sites, they will immediately reopen elsewhere. If it is on blocking credit card payments, people will use PayPal and other methods to get round those restrictions too. It is a pointless exercise. People who want to get round these restrictions will do so. Other countries have proved that, because they have tried them all and they have all spectacularly failed. Nothing will change in this regard, because the Bill is not really about regulation but taxation.
I am concerned about the impact with regard to the Gambling Commission, which, like all quangos and bureaucracies, likes nothing more than a bit of empire building. I suspect that it has seen the Bill and thought, “My goodness me, all our Christmases have come at once!” Whereas before it has had to accept the licensing and regulation from the white list countries, and accept the companies that are considered to be good enough, it can now get its teeth into every single one of them. It can go jetting around the world checking out whether all these individual companies should be a given a licence. Lord knows how many extra people it will need in order to satisfy itself that those companies are fit and proper to advertise their wares in the UK and get themselves an appropriate licence. This Bill is a bureaucrat’s dream. I would be interested to hear what steps are being taken to stop any empire building by the Gambling Commission, because I am sure that would be an unintended consequence of the Bill, allowing a huge bureaucracy to grow on the back of it.
I do not know what the great problem was with the white list. During our Select Committee hearings, I was scrabbling around trying to think of examples of problems. Only one sprang to mind, which was a notorious case where the legendary gambler Barney Curley pulled off a huge coup one day when he had four horses running at different meetings around the country; I think one was somebody else’s that he used to train. The first three won and the last one, fortunately for the bookmakers, lost, but with three out of four winners he still reportedly ended up making a profit on his bets of some £10 million. He was paid out by all the British bookmakers, but the regulator in Gibraltar, I think, allowed the bookmakers based there not to pay him out, which led to a huge dispute over a long period. I think I am right in saying that the situation was eventually resolved and they paid him out.
That is the only case I can recall where the regulation in one jurisdiction was fundamentally different from that in another and the returns to the punter were materially affected. Nobody who came to the Committee ventured that particular example—I ventured it—so they did not seem to be acutely bothered about it. I am not sure, therefore, what was wrong with the old regime.
Mr Syms
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Gambling Commission already charges high fees on the domestically based industry. Is there not a risk not only that it will chase revenue from remote firms, but that it may have to put up the fees for the whole industry, including those that are already paying their taxes?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not Friday today and that, although I know he is very keen on this subject, a few more Members want to get in?
Philip Davies
You are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not Friday.
Mr Deputy Speaker
My worry is that you think it is a Friday, when you usually speak for hours—that’s what’s bothering me!
Philip Davies
For once, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite wrong. I have been racing through my comments, which I suppose is just like a Friday, when I do the same. I am trying to go through them as quickly as possible and I do not intend to speak for hours. I was just looking at the clock, actually, thinking that I should draw my speech to a close as soon as possible.
The final point on which I want to concentrate relates to taxation and what people may wrongly associate with this Bill. There is too much focus on the big gambling companies, such as William Hill, Ladbrokes and Coral. To be perfectly honest, I do not worry too much about the effect the Bill will have on them. They are big, successful and innovative companies and I am sure they have the wherewithal to cope with the Bill’s taxation regime. I am sure it will create some pain for them, but I do not have a problem with that. The reason why I support the Bill is that there is an awful lot to be said for companies offshore having to pay taxation in the same way as small, independent betting shops in this country. I do not worry about those big companies.
What I am worried about—I hope the Minister will consider this carefully—is the Bill’s likely impact on much smaller internet companies in the gambling industry, such as innovative start-up companies. If we look at the history of the gambling industry, we see that it is often the smaller companies that have driven much of the innovation and change that have been part of improving standards in a number of areas. My concern about the Bill’s new licensing system and the Treasury’s proposed taxation rates is that those companies will be priced out of the market before they can even reach a scale that would allow them to flourish. In effect, they will be strangled at birth and that would wipe out lots of innovation in the gambling sector.
That could easily be avoided, without altering the principles behind the Bill, through the introduction of thresholds or a tiered taxation system when the tax rates are announced. Both those alternatives would mirror the current income tax system, which has tiered rates depending on the size of a person’s income, a tax-exempt threshold at the lower end and graded percentage rates. The Government should look closely at introducing a tax regime that does not involve a simple, across-the-board 15% rate, but that takes into consideration the size of the companies concerned, their ability to pay and innovate, and the investment needed for that innovation, because lots of jobs—an underestimated number—are dependent on these small technology companies in the UK.
People might say, “They’re based offshore. It doesn’t matter.” The companies are based offshore for gambling purposes, but they also employ lots of people in the UK who do their marketing and advertising and who create their TV adverts. We would lose lots of jobs in the UK if we priced such businesses out of the market.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend agree not only that those companies employ British workers in this country, but that often, the workers based offshore are also from the UK?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People ought to bear in mind a number of very small companies, such as Probability, NetPlay TV, Gamesys, Adobo Games and tombola, which advertises a lot on TV and is growing. Those companies employ lots of people in the UK, but if the Bill’s regime of a 15% tax rate had been in place when they started, they would never have got off the ground because it would not have been worth their while. The British economy cannot afford to lose those companies and the jobs they create. This is not about Ladbrokes and William Hill. I suspect they will survive whatever the rate of taxation. It is the smaller companies we should be thinking about.
I want to address one or two points that I do not think have been cleared up. Will software suppliers such as Oracle and Microsoft need to apply for a Gambling Commission licence, given that they are key suppliers to software providers of the online gambling and gaming industry? The Bill does not make it clear whether they will need a licence. I am not sure whether the Minister will be receptive to redrafting the Bill in order to make clear the extent to which software providers need to go down their supply chain to require suppliers to apply for a Gambling Commission licence. Italy, Denmark and France do not need software suppliers to be licensed. My understanding is that only Spain does, and that that is currently under review. I urge the Minister to consider that point and ensure that it does not happen.
Another point is the extent to which the staff and ultimate beneficial owners of applicants are required to provide personal information. With the possible exception of banks, no other industry will be required to provide so much personal detail, not just of directors but of virtually anyone in a senior position in the organisation. Why is that needed?
I support the principle of the Bill, but not for the reasons given by the Government for introducing it. Frankly, the regulation argument is nonsense and does not stack up at all. This is about taxation and on that basis I support the Bill, but only if the Government set the taxation at a sensible and affordable rate. Before we get to Third Reading, I hope the Treasury will indicate the likely taxation rates and whether it will consider tiered rates or a much lower rate. If the tax rate is too high, I may no longer support the Bill, because it could have unintended and damaging consequences.
Whatever revenue is raised will be good for the Treasury—it will get more in the future than it is getting now—so why not try the rate at 5% and see what happens? If there is no big issue, it could then increase it to 10%, and to 15% at a future date. Why go straight in at 15% and perhaps have lots of unintended consequences? It should be done incrementally: start at 5%, see how it goes and review it from there. I hope the Minister will take that on board and urge her Treasury colleagues not to damage what otherwise could be sensible legislation.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is knowledgeable and free-thinking. I usually do so on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in order to ensure that he does not have the final word.
I broadly welcome the Bill. As my Select Committee colleague has said at length, it is clearly at the regulatory end of the welcome moves towards a major reform of the taxation system—to a point-of-consumption basis—so that companies pay tax on profits made from bets placed in the UK. The Bill is not about the appropriate level of that taxation. It focuses on other crucial aspects of the regime, namely, as it says on the tin, licensing and advertising of gambling. It is a crucial part of reforms of an industry that has hugely relocated, not only online, but offshore, principally to Gibraltar for most UK operators, and largely for tax reasons. I use the word “most” pointedly, because there is one huge and important exception, which is particularly important to my local area.
Paul Farrelly
It is bet365, which is the biggest UK operator and perhaps now the biggest operator worldwide. However, the Chair of the Select Committee will have to be patient, because I will speak about that company a little later.
Notwithstanding the delays to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred, I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill and on sticking to the timetable that they set out in 2012 to bring the reforms into force, after careful consideration and consultation, by the close of next year.
A replication of that resolve would be welcome on the wider related issue of corporate tax avoidance by huge multinationals, both on and offline, which has gained a head of steam in these straitened times. Although gambling, both on and offline, is treated differently from general business because it has licensing regimes, the design of an effective point-of-contact consumption tax system holds lessons about what tax authorities can do for themselves, without passing the buck to the interminable renegotiation of international tax treaties, which may well take a lifetime.
The Bill and the issues to which it relates have been well scrutinised in this Parliament. The experience of the UK since the passing of the Gambling Act 2005 has been referred to at length. That was the subject of a DCMS consultation that started in 2009, before the last election, which recommended the current course. The Select Committee endorsed that approach in the report that we issued in July 2012. This April, the Committee published another report welcoming unanimously and on a cross-party basis—although perhaps for different reasons—the main thrust of the draft Bill following extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. In January, the House staged a precursor to this debate on the private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), which was introduced by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) following his move to the Government Front Bench. I recall that that Bill was intended as a parade ring for the gambling concerns of the Newmarket and Thirsk race courses, but it covered much of the same ground as this Bill.
I will be brief and will not run around the Select Committee circuit, as the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) has done. Once again, he has proven himself to be Essex’s own latter day Seabreeze in the way that he has galloped around the track. However, it is worth re-emphasising the extent of the flight of most online gambling offshore and the resulting loss of tax to the Exchequer. The new regime should, if carefully designed, encourage a more level playing field for the online operators who have stayed and for the rest of the traditional sports gambling industry in the UK.
The Chair of the Select Committee has waited long enough. Chief among the online companies that continue to base their sports gaming operations in this country is bet365. It is, in many respects, a modest company with a great deal to be immodest about. It certainly does not seek the limelight, but I do my best for it.
Bet365 is based at Festival Park in Hanley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). In 1986, Festival Park was the site of Britain’s second national garden festival. The first was in Liverpool and the successive ones were in Glasgow, Gateshead and Ebbw Vale. They were a sort of biennial Olympics, or biennale as Boris would describe them, for Britain’s most deprived areas during the pain of the Thatcher era. Stoke was chosen after the closure of Shelton Bar steelworks in a north Staffordshire that was ravaged by the loss of its coal mines and many of its pottery makers.
Bet365 is a world-beating break from that legacy. It is one of the most phenomenal success stories in British business in the new millennium, having been started in 2000. With more than 2,000 highly skilled staff, it is now the largest private sector employer in north Staffordshire. It has led the local regeneration without a hand up or a handout from Government. In the last year, in a highly competitive industry, it has increased its pre-tax profits from online gaming by more than 50% to about £180 million. It has done that in just 13 years. As I have said before, £20 billion was wagered with bet365 in 2012-13, which is a 57% rise. That has happened because it is one of the industry’s most innovative and trusted players.
Unlike its online competitors in the UK, bet365 paid £31 million in corporation tax to the Exchequer last year. With betting duties and VAT, over the years it has paid hundreds of millions of pounds more. It also pumps a fortune into the local premiership football team, Stoke City, which is another source of pride and a sign of its commitment to the local area. Charities and good causes benefit from the Bet365 Foundation, the Stoke City Foundation and the Coates family themselves.
The reason bet365 remains in this country is not just that it is privately owned. It is because the Coates family—Peter, the Stoke City chairman, his daughter Denise, who was the founding force of the company, and her brother John, the joint managing director—believe in creating employment where they come from and in paying their fair share of tax.
The firm is a leading member of the UK’s Remote Gambling Association, which John Coates has chaired and which does much to promote responsible gambling and the industry overseas. However, unlike other leading members, including household names such as Ladbrokes and William Hill, bet365 supports the changes in this Bill because it is mainly based here and not offshore. If it is so successful while paying taxation, why should its competitors not do so too? I do not think that the UK’s legislative framework should discriminate between a private company and a publicly quoted company, even if publicly quoted companies are motivated by profit maximisation.
I sympathise with some of the arguments that have been made by bet365’s competitors and by the RGA during the gestation of the Bill, which we have heard about today from the hon. Member for Shipley. I also welcome the change of tone from the RGA towards these reforms, which will surely happen. I hope that there is no challenge from the Gibraltar-based companies in Europe, because that would be a delaying tactic that is all about taxation.
In Committee and in the subsequent stages of the Bill’s passage, we must have the best possible scrutiny to get the legislation right. The success of the regime will depend on British consumers choosing to gamble with licensees who have chosen to go with the Gambling Commission. There will have to be effective enforcement to deter non-licensed companies from muddying the waters with a grey or black market. There are outstanding licensing issues on which the industry is being consulted. We must remember that this is an international industry in which operators hold licences overseas in reputable jurisdictions. As the RGA says, it is in everyone’s interests that the regulators work together.
As we have heard, it is crucial that we get the level of taxation right. It is also important to get the definition of what is to be taxed right. I hope that the Treasury is listening to the arguments from the industry for a gross profits tax, rather than a wider gross gaming revenue definition, which rather moves the goalposts from what the operators were expecting.
In listening to the industry, we must recognise that other jurisdictions, notably in Europe, have successfully introduced similar licensing systems and taxation on a point-of-consumption basis. That is reaping revenue for their Exchequers. One of the most recent countries to do so was Denmark. The duty there is 20%, which is higher than the 15% gross profits tax in this country. None of the major operators—all responsible members of the RGA—have seriously suggested to the Select Committee or to anyone else that they would not apply for a licence under the new regime established by the Bill, but instead join an unlicensed or grey market. They have not done so in Denmark, Germany, Greece or Spain. Frankly, the UK is too important a market and their reputations are too important for them to do so here. I repeat: if bet365 can be so successful and supportive of these changes, that also shows what the competition is capable of doing.
To conclude, once we implement this new system—by the close of 2014, I hope, and following parallel moves by other European countries—UK operators, including bet365, will not only have a greater degree of certainty for their future investment and growth, but in co-operating with, rather than resisting, the new British system, all those who claim to be a reputable UK company will be better placed to argue, particularly at European level, for fairer access to other major markets such as France and Italy, and to ask the UK Government to help support the industry in Europe and worldwide.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill, although I am a little disappointed that it is so narrowly drawn as I think that major issues need considering. Gambling is very much part of modern life in Britain. We all cheered the Olympians in 2012, and a lot of that success was built on the national lottery. One needs only to look at the various books produced at Budget time to see how much the industry generates in taxation to pay for the things we want in this country, such as health, education or law and order.
Gambling is an important industry, and it is also part of our offer as a country that many people come to visit. We need only look at casinos in London to see that a high percentage of people in them are visitors to this country who have come to take advantage of the facilities and what we have to offer. Progress was clearly made in the Gambling Act 2005, but given the way the internet is developing, it is difficult without a crystal ball to work out what the future will bring. It is clear that we have lost a large slice of the industry to abroad because of the tax system, and it is therefore perfectly sensible for the Government to look at ways and means of tempting people back to the UK to make a bigger contribution.
We ought to be aware of concerns that we might load too much on the Gambling Commission because it might then load higher fees on to domestically based businesses. Many of those businesses found that the size of the commission compared with the old gambling board, and the number of people it employs, has put their fees up substantially over several years. Many issues must be considered and this Bill is part of the solution. I suspect that the other part of the solution, as we discussed earlier, will be in the Finance Bill following the Budget.
A number of important issues have been raised, include how we tempt offshore companies to come back. Do we tempt them back by setting a competitive rate? My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made a strong argument for that, but there are a number of competing concerns. The domestic industry is clearly upset that people offshore can set better odds and therefore take customers, but we must also consider the rate we set, as that could ensure many more illegal sites in the UK, which raises the issue of problem gambling.
I think we have a responsible domestically based industry that, as I said, generates a lot of tax. It has codes and practices that it sticks to, and it is part of our offer as a country. It also expects a degree of fairness. When we talk about a level playing field, we must take into account the millions of pounds of investment, the thousands of people who are employed, and the tax they generate. The rate we set for remote gambling operations will be important, but the Gambling Commission and Treasury must also consider whether sufficient assets are deposited in the UK, or whether any entity subject to action by UK regulators or the authorities has assets in the UK that can be picked up. They must also consider whether people from remote companies have locally based directors who are responsible for what they do—that is important.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) asked whether there ought to be sanctions against individuals or businesses that provide facilities for offshore remote gambling companies. That is a difficult area and an absolute minefield, and there are tricky issues for the Government to consider, which means setting out a balance. In reality, however, because we are not getting tax from the remote industry, the UK has probably lost £1 billion or £2 billion in revenue over the past few years, and it is an area in which any sensible Government would look for reform.
A number of other issues have been raised, including why we have to wait until December 2014 before we bring in a new rate. By some estimates, the UK may well lose £200 million or £300 million by having that delay. The issue raised by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is also important. Someone can gamble remotely on an iPad in the street, but when they go into a casino, which is safe, regulated, taxed, and where people have a duty to look after their general welfare, they are not allowed to. I was pleased after my earlier intervention when the Minister said that the Government might consider that issue during the passage of the Bill.
A number of points in the broader industry need addressing. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) mentioned the portability of casinos. A lot of our—very successful—industry still runs under the Gaming Act 1968, which is nearly 50 years old. Certain issues need looking at if we are to modernise the industry and for it to continue to be a success.
Mr Sutcliffe
That is why it is important to consider issues that have been wrong for some time and put them right in the Bill—I hope the Minister will win that battle. The temptation is to get the Bill through with its core values, but not to look at the wider issues. Perhaps this will be the only time we have to get it right.
Mr Syms
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We are dealing with a specific problem, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, the driver is clearly the Treasury which sees an issue it needs to deal with to raise money. That does not mean, however, that no other aspects of the whole industry need considering and modernising. When the hon. Gentleman spoke earlier he mentioned the Daily Mail test, and I suspect all of us in politics get a little wary when talking about the gambling and casino industries and all those other industries. In reality, however, if the Government cannot amend the Bill, there is a good argument for introducing, certainly early in the next Parliament, another Bill to cover the broader gambling and casino industry, to make it a little more responsive to modern demand.
I was interested in comments by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme about how bet365 had provided regeneration for Stoke. We should not underestimate the fact that the gambling industry is a factor in regeneration. It certainly was in Atlantic City, and one needs only to look at what is happening in the United States to see that many local governments and other areas have deliberately attracted and promoted that industry because it can help local areas. A Government who want certain areas of our country to prosper and regenerate could do a lot worse than looking at the gambling industry as a potential source of regeneration for some areas that are struggling in the modern world. I broadly support the Bill. I am a little disappointed with its scope because there is unfinished business in the broader gambling industry, but I look forward to the passage of the Bill. I hope that the clever people— the bright people with towels round their heads in the Treasury—will find a good way of generating money to help the public services that we all want.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I welcome the Minister to her place. She is the Minister responsible for sports, and having served with her on the Justice Committee I know that she is level-headed and takes a non-partisan view on things. I think she is an excellent addition to the Department, but I caution her on one thing. I know that she loves tennis and is a bit of a tennis freak, but I hope that she looks at other sports as well.
I am pleased to speak about this Bill. Bookmaking was my family business—my mother and father were bookmakers, and in fact I am the son of a bookmaker and the son of a bookmaker’s son. Indeed, bookmaking was my first job after university, and like the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I am sure, who also worked in betting shops, I could entertain the House with tales of the characters we would meet in betting shops. I know, however, that there has already been a warning about time, so I will limit my remarks to what is in the Bill.
In the past few years, the betting industry has suffered from an image problem. The country has a tradition of playing the football pools and of crossing its fingers each and every week in the hope of winning the national lottery, but people seem to look down their noses at the betting trade. There is a perception that there is a betting shop on every corner, and yet, when we talk about gambling, it is important that we understand the history of the industry. In the 1970s, there were 16,000 betting shops; today there are just 9,000. The idea that there are more betting shops is perception more than anything else. People can walk into any newsagent or supermarket and be offered a wide range of scratchcards and other gambling opportunities, but the bookie is blamed for so-called gambling problems in this country.
That is not all. The betting shop is blamed for the decline in our high streets. Betting shops are tarred with the same brush as the pawnbroker and the money shop. Rather than bash the betting industry, it is time to talk about our betting firms as a great British success story. The industry contributes £3.2 billion to UK gross domestic product each year and provides £1 billion in taxes. Betting shops directly employ 55,000 full and part-time jobs, which is the equivalent of 10% of the entire leisure industry. The work force are mainly women, some of whom have re-entered the workplace after having children, or students, who need flexible or part-time work while studying, as I did when I was at university.
In a world in which sadly we have seen names such as Woolworths and HMV disappear from the high street, the gambling industry has been at the forefront of innovation and technology. I want to focus my remarks on that. When I left the industry over 12 years ago, online gambling was in its infancy. If people walked into a shop at that time, they would think the industry was in decline. The punters were mainly either coming up to retirement or retiring. The only thing in the shops that kept them going was the amusement prizes machines, the forerunners of fixed odds betting terminals.
In reality, the trade was changing. It is important to realise that the industry has been forced to be innovative and adaptable. More than a quarter of William Hill online customers place bets on their mobile, smartphone or iPad. The industry is continually changing. People who bet online would probably not have taken a trip to their local bookie to bet on a horse. If anybody turns on the television tonight to watch the football, the last things they will see before kick-off are adverts for odds on the first goal scorers. The people watching the adverts are not going to run off to their local bookies to put £5 on a match result. They will instead get out their smartphone or iPad and bet from the comfort of their living room.
Frankly, bookies have to be innovative. They must keep up in an ever-changing industry, and have found ways to reach customers who previously would not have looked at them at all. When we talk about businesses in this country, it is important that we look to gain positive aspects of all businesses, no matter what our perceptions of or prejudices against certain industries.
On the detail of the Bill, I do not think any hon. Member will disagree that the priority must be to protect the consumer. We need to ensure that we do not see sites operating illegally and offering bets to UK consumers. We need an assurance from the Government that the Gambling Commission has the appropriate powers to deal with illegal operators. As somebody who has worked in the industry, I know that the one thing we do not want in the betting trade are black market operators. I am sure the hon. Member for Shipley agrees that when we worked in the betting trade we were constantly competing with illegal betting operators, whether they operated out of the pub, the side street or their houses. We—the people who played by the rules and paid their taxes, and who had betting licences—were constantly undercut. I fear that the same thing could happen as a result of the Bill.
We must ensure that strong licensing conditions are in place but, at the same time, we must ensure that licensing conditions are imposed in a timely, effective and fair way. Black market operators should be run out of business as quickly as possible. I know that the Government have already rejected the idea of internet protocol address blocking and financial transaction blocking, but if we are serious about ensuring proper enforcement, we need to look at that again. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Shipley. I very often do not agree with him politically, but a lot of what he has said makes a lot of sense.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the point-of-consumption tax. I agree with the findings of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which warned that the Government need to be careful with how steep they make that tax. We know that the UK retail betting industry is competitive. There is a huge focus on customer service and brand loyalty. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Committee, online gamblers are far more promiscuous. They will shop around for the best price. They will not worry. There are two sets of customers: the customer who wants to bet heavily online and shop around for the best price, and the customer who has been going to his local shop for years. The latter likes the atmosphere of the bell ringing before the dogs go off. He likes running up to the counter quickly to place his bet. That is what he lives for. He also likes the staff—he likes sitting down for a cup of tea with them. He will not go online and shop around in that way, but others will.
As the hon. Member for Shipley has said, if the tax is set too high by the Treasury, it will stifle one of the most innovative industries out there. Betting is a growth industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) mentioned the growth of bet365 over 13 years, which was down to the innovation it has shown online. However, if that tax is too high, I believe we will open a new market for, as I have said, unlicensed, illegal operators, which will not comply with the new regime and which can offer better odds than licensed operators such as Ladbrokes, William Hill, Betfred and bet365.
Modelling by Deloitte in its 2011 report “The Impact of a Point of Consumption Tax on the Remote Gambling Industry” demonstrated that a 5% rate of tax would mean that as many as 13% of UK online customers would move to the unlicensed or illegal market. At 10%, 27% of business would move to the illegal market. I would hate to see how many people would go to the illegal market if we set the rate too high at, for example, 15%. I mentioned Woolworths and HMV going out of business; I would hate to see companies that we have seen on our high streets for so long, such as Coral, William Hill and Ladbrokes, having difficulties and going out of business.
I started my career in an independent bookmakers—Jack Brown, which no longer exists. One sadness I have—anyone who has worked in the betting industry will know this—is that the independent bookmaker has disappeared from the high street. I went out on Friday night and saw an independent bookmaker. That was a novelty and a rarity, but when I was younger, it was a familiar sight. I am deeply concerned that, if we set the tax too high, the firms for which people have some sort of warmth and empathy will go out of business.
The Bill is important because, ultimately, its purpose is to protect consumers—that is what it should be about—but I would like to see more. When the Minister responds to the debate, I would like her to provide assurances that the Gambling Commission has sufficient resources to deal with the regulatory requirement it must undertake. We need to be extremely careful that we do not stifle a forward-thinking and forward-moving industry. The fact is that gambling is a growth industry. I do not want the Bill to do anything to change that. Ultimately, I believe we can learn something from the sector. It has been innovative and has responded to challenges in the market that would have brought down lesser industries. I think that Members across the House would agree that we can learn from that.
My final point—I do not want to take up too much time—is on GamCare. We see the adverts on the television and the internet. People can click on the icon and receive the help they need. We have heard a lot in the past about payday lenders; we can learn from that. We can also learn something about self-exclusion. I believe that the betting industry is almost paranoid about problem gamblers, but very often we can be proud of the industry. I will support the Bill, and I look to the Minister to give the assurances for which I have asked.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for the timely completion of his speech, which allows me to leap to my feet. The hon. Gentleman gives my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) a run for his money as the champion of betting, and particularly of betting at bookmakers. I am not saying that out of bitterness because my hon. Friend called me idle—I should have been faster on my feet.
The hon. Gentleman makes a bid for being the champion of betting shops, rather like the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) made a bid for being the champion of online betting. I rise to identify my constituency as perhaps the epicentre of bricks and mortar casinos. Three of the 142 casinos in the UK are in my constituency, all within a mile and a half along the seafront. I will go on to talk in detail about a fourth that is opening up on those golden couple of miles.
Reflecting on the Minister’s introductory comments, it is brilliant to see her in her new job. I was a little worried in the first week. Most Ministers are instructed to hit the ground running, but, looking at comments from journalists, the Minister seemed to be flexing her sporting credentials in karate and throwing journalists around her private office. I am not sure how well that will work out for her in the long run, but if she ever needs me to do anything I will certainly think twice before disagreeing. Having said that, I would love to serve on the Public Bill Committee and will be in negotiations with her on one or two amendments I would like the Government to table if the Chair of the Select Committee does not table them.
I criticised the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for the enormous list of measures he wants included in the Bill, so I hesitate to ask for more provisions—I want my little bit, but not necessarily his. The Bill is small, but I suspect that if the hon. Gentleman got everything he wanted, I would need a hand to get out of my seat and lift the Bill.
I want to focus on the interaction between online betting and bricks and mortar casinos. This is important not just in relation to deregulation or taxation—my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley hit the nail on the head; this is a much greater part of the process—but in what can be done online compared with what can be done offline in a bricks and mortar casino. As I said, there are 142 casinos in the UK, which means that 3% are in the constituency of Rochford and Southend East. While I am bragging—if you will allow me a brief diversion, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will say that 8% of UK piers, by metre, are in the constituency too. It is a wonderful place to go for entertainment, with the Genting Club, Genting Electric and Rendezvous casinos, and the soon to be opened Park Inn Palace hotel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) made many good points, but I picked up in particular on his comments on regeneration. At a difficult time for the economy when high streets are not doing so well, Southend high street is doing well and the seafront is being regenerated. When I arrived in Southend more than 10 years ago, there was a beautiful but derelict 19th-century hotel, the Palace hotel. The Government used it to house asylum seekers on a temporary basis, before they could be found more suitable accommodation. That made the area, to a degree, a no-go zone. It is now a four-star hotel, and the company will be opening another casino. It may even be a five-star hotel; it certainly should be, given the quality of service I received. The gambling industry can be of significant benefit to constituencies, whether in Newcastle, from betting shops or from online casinos.
Genting casinos employ more than 170 members of staff in Southend and the company has invested millions in the economy. It supports the broader community through mayoral charities. All three casinos have been fantastic on responsible gambling. Governments always ask for more and more. I often wonder what more the industry can do, but as Governments tinker with taxation and regulation they feel they should ask for more without understanding fully what that could be. There is a tacit understanding, which is in many ways false, whereby the industry says, “We are trying to do more; what more can we do?” and the Department and Ministers do not have a hit list of what they want, because so much is already being done.
Mr Sutcliffe
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Governments can sometimes apply pressure, which is what we did with the responsibility in gambling levy. That voluntary levy—voluntary donations from the gambling industry—is now worth more than £5 million, which shows that the industry does consider the problems that problem gamblers face.
James Duddridge
Absolutely. I have had a number of discussions about individual gamblers in Southend who have put themselves on the register and, as a result, have been protected. The protections are not, as a number of hon. Members have said, in the online arena and I am deeply concerned about that. While the Government are, to a degree, looking at online and bricks and mortar together, the two are still too polarised. I can put that down only to the Government wanting to divide and conquer the industry by setting up slightly different regulations, rather than operating en bloc, but they are disadvantaging one of the more high-performing sectors and that is ludicrous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) described the Essex sea breeze. In his penultimate point, he talked about online gambling in bricks and mortar casinos. It is ironic that a casino is able to advertise outside the Rendezvous casino, but games cannot be played online inside it, even if one takes in one’s own iPad or iPhone. Quite how we could stop people gambling on their own devices I do not know, but it would be much better to allow casinos to have gambling online within their own premises. That would bring it into the family that has greater protection for problem gamblers and into the tax net. The current position is ludicrous.
The Minister indicated that she was sympathetic to the point. I am interested to hear, in her concluding remarks, how that sympathy will play out. Does she expect Back Benchers, on limited resource, to start tabling probing amendments, or will the Government table a new clause that we can all consider? The latter would be my preference, rather than the unfair process of the Select Committee coming up with an idea, an hon. Member pushing it forward in the Bill Committee, the Government considering it, the consultation perhaps not coming back on Report, and then, quietly, the Select Committee’s work coming out as a Lords amendment at the end of a long day, and the Government saying it is just an additional tidying-up matter. There should be a greater degree of transparency. I would like the Minister to introduce a new clause which we can all look at, rather than relying on us to write one up on the back of a fag packet—be it plain or with pictures.
It has been a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I hope to have the pleasure of being a member of the Bill Committee, where I can talk more about Rochford and Southend East and the value of bricks and mortar casinos.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the Minister on her new position and look forward to her response to the debate.
Hon. Members have referred to taxation and regulation, but I would like to focus on enforcement, in particular in relation to problem gamblers and others who are vulnerable. When I read the Bill and realised it would provide a regulatory framework for online gambling providers that are not based in white-listed jurisdictions, I was pleased that at long last we would have regulation—that had to be good. I have also received advice on the Bill and some concerns have arisen, in particular relating to those who are vulnerable.
At the moment, online gambling providers located in jurisdictions that are not on the white list can access the UK market, despite the fact that they are not regulated by the UK Gambling Commission or by a domestic regulatory regime deemed sufficiently robust to justify their being deemed a white list jurisdiction. The only thing they cannot do is advertise in the UK. The fact that companies not subject to proper regulation can access the UK should concern anyone who knows anything about the social problems associated with gambling.
Problem gambling is a desperately destructive social phenomenon that brings real suffering and economic cost. According to the Gambling Commission, 450,000 people in the UK suffer from problem gambling, the effects of which should not be underestimated: it can take families to breaking point and beyond and sometimes lead to suicide. As a modern society, it is incumbent on us to ensure that the regulatory framework for gambling provides the greatest possible protections for vulnerable and problem gamblers, and it is certainly wrong that hitherto we have adopted such a laid-back attitude to gambling websites that we deem not to be properly regulated. To this end, the Bill’s proposal to subject providers from beyond the UK and white-listed jurisdictions to UK regulation comes not a moment too soon.
In scrutinising the Bill, however, some questions arise. All online gambling providers seeking to access the UK market will be required to get a licence from the Gambling Commission before they can advertise their services, but there is no clarity on enforcement, and the claim that the Bill protects the vulnerable will completely disintegrate if companies without a licence are not prevented from accessing the UK market. If licensing is not backed up with an enforcement mechanism, the Bill will simply result in an increase in online gambling advertising. Some online providers that currently have access to the UK market but which cannot advertise here would be able to advertise, while those that cannot advertise would be able to access the UK market on the same basis as today. That is not the right step forward.
I know the Bill gives the Secretary of State regulation-making powers, which could be used for enforcement purposes, but if we are serious, as I believe the Government are, about creating a progressive legislative framework that shows proper regard to the vulnerable, why not put enforcement mechanisms in the Bill to make it clear from day one that if an online gambling provider from outside the UK market wishes to access that market, it must have a licence? It would be perfectly possible to make that plain by amending the Bill to prevent such companies from accessing the UK by using financial transaction blocking measures, which have proved successful in other countries that have gone down the same road. I seek an assurance from the Minister, therefore, that the licensing regime will be backed up with a clear enforcement mechanism that makes it absolutely clear, in the Bill, that if a company outside a white-listed jurisdiction does not have a licence, it will be prevented from accessing the UK market by a financial transaction blocking measure or similar mechanism. I look forward to her response.
My concerns do not end there. Our current regulatory framework incentivises online gambling providers located in the UK to relocate to white-listed jurisdictions beyond the UK. The vast majority of UK-facing online gambling providers have left the UK for nearby white-listed jurisdictions, such as Alderney and Gibraltar, which are subject to a different regulatory regime and one that has often exhibited greater regard for problem gamblers than the UK regulatory framework. My concern, therefore, is that if we remove the incentive for gambling providers to locate outside the UK, problem gamblers in the UK will find many key providers less responsive to their needs—unless, while removing the incentive, we also make our regulatory framework for problem gamblers at least as robust as the best white-listed jurisdictions.
The Minister might be tempted to say that licensing is a matter for the Gambling Commission, and of course it is, but it is also a matter for the House, which created the commission when the current legal regime was introduced. We cannot, therefore, pretend that a significant change in that regime does not require us, the legislature, to review the capacity of the commission to deal with the new challenges emanating from the Bill. I would like a strong assurance that she will review the regulatory regimes of white-listed jurisdictions—the regimes from which British consumers of many online gambling services have benefited in recent years—and the regard they show for problem gamblers and the vulnerable, and ensure that when the Bill takes effect our regulatory regime will be made as sensitive to the needs of problem gamblers as the regulatory regimes of the very best white-listed jurisdictions. If we do not do that, the unintended consequence of the Bill will be that British customers accessing the many providers currently based in white-listed jurisdictions might actually enjoy fewer protections than they do now.
Finally, even if the Bill is accompanied by proper enforcement mechanisms preventing providers from beyond the white list accessing the UK market, and even if we ensure that the return of online gambling providers to the UK does not erode protections by enhancing our regulatory regime with respect to care for problem gamblers, the Bill will still result in an increase in advertising for online gambling in the UK. Although online gambling is not associated with the highest problem gambling prevalence figures, it does have one of the higher figures for problem gambling. Unlike other gambling opportunities, it is available 24/7; one can access hundreds, if not thousands, of gambling websites without leaving one’s house or bedroom.
I and my constituency office are often confronted by people with addictions, be it drink, drugs or gambling, and I am aware of the illusion of the gambler when they make the gamble, their depression when it is not successful and their guilt when they realise they have spent money they could not afford to spend. We cannot ignore the vulnerable or problem gamblers. As online gambling providers not on the white list access advertising opportunities for the first time, the Bill will make people in the United Kingdom, including problem gamblers, more aware of opportunities to gamble online. If the House is to vote for measures designed to result in an increase in online gambling in the UK, which is effectively what the advertising provisions propose, we should complement it with enhanced assistance for problem gamblers, who will face additional advertising challenges as a result of the Bill.
One mechanism developed to help problem gamblers is self-exclusion, which empowers a problem gambler on “a strong day”—even on their strongest days, some of those I have met are still not strong—to exclude themselves from the services of a gambling provider for a fixed period. Although in principle this is a good thing, in the context of online gambling it is useless: there are so many online gambling providers—hundreds if not thousands—that it would be impossible to self-exclude from them all. One answer to that dilemma has been proposed by academics, including Dr Sally Gainsbury, author of “Internet Gambling: Current Research Findings and Implications”, published in 2012, in which she states that “a significant limitation” of self exclusion
“is the lack of collaboration between different online gambling sites and venues, so that excluded individuals may find it easy to gamble at another site or venue.”
Will the Minister indicate how we can address that issue? Again, she might say it is a matter for the Gambling Commission, but again I would say: yes, but it is also a matter for the House, which created the commission and established the legislative framework that the Bill significantly amends. I believe that it would be appropriate for us to put in place a system that provides problem gamblers with a credible, meaningful, one-stop-shop self-exclusion mechanism. I should like to hear her thoughts on that matter.
I fear that, if the concerns that I have outlined are not addressed, the effect of the Bill will simply be to allow some people who cannot currently advertise in the UK to advertise online gambling opportunities, and to erode the level of protection afforded to problem gamblers on the many sites accessed by the UK market. We must seize the day and ensure that those things do not happen. We must ensure that providers from beyond the white list who do not have a Gambling Commission licence are prevented from accessing the UK market, and that the UK licensing regime is made at least as robust as those in the best white list jurisdictions, so that problem gamblers and vulnerable people can be protected in the context of the increase in advertising through the provision of a one-stop-shop self-exclusion mechanism.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill. It will go a long way towards creating a level playing field for the onshore betting industry and towards reversing the trend of remote gambling companies setting up their businesses abroad to avoid the Gambling Commission’s regulatory regime and to avoid paying tax on transactions in the UK.
I pay tribute to the former sports Minister and my parliamentary colleague on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), for recognising in April 2009 that changes would be required to keep up with the technological advances in online gambling. As a “Yorkshire United” supporter, he might not know anything about football, but it is fair to say that he knows a fair bit about gambling, and he was a pretty good Minister in his time in the Department. I also pay tribute to the fact that he took into consideration the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who had been arguing the case for reform throughout the whole of the last Parliament.
As a result of the Bill, remote gambling will be regulated at the point of consumption. All operators selling into the British market, whether from here or abroad, will be required to hold a Gambling Commission licence, which will level the playing field for British-based licence holders. The Bill will also repeal section 331 of the Gambling Act 2005, removing the offence of advertising foreign gambling and consequently the distinction between white-list and EEA countries and non-EEA jurisdictions. Instead, in order to advertise to British consumers, all operators will have to hold a GC remote licence, regardless of where they are based.
The changes will provide increased protection for British consumers, because all remote gambling operators will be subject to robust and consistent regulation, as well as being required to support action against illegal activity and corruption in sport, and to comply with licence conditions that protect children and vulnerable adults. They will also be required to contribute to research, education and treatment in relation to British problem gambling.
As the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), pointed out, the Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. It is perhaps not surprising that its provisions have not been well received by either the remote gambling operators or the overseas regulators. The Remote Gambling Association has questioned whether the legislation might fall foul of European Union law by creating a restriction on trade between EU states, but the Department’s response has been fairly robust, arguing that the Bill is necessary and proportionate for enhancing consumer protection for British citizens. Our Committee was satisfied that the Government had considered the question of compatibility, and we accepted their confidence that any legal action would be unsuccessful.
The Remote Gambling Association has argued that the change in legislation will send punters to unregulated sites on the black market where there is no regulatory regime. That view has been backed up by the Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association, which has claimed that online gaming customers will migrate to unregulated and non-compliant operators who have a significant market advantage over the regulated and compliant operators, resulting in completely the opposite of what the Government are trying to achieve. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).
I do not believe that that will be the case, however. Jenny Williams, the chief executive of the Gambling Commission, has made it clear that there will be little scope for significant expansion of the black market when there are already few restrictions on the type of gambling available and when advertising is freely available within the regulated market. The Department has also made it clear that this is not about more restrictive regulation; it is simply about consistent regulation.
The RGA has also claimed that this is all about tax. In giving evidence to the Select Committee, it declared that the provisions were a
“backdoor method to tax off-shore operators”.
They are not, but that would certainly be a welcome consequence—unintended or otherwise—of the Bill. Critics of the offshore remote gambling industry, and supporters of the Bill, legitimately point out that in many cases operators ended up as offshore remote gambling sites to avoid paying tax in the first place. The RGA told our Committee that about 7,000 people were working in the UK for remote gambling companies based offshore, but it could not answer my direct question about how many are working offshore. It effectively admitted, however, that it was only a fraction of that number. Let us be honest: these companies are effectively UK-based, barring certain technicalities, and they are based abroad only to avoid paying tax and to be able to compete with their genuinely foreign-based competitors.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is adamant that this is not about taxation, but the legislation will have the good unintended consequence of paving the way to ensuring that foreign-based operators are taxed on any gambling taking place in the UK. Our Committee report got it right when it stated:
“Whether or not this is the case, we regard it as a legitimate and desirable outcome of the change in the licensing regime that in future remote gambling companies doing business in the UK should be subject to the same taxation requirements, whether they are based onshore or offshore.”
Philip Davies
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for quoting so extensively from our Select Committee report, but does he agree that we were very careful in our wording about what the Government were doing? We said that we were
“satisfied that the Government has considered the compatibility of the proposed legislation with EU law and we note its confidence that any challenge to the legislation would be unlikely to succeed.”
We merely noted the Government’s confidence; we did not necessarily share it.
Mr Leech
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. My impression from the evidence we took was slightly different from his; perhaps I am a little more confident about the Government’s potential for success if anyone in the industry decided to take further action.
While the Bill has its opponents among the remote gambling industry, it also has its supporters within it. Rank fully supports the Gambling Bill, even though it paves the way for measures that it estimates will cost approximately £10 million a year. It sees it as an important opportunity to provide greater consumer protection for British gamblers. Similarly, the British Horseracing Authority, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and the National Casino Industry Forum all welcome the Bill.
The Bill is, however, limited in scope, and many within the industry would have liked it to go further, whether it be in relation to the horse racing betting levy, British terrestrial casinos being able to offer their dedicated online products in their casino buildings, tackling the inequity of bingo taxation, which has not been mentioned so far, or even addressing very legitimate concerns about the proliferation of B2 machine use and its impact on problem gambling. I recognise that this Bill cannot address all those issues within its legislative scope, but perhaps the Minister will in her closing remarks recognise that many other issues remain unresolved and give some indication that the Government will seek to address them.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It has been a good debate with many powerful arguments being made. I am in favour of the general thrust of the Bill and its intentions, although like my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I believe that the reasons for introducing it go beyond regulation and consumer protection. I sat in some of the same meetings as my hon. Friend, when we debated potential levels of taxation, and he is right to say that the Bill is mainly about providing the Government with the ability to tax—a point to which I will return.
Let me state one or two non-declarable interests. I am a joint chairman of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock, and the Cheltenham race course is in my constituency. I have a deep interest in horse racing, which is financed largely if not entirely through the levy that comes from bookmakers and from sponsorships that also come from bookmakers. Another non-declarable interest is that through the all-party group, I organise charity dinners in this place, which are heavily supported by bookmaking companies. The last one took place just a few months ago, and we raised £48,000 for charity. Over the last five years—not entirely under my joint chairmanship, as my predecessors should be included— we have raised £234,000 for charities, and it has come largely from bookmakers. I thus want to pay tribute to the legitimate and well-run companies in bookmaking and to recognise the role they play in communities, in charities and in helping to finance horse racing.
As has been said, the Bill is quite limited in scope. It does not deal with taxation and does not mention the levy.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions taxation. Does he agree that the Treasury seems to be turning a deaf ear to the pleas of, for instance, those who play bingo, which is being taxed much more heavily than almost every other form of gambling?
Mr Robertson
I shall have to accept my hon. Friend’s word on that, as I always do on everything. I have no expertise in the taxation of bingo.
The Bill identifies what might be termed a loophole, although it would be better described as an inconsistency. Companies that locate some of their online business offshore are not regulated, taxed or subject to a levy. I understand why that inconsistency worries a number of people, and I am happy to go along with the proposal to create a level playing field.
As I have said, the Bill does not at this stage refer to a tax or a levy, although it was suggested earlier today, probably by more than one speaker, that a recent European Union ruling was likely to give the Government an opportunity to extend the levy to companies that are based offshore. That might well bring in more money for horse racing, but I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. There have been some estimates of how much money it would bring in, which I think may have been exaggerated.
My hon. Friend was understandably concerned about the smaller bookmaking companies, but when it comes to the extra tax and the extra levy, I think we should be a little concerned about the larger ones as well, because we are talking about a very highly taxed industry. As well as the ordinary corporation tax and other taxes that apply to all businesses, it is subject to machine games duty, and to the general betting tax and levy.
Philip Davies
Should we not also recognise that bookmakers are giving an increasing amount of money to horse racing through picture rights, which is dwarfing the amount raised by the levy?
Mr Robertson
The bookmakers give money to horse racing through picture rights, through the levy, through voluntary sponsorship of races and indeed through hospitality. As my hon. Friend says, the amount of money they put into racing cannot be measured just by the levy, and we must be careful not to tax them too heavily. Last week, during DCMS questions, a number of Members attacked the so-called clustering and proliferation of betting shops. I pointed out that over the last 20 years the number of betting shops has actually halved. I am not sure that that can accurately be described as proliferation.
The pressures on betting shops and bookmakers have increased. As was mentioned earlier, the amount of money that certain individual shops make is very small, and the number of independent bookmakers has been reduced. Creating a level playing field should not mean heaping more tax on bookmakers. We should view the position another way. Yes, we should be searching for that level playing field, but the level could be a great deal lower than it is at present.
Rather than imposing a 15% tax on bookmakers who are based offshore, should we not try to attract them back onshore by reducing the overall burden of taxation, not just for those based abroad but for those in this country? It would be rather perverse to impose a 5% tax on those based in Gibraltar, for example, and a 15% tax on those based here. The levels should be compatible, but lower. I fear that imposing a 15% tax on bookmakers based in such places as Gibraltar would have a negative effect.
I mentioned in an intervention that I have been to countries—I am not going to name them—where there is a tote monopoly and it is illegal to bet outside that monopoly, and I have sat next to people as they have had illegal bets. That is not a clever situation. It is not something I was proud to witness, but it goes on. That is the real world.
We must be careful not to drive businesses from being legitimate and based in Gibraltar, for example, to being based anywhere else in the world and taking bets from this country, completely unregulated and without paying a penny in tax or levy. That would be the complete opposite of what the Government are trying to achieve. There would be no protection for consumers, and we know the internet is notoriously difficult to regulate. That is no fault of this or the previous Government; it is just what has happened.
A few years ago a company called Betfair stole a march on the entire betting industry by creating a betting exchange business. It was hugely successful, and Betfair puts a lot of money into racing, but that move took the entire country and industry by surprise. Nobody knew how to compete with or respond to it. That is the way of the world, however. That is the way things are going.
That is the way things have gone in this House, too. When I arrived here 16 years ago, there were no such things as iPads. Now, they can be used in Committees, and some Committees have even gone paperless: papers are not circulated and instead they use the iPad, which links into the internet. Things have changed, and we do not know how they will change over the next five or 10 years. It is difficult to regulate what goes on via the internet, and we should not pretend that we can. We have to ensure that we do not inadvertently, through well-intentioned measures, make the situation worse.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you are anxious to get on to the next debate so I will not say any more. I entirely agree with many of the points made today, and I do not want to repeat them. I am basically in favour of the Bill and a level playing field for taxation, levy, regulation and customer protection. But as the Bill proceeds, I urge the Minister and the Government to ensure that we do not inadvertently make the situation worse.
Clive Efford
As always when we discuss issues relating to betting and horse racing, this has been a good debate. It has also been very informative, as Members with a great deal of knowledge of the subject have contributed. I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who has conducted inquiries into gambling, horse racing and betting. I was grateful for his comments on licence condition 15.1 and the issues relating to the Financial Conduct Authority, which are important and which we will have to address. I hope the Minister takes that on board. There are also important issues related to match fixing and resources for the Gambling Commission.
Many Members have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for his contribution over many years, both as a Minister and in opposition. He is extremely well-informed and passionate about these issues, and I commend his commitment to education and treatment for people with gambling problems. He talked about the problems created by some aspects of the 2005 Act which were dealt with in the wash-up, and rightly said they need to be addressed. He also raised the issue of the definition of spread betting, and I hope the Minister takes that on board when considering any future amendments. He alone raised the issue of money laundering and how it affects on-course betting operators.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is always fascinating to listen to. Even if we do not agree with everything he says, he makes his points eloquently. He described himself as modest and of course, that is a word we all immediately think of when we think of him. He expressed his concerns about taxation levels and his desire that online operators locate back in the UK. I was struck by his passionate appeal for recognition of the contribution that small companies make—particularly in innovation and the number of people they employ in this country—and the effect that overtaxing them will have, particularly when they are developing in their early stages of trading. That is an important point and the Government should take it on board. He also showed a healthy scepticism about civil servants who are empire building, which we all share. It is not fair to accuse the Gambling Commission of that in this case, given that there is such widespread support for what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) made a passionate case for companies relocating to the UK, and highlighted the fact that bet365 has not been disadvantaged by remaining onshore. He pointed out that it has made a significant contribution to regeneration in his area, employing more than 2,000 people. It is the largest employer in north Staffordshire, and I believe he said that it achieved a profit of £180 million. He also called for sanctions to deal with those providing facilities for those who are avoiding the licensing system. Effective enforcement is something we will want to pursue in considering this Bill. He also referred to the importance of getting taxation right.
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), like a number of other Members, expressed disappointment at how narrowly drawn the Bill is. He, too, referred to regeneration and casinos. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), the son of a bookmaker, expressed concern, as one or two other Members did, about people criticising the proliferation of betting shops. I wish to put it on the record that I have never criticised such proliferation. There are not more betting shops following the 2005 Act, but there is concern about the locating of betting shops close to areas of deprivation. Even the betting industry has recognised that that is an issue, and if we are going to deal with it, local government should be able—
Clive Efford
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I have been given only a few minutes to wind up. Local government should be given the powers to review whether there are too many betting shops in a given area. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn, too, expressed concern about the impact of taxation on the industry.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) spoke about the capacity for casinos to contribute to regeneration. He also talked about the need to protect online customers who may have a gambling addiction, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made a passionate plea for effective enforcement and protection from exploitation of vulnerable adults.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) largely spoke about the importance of the Select Committee report, but he also called for a level playing field in the industry. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), too, expressed concern about the taxation of the industry and the impact it may have on small businesses, in particular, which might be harmed if taxes are set too high. He also referred to the clustering of betting shops, which I have mentioned.
Many hon. Members have called for the Bill to be extended in relation to enforcement protection, particularly for adults at risk of developing, or with, a gambling addiction. Some hon. Members also called for a one-stop shop for self-exclusion across the industry, which is an important factor that we should be looking at, as this is an opportunity for us to set a standard by which we can protect vulnerable adults.
A number of hon. Members called for spread betting regulation, and I hope that the Government will listen and that there will be sports betting rights for those sports that have to pay out much of the money that they generate for themselves so that they can protect their integrity when it is challenged by irregular activities in the betting industry. We must have regard to the concerns that those sports organisations have, and I hope that the Minister will consider consulting the governing bodies to consider what can be done in the Bill to address their concerns.
Whenever we discuss such matters, the debate is always extremely well-informed because the hon. Members who contribute have a great deal of background knowledge. I hope that the Minister has been listening to what has been said today and to the calls for further amendment to the Bill so that we can reach a broad consensus on both sides of the House that will allow us to develop a regulation system for the gambling industry in the UK that has the full support not only of Members of this House but of the people we represent and that sets the standard for regulation across the world.
Mrs Grant
With the leave of the House, I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. I shall try to remember everything that has been asked and to deal with as many of the questions as possible. I am glad to see that the Bill has support on both sides of the House and that most hon. Members are in favour of bringing in robust and consistent regulation of remote gambling.
Through the Bill, remote gambling will be regulated at the point of consumption. That will mean that all operators selling or advertising in the British market, whether from here or abroad, will be required to hold a Gambling Commission licence. The Bill will increase protection for Britain-based consumers and will level the regulatory playing field with all remote operators, allowing British-based operators to compete on an equal footing.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), raised a great number of issues in his opening speech, including the levy, fixed odds betting terminals, enforcement and compliance. I will touch on all those issues in my speech, subject to the time available. I can confirm that we continue to engage with and consult the industry, as does the Gambling Commission, to ensure that issues of detail are dealt with very carefully. Of course, in Committee we will have an evidence sitting followed by a scrutiny sitting, which should deal with any clarification that he needs.
We will not accept an amendment on spread betting. The current arrangements work well, with the FCA and the Gambling Commission working closely together. They are also working with operators that offer spread betting to ensure that suspicious betting behaviour is reported to regulators and that licence code 15.1 is adhered to.
The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), the shadow Minister, my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and many other hon. Members asked about horse race betting levy. I understand why the issue has been raised, but the Bill cannot be the vehicle for other measures that have been neither fully considered nor consulted on. I also want to consider the question of levy reform more broadly as there might be other options that should be considered and there should be proper consultation before any measures are put in place. I will consult on any options that are sustainable, enforceable and legally sound.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the hon. Member for Bradford South, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) all raised issues about online gambling, or the lack of it, in casinos. The suggested change in the Government’s position that has been mooted would undermine existing regulatory controls on gaming machine provisions. It would also allow casinos to offer an unlimited number of gaming machines with unlimited stakes and prizes within their premises. The Government see no reason why such machines should be offered on an unlimited basis in casinos, when all other categories of gaming machine remain subject to control. That would risk fundamentally changing the character of casinos and, very sadly, turning them into something that looks like a machine shed. There may be a case to consider greater flexibility in casino regulation, as I mentioned in my opening speech, but that would need to be subject to proper impact assessment and consultation, and the Bill is not, in my opinion, the appropriate vehicle at this stage to change casino policy.
The subject of problem gambling was rightly raised by numerous Members today, including the hon. Member for Bradford South, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I would say to them that despite the relatively low rates of problem gambling, there are obviously very high participation rates for gambling, at around 73%. The Gambling Commission 2010 prevalence survey showed that fewer than 1% of the adult population are problem gamblers, but the Government acknowledge that while only a very small fraction of gamblers develop problems, that can of course result in significant problems, not just for those people but for those close to them. That is why protecting children and vulnerable adults from harm is a key component of our remote gambling policy. The Bill would require operators to have effective policies and procedures in place in relation to socially responsible gambling, and to contribute to research, education and treatment in relation to problem gambling, as part of complying with the Gambling Commission licence conditions.
Mrs Grant
I am afraid I will not, because I have very limited time and still have an awful lot to say.
The level of taxation was discussed by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and for Shipley, the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, to name but a few. The remote gambling Bill and the Treasury’s remote gambling taxation reforms are, while complementary, completely independent of each other and we absolutely reject the assertion that the licensing reforms are being pursued in order to generate tax income. The Bill includes, as Members know, no provision for the increasing of tax. Reform is entirely justified on its own merits for public participation and public protection reasons, regardless of the state of any tax plans.
On black and grey markets, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley if I did not answer his question fully earlier, but I can now say that I am confident that the Gambling Commission has the necessary tools to enforce the licence requirements and to deter illegality and black-market activity. It is not meaningful to try to speculate about the size of the black market, which by its nature is unknown. Whatever the size of any black market, the Gambling Commission will make risk-based decisions on when and where it may need to intervene.
Finally, on the extent of the tax, it will be no surprise to learn that I am telling the House that tax is a matter for the Treasury, which I know continually keeps these matters well under review.
On enforcement and compliance, I assure the shadow Minister and all the hon. Members who raised the issue that where illegal operators attempt to target British-based consumers, the Government and the Gambling Commission are confident that action can be taken through existing enforcement mechanisms to disrupt and stop unlawful gambling. Such action would include action on illegal advertising, player education and, ultimately and if necessary, prosecution. There will always, of course, be grey areas where judgments of risk and proportionality will need to be made in each individual case.
The hon. Member for Bradford South, the former Sports Minister, who knows a considerable amount about these matters, rightly mentioned sports betting integrity and cheating. Britain is proud to lead the way in approaches to sports betting and integrity. However, we do not believe that there is a need at this stage to introduce in this country a new criminal offence of match-fixing. We believe that existing law and sports rules are sufficient, but we will keep the matter carefully under review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley asked whether software producers need to be licensed. The Gambling Commission is working with the industry on the issue. In the meantime overseas software suppliers will be able to continue to supply British licensees.
I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn for his kind comments and reassure him that I do sports other than tennis. He asked me for two assurances—first, that the Gambling Commission will take action and has capacity to stop illegal betting effectively, and secondly, that the tax rate is not set too high. On the first issue, the commission will fully implement its regulatory responsibilities in line with the requirements of the Bill, and I will continue to discuss with the commission its needs to ensure that it has the necessary capacity, resources and expertise. On the second issue, as I have already said, tax rates are a matter for the Treasury and I will not venture this afternoon on to its turf.
The hon. Member for Strangford queried whether the Bill would be enforced by ISP blocking or something similar. There is mixed evidence on the effectiveness of ISP blocking, but we do not rule anything out.
Finally, on the matter of fixed-odds betting terminals, which was mentioned by several hon. Members today, although we have decided not to reduce stakes and prizes on these machines at this stage, it is a priority for the Government that we develop a much better understanding of the impact of these machines, and further work is already under way. The research being conducted by the Responsible Gambling Trust into category B machines is very important and it would be wrong to pre-empt this work. Furthermore, we believe that the Bill is not the right legislative vehicle to deal with such difficult issues.
In conclusion, this is a small but important Bill that will increase protection for remote gambling consumers based in Britain. It is not empire-building by the Gambling Commission, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. It is about protection and proper oversight and it will ensure that all remote gambling, wherever the operator is based, is licensed by the Gambling Commission and subject to that body’s robust and consistent standards of controls. I look forward to debating these issues in Committee, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
gambling (licensing and advertising) bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall be completed on the first day on which it shall meet.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on that day.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of those proceedings.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Karen Bradley.)
Question agreed to.
Gambling (licensing and advertising) bill (ways and means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill, it is expedient to authorise an extension of the cases in which:
(1) a penalty may be imposed under section 121 of the Gambling Act 2005, and
(2) a levy may be imposed under section 123 of that Act.—(Karen Bradley.)
Question agreed to.
Backbench Business
Water Industry
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reform and infrastructure of the water industry and consumers’ bills.
I move the motion also in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. The subject has been in the news recently, so the debate is timely, and it is positive that the House should have the chance to consider the issues in relation to the water industry and what reforms, if any, ought to be introduced.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend starts his main remarks I would like to pay tribute to him for his work in leading the debate since early this year and for securing this debate and, hopefully, some exciting announcements from the Government.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my hon. Friend for his customary generosity.
I will turn to the pressures that hard-working families are facing as we come out of a very difficult economic time for our country. The fact is that most people do not particularly care about politics. They vote us in every few years and decide the Government of the day, but they do not consider politics on a daily basis; they consider how they are going to keep the wolf from the door. They consider how they are going to get through the day, provide for themselves, their families and loved ones, raise their children, manage to pay their bills and get a better paid job. The Government have been very effective in ensuring that there is more employment and a return to economic growth, from rescue to recovery and onward to greater economic strength for our country.
Part of keeping the wolf from the door is dealing with the utility bills that cost all our constituents so much money. That is why water reform matters. People do not really have a choice, because there is not much competition. It is a natural monopoly and people have to pay their water bills. There is an opportunity to foster more competition and ensure that the industry is more effectively regulated than it has been. For many years nothing was done to keep on top of the water industry, particularly before this Government were elected. Now we have an opportunity to make further changes and look more closely at what the issues are and what might be done.
Before the Government were elected, there was a settlement with Ofwat and the water industry that was to last for five years. The assumptions on which the settlement was made have since altered. Retail prices index inflation has risen more quickly than it was expected that construction inflation would rise, and interest rates have been lower than expected. The result has been excess profits for the industry. Ofwat figures highlight a return on regulated equity in excess of 20% in some cases. Investment was allowed to fall in real terms after 2007, while customer bills have risen by more than inflation. Dividend payments are often greater than the profits made, which some would say is particularly unattractive.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to bring the issue to light. In relation to bills and affordability, does he agree that it is completely and utterly unacceptable that bills have risen by 60% over the past 10 years, which clearly shows that the previous Government did absolutely nothing to help the consumer?
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Certainly a better deal needs to be driven for the consumer than was driven by the previous Government. They also permitted a culture of industrial-scale tax avoidance, which was wrong.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on all his fine work on the water industry. Would he care to comment on the fact that we have seen a 60% rise in water bills yet still face rather serious and sporadic water shortages? Is it not true that the public have really seen no return for their higher bills?
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Ensuring that we have investment in the infrastructure that the country needs is really important.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
In view of the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to the issue, I hope that he will confirm that the only time there have been reductions in water charges was under the previous Labour Government.
Charlie Elphicke
Then they went back up again, as my hon. Friend remarks. Under the previous Government the water industry was allowed to become 100% mortgaged to make the tax avoidance work. There have been excessive pay rises in the boardroom at a time when hard-working families have not seen substantial pay rises. That has been very hard to justify and people look askance at that.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend wisely talks about infrastructure. One of my concerns regarding the east and south-east of England is that water companies have been extracting water to the detriment of our rivers and not building reservoirs. Indeed, the last major reservoir in the south-east—the Queen Mother—was built 40 years ago. In the meantime, millions more houses have been built, placing more pressure on a valuable resource that tends to come out of the aquifers in the ground.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. In my constituency, in Dover and Deal in east Kent, we depend on the aquifers. There is water abstraction and water stress, and compulsory metering has been in place for some time. We need to look more closely at the national planning and national infrastructure planning aspect, which I am sure hon. Members will raise.
Andrew Percy
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. We have heard a lot about people having problems with a shortage of water. In my constituency, which is very low-lying and where we rely on significant pumping capacity to keep us dry, the problem has been the other way round: we have had too much water. While our water companies have been making big profits, we have not been getting the investment in keeping us dry, let alone in ensuring we have enough drinking water.
Charlie Elphicke
That is true. In some parts of the country we have too much water and in some parts too little. I am sure that at some point someone will raise the need to move water from one place where there is too much of it to another place where there may be too little of it.
Mr Walker
We do not need to move water around from one place to another; we need to build more reservoirs such as the Abingdon reservoir, which was spade-ready and then the plug was pulled, if my hon. Friend will forgive the pun. We need to build more reservoirs, not waste money transporting water around the country.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for more reservoirs. Reservoirs are not only important for water storage; they are important places for the angling community. Many hon. Members here are passionate anglers who enjoy fishing, and reservoirs provide an opportunity for that pursuit.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am glad that my hon. Friend is going to talk about the need for competition to provide better quality and low prices, but why does he think that there is a natural monopoly? Surely anyone, under a suitably liberated regime, could build a reservoir or drill a borehole and provide water to the customer through a piped system.
Charlie Elphicke
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The planning system obviously means that such things take time. It is certainly important to have more of a national planning framework, which has been discussed by some and is worth considering. The view of water professionals is that competition is important but, in terms of customer service, it does not necessarily reduce costs because the infrastructure represents about 90% of the cost base.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Water Bill will make it easy for new entrants to do precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) suggested, by giving them access to a market that is currently denied them so that they can provide these infrastructure assets.
Charlie Elphicke
Indeed. That will be an important reform.
Let me move on to the reforms that are worth considering. First, we must consider whether it is possible to tackle the excess profits and excess returns seen over the last period and return that money to hard-working families in the next period, and to drive a fair and equitable settlement whereby investors can get appropriate returns but customers can get a better deal.
Rehman Chishti
One of the key problems is that constituents at the bottom end of the income scale have over many years incurred a debt as a result of high water bills. Given the big profits made by these companies, surely they have a moral responsibility to help those people at the bottom end with the debts they have incurred.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, who has been studying those issues with considerable care and concern.
Secondly, there is the question of how we tackle tax avoidance. The unacceptable, even antisocial, tax avoidance culture in the water industry has meant that many companies have not paid tax for years. It is wrong that that situation has arisen. Everyone should pay their fair share. We need sustainable debt, not 100% mortgages. Under the previous settlement, these water companies have been allowed to become casinos. We have an opportunity to look carefully at that to see whether the position is safe, secure and sustainable for the future.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out some of the problems in the industry and with the behaviour of the water companies. All of the companies working on an industrial estate in Formby in my constituency have been overcharged for years and the water company has been allowed to get away with not repaying them because of the way in which the regulations are set up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the type of unacceptable practice that needs to be tackled?
Charlie Elphicke
Clearly, the billing system needs to be fair.
The issue about debt is that water companies are often leveraged to 100% and then say that they cannot fund infrastructure improvements. Many colleagues have concerns about the Thames tideway tunnel and how that is financed. I am sure that will be explored in due course.
We also need more appropriate investment. If real investment falls, where is the justification to increase bills? We need to ensure that real investment does not fall, that we maintain the investment we need and that it is funded in an appropriate way.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the tideway tunnel, because my constituents in Wycombe want to avoid having to pay for it, particularly given that Wycombe faces its own problems with its sewerage systems. I hope my hon. Friend will explain how he sees choice and competition liberating people from having to pay for inadequate services.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Time denies me the opportunity to go into the issue in great detail, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon has been looking at it with considerable concern, because his constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), is in the Thames sewerage area.
We need to look at how we can beef up Ofwat and give it greater powers in the Water Bill to say, “There’s been a favourable adjustment, so we can adjust and revisit the settlement on an ongoing basis.” If it had those powers, it would be able to have a stronger conversation with the water industry. That is worth considering. It would also be worth looking at allowing Ofwat to give guidance to the water industry on appropriate and responsible corporate governance.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being extremely generous with his time. Does not Ofwat potentially suffer from perverse incentives? We know that it does not matter how cheap water is; if there is none, we need infrastructure to be built. If Ofwat has a primary duty to ensure best value for customers—which, of course, it must—it is almost certain to find it very difficult over time to allow infrastructure development that will help our resilience. Is not that a problem we need to address?
Charlie Elphicke
Very much so. I and, I am sure, many other Members would argue that Ofwat should have a stronger role as a consumer champion, but that ought to be done within the framework of the national infrastructure we need. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and I hope he will explore it further during this debate.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Although, clearly, much more needs to be done in the industry to ensure a better balance of risk between the shareholders and the taxpayer, the Government have taken some steps to help in the south-west and we now have a significant £40 million pot from which individual local consumers get £50 each off their bills. Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulators at Ofwat and the Government need to ensure that that is delivered to all residents in the south-west? At present, those who receive benefit through intermediaries—park home owners, for example—do not get that benefit and it cannot be enforced. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs fixing?
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which Ministers will no doubt take on board. This Government have been great in driving a better deal on water for people in the south-west, and they deserve credit for that.
On potential reforms under the Water Bill, we need to consider the extent to which Ofwat needs new powers and whether the Government should include appropriate provisions. Those are important questions.
The previous Labour Government mismanaged the economy and took Britain to the brink. It was not just the economy they mismanaged; they left a toxic legacy of mismanagement in our utility industries, making life difficult for hard-working families. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at water reform and I wish them well.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I congratulate the Members who secured this welcome debate.
Until recently, there had been a general consensus that the privatised water industry was a success. That was a consensus to which I never subscribed, whether in government or in opposition. It is far from being a success.
We must not allow the water industry to get away with all sorts of technical explanations of why it cannot do its job properly and reasonably cheaply, because it has a simple task. It gets its raw material free: it is called rain. It collects the rainwater and pumps it along pipes to its customers. It then charges them for using the water.
Mr Charles Walker
That is exactly the problem. Our water companies are lousy at collecting water. When it is at its most abundant, they wave it down the rivers into the sea. That is why they need to be building more reservoirs. I am sorry to labour the point, but they are not collecting the water.
Frank Dobson
The next word in my notes is “reservoirs”. Every substantial reservoir that the water companies use was built when the industry was in the public sector. The private sector has not increased reservoir capacity in this country since privatisation in 1989-90.
Alec Shelbrooke
I stand to be corrected, but I understand that only 1% of rainfall is captured for domestic use. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has found that during his research.
Frank Dobson
God knows; it would depend on when, if the hon. Gentleman sees what I mean.
The bulk of the reservoir capacity and the pipework was provided when big cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds and the Metropolitan Water Board in London were trying to look after the interests of the people of their areas. They created the reservoirs and laid the pipes.
During the arguments about the privatisation of the water industry, I received a letter in beautiful copperplate handwriting from an ancient ex-councillor in Sheffield. He said, “All the people at Yorkshire Water are doing is collecting water in reservoirs we built and sending it along pipes we laid. I speak as the former chairman of the water committee in Sheffield.” He pointed out that while the chief executive of Yorkshire Water was getting several hundred thousand pounds a year, when he had been responsible for it he had been paid “nowt” and the job had been done properly, whereas it had not been done properly ever since.
Mr Redwood
Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that the pipe network that the nationalised industry put in was riddled with holes by the time the private sector took over? More than 25% of the water was being lost en route and the private sector has been renewing the pipes.
Frank Dobson
That is certainly true. Until 1995, Ministers from all parties accepted the statement by the water industry that the bulk of the water that leaked out of the system leaked out of customers’ pipes. It took a lot of effort from me and somebody who was working for me at the time to finally reveal that that was nothing short of a lie. It was not that the Ministers were lying; they were being provided with lies by the water industry. I have had the figure changed into fashionable litres now.
Frank Dobson
In 1995, 826 million gallons of water per day were leaking out of the water companies’ pipes. According to my calculations, that is 3,755 million litres per day. The companies now proudly proclaim that they are dealing with the leaks. They have got the figure down to the apparently minuscule 2,910 million litres per day. Once they had to admit they were getting it wrong, we could see that it was a farcical record. Frankly, they simply deserve—I do not know; perhaps total abuse is the word—for their failure, and so does the system that regulates them, and the Ministers and civil servants who are also involved.
During the recent period water companies have increased charges; under the Labour Government charges went down at first then gradually crept up again. One thing that has not gone down, of course, is the huge dividends that the water companies have been paying. Since privatisation, they have paid out £37 billion in dividends. As the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) pointed out, that is 21% of gross value added compared with comparable parts of the private non-financial sector, which come in at about 11% of gross value added.
Look at the figures for individual water companies: Severn Trent Water has paid £6.2 billion in dividends; Thames Water has paid out £6.3 billion; United Utilities in the north-west paid out £7.3 billion; and Anglian Water has paid out £6 billion. Then there is tax avoidance and, as the hon. Member for Dover pointed out, a large amount of that is the product of manipulation of the companies’ borrowing, to the infinite benefit of their foreign owners in particular, more so than to their British owners.
Then there is the bosses’ pay. Some of them are being paid more than £1 million a year for collecting rainwater and sending it down a pipe. I understand the Health Secretary suggested that some managers in the national health service might be overpaid. It may be the case that some are, but let us consider Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, for example—two teaching hospitals, 12,000 staff and 1,200 doctors to manage. I do not think anybody in the world would think that the person responsible for managing that, who gets about £250,000 a year, does not have a rather more complex task than someone who collects rainwater and sends it down a pipe. We must get some sense of proportion.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Has the right hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the effect on bills if there were not the excesses of bonuses, payments and dividends that he detailed earlier?
Frank Dobson
I cannot really do that as I have only just come back to looking at the water industry from the time when I tried to make life difficult for it, with some success. “Hammer the customers for the profiteers” is the motto of the water industry. We have higher charges, and now water companies want to install compulsory water meters everywhere. That is basically their policy, and a lot of people who I think ought to know better have been going along with that.
It costs about £250 to supply and install a water meter, and they have about 15 years of life before the grit and impurities in the water make them not do their job accurately. If it is a smart meter I understand that the situation is even worse. It costs about £50 to install a new meter if one has previously been installed. I think there are more than 10 million unmetered households, so at £250 a throw—according to my calculations—that is £2.5 billion. Does anybody think that investing in water meters is the best way of spending £2.5 billion? Even if they do, I certainly do not.
Another thing is that, as soon as anything goes wrong, the companies come rushing to the taxpayer to bail them out. South West Water could not cope with the problems it faced, particularly its sewerage problems and ended up getting a leg-up from the taxpayer.
George Hollingbery
I read one or two historical documents on water management before I came to the Chamber. I believe I am right in saying that the previous Labour Government’s policy was for universal water metering—the policy statement was made in 2008. Is that correct?
Frank Dobson
That might be the case, but the statement was not made in my name—let us put it that way. When I was responsible for water in opposition, I was opposed to metering. I remained opposed to it when Labour was in government and continue to be opposed to it.
South West Water is not the only one. Thames Water had sewage and run-off problems and came up with a great £4 billion scheme. Because of how it finances itself, it could not finance the scheme, despite paying £6 billion in dividends over the years. The only way in which it can proceed is by Government guarantee. It is therefore not really privatised; it is a dependency of the Treasury.
Rehman Chishti
The right hon. Gentleman says that the previous policy was not in his name. Does his party leader have his support for his current policy on water? Is so, what is his party leader’s policy?
Frank Dobson
My understanding is that the party’s policy—no doubt it will be enunciated in due course from the Front Bench—is that the current situation is unsatisfactory, and that we need a dramatic change in the powers and functions of the regulator. No Government Member would think there is anything wrong with that proposal.
Where is all that customers’ money going? In the case of Thames Water, it is being paid out to shareholders in Australia and China. Prior to that, it was paid out to shareholders in Germany. People talk about the wonders of the City of London as a financial centre, but I wonder why, in such a great financial centre, one or two of the people with all the money have not thought of getting together to own the water supply for their own city. Apparently, that has not occurred to them.
Thirty per cent. of the average water bill goes to profits. Even the energy industry uses only 9% of charges as profit, but the water industry uses 30%—30% of every penny and pound that people pay goes off in profits, which is, to say the least, a remarkable return on investment.
Charlie Elphicke
The percentage is not that high. Nevertheless, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the previous Government allowed an inappropriate settlement that should not have been agreed?
Frank Dobson
It is no good my saying that the previous Government’s record was as good as it ought to have been—I will not pretend that it was.
Another thing is that, over the years, charges for water have risen at twice the average of price rises for everything else. There can be no possible justification for that. What sickens customers are the water industry’s byzantine financial arrangements and how it is an outpost of the tax avoidance industry. Nobody appears to understand this. Ofwat, successive civil servants and successive Ministers do not appear to have understood what is going on. I am not excusing anybody: I have no faith in the continuation of the existing system. The industry continues to be run for the benefit of companies, company bosses and shareholders. If it is to be run properly from an environmental, security of water supply and cost point of view, it is essential, before changes are made, to subject the industry to freedom of information, so that troublemaking pressure groups and individuals can get to work on the figures in a way that Ofwat and the Department are clearly incapable of doing.
I have a more advanced view of what should be done: we should follow recent examples from Germany. Berlin decided to bring the control and operation of its water supply back under the ownership of the people of Berlin, and the people of Hamburg voted in a referendum to bring its electricity supply back under the control and ownership of the people of Hamburg. That almost happened in Berlin, but the necessary turnout was not quite achieved. I propose a trial run in London. We could give the people of London a referendum to ask, “Do you want to take over, and bring your water industry back under the ownership of something similar to the Metropolitan Water Board?” That would be popular with the public: at the weekend, an opinion poll showed that 69% of the population wanted the energy industry to go back into public ownership.
Mr Redwood
The right hon. Gentleman has just criticised spending £2.5 billion on water meters as a luxury we cannot afford. How much would it cost to buy companies back into public ownership, and why would it be a good investment?
Frank Dobson
These industries are pleading poverty all the time, so it would not be all that expensive. The cost could be paid out over a very long period, which is what happened when industries were brought into public ownership in the 1940s and early 1950s.
Most people are sick to death of what is going on. They have no faith in Ofwat, officials at the Department or Ministers. I share their lack of faith and until we put forward some aggressive propositions nothing will change to the advantage of the people we try to represent.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to take part in a debate from the Back Benches for the first time in a few years. This is an important subject and I apologise to those on both Front Benches for not being able to be here for the winding-up speeches, as I have a long-standing engagement that I have to attend.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), to his post. I told him in the Lobby the other night that I had three and a half years to get my head around the water industry. He has three and a half weeks before the Water Bill comes before the House, but he is a clever fellow and I am sure he will be more than a match for the job.
I hope this debate does not over-emphasise the negative and allows us to take a little pride, at least on the Conservative Benches, in what has been achieved in the water industry. I thought the only voice, upon deep consideration, really talking about renationalisation was dear old Len McCluskey—I sometimes wonder whether he is a stooge of Conservative central office—but I now see that there are others: it is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). I take great pride, however, in what was achieved by privatisation through good, strong political leadership. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was part of the intellectual force behind privatisation. With people such as Nicholas Ridley and others, he led the debate—with, I have to say, the support of about 8% of the population. However, they drove though something that has delivered for customers. Twenty-two years down the road, I am the first to agree with my hon. Friends, and probably all Members, that the industry is long overdue a tweaking—in fact, more than a tweaking; a serious reform—but I shall explain later why I think the Government are getting it right and the part the House can play to protect the incomes of our householders, particularly those on low incomes.
Jonson Cox, the chairman of Ofwat, came into my office shortly after his appointment and said he was keen to ensure that the industry took more notice of customers’ needs. To summarise, I said: “Good. That is precisely what the Government hope you will do in this price review—more power to your elbow—but we want you to do much more. We want you not only to keep household bills down, but to keep investment up and ensure that water companies play their part in improving the environment.” We must accept, however, that sometimes those three things conflict.
Frank Dobson
When the hon. Gentleman was talking to the new boss of Ofwat, did he draw to his attention the marked reluctance of the water industry to pay the proper amount of tax, bearing it in mind that the aforesaid new boss of Ofwat, when he was at Anglian, made pretty sure it kept its tax liability to a minimum?
Richard Benyon
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am keen that everybody pay the required tax, but I caution people who criticise capital allowances. If our water company were not exercising its rights under capital allowances, either investment would fall or our bills would rise, or both. There is sometimes a lack of basic economic understanding: tax deferred is not tax not paid; it has to be paid. In one respect, however, I entirely agree, and I am deeply uncomfortable with some practices in aspects of corporate Britain. Work needs to be done—and in fairness to the Government much has been done—to close loopholes.
We need to make the argument that investment in the industry keeps bills down. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras seems affronted by Chinese companies and sovereign wealth funds and investors from all parts of the world investing in our regulated sector. I am not affronted. I welcome it. It is the sign of a vibrant industry and one that we need to encourage. We need more investment if we are to deal with some of the Victorian—or at least Edwardian—infrastructure we are trying to replace. Under a nationalised industry, directors of water boards would sit outside the Treasury saying, “Please can we have some more money for investment?” Down the ages, Chancellors have said, “Certainly. Just get in the queue behind the NHS, pensioners and the welfare state, and if there are any scraps left, we will give them to you.”
We have seen an historic level of investment— £116 billion—and we want to see more. We also want to ensure that we keep the bills as low as possible. Supplying all the water that goes into households and treating all the sewage that comes out costs households an average of £1 a day, although I accept that there are wide discrepancies in price. As a percentage of our household expenditure, that might be quite small compared with energy costs and other items, but it is still a significant amount, and those in the lowest income decile in this country are, broadly speaking, in water poverty. We need to address that. There are huge challenges facing the industry, and I hope the Water Bill and the ongoing activities in the sector will tackle them.
The challenges include continuing to ensure investment to deal with leakage and other concerns, such as those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and to ensure that new infrastructure is built. We must also address the challenges of affordability and the credibility of the industry among its customers. An important matter for our constituents is that the companies address the question of resilience. They must be able to keep the water flowing from the taps in a time of changing climate.
In my short tenure as Minister with responsibility for these matters, I saw the worst drought for decades. We are the sixth largest economy in the world, but if we had had a third dry winter, towns in some of the most economically vibrant parts of the country would have faced the very real prospect of standpipes. That is unacceptable in this day and age. Large national events could have been affected. Indeed, the Olympics presented quite a worry at the time. We clearly need more investment to ensure that water continues to flow in areas that are prone to drought.
During that time, I also saw floods. We must not forget that the water companies’ role in managing sewerage systems is vital in protecting our constituents’ homes from flooding. There is also a need for continuing investment in that regard.
Alec Shelbrooke
I shall expand a little on my hon. Friend’s comments on the role of water companies in dealing with flooding when I speak later. Would he care to comment on how the water companies are often ignored when they tell developers that there is a flood risk in the area in which they are building? Does he agree that the water companies are often left to clear up the resulting mess, which puts pressure on their budgets?
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government are right to deal with the connection to private sewers, where many leakages have occurred. They, and the water companies, are also taking action in other areas to ensure that they are playing their part. Sometimes just a small investment can make a big difference to the flood risk in an entire street, for example. It is vital to ensure that the water companies are sitting down and talking to the flood forums and the local flood authorities to make sure that these issues are being addressed, but perhaps that is a wider issue for another debate.
The Water Bill will play a key part in addressing the challenges. The question of building new infrastructure and new reservoirs was raised earlier. The key reform to ensure that that happens, to secure the long-term sustainability of the industry and long-term benefits for our constituents, will involve enabling new entrants to come into the industry and provide new competition. The competition that will exist in the non-household sector must, in time, be introduced in the household sector as well, and I hope that that will be the long-term ambition in a forward-thinking political agenda. That would result in the kind of benefits for households that businesses will soon be able to achieve by switching supplier. The Bill should be seen only as work in progress, however.
One of this Government’s achievements of which I am most proud is the water White Paper. It might sound rather prosaic to say that I am proud of a document, but it set out some important provisions. It demonstrated that the Government were getting a grip on water policy. In the past, water policy had been created by all kinds of different organisations and bodies, not least the water companies themselves. In the White Paper, we demonstrated our determination that the Government should own the policy and that the regulators should regulate. We stated that, in a regulated sector, if the water companies functioned within meaningful regulation by the three regulators, we would have an industry of which we could be proud. The water White Paper was welcomed by customers’ groups, the industry, investors, green NGOs and all parts of the House, although I do not know whether that makes it a unique document, as the natural environment White Paper achieved much of the same.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I seem to recall that the Select Committee, of which the former water Minister was a member, criticised the Government for not being ambitious enough. Is that not a fair recollection?
Richard Benyon
The Select Committee produced many good things with which I agree. If that is what it said at the time—I am afraid that many of my memories of the last three and a half years merge into one—I would probably not agree, because there was bold ambition in the water White Paper, which was reflected in many of the comments made about it by many different people.
Julian Smith
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work as a Minister. He is speaking passionately about the White Paper and the Water Bill, but does he agree that the financing of these companies still looks dodgy to many of our voters? I would appreciate it if he commented on that before he concludes.
Richard Benyon
I shall talk about debt and gearing shortly, and I think my hon. Friend will find me in agreement with him on those issues.
Let me explain why I believe the Water Bill is only a work in progress when it comes to delivering the ambitions of the water White Paper. In the next Parliament, I really hope we will see a Bill to address the needs of abstraction reform. It would be impossible to bring that forward as part of the Water Bill because there are tens of thousands of abstraction licences, on which many of our constituents and the businesses that employ them depend for their water supply. Trying to create a new abstraction regime from the one created back in the 1960s is a Herculean task that will require thoughtful legislation to make sure that the taps still flow and that we do not suck dry aquifers like the Kennet, which provides a very important water supply to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). That, however, has been the cheapest place from which to suck water, and it is only through the construction of good infrastructure and investment that we can do this in a sustainable way that keeps bills down, keeps water flowing and supports our economy. Further legislation, then, is needed.
Let me make a further point about investment before I reach my final point. If we want to see continued investment from pension funds—whether they be British or from overseas—sovereign wealth funds and other investors, we need to recognise that this is a relatively fragile and competitive market. I shall give the House an anecdote about the frequent visits I made to speak to the investor community to make sure that it saw that our ambitions in the water White Paper and the Water Bill were consistent with continued high levels of investment.
Some time ago, there was a hiatus concerning a rather technical issue that might well have gone over the heads of most people in this country. It related to the licence modifications that Ofwat wanted to create. This brought me in touch with a new breed in my life—City analysts, many of whom, in the words of my children, were “wusses”. They took an instant view that the regulated sector was not the place in which to invest, so the water sector saw quite a high risk of much needed investment being reduced. It took a Herculean effort—by me on the bottom echelons of the Government, right up to the higher levels—to make sure, first, that what Ofwat was trying to achieve was understood. In my opinion, it might have had a virtuous reason for what it did, but perhaps went about it in the wrong way. It reminded me that if we want to see continued levels of investment, we have to make sure that we explain what we are doing. Ultimately, the need to deal with infrastructure problems needs to feed through to bills, and we need to explain that we want to see a vibrant regulated sector in this country.
Mr MacNeil
I have been listening carefully to the arguments on both sides of the debate. Why does the hon. Gentleman think average water bills are lower in Scotland, where water is publicly owned, than in England, where it is privately owned?
Richard Benyon
We want to see in England the virtue of the competition from which the hon. Gentleman’s constituents benefit in Scotland, in the business sector and, indeed, the public sector. Schools and the health service in Scotland have the opportunity to switch their suppliers, and the Water Bill will enable businesses in England to do the same. I accept that this is still work in progress, but we want to see the benefits of competition flowing—
Richard Benyon
I will not give way again because many other Members wish to speak and I want to say something about debt before I finish.
I took on the water brief with a background in small business, but I had never encountered, or been closely associated with, businesses that had the level of debt and gearing that I saw in the water industry. I observed that the credit rating agencies—for which I have great respect: some very good people work for organisations such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s—were giving the water companies very high ratings, awarding them As, A-minuses and high Bs. In fact, Ofwat operates the strict criterion that their ratings must remain at those levels. However, I could not come to terms with that in my own mind at times.
The companies may indeed be complying with Ofwat’s criterion by gaining high credit ratings as a result of their wealth, but I think many Members will feel, as I do, that gearing of that order confers a brittleness—an inflexibility—when it comes to those companies delivering what we want them to deliver to their customers. I hope there will be more understanding of the need for them to reflect the concern that is felt about gearing levels, not just in the House but among their customers.
It is important for us to view water bills in the context of total household expenditure. The Leader of the Opposition has decided that energy bills are an issue on which he wants to bang the drum, but we know that his plan will not work. He knows it will not work, and he knows that we know that he knows it will not work. What is ridiculous about his argument is that it treats one part of household expenditure, albeit an important part, as the sole issue of the moment. Rather than doing that, the Government must view water bills and energy costs in the context of overall household expenditure. They must keep bearing down on council tax, and preferably freeze it. They must continue to protect the most vulnerable by providing winter fuel payments, and to ensure that more of our constituents on low incomes do not pay any tax. It is in that context that the Government should develop policy on household bills.
Water bills are, of course, important. It is vital for us not only to understand but to reflect the concerns of our constituents, and to take advantage of every opportunity to protect those on low incomes. We can, for instance, provide social tariffs. We can also work on the problem of bad debt, which, as we know, adds an average of £15 to every household’s bills—although when that is broken down by company, it is clear that some companies are outperforming others dramatically, and that their bad debt is a fraction of the average. Some are doing magnificently, and others appallingly badly. We must learn from best practice. We must ensure that companies deal with bad debt, but we must also ensure that we address their relationships with their customers in general. We must bear in mind the win-wins that can help those who are having trouble paying their bills to deal with the problem.
I hope that we will not be defensive about the model, because it is a good model. It has created a huge benefit for this country in terms of investment. What it has delivered is relatively affordable for most people, but we need to work hard to make sure prices come down. The five-yearly price review, along with clear policy from the Government, who understand the situation, presents an opportunity. We can make sure the companies are bearing down on bills and there is none of that awful cyclical investment, with investment falling off a cliff two years before the price review period. We want to see continued investment because we know that is the way to have a sustainable water supply and a sustainable sewerage system—not just economically sustainable, but environmentally sustainable as well.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who spoke with passion and real understanding about what is a complex issue. The water industry was privatised nearly a quarter of a century ago now, and it is reaching a crossroads. While I agree with my hon. Friend about the levels of investment that privatisation has delivered—which is well in excess of £100 billion in the last 25 years—we are reaching a stage where we now need to look for different solutions. My hon. Friend touched on a number of them in his remarks, and I was very impressed by his description of City analysts and their attitude to the regulated sector, and the challenge of gearing. As he said, the high level of gearing is causing inflexibility. That is leading to unimaginative solutions to the problems that beset companies such as Thames Water, which serves not only the London area, but the area I have the honour of representing: Swindon.
My hon. Friend mentioned abstraction from the Kennet, and I should commend the Save Water Swindon campaign, which is all about encouraging householders to be sensible in the use of water. It has had a marked impact and continues to this day. Indeed, only a couple of weeks ago I was helping Thames Water promote that campaign.
All that is detail, however, but today’s debate presents us with an opportunity to look more broadly at the challenge facing the industry. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for accepting the application made in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). There is quite a geographical spread between our constituencies, which shows that this is an issue for the whole country, not just the area I represent.
Although cost-of-living issues are very much the stuff of current political debate, the issues raised today long predate the current political spat. This debate has to be about value for money for local consumers and businesses and finding better ways for our water industry to operate.
Despite the interesting contribution of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who is no longer in his place, there is no doubt that 25 years ago privatisation was the right course of action. There was no alternative for the industry if we were to seek and secure new forms of capital investment. The achievements of Bazalgette and the Victorians lasted us for a long time, but we have by now reached a stage where renewal and reinvestment are essential.
Now, after nearly a decade of continued price rises, householders are rightly asking themselves, “Why us?” In the context of the current monopoly, who can they turn to? The situation is worse than the Henry Ford scenario of “You can have any colour you like, as long as it’s black,” because there is nowhere else for consumers to go.
I understand why the regional model was adapted from the previous nationalised structure. In many ways that made sense in terms of bringing together infrastructure with water supply, and I can think of the example of Severn Trent with its assets over the border in Wales, but I ask this question: is the regionalised model sustainable for the long term? Is there not a better way of dealing with the industry?
Mr Redwood
When we debated this, I was the one who said, “You must have competition and you can have competition in water, as in other things.” I lost that battle. Privatisation solved the capital shortage but, apart from that, it has left all the evils of the monopoly in the nationalised business—a lack of quality, a lack of choice, high costs and a lack of innovation.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, and his role in all this back in the late 1980s must not be underestimated. As he rightly says, now is the time for us to draw an analogy with other industries such as telecoms, where infrastructure and supply are dealt with separately. Giving consumers the right to switch suppliers is essential if we are to drive through an improvement in service.
Thomas Docherty
I heard the hon. Gentleman making this argument earlier on the BBC. For the interest of the House, will he clarify whether he also believes that the water companies should be able to disconnect a customer who refuses to pay?
Mr Buckland
Disconnection is very much a last resort. We need to make sure that we do not put consumers off from switching for fear of disconnection that may be unjustified. Not only is water a resource for the country, but it has huge and essential social utility. It is one of the essentials of life, so I quite accept that we must have a social dimension to all this. That is why moving towards a system where we have more social tariffs to help the more vulnerable members of society would be a good thing.
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful for that half-explanation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that unless there is disconnection, the market simply cannot work? If we are going to have competition for households, we would have to have disconnection.
Mr Buckland
I do not follow that argument; it does not apply in other sectors and I do not see why it needs to apply in this one. Disconnection would not assist consumers when making that switch because they may well be deterred by the fear of disconnection, so I do not accept that argument.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend is completely right to reject the outrageous suggestion made by the shadow Minister that there should be the power to disconnect householders. Does he recall whether the Labour party, when it was in government, had any form of social tariffs or anything like what it has been calling for today? Or is this something where the Labour party has woken up and jumped on the bandwagon?
Mr Buckland
I hope that this debate will continue in a spirit of looking to the long-term future of the industry, rather than descending into anything approaching point scoring. I do not think that is worthy of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and I am sure that we will not see such a descent in his contribution, because this issue predates this Government.
As I was explaining, price rises started to increase significantly in the middle of the past decade. The average Thames Water household bill was £254 in 2005-06 and it has now risen to £354. One of my constituents sent me his own list of increases, where he recorded that in 2005-06 his bill increased by a whopping 21% and that since that time his bills have increased by 84%. So we can see why consumers and residents are asking, “Why us? Why do we have to bear the burden?”
I am pleased that Ofwat has issued a preliminary decision to disallow Thames Water’s request to raise prices by £29 for customers’ bills with effect from 2014-15. Thames Water said that it wished to spread that increase over several years but, as Ofwat has said, Thames Water has produced insufficient evidence to justify such a rise. It is unique this year in terms of the other water companies and the issue is compounded by the prospect of indefinite rises of up to £80 for my residents in order to pay for the £4.1 billion Thames tideway tunnel. I am in no way an opponent of bold and imaginative infrastructure schemes. They represent the best spirit of what inspired the Victorians to create the infrastructure on which, in many ways, we rely today. Buildings such as this place were the result of such boldness. It is right, however, that we should ask the legitimate question about whether dealing with the problems experienced through the discharge of sewage into the River Thames is worth that £4.1 billion.
I have no doubt that there are serious issues with pollution, but air pollution in London affects more people than the issue that the tunnel seeks to address. Other proposals, such as those for sustainable drainage, would be a more incremental way of dealing with the problem than inflicting this large hit on consumers.
Mr Charles Walker
What does my hon. Friend suggest that London does with its faeces if we do not put them into the Thames or build a tunnel to take them away from the Thames? Where will it all go?
Mr Buckland
I am not saying that there is not a problem, but that there are alternative ways of dealing with it through sustainable drainage. Earlier, my hon. Friend made an intervention about the need to build more infrastructure. I heard what he said, but to my way of thinking the Abingdon reservoir was the wrong response to the problems that still besets Thames Water—that is, the massive leakages. Thames Water is still losing 646 million litres of water a day.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on securing the debate. Does he also agree that there is some question about where the figures of £70 or £80 resulting from the tideway tunnel come from? If we divide the £4 billion by the total number of customers in the area, it seems to come to a somewhat lower number. Are there not also questions about exactly how it is financed and whether it can be done more cheaply?
Mr Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the breakdown of the arithmetic for individuals does not seem to add up. Thames Water intends to use a separate corporate vehicle to build this entity, but we must ask why the bill payer must bear the brunt of the problem.
Let me return to the question of leakages because the figures are quite startling. Although Thames Water is making progress in bringing the leakages down, and I give it credit for that, the figures are pretty disturbing. Last year, it was reported that Thames Water was losing 665 million litres of water a day, a leak rate of 25.7%. That was five times higher than the 5% that would have been saved by a hosepipe ban. The leaks would fill Wembley stadium every 36 hours.
Alec Shelbrooke
Would my hon. Friend care to elaborate on that for those who call for nationalisation? Is it not true that the state of the water industry and the state of the pipes the water runs through were caused by the lack of maintenance that happened when they were in Government hands? Since they have been in private hands, the investment has been put in to try to rectify that appalling problem.
Mr Buckland
My hon. Friend is right that the problem would probably be considerably worse had we left things as they were and expected the Government, with their declining pot, to invest and deal with leakages. The problems, however, remain and although Thames Water is working to try to deal with them, I believe that the company should concentrate on leakages before it advocates vast reservoir projects such as the one supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
It is not just Thames that has a problem of leakages. It probably has the most serious problem, but other companies such as United Utilities and Severn Trent also have considerable leakages. The most recent figures I have from Ofwat show that United Utilities is losing 457 million litres a day and Severn Trent is losing 441 million.
The Water Bill has been mentioned. The Bill is a good first step. It will be the first reform of the industry since privatisation, and it will bring choice for businesses, charities and the public sector, but as other hon. Members have said, we should be going further to allow that choice to be extended to residents and household consumers. I am glad to hear that the Bill will allow for a more joined-up approach to the water supply network, thereby in some ways dealing with the regionalisation issue that continues to bedevil the infrastructure. I am glad that there will be further improvements to the Ofwat regulatory system.
I am looking for a greater emphasis on developing social tariffs. How that is to be done will be a matter for detailed discussion, and while Government guidance, which has been welcomed, has already been issued about concessionary schemes for community groups, it is now up to the industry to act swiftly on social tariffs and to ensure that those who are the most vulnerable and who, like all of us, need access to a basic staff of life, can have that access without the fear of disconnection that was mentioned by the Opposition spokesman.
As I said, this is an issue of not only household and local significance but national resonance. I shall not repeat some of the points that were raised by hon. Members about excessive boardroom pay, rather exotic tax arrangements and capital expenditure, but it is important to note, looking at the figures based on current prices, that in real terms gross capital expenditure by the four major water companies in England and Wales has fluctuated and is on a downward path. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury spoke eloquently about the cyclical nature of investment, which is hardly a solid foundation for attracting the much needed future and further investment in the water industry. While it is right to say that the Ofwat regime—Ofwat is currently looking at the 2015-20 price regime—is an appropriate exercise of regulatory power, we need to try and get through the cyclical problem that is causing the inflexibility in the industry that he talked about.
Today’s debate is a chance not only to make an important contribution to the ongoing discussion about the cost of living, but to look forward to the Water Bill, to ensure that we take the opportunity to get that piece of legislation right for the market, and to remember that value for money for businesses, and for the people we represent, must be at the heart of our deliberations and discussions today. We owe it to them to ensure that water bills are priced competitively, that the service is efficient and that there is a real sense of responsibility for the people that the water companies serve. If we help water companies along that road, we will have done the people whom we represent at least some service today.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you taking up your new duties, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Monopoly is the evil that we are here to debate. It is monopoly that stifles innovation. It is monopoly that drives prices higher. It is monopoly that takes away choice and consumer power, and it is monopoly that leads to rationing. We saw all those features in the water industry when it was nationalised. I am amazed that the Labour party still has people who think it would be a good idea to go back to the nationalised water monopoly, which regularly ran out of water in the summer. Woe betide the man or woman who had bedding plants in a hot summer in Britain—because before global warming we used to get hot summers, and then the water would run out. It was a tragedy, because it was a direct result of the nationalised industry.
The privatised industry, I am pleased to say, has done one thing better than the nationalised industry—it has got access to more capital. It has mended a lot of pipes, put in new pipes, and put some investment into dealing with dirty water as well, so we have fewer interruptions to supply under the privatised industry than before. However, we did not go far enough with the privatisation. We transferred the ownership but, as some of my hon. Friends have wisely pointed out, we kept in place much of the regional structure.
We bought the idiotic idea that the industry sold to Ministers and advisers that because rivers run to the sea in separate geographical areas called river basins, it was terribly important to have local monopolies around a river basin. Woe betide anyone who wanted to move water from one river basin area to another, and woe betide anyone who wanted to use borehole water. Apparently, it all had to be organised around river valleys. Sometimes it is difficult to create boundaries between them, because tributaries and streams have a habit of not being as neat as administrative lines on maps, but it was decided that we had to have this “natural monopoly”.
There is no natural monopoly in the supply of water. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) who has recently departed the Chamber, rain falls across the whole of the United Kingdom, not always all at the same time, not always in the same quantities, but this island is not cursed with a shortage of rain for most of the time, and we collect very little of it. It is also not true to say that water is some precious resource that has to be husbanded because it will run out. Water is the ultimate renewable resource. It falls as rain; it mainly runs out to the sea; it is picked up by the winds and goes back into the clouds; and it comes back again as rain. Nature or God, depending on one’s beliefs, does most of the job for us, producing an endless supply of water to this country. All that we have to do is provide business people who can raise the capital to make sure that we capture enough of that water in a form that we can then put into pipes, and that we clean it up to an appropriate standard for the use.
We did not introduce competition into the industry when we privatised it, so many of the evils of monopoly are still with us. We have less rationing, but we can still have rationing. We have quite dear prices, although perhaps they do not go up quite as quickly as they did when they were part of a Treasury exercise. We certainly get more capital into the industry, but at the expense of quite substantial gearing, as some hon. Gentlemen have mentioned. However, many of the bad features of the nationalised industry are perpetuated and it is very difficult being a challenger to the industry, so I pay tribute to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who produced a White Paper which is becoming a piece of legislation, which will try to open up the market a bit more.
I pay tribute to the modest steps taken in Scotland, where it was discovered that far from the taps running dry or the water prices going through the roof if the authorities dared to have more than one provider of business water, the opposite has happened: the prices went down—a little bit, because there was not a great deal of competition coming in—and above all the quality of service rose. I have talked to some of the Scottish businesses that have to deal with the water industry. They say that the great breakthrough in Scotland as a result of competition was the fact that they could get a much better service. They could get the water supply when they wanted it and where they wanted it, and pipes and so on mended and repaired.
Businesses in Scotland can also negotiate with their water industry about what sort of water they want. At present, under a nationalised monopoly or a privatised monopoly, only one type of water is available. It is cleaned to a certain standard and it then has additives put in it. An industry wanting to make drinks may need to take the additives out before it can make its drinks, so there is a double cost and a nuisance, because it cannot get the type of water it wants. A firm that wants to carry out a fairly rudimentary washing business does not need water of a quality that we can drink, but it has to pay the extra price to buy the very high-quality water literally to tip it down the drain.
Therefore, we are not seeing experimentation, innovation or customer service because of a lack of competition. The industry is determined to supply only one grade of water and only the amount it can be bothered to supply, and then it blames the customer, should we dare to say that we want a bit more. We are now bombarded with messages from the industry suggesting that water is a natural monopoly and not the ultimate renewable resource. We are told that good people take only one bath a week in order to save water, that they do not use so much water for cleaning and that they ensure that they husband their use of water in their sinks and whatever machines they have at home that require it.
I have good news for my constituents: I do not believe that. I think that water is the ultimate renewable resource, that it ought to be made available more abundantly and more cheaply and that that could be done if we trusted competition. Surely one of the advantages of rising living standards, which is what we are all here to try to help create, is that people can then use more water because they have more things to clean, or because they wish to enjoy themselves in their bathroom. We need to ensure that they have access to the right quantities of cheaper water, and competition is the way to do that.
Julian Smith
My right hon. Friend, as always, is speaking in an impassioned way about the merits of competition. Will he explain to the House how quickly he thinks domestic competition could be introduced and whether he thinks the Government should be moving more quickly on that?
Mr Redwood
I would do it straight away. I cannot see what the problem is. If water is a natural monopoly, as some people argue, no harm will be done by breaking the formal monopoly; it is just that nothing will happen. But of course it is not a natural monopoly, which is why the industry is fighting so hard to keep a legal monopoly. It knows that it will have to wake up and change quite a lot if it has to face competition.
We would have to give the market some help to get it going, because the monopolists are in a very strong position. We would need to tell them to use their pipe network as a common carrier, because other people would need access to it. However, the challengers might soon find, as was the case with those sorts of arrangements in the telecoms industry, that the existing assets are not so great and that they want to put in their own pipes. The challengers in telecoms did that with wires, and then of course the radio links became a cheaper and better way of doing it. Who knows what technical breakthroughs there might be or how much challengers would want to use the common carrier network? However, to get competition going we would need to start with a common carrier network, so a system would need to be put in place to allow people access to the pipes.
We would also need to ensure that the Environment Agency was prepared to license borehole water and sensible levels of river extraction by other licensees. I do not want our rivers to be run dry by people taking too much out in a dry season, so we would need proper regulation for that. As has been pointed out, however, we let huge quantities of water go to the sea during wet periods, so we do not seem to be very good at planning our water use and holding it in suitable locations so that we have plenty in drier weather.
Another thing that I think the water industry needs to pay attention to, along with other utilities in this country, is the huge disruption they cause to our road network. Our road network is a nationalised monopoly and therefore has rationing and, looking at the tax bill, is extremely expensive. It has all the characteristics of monopoly provision that I dislike. One of the things that make our totally inadequate road network even worse is the fact that it is regularly disrupted by businesses digging up great chunks of tarmac and subsoil with pneumatic drills in order to lay new water pipes, other utility pipes and wires. Why on earth have we not learnt that it is not a great idea to put these things right down the middle of the road and then hard-pack soil, subsoil, tarmac and stones on top, which means huge delay, disruption and cost every time we want to change it? In modern buildings all the services run in ducts under the floors so that we do not have to rip out the plaster, half demolishing the place, every time we want to change the wiring.
Surely we could have a system to provide easy access along the side of our roads to pipes, wires and anything else we want to put down without having to dig up the road every time. We could at least start doing that when we build new estates, shopping centres or whatever. We should do it intelligently by putting in ducts to save all that money and time. I find utility companies very sympathetic to that idea when I invite them in to talk about it. They say, “It’s a very good idea, but it won’t work in this case, Mr Redwood.” We have to make it work, because many other countries are well ahead of us on all this. They think we are completely potty to go in for this idea that the water company digs up the road and puts in a new pipe, then six months later the gas people come along and do exactly the same thing in a slightly different position, and then the following year the electricity people turn up and do it again. It is mad, costly and inefficient, and it is doing huge damage to an inadequate road network.
For all those reasons, give us competition, give us choice, give us innovation, and give us some common sense, because we are getting a rotten deal at the moment.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your generosity in allowing me to speak in this debate. I apologise for having missed the opening speech because of parliamentary business that I could not avoid.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). I think that he and I will agree about one thing: the botched privatisation of the late 1980s and early ’90s has led us to a wholly undesirable situation. However, we are where we are. As someone who, in the past couple of years, has had responsibility on the Opposition Front Bench for the issue of water, I have watched the situation very closely. I was struck today by the news that this Government are now apparently taking water affordability incredibly seriously. There has been a damascene conversion—or perhaps a Dunfermline and West Fife conversion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has joined the Front-Bench team and is clearly getting far better results than I ever did in the role that he has the privilege of holding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to this debate and hate to interrupt his complimentary remarks about his hon. Friend. However, following what Government Members have said about the Water Bill and what we want to do on pricing, it is fair to say that we have been working on this issue for a very long time. I think he will find that any announcements in recent days that have come from sources on the Opposition side might be a little new to the debate.
Gavin Shuker
What a fantastic set-up for the speech I am about to give, which is about the Government’s record in the past few years. I freely accept that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Government at that time, but he obviously voted on many of the issues that I want to talk about.
It is crucial that we in this House have a proper understanding of the impact that the Bill that is being sold to us will have on the consumer bills that are being levied on many of our constituents right now. Let us be clear: no one was talking about water affordability or Government action to reform the water industry to deliver for customers and not just for shareholders until the Leader of the Opposition gave his living standards speech in Brighton back in September.
Gavin Shuker
I am happy to take an intervention from the former water Minister.
Richard Benyon
I hesitate to rise, because I could just sit here and enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He and I had endless discussions about affordability when he was in his Front-Bench role, so he knows that he need only read the water White Paper to see that we were concerned about that issue, and he knows that the underlying truth of the Water Bill is that, in order to keep bills low, we need to make sure that we have an industry fit for the future, which is all about affordability and protecting our constituents. He also knows, therefore, that it is ridiculous to suggest that this issue has appeared just in the past few days.
Gavin Shuker
The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate defence of his own record in post.
Let us look at some of the specific measures on which this Government had the opportunity to work and legislate but deliberately chose not to do so. First, there is bad debt. I was interested to read a copy of the Secretary of State’s letter to the water companies—sent out today, curiously enough, purely coincidentally—which talked about bad debt. I thought, “Fantastic! At last this Government have adopted the right position on bad debt.” Each household has to pay £15 or so because some people cannot pay and will not pay, and that money is dumped on the bills of consumers who step up and do pay.
On energy bills, is it not interesting that there is a provision that requires landlords to give companies their tenants’ details so that they can reclaim the money? On reading the letter, I thought, “Fantastic. At last the Government have responded to the Opposition’s calls to make the water situation analogous with that of energy.” However, the letter only makes a firm threat to look at the issue in more detail if the companies themselves do not voluntarily make progress on the provision.
My position and that of my party is clear: bad debt as a result of those people who will not or cannot pay dumps an additional cost on every household, so it would make sense to implement the provision. The Government could have taken that action. We made the case for it, but they have had no interest in it until now.
That is not the only issue. Government Members and the press have today mentioned the social tariff. I was the lead Opposition Member on the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee. We sought to amend the Bill so that every water company operating in the UK had to do one simple thing, namely offer a social tariff to those people who find it hard to pay their bills or who find themselves in a situation where they cannot pay for the service provided. The Government chose to vote down that proposal and Government Members voted against it. Instead, they favoured a voluntary approach: if water companies wanted to introduce a social tariff, they could. It is amazing how few water companies have actually done so.
George Hollingbery
I think I am right in saying that the previous Labour Government were in power for 13 years and I am struggling to add up the number of water regulation Bills they introduced during that time. If the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me, I will take a round number.
Gavin Shuker
Why not start with the three reviews that led to the water White Paper? The Pitt, Walker and Cave reviews looked directly at competition and were conducted in the five years before we exited government and this Administration came in. They laid the groundwork and contained radical ideas that would have resulted in better provisions for water affordability. They would have put in place a framework to deal with the issue in its entirety. The water White Paper, which resulted from those reviews, was quite good, but that has left many of us asking: why is the Water Bill so washed out?
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I think I am right in saying that it was only under the Labour Government that water bills actually fell. Is that correct?
Gavin Shuker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we look at the price review periods since privatisation, we will see that water bills came down in real terms during only one of them and that was under the previous Labour Government. On the price review process, my hunch is that this Government believe that the water companies will read the signals coming from hard-pressed consumers and come in at RPI plus 0 or RPI minus 1 in the next price review period and claim it as their victory, but let us be clear: getting a sustained reduction in water costs requires action from this Government.
Andrew Percy
We have moved on a little, but the hon. Gentleman has graciously given way. He is doing a good job of reading the Labour brief and trying to pretend that all of a sudden it is interested in people’s bills. On the Pitt review, is he suggesting that it was somehow planned by the Labour Government, or did it come about because I and my constituents were all under about 2 feet of water for a long time?
Gavin Shuker
Intense flooding has major implications and climate change means that it will happen more regularly, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the previous Labour Government were in some way wrong to review the situation and flood defences. He was not the MP for his area at the time, but he knows that the flooding was devastating. If he wants proper action on ensuring that his constituents will be protected against the next bout of flooding, he should support our efforts to amend the Water Bill to make sure that there is a proper, workable Flood Re solution for flooding insurance. He mentions the Labour brief. I humbly point out to him that for the past few years I have been writing the brief.
Charlie Elphicke
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the last Labour Government did nothing on social tariffs?
Gavin Shuker
No, that is not the case. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 created the legislative framework for that measure.
I want to talk about some of the measures that have been trumpeted as the solution to bring about water affordability and to stop the rising tide of householders who are finding themselves in water poverty or unable to pay their water bills. The approach of the Water Bill is entirely the wrong way around. It is interesting to hear Government Members say that the only answer is greater competition. I accept that retail business competition could be a good way of reducing water usage. That has made a profound difference north of the border. That is why we have supported it continually. The idea came out of the Cave review.
However, at a time when many parts of the UK are much more water-scarce than other parts of the continent and even parts of Africa, it is short-sighted to think that that idea will work without considering abstraction reform as well. The Government have chosen to punt that issue into the 2020s—until 2025—for the next Government to look at. If we do not deal with scarcity in many parts of the country, there will be a major problem. Instead, the Government have looked for a number of measures that will shake up the industry and make them look pro-reform, but that will not necessarily tackle the issue of abstraction.
There is an idea that the only answer to the problem of some parts of the country being water-rich and others water-poor is to build pipelines. I remind the House that 2% of the country’s energy usage already goes on water. There is a major carbon cost to that idea. If people do not believe that that would end up on people’s bills, they are wrong.
Alec Shelbrooke
Just to clarify, did the hon. Gentleman say that we need a national water grid to move water around or that we do not?
Gavin Shuker
I am happy to clarify that. I was saying that the idea of a national water grid is stillborn, purely on the basis that the carbon costs make it too difficult. If we accept the premise for that idea, surely what we need is a similar level of investment in water efficiency. We must have a similar amount of foresight on how we will get by with less in the many water-stressed areas. The south-east continues to grow and water is becoming more scarce.
Unless there is proper leadership on that issue, things will become very difficult. Big concrete, in-the-ground solutions are not the right approach. There is a need for additional water capacity, but we need to consider the issues. I say humbly that the Government have a green deal, but where is the blue deal? Where is the deep thinking about what we need to do?
Another area where the Government have been caught napping is the structure of the industry. After privatisation, a number of companies emerged that were listed on the UK stock market. There was then a shift in the industry towards foreign ownership. Today, the majority of the industry is owned by private equity firms. At the same time, dividends and water bills have continued to rise. Unison has done some fantastic research that has tracked the nature of the industry. However, it is not just Unison that has raised concerns. Jonson Cox, the chair of Ofwat, has said that there needs to be greater clarity in many of the difficult accounting explanations. I hope that Ofwat will continue to pursue that issue.
One issue on which the Government could take action is Eurobonds, and the practice whereby water companies effectively borrow from arm’s length bodies of themselves at greater levels of interest, which is obviously favourable on their balance sheet. The Government consulted on that issue and decided to do nothing, yet it is a major reason why the water industry is skewed the way it is. If we want to drill down and ensure that the benefit of the reforms goes not only to shareholders but to customers and households, the Government must consider that issue again.
Finally, I want to mention social responsibility for water companies. In January 2012 I went to a fantastic research facility at the university of Leeds called Water at Leeds. I gave a speech in which I laid out Labour’s response to the water White Paper and the forthcoming legislation. I also talked about the consensus that exists on water. Both parties in government, the industry and customers have bought into the idea of a largely monopolised, yet privately owned, privately run and privately debt-financed water industry, but that consensus could break down if action is not taken.
Today, 72% of people believe that water would be better off nationalised. That is a massive flashing red light to the water industry that it needs to take action, and to the Government if they believe that that should not be the policy that passes through. I believe one way of doing that would be to have a social responsibility clause in the Water Bill that lays out clearly and benchmarks what each water company is doing in terms of social responsibility. That would include the companies saying how they manage their tax affairs in a way that is easy to understand and has clarity, rather than things being hidden away on the balance sheet. They would also mention their responsibility to their broader constituencies, and whether they employ apprentices and are investing in R and D, as Cave mentioned in his report. Let us look at the water companies and instead of saying that some have a good story to tell, let us try to raise them all up to the level of the very best.
Those five areas—bad debt, social tariff, abstraction reform, Eurobonds and social responsibility—would in themselves create a coherent basis for tackling water affordability and water scarcity. I humbly remind the House that despite all the hype of today and what the Minister may say, this Government have looked those challenges squarely in the eye and dodged each one.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I would like to go further in the debate and mention some of the powers that I think the water industry needs. I will focus my remarks around the Water Bill, and the fact that as with any industry, resources are scarce. It by no means passes the public by that their water bills go up, yet now and again we have hosepipe bans and so on because—let us be honest—of the mismanagement of our water resources. It does not help, however, when developers take no notice whatsoever of reports from water companies about the impact that their developments may have on the surrounding area. My constituency of Elmet and Rothwell is badly affected by such situations.
I recently had discussions with some people from Yorkshire Water about a small village in my constituency called Walton. It has a couple of houses that are badly affected by heavy rainfall and flooding. Yorkshire Water effectively said that a scheme to save two houses would cost £1.8 million—not in the region of something it could afford do—but that the problem came about in the first place because the original barn should never have been converted into a house. Messages to that effect were put forth at the time, but the conversion went ahead. The house was sold on in good faith and no matter what the situation in trying to alleviate the problem, Yorkshire Water is fairly certain that the water will always end up in that place. No one particularly noticed when it was full of cows, but when it is someone’s house, they tend to notice. That is a prime example.
My constituency is under unprecedented pressure for housing development. Figures from Leeds city council state that 12,500 houses could be built across my constituency. One place currently under great scrutiny is an area of Kippax called Sandgate drive. Some 260 houses are to be built at the back of some houses—by that I actually mean built on a hill behind those houses. Yorkshire Water has said that the water that will run off would be unacceptable and that it would put huge pressure on the water courses to deal with that run-off of water—something the developers appear to be ignoring.
The Environment Agency deals with water that floods off land and is taken away in rivers, but it is down to the water companies to deal with the surface run-off and to get it to the rivers. The current development plans do not help water companies in the slightest, which means two things: first, that resources that should be used to repair the network so we can use our resources more efficiently get soaked up in flood alleviation solutions; and, secondly, that people’s bills rise constantly, with no further improvement.
In an area of my constituency in the town of Wetherby, there is a planning application for 400 houses at the top of a hill. There have been problems with the water pressure in Wetherby. Yorkshire Water had to take measures on the Thorpe Arch trading estate to ensure it had proper pumping facilities to get the water to the top. That has been resolved, but only last week a resident told me that, last summer, on a very warm day, the water pressure dropped off when everybody in the area used the water. The developers have taken no notice of that, which means that Yorkshire Water must spend more of its resources dealing with the further drop in pressure, because it does not have the detonator to say, “That development cannot go ahead unless the developer is willing to spend huge amounts on the water infrastructure.”
A huge development—a dual carriageway ring road—is taking place to the east of Leeds. Back in the storms of 2007, my constituency, like that of my hon. Friend for—
Alec Shelbrooke
I cannot believe I forgot the name of my hon. Friend’s constituency, but there we go. Like his constituency, my constituency had a huge amount of water flooding through it during those storms. Fundamentally, the river valley could not cope with the amount of water. Nobody can do anything about such one-off events, but we can avoid exacerbating the situation. There is a live planning application for a development on the floodplain in the village that was 6 feet under water that day, which is disgusting. Yorkshire Water should have the ability to turn around and say, “No. That area will not be developed.” The developers can put in any flood protection scheme they like on their new development, but they do not give a tinker’s cuss what happens 100 metres down the road, where the houses will be flooded.
Those problems can be alleviated if the water industry has the ability to work hand in hand with the developers. I mentioned the ring road, which should have a flood alleviation drain built under it. The proposal will have a huge impact on my constituents, who have had to deal with flooding and must now deal with extra housing. We are talking about investment in the water industry and how it best uses the money it gets from water bills. Given the pressures of development, we need to ensure that the industry has every ability to work hand in hand with developers.
One village in my constituency, Methley, suffers from huge toxic, rancid smells from a pumping station for sewage. Yorkshire Water believes that that happens because there is a kink in the sewage pipe somewhere in the two miles of road by the village. It does not have the resources to dig up the road and find the kink—it says that the number of people affected does not justify the amount it would need to spend. That is an example of the pressures the water companies are under.
Frank Dobson
Surely Yorkshire Water has access to a device that will identify where the aforesaid kink is and does not need to dig up two miles of road.
Alec Shelbrooke
One would have thought so, and I have had meetings about that. Unfortunately, Yorkshire Water is uncertain about where the sewer actually runs, and that is a consequence of decades gone by when there was not proper mapping. That shows the problems the privatised water industry has come up against when dealing with a legacy of poor investment and poor records.
Incidents such as the one in Methley are a blight on people’s lives. I have stood there and the smell is appalling—people are prisoners in their own homes. We have to ensure that water companies have a say over inappropriate developments. There are 4,500 houses in Garforth and 1,000 house Rothwell, but no consideration is given to water in planning developments. The developers do not care and leave it to Yorkshire Water to deal with. The time water companies have to take to deal with such issues means that they are not able to deal with historical issues, such as ensuring efficient water use, repairing collapsed sewers and so on.
I urge the Minister to take those points into consideration during the passage of the Water Bill. For my constituents, the ability of the water companies to make their lives better cannot come quick enough.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker; I welcome you to the Chair. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity—I lobbied for it, so I am one of those responsible for securing the debate—and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for introducing the debate. I apologise for being unable to hear his contribution—I was detained—but I have been present for much of the debate. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who has inherited the Water Bill. His predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), said that this issue has occupied him for the past three years. I thank him for always being courteous and engaging, not least on matters relating to Thames Water.
I received an encouraging piece of information a few weeks ago, as did other hon. Members who represent the Thames Water area. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said a moment ago, the provisional view of Ofwat is that it is minded to reject the latest application from Thames Water to increase prices. Given that we had previously been told by Thames Water that it expected to increase prices not just next year but every year by approximately £60 to £80 per household, to fund the Thames tunnel, that is a welcome relief. I understand that Ofwat has not made its final decision, but I hope it will confirm it this week. My constituents would be encouraged by that news.
It was also encouraging to hear the Environment Secretary this week tell water companies to be mindful that price increases should be imposed only where necessary, and remind them to introduce special tariffs for hard-pressed households. That takes me back to debates at the end of the previous Parliament when my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) tabled an amendment to the Flood and Water Management Bill to allow for social tariffs, which had never before existed in the water industry. There had been social tariffs in the energy industry, but not in the water industry. The Act became law on 8 April 2010—probably the last piece of legislation to sneak over the line before the general election. Since then, the Government have been positive about encouraging individuals to consider how they can get help with their water bills and ensuring that water companies introduce social tariffs. Since the Liberal Democrats have been in the Government, guidance on social tariffs was issued in June 2012 and water companies have been able to introduce their own social tariffs since 2013. I credit Thames Water with welcoming and responding to that opportunity.
Many families are often hard pressed by the cost of their water bills. For years, I and my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in Cornwall and the south-west campaigned for a reduction in south-west water bills, but the Government have now dealt with that and, in a welcome move, have legislated to reduce bills in the south-west.
For the benefit of those who follow our debates, I should add that there are two other schemes that provide help. The first is the WaterSure scheme, funded by water customers, which provides financial help to householders with three or more children under the age of 19, if on a water meter and in receipt of certain benefits—people should check which benefits and whether they qualify—and for those without children but in receipt of benefits and with a medical condition requiring excessive water use. That is important. Not everybody knows about it, but they should, particularly those struggling who might qualify. The other scheme, Water Direct, run by the Department for Work and Pensions, helps householders in receipt of certain benefits to manage debt with water companies. Under that scheme, the DWP acts as a broker to help make arrangements.
Simon Hughes
Before I give way, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he did from the Opposition Front Bench and for his contribution a few minutes ago, which I heard and enjoyed.
Gavin Shuker
That is incredibly generous of the right hon. Gentleman. I am just checking I am not dead—people rarely speak nicely of each other in the House, so perhaps I am.
I wanted to be helpful, actually. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that neither of those quite good schemes is well known, partly because they operate regionally? In other words, there is no clearly identifiable social tariff scheme that the entire water industry can point to—although I appreciate that WaterSure is a national scheme—and there are patches of coverage, which is one reason why all water companies should have a social tariff.
Simon Hughes
I apologise if I phrased my remarks as if to suggest that the hon. Gentleman was the former Member for Luton South. He is clearly still the current Member, as I know, not least because when I last went to Luton on official business—to watch Millwall beat Luton Town—he was there to buy me a drink afterwards. I was very grateful—actually, I cannot remember whether I bought him a drink or he bought me one, but anyway it was a very nice pub, and I recommend it. Luton has good breweries, beer and pubs. But we, as the away team, were very well received by our hosts. [Interruption.] He wants me to stop rubbing it in. I apologise.
One of the dates in my diary this week, besides this debate, was that for making representations to the public inquiry into the Thames tideway tunnel. The latest date for written representations was yesterday, which was when I submitted mine. For my constituents and many others, not just in London but in the whole Thames Water region, it remains a live issue whether Thames Water’s current plans for the tunnel are the right ones, given the alternative ways of dealing with sewage in London, and the question whether the route is the right one. Obviously, the route will impact significantly on constituencies such as mine. For example, a big site on Chambers wharf is proposed for the drive shaft, but I and my constituents argue that it should be used for the reception shaft—if it is to be used at all—and that the drive shaft should be elsewhere.
We also have concerns about the financing. The hon. Member for South Swindon said that the debate was ongoing in government about what the right approach should be, if the Government are to respond to Thames Water’s approaches. My constituents think—the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) probably shares this view—it is a bit rich for a non-public company to run down its assets and then ask the Government to underwrite it in borrowing significant amounts of money and expecting the taxpayer, the bill payer or both to pick up the bill, as is currently proposed.
I have regularly urged my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—before and after the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, took up his post—to be careful not to endorse a solution that appears to condone allowing water companies in England to run down their assets and then try to get Government support to bail them out. That would not send the right message. The water companies must understand that, if they make choices resulting in their profits going not to the consumer but to their shareholders in the form of dividends, they really cannot expect the Government to come to the rescue, even if that means that one company eventually has to be replaced by another. I am sure that there is no shortage of companies willing to enter the water market in England.
Frank Dobson
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be ludicrous to expect the British taxpayer to bail out a company that was partly owned by Chinese taxpayers? If Chinese taxpayers want to invest in Thames Water, they should bear the brunt of any charges that the company might incur. The scheme is going to cost £4 billion, but Thames Water’s shareholders have already benefited from £6 billion of dividends. None of that money came to the people of London.
Simon Hughes
I take a similarly hard line on this issue. If Thames Water does not have the money in its own coffers to do what it wants, it should not be doing the job, and it certainly should not be asking the taxpayers of the United Kingdom for help to do it.
I also want to flag up some proposals that I hope the Government will take on board. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to provide an immediate response of yes, yes, yes, but I know that he is alert to the questions I am going to ask about what Ofwat and the Government can do. I pray in aid a useful pamphlet, which I am happy to promote, that was recently published by CentreForum, a Liberal think-tank. It was written by George Turner, who used to run my office here. He became interested in the water industry during his time here because of the Thames Water issues. His pamphlet has the additional commendation of having had its foreword written by Sir Ian Byatt, the well-regarded first regulator at Ofwat.
I shall quote briefly from the pamphlet, then set out my recommendations for what I hope the Chancellor will say in his autumn statement on 4 December. The pamphlet refers only to England; Wales and Scotland have entirely different arrangements. It states:
“Water is one of the essential industries. We literally cannot live without it…There are allegations of widespread tax avoidance. The level of corporate borrowing is becoming unsustainable. The ownership structure means that there is very little public accountability. Most of our largest companies are owned by private equity funds and there are no public meetings where management can be held to account. The ownership structures are murky to say the least with strings of companies dotted around the world’s island secrecy jurisdictions and tax havens. This makes it difficult for the public to know what is going on with its water suppliers.”
The problem has come to a head in relation to Thames Water, which has got itself into this position over the proposed tunnel. I suggest that some of the ideas in the pamphlet should be picked up by the Government, Parliament, Ofwat and the Select Committee. First, we could introduce a water levy on highly geared water companies, which would take away the incentive to introduce risk by increasing gearing and removing financial flexibility. This was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).
Secondly, we could ask the Government to look at—I ask them to do so now—the tax treatment of debt in highly geared companies and to consider economies and systems such as the German ones, where there are earnings-stripping rules that prevent companies from taking out excessive loans with the intention of avoiding tax.
Thirdly, we could legislate—I hope the Minister will be sympathetic when the Water Bill goes through its stages—to make sure that water companies make the interests of the consumer much more central in their organisations, either through a consumer representative on the board or by placing a duty on the non-executive directors to report on how best to serve the consumer interest, or both.
Fourthly and importantly, we should amend the Bill to introduce mandatory annual customer meetings, where customers can hold management to account in companies that do not currently have annual general meetings in the UK. I would also hope to change the law through the Bill, so that, when restructuring companies which have gone into special administration, the regulator must always first consider non-profit companies, rather than putting them straight back into the private sector, as we saw in a recent example in the railway industry. I hope that the Government will also look at how different models of corporate ownership have impacted on the water industry, as they have not all been satisfactory.
I hope that Ofwat will also do four things—and soon. First, I hope it will report on all the companies in England, not just Thames Water, to establish whether more modest dividend and financial policies would have allowed them to have enough money to spend and to reduce bills. Secondly, it should look at how price cuts could be implemented at the next price review. Thirdly, it should change the licence conditions of companies to impose London stock exchange disclosure requirements on non-stock market-listed companies. Lastly, picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Ofwat should change the licence conditions to require public disclosure of all intermediate holding companies, ultimate controlling companies and all the beneficiaries of those companies, so that we know exactly where the benefits that go in dividends to shareholders end up in those many companies behind many of this country’s water companies.
We may have the best drinking water quality in the world, and we are soon to debate changes in the structure of the industry. I hope the Government will be responsive to amendments designed to enhance the interests of the consumer. I hope the water companies will understand that it is now time for them to stop stacking up money for profits to be paid out in dividends, and to put the interests of the consumer and the consumer’s bills first.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The debate has been interesting, with more contributions from Government than Opposition Members—but I enjoyed their speeches all the same. The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) told us that he wrote the briefing for the Opposition. It seemed to consist of, “Here are lots of good things that the Government should have done, which we did not bother to do in our 13 years”, so he should perhaps revisit history a little before he writes his next briefing on this issue.
There are three water companies—Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water and Severn Trent—in my constituency, covering 250 square miles in two different counties. I have had experience of trying to deal with all three, and the experience can be different depending on which water company one has to deal with. I shall speak about my constituents’ experience with some of those companies and make some suggestions to make the consumer experience better, not just for my residents but for all constituents across the country.
We have been lucky and unlucky. We have seen considerable investment in the constituency in recent years, but that came after year after year after year of regular flooding. Bizarrely, over the last year or two, parts of the constituency have faced hosepipe bans because of a lack of water, while other parts have at different times been under several inches, if not feet, of water. Much of it has been surface water, and hence within the remit of the water and sewerage companies. My constituency, apart from a few bumpy bits, is generally very low lying, below the high-tide mark, and consequently most of the communities I represent rely on a pumping system to keep them dry. Where I live, there is a series of very high banks as well as pumping.
We have had some good experiences with Severn Trent, and have welcomed its investment in Westwoodside and Crowle. I have been a key member of the liaison team dealing with that investment. The company has also worked with customers: we have arrived at some solutions, and it has been generally responsive. That has not always been the case, but we have done reasonably well in recent years, and I am grateful for the company’s investment.
In Goole, which is covered by Yorkshire Water, we have had a very different experience historically, although it has improved a great deal recently. Goole has been flooded in at least four or five consecutive years out of the last seven or eight, including 2010 and 2011, when major assets failed in the town. At the time I was at pains to remind the House, and also Yorkshire Water, that sometimes it is the people who pay the bills who are the last to find out when something has gone disastrously wrong.
In 2011, I was in my wellies going from door to door and from street to street, visiting as many places in my constituency as I could. We were under rising water, because our pumping system had completely failed and if our town is not pumped, the water level rises very quickly. Over a period of about 12 to 18 hours, we all saw water levels rising. It was obvious that something had gone very wrong with our pumping system, particularly the big pumping station at Carr lane.
I became very angry when speaking to Yorkshire Water on the telephone, because it was impossible to obtain any answers. The company failed to communicate with residents at the most important time for them—when they were being flooded. Many of those people have medical conditions that require treatment, but power was going off, and there was still no communication. When the local authority, East Riding of Yorkshire council, tried to descend on the site, it was initially warned that it would not be allowed to enter, so it had to invoke its powers. All that was completely unacceptable.
Since then the position has changed significantly, thanks to the outcry from me and from local residents, and I am pleased to say that we have had a completely new experience with Yorkshire Water. The company has invested £3.6 million over the last 18 months to improve our pumping capacity by 20%, and 18 December will see the publication of a flood catchment study which it has funded and has cost a quarter of a million pounds.
That is all great news, but I must nevertheless ask why my residents and my constituency were put in such a position in the first place, given that it had been clear for a number of years that the town’s pumping capacity and the major assets that were meant to protect us were not fit for purpose. Yorkshire Water has tried very hard since then, and I feel very positive about what it has done, but we should not have been put in that position, particularly in view of Yorkshire Water’s dividends. There has been an improvement since 2010—the company’s dividend is now significantly lower in relation to its post-tax profits—but the statistics for 2005, 2006 and 2008-9 were pretty appalling, at the very time when we should have benefited from investment.
Meanwhile, bills were rising in my constituency. The Yorkshire Water household bill, which I pay every year along with other residents, was £264 in 2005. By 2009-10 and 2010-11, when we were under many feet of water owing to that lack of investment and an inability to maintain assets properly, it had risen to £330. Profit for utility companies is something that is established, and I have nothing against it as long as it is accompanied by investment, but the compelling statistics and data presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) at the beginning of the debate made it clear that all is not well. We need either beefed-up powers for Ofwat, or the creation of further bodies to deal with water companies that are making huge profits while not investing in communities such as mine which are particularly prone to flooding.
Although Yorkshire Water’s profit-to-dividend ratio has improved since 2010, I am afraid that that of Anglian Water is moving in a different direction. I concur with some of the demands Members have made of the Government and the water industry. I hope the Minister will consider introducing new powers to allow companies making excess profits to be ordered to cut bills and to beef up the powers allowing Ofwat to require investment in our infrastructure when these profits are too high. The Government must stand up for consumers.
I was astonished that the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) claimed that because his leader had been making noises about consumer bills, all of a sudden people are concerned about water bills. If the hon. Gentleman had attended past debates or followed what many of us have been doing in our constituencies, he would know we have for many years been complaining about the fact that our constituents are paying more but we are not seeing the return in investment in our infrastructure. I thought that adding that political element to a debate that had generally been consensual was beneath him. In response, I have tried to make a wholly non-partisan speech.
There have been improvements in our area. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who is present and takes a great interest in these matters, will know of the transfer tunnel created in Hull which has helped to protect the Hull catchment a lot better. In Yorkshire, we have seen investments in the pipe network, which was in an abysmal state before privatisation, with massive leakage. We have also seen investment in my constituency.
Some good stuff has been done under privatisation by Yorkshire Water, Severn Trent and Anglian, but we now need somebody to stand up for the consumer where these companies are not acting as responsibly as they should. I hope the Government will respond to this debate by making sure the powers are in place to ensure these companies act responsibly towards their bill payers, who, after all, provide them with everything they have.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The cost of living is a major issue in Yorkshire, as it is across the rest of the country. I therefore pay tribute to the Government for acknowledging that we need to deal on every level with the cost of living, and this debate is at the very centre of what we are doing.
The policies the Government have come up with to get every energy consumer on to the lowest tariff are exactly the right thing to do, and I hope the review of green levies and Labour’s £125-worth of green taxes will enable us to reduce energy bills, too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) have said, addressing water bills will be another big step, by making the industry more competitive and ensuring we have a water industry that is fit for the future.
Giving businesses the opportunity to switch will enable big users of water to get the very best deal. It is unfortunate, however, that that opportunity will not be available to the consumer. I agree with my right hon. Friend, who urged the Government to push ahead, where possible, with consumer-led competition. My constituents really have only one option, which is Yorkshire Water, unless they happen to live in Long Preston, near Settle in the western part of my constituency, where they have their own water trust, which enables them to guarantee much lower prices.
I wish to focus on Yorkshire Water because my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is correct: Yorkshire Water has done some positive things on infrastructure, and it has also done some good, and some bad, things on flooding, but the financial situation and decisions of Yorkshire Water show that it is exploiting my constituents and people across Yorkshire.
If Members have not read the Yorkshire Water annual report, perhaps I should recap. In 2013 it made an operating profit of £331 million on a turnover of £936 million. Average increases in bills were 6.6% with the average bill being £356. There was a quadrupling of the dividend payment, from £62.3 million to £256 million in the past year. The thing that really sticks in the craw of my constituents is the fact that despite those massive dividends and huge opportunities for its shareholders, Yorkshire Water paid zero tax in the last financial year, and with a highly leveraged balance sheet. When we compare that behaviour with the behaviour of my constituents, the small and micro-businesses throughout my rural constituency, we see that today’s debate and the one we will continue to have about holding the feet of the water companies to the fire is vital.
People will say that Yorkshire Water has done nothing illegal, and it has not, but we thought as Yorkshire MPs that we should take that from the horse’s mouth, so we invited the senior management team down to Westminster. Let me list that team: Kevin Whiteman, the chairman, earns £1,077,000; Richard Flint, the chief executive, earns £1,091,000; Liz Barber, the director of finance and regulation, earns £476,000; and the communications officer earns £165,000.
Frank Dobson
May I urge the hon. Gentleman not to use the word “earns”, because it has a sensation that they deserve the money? The best way to describe it is probably to say that they are “being paid”.
Julian Smith
The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention is very accurate.
Those highly paid—highly compensated—board members showed no contrition about how tough it is at the moment for consumers. They basically said that they would not budge on their stretching of the tax rules to ensure that they paid no tax. We talked about the clause in their commitment to customers where they said that they would be responsible and that they were environmentally and socially engaged, but they just would not listen.
Andrew Percy
These figures are incredible. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that these people are being paid these million-pound salaries but they still have not responded to my request, on behalf of my constituents, to pay compensation to people who were flooded because their assets failed when the company failed to manage them?
Julian Smith
I absolutely do, because the situation is a kick in the teeth from Yorkshire Water to hard-working people in Brigg and Goole.
We asked the management team about their debt standing at 84.5% of regulated capital value at the end of March in contrast to the figure of 56% when the company was acquired. We asked them how they explained their £63 million of shareholder dividends in 2012 quadrupling to £256 million in 2013. We asked them how they could seriously defend, in these tough financial times, a dividend payment of 27.3% of 2013 revenue. We asked them to enlighten us on the risks of having more than £4 billion in debt and what would happen if things went wrong. We asked them how they explained the quagmire of vested and conflicting interests between the different board structures— between investors and the company and the various Yorkshire Water subsidiaries. And we asked them how they could explain the claim in their annual report that these complex financial arrangements led to lower bills for customers, given that bills actually went up by about 7%. The answers were not weak or woolly—they were non-existent.
I welcome the measures that the Government have taken on tax reform and the general anti-avoidance rule. That is a shift from prescriptive rules to a general rule, which is the right thing to do. However, should Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs really be having to wage an uphill struggle against a monopoly business that is providing customers with one of the most fundamental services and utilities in the world?
The Government have done a lot on tax, but I urge them to go further. I urge them to use things such as the Water Bill to implant exciting and novel policies from the Treasury and look at whether we can taper the level of deductions received for interest charges in corporation tax as shareholders take on more debt. Can we impose a bank levy on debt? Could we look at how to impose a levy payable by shareholders to customers so that the cost is not simply passed on to customers and instead they gain a share themselves?
Somehow, we must stop this limitless offsetting of interest against tax. We should push on with greater competition and consider ensuring that a percentage of profits goes back to customers. We should knock Ofwat about until it works vigorously in the interests of the consumer first, second and third. We should consider everything in the industry and say clearly to companies such as Yorkshire Water, “No. No more. This has to change.” We should shake this industry up from top to bottom.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for my slight tardiness at the start. I meant no disrespect to the Chair.
I congratulate the hon. Gentlemen on securing this excellent debate, although I suspect that their ministerial colleagues in the Department will be less keen to thank them after hearing some of the issues that they have brought to the House today.
Three and a half years into the life of the Parliament, and with the regulator expected to have completed its price review by the end of next year, it is well worth reviewing the track record of the coalition Government. It is regrettable that, having by general consensus inherited a substantial body of work from the previous Labour Government on how to reform the water industry, the coalition has frittered away so much of the past 40 months. I am at a loss to understand what, if anything, was done in the first year and a half of this Government. When they came to office in 2010, the new ministerial team inherited not one but two reports on the water industry from Anna Walker and Martin Cave. Both reports had been favourably received by consumer groups, customers, regulators, industry commentators and Parliament. The reports, which complemented each other, provided a clear framework for reform. In fact, the only organisations that did not welcome their recommendations were some of the water companies.
It is not surprising that those who were found to have let down their customers—whether domestic, in the public sector or in private business—were the ones who were less than enamoured of the possibility of reform. The stories of poor customer service are legendary—we have heard many such cases today—as are the dividend returns paid out by many of the water companies. The arrogance of the companies has been astonishing. The tax avoidance measures, coupled with a refusal to plough excess profits back into either infrastructure improvements or a lowering of bills, are simply unacceptable.
Even now, when household budgets are continuously squeezed by inflation-busting utility bill increases, many of the water companies show a breathtaking arrogance by refusing to pass back any of their profits to consumers. For example, Thames Water, having recorded eye-watering returns for its investment, now expects hard-pressed customers to foot the cost of the Thames tunnel.
Water companies are some of the most profitable in the utilities sector, earning even more than energy companies. Energy companies make operating profits of approximately 9% whereas water companies make operating profits of approximately 30%. While shareholders have seen their dividends increase, families across the country have suffered. Last year, regional water companies made a pre-tax profit of £1.9 billion, paying out dividends totalling £1.8 billion to shareholders, yet they have not seen the need to pay their fair share in taxes. As The Sunday Times revealed, in 2012-13 Thames Water, which, as we have already discussed, has asked to increase bills by a further 8%, made £127 million of pre-tax profit and paid zero corporation tax.
There are further examples, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and others. Yorkshire Water made £184 million and paid no tax, and Southern Water paid just £6.5 million tax on profits of £172 million.
Water companies have been able to reduce their tax liabilities to such tiny levels by substantially increasing their levels of debt. Some water companies have reduced their tax bills by offsetting the interest payments on debt, often inter-company and involving tax havens, while claiming allowances for spending on infrastructure. Shareholders and bosses, as we have heard, have benefited from that aggressive tax avoidance, with eye-watering salaries going to those at the top. Peter Simpson, chief executive of Anglian Water, received a package worth £1.27 million in the last year, up from a mere £1.06 million the year before. The complex nature of tax governance and the growth in debt has been recognised by Jonson Cox, the chairman of Ofwat, who described the ownership of these companies as complex and “opaque” structures.
Thomas Docherty
I will not, because there were so many speakers and we have very little time for the Minister to speak.
Ofwat has highlighted that the overall proportion of equity has diminished from 42.5% in 2006 to 30% of regulatory capital today, with some companies obtaining only one fifth of their financing from equity.
So why the delay in reform? Why has the coalition dragged its feet? Why have the coalition parties seemed so unwilling to champion the household customer, small businesses and the taxpayer? It is because this coalition Government serve the vested interests, not the interests of ordinary Britons. Ministers have done nothing to help hard-pressed small and medium-sized enterprises because they are too busy cosying up to their friends in the City. Labour understands that when small businesses are struggling to survive thanks to the failed economic policies of the Chancellor, the Government should be standing up for them, not their fat cat friends.
After three wasted years, we have no progress on social tariffs for those who are struggling the most and can afford to pay the least; no pressure brought to bear on water companies to adopt permanent solutions to flood insurance, without which hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country face uncertainty; and, as we heard earlier, no substantial progress on water competition—a series of measures that would help our cash-strapped businesses grow our economy.
It has been four months; 16 weeks; one hundred and sixteen days since the Secretary of State met the water companies. Last week, we had the unseemly spectacle of the Prime Minister briefing against his own Ministers and officials as panic set in on the Downing street spin operation, which reacted to the pressure placed on it by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and the Labour party, to stand up to the water companies. We had days of Downing street briefing that action would be taken, either through regulation or by instructing Ofwat to take action on water bills.
In short, we were all anticipating a big announcement from the coalition parties. And in the end, what did we get? A letter. One thousand words. A missive to the water companies from a Mr Paterson, of North Shropshire, which said, in effect: “Dear chief executive, Thanks for coming along in July for cream tea; our last discussion was so riveting that I clean forgot to write about it until now! I know that times are awfully hard for you at the moment, with your offshore investors demanding an even greater return on their money than last year, but it would be awfully splendid, as we’re all such good chaps, if you could not put your bills up by quite as much next year as you were thinking about doing. It would really help me out of this political pickle the Prime Minister has put me in, and I know that you’re all such good eggs. Best wishes, Mr Paterson.”
The Secretary of State’s letter is clear evidence that the Government do not understand the cost of living crisis here in Britain today. For 39 out of 40 months under this coalition, prices have risen faster than salaries. Until this weekend, water bills were not a priority for the Prime Minister or the Department. After three and a half squandered years, a hastily cobbled together statement of vague promises of future action is simply not enough. It is clear that the Prime Minister is unwilling or unable to stand up to the vested interests that have placed the needs of offshore tax haven investors ahead of those of hard-pressed householders and businesses.
Families deserve better than this; small businesses deserve better than this; Britain deserves better than this. Since privatisation in 1989, water bills have increased by almost 50% in real terms. The Secretary of State has the guile to call the water industry one of the great successes of privatisation. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is only a success story if you are fortunate enough to own shares in one of those companies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
This has been a fascinating debate. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) just said about my attitude, I welcome the debate. It is a foretaste of the discussions that we will have on Second Reading of the Water Bill and in Committee and subsequent stages.
Today’s debate has been a useful opportunity for hon. Members to raise a range of issues such as affordability and the practices of water companies, and also local issues such as flooding, development and the history of water supply going back to the locally owned water provision that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) spoke about. I will come back to some of the comments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. It is a great shame that he finished off his speech as he did. He knows quite a bit about these issues and enjoyed dealing with them in the Select Committee. He should have written the speech himself, instead of giving a speech that was written for him. He could have done much better himself.
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman did not take interventions, so I shall follow his lead and try to respond to some of the issues raised in the debate. We will have plenty of opportunity to come back to his comments.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on leading the charge to secure the debate. He wanted to send a clear message to Ofwat and particularly to the water companies that consumers expect more now. They want a fairer deal to cope with the cost of living and to reflect the fact that the water companies have had some good years. They have had much lower borrowing costs in recent years than was predicted when those prices were set. The hon. Gentleman is looking for some flexibility during the current price review period for those issues to be taken on board.
Clearly, that is a matter for the regulator. Ofwat is being far more assertive in the message that it is sending to the water companies. It has the power to revisit the current price settlement, but in particular circumstances. Ofwat’s discussions with water companies are obviously focused on the coming price review period. It will want to see whether water companies come forward with any suggestions. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out in his letter to the water companies, they are in far better circumstances than were predicted at the beginning of the current period. As a Government, we are supporting Ofwat and providing political cover. If Ofwat is looking for a deal from water companies that more accurately reflects current circumstances, it has the political back-up to do that. I welcome the signs that Ofwat is indeed doing that.
The issues surrounding investment are crucial. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras spoke about the simple business of a couple of pipes in the ground catching the rain water and sending it on. That was the case once upon a time. There are also the issues of what happens—how can I put this delicately?—after the water has been consumed by the consumer. What used to happen is that a pipe would be installed, as I know all too well, representing a coastal constituency, and the waste would drift out into the Atlantic ocean. That is not acceptable now and we expect a far better standard of treatment for sewage and better solutions to deal with the problems. That is why we have much better bathing water quality than we used to have.
Dan Rogerson
I will not give way. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about what he considers simple problems. Yes, we want the water companies to do better on price, but we also want them to continue investing and improving. We have a responsibility to deliver better environmental quality. We have seen improvement in that but we want it to go much further, so we want the investment to continue. We will have the opportunity to consider some of these issues on Second Reading of the Bill, so perhaps we can come back to the more technical issues at that point. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to engage with me in the run-up to that and I look forward to some informal discussions, as well as the discussions on Second Reading.
I pay tribute to my ministerial predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)—he is not currently in his place—who did a huge amount of work to get us where we are. Some Opposition Members claimed that nothing has happened over the past three years, but nothing happened over the 13 years they were in office, other than reviews. Her Majesty’s Opposition seem to stake their reputation on a number of reviews, but they did nothing on the back of them. This Government will look at that work and the evidence provided and do something, such as dealing with the inequality in the south-west and the problems people there face, which Anna Walker looked at, and the issue raised by the Cave review, which looked at the water industry as a whole. This Government are taking action.
The Government are also looking at flood insurance, because the previous Government left the clock ticking on an agreement that was about to evaporate. We have negotiated something that will now be delivered in a Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury for being at the forefront of delivering that settlement. We look forward to debating that as we take the Bill through the House.
The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) talked about leakages. He said that although water companies have improved, they could do much better and there is still a long way to go. I absolutely agree. The important point is that we still see companies investing in the infrastructure to put it right and get a better solution to the problems. That is why in all our discussions on price we must ensure that we get the balance right so that we can continue to see that investment.
We heard an interesting exchange between the hon. Member for South Swindon and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife on household disconnections. It was not clear to me whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife was recommending that water companies should have that power. I hope that that was not the case, because it is certainly not something the Government want to reopen.
Dan Rogerson
I am pleased to see that is not something the hon. Gentleman wants, because we certainly do not.
We hope to see some benefits through retail competition, but we want to do that carefully. This is a huge area of reform and a big change. That might slightly disappoint the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who looks forward to a time when there will be an ample supply of water for everybody to enjoy in all sorts of ways and when we will not have such nasty things as metering and restrictions. There are other reasons for metering which relate to energy use and environmental concerns, because whatever we do to reform the retail side will not suddenly and hugely increase the amount of water. We will work on abstraction reform and encouraging new people into supply, but that does not necessarily mean we want to abandon our commitment to using the water we have efficiently and managing our resources effectively.
However, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the challenges monopolies present, which is why we want first to move towards allowing businesses, charities and so on to have the benefit of competition. We also want them to look at how they can simplify, so that businesses with many sites across the country, for example, can have one unified bill. That would be a huge saving for them and would allow far more transparency, rather than having separate bills for every site.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the tax situation and financing. Some of those points are for the Treasury, rather than me, but they have had the chance to put them firmly on the record. Many of them have been campaigning on that outside this place, which I know they will continue. I know that Ofwat is listening to that carefully. One of the things it is keen to do with water companies is look at how it regulates to encourage transparency and overcome opaqueness, which relates to what Jonson Cox has said. The companies that take a more responsible attitude to engaging with consumers, feeding back their information and being open about what they do can be regulated in a way that reflects that, and those that refuse to engage with that progress will be the ones that Ofwat will want to investigate much more closely and have close conversations with in future. That is the sort of approach that I very much welcome. Having mentioned Ofwat a number of times, I should also pay tribute to the Consumer Council for Water for its work as the voice of the consumer, which has not been mentioned in the debate so far.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of bad debt, and I am pleased about that. We have been very clear that we want the companies that have done less well on that to look to the examples of those that have done much better in offering a better deal, and to try to build on that work.
The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) talked about development issues. Water companies have the opportunity to have an input into that process, but so does the Environment Agency in relation to flooding, and that is important. We want to see housing growth in the economy and investment in housing for people who are desperate to get on to the housing ladder or, indeed, to rent. We have to get the right balance in that process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) posed a number of challenges and raised detailed issues that I am happy to discuss with him as we move towards the Second Reading of the Water Bill and its progress into Committee.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) raised issues about flooding and infrastructure investment. It is important that we encourage companies to continue to invest to overcome these problems at the same time as bearing down on price. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) talked about transparency and the tax framework. He also noted that some consumers feel that they have very little voice in what is being done with the money that they hand over to the water companies in their bills. Ofwat is taking a much tougher line on this, and I welcome that.
Our approach in the Water Bill is to look to update the structure of the industry to deal with some of the problems we have heard about, but not to try to step in and do what Ofwat is there to do. It is the regulator, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, it will regulate. We will therefore make sure that there are opportunities for it to make any proposals that it thinks will improve the Bill. If there are things we are not doing in primary legislation or it wishes to see change, it will be able to get involved in and develop those things without having to come back to this House or the other place.
The Government’s approach to this issue is a responsible one. Knee-jerk reactions that undermine the strengths of the regulatory system could be immensely damaging. A stable, independent regulatory system is vital in keeping bills affordable. Small changes to the industry’s financing costs can have a significant impact on customers’ bills. In that context, I reiterate my strong support for Ofwat’s drive to secure efficiencies and improvements through the price review and other measures that will allow us to keep customers’ bills as low as possible while ensuring that we can continue to attract significant, low-cost investment in the sector.
I thank hon. Members for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. The interest and passion expressed by Members displayed the importance that we all place on the matter, and I assure them that it continues to receive the highest level of attention from the Government. We will return to many of these important aspects of the industry as we move towards the Second Reading of the Water Bill in due course.
Charlie Elphicke
This has been an excellent debate. In particular, we heard a very fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who was an outstanding Water Minister and served with distinction. It was interesting that we had the old left-right battle, with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) saying, “Up nationalisation”, while others, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, championed what private investment can achieve.
Many Members, including the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), expressed concern about Thames Water, particularly its tideway tunnel. Yorkshire MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), noted that Yorkshire Water could do better, as its school report might say. I was fascinated by the speech of the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), who was until recently the shadow Minister; he spoke with great passion about social tariffs.
I thank Front Benchers on both sides of the House for foreshadowing the Water Bill debates; it was fascinating to watch a dry run. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), took the somewhat Maoist approach that 2010 was year zero, and the Minister explained the Government’s direction. I hope that the Government have listened to this debate and will consider the matter further.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered reform and infrastructure of the water industry and consumers’ bills.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the past hour the BBC has been reporting more than 1,000 job losses in UK shipyards. If correct, that has major implications for families up and down the country and in particular for our sovereign capability and skills retention. Has the Secretary of State for Defence given any indication that he intends to give a statement to the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
As the hon. Lady will know, that is not a point of order. If she wants to pursue the matter, I am sure she is already considering the options open to her during the next parliamentary day. We will not deal with it now and we will certainly not deal with it through the Chair.
Bullying (School Transport)
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
On 12 December 2006, 11-year-old Ben took his own life after being persistently bullied on a dedicated school bus in Sussex. The bullying incidents were reported on a number of occasions, but still the end result was this dreadful tragedy. Had it just been his peers he may well have withstood the bullying, but the bus driver decided to join in and, in his parents’ view, this took the situation to another level. As Ben saw it, here was an adult—someone to look up to and who represented authority—taking part in his denigration. Ben’s parents have since moved to my constituency and I have met his father on many occasions. Over the years, Mr Paul Vodden has spent an enormous amount of time working with charities associated with protecting children from bullying and he met a children’s Minister with me during the previous Government’s time in office.
In 2010, a year after the publication of Government guidance on tackling bullying on journeys to and from school, a survey carried out by 4Children and me showed that the majority of local authorities did not have a safer travel policy in place. The survey found that out of 67 local authorities, 60% did not have a safer travel policy and 52% did not have a safer travel team. Of those local authorities that did have a safer travel policy, only 50% said it covered all forms of bullying and only 38% said it covered all forms of journey.
The chief executive of 4Children said that the implementation of anti-bullying policies outside the school gates has been slow, with many local agencies still not working together as well as they could. Mr Vodden said:
“In my opinion, this incident represents a small tip to a very large iceberg of misery for many children who have a hard time on their way to and from school on dedicated school buses. In what other situation would we expect an untrained and unqualified adult to be in sole charge of 50 or more children and to do another complex task at the same time”?
This August, Mr Vodden completed his report on his own online survey to assess bullying on dedicated school buses. The aim of his survey is to attempt to determine the extent of bullying on those buses and the involvement, if any, of drivers. The report demonstrates that a number of problems still exist and they need to be urgently addressed. I have sent the Minister details of the methodology used by Mr Vodden and today I want to look at his conclusions.
The situation on the dedicated school bus is, by its nature, potentially problematic as far as bullying is concerned. Children are placed on a school bus in a group, the composition of which they have no choice over. There is no formal supervision and virtually no opportunity of avoiding conflict situations. In other social situations, such as during playground play, there is at least the potential of formal supervision by a teacher, access to supportive peers and the opportunity of escaping unpleasant situations. However, as we know, even in the playground, bullying is not easily avoided.
Mr Vodden’s survey aims to be a realistic snapshot of what is happening on dedicated school buses and a general indication of the effects and consequences of bullying in general. Although the intention of the survey was to focus on the dedicated school bus, anecdotal evidence suggests that the situation is not much better on public service buses.
To put the level of responses in context, it should be noted that bullied children feel that making an issue of bullying could make matters worse. Although the children ought to feel safe because they are anonymous for the purposes of the survey, the responses indicate that they still feel vulnerable. It is also common for such children to have low self-esteem, which makes them feel that the bullying is their fault and that no one will think that they are worth bothering with.
The responses to the survey indicate that there is a significant problem with bullying on dedicated school buses. That has had serious consequences for many of the bullied children. Thirty respondents reported self-harming, 24 considered suicide and 97 just wanted to hide away. Fear, anger and embarrassment were also significant reactions, which adds to the concerns.
The survey indicates that most bullying on the school bus starts when the student commences secondary school in year 7. One hundred and two respondents said that the bullying started in that year, which is 40% of the respondents. Children in the top year of primary school are confident of where they fit within the school and of their peer group. Moving to secondary school puts them at the bottom of the pile, with all the pressures and insecurities that that engenders. The move from year 6 in primary school to year 7 in secondary school should therefore be recognised as a time of particular vulnerability. That vulnerability is compounded by the fact that children are often moving from a small primary school where they know most of their fellow students to a much larger secondary school with many more pupils, perhaps from a greater variety of social groups. That is a particularly interesting finding and something that could easily be cross-referenced with other research. I wonder whether the Minister has further evidence on that point. We know that school transition can be difficult in many other respects.
Mr Vodden concludes that it is clear that the role of the driver is significant. Only four drivers were recorded as taking action to alleviate bullying, whereas 41 were reported as taking no action, even when many of them were reported as knowing what was going on. A worrying 17 drivers were reported as joining in.
Only six respondents knew about the safer travel policy. Although 69 respondents knew that their school had an anti-bullying policy, it is worrying that an almost equal number did not. A significant number of respondents did not know who to turn to in the event of bullying or whether the school had any systems in place to deal with bullying. That might indicate that the school did not have an effective system in place, if any. Although a few respondents reported that support was forthcoming from the school and that practical, effective action was taken, a large majority reported that they received little help from school staff. When help was provided, it was generally found to be ineffectual.
That part of the analysis shows how patchy anti-bullying policies are across schools. I have seen some excellent examples of good practice in schools in my constituency. It is clearly necessary to ensure that good practice is spread. There is also a question over how much leadership there is from the local authority and over what is happening in academies and free schools. ChildLine and other helplines are important because they allow children to discuss bullying, but children are still highly likely to need practical support from their school. Good mentoring from older pupils can be particularly useful in helping children to overcome their reluctance to talk to adults.
My husband recently led a working party on anti-bullying policies across Poole. He concluded that the local authority needs to promote wider discussions with schools to help them understand bullying and must give schools greater assistance in dealing with individual cases. He found that governors need to develop a more proactive role and challenge or encourage their schools to develop and implement anti-bullying policies. He said that partnership working must be developed in conjunction with the expansion of an anti-bullying programme, which could provide for the greater inclusion of parents. It is interesting that that separate piece of work came up with the same areas where more needs to be done.
Mr Vodden’s survey shows that bullying takes place on dedicated school buses and that it involves both verbal and physical abuse such as spitting, punching, slapping and pushing. He concludes that, apart from some notable exceptions, bullying on school buses is clearly an area of child vulnerability that has received insufficient attention. In what other situation are as many as 50 or more children forcibly restricted in a confined space for up to an hour, with a single, untrained adult present, who is undertaking a separate task that requires their full attention? When students are taken on school outings, the ratio of adults to students is strictly controlled and there are always a number of helpers.
Drivers of school buses, whether public service routes or dedicated school services, are recruited on account of their training, qualifications and ability to drive a bus. I make a plea for a requirement for some training for people who drive a bus with those vulnerable pupils. As a minimum safeguard, most local education authorities of course require drivers of dedicated school buses to undergo a Criminal Records Bureau check, but additional training and assessment is needed to ensure that such drivers are able to relate to children and equipped to deal with the childish behaviour that is bound to happen. The findings of the survey indicate that there is a risk of school bus drivers reacting inappropriately towards the young people in their charge. At best they may fail to notice or to report peer bullying, thus leaving vulnerable children without a responsible adult to turn to. At worst, either through ignorance or wilful intent, they may themselves take part in acts of bullying.
Mr Vodden asks whether the driver of a bus can reasonably and safely be expected to monitor children’s behaviour while giving their full attention to the serious undertaking of driving. If not the driver, however, where is the “responsible adult” who can intervene to safeguard children from bullying during their daily journey to and from school? That question requires an urgent and unequivocal answer.
The psychological effects of bullying on children are potentially long term and significant even in the short term. It seems from the responses given in this survey by victims of bullying that a number of schools do not adequately understand the complex nature of bullying, and appear unclear how to deal with it. The responses indicate a lack of joined-up thinking between the relevant agencies when dealing with bullying, and an absence of a coherent strategy or clear procedures. Schools are required to enforce measures that will encourage good behaviour and prevent all forms of bullying, including the provision of an anti-bullying policy, but the results of the survey indicate that in many cases that is not properly implemented. Even when systems are in place to deal with bullying, they may be ineffective.
Owing to the complex nature of bullying and the varying needs of both the victims and the bullies, it is essential that any procedure for identifying or dealing with bullying should be flexible and applied specifically to the individuals involved. It is self-evident that children—like the rest of us—are individuals and must be dealt with as such. Any procedure must be efficient and effective to alleviate the bullying without delay. It is important to assess accurately what is taking place, but it is potentially risky to undertake a painstaking investigation before taking speedy action.
Mr Vodden’s conclusions and recommendations include a properly trained adult or “chaperone” other than the bus driver to be provided for all dedicated school buses, particularly on longer journeys, and that all dedicated school bus drivers be given appropriate training in how to behave when dealing with children, how to respond in the event of bullying, and how to avoid becoming involved in the bullying itself—I have asked the previous Schools Minister about that issue on a number of occasions. Mr Vodden recommends that all dedicated school bus drivers should be assessed as suitable and safe to transport children; that it should be made clear to all which agencies and individuals are directly responsible for resolving incidents on the school bus; and that those individuals must be properly trained. In Ben’s case, the parents went to the school repeatedly, but nothing happened as far as the bus journey was concerned. It is so easy to separate school departments from transport departments at local authority level.
Mr Vodden also recommends that a professional body of experts and practitioners in child behaviour should be created to set up and frequently monitor a national procedure for assessing and dealing with bullying. That should be flexible and take into account individual requirements. Every school should have in place an efficient, effective and up-to-date procedure for dealing with bullying, ideally including peer mentoring schemes with proper pastoral care for students.
Clearly, this survey has been carried out in response to a heartbreaking tragedy and a father’s passion to try to ensure that better support is given to children like Ben who suffered so much. Seven years on, many improvements could still be made. I commend the whole piece of work—the survey—to the Minister. There is scope to cross-reference with other pieces of research to come up with further ideas to build on the good work that the Department for Education already supports. I should like to request a meeting with the Minister and Mr Vodden to discuss that further.
A number of charities do excellent work for bullied children, and I thank all of them. Mr Vodden specifically mentions the anti-bullying ambassadors scheme operated by the Diana Award—a cheap and highly effective system for implementing peer mentoring in schools—and the counselling work undertaken by Kidscape, and says they are of particular value in dealing with children in extreme cases of bullying. However, all hon. Members know that bullying happens and will continue to happen. The worst situation is when a school suggests that no bullying takes place, because it is most likely to be happening somewhere. We must face up to the problem and not believe that school transport, as something that happens outside the school, is nothing to do with the teacher in charge of bullying policy, and the governors, who must support the school’s anti-bullying policy. Let us ensure that everybody pulls together so we can do our very best to avoid tragedies such as Ben’s.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on the powerful case she has made concerning bullying on school transport. Bullying in any form and for any reason is totally unacceptable and should never be tolerated. It can instil fear, damage self-esteem and reduce academic attainment. Sadly, it can lead to the most tragic consequences.
I am aware of the case of Ben Vodden—the son of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Mr Paul Vodden—who sadly took his own life following bullying on school transport. I very much admire the fact that, since the tragedy, Mr Vodden has devoted time and energy to looking into this issue with a view to ensuring that no other children and their families suffer in the same way. I know that bullying is very high on the list of parents’ concerns about education and children going to school.
I should like to set out the Government’s approach to tackling bullying in and around school. Children and young people can be bullied in and out of school, and on the way to and from school. To tackle bullying successfully, the whole community and all those who provide services that include children and young people need to work together to change the culture, so that all forms of bullying are unacceptable.
Being victimised restricts a group’s or child’s use of their area’s amenities, such as parks, playgrounds and leisure facilities, and can lead to one group gradually dominating a territory. For example, some children do not play outdoors because they are scared of being bullied. Whether children are in groups, clubs or residential care, on the streets, in parks, or using public or school transport, they should feel safe from victimisation and discrimination.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, local authorities, local safeguarding children boards, the police, schools and parents all have a role to play by intervening to prevent and to respond to bullying. Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under the Children Act 2004, which includes tackling bullying. Authorities can develop their own approaches to tackling bullying, including by employing dedicated staff such as anti-bullying co-ordinators, or by commissioning support from the voluntary and community sector. It is important to recognise that different solutions may be appropriate in different locations, and that local authorities have a responsibility to deliver those solutions.
When contracting to provide school transport, local authorities can instruct companies to include anti-bullying procedures as part of their tenders. I strongly urge them to do so. No doubt they, like me, will be interested in Mr Vodden’s recommendations in developing their policies. Only by taking collective responsibility will we be able to eradicate poor behaviour in our schools and wider communities.
I recognise that the majority of pupils travel by public transport that is provided by private companies. It is for those companies to determine the training of their staff. Responsible providers of any service, whether a private company, a charity or the state, should take into account its interactions with young people and other vulnerable groups when developing safety policies, and they should act when they encounter bullying. Members of the public not directly involved with schools or services for children have a responsibility to play their part in keeping children safe and reporting poor behaviour, in the wider interests of the community. It is important that we all take responsibility for dealing with this scourge in our society.
Bullying is not a specific criminal offence in the UK, although in some circumstances it can constitute a criminal offence: for example, under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Malicious Communications Act 1998, the Communications Act 2003 and the Public Order Act 1986. The Home Office’s Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently working its way through Parliament, contains provisions allowing a range of bodies—including the police, local councils and other agencies—to apply for an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance in order to tackle antisocial behaviour. The injunction is designed to stop or prevent behaviour whereby someone has engaged, or threatens to engage, in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person. Bullying is a behaviour that could fall into that category. The injunction could be used to stop emerging antisocial behaviour before it escalates, and to protect victims from bullying in and around schools and colleges and in the community, and from cyber-bullying. For example, the injunction could stop a perpetrator associating with the victim outside of school or college, or from entering named areas in the community.
Schools have a key part to play in preventing and tackling bullying. Behaviour and bullying are closely linked. All schools must have a behaviour policy, with measures to prevent bullying. It is up to them to develop their own strategies, but they are now clearly held to account for their effectiveness in doing so by Ofsted. The number of criteria in the Ofsted inspections framework has been reduced from 27 to four. Of the four that remain, one is behaviour and safety, which requires school inspectors to take into account bullying, harassment and discrimination. We have made that criterion a core part of the inspection regime.
To ensure that teachers have the powers they need to maintain discipline and enforce school rules, the Government have introduced a number of reforms, including stronger powers to search pupils, the removal of the requirement to give parents 24 hours’ written notice of after-school detentions, and a clarification of teachers’ power to use reasonable force. Schools that excel at tackling bullying have created an ethos of good behaviour where pupils treat one another, and school staff, with respect, because they know it is the right way to behave. The best schools develop a more sophisticated approach whereby school staff proactively gather intelligence on issues between pupils before they become a problem: they prevent bullying from occurring in the first place. That might involve talking to pupils about issues of perceived difference in lessons, in dedicated events or projects, and in assemblies.
My hon. Friend made a very good point about the transition from primary school to secondary school, not just with regard to academic attainment, but to confidence and how pupils fit into a new school. That needs to be explored. In general, we are concerned about that transition.
Successful schools involve parents to ensure that they are clear that the school does not tolerate bullying and that they are aware of the procedures to follow if they believe their child is being bullied. They involve pupils, so that pupils understand the school’s approach. They regularly evaluate and update their approach to take into account developments in technology—for example, the role of computers and social media. They implement disciplinary sanctions, so that the consequences of bullying reflect the serious nature of the incident, and they have open discussions about perceived differences before they become problematic. It is important that schools work with the wider community, including the police and children’s services.
We acknowledge that tackling bullying outside school is challenging, but we have been clear that teachers have the power to discipline pupils for poor behaviour, including bullying outside the school gates. Where bullying outside school is reported to school staff, it should be investigated and acted upon. If the misbehaviour could be criminal or poses a serious threat to a child or another member of the public, the police should be informed. The Department has issued advice to help schools prevent and tackle bulling, making it clear that teachers have the power to discipline pupils for bullying incidents on school and public transport and on the journey to and from school, when it is brought to their attention.
I agree completely with my hon. Friend about the excellent organisations working in this area, some of which the Department funds. We are providing four organisations with £4 million over two years from spring 2013. First, we are giving £800,000 to The Diana Award to identify and train 10,000 pupils as anti-bullying ambassadors. I recently met representatives from The Diana Award and year-11 student Henry Doran, an anti-bullying ambassador at the Magna Carta school in Surrey. I was incredibly impressed by what Henry told me about how they had created a much more positive culture within the school and how he enjoyed his role helping the other children. At a recent reception in Downing street celebrating that impressive programme, I was told about the smile and compliment days—I said I thought it would be good for us to have them in Westminster sometimes. It is a really good project. What is nice is that it accentuates the positive—it is the opposite of a bullying culture—creating a positive culture in which people compliment each other and focus on their similarities and strengths, rather than the issues dividing them. That is very good.
Secondly, we are giving just over £250,000 to Kidscape to work in nine of London’s most economically deprived boroughs to train primary school professionals to deliver preventive and remedial strategies. Thirdly, we are giving £1.5 million to Beatbullying to train 3,500 11 to 17-year-olds over two years. Fourthly, we are giving £1.5 million to the National Children’s Bureau consortium to focus on bullied children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities, working with 900 schools and with parents, carers and school staff to reduce the bullying of these children and the impact when it occurs.
As we have heard, bullying can blight the lives of young people and result in tragic consequences. We do not want other children and their families to suffer as Ben Vodden and his family have suffered. We all have a part to play in helping to prevent and tackle bullying wherever it occurs—whether in the school, the wider community or on school transport—to ensure that no children have to suffer mistreatment. My hon. Friend asked if I would meet her and Mr Vodden. I would be happy to do so in order better to understand the issues at a local authority level: what prevents local authorities from using their powers to make changes—she mentioned the survey—and how we can ensure that good programmes, such as the anti-bullying ambassador programme, become more widespread in our schools. That will help us to change the culture in our schools and create a positive environment where learning can take place.
Question put and agreed to.
Rural Fair Share Campaign
Children Placed in Foster Care
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Persecution of Christians (Middle East)
(11 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on this topic under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. The number of Members in the Chamber testifies to the debate’s importance.
Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief; and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. When citizens are prevented from enjoying that right, the social, political and cultural implications can be serious, as the debate will show. The loss of other human rights can swiftly follow. The debate is therefore important not only for Christians, but for all religious groups and minorities, and indeed for everyone seeking to live out the dictates of their conscience in worship, teaching, practice and observance, respectful of others’ right to do likewise, and under the protection of a state striving to achieve that positive vision under the rule of law. That is a far cry from the reality for many Christians in the middle east.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She is being characteristically generous in giving way. It is right that we should stand up to champion the cause of religious freedom across all religions and faiths, but is it not a stark fact of Christian persecution that 80% of all discrimination is against Christians?
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is quite right. Christianity is the most persecuted faith worldwide, so the problem exists not only in the middle east, but globally.
The former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, in his outgoing interview with The Daily Telegraph, discussed the persecution of Christians in the middle east with the deepest concern of any current issue, saying that
“this is a human tragedy that is going almost unremarked… it is the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing. We are seeing Christians in Syria in great danger; we are seeing the burning of Coptic churches in Egypt. There is a large Coptic population in Egypt, and for some years now it has been living in fear. Two years ago the last church in Afghanistan was destroyed, certainly closed. There are no churches left in Afghanistan. Between 500,000 and 1 million Christians have left Iraq. At the beginning of the 19th century, Christians represented 20% of the population of the Arab world, today 2%. This is a story that is crying out for a public voice”.
Let us be that voice today.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the problems for Armenians both within Armenia and in Turkey.
Fiona Bruce
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning two of the numerous countries where Christians are suffering. I hope that the debate will highlight many more.
The recently produced evidence-based and measured report by Aid to the Church in Need, which is available in full at www.acnuk.org/persecution, shows that Christians in the middle east are subject to widespread and intense acts of violence motivated at least in part by religious hatred, and that violence and intimidation are now much more serious than in preceding years, and certainly since ACN’s last report in 2011.
The report catalogues a preponderance of anti-Christian violence, including attacks on Christian homes, churches and businesses, and the kidnapping of Christians for reasons connected with their faith; court cases, including those involving blasphemy allegations; key political developments affecting religious freedom, including new or amended constitutions, travel permits for clergy, Government statements, policies causing Christians difficulties; planning regulations, which similarly cause difficulties for church building projects; and Government attitudes towards Christian engagement in political debate and voting rights. Many social changes have resulted in restrictions and limitations on Christians’ access to employment, education and health care, and there is pressure to change religion on pain of death.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Many years ago, Christians in this country were burned at the stake because of their belief and their faith. It is estimated that 130 countries around the world persecute Christians. Every hour, a Christian is tortured and murdered somewhere in the world. Surely, in this day and age, something more can be done to protect people and their faith.
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely agree. We should be crying out with the same abhorrence and horror that we feel about the terrible atrocities towards Jews on Kristallnacht and on other occasions in Germany during the second world war.
Analysing 30 countries, the ACN report indicated that in only four had the situation for Christians improved, and in three of those the improvement was only marginal. In six, there was no change, but that was only because the situation was so bad already. Persecution in the middle east region was the greatest concern of all.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. The report to which she refers does not cover numerous countries, including Malaysia, which is not in the middle east, but the situation there is of significant concern. Is she aware of the recent decision in Malaysia to ban Christians from using the word “Allah”, which has been used in Malay as a term for God for centuries? It has effectively outlawed the Bible, particularly in the Christian eastern states of Malaysia. Is she concerned about the wider ramifications in other parts of the world not covered by the report that she cites?
Fiona Bruce
I am very concerned about that and the problem has global implications. I hope that, as a result, we will have many more debates in the House on the persecution of Christians in other regions of the world.
The ACN report discusses how, in virtually every country in and around the middle east region, Christians report suffering either high, high to extreme or extreme persecution. That includes Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. In virtually every one, the situation has worsened since ACN’s last report in 2011, except in Iraq, but only because the attacks in 2009-10 were so large in scale.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
In this context, it is important to recognise that there is one state in the middle east with a proud record of allowing a large degree of religious freedom, irrespective of other elements of the problems that it faces within its borders: Israel. I hope that my hon. Friend will say a few words about how religious freedom, at least, is protected in Israel, not just for the 2% of its population who are Christian, but for the 16% who are Muslim.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is quite right, which is why I did not include Israel in the list that I read out. The report does not include it among the areas of extreme persecution. I respect what is being done in Israel, although I must say that concerns are now being expressed in Palestine about increasing persecution there.
The report says:
“Christianity may yet remain the largest world religion, but its claims to universality—a truly global presence on all five continents—may soon be lost as it becomes the prime victim in the emergence of theocratic states where minority faith groups—most especially Christians—have no place, except perhaps as third-class citizens.”
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I am sorry that I am unable to stay for the Minister’s reply. Is it not one of the most shocking features of the situation that a number of the countries on the list are ones with which our country has significant ties? Several are significant recipients of British aid, so we should have leverage in some of the heart-rending cases that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Fiona Bruce
That is absolutely right. I hope, if time permits, to come to that point, although I am most willing to take as many interventions as Members wish, because that demonstrates the interest in the subject.
The plight of Christians in Iran was highlighted by an all-party parliamentary group report on the persecution of Christians in Iran, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who chaired that inquiry. The situation has not improved since we produced that report. In September, Christian Solidarity Worldwide wrote to the Foreign Secretary to say that Iranian civil society has experienced intense repression, including the continuing detention of journalists, human rights defenders and political activists.
With regard to freedom of religion or belief, despite Christianity being recognised in the Iranian constitution, a campaign of arrests that initially targeted the house church movement has been extended to the Government-sanctioned Assemblies of God—the AOG denomination —with hundreds of Christians detained in raids in cities across the country, forcible closures of churches and convictions for ill-defined crimes. The Church that I attend here in this country is a member of the AOG denomination.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Martin Luther King said:
“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
In that regard, I want to put on the record my concern for Farshid Fathi, who has been in Evin prison in Tehran since December 2010. He is serving a six-year sentence simply for wanting to run a church, and he has a wife and two young children.
Fiona Bruce
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned that person. It is an outrage that citizens of countries such as the United States are being detained in prisons in Iran.
In October, CSW reported that four members of a Christian Church were sentenced to 80 lashes each for drinking communion wine during a communion service, contrary to rules against the drinking of alcohol. That effectively criticises and condemns the Christian sacrament of sharing the Lord’s supper, and criminalises it.
Open Doors states that, despite promising words
“from Iran’s newly elected President, Rouhani, the situation for Christians in the country has not improved.”
An Iranian lawyer, Attieh Fard, told a recent meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council:
“It is obvious that the Islamic government of Iran has taken actions to prevent access of both Christians and the public to Christian societies, to churches, to Christian literature and religion, despite the Christians’ constitutional, national and international rights.”
Anti-Christian repression in Saudi Arabia is more severe than anywhere in the region, although we hear precious little about it. Non-Muslim places of worship are forbidden, conversion from Islam is punishable by death and the small number of indigenous Christians who practise their faith in extreme secrecy risk raids and arrests.
I will discuss what is happening in Syria in a moment, and also what happened to the Christians in Iraq following the US-led invasion of 2003, when hundreds of thousands were forced to flee their homes following targeted attacks, many by Islamist militants.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and apologise for arriving late. I hope she will mention Egypt and the situation with the Coptic Church and the problems that Christians are experiencing.
Fiona Bruce
I will indeed, time permitting. The suffering of the Copts in Egypt is a critical issue.
Christians in the middle east have suffered from a domino effect of violence that began in Iraq, spread to Syria and overshadows Egypt, leaving the survival of the Church in jeopardy. According to reports, Christians are leaving in droves, ending the presence of the Church in its ancient heartlands. We must remember that Paul’s conversion was on the road to Damascus. That is a key part of the Christian story and heritage. Such countries formerly had large Christian communities—Syria had more than 1.5 million, and a similar number in Iraq is now down to about 300,000—so those are tragic reductions in countries where there are large numbers of the faithful. Persecution is also happening in countries such as Yemen, where the faithful are few in number.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the situation in Syria, one of the greatest tragedies is that it was that country that offered a haven to refugees, Christian and of other faiths, during the civil war in Lebanon from 1975 to 1990, and indeed during the war and civil war in Iraq, and yet, in Syria now, Christians and others are being persecuted.
Fiona Bruce
That is absolutely right. Barnabas Aid reports that until 2011, Syria was one of the freest places to be a Christian in the middle east. It was a place of sanctuary for Christians escaping persecution in Iraq. Suddenly, all of that has changed. Christians made up a sizable minority—around 10% of the population—and were allowed to live out their faith without much hostility from Muslims around them. The Patriarch of Antioch, Gregorios III, said that it was often Christians who provided a bridge between disparate Muslim groups in the region. They had a collegiate approach towards living there. However, as clashes between Government forces and opposition fighters escalated into the brutal civil war that the country has experienced, Christians emerged as particular targets for rebels who assumed at times that Christians were Government supporters.
As Islamist bands have become some of the most prominent groups among rebel fighters, Christians are increasingly being targeted. We hear, for example, of one village where the parish priest has to collect $35,000 a month to pay rebel groups to protect the Christians from armed attacks. That is outrageous, but that is what is happening now.
Recent estimates put the number of Christians who have fled Syria at between 450,000 and 600,000—about a third of the Christian population before the atrocities began. Barnabas Aid estimates that about 600 have been martyred for their faith. For those who stay, the picture is bleak. The report that I mentioned states that entire populations of predominantly Christian villagers around Homs fled for their lives in 2012. In February this year, rebel fighters invaded al-Thawrah, seized Christian homes, confiscated possessions and threatened people with death because they did not comply with sharia law. On 27 May this year, rebel fighters massacred almost 40 men, women and children in the Christian village of Dweir on the outskirts of Homs. Some victims were tortured before being murdered.
The report’s authors told of meeting Syrian Christian refugees in Jordan, who had been told while they were in Syria:
“Don’t celebrate Easter or you will be killed like your Christ.”
On 17 August this year, the Christian area of Wadi al-Nasara, called the valley of the Christians, was attacked. Church buildings were targets. In January this year, church attacks were condemned as war crimes by Human Rights Watch. On 4 September, the historic Christian village of Maaloula—one of the few places in the world where Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is still spoken—was attacked. Rebels linked to al-Qaeda went into every Christian home and destroyed evidence of the inhabitants’ faith. At least seven were killed, and most of the village’s residents were forced to flee. Christians who fled said:
“Let history record that Maaloula is crying today.”
A growing trend is the use of rape as a weapon. In early 2013, a fatwa was issued, via YouTube, that called for the rape of women who were not Sunni Muslims. A tragic example is the horrendous ill-treatment of Mariam, a young Christian woman from al-Qusayr. She was forcibly married to a man who raped her on the same day. Later that day, he repudiated the marriage. The next day, another Islamist man did exactly the same. It continued day after day. For 15 days, 15 different men abused her in this way. Finally, when she was showing signs—unsurprisingly—of mental instability, they killed her. She was just 15 years old.
Christian Church leaders are being kidnapped and disappearing, including two senior bishops, Yohanna Ibrahim and Boulous Yazigi. I am informed that they are of the same seniority as the Bishops of Liverpool and of Manchester; if they had been kidnapped and had disappeared, and were possibly dead, there would be an international outcry. We should exhibit the same response.
For many years, Christians in Syria have formed a cohesive part of the community. At the launch of the report that I have referred to, the Patriarch of Antioch, head of one of the largest Christian Churches in the country, said movingly in this place:
“All Syrians are our brothers and sisters—we have no enemies—yet we are victims. We have not asked for weapons and I have told my parishioners, ‘don’t seek arms.’ We are a church of reconciliation and we are seen by many Muslims as the only one—let the rest of Europe hear that. Persecution is not in our history and we have a long history of collegiality in the region. Let us understand our role and mission—both the historic one and one going forward. But you cannot have a role if you are not present.”
In Egypt, we hear that despite the persecution they engender, Egyptian Christians have forgiven their persecutors and are not retaliating. Although it has experienced enormous hardship, the response of the Coptic community has been one of unprecedented non-retaliation. In some areas, they stand hand in hand with Muslims—I pay tribute to the Muslims standing with them—to protect their churches from further damage. Muslim families in lower Egypt have given blankets to Copts who have lost their homes.
Since the fall of the Islamist Government in Egypt, Christians have seen no improvement in their condition. On the contrary, they are suffering one of the worst periods of targeted violence against them in modern history. More than 140 attacks have been documented since the middle of August—a “reign of terror”, as it has been called by Christian Solidarity Worldwide.
As I have said, we bemoan to this day the persecution of the Jews in Germany, but in August 2013, The Times reported ransackings of homes, hospitals and schools similar to those that took place in 1938, when Jewish synagogues and buildings were ransacked and pillaged. It stated:
“Dozens of churches, homes and businesses have been set alight and looted in Egypt, forcing millions of Christians into hiding amid the worst bout of sectarian violence in the country’s modern history. Some Coptic Christian communities are being made to pay bribes as local Islamists exploit the turmoil by seeking to revive a seventh-century tax, called jizya, levied on non-Muslims.”
The morning after the terrible attacks in mid-August, Bishop Kyrillos William Samaan of Assuit told staff of Aid to the Church in Need that, during a spate of violence against Christians, nearly 80 churches and other centres were attacked in less than 48 hours. Fear of attack means that thousands of Christians are now too afraid to leave their homes. He said that in some villages, people were heard crying:
“Save us. We cannot go out of our houses.”
Joe Stork, the acting middle east director of Human Rights Watch, has reported that dozens of churches are in ruins, and that
“Christians throughout the country are hiding in their homes, afraid for their very lives.”
Only last week, a young Christian minister was kidnapped, tortured and killed when his family could not pay a ransom. How long can we remain apparently indifferent to regular reports of the abduction, forced conversion and marriage of Christian girls, and to the accompanying violence, rape, discrimination, beatings and abuse?
I accept that growing militant Islamism is not the only reason why Christians are being attacked—there is also political instability, poverty and desperation resulting from the displacement of refugees—but that issue nevertheless poses a real threat to other societies. As Barnabas Aid reported in mid-September,
“Western Muslims are going to fight alongside jihadists in Syria…returning home to become potential jihadists themselves. Western countries are not fully grappling with this problem.”
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate and highlighting the issues so eloquently and powerfully. She has mentioned several middle east countries, but may I raise the issue of Lebanon? The Syrian refugee crisis is affecting Jordan, Turkey, and particularly Lebanon, where there was a delicate balance between Shi’as, Sunnis and Christian groups. There is great concern that the mainly Sunni influx will result in a very big change in Lebanon’s demographics, with big effects for the Christian community in particular. Does she share my concern?
Fiona Bruce
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. He is absolutely right that the massive influx into Lebanon is putting enormous pressure on medical services and institutions. One problem is that Christian refugees in many places in Syria are frightened to use official UN camps, because of fear of persecution and attacks even within the camps, and therefore have to seek aid elsewhere. In this debate, I want to call on the UN to look at what can be done to ensure that official places of refuge, such as UN camps, are secure and safe for Christians and, indeed, any other religious minorities suffering in the same way.
I turn to my requests to the Minister, who I am sure would not want me to conclude without making some. I appreciate the utter complexity of challenging the situation in the middle east, and that deep-seated sensitivities can be engendered by addressing the issue of religious persecution in general, and the persecution of Christians in particular. More than one person has commented to me that addressing the issue could be seen as promoting colonial or neo-colonial attitudes. I respectfully say that we really must get over that and find a way round it. It must not inhibit us from acting; millions of people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake here. Others have rightly remarked on the sheer complexity of such a daunting task, but I again say that we cannot leave the lives of those millions of people in the “too hard to do” box.
I recognise that substantial endeavours have already been made by Foreign Office Ministers and officials to address the challenges, for which I thank them. Those endeavours include the Foreign Office toolkit on freedom of religion or belief, the new conferences on equality taking place at Wilton Park, and the new equality and non-discrimination team in the Foreign Office human rights and democracy department.
I want to ask the following questions. What steps can the British Government take to help translate into positive action and support the grave concerns of millions of Christians around the world about the plight of their fellow believers in the middle east? What actions are the Government taking to call to account the Governments responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the persecution of Christians and, indeed, other religious minorities in the middle east? For example, what calls have been made on the Iranian authorities to ensure that President Rouhani fulfils his promise to release all political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, and to ensure that the nation’s new constitutional procedures do not contradict its international obligations, under the international covenant on civil and political rights, to guarantee the full enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief for all religious communities?
What action can be taken to urge protection of the Coptic community in Egypt, to help address the culture of hate speech and impunity in which attacks occur, and to ensure the emergence of a society in which all Egyptians can flourish, regardless of their religious or political affiliation? What actions are the Government taking to assist Governments who are grappling with an upsurge in violence by those responsible for atrocities against Christians and other minority religious groups in the middle east?
What action are the Government taking to assist the growing numbers of internally displaced people and refugees forced from their homes directly as a result of persecution? I recognise that the Department for International Development has allocated the generous sum of £500 million to support Syria—I believe that is one of the largest donations in the world—but as I said earlier, the particular problem of Christians who are struggling to get aid support because of their faith needs to be addressed.
What action are the Government taking to assist other Governments in rooting out religious discrimination against Christians in educational institutions, and where there is institutionalised anti-Christian bias in curriculums and cultural practices? Some fundamental organisations appear to be able to tap into significant financial resources. How can strategies be developed to reduce such access? Although I accept that the Minister is from the Foreign Office and not from DFID, many of the issues relate to the work of both Departments. I ask DFID to identify freedom of religion or belief as a new priority in its work, and to recognise that where article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights is breached, the impact on women, which is a priority for DFID and in the current review of the millennium development goals, can be particularly acute.
I call on DFID to recognise the contribution that promoting freedom of religion or belief can make in achieving other societal goals such as gender equality, a reduction in discrimination and social exclusion, the prevention of conflict and the promotion of regional stability; and the contribution that healthy civil society bodies, including faith groups, make in many cultures to help promote security and prosperity. It should also recognise that while religious freedom concerns are predominantly issues within individual states, they can and will escalate into larger national and international problems with significant global implications if they are not addressed, as we are seeing in the impact on Lebanon.
Countries with high levels of religious restrictions can be breeding grounds for terrorism and political instability, and that can result in large numbers of refugees fleeing violence. Will the Minister accept that religious freedom should be seen as a human rights concern and be prioritised in our foreign policy? I call on DFID to renew its “Faith Partnership Principles” document, which was referred to just last week in a meeting of the Select Committee on International Development, in a reply to a question that I raised with the Secretary of State for International Development. I have the utmost respect for the Secretary of State, and I genuinely mean that. She is doing a remarkable job with a very wide brief. On reading the document, I saw that it was written some years ago, and that it focuses more on the impact that faith groups have on delivering aid, and working with the Government to do that, than on addressing the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities as a human rights issue. As this debate shows, the time has come for that priority to be stated and defined.
Will the Minister consider all the recommendations in the recent report, “Article 18: An Orphaned Right”, published by the all-party parliamentary group on international religious freedom, of which I and several other Members in the Chamber are members? Will he also provide us with a written response to that report, which makes too many recommendations for me to enumerate here?
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. Seven Members have said that they wish to speak. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.40 am, so I appeal to Members to keep their remarks brief and to the point, and to restrain themselves in interventions, if they can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on bringing this important matter to the Chamber and on allowing us all to have a chance to have a say in the debate. Christian persecution is an important issue. Although I always have my constituency in my heart, I believe that I must stand up for those who are persecuted throughout the world—in this case, Christians in the middle east. In the debate pack for this debate, it says that
“the global war on Christians remains the greatest story never told of the early 21st century.”
I, too, believe that to be the truth. Just as one did not have to be Jewish in the 1970s to care about dissident Jews in the Soviet Union, or to be black to be outraged by the apartheid regime in South Africa, one does not have to be a Christian today to see that the defence of persecuted Christians should be a towering priority.
I was pleased to meet Baroness Warsi and other Members last week and to read the interesting report prepared by the APPG on international religious freedom. Of great interest was the fact that 75% of the world’s population live in countries with high levels of Government restriction on freedom of belief, and that became evident during the so-called Arab spring. Some 100,000 Christians will be killed in a year—one every hour—and 2 million will be persecuted. Such statistics put the matter into perspective. With our current economic issues, it is clear that many people are concerned with their own difficulties. None the less, I have been overwhelmed by the amount of people who regularly contact my offices to ask me to do all I can to use my position to bring about an end to Christian persecution. The stories that are relayed to me are shocking in their intensity.
A century ago, about 20% of the population in north Africa and the middle east were Christian, according to Open Doors, but that figure has now dropped to just 4% of the population, which is due to persecution. The percentage drop does not indicate how many of those people were murdered or forcibly or even voluntarily displaced, but it does indicate that there may be no Christian presence left in the middle east in my son’s lifetime—or even in my own lifetime. To those who might question what role we have to play in that international story, I say that it is a very important one. It is my role and that of the House to support Christians who are persecuted and targeted merely because of their choice of worship. The hon. Member for Congleton has given evidence of other parts of the world where persecution is rife. As the debate is specifically on the middle east, I will keep my comments entirely on that region.
A quick glance online at Christian Persecution Info will reveal many headlines and stories. In Iran, we learn that 80 lashes were given for the taking of communion wine. It is unbelievable that such a small thing in reality—it is important to Christians because of the importance of holy communion—can bring about such persecution. We also learn that the violations of the rights of Christians, most notably converts from Islam to evangelical Protestant groups, continue unabated. A UN report in October said:
“Authorities continue to compel licensed Protestant churches to restrict Persian-speaking and Muslim-born Iranians from participating in services and raids and forced closures of house churches are ongoing. More than 300 Christians have been arrested since 2010 and dozens of church leaders and active community members have reportedly been convicted of national security crimes in connection with church activities, such as organizing prayer groups…and attending Christian seminars abroad.”
In Egypt, a man, woman and young children who were all Christian were killed at a drive-by shooting at a wedding. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a call for the destruction of all churches on the Arabian peninsula. According to Jihad Watch, a Kuwaiti parliamentarian presented a Bill that would ban the construction of any new non-Islamic religious buildings in the emirate. However, the call in Saudi Arabia went further than that. It insisted that all existing churches be demolished, as Islam is the only religion permitted on the peninsula. The ruling is based on the hadith of Mohammed, who said:
“There shall not be two religions on the peninsula of the Arabs.”
Again, that is a very insidious and very specific persecution of Christians.
The village of Maaloula, a symbol of Syrian Christian tradition where Aramaic is still spoken, is now a ghost town. The bodies of Christians lie along the roads of that small village north of Damascus after it was invaded by Islamist insurgents last month.
The list goes on and on. There will be no Christians left in the middle east if we continue at such a rate. That fear is based not on percentages, but on the fact that there are literally millions of people who live in fear every day.
I will conclude now, because I am conscious that other Members want to contribute to the debate. I plead with the Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development to do all they can to help stop the persecution in the middle east and to ensure that support filters down to the downtrodden Christian families who suffer every day to enjoy the freedom that we take for granted in this place. I stand with my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Congleton, and ask the Minister to take action today and use the influence of this House, democratically and politically, to stop ethnic cleansing from taking place in the middle east. We cannot allow it to go on simply because it is a difficult area with intense problems.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this debate.
Why are we particularly focusing on Christian persecution? The reason has already been given, but it is worth emphasising. I am sure, Mr Williams, that you would like me to focus particularly on the middle east, but the reality is that in a disturbing total of 139 nations Christians face persecution, which is extraordinary.
We have already heard various statistics, but it is worth reminding ourselves of one statistic from the Centre for the Study of Global Christianity, which has worked out that 11 Christians are killed around the world every hour, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith. And increasing numbers of Christians are being killed in the middle east, which is why it is right to focus on the region.
Is this a debate just for Christians? There are a number of Christians here, including members of Christians in Parliament, the all-party group, but there are other Members who are here who are not Christians, and quite rightly so. It is right that we should recently have heard the words of Pope Francis when addressing the general audience. He said:
“When I hear that so many Christians in the world are suffering, am I indifferent, or is it as if a member of my own family is suffering?”
Christians very much feel that members of their family—brothers and sisters—are suffering and they need to speak up about it, but they are members of all our family who are suffering, and anyone who is concerned about freedom of religion feels that; it is not the exclusive preserve of Christians but is felt by anyone who cares about a good society and wants to stand up for common freedoms, and the desire for freedom of religion is very much a common concern. We will hear today from other Members who do not share the Christian faith with us but very much share that same passion and desire for freedom of religion. It is quite right that we are all united across the House and across the faiths on this issue.
The term “Christian persecution” is sometimes bandied about carelessly. In this country, we can talk about Christian persecution, but let us just remind ourselves that if there is Christian persecution in this country then at worst its victim is likely to be sued, but in the middle east the victim will be killed. That is the stark reality that we are facing and that is why we are focusing today on Christian persecution in the middle east.
As I say, Christian persecution is a reality in the middle east, but I will particularly focus on Iran. As has been mentioned, Christians in Parliament, the all-party group, produced a report last year on the persecution of Christians in Iran, but now sadly we need to produce an update on how such persecution has been extended. Hassan Rouhani has been elected and religious freedom in Iran formed part of his campaign pledges. He said in his election campaign:
“All ethnicities, all religions, even religious minorities, must feel justice”.
We have to challenge that and ask how there has been justice for Christians in Iran, even in the time that he has been President. What he was doing in making that remark was effectively referring to the Iranian constitution, article 23 of which states:
“The investigation of individuals’ beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief.”
That principle has been overridden by sharia law, which has taken precedence on this issue. However, the basic constitutional work in Iran, and indeed the pre-revolution heritage of Iran, was about having sympathy with religious minorities and the Iranian people here in Britain hang their head in shame at what is happening in their country now in the name of Iran and its current regime, and that has continued under the watch of Rouhani; the situation in Iran for all religious minorities, but particularly for Christians, has continued to deteriorate.
Just at the end of last month, two Christians in Iran were lashed for drinking communion wine; they were punished simply for partaking in a sacrament that has obviously been practised for centuries, since the time of Jesus. Two other Christians in Iran are now awaiting the same punishment for drinking communion wine. In Iran, Christians continue to be arrested, detained and interrogated, before harsh sentences are handed down on erroneous, trumped-up and political charges, on the basis of protecting security, and those sentences are upheld on appeal.
Our all-party group’s report on Iran particularly highlighted the concerns that exist for the house church movement, the members of which have suffered appalling persecution. In addition, there is now visible persecution of people in churches, including of people in Orthodox churches. Also, the Catholic Church in Tehran has been pressured by the Iranian authorities into barring Persian-speaking Iranians. Why is that? No doubt, it is because the regime presumes that such people are from a Muslim background and it wants to suppress any profession of Christian faith by them. Previously, such treatment has been limited to Protestant Churches, but now it is being extended across the board.
We have had the September session at the UN General Assembly, and perhaps we are seeing a thawing of relations with Iran. Eighty prisoners of conscience were released from Iranian prisons. So can we sit down and say, “All is good now in Iran”? We have to recognise that two of the Christian women released were near the end of their sentence. Also, when Iran says that it is trying to be good and says, “Yes, we are going to release all prisoners of conscience,” we must look at the individuals concerned. Mr Williams, I hope that you and the Hansard writers will forgive me, but I need to put on the record the names of the 16 Christians who are serving time in jail in Iran whom we know of and who can be named. They are Maryam Zagaran, Farshid Fathi, who has already been mentioned, Farhad Sabokrooh, Shahnaz Jaynaz, Nasser Zamen-Dezfuli, Davoud Alijani, Mostafa Bordbar, Mojtaba Hossein, Mohammad-Beza Partoei, Homayoun Shokouhi, Vahid Hakkani, Ebrahim Firouzi, Saeed Abedini, Shahin Lahooti, Alireza Seyyedian and Behnam Irani. Forgive my pronunciation of their names, but the point is that these people need to be released if Rouhani is to make good on the promises that he made.
I wish to give others an opportunity to speak, Mr Williams, but we must recognise that despite the suffering that these Christians experience, they deal with it with incredible grace, humility and fortitude. Farshid Fathi recently wrote:
“How can I complain about my suffering when my brothers and sisters are paying a high price for their faith all over the world? How can I complain?”
Today, we can complain on their behalf. In fact, we can properly take the words of the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, and I will finish by quoting him. We have already heard that Israel is very much set apart from concerns about freedom of religion, by contrast to the countries that neighbour it. In 2011, Fouad Twal said:
“Does anybody hear our cry? How many atrocities must we endure before somebody, somewhere, comes to our aid?”
The opportunity for the Minister today is to respond to this debate and to show that the Government take these atrocities seriously and will complain and ensure that the relations between Iran and the UK are thawed. Human rights and the freedom of religion are central to restoring diplomatic relations with Iran, and Iran must respond to our recommendations. We must ensure that we use all the channels that we can to stand up for persecuted Christians in Iran.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I also welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing it and on her consistent attention to this pressing and important topic.
We have already heard the statistic, which I think comes from the International Society for Human Rights, that 80% of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. Like others, I shall use my brief contribution to refer to the persecution of Christians in Iran, drawing on a visit that I made last year to Turkey, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr Benton). While we were there we briefly met the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who was in the country. My hon. Friend and I were guests of Elam Ministries, a UK-based charity that supports Iranian Christians. Our visit contributed evidence to the Christians in Parliament report, which has been referred to and was published last October, and which was put together by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate.
Iran has a population of 74 million. We do not know how many of those people are Christians, but it seems clear that the number of Christians in Iran is increasing, perhaps quite quickly. Some estimates put the number as high as 1.5 million, or 2% of the population. The regime in Iran has certainly retaliated against the growth of Christianity with a concerted propaganda campaign. It is strictly forbidden for Christians to talk with others about what they believe in, and Churches that reach out to non-members have had leaders executed and members imprisoned and tortured. Congregations live under the constant threat of arrest and violent interrogation.
The situation has not always been like that, though. We were told that, after the Islamic revolution in 1979, the regime was, on the whole, tolerant of Christianity and of other minority religions—those religions are protected under the Iranian constitution—but things changed rapidly for the worse, as the evidence gathered for last year’s Christians in Parliament report showed. Christian Solidarity Worldwide has also noted since the beginning of 2012 an increase of harassment, arrest, trial and imprisonment of converts to Christianity in cities across Iran.
The renewed wave of repression has affected both the house church movement and approved denominations. There are tight restrictions on officially recognised Churches. We were told that, with few exceptions, churches can no longer hold services in Farsi—the first language—and that services are not allowed on Friday, which is the official day off. That means that going to church is likely to involve taking time off work and possibly giving up half a day’s pay. Those who attend services are closely monitored. Churches must submit lists of members, with their identity card numbers, so that churchgoers can be easily traced. Recognised Churches find it increasingly hard to obtain permission for maintenance work on their buildings.
While in Turkey, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle and I were told that the harshness of the Iranian regime contrasts starkly to the warmth and tolerance of the Iranian people. Iranians are proud of their rich history of poetry and literature. Despite the persecution, the Church in Iran is growing rapidly. The Iranian Christians whom we met in Turkey made the point to us that the regime’s propaganda against Christians is widely disbelieved. That was demonstrated dramatically when we spoke to some remarkable Christians we met, who had gone to Turkey for safety.
One of our destinations was Kayseri—a big, modern Turkish city of about 1 million people, with an ancient fortress at its centre. We visited an Iranian church there, one of quite a large number of churches made up of Iranian exiles that meet in Turkey. This one meets in a modest flat at the top of a low-rise block above shops. We met there a man who, with his wife, was imprisoned on a charge of
“action against the security of the nation”,
which can carry a six-year sentence. He was in prison for three months, which included a month in solitary confinement. It was a grim experience. For a while, he was in a cell with 10 others, including a journalist, an academic and other professionals. They shared minimal facilities between them.
Many of the Christians we met knew Pastor Farshid Fathi, whom we have heard about in the debate. I, too, pay tribute to him. A critic of the Iranian Government—a political critic—Mehdi Khazali, who shared a cell with Farshid last year, spoke of him in an interview:
“Farshid was a polite young man with a warm smile always on his face. All prisoners in ward 350 remember nothing but kindness from him. He had an exemplary behaviour. We never saw him lose his temper. He was a kind person.”
He is serving a six-year sentence, which began in December 2010.
We met many people who had suffered in Iran for their faith. Some had suffered terribly, but had not given up. Instead, they appeared to be even more determined to tell their fellow countrymen what they believed. One church in Istanbul, which offers copies of the New Testament to visiting Iranians—admittedly, it is quite a small church—told us that it had recently had to stop its evangelism because it could not fit any more people into the building.
I welcome the high priority that has been assigned by the Government, among their foreign policy concerns, to freedom of religion or belief. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for the work that he did as a Foreign Office Minister, and I hope that this Minister can reassure us that that priority will be maintained.
I hope that Ministers making overseas visits will continue to make a point of meeting religious minorities, like some of those I met in Turkey. A Minister visiting a country such as Iran or the others that we have heard about is in a privileged position, and such visits to religious minorities in those countries are a source of huge encouragement for groups that are being persecuted. At the same time, they can help to draw much-needed attention to the injustice that so many people are suffering.
There are perhaps grounds for optimism in Iran: we have not yet seen much change, but at least some of the right words have been said. I hope that the Minister might be able to encourage us with the prospect that some of those words will indeed be fulfilled and that in the months ahead there will be change for the better for Christians in Iran.
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. I emphasise again that time is short and I might have to impose a time limit on speeches.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
And when the wise men were departed,
“behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”
Joseph would not be very wise today to move from the west bank of Palestine to Egypt, because in August this year, there were targeted attacks on at least 100 Coptic Christian churches in Egypt, as well as Christian homes and businesses; and in September, large mobs carrying machetes and guns attacked properties, including the Virgin Mary and Priest Ibram monastery. It was forced to close for prayers in August for the first time in 1,600 years.
I do not intend to repeat anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) excellently said in opening the debate. The freedom of religion is an important human right set out in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. In the few moments available to me, I want to say some of the things that I think that Ministers should be doing.
The Foreign Office should consider appointing a special envoy for freedom of religion and belief to co-ordinate the UK’s diplomatic efforts in this field, in partnership with the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the US ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. Today’s debate has highlighted that this is now an issue of such seriousness that it needs to rise up the list of Government priorities. I hope that we can see a re-establishment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office freedom of religion panel, to bring together on a regular basis human rights and religious freedom organisations and representatives of religious communities. That panel could inform and advise the Foreign Office on violations of, and methods of promoting, religious freedom, and on ensuring that freedom of religion and belief was part of bilateral and multilateral discussions with relevant Governments on a regular basis.
I appreciate that the Foreign Office often has a difficult task. It wants to promote trade with countries such as Malaysia, but what we heard earlier about the prejudice and discrimination against Christians in Malaysia is appalling for a Commonwealth country that has regular trade with the UK. We want to be reassured by Ministers that these issues are raised regularly.
It is also important to continue to exert diplomatic pressure on Governments of nations in which religious freedom is violated, and to consider imposing targeted sanctions on key individuals or Governments responsible for serious widespread and systematic violations of religious freedom. I very much agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier): many of the countries that we are talking about are countries to which the UK gives significant amounts of bilateral aid. Pakistan is the largest recipient of UK bilateral aid. I do not think it unreasonable that, in discussions about what bilateral aid we give to countries, we consider this issue and ensure that those countries will give religious freedom to everyone, including Christians.
Lastly, it is important to continue to oppose robustly efforts at the UN to introduce religious defamation measures; we must work to build a coalition of support for the campaign to reject religious defamation laws, and work generally to promote religious freedom.
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. I will have to impose a time limit on speeches. Can hon. Members confine themselves to three minutes apiece—less, if possible?
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
In January 1945, my mother, who was too young even to attend school, joined millions of other ethnic Germans who were fleeing westwards from Breslau as the red army advanced. My forefathers had lived in that region for at least nine generations, as far as I am aware. That forced repatriation—a process that might now be called ethnic cleansing—of my mother’s family and millions of other civilian groups would in future be inextricably linked with their ethnicity, which was largely overlooked at the time in the euphoria that swept across Europe at the end of the second world war. Of course, my mother’s generation never returned.
We are now witnessing another wave of largely unnoticed civilian displacement in the middle east, with hundreds of thousands of Christians being forced to flee as they are banished from their often 2,000-year-old homelands in today’s remarkable surge in Arabian people power.
Others have talked about Iran and Egypt, so I hope that I will be forgiven for saying a few words on the Syrian situation. Global media attention has moved from Egypt and Libya to Syria, and is focusing on the crimes of the Assad Government and the mission to neutralise his chemical weapons, but innocent people on all sides are enduring awful hardship, death and torture. Civil war does not discriminate between young and old.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said in her superb contribution, there are more than 2 million Syrian followers of Christ whose lineage goes back literally 2,000 years to St Paul’s proselytising in the first century AD. For those people, these are incredibly desperate times. The unspeakable truth is that a sizeable Christian community in war-torn Syria is now at a greater threat of being ethnically cleansed from its ancestral home than it has been for generations. That threat is often posed by self-styled freedom fighters who have been fêted by the western press. Those fighters—increasingly rent-a-mob jihadists with no real stake in the affairs of Damascus—do not see those in the enclaves of Christians as genial neighbours whom they have lived beside for centuries. I am afraid that the sad truth is that religious minorities often find their most assured protection under dictatorships, and often it pays not to rock the status quo, but that should not be a convenient excuse for destroying ancient churches and holding populations to ransom.
I know others also want to speak, so I will end my comments, but we should all recognise that there are major issues. The plight of Christians across the world is all too often overlooked. We have rightly focused today on the middle east. The problems are going on, hour by hour, before our very eyes, and I am interested to hear what the Government will do, in practical terms.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
We are thinking this morning about those people in the middle east and across the world who will wake up today to the reality of the persecution of their faith. It may be that their children are barred from school, or that they have no hope of securing a job for which they are eminently qualified, simply because they have a faith that they refuse to renounce—which may mean unlawful imprisonment, torture or even death. We have experienced that in this country in the past—the trials were conducted just a few yards from here—but we have learned that that is no way to run a country or build a society.
Some think democracy is the answer. As we have seen in Egypt, democracy may be a necessary condition for the long-term maintenance of human rights, but it is in no way a sufficient condition. Democracy without the rule of law becomes but the tyranny of the majority, and democracy without the rule of law based on universal human rights can be even worse. When we urge countries to embrace democracy and then question why it all goes wrong and many minorities find themselves in a worse position than under an autocrat, let us remember that the rule of law, underpinned by the universal rights and responsibilities of individuals and their enforcement, is a precondition for democracy. We must never forget that in the rush for universal suffrage and majority rule.
The Governments of middle-eastern countries that deliberately persecute Christians and those of other non-Islamic faiths are, by keeping down or driving out Christians, doing their countries a great disservice. Just look at the example of the UK. When my Huguenot ancestors were driven out of France after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, they fled to the low countries, to Germany and to England, and they took their skills with them. Courtauld brought textile manufacturing to this country, and hence, eventually, the industrial revolution. Some estimate that the expulsion of the Protestant Huguenots from France set that country back 100 years, and advanced those countries that welcomed them by a generation or two.
Each wave of immigrants welcomed by our country has brought enterprise and skills as they integrated. Where Christian citizens are driven away or kept down, it is a huge loss to that country, its people and its future, and the same is true for the UK. Let us recognise one of the reasons why Christians are persecuted. They are seen as representative of something alien—a western culture based on individualism and materialism, rather than the collective good of love for one’s neighbour. That, of course, is a travesty of the gospel, but it is understandable that outsiders think that when they see some of the products of western so-called civilisation.
Finally, we must show that religious and political freedom does not necessarily mean a descent into materialism, loss of family and spiritual poverty, which is a challenge to us. It is something we can do as a society, and as Christians, while at all times supporting our persecuted brothers and sisters and urging their countries to change heart.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who called for a public voice on this issue. She has been the instigator of that public voice this morning, and we are grateful to her for securing this opportunity.
Like other hon. Members, I want to talk about Iran. According to Open Doors, a charity that supports Christians living under some of the most repressive regimes in the world, Iran is ranked eighth on the world watch list, and there are 450,000 Christians there. I hope that that figure is wrong, and that what the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said is true—that the figure is growing, despite the huge challenges of living in a country in which Christians are routinely detained for no reason other than the fact that they hold different beliefs from those of the country’s leaders. Christians are not allowed to express their faith openly, whether through the written or spoken word. Indeed, it is illegal to publish the Bible in Farsi, which means that Christians are forbidden from worshipping in their own language.
A couple of weeks ago, my church celebrated Bible Sunday; in Wales, we were celebrating the translation of the Bible into Welsh. I find it difficult to imagine what it must be like to have to practise religion in a foreign language. That brings home the Bible verse in which the apostle Peter calls on his readers to
“live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.”
That is particularly apposite. Christian men and women in Iran are treated as foreigners in their own land, particularly converts from Islam, who are considered more than simply foreigners or second-class citizens; they are considered traitors and are routinely sentenced to death or face trumped-up charges for converting. It is no small wonder that so many have been forced to flee Iran. One of the greatest exoduses of people across the modern world has been people fleeing Iran.
The Iranian regime has long sought viciously to repress anyone who espouses views different from its own, whether those views come from political opponents or the Baha’i community, which has been ferociously persecuted. Mr Ataollah Rezvani was shot in the back of the head, and his body was abandoned by a railway near Bandar Abbas, in August simply for being a member of the Baha’i community. Such persecution has led our Government to condemn Iran’s human rights reputation as “appalling” and to note that Iran’s treatment of religious minorities is “shocking.” We have heard that 80% of acts of religious discrimination across the world are directed at Christians. This has been a thorough debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Congleton for securing it.
Finally, I dedicate my brief remarks to Maryam Zargaran, who was arrested on 15 July and is still languishing in Evin prison for activities and propaganda against the Iranian regime, for creating unrest and for establishing church houses.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her superb speech. I associate myself with her remarks, and particularly her questions to the Minister.
I will keep my comments to two specific issues. First, we have heard a lot about the persecution of Christians in Syria. On Friday three Syrians, who have been given leave to remain in the United Kingdom, visited my surgery. It was moving to see three Syrians—a Christian, a Druze and a Sunni—sitting together and expressing bafflement about the way in which the religiously tolerant country they had known now posed a risk to their families. The three of them were grateful for the way in which the British Government dealt with their applications for leave to remain, but their key concern was for their families. Two of them still have significant close family members in Syria, and the third has seen family members killed in attacks. The question that they asked, which I am asking the Minister today, is whether we can have clarity on the Government’s willingness or otherwise to support Syrians who have moved to this country and whose families are still at great risk in Syria. We need an acknowledgement of that issue. The investment and contribution we are making, in terms of humanitarian aid, is most welcome, but it is important that we remain an open door for people fleeing for their lives.
The other issue I want to touch on was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who shares a Huguenot ancestry with me. He said that it was to a country’s detriment to persecute its religious minorities. The example I would give, which numerous Members have mentioned, is Israel—a country in the middle east that is often vilified, not least in this place. When it comes to religious freedom, however, it is important to highlight the difference between the way in which Israel and neighbouring countries behave towards their religious minorities.
The key point is that the Christian population in Israel has increased a thousandfold since the country was established. Christians serve in the Supreme Court, the Knesset and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and they are contributing to a stronger country. The situation of Christians in Israel can be contrasted with that of Christians in the west bank, where the Christian population has fallen quite dramatically. In 1948, about 15% of Palestinians identified themselves as Christian; today, that figure has fallen to about 2%. In many ways, the strongest, most economically prosperous country in the middle east is also the most welcoming of religious minorities. When we discuss this issue, it is important to place on record the fact that there is, in the middle east, a country that shows us how things can be done differently, and that is leading to a more prosperous situation for all the citizens of that country, regardless of their religion.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and to speak before you, Mr Williams. We have the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) to thank for the fact that we are having this hugely important debate. I am sorry hon. Members’ speeches were truncated, but everyone made valuable contributions, and if I am quick enough, I hope to highlight particular points from them.
As we all know, this is an extraordinary time in the middle east. The persecution of Christians there has moved up the political agenda; as the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said, it has, if anything, become even more important. That is because of the extraordinary state of flux that exists in the political world of the middle east as we speak.
In the past three years, since the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia, the Arab uprisings have occurred. The stability that existed—in a sense, it was the stability of the graveyard or the stability of oppression—under the various dictators in the region has ended. That has led to an extraordinary period of uncertainty, with many in the middle east pursuing the noble and difficult cause of establishing constitutions. In Tunisia, President Marzouki is involved in the process, in alliance with an Islamic party, which is in government. Fundamental constitutions are being put together right across the region. We must not, in any sense, underestimate the scale of that political task.
We have heard reference to the universal declaration of human rights, which is central to our debate. This discussion is not just about Christianity—that is one aspect—but we are also talking about individual rights and freedom of religion. The irony is that many of the countries that we have referred to—Egypt, Iran and Syria—were signatories to the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. I would like the Minister to confirm that he will remind the Governments of those countries that they voluntarily undertook to commit to the obligations under the declaration, and we want them to adhere to them at this important time.
The Government have done much positive work in the past two to three years in the febrile, complex political situation that has followed the Arab uprising. We commend them on the work they have done on the Arab Partnership, and I have visited countries across the region—from Egypt to Tunisia to Iraq—where difficult political situations are being helped by DFID’s excellent work on the ground to build support for the difficult process of constitution and politics building. That is a long-term process, and I can tell the Minister that the Labour party are certainly committed to it over a long period. This country has a long constitutional history, and we know from what happened in 17th-century England that the process following a revolution and a change of Government is difficult. In the historical context, it is early days indeed in the middle east.
We know from our postbags, and I certainly know from faith groups and churches in Wrexham, that there is profound concern about the position of Christians in the middle east. We have heard from a number of speakers about the position of Christians across the world generally, but the difficult political situation in the middle east means that Christians’ position as a minority, albeit a long-standing and long-established minority, is a particular threat. At this time, we must hold fast to the principles that underpin the United Nations and democracy.
The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) mentioned Israel, and it is no coincidence that that country, with its tolerance for religious minorities, is a democracy. For that reason, we need to commit to supporting the progress of democracy in the region, even though, as recent events in Egypt, for example, have shown, that is a difficult course, which often leads us to take one step forward and two steps back, making the political situation difficult to manage.
In Egypt, the situation of Coptic Christians has been extremely difficult in the past few months. There have been dreadful individual events, with masked gunmen attacking Coptic Christian churches. In one particularly dreadful instance, four people, including an eight-year-old girl, were killed at a wedding. Those are the circumstances Christians face in the middle east.
At this time, through our contact with the middle east, we need to provide a consistent voice against the oppression of minorities. I stress that it should be consistent, because it is easy in some respects to criticise countries with which we do not have strong political relations—for example, Iran. The criticism of Iran that we have heard in the debate is fully justified, because individual rights there must be respected—it one of the signatories to the UN declaration. However, we must also criticise countries in the region with which we have good relations and strong commercial bonds. We need to ensure that our voice is heard loud and clear on individual rights and the oppression of Christian minorities in those countries. If we are not consistent in our approach with Governments, our voice is diminished. One criticism that I hear in the middle east is that our Government—I do not particularly mean this Government, because this approach has been consistent across Governments over many years—are quick to criticise our enemies, but slow to criticise our friends when they misbehave.
We need a consistent and principled approach, working from the principles set out in the declaration of human rights, which so many of the countries in question have signed. I assure the Minister that the Opposition will support the Government position, if they speak candidly with a clear voice to countries that oppress religious or political minorities in the middle east. We see our role as supporting the Government when they speak candidly for the idea that Governments should respect human rights. For as long as that is their approach, that is what we will do.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I thank—and we should all thank—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for bringing such an important issue to the House in such a timely manner. In her three and a half years in the House, she has consistently worked hard to champion oppressed Christians. Many members of the all-party group on religious freedom or belief are present, and I pay tribute to all those who speak up against such oppression. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said that not everyone present in the Chamber is a Christian, and I looked around for humanists or others, but I think probably most of those here are Christian in one way or another; certainly they support religious freedom.
The Government believe that people of all religious faiths or none should be deeply concerned about this issue, which touches on the fundamental human right of the freedom to choose what to believe, how to practise one’s faith and whether to change one’s belief. Such a right should be a precious part of any society. That is why the Government utterly condemn all instances of violence and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their faith or belief. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton asked me to ask the Department for International Development to recognise freedom of religion as a priority, and I shall pass her request on to the Secretary of State, about whom she rightly made some extremely nice points.
I should mention the work done by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a member of the high-level panel advising on the post-2015 millennium development goals. An excellent report has been produced, recognising rights and freedoms as a crucial part of the development debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton will also recognise the work done by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, on the initiative on the prevention of sexual violence, which more than 134 countries have now signed up to and which addresses some of the issues my hon. Friend discussed in relation to rape.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Those of us who went to the Holy See the other day met the cardinals in charge of the matter. Would the Minister be good enough to speak to the ambassador to the Holy See? We had interesting discussions about that very question.
Mr Swire
I shall certainly take my hon. Friend’s point on board.
The Government base their position on article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his or her religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his or her religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Promoting human rights, including religious freedom, is an important part of British foreign policy. Ministers and officials at our embassies and high commissions regularly raise concerns with host Governments about violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. I shall ensure that our ambassador to the Vatican does that. For example, when they met at the UN General Assembly on 23 September, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary urged his Egyptian counterpart to ensure that Egypt’s new constitution would include a protection for the rights of minorities. We also regularly meet leaders of religious communities and civil society organisations from around the world, with a view to understanding their concerns better. We actively work with them to promote a universal commitment to religious freedom and to promote tolerance and understanding for, between and within all faiths, in line with article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights.
I hope that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who urged Ministers to engage, will support the Prime Minister’s trip to Sri Lanka for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in the next few weeks. He will be the first western leader to go to the north of the country to engage with the minority Tamil community. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is the right way to proceed, despite the alternative view taken by the Front Bench in his party, that the UK should not attend.
We continue to work with the international community to combat religious intolerance and protect human rights. In September, at the UN General Assembly, my noble Friend Baroness Warsi convened a group of Foreign Ministers and officials from international organisations for the second in a series of meetings to discuss international efforts to fight violence in the name of religion and to promote freedom of religion and belief for all. We intend that to be a continuing initiative to build up greater political will to tackle the issue in the countries where it matters most.
Some right hon. and hon. Members who spoke were tempted to go slightly further afield than the middle east in their remarks, but I shall confine my remarks to the middle east. Some interesting points were made about the middle east as the birthplace of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, which makes the religious persecution there all the more poignant. My hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) mentioned Israel and Palestine. It is true that less than 2% of the population of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is Christian today, compared with 22% at the end of the British mandate in 1948. I heard what my hon. Friends said, but we continue to be concerned about access to holy sites for all, including Christians and Muslims. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy raised about the Syrians who came to his constituency surgery, if he would like to write to me, I shall respond and lay out our policy on asylum seekers.
The period since 2011 has indeed been a difficult one for various religious communities across the region. Many are suffering and, tragically, there is a risk in some countries of the disappearance of religious communities that have existed there peacefully for centuries. As right hon. and hon. Members—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate—have said, the great majority of communities that are suffering are Christian. It is right to continue to highlight that, but also to be concerned with all persecuted minorities. We want freedom of religion or belief for all: a universal human right.
The effects of the crisis in Syria are particularly on our minds. Life in Syria for Christians and other minorities continues to be extremely difficult. We have serious concerns about rising sectarian tension and believe that President Assad is deliberately attempting to stir up such tensions in his efforts to hold on to power. Non-Alawite minorities, including Christian communities, are in a vulnerable position, not only because of the relatively small size of their communities and their geographic dispersal, but because they are neither Sunni, like the majority of the opposition, nor Alawite, like the core of the regime. The largest Christian communities in the country were in Aleppo and Homs, where some of the most intense clashes between the regime and the opposition have happened. We are working hard, with the moderate Syrian National Coalition, to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict and to support the building of a Syria that respects the rights of all its citizens, whatever their race, religion or lack of religion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is right to point out that we have provided more than £500 million of humanitarian aid—the largest ever UK response to a single crisis. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced that her Department would support UNICEF’s Syrian children appeal by matching public donations pound for pound. We also support a number of projects designed to increase dialogue and reduce tensions between different communities to promote minority rights, including almost £520,000 to train Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Druze, Armenian and Kurdish community and religious leaders. We have also provided support to create a network of peace-building committees in Syria by training and providing guidance and mentorship to nearly 500 activists.
On 16 October, the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for human rights policy, Baroness Warsi, met Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregorius III, and they discussed the Geneva II process to establish peace negotiations, the plight of Christians in Syria and the humanitarian crisis affecting Syria and the region. The Minister underlined our commitment to speaking up on behalf of all those who are targeted for their religion or belief. We have made it clear that those responsible for human rights violations and abuses should be held to account. We believe that the International Criminal Court will have a role to play, and I confirm that we have condemned the kidnapping of the bishops and called for their release, as my hon. Friend asked.
In Egypt, the Coptic Church continues to experience many challenges. For example, we have just marked the second anniversary of the Maspero massacre, in which 28 Christians taking part in a demonstration were killed. Following the military intervention to remove Mohammad Morsi on 3 July this year, there has also been a rise in the number of violent sectarian attacks. Churches, homes, businesses and individuals have been attacked. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has publicly condemned the attacks and urged that there should be inclusive political dialogue. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), condemned the killing of four guests at a Coptic Christian wedding as recently as 20 October.
We are also concerned about the situation for religious minorities in other countries of the region. In Iran, the Baha’i are subject to mounting pressure. We are concerned by state efforts—
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. I apologise to the Minister, and I am grateful to Members for their co-operation.
Renewable Energy (Peterborough)
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 Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Williams, and to have the opportunity to speak up on behalf of my constituents on such an important and topical issue of public policy.
I welcome the Minister. He is doing an excellent job, although my endorsement will not necessarily help his career. I have known him for more than 25 years, and I look forward to his considered response.
I am here to express serious concern about the July 2012 proposal of Peterborough city council and its energy company proxy, Blue Sky Peterborough, to build a solar and wind energy park on 900 acres of prime agricultural land to the east of the city, in the Newborough and the Eye and Thorney wards. I will not unduly focus on planning issues, not least because the first of the three detailed planning applications by the applicant for the Morris fen project is subject to an article 25 call-in process under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I will, however, focus on the efficacy and financial viability of the project; the lack of proper consultation; governance issues, which reveal major flaws in scrutiny, oversight and democratic accountability; conflicts of interest; lack of openness and proper financial modelling; environmental concerns; and food security.
I will make it clear that I have sought to avoid conflict with the city council, which happens to be Conservative controlled, by facilitating an alternative, brownfield renewable energy strategy, but the city council’s lack of willingness to take it forward expeditiously or with any seriousness, while reiterating its absolute commitment to its original flawed, deeply damaging and unpopular plans, leaves me with no option but to bring the matter to the attention of Ministers and the House.
The Peterborough energy park will be the largest such scheme in Europe. In all, it will mean the construction of 500,000 glass panels on 900 acres of land—the size of 700 football pitches—some of it the most fertile in England. The land is owned by the city council and has been set aside for generations for cultivation of arable crops, such as sugar beet, potatoes and wheat, by tenant farmers, originally those returning as veterans from the second world war. The nine tenant farmers and their families, such as John and Denise Harris, who have been good and loyal tenants for 35 years, are to be turfed off the land, with the legal minimum compensation, to make way for a project that, like the great wall of China, will be visible from space.
The first tranche of three—at Morris fen, 49 MW of solar and wind—was submitted by the city council as applicant to the local planning authority, Peterborough city council, on 19 December 2012. It is now subject to the call-in process, as confirmed in a letter from the planning Minister on 14 June this year. It comprises 144,060 solar panels on metal frames, the erection of a substation compound and of 23 inverter buildings, and other related development on the land. Morris fen is one of only three applications; the others are at America farm, for 8 MW of solar, and Newborough farm, 27 MW of solar and wind.
Using 900 acres of such fertile soil means stopping food production equivalent to bread for 7,000 families or potatoes for 9,000 families each year. The National Farmers Union has consistently opposed the project as
“a large commercial scheme with no apparent benefit for local farmers”.
The November edition of British Farmer & Grower quoted the president of the NFU, Peter Kendall:
“Natural disasters, global food price spikes, and John Beddington’s Foresight Report have seen global summits focusing on food security with an intensity not seen since the Second World War. Food production and the value of the wholefood industry to the national economy has really started to land with policy makers across Government. This makes plans to cover 900 acres of grade 1 and 2 land outside Peterborough with solar panels crazy.”
The council claims that its proposals for wind and solar energy will generate a profit of about £31 million over the next 25 years, but they will require an investment by taxpayers—mainly—of £331 million via the Public Works Loan Board and from cash subsidies offered to producers of green energy. In one of a number of examples of sleight of hand, the council has deliberately disaggregated each of the planning applications so that they do not fall foul of legislative powers vested by Parliament in the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to determine whether they can proceed. Nevertheless, to all intents and purposes they are one huge renewable energy project.
Peterborough city council is out of step with Government policy, in respect not only of the national planning policy framework, especially paragraph 112 and paragraph 28 on agriculture diversification, and of the recent statement issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on local planning and renewable energy projects and recovery appeals, but of, specifically, the strong line taken by the Minster just last month.
It is apposite to recapitulate the Minister’s letter to hon. Members of 14 October. Commenting on the developing policy outlined in the Department’s solar roadmap document, he stated:
“I want the focus of growth to be firmly on domestic and commercial roof space and brownfield sites… Inappropriately sited solar PV especially in the countryside is something that I take extremely seriously and am determined to crack down on… Our new Solar Roadmap makes it very clear that new solar installations need to be sensitively placed and… proposals… give proper weight to environmental considerations such as landscape and visual impact, heritage and local amenity, and provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions that affect them.”
In July, in a similar Westminster Hall debate to this one, but on solar arrays, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Minister said:
“We simply must not—and will not—allow prime agricultural land to be taken out of active food production.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 163WH.]
Furthermore, I welcome the Minister’s strong commitment, in the letter that I mentioned, to eliminate subsidy for solar energy altogether by 2018. No wonder, therefore, that the main industry body, the British Photovoltaic Association, recently felt compelled to publish a “guidance document” encouraging development on brownfield land.
The sheer scale of the Peterborough project is of itself a major issue, but the lack of proper consultation, the paucity of proper financial data and conflicts of interest, as well as possibly dubious and ethically questionable conduct by senior officers of Peterborough city council, make it a wider issue of democracy and accountability and of openness and transparency.
The financial details of the project, other than a generic and speculative outline business case, have never been published; nor have they been audited, analysed or stress tested by any independent entity. Since summer 2012, the cabinet and full council have been asked to commit substantial amounts of public money on the basis of trust in the judgment of one officer, in effect, who, incidentally, has refused point blank to accede to requests by elected city councillors to release details of financial projections below the outline business case level—more of him later.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. As his constituency neighbour, I endorse his case on the visual impact and the short-termism on food security. Does he agree, as a fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee, that there is real concern about our inability to see the proposed commercial case, which does not look like value for money for the taxpayer, thereby compounding the other issues that he is rightly highlighting?
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend has a strong record on campaigning on inappropriate renewable energy projects in his constituency. He is absolutely right that this is a wider issue of democracy and governance in local government and of the ability of elected representatives, let alone the public, to see apposite and crucial financial data so as to make an informed choice.
Thus far, on a project that does not have planning permission, is likely to have its detailed planning applications called in for determination by the Bristol inspectorate and to face a judicial review, does not have a proper funding stream and is based on a renewables obligation programme regime, which may be amended substantially, the city council has spent more than £1.8 million of taxpayers’ money. Details of that expenditure and most other project information have been obtained only through the Freedom of Information Act.
Even senior council officers have described last year’s public consultation as inadequate. Expenditure on consultation has been less than £10,000, or 5.6% of total spend, and in particular the treatment of the farmers has been shoddy and high handed. In contrast, more than £440,000 has been spent on planning fees; £125,000 on financial modelling advice from Deloitte; £150,000 on legal fees, mainly to City lawyers Pinsent Masons; and an astonishing £951,000—almost twice the original budget—for technical consultants AECOM. Industry experts have stated privately that they have never seen such inflated expenditure for work on which there has been so little demonstrable progress.
A number of serious questions arise about conflict of interest. Not only is the city council both the applicant and the local planning authority, but councillors who sit and sat on the planning and environmental protection committee and determined the Morris fen application on 17 June 2013 voted to support the full energy park plans at a full council meeting on 5 December 2012. I suggest that that clearly shows evidence of pre-determination.
The city council leader, who has faced consistent criticism from a number of quarters as a result of his well-documented financial interests in green energy companies, has constantly raised the issue of the energy park plans being a simple matter of how the city council is to raise the money to fill the gap from diminishing central Government grants, but this is not, nor should it be, a planning matter. Nor should deadlines relating to the city council’s ability to benefit from feed-in tariff subsidies be material considerations.
Furthermore, not only has the council’s head of resources been appointed, at public expense and in city council time, as managing director of a new arm’s-length company, Blue Sky Peterborough Ltd—the new energy services company, or ESCO, which is allegedly dormant—but council tax payers have not been given details of the company’s board, its contractual arrangements and other core activities. Despite refusing to release financial costings on the basis that they are “commercially confidential”, he regularly challenges the media, city councillors and campaigners, most recently at the council’s rural scrutiny commission meeting on 16 September, to contest his figures.
Such secrecy and lack of transparency are deeply worrying, as is the fact that, until a few months ago, the head of resources, who holds a dual role as a section 151 officer under the Local Government Act 1972 and chief executive officer of Blue Sky Peterborough, was married to the city council’s monitoring officer, giving rise to an apparent and alleged conflict of interest. Requests to the city council’s chief executive for definitive determination of the matter have not been forthcoming.
The city council has seconded senior officers and specialists, such as ecologists, from the planning department to the energy park project to assist AECOM. At the beginning of the year, it was revealed to be pressurising planning officers to curtail statutory consultation by three weeks and to accelerate publication of the planning report, which, when it came to committee in June, predictably recommended approval, despite contravening evolving Government planning policy.
It is no surprise that the council was in such a hurry. By missing the 1 April deadline for the reduction from two renewables obligation certificates per megawatt to 1.6 ROCs and using only the indicative financial modelling published by the city council, which is £38 per ROC plus 3% inflation, it might have cumulatively forfeited about £33.3 million over the lifetime of the anticipated project, more than its basic profit level.
Surely the question is, how robust are the existing financial proposals? Of the 22 key input figures that the council proposed in the outline business case, which the cabinet discussed at least twice, nine are described as “indicative”, six as “contingent” and seven are not described at all. The business case is not Treasury Green Book compliant, and there has been no formal options appraisal and no sensitivity analysis. It is certainly far from the full business case to be expected of a project of this scale.
In addition, there is no contingency fund, and no funds have been set aside for community benefit investment, a compensation scheme or diminishing power generation over time due to age performance degradation over the project’s time scale—a phenomenon that the Renewable Energy Foundation identified with wind projects. If those factors are included in the financial model, the project will make a loss over 25 years.
The project has stalled, not merely as a result of the Secretary of State’s article 25 direction, but because the local planning authority was forced to undertake an archaeological survey of the site following strong, if belated, written representations by English Heritage just before determination of the Morris fen application in June. Just two weeks ago, the subsequent excavation yielded the discovery of Roman and Saxon artefacts, the value of which is yet to be fully determined and verified by independent sources such as Professor Francis Pryor of Cambridge university, who, in 1982, discovered the world famous Flag fen site near to the project’s location, which turned out to be one of the most notable bronze age settlements ever discovered in Europe.
I have never resiled from an open-minded commitment to alternative renewable energy sources and to developing appropriately sited sources, not least because on current projections Peterborough city council will have a gap between income and outgoings of as much as £18.6 million on a revenue budget of £399 million by 2017-18, due particularly to reductions in baseline funding. It is incumbent on the city council fully to justify its actions and to be accountable for them, but it is helpful to allow the authority to concede it has erred and to pursue other renewable energy projects for community benefit on brownfield sites. That is what local city and parish councillors, the local NFU, campaign organisations such Newborough landscape protection group, and I have sought to do since June.
Stephen Barclay
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Department’s guidelines must be clarified to take on board the points that he is articulating so well today, particularly the gaming of the planning system to qualify, often in haste, for feed-in tariffs, and the way that is incentivising developments in the wrong areas, as well as compromising food security by building on areas with archaeological and other community and farming benefits, as opposed to brownfield sites? Would he like the guidance to be strengthened to incentivise the right developments?
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is important that the Government’s evolving planning policy takes account of cumulative impact as well as the importance of agricultural diversification. He makes the significant point that this is work in progress and that we must ensure that the planning policy adopted by local authorities is appropriate, particularly to national policy.
We have sought to work with Empower Community, with which the Minister is familiar, to build consensus and community engagement and to transfer the experience of other local authorities, such as York city council and Swindon borough council, in developing an area-wide renewable energy programme focused on residential and non-residential roofs, public sector buildings, schools, warehouses and other industrial brownfield sites.
Five months on, we have yet to see real political leadership and commitment from the council to pursue that avenue in a convincing and sustainable way. It remains wedded to plan A, with all its flaws, guesswork, subterfuge, speculation, sleight of hand and, above all, risk to taxpayers and value for money. I am never one to take conspiracies as a given in politics and government, but too many people have remarked that the Peterborough model of renewable energy is to set up an arm’s- length company to broker a short to medium-term power purchase agreement, transfer agricultural land to commercial use and then, with a change in the subsidies regime, realise the capital asset by selling the land on for property speculation, making a few people, most of whom do not live in Peterborough, very wealthy.
It disappoints me that I have to take issue with my party colleagues in local government, but some of them have failed in their duty properly to scrutinise this disastrous gamble. My first priority is always my constituents in the rural wards east of the city of Peterborough, enmeshed in a deeply troubling process over which, in the past 18 months, they have often felt helpless, ignored and impotent. Today, I have sought to give them a voice and to pose important questions about democracy, accountability and integrity, and about the use of taxpayers’ money. After all, if we cannot challenge those in authority, ask difficult questions and hold the powerful to account, why bother serving in Parliament? My challenge to Peterborough city council is to reconsider its position, seek genuine consensus and collaboration on new and viable renewable energy plans, and scrap the project at the earliest opportunity. I hope that the Minister will encourage it in that necessary and timely endeavour.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on securing the debate. As he reminded me, we are rather old hon. Friends; it really is 25 years—sadly, I think it might be creeping towards 30, which surely must be a mistake.
My hon. Friend has spoken out incredibly powerfully today, and I have received loud and clear the message that he has brought here on behalf of his constituents in Peterborough. That should not be a surprise; he is known throughout the House as a champion for his constituents and for being an extraordinary advocate for the hard-working people of Peterborough. I want him to know that we take his comments extremely seriously.
First, however, let me say that I am a fan of solar, and that I am a champion of the technology. As my hon. Friend said, I am strongly committed to rolling out solar across the UK and to driving down its cost, not only to eliminate the need for subsidy, but to make it cheaper. In the past three years, the cost of a set of solar panels on a household roof has typically fallen from something like £15,000 to £5,000—that, I think, is how much IKEA are selling them for—making them much more accessible for a lot of people, and making them a sensible solution for, potentially, millions of people who are struggling with high energy bills and are likely to do so in future.
Likewise, for many businesses, solar makes a huge amount of sense. I am not only talking about small arrays. I was in Crewe last month at the Bentley factory, which was built in the 1930s and helped to build the Spitfires that fought the battle of Britain. On the roof of that building, there is a 5 MW array of solar panels, which was fantastic to see. It was absolutely in the right place, and it was pumping out electricity and helping that important British manufacturer, just as solar panels are helping about half a million homes that have them on their roofs. We want to see a really exciting, ambitious roll-out as the costs come down, so that it becomes more affordable. This is not only about solar panels on rooftops and in commercial and industrial spaces; there are occasions when they make sense on brownfield sites. In Cornwall, there is an excellent tin mine where a fairly large array has been set up. That works, and is working well with the community. In Leicestershire, at Wymeswold, a former air base, another large array works well and has local support.
I have to say to my hon. Friend that when I hear of monster projects that could turn a popular, intuitive and increasingly affordable technology into something that is unpopular and inappropriate, I become very worried indeed. I am aware that when other renewable technologies have been perceived as having been put in inappropriate places on an inappropriate scale, the tide of public opinion has, in certain areas, turned away from renewables and the wider environmental question. Invariably, that has alienated many people who are not naturally enemies of the environment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) has fought many battles along those lines.
I want to say very clearly that yes, I am a champion of renewable energy, but we must make sure—as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, and as I wrote to him and other colleagues recently—that solar photovoltaic sites are appropriately situated, and that we give proper weight to local environmental considerations, particularly those pertaining to landscape and the visual impact, which are rightly important to local people. We must also make sure that we give due consideration to heritage areas, but people do not have to live on Stonehenge, or even in an area of outstanding natural beauty, to value their local landscape and the visual amenity.
If we are to roll out energy on a community scale, we absolutely need to take communities with us. It stands to reason that if we want a proliferation of local energy schemes, we need to work with local people on them. As I think my hon. Friend will understand, I cannot speak to many of the specifics of the application that he mentioned, but I am very concerned when I hear of large projects that attempt to roll over local opinion, thereby turning the tide against a technology with huge potential.
Many points that my hon. Friend made relate directly to decisions on planning that are, of course, primarily within the purview of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough will raise his detailed concerns with the Secretary of State, given his policy lead on planning issues. However, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend copied me in, so that we are clearly sighted on these issues. I am always concerned when such issues arise, and it is important that we continue to monitor the proliferation of solar sites. I am absolutely determined to get this right.
My hon. Friend alluded to our solar strategy, of which we are very proud. It is very ambitious, but we have not fired it and walked away; we will continue to watch and ensure that planners locally get the message. It is not a case of saying, “We’ve said our piece. We are going to wash our hands and walk away.” I will continue to look very closely to ensure that the strategy, as anticipated here at Westminster, and my vision for solar is what happens on the ground. We are reliant on planners on the ground to deliver and pay heed to the clear, explicit advice both in the solar strategy and from our friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government, and to listen to local communities.
My hon. Friend should look at the much tougher renewables planning guidance that was published in July by DCLG. As I said in my solar strategy, the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.
Stephen Barclay
I very much welcome the tone and the substance of the Minister’s remarks about taking the community with us. Will he look at the weighting as part of the feed-in tariff for schemes in rural areas, as opposed to on brownfield sites, particularly—I see my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) in her place—in relation to food security and rural communities?
Gregory Barker
I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend’s point. Obviously, larger schemes would be unable to claim the feed-in tariff, because the feed-in tariff currently has a 5 MW limit, and we are proposing to raise that for community schemes to 10 MW. That is not an insubstantial size for solar, but any scheme that covered hundreds of acres would be likely to draw on the renewables obligation for larger schemes.
Under-Occupancy Penalty
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I am pleased to have secured the debate, and I look forward to contributions from my hon. Friends, as well as some answers from the Minister, whom I congratulate on his new position.
The bedroom tax was introduced on 1 April this year. The policy was designed to make more efficient use of our country’s social housing stock by identifying people who were under-occupying their homes. Social sector tenants with one spare room face a deduction of 14% in their housing benefit. Those who are under-occupying by two rooms face a 25% deduction.
The Government told us that this measure would tackle overcrowding, encourage efficient use of social housing and save the taxpayer, by 2015, £930 million, but the reality is that this tax penalises some of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in our society, while failing to achieve any of its aims. Instead, we are seeing rising poverty, soaring rent arrears, streets filled with vacant properties, rising homelessness and worrying trends in our housing supply.
Local authorities face ever-increasing numbers of tenants who are unable to keep up with their rent payments, with that number set to rise even further in the future. That is the money that local authorities rely on to be able to build new homes and maintain their housing stock. The irony, of course, is that new homes are exactly what is needed to tackle overcrowding and create a working housing market; but under this Government, we have seen the lowest number of housing completions since the 1920s. That situation will not change as long as the bedroom tax is in place, rent arrears continue to pile up and local authorities are constrained in building new homes.
The scale of the injustice resulting from the bedroom tax is appalling. The tax affects an estimated 600,000 people, 96% of whom have no smaller home to go to, and as a result the average family is losing £720 a year. In my constituency of South Shields, 1,440 households are affected, with only 387 properties becoming available for them to move into between April and September this year. Some of those properties are only for people qualifying for sheltered accommodation, so the reality is that many households have fewer homes to bid for. The average amount that will be charged is just under £9 a week for a household deemed to be under-occupying by one bedroom and just under £15 a week for those under-occupying by two, yet South Tyneside Homes estimates that the true value of a spare room is just under £5, as reflected in the differences in the rents that tenants would pay. The bedroom tax, then, grossly overvalues the price of a spare room and is overcharging tenants. This is at the same time as we have a cost-of-living crisis, with food, energy and water prices surging.
The chief executive of Citizens Advice said:
“As long as this dire lack of housing options exists then the Government can’t reasonably tell people they have a choice about downsizing to a smaller home.”
But they do keep saying that, and she is correct: the numbers simply do not add up. Some 180,000 households were deemed to be under-occupying two-bedroom homes, yet only 85,000 one-bedroom homes became available during the whole of 2012.
What makes matters worse is that the constituents I have spoken to do not actually have a spare room. What they have is a room for their carers, their elderly or disabled relatives, their children, foster children or potential adopted children. Others find it difficult to downsize their home when their circumstances change—for example, following a bereavement or when their children leave home.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I appreciate that housing per se is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland and the Executive have yet to agree the Welfare Reform Bill, but there is an issue, which the hon. Lady has mentioned, as regards downsizing. I am sure that the situation is the same across all regions. There is a massive shortage of one-bedroom houses. In Northern Ireland, it would take at least a 10-year building programme to achieve the one-bedroom housing that is required. That puts the Executive in Northern Ireland in a great dilemma, and I am sure that the situation is much the same in all regions.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The hon. Gentleman is correct. I will come on to the point that he raises.
I have never met anyone who is selfishly holding on to an extra bedroom just because they want to. It is no wonder that the local authority covering my constituency has seen a rise of more than 50% in homelessness under this Government and, between April and July of this year, has seen more than 500 tenants hand back their keys. The total financial impact of that handback is £600,000. That money could have been spent on bringing 60 of the homes in our area up to a decent standard or on building eight new homes. My local authority is not alone. Many other local authorities are having to use their housing revenue account moneys to pay for the tax. Those are moneys that they would have otherwise used to build and improve their homes.
Not only local authorities are struggling because of the tax; 26 leading housing associations have seen their credit ratings downgraded as investors become anxious about the impact of the bedroom tax. That leaves housing associations unable to plan for the future or for current housing demand and to build homes to meet that demand. That compounds what is already a dire situation for house building under this Government, who slashed the affordable homes budget in their first year in office and are planning a further round of cuts for 2015-16. Meanwhile, property developers sit on land that could be used for new builds.
The bedroom tax not only stifles construction; it also wastes many of the homes that we already have. Larger properties are now lying empty across the country, ignored by tenants who fear that they will not be able to afford them if their circumstances change. We are already seeing streets with scores of empty properties. The number of such properties is likely to rise and rise, while the former residents are becoming homeless or moving to the expensive private sector—moves that will increase the housing benefit bill further, and further stretch public finances.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
In the light of that comment—I have to say that that is not a problem that we experience in Edinburgh—was my hon. Friend surprised that the response from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), to the question of three-bedroom houses perhaps being hard to let was that they should be subdivided in some way? That betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of those houses, because the cost of turning them into, say, two houses would far exceed the savings.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I was not aware of that response. I thank my hon. Friend for letting me know that information. I am very surprised by that.
The National Housing Federation estimates that a family under-occupying a two-bedroom home who move into a one-bedroom flat in the private rented sector will claim an average of £1,500 in housing benefit, despite living in a smaller property. Just last month, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that the bedroom tax is leaving some families facing
“dilemmas which need to be addressed”.
This is not a dilemma—it is a crisis happening on his Government’s watch.
I visited Ms Ashley Pollard, one of my constituents, at home. She faces one of the Deputy Prime Minister’s so-called dilemmas. She lives alone in a two-bedroom flat. She has mobility difficulties and, as a result, needs to be in a wheelchair almost every moment of the day. Her mother is her carer and stays in her extra bedroom most week nights. Her mother is also in employment, so she is not entitled to carer’s allowance.
Ashley is unable to avoid paying the bedroom tax and has requested a move to a one-bedroom ground-floor property, but there is none for her to go to. She wants to move but cannot; wants to pay her bills but is struggling to do so; and needs to have the continued care from her mother. Sadly, Ashley is not alone. It is estimated that more than 400,000 disabled people are expected to suffer what the Deputy Prime Minister calls a dilemma. Can the Minister, in his response, suggest what Ms Pollard should do?
At a time when the disabled are already being hit hard by cuts to public services and reduced benefits, they now have to worry about losing their homes as well—homes that, once they have been forced out, will lie empty. Those homes have been adapted to fit tenants’ needs in line with their disability. If they move, their new home will need to be adapted, while their own home will remain empty.
Another disabled constituent of mine lives in an adapted property that cost the local authority in excess of £10,000 to adapt. The property has two bedrooms, so she is subject to the bedroom tax. Unsurprisingly, there are no alternative, one-bedroom properties in our area to meet her needs. She is therefore stuck paying the tax, unable to obtain discretionary housing payment, and she is struggling.
What do the Government suggest is an efficient use of housing in that situation? Should my local authority adapt a new property for my constituent at the cost of a further £10,000 and leave her current home empty? Far from encouraging the better use of social housing, in that case, the bedroom tax leads to a nonsensical outcome.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be interested to hear about a constituent of mine, whose home also has had adaptations to account for the equipment needed for their disability. That accommodation can be offered only to older people over the age of 40. If my constituent is to vacate the accommodation, there is no way that a family with young children can move into it. It is a further waste of public money.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
My hon. Friend is of course correct. It will be far easier to leave people in the homes that have been adapted to meet their needs.
In a survey of the 51 largest of its associations, the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations, found that more than half of those who were affected by the tax could not pay their rent in April or June. For many of those people, that was the first time that they had ever fallen behind with their rent.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an extremely strong speech. There are also concerns in Wales. Community Housing Cymru, which represents social housing providers, has made a similar point: 87% of their members have seen an increase in arrears, which has not been seen elsewhere. That is matched by the experience of my council, which has seen a £200,000 increase in arrears on the same period last year. The issue is affecting councils and housing providers across the country.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is decent, law-abiding people who have always paid their rent who are being targeted by the tax.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I want to add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Nottingham City Homes, our arm’s-length management organisation, has seen an increase in arrears directly as a result of the bedroom tax of £260,000 since April. We expect the amount to be about £500,000 this year—money that could and should have been spent on refurbishing homes or building new homes.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I will address that issue in my next point. My local citizens advice bureau is receiving more than 33 inquiries every week related to the bedroom tax.
One case study identified a young lady who had never been in rent arrears. As a result of the bedroom tax, she has only 84p per day to live on—to buy food, clothes and toiletries. That is an absolute scandal. Her story resonates with what food banks and homelessness charities in my constituency have told me. They feel that the increase in demand for their services is directly linked to the bedroom tax.
At the same time as the crisis was looming, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was quoted in our local newspaper, the Shields Gazette, saying:
“When 13,101 households are stuck on a waiting list for social housing in south Tyneside, there’s a big problem that needs addressing… it can’t be right that many households across the north-east are living in an overcrowded home. There’s nothing fair about making families wait and wait for a house that is big enough, while other households on benefits are allowed to live in homes that are too big for their needs, at no extra cost.”
The Secretary of State helpfully advised that my constituents may
“decide to take up work, or work a few more hours to cover the difference”
or
“move to more appropriately-sized accommodation or take in a lodger.”
I would like to take this opportunity to invite him to South Shields to deliver that advice personally to my constituents.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
A number of pensioners have told me in my surgery that they are living in three or four-bedroom houses and are subject to the bedroom tax, but cannot downsize. The shift that we want to see is three and four-bedroom houses becoming available, but in my constituency they are now hard to let.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
My hon. Friend is correct. Elderly people in my constituency have come to my surgery to say, in their words, that they are rattling around in three-bedroom homes. They would like to move, but they cannot.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Just out of curiosity, has the hon. Lady received any reply from the Secretary of State to her invitation to visit South Shields? In my own constituency in north-west Wales, we have seen no sign at all of Ministers or of anyone conducting research before the change came into force. I will certainly refer to that in my speech, if I am lucky enough to be called.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
This is the first time I have invited the Secretary of State to South Shields, so we will see—watch this space.
Many of my constituents who are desperate for employment or are stuck on zero-hour contracts sincerely want to move to a smaller property, but they simply have no homes to go to. The Government’s policy is hindering the ability of councils and housing associations to build homes for them to move to, so they will not be able to act on the Secretary of State’s advice.
As with so many things this Government do, the disdain with which they treat people in social housing shows how far removed they are from the reality of what is happening in towns such as mine. Opposition Members have put a raft of questions to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretaries of State and the previous Housing Minister regarding the unfairness of this cruel tax and the implications for our housing supply. It is becoming depressingly clear that, from this Government’s point of view, my right hon. and hon. Friends do not need an answer and that the effects of the tax on struggling households and housing supply are not their concern. Their only interest is in appearing tough on those they call scroungers.
Thankfully, the Labour party has an answer. We are committed to repealing this awful tax. We are committed to building 1 million new homes over the next Parliament—200,000 homes a year and a raft of employment opportunities in construction. We are committed to stopping landowners holding on to undeveloped land, so that the housing market will suit the needs of the many, not the few.
The bedroom tax has been a complete failure. It has not reduced overcrowding.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising this important issue. If the situation is as bad as she paints it on the mainland, it is even worse in Northern Ireland, because we have the highest proportion of individuals under-occupying compared with other regions of the United Kingdom. We are the worst hit.
Does the hon. Lady not agree that, until the measure is repealed—I hope it will be repealed soon—it would at least be preferable to build in greater flexibility to the current exemptions, so that people would not be forced to pay the tax if there was no suitable alternative accommodation? Something should be done in the meantime, until we get rid of this wretched measure.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The right hon. Gentleman is correct. More safeguards need to be built into the tax, but a Labour Government would overturn the tax completely.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Lady referred to building 200,000 houses every year. Housing is a devolved issue. Has she signed up her colleagues in Cardiff to a total for Wales, which I think would be about 11,000 houses a year? Scotland’s Scottish National party Government will probably build 17,000 new houses a year. Will she be able to deliver?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I will leave that question for the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), to answer.
The bedroom tax has not encouraged efficient use of social housing. It has certainly not saved the taxpayer the projected £470 million this year. It has increased homelessness and poverty, led to streets being filled with vacant social housing and cost more than it saved. Taking that and the human cost of the policy into account, the tax is one of the cruellest and most ineffective policies ever to come from any Government.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech highlighting the appalling human consequences of the policy. She has just put her finger on the truth at the centre of it. It is not about encouraging people to downsize; it is purely about saving money. That £470 million saving will not arise if people act as the Government say they want them to act. It is because people do not have the opportunity to downsize that the Government are making savings. This is a cruel policy based on a fraudulent premise.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a fantastic speech on this important issue. The Government admitted last week that they had wildly exaggerated the cost savings involved in the bedroom tax. Does that not show us what is really behind the policy? It is not about saving money; it is about a vicious attack on vulnerable people—400,000 out of 600,000 of them are disabled—who cannot speak up for themselves.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has stolen some of my closing comments.
I was interested to hear that the Department for Work and Pensions has commissioned an independent review of the bedroom tax to analyse the impact on vulnerable individuals, foster carers and those caring for disabled children. However, why was the impact assessment not completed before the introduction of the tax? That is yet another example of ideology affecting policy and of this Government’s “let’s do away with facts and research” approach.
I also question why the policy’s impact on the housing market was not foreseen. The National Audit Office reported that the Government’s headline savings figure did not take into account the full range of impacts that the bedroom tax would have. Now that we have had time to assess the policy’s impact on rent arrears, we know that the NAO was correct. I hope that the Minister will say what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Work and Pensions about the effect of the policy on housing supply and why he believes the impact assessment falls so far short of reality.
Whatever the Government’s excuses, for my constituents in South Shields and thousands of others across the country, they will be scant consolation. Although an average of £12 a week may not seem like much to this Government, it is a lot of money to the rest of us who are paying the price. My constituents need a Government who listen to their concerns and who commit to overturning this cruel tax and addressing our housing shortage. What they need is a Labour Government.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who secured this important debate. The bedroom tax was primarily a savings measure. It was then dressed up, in some debates, as a way of tackling affordable housing shortages by making better use of property. However, as my hon. Friend clearly demonstrated in her opening speech, we warned from the outset—those of us who served on the Welfare Reform Bill Committee back in 2011 pointed this out at the time—that the savings would be less than estimated.
If the policy were genuinely about supply, it would have been sensible to start by understanding local housing markets and developing policies appropriate to local areas. As colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, have described, in some cases, the bedroom tax is making larger houses unlettable. I must say that that is not a problem in my city, where more than 900 households have been given the second-highest priority banding because they need two extra bedrooms, and about 350 households have the same priority level because they are homeless and need three-bedroom housing. More than 1,200 families in the area need large homes, and there simply are not many. They do not exist. It is not that single people or couples in my constituency are rattling around in big homes that they do not need; the properties just do not exist.
As for those who might want to downsize, this week, 22 one-bedroom properties are available to let across all the housing associations and councils in the whole city of Edinburgh. That is not just in my constituency; it is across the whole city, which comprises five constituencies. Of those properties, three are sheltered—they are for older people, who are by definition not affected by the bedroom tax—so they would not be available to those affected by the bedroom tax. This is not an unusually dry week for housing supply; it is typical of all weeks. I check the availability regularly.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend analysed what types of houses the available one-bedroom properties are? If Edinburgh is anything like my constituency, I suspect that they will not be in areas to which people looking to downsize would move in any case. Very often they are for the young homeless, or those prepared to live at the top of a tower block.
Sheila Gilmore
Indeed, because of the nature of building at the time, a lot of smaller properties in the city, when we have them, are to be found in high-rises.
Pat Glass
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing the intervention. Does she agree that many current housing allocation policies came out of the recommendations in the Scarman report, and that a move back to pre-Scarman policies not only makes no financial sense, but is potentially dangerous?
Sheila Gilmore
That is helpful. It reminds us of the many ways in which we are going backwards.
In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, I mentioned a DWP Minister’s suggestion that if councils were struggling with three-bedroom houses that they could not let, they should have anticipated the problem and taken steps to divide those houses. I was fantasising slightly about how that would work. Let us take a typical three up, two down property in England; in Scotland, we are more likely to be talking about a tenement flat. What exactly would be involved in dividing it? First, either the tenants would somehow have to use the same door and stairs, or the council would have to create a separate entrance, which would cost money. One of the upstairs rooms would have to be converted into some form of kitchen, which would cost money. That leaves the downstairs, which would have a kitchen, but not a bathroom. Where would the bathroom go, or at least a toilet? A bathroom extension? Remember there are only two rooms and a kitchen downstairs, so building a bathroom would not be easy, unless it were built outside, and an extension costs money. Then I thought, “I know what the Minister must have had in mind: a portaloo in the back garden.” That would take us right back to the days when people had outside toilets, but it might help get the house divided up. It would involve not only huge additional cost but a style of living that I hope most of us would think inappropriate. That shows how little thought was given in practical reality.
It is the same with the idea that everybody could take in lodgers. That does not take into consideration the nature of many of the properties in which people live, and the difficulties involved.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend not also accept that that would be a particularly unwelcome suggestion to women fleeing domestic abuse and violence, for example? The idea that they might have to take in a stranger as a lodger after experiences that may have absolutely traumatised them is particularly inimical. That is exactly the situation faced by one of my constituents.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Many people would find the concept of taking in a lodger extremely difficult, particularly given the nature of many properties. I visited a constituent whose kitchen was off the living room, and whose bedrooms were not particularly big. When someone has a lodger, they are sharing a house. They are not taking in a lodger who has a self-contained annexe of the house; they are taking someone into the bosom of their household. The 60-year-old woman in question felt that that was not somewhere she needed to be in her life.
Ian Lavery
I am totally perplexed by the Government’s advice to take in a lodger, which was given from day one of the bedroom tax. Some 400,000 of the 600,000 people affected by the bedroom tax are disabled. Would disabled people want to bring in a stranger, just so they could afford to pay the rent?
Sheila Gilmore
The reality is that people are not taking on lodgers. The rhetoric on lodgers has quietened down, presumably because the impracticality of that idea has revealed itself. If the measure was about making better use of property, it was not the best way of going about that. It would be far better to encourage people to move in some circumstances, but that is neither a quick nor an easy process. It has to be planned for, and that comes back to looking at the nature of the local housing market and how those moves can be dealt with.
Older tenants in larger homes might want to downsize—if they are over retirement age, they will not be affected by the bedroom tax—but the bedroom tax will not whip them into wanting to move. Over the years, I have had many constituents say to me, “Yes, I would move. The stairs are getting too much for me. The garden is getting too much for me”, but they want control over where they go, and want to keep some of the things they like about their present home. Often that means the area, and that does not necessarily only go for those who live in what is perceived as a “good area”. Their area is where they have their social circle, and their family might not be too far away. There will be many reciprocal family arrangements, whether that is daughters helping mothers, or mothers helping their grown-up children with child care and picking kids up from school. All those sorts of things cannot be done if they are moved to the other end of town. Okay, they are fussy, but they are fussy because they want the move to be one that will last them the rest of their lives. They do not want to rush into something that is unsuitable.
All authorities might want to build new build housing that is geared to older people. If authorities do their homework properly, they will know in advance that that will release larger houses. The homework, however, has to be done, and investment is needed. If the investment is not there, it becomes very difficult. New build numbers are dropping, not only in England and Wales, which the Minister is concerned with, but in Scotland, too. In the whole of Scotland, new starts have dropped from the high point in 2007-08 of 6,214 to just 2,781 in 2012-13. That is a substantial drop. We want to have new build available to help people move around, but it is just not there.
There are many things that we should be looking at. We should be considering building new homes. Councils might want to consider—I have suggested this to my local council—buying some properties at comparable prices. They should not pay more for a property than it would cost to build, but that would help deal with some of the biggest chronic housing shortages. When homeless families, even those with children, are waiting in temporary accommodation for up to a year to get anything, we have a crisis, not just a slight shortage.
There is a further win-win in all this, which perhaps brings us back to the stated purpose of the bedroom tax. If more affordable housing is built, we can reduce the total housing benefit spend. It is true that the spend has gone up in recent years—the Government are not wrong to point that out—but their predictions and forecasts for the next few years are that the spend will continue to rise until at least 2016-17, when it will reach £23.38 billion.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the major increase in housing benefit has come from the increase in benefit paid to people in private accommodation, not to those in social housing?
Sheila Gilmore
Indeed. I have some figures, although they take us only to 2010-11. In 2000-01, the spend on private rented sector housing benefit was £3.6 billion. By 2010-11, that had risen to £8.9 billion, and it has risen again since then. The number of recipients of housing benefit rose under this Government by 326,597 people or households between May 2010 and February 2013. More than twice as many of those—some 218,209—were in the private rented sector than were in council and housing association housing. All the time that the Government have been in power, wringing their hands about the rising housing benefit bill and saying that measures such as the bedroom tax are the way to tackle it, the number of recipients has gone up, and the amount of money we are spending has gone up.
We are not tackling the issue from the right end. If we had a proper housing investment programme for affordable housing, that would bring down the housing benefit bill. That is what we should be aiming to do. It would give many individuals a real incentive and help in getting back to work, because having people in expensive private sector rented accommodation, whether it is temporary, permanent or semi-permanent, is a disincentive to employment.
I have a constituent who has been living in a private sector property that was provided to him when he was homeless, because we do not have enough council and housing association homes. His rent payments are £815 a month, which probably does not sound much in London terms, although it is high in Edinburgh terms. When he was working, he still had to pay half of that rent from his earnings. In the end, he gave up his job, partly because of the financial pressures that he was then under. If he had a council or housing association rented property, he could have afforded much more easily to get back into work. There are all sorts of reasons why housing investment is a win-win-win. It is a win because we would get the houses; because we would begin to reduce the total housing benefit bill; and because we would be doing something serious—not just haranguing people about getting back to work, but putting in place practical measures—to help people get back to work.
We need to look at the fact that the bedroom tax has done the opposite of that. It has created a situation where both councils and housing associations are anxious about the loss of income. It matters to all tenants, because all tenants are being impacted on, not just those affected by the bedroom tax. I made that point to a Government Minister recently, and pointed out that even pensioners and tenants who are not on housing benefit are being affected by the bedroom tax. The response I got—they had half-heard the question—was, “But pensioners are not affected.” That was not my point. My point was that if the landlord, be it the council or the housing association, has less income coming in, that will affect all the other tenants, because that organisation will have only a few choices. It could cut back on its modernisation programme, and that would affect pensioners who have been waiting for many years, as many of my constituents have, for their kitchens and bathrooms to be modernised. They would have to wait even more years.
Lilian Greenwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that our social landlords are not only facing extra arrears, but having to put in extra resources to deal with having to chase people for arrears? Nottingham City Homes told me that it has already had to spend an extra £300,000 on staff and resources to deal with the extra demands on the rent arrears team. Is it not a concern that the extra spending on such things is not going on other tenants and their homes?
Sheila Gilmore
Yes, indeed. Landlords will have quite limited choices. If they are not going to do anything about their modernisation programme, they will certainly be looking at their new build programme or at raising rents, which, again, affects all tenants. It is not true to say therefore that these issues affect only those who are directly affected by the bedroom tax.
If the bedroom tax means that less income is coming in and that there is less ability to start and fund new build programmes, it will not increase supply; it will do precisely the opposite of what Ministers have tried to claim that they want it to do. We really need to move away from this approach and to realise that it is not working. We have not only the arrears, but a whole administrative apparatus to help people who have run into arrears and to process discretionary housing payments and appeals for discretionary housing payments, which may have to be reprocessed every year or six months. That involves a cost that people did not have to meet before.
The glib answer is that discretionary housing payments are the solution, but they reduce savings, which is yet another reason for thinking this whole thing has been a bit pointless. Furthermore, people who have, by definition, been means-tested are now being given a further means test—that is what this comes down to—on their already low income to see whether they qualify for discretionary housing payments. The forms ask them about their expenditure and about whether they have Sky television or whether they smoke.
Things such as disability living allowance, which is specifically given to meet the costs of disability and illness are being taken into account in declaring that people can afford to pay the bedroom tax. People were never given DLA to pay their rent, and if they are using it to do so because they have been deemed to have enough income to meet the gap between their rent and the housing benefit that they receive, they are not spending their DLA on their disability. Having a second tier of means tests is quite unacceptable. I talked about outside toilets, and we are back in the 1930s again with this issue; we are back with the means-test officer telling people that they really did not need the sideboard or the record player they had had for some years, because they were too poor.
Stephen Doughty
Or we have the Minister, Lord Freud, telling split-up families that the kids should share a sofa bed—that is the type of perversity being suggested by Ministers, and that is the means-testing culture that we are getting into. That is a sad message for a Minister to send out.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend.
We must never forget the personal picture and the difficulties involved. One constituent is a cancer patient, although he is, fortunately, recovering. He has a two-bedroom house—nothing terribly big—and his three children come to him every weekend. One suffers from autism, which creates difficulties if the children have to share a room. My constituent wrote to the Prime Minister asking what he should do, and the Prime Minister said, “Apply for a discretionary housing payment.” Well, my constituent has, of course, applied for a discretionary housing payment, and he has been refused. He appealed, and he has been refused. I am not quite sure what he is expected to do next, other than to fall into rent arrears, which is what is happening. He is worrying about that, which probably is not helping his recovery. Alternatively, he could move, which will make it virtually impossible for him to have his boys to stay, which cannot be right.
I hope that we all agree that we want to increase the housing supply and particularly the affordable housing supply, so we have to agree that the bedroom tax is simply the wrong way to do that. It starts at the wrong end, and it is not resolving the problem, for all the reasons that have been given. If we really want to improve housing supply, we have to do two big things. One, obviously, is to invest in it, and the other is to allow local areas to decide on the appropriate way to address their problems. There will be differences; I have described how different my city is from some places in the north-east of England, which face quite different issues. We therefore need to allow local knowledge and local planning to come into play, but that is not happening with the policy that is being imposed.
Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)
Order. Time is moving on, and a large number of Members wish to speak. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 3.40 pm. If Members can be respectful and keep their speeches to five minutes, I will be able to call everyone who wants to speak.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this important debate.
The stated aim of the under-occupancy penalty, to give it the Government’s preferred name, was to free up larger accommodation, and to cut the housing benefit bill by moving people into smaller properties. Well, the policy has not released larger accommodation; nor will it save the housing benefit it set out to save. Instead it will, as we have heard, drive people into the private rented sector and add to costs. Just where are local authorities and housing associations to find the smaller accommodation? The truth is that it could take years to place people in smaller homes, and that is assuming that no one’s circumstances change.
In Scotland, the UK Government’s changes to housing benefit have had a significant impact on claimants. The people affected by the changes are those with specially adapted homes to reflect their health conditions; separated parents, who potentially face losing access to their children; and tenants who are struggling to find alternative smaller accommodation, despite being willing to move.
All the under-occupancy charge has done in my constituency is bring people to the verge of crisis. Many are building up arrears, trying somehow to cope using discretionary housing payments, while others are desperately trying to find smaller accommodation. All that worry and panic is despite the best efforts of the housing associations and the council in Inverclyde. Advice agencies are also working together to reassure and help people. I recognise the assistance given by the Scottish Government to alleviate the cost of this penalty, although more could always be done.
The panic and fear instilled in our most vulnerable people is evidenced by Citizens Advice Scotland, which advised on almost 20,000 new housing benefit issues in 2012-13. That is about 75 per working day—an 11% increase on the previous year. However, there was a 40% increase in April 2013 compared with April 2012. Those increases can all be explained by the introduction of the new under-occupancy rules. In the first week after the start of the bedroom tax, 700 affected tenants approached Citizens Advice Scotland for advice. That is not to mention the numbers of worried, concerned and frightened people who visited my surgeries—and yes, I concede that many were exempt.
Another concern about the housing supply relates to adapted homes. If people who have adapted their homes to cater for their disability by installing step-in showers or wet rooms decide to move rather than incur the penalty, they will need to reinstall these adaptations in their new home, at significant cost. Surely it cannot be seen as an effective way of spending time and resources to move people out of homes that meet their needs into new homes that do not, and that must subsequently be adapted. It is a crazy situation, and the cost is getting out of control. It is short-sighted, and an unbelievable waste, as it costs the taxpayer more money, never mind the upheaval for the individuals concerned.
The vast majority of those affected in my constituency will be moving from two-bedroom to one-bedroom accommodation, if they can. That is being replicated throughout Scotland and the rest of the UK. Of the 105,000 households in Scotland affected by the under-occupancy penalty, an estimated 83,000 include an adult with a recognised disability. The proposed changes will therefore have a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities. Many of those tenants have severe health conditions and face reductions in income that could affect their health. Adapted housing will be affected. Estimates show that some 16,000 households have some form of aid or adaptation already in place. I acknowledge that the UK Government have increased the fund for discretionary housing payments, but the funding is still far below the level of payments that will be lost by claimants.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the eight out of 10 households in which a disabled person lives that are affected by the bedroom tax in Scotland. Does he accept that if people are to move to one-bedroom properties, those will almost certainly be in the private sector, where it will be even harder to get the kind of adaptations that disabled people often need in their homes?
Mr McKenzie
Absolutely. I fully accept that. I noted earlier in my speech that the changes are pushing people to find accommodation in the private sector, with all the additional costs involved.
Research by the National Housing Federation found that if the additional funding were to be distributed equally among every affected claimant of disability living allowance, they would each receive just £2.51 per week, compared with the average £11-a-week loss in housing benefit in Scotland. The pressure to find smaller homes and flats has become immense. In Inverclyde, there is a huge lack of one-bedroom accommodation. I ask the Minister: what are my constituents to do? Many will fall into arrears. Housing associations warned the Government from the start that the under-occupancy penalty would not work, and that families would face financial hardship and struggle to make ends meet.
Kate Green
On the point about arrears, does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsensical that many housing associations will not move people who are in arrears into new accommodation? They will not give them new tenancy agreements until their arrears are cleared. That is one more perverse—indeed, Kafkaesque—consequence of the policy.
Mr McKenzie
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Housing associations need flexibility to ensure that no one falls into arrears, or into the eviction bracket.
Housing associations warned also that there would not be the house building that would be required for people to avoid the penalty. That is certainly true not only in Scotland but across the country. People cannot move to smaller homes to avoid the bedroom tax because there are not enough smaller properties. In Inverclyde, I could count on one hand the streets, outwith the private sector, that offer single-bedroom accommodation.
I ask again what my constituents are to do about the policy. There are now rent arrears, evictions, financial distress, and difficulty in finding alternative or adapted accommodation. That all shows that there is a lack of appropriate housing and house building throughout the country while we have the dreadful bedroom tax.
Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)
Order. With the permission of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I intend to call the Front Benchers at 20 minutes to 4, so I impose a time limit of five minutes per Member.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing the debate. We shall, of course, have a further opportunity to deal with the issue next week, and I look forward to that.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) to my left. I hope that he will soon leap up to defend the Government’s policy. I am also glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), because Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and the Green party called a debate on the issue in March. I am glad that the Labour party is joining us in opposing a cruel and pernicious charge.
The aim of the under-occupancy penalty is, allegedly, to free up the logjam in available housing. That is a laudable long-term aim, and people should clearly move to make way for younger people with families.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He mentioned my name; I supported the Government’s proposal because I wanted young families to be given the opportunity to have better housing. As to the discretionary housing payment, my authority has been allocated £512,000, as opposed to £60,000 last year. It will not spend it, and will have to send it back to Government unless something is done. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the DWP inquiry should include the use of discretionary payments by local authorities?
Hywel Williams
That is a good point, to which I intended to refer later. I recently tabled several questions to the Government about the use of discretionary payments, what planning had gone into them, and what amounts were to be available this year and next year. The answers were clearly wanting.
The aim of the charges—freeing up the logjam in the availability of three-bedroom houses for younger people—is laudable in the long term. However, one of my fundamental objections is that the Government are using tenants as a battering ram to free up that logjam. Tenants are carrying the burden of the charge and will have to find alternative accommodation, when there is none available. That is pernicious, and destructive of communities. That is one reason, indeed, for my opposition to the charge.
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the allocation of houses, and the need for housing for families; does he agree that social housing, which is always the cheapest available, should be allocated on the basis of need, not household size?
Hywel Williams
That is an excellent point. The need has in some ways been artificially generated, and that is not a sensible basis for housing policy, even if people are able to move. However, some hon. Members will have read in The Independent today that 96% of people are unable to move home.
I tabled a question to the Secretary of State, asking
“what estimate he has made of the number of people in Wales who will move house as a result of the social housing under-occupancy penalty.”
The answer was quite revealing:
“The Department is not able to reliably estimate the number of people in Wales who will move house as a result of the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy due to the small sample sizes involved.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 95W.]
That reveals a great deal, including the fact that the Government do not expect huge numbers of people to move. They expect, I understand, to make substantial savings on housing benefit. That is the reality, and the answer is something of a give-away.
Earlier in the year, I asked the Government what research they had undertaken into the private sector, and private market elasticity—the sector’s ability to respond to an increased demand for one-bedroom places. I was told that no such research had been undertaken before the measures were brought in. There would apparently be research in 2015, and reports would be published in 2016. That will be, of course, more than two and a half years after the charge was brought in—two and a half years of suffering by people who can scarcely afford to lose 12% or 25% of their benefit.
We have heard that particular groups are affected, such as disabled people, who have a legitimate need for extra space. I have constituents who have been charged extra. One such gentleman said, “I shall certainly move from my house, which has been adapted—there is a new bathroom at the back, and a stair lift—and move to a smaller place. The council can then put in a new stair lift, and a new bathroom at the back; and then I will move again.” It is folly. There are single parents without care who will take children for a day or so at the weekend, who will lose out.
More fundamentally, there is an effect on estates. We talk a lot about social life degenerating, and about things not being as good as they used to be. By the way, I was brought up on a council house estate. It was a stable area, with a mix of people from working-class and upper working-class backgrounds and those who were almost middle class, who had been there for a long time. They were the sort of people who had seen their children move on, but still lived in three-bedroom houses, and who provide for such estates the anchor and stability that we think are so important; yet the Government want them to move on. I understand that the technical term is “forced decanting”, which is very bad.
In the short time available to me, I want to point out that we might be left with a further supply of houses that are hard to let, not because they are in difficult areas or do not have basic facilities, but because they have three bedrooms. If the policy actually succeeds, that will be a potential waste of resources.
I end by referring briefly to funding for hardship. My local authority has a group—it brings in people from Shelter, the Department for Work and Pensions and Members of Parliament—to administer such funding. It has added substantially to that fund, with the result that the number of people in arrears is fairly small, and I hope that we will have no evictions. I would like to hear the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who will speak for the Labour party, pledge that the Labour Government in Wales will have a “no evictions” policy. Local authorities and housing associations are doing their best; it is time for other people to step up to the plate.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this most important debate and on her fantastic speech.
A senior officer from one of my social housing providers has said:
“It is as if the Government was following a blueprint of how to ruin social housing within 5 short years.”
Let me give the background to why she said that. Since April, Bolton at Home has had arrears of £200,000. Many people are only partially paying their rent, and 9% of those in debt have arrears of more than £600. Bolton at Home is about to take 25 cases to court because of arrears due solely to the bedroom tax. Wigan and Leigh Housing has arrears of £650,000 and the number of people in debt has nearly doubled to 11,500, so it has revised its income rate to 96% of the amount it should get.
There are knock-on effects on costs. Providers now have to deal with an increased number of calls to the call centre and to employ more people to collect rents. There are increasing court costs, and many other costs besides. All providers are finding it harder to let three-bedroom houses, and have had to increase the number of void days on which they do not collect rent, which again costs them dear.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), has told social housing providers to knock down three-bedroom houses and build something suitable. I would question her reasoning in the first place, but where are they supposed to find the money to alter houses or to build new ones when they are losing so much money because of the policy?
If the policy is so successful, why have the Government recently increased the discretionary housing payment pot by millions? Welcome though that is, it demonstrates how the policy is just not working. It is ill thought out, and in areas such as mine the majority of the housing stock is three-bedroom, so it will do nothing to alleviate overcrowding. It hinders the building of new homes and simply places people in abject poverty.
Behind housing providers’ problems are real-life difficulties for real people. Most of us would think that people with two children would be suitably housed in a three-bedroom house, but sadly not this Government. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Education clearly agrees with me, because he thinks that every pupil should have a bedroom in which to do their homework. He should speak to colleagues in other Departments who think it entirely appropriate for a 15-year-old studying for their GCSEs to share their bedroom with a crying toddler, or for children to have their education disrupted when their parents are forced to move home—not once, but several times—when they or their siblings reach a milestone age at which the family’s accommodation is deemed unsuitable.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is describing a common circumstance, certainly from the stories I hear from my constituents. Does she agree that the cumulative impact—the stresses caused by high energy prices, the bedroom tax and all these things coming together, particularly for disabled and vulnerable people—is causing pain and distress to many of our constituents?
Julie Hilling
My hon. Friend’s intervention leads me nicely to a study by York university and the Northern Housing Consortium, “Real Life Reform”, which states:
“Households are surviving on restricted budgets and struggling to get by. 65% have less than £10 per week to live on following rent and essentials such as food and bills. 37% have nothing left each week. Households are intending to cut back spending on food and fuel. 25% spend less than £20 per week on food. Eight out of ten households are already in debt and 83% are worried about getting into more debt. Over half of those in debt doubt they’ll ever be able to clear these debts… Households are reporting increases in levels of stress and depression. 88% of households are worried welfare changes will impact on their health and wellbeing. Parents report they are going without to protect their children’s health.”
That is a story of absolute misery.
I want to tell a story about two of my constituents, whom I will call Mr and Mrs Smith to protect their identity. Mrs Smith came to see me at my surgery because she was absolutely desperate. She came with her mother, but actually looked older than her mother because of the worry and stress she was going through. Her husband is desperately ill, having had a double lung transplant. Sadly, he is unlikely to survive. He needs apparatus to help him to breathe, so there is no way she can share a bedroom with him. The box room is full of oxygen tanks, and the fire brigade has said that no one can sleep in a room with oxygen tanks, because of the risks.
Mr Smith sleeps in one room, Mrs Smith sleeps in another—she cannot sleep with him because of the apparatus and the noise it makes—and oxygen tanks and other equipment occupy the box room, but they are deemed to be under-occupied by two rooms. That is absolute nonsense. They cannot get discretionary housing payments, because he gets disability living allowance, which just enables them to get about and to lead as normal a life as possible, bringing them up to other people’s income. The DLA is taken into account, which puts them over the rate at which they would qualify. Does the Minister think it right that DLA is taken into account? If not, will he do something to change that?
I will finish with a quote from another of my housing providers:
“It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a policy applied retrospectively. We are used to managing change, but not when the goalposts are moved overnight.”
The policy is cruel and heartless. It will not achieve the savings predicted by the Government. It will not allow the building of new homes and it is causing untold misery. I wish the Government would rethink: do as the Labour party says and abandon this cruel, heartless tax now.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this incredibly important debate and on her outstanding contribution. Many passionate speeches have been made by my hon. Friends, but there is a notable absence of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, and we have not yet heard a single speech from Government Members. I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment. This is, I am sure, the first of many occasions on which we shall debate housing.
The truth is that there is a chronic shortage of homes in our country, and we are building fewer than half the number we need to keep up with demand. Not only is the bedroom tax cruel and unfair, but it is exacerbating the housing crisis that we face. The Government are in denial not only about the effect of the bedroom tax, but about the scale of the housing crisis. Two weeks ago, in his first media appearance, the Minister, who has responsibility for housing, denied on “Channel 4 News” that there is a housing crisis, yet the very next day, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who has responsibility for planning, said in Westminster Hall that there is a housing crisis and that it is particularly intense in some parts of the country, including pockets of Yorkshire, which is where the Minister’s constituency is. People often say that Departments work in silos, but it is quite incredible to have a division of opinion within one Department—the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The chronic housing shortage is clear for all to see and the Government are presiding over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. As soon as they took office, they cut the affordable homes budget by 60%. Home ownership is falling and private rents are soaring. Five million people are on the waiting list for social housing, and homelessness and rough sleeping have both risen by more than a third since the general election. The reality is that the bedroom tax is making the housing crisis worse, not better.
The Government continue to maintain that the bedroom tax is about tackling overcrowding, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has said, the tax is not about making the best use of the social housing stock; it is about saving money, and it is questionable whether it will do that. Indeed, it is making the poorest people across our country even poorer and costing an average family £720 a year. On the same day that the tax came into force, every millionaire in the country got an average tax cut of more than a hundred grand.
Two-thirds of those hit by the bedroom tax are disabled. Some 220,000 are families with children, and many tenants want to move but simply cannot find a suitable property to move to. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said that in her constituency much of the housing stock is three-bedroom properties, which is the case in other parts of the country, including my own constituency.
The bedroom tax is also hitting housing supply. As many of my hon. Friends have underlined, local authorities are suffering. Areas such as Wolverhampton, Nottingham and elsewhere have to put money into helplines to ensure that people are not left without housing. The tax is also having an impact on affordable housing budgets, particularly for housing associations. A survey by the National Housing Federation found that a quarter of households affected have fallen behind in their rent for the first time ever. Such arrears have major consequences for house building, too, and they are jeopardising the ability of housing associations to borrow, plan for the future and, ultimately, build more homes.
I have a number of questions to which I would like the Minister to respond. In particular, what assessment has his Department made of the rent arrears for councils and housing associations and of the impact that those arrears are having on their ability to build the affordable homes that we so desperately need? How many homes are standing empty across the country because of this failed policy, and how many councils have received permission from the Minister’s Department to draw money from the housing revenue account to protect the most vulnerable? I understand why they want to protect the most vulnerable from the impact of the policy, but, as several of my hon. Friends have said, that is having an impact on the money that they are able to spend on repairs and new homes.
The bedroom tax is cruel and unfair, and it simply is not working. The Labour party has pledged to scrap it. Far from tackling overcrowding, the bedroom tax is exacerbating the biggest housing crisis in a generation—a housing crisis that the new Minister says does not exist. We beg to differ. Perhaps the Government want to forget that they are presiding over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s.
The Labour party is determined to get a grip on the issue. The bedroom tax is having a negative impact not only on the poorest in our society, but on the number of houses being built.
Emma Reynolds
I am nearly out of time.
We want to get Britain building again and have pledged that, by the end of the next Parliament, we will double house building. Something radical needs to change in this Government’s policy. They need to get a grip not only on the implications of the bedroom tax for the most vulnerable and poorest people in our country, but on its impact on housing supply. I hope that they also get a grip on the housing crisis that is affecting families in my constituency and across the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
What a pleasure and privilege it is, Mrs Riordan, to serve for the first time under the chairmanship of a fellow Yorkshire MP. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this important debate and on the passion with which she delivered it. We may not agree on some of the points, but I know how sincerely she presented her case, and I appreciate that.
The hon. Lady raised two constituency issues relating to Ashley, who is disabled. If she will write to me about them, I will attempt to give her a formal and proper response, rather than just having a discussion across the Chamber. She talked about the 1 million new houses that the Labour party proposes to build. I presume that the money will come out of bankers’ bonuses at some point. I realise that after some 13 years in government and the many decades since Macmillan was in power, we have never actually hit the figure of 240,000 houses. I am not sure how Labour will pay for them. Perhaps we have a common aspiration to deliver that number of houses during the period when we are in government.
Emma Reynolds
Will the Minister admit that, in terms of completions, the Government have done a very poor job? Since the Government came to power, housing completions have been at their lowest since the 1920s—only 107,000 properties in 2010-11. That is simply not good enough. In our period in office, in 2007-08, we hit 170,000 properties, and we have said that we will aim to build more than 200,000 a year by 2020. That is a realistic objective.
Kris Hopkins
Let me say that Labour presided over a period of massive boom, yet it still managed to secure fewer affordable houses by the end of that period—420,000 houses. I appreciate the aspiration, but now I want to make some further comments and respond to the Members who have spoken.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) talked about arrears. That is a matter that we are watching and we are keen to understand the consequences of the new system. A review will be published next spring that will help us in that regard.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh East jested about portaloos and outside toilets. In the lead-up to the 2010 general election, I visited a house with an outside toilet. They are not a fantasy, or even an issue to jest about; they exist. Some of the housing stock out there is appalling, which leads me to the meat of my speech.
Sheila Gilmore
Will the Minister clarify whether some of the worst housing is in the private rented sector? As far as I am aware, in my city and throughout Scotland, no homes in the housing association and council sector have outside toilets.
Kris Hopkins
The hon. Lady is right. The house that I was talking about was in the private sector. In my period in local government, the housing stock in my city was absolutely appalling. The then Government rightly wanted to intervene, but the then Labour-led council refused to support such intervention. The idea that—[Interruption.] I want to conclude this section and move on to the rest of my speech. It is being suggested that we had a utopian social housing model before 2010 and then somehow we made a transition to an uncaring world, where no one cares about social housing. Let me tell Members that my parents were brought up in a council house. I lived in a council house and I care about those individuals. I want to talk about—[Interruption.] I will continue, because we do not have much time.
I will make one final point on the interventions and the comments that were made. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) talked about Mr and Mrs Smith, and I understand why she talked about people in that anonymous way. Again, I say to her that if there is anything I can do to respond to the concerns of those individuals, I will do so. I would be grateful if she wrote to me, and I would seek to get an appropriate response.
Hywel Williams
I refer back to a point that the Minister made earlier when he referred to research into the charge, to understand what has happened. Will he concede that the usual progress of social policy is that there is research first, then planning, then implementation and then a review? That is the usual way that it is done.
Kris Hopkins
There was a significant amount of research into the whole issue of welfare reform, which was debated at length, so I do not think that anyone came to this view without understanding the issue. However, we can only evaluate a process after it has been in place.
Kris Hopkins
No, I will carry on, because I want to make some progress.
I will just pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, who said that I had said that there was no crisis. Just to provide some clarification and so that this myth does not continue, I will say that I was asked about a housing bubble in London and whether or not there was a crisis, and there is not. I actually used the backing of the Governor of the Bank of England, who says there is no housing bubble, and that was what I was specifically referring to. Also, the Chancellor has put in place the means to intervene on any of the measures that we have in place, through the Financial Policy Committee; if a bubble was emerging, he could intervene at that point.
An issue that has come out in the debate is the comparison between, “We’ve said it’s about saving money,” and, “You’re saying now it’s about supply.” There is a need to save money. We inherited a bill that had doubled to some £24 billion by the time we came to power, and it was important that we addressed it because we ended up with a deficit where we were spending—in fact, despite a reduction of a third, we are still paying £120 million a day in interest and we have a responsibility to address that.
Kris Hopkins
I am sorry, but I will not give way.
Despite the fact that we have this huge deficit, we wanted to ensure that the burden that was placed on this sector was as small as possible. In fact, it is 0.3% of the deficit reduction strategy that was put in place.
Answering the question about supply, the Government have already delivered 334,000 houses; we have made a commitment of £20 billion to deliver 170,000 houses before the end of this financial spending period; and we have made further commitments of £23 billion to deliver another 165,000 affordable houses. So I am afraid that the idea that money is not being raised or that councils or housing associations do not have the ability to deliver affordable housing is false. Despite the limited resources that are available, the Government have been absolutely committed to delivering affordable housing, and we will continue to deliver it.
Rather than talking about imaginary numbers of a billion houses over the next period, let me say that Labour clearly failed to deliver in a time of boom. For a period of 13 years—it was 11 years of boom— Labour failed to hit the target that it was talking about. And it has not said how it would fund its plan to address this issue.
On the ground out there at the moment, there is real growth in supply. The construction industry is running at a six-year high; the construction sector has said that it has had a higher expansion in the past six months than it has had for some time; and most of that construction growth is from housing. So the supply issue is being addressed by Britain getting out and building, and we have resourced that.
The Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply has said that we are experiencing the highest rate of building for a decade and that housing supply is now at its highest since the end of the unsustainable housing boom of 2008. As I said, some 334,000 houses have been built.
Emma Reynolds
On what figures does the Minister base the statement that he has just made, because even if we look at starts and completions, it simply cannot be the case that this Government have done better than the previous Government? We built more than 2 million homes and 500,000 of them were affordable. He keeps talking about 300,000 houses, but that is over three years. That is an abysmal record, and he needs to face up to it.
Kris Hopkins
First, I made the point that Labour was building in a period of boom and still managed to reduce the number of affordable houses by 420,000 and that, in a very difficult period, we have grown the number of affordable houses and we have delivered them. We said that we would deliver 170,000 houses on the basis of a public and private investment of £19.5 billion. We have already delivered 84,000 houses, and as I said before, we intend to go up to 2018 with a further investment of £23 billion, which will deliver another 160,000 affordable houses.
Hywel Williams
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he is so generous. I wish to make a genuine inquiry. Will he congratulate the Labour Government in Cardiff on their success in house building, and even possibly the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh as well?
Kris Hopkins
I have great passion for those two areas of our wonderful country, but I cannot bring myself to congratulate those two Governments.
Dr Whiteford
The Minister may not be aware that the Scottish Government have taken on a very ambitious programme of house building in Scotland that far exceeds anything that went before in the devolution era. However, the private sector housing that is coming on stream is significantly more expensive than the housing that people are currently living in, so I do not believe that the policy that we are discussing today is saving any money. I hope that he will be able to say categorically today that it is saving housing benefit costs.
Kris Hopkins
What I will say is that, in my early days in this post, I assure the hon. Lady that if I can learn anything about building more houses, because that is really important to the economy of our country, I shall inquire—
Kris Hopkins
No, I will not give way. In fact, I will give way in a second or two, but not just at the moment.
I reiterate that we recognise that this is about reducing the burden on the Government and the amount of debt that we have in place. It is important that we do that. We cannot continue to subsidise a million spare rooms. It is important that people out there—the taxpayers out there—understand that everybody is absolutely making a contribution to this process.
I feel extremely uncomfortable that people are turning around and saying that this is an uncaring and—[Interruption.] What I can say is that I know my commitment to addressing the number of houses that we have out there and to ensuring people out there have access to affordable housing.
Ian Lavery
The Minister is saying that the Government are not uncaring. If they are attacking 400,000 disabled people, by reducing their benefit when they have nowhere else to go, how is that caring?
Kris Hopkins
In any transition from one state to another, we need to take responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient resources to make that transition happen. That is why, despite the difficult financial circumstances that we find ourselves in, we have invested some £405 million, including £25 million of discretionary payments to disabled people, to make that transition right.
With the process that we have gone through, what is important is that we understand the issues involved—I particularly want to understand the issues about arrears—and make sure that we are building the supply of houses and continuing to grow it. When the opportunity comes to understand further, when the interim report is published in April next year, I hope that we will be able to address many of the issues that Members have raised in Westminster Hall today.
NHS Funding (North-East and Teesside)
(11 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
This is an important opportunity to discuss concerns that my north-east colleagues and I have. I hope that the Minister takes our points on board, and takes the necessary steps to rectify the issues in the region’s health service.
I will discuss four topics this afternoon. The first is the funding provided by central Government to the region’s accident and emergency departments, particularly in the south Tees area. The second is the funding of the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, and the rising use and cost of private ambulances. The third is the ongoing Monitor investigations into the two foundation trusts—the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust—that serve my constituents. Finally, I will seek reassurance from the Minister on future funding allocations to north-east clinical commissioning groups.
Over the past 18 months, the accident and emergency department at James Cook university hospital, which serves my constituency, has come under particular pressure. In the run-up to winter last year, there were problems with handover times; ambulances and paramedics waited up to two and a half hours to admit patients, despite the national target time being 15 minutes. I raised that last year with the Secretary of State for Health, who agreed that the situation was completely unacceptable, and I raised it with the Minister on 13 February 2013 in a Westminster Hall debate on A and E provision in the north-east. In addition to the issues that I raised with the Secretary of State, it has become evident that the James Cook hospital’s A and E department struggled to manage with the pressure caused by winter.
In January and February 2013, the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust failed to meet its target of seeing 95% of A and E patients within four hours. With James Cook hospital so clearly overstretched, I admit that I was surprised to discover in September 2013 that the Secretary of State decided not to award it, or any hospital trust in the north-east, funding to alleviate the pressure on A and E departments. It is beyond belief that, of the £250 million awarded by the Secretary of State between 53 trusts, not a penny will reach the north-east, particularly as we live in a region that suffers from some of England’s harshest winter weather and has some of the harshest local government cuts in the country. I hope that the Minister reconsiders that allocation, or at the very least clarifies why the Secretary of State made such a seemingly absurd and regionally disparate decision.
Recurrently, over many weeks, I have received expressions of concern from constituents about the increasing use of private ambulances in response to 999 calls in my constituency. I corresponded with the North East Ambulance Service on two such incidents, and its reply made it clear that central Government funding cuts are eroding that blue-light service:
“Each year we have discussions with our commissioners on the forecast number of incidents in the forthcoming year. The outcome of these discussions for 2013-14 were that commissioners felt it necessary to set our income on activity for the next 12 months at a level less than we were forecasting… So for 2013-14, we have been contracted to respond to 376,000 incidents, although we are forecasting activity at an estimated 415,000. This means that any incidents above 376,000 will be funded on a one-off basis rather than as recurrent annual income. These arrangements do not allow us to enhance our own workforce plan because the money for the additional activity will not be available next year to fund the extra salaries, overheads and vehicles we need to meet the extra demand.”
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Is he aware that Cleveland police vehicles and staff are also being increasingly used as unofficial ambulances?
Tom Blenkinsop
Yes, the police, and particularly the police and crime commissioner for Cleveland, have raised that with me in private meetings on first responder calls. They have funding worries about what will happen if such practices continually recur.
The NEAS letter shows that there will be more cuts, more private ambulances and possibly a less responsive service. It is not me saying that, but the chief operating officer of the North East Ambulance Service. The figures are stark. In 2008-09, 865 call-outs were attended by private ambulances in our region, costing £86,000. In 2009-10, some 1,816 call-outs were attended by private ambulances, costing £151,000. In 2010-11, however, 6,429 call-outs were attended by private ambulances, costing £477,000, which is a huge jump. In 2011-12, there were 9,000 call-outs attended by private ambulances, costing £639,000. In 2012-13, 13,524 call-outs were attended by private ambulances, costing £754,000. So since 2010, there has been a fivefold increase in private ambulance costs in the north-east, with the funds going to private contract firms. It is obvious that from 2010 onwards, there has been an explosion of private ambulance usage by the trust, costing a huge amount of taxpayers’ funds. The chief executive states:
“These arrangements do not allow us to enhance our own workforce plan because the money for the additional activity will not be available next year to fund the extra salaries, overheads and vehicles we need to meet the extra demand.”
A third issue of particular concern to my constituents is that both the NHS trusts that serve them—the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust—have found themselves under investigation by Monitor in the past 12 months. Since May 2010, the South Tees trust has failed on seven occasions to meet its referral-to-treatment target, most recently between March and August. That has resulted in the Monitor investigation, because the trust has failed to ensure that 90% of patients commence treatment within 18 weeks of referral. Furthermore, there has been an increase in reported “never” events at the trust, and an increase in the incidence of clostridium difficile.
Despite the seriousness of those issues, Health Ministers have taken no action. My constituents would at the very least expect Ministers to have had conversations with Monitor and the trust on the issue, and on what support the Department of Health can provide, yet the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), confirmed to me in a written answer that
“No such discussions have taken place with Ministers.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 83W.]
Will the Minister please assure me that he will closely monitor the situation and have discussions with both Monitor and the South Tees trust on how the Department can provide support, including additional funding if necessary?
My final point is on allocations to the north-east’s clinical commissioning groups.
A recent working paper issued by NHS England on allocation and indicative target allocation outlines proposals that will reduce per-capita funding for CCGs across the north-east. People in Sunderland will each face a £146 cut, people in south Tyneside a £124 cut, people in Gateshead a £104 cut, and people in my constituency a £60 cut.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Is it not perverse that deprivation and health inequality indicators are not part of the overall calculation, as regards the funding allocation for the north-east? That will potentially result in the north-east losing up to £230 million of NHS funding per annum.
Tom Blenkinsop
Yes, the cumulative effect of all the funding allocations in different areas is very worrying. If those allocations are all reduced, my genuine worry for my constituents, and for constituents across the north-east, is that all the hard work and financial effort in Teesside in the past 15 years to reduce cardiac risk, bad outcomes for cancer, and other problems will be undermined, and we will not build on the momentum gathered over the past 15 years.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
Is that not all the more outrageous because a former Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), gave a clear assurance at Health Question Time on the Floor of the House that the importance of the deprivation part of the calculation would not be downgraded? We asked for a clear assurance, and we were given a clear assurance. That assurance is not compatible with the current consultation.
Tom Blenkinsop
My right hon. Friend predicts the final part of my speech. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to put our fears to rest. Unfortunately, the information that I have received to date does not reassure me.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I compliment my hon. Friend on securing such a timely and important debate. I completely agree that one of the most worrying aspects is the potential changes to the funding of clinical commissioning groups. Easington would lose £62 a head. Does he agree that that could be seen as political gerrymandering, with the poorest areas deprived of funding and the wealthiest, such as east Hampshire, getting increases of as much as £164 a head? The areas with the best health outcomes will get the biggest increases in resources.
Tom Blenkinsop
My hon. Friend has mentioned that in Health questions and in the Select Committee on Health, of which he is a doughty member who provides a lot of input. Someone from a poorer socio-economic background has a lower likelihood of reaching the age at which they would receive more funds under the allocation—it would probably never happen. This becomes a self-defeating, vicious circle of a lack of investment in people who might need it the most.
As I was saying, the proposals in a recent working paper issued by NHS England on the allocation and the indicative target allocation would have led to a per capita reduction in funding for CCGs throughout the north-east, and my constituents would have lost out. Meanwhile, CCGs in the south would have had a per capita increase; for example, those covered by Coastal West Sussex CCG would each gain £115, those in Hailsham £136, and those covered by South Eastern Hampshire CCG £164. That is clearly not a one-nation NHS. I received ministerial assurances that that formula was not ultimately used for 2013-14, but a response to a parliamentary question that I asked confirmed that
“No proposals or decisions regarding allocations for 2014-15 have yet been made.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 76W.]
The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), who is in the Chamber, told the Evening Gazette on 23 October that it was indeed “right” that NHS England was considering reducing health funding for his constituents and the north-east, but—
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has either misread or misremembered, or perhaps the Evening Gazette did not give a full account of my comments. What I said was right was having an independent funding body that makes decisions based on a formula that is consulted on, and it is right that age should be a factor. That does not mean that deprivation should not be a factor. I recognise and welcome the debate, and the effort that hon. Members in all parties are making to put the case that deprivation has an impact on health outcomes and should be considered as part of the funding formula. I recognise, however, the independence of NHS England, and I support it being an independent body. Does he recognise its independence?
Tom Blenkinsop
I recognise the health outcomes and needs of my local constituents; as their representative, I will voice those views and needs vociferously. I take on board, however, the hon. Gentleman’s comments and his desire to see deprivation recognised in the allocation of funds. On the future allocation for CCGs, I hope that he will advocate to the Minister on behalf of those of his constituents who share the same socio-economic background as me, in the way that we Labour Members do. I take his intervention in favour of those funds in a spirit of common north-eastern friendship.
Will the Minister assure us that he will urge NHS England to consider deprivation and regional health inequalities when determining funding formulae? Furthermore, will he guarantee that any funding formula used to determine allocations in 2014-15 will not leave the north-east comparatively worse off, and will not widen the north-south health divide? I thank the Minister for his time, and I hope that he will be able to provide the clarifications and assurances that my colleagues and I have sought this afternoon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Riordan.
A lot of political smoke has been blown across the Chamber today by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). I have a lot of time for him personally, and he came to see me earlier in the year to express some legitimate concerns about the performance of his local trust. On the basis of our meetings, I hope to reassure him that there has been considerable progress locally in his area.
More broadly, it is worth setting the record straight on some of the points made today. We have had discussion about the ambulance service, which I will come to, and we have talked about winter pressures, which I will address. First, however, on the funding formula, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) was right to point out that it is set independently of the Government. Before we handed independent formula setting to NHS England, the Government made it clear that deprivation is a factor and it is taken into account in the current arrangements. There is a 10% weighting for deprivation in the funding formula, which as a Government we ensured was preserved in the formula. Under the new arrangements, there is more political independence in setting the funding formula.
Dr Poulter
Not at the moment. The independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, or ACRA, as hon. Members have mentioned in the debate, historically has advised that the funding formula should be readjusted to take into account demographics and the increased health care needs of older populations in other parts of the country. The Government, however, in the past chose to maintain support for deprivation as a factor in health care funding, but the decision is now not one for the Government. It is now for NHS England to listen to the independent advice, but I would find it strange were there a sudden change in the funding formula that did not factor in deprivation, as done in the past.
It is important to set the record straight. The decision is not political; in the past, the Government preserved a weighting for deprivation, but now the decision will be taken separately by NHS England. Its decision will be made on the basis of clinical need, although of course deprivation will be a factor.
Mr Nicholas Brown
I asked the Minister’s predecessor for a clear assurance that he would not downgrade the importance of economic deprivation in his resource allocation formula. The Minister’s predecessor, once he had consulted the Secretary of State at Health questions, then said:
“Yes, I can give that assurance.”—[Official Report, 12 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 167.]
It is impossible to misunderstand what was being said. What weight can we put on that now?
Dr Poulter
My predecessor was in place when setting the resource allocation was in the Government’s gift. As the then Minister made it clear, a weighting in the formula for deprivation would be preserved—he stood by his word and that weighting was preserved. NHS England, not the Government, now sets the funding formula—to avoid political interference—and those in NHS England, in conversation, have made it clear that they also value a weighting apportioned to deprivation.
Dr Poulter
No, I will not give way. I have said things clearly for the record, without any political smoke.
As a Government, when we had control of the funding formula, we clearly put in a weighting for deprivation and for some of the poorest communities. I am proud that we did so, but it is now for an independent body to look at the case and at the independent advice that it has been given. I would find it extraordinary, however, if it were not to factor deprivation into its decision making, although there are other factors that it will want to put into the equation, such as the fact that older people are the greatest users of health care, so places with lots of older people also need to be recognised. A number of factors will be taken into consideration, and deprivation will be one of them. I have been reassuring about that, and I will not allow the Labour party or any hon. Member to make mischief with something that the Government have stood by.
Dr Poulter
No, I will not give way any more. I have clarified the point considerably, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to listen. I will not allow the Labour party to make political mischief, when my party has made it clear that we value the deprivation weighting. In fact, if we look at the public health allocations to every local authority, they have been generous. As I hope to reassure hon. Members, we can see that the health care funding allocations to the north-east have also increased under this Government, so the assertion that funding to the north-east is being reduced is clearly not the case.
The Government have increased the NHS budget, which the shadow Secretary of State described as “irresponsible”. At the same time, the Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government have cut the budget by more than 8%; in England, however, we have ensured that we have increased the health care budget in real terms. In the north-east specifically, CCGs have received an above-real-terms increase in funding for 2013-14 of 2.3%, compared with the primary care trusts’ funding for the equivalent set of services last year. Opposition Members should be pleased about increases in funding for the north-east, because if the Opposition spokesman were Secretary of State at the moment, he would have considered that irresponsible.
Ian Lavery
If the proposals in the consultation document had been implemented this year, can the Minister confirm that the north-east would have lost out to the tune of a little more than £228 million?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that had the Government followed the advice of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation in the past, we would potentially have cut the budget for the north-east. I can reassure him that we maintained the resource allocation budget, and the north-east has received an increase in real terms. Those are the facts. He may want to create political smoke, but there is none. We preserved and increased funding to the north-east for patients in Opposition Members’ constituencies and in those of my hon. Friends.
Dr Poulter
I will not give way again.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is being very disingenuous in the points that he is making, and I have put the record straight: health care funding has increased under the present Government. If I give way again, perhaps he will explain why the shadow Secretary of State said it would be irresponsible to increase the health care budget in real terms. We all think that would be irresponsible in the current environment.
I turn to local services in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. When we discussed the matter earlier this year, he raised specific concerns about Guisborough, East Cleveland and Redcar hospitals. He did not put on the record the fact that matters have improved considerably since that meeting with me and local commissioners. Guisborough urgent care centre is open from 9 to 5 on Mondays to Fridays and from 8 to 8 at weekends. East Cleveland urgent care centre is open from 9 to 5 on Mondays to Fridays and from 8 to 8 at weekends, and Redcar urgent care centre is open 24/7. There are currently no vacancies for clinical staff that affect opening hours, which have been aligned to match service and patient need. The centres will continue to evaluate the situation.
It is worth highlighting that three additional nurses were recruited to support the urgent care centres in June 2013, and they are now at full complement, apart from one vacant clinical lead post to which the trust is continuing to try to recruit. It is looking at better ways to manage staffing. In response to concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman, there are now fully functioning urgent care centres. There is a 24/7 service in Redcar and additional staff working at those centres. That is good progress and it is disingenuous of him to suggest otherwise.
Dr Poulter
I hope that when I give way, the hon. Gentleman will put on the record the fact that considerable progress has been made by local commissioners for the benefit of local patients.
Tom Blenkinsop
I thank the Minister for giving way during a response to a speech I made in February, although I deliberately did not mention those points because they were not part of what I wanted to talk about today. The Minister says that South Tees NHS trust is successful, so why is it under investigation by Monitor?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Gentleman has raised issues of health care funding, and I am making the point that there has been considerable investment in local health care services, the very services that he said earlier this year had received no investment. He is also raising urgent care services and other services at his local hospital trust. I am reassuring him that considerable investment has been made locally, and it is worth highlighting the fact that further investment has been made. He is incredibly disingenuous to stand here and run down his local health service when considerable steps have been made to improve patient care services. For his benefit, I will outline a few more improvements that have been made, so that they are firmly on the record.
Dr Poulter
I will not give way because the hon. Gentleman should listen to the answers to some of his questions and realise that his local health care services are improving thanks to the Government’s increased investment in the health service—[Interruption.] Hon. Members have been incredibly political in everything they have said today, and I am putting answers on the record. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear them, he should not have raised the debate.
The latest data for 27 October 2013 show that South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s performance against the 95% standard for A and E waits is 96.8%. Over the last 23 weeks, it has met the national 95% target for A and E four-hour waits. The local trust is performing very well in treating patients in a timely way when they arrive at A and E. That is contrary to the points that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make.
At James Cook university hospital, the acute admissions unit is adjacent to the A and E department, so enabling the trust better to manage the flow of patients and to ease pressure on A and E. The trust has recruited two additional consultants and six additional junior doctors to the acute medicine departments, so easing pressure on the A and E department. Considerable investment is being made, and additional nursing staff have been recruited to support 50 more acute hospital beds that will be in place this winter. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is a lot of investment locally, with more beds, more staff and better care. It is a pity that he could not acknowledge that in his speech. I am putting it on the record, so that his constituents are aware of it.
Grahame M. Morris
The Secretary of State announced an additional £250 million to relieve pressure on A and E, but none of it was allocated to any of the hospitals in the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends here.
On the incidence of ill health in deprived areas, half of the people presenting to hospitals suffering from hepatitis C, which is completely treatable and curable, come from the poorest 20% and three quarters come from the poorest 40%. Is it not right that additional resources are provided to those poorest areas to tackle such diseases?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why the Government have given local authorities the power to deal with sexual health services. He will be aware that a major cause of hepatitis C—for the record, it is not curable—
Dr Poulter
Indeed, but it is not curable as the hon. Gentleman stated. He should get his facts right before making statements in the Chamber. It is not curable, but it is treatable and the best treatment is prevention, which is why we have given a considerable amount of money to local authorities to take on the public health responsibility and to ensure that local authorities are in the right place to look at primary prevention of transmissible sexual diseases. He will be aware that hepatitis C is sometimes transmitted via the sexual route. The Government have put us in a better place to deal with sexual health issues and to tackle them in future.
There has been talk about ambulances, and it is worth highlighting that the most recent data, for September 2013, show that the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust is meeting the category A8 red 1 measure 80.6% of the time and the A8 red 2 measure 80.8% of the time against an operational standard of 75%. The ambulance service is doing marvellously well in the north-east. It is meeting category B19 with a performance of 97.7% against an operational standard of 95%. That is a good performance in the north-east by anyone’s standard. The ambulance service is performing very well. Other ambulance services that may receive more generous funding are struggling, sometimes due to mismanagement, particularly in my part of the country in eastern England.
It is very difficult for the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland to make any case for lack of funding or other problems with his ambulance service when health care funding for the north-east is going up under this Government and the ambulance service is performing well according to national performance indicators. Those are the facts, and if he did not want them on the record, he should not have raised the debate.
It is more in sorrow than anger that I make those points. When the hon. Gentleman and I had a constructive meeting earlier this year to discuss local health care services, there was not the political smoke or the chorus backing him that there has been in this debate. Genuine issues were raised about his local health care service, and he and I, with local commissioners, worked to put improvements in place. As a result of that meeting, there are more staff, more winter beds and more investment in his local trust. The local community hospitals that he was so concerned about are in a much better place.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will come back to me if further issues arise, but his part of the country is much better placed than many others to deal with the pressures of winter. He should be proud of that, and I hope he will take the opportunity after this debate to champion his local NHS and the good work at local level by front-line staff who are delivering improvements. I hope he will take that opportunity and that we will not have to come back here and listen to him running down his local health services.
The Maldives
(11 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I welcome the Minister to his place, and thank him very much for the interest that he has shown in this subject ever since he took up his post.
I start by putting on record my interest in the Maldives. Before coming to this place, I was a political consultant with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The Maldives was just one of the places that I visited, but it is very close to my heart. Before 2008, a dictatorship was in place there. It was a country that lived without democracy, and where people were in prison for their political views. There was widespread brutality and many innocent people, including many young men and women, were in prison because they dared to suggest democracy.
I first visited in 2008 to help the Maldivian Democratic party run a campaign akin to those that we run and take for granted here in Britain. I joined my colleague James McGrath, who has recently been elected to the Australian Senate. We went to help, and it was very humbling when we arrived to see the hope and dedication that that party has—and still has, despite everything that has been thrown at its members over many years. They are, without a doubt, some of the most courageous people that I have ever met.
The MDP is led by Mohamed Nasheed, who is known as Anni. He is the same age as me, but it is almost unbelievable how much he has suffered over the years. He is one of the most inspirational people I have ever met. He is a former Amnesty International prisoner of conscience, who has spent great periods of his life in jail and has been beaten and tortured, but who does not give up on his dream of fair and free elections. He is a man of great principle and he is a great leader.
During those elections in 2008, I travelled with Anni to many islands, taught the MDP about running elections and met so many people who had extraordinary stories to tell. Dreams do come true: Anni and the MDP won that election with 54% of the vote. Democracy had won the day, and Anni, the former prisoner, was the first ever democratically elected leader in the Maldives. I returned to Redditch the day before the elections and could not believe that he won so comprehensively, by such a large margin. I received a text from the editor of the local newspaper, who said:
“So many thoughts about the families that have suffered over the last 30 years. My eyes are swelling with tears every now and then. It is over Karen. It is really over. We can live in a country free from fear. People are crying thank you so much.”
However, it was not over—not by a long way. In fact, it was just starting.
Anni had promised to reform his country, and he spent the next three years doing just that. He provided better health care, reformed transport and looked after the elderly, which was everything that he had promised to do, but it was not enough. When the old President left office, he left Anni with some of his most favoured judges. He left a constitutional time bomb for Anni, and on 7 February 2012, it went off.
I woke to the shocking news that Anni had resigned, that the vice-president had taken over, and that it was all above board. For those of us who knew Anni, that could not be right. To this day, I believe that there was a coup in the Maldives, and that Anni Nasheed was forced to resign at gunpoint. There were riots all over Male, many of my friends were beaten and tortured, and there were dreadful breaches of human rights.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the matter to the Chamber for consideration. In terms of human rights, is she aware that every person, no matter what their religious background, has to be a Muslim in the Maldives? They cannot be an evangelical Protestant or a Roman Catholic—that is not allowed. Does she feel that the human rights of Christians are violated there?
Karen Lumley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but most people in the Maldives are happy to be Muslims and want to be Muslims. They are quite relaxed about that. Actually, one thing that I was accused of when I was there was trying to convert people to Christianity, which I obviously was not trying to do.
I met Mohamed here in London in 2012 to see what I could do to help. One of the conclusions of that meeting was that there had to be free and fair elections, and that reform was needed. He also met the Minister’s predecessor, who was briefed on events.
In October 2012, I was shocked and saddened to see Anni being arrested again and taken away by many men in riot gear. Those who know Anni know what a gentle, calm and charismatic man he is, and to see him taken by boat to some wretched island prison was disgraceful. To many, this man was their great hope and their democratically elected President. Anni was dragged through the courts, but thankfully was allowed to stand for election this September.
That brings us nearly up to date. Anni did everything that was asked of him, waited patiently until elections arrived, campaigned in a fair manner and secured 45.45% of the vote. That was higher than he achieved in the first round of elections in 2008. Was that enough? No, of course not. The failed politician and wealthy businessman, Qasim Ibrahim, had his colleagues in the Supreme Court annul the elections, which had been called free and fair by the Commonwealth and the EU.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend on all the work that she has done to further the cause of democracy in the Maldives. She touched on the Commonwealth, which suspended the Maldives in 2012 for its democracy and human rights violations. Does she hope that this issue will be high on the agenda at the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka?
Karen Lumley
I hope that the Maldives will be very high on the agenda at the Commonwealth conference, and I look forward to the Prime Minister being able to put his case at that meeting.
However, we are where we are today. Elections were held that were cited as free and fair. Two of my colleagues, one of whom is here today, were there representing the Foreign Office. Strange, isn’t it? What happened smacks to me of a child who cannot win a board game, so they tip over the board. We are here today hoping, I suppose, that elections will take place on the newly scheduled date of 9 November.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Is she as astonished as I am that members of the Maldivian Supreme Court, who are making legal decisions on the conduct and process of the presidential elections in the Maldives, do not have any legal qualifications or legal training? That, in itself, is not conducive to elections and decisions that are seen as fair, open, transparent, and in the name of the people.
Karen Lumley
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I totally agree with her. When the elections are finally over, I think that the Commonwealth and the rest of the world need to look at helping the Maldives with its constitutional arrangements to ensure that it can move on in a way that is free and fair.
Let us hope, however, that the elections take place on Saturday, and that we get a clear winner—somebody with 50% or more of the votes—or at least that we manage to get to the second round. A resolution was passed by Parliament stating that if there is no winner on the 9th, the Speaker of the Parliament will head the Government as interim President until a President can be democratically elected. I welcome that measure and hope that we will at last see President Waheed leave his unelected post. I also hope that on 16 November, the second round will provide the Maldives with a democratically elected President who can get on with the job. However, I have just heard, in the past hour, that the Progressive party of Maldives and the Jumhooree party are still refusing to sign the votes of registry, thereby putting this week’s elections once again in jeopardy.
I know that the Minister and the Foreign Secretary have taken a great interest in the Maldives, as did the Minister’s predecessor, but time is running out. As Charles Tannock MEP said in the European Parliament recently,
“The people of the Maldives deserve better than this. They must have their voices heard and their decisions respected.”
Time is running out for the Maldives. The international community and the Commonwealth must be ready to step in and stand up for their newest democracy. I urge the Minister to put whatever pressure he can on the Commonwealth and the rest of the world to ensure that the elections go ahead on Saturday and the run-off the week after. I also urge him to look very carefully at the reason why the Supreme Court annulled the elections, claiming that there were dead voters and made-up names on the register. At least one of those so-called dead people has, I understand, written to the Minister. Indeed, of the 13 who were supposed to be dead, seven have now been found living.
We must be ready to stand up and be counted if necessary. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called Anni Nasheed his new best friend. Let us not let our friends down here today. As usual, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) for securing the debate. I believe that it is her second debate on the Maldives, her first one being in November 2012. I am particularly grateful to her for her continued interest in the Maldives and her tireless support for democratic reform there.
I want to speak very explicitly and clearly, because I want to leave no one, particularly anyone in the Maldives who is listening to what I am saying or who will receive a report of it later, in doubt. I want it to be crystal clear where the Government stand on the current situation.
On the problems and the need to support democratic reform in the Maldives, that is a desire very much shared by the Government, who consider the Maldives to be a long-standing friend and international ally, but we are, as my hon. Friend is, deeply dismayed by the delays in the democratic process. Democracy in the country has been a recent and welcome development. The first multi-party presidential elections were held—my hon. Friend alluded to them—only in 2008. We must recognise that the people and the electoral process of the Maldives have come a long way in that time.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of religious freedom as part of democracy and human rights in the Maldives, and he is absolutely right that the Maldivian constitution stipulates that a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives. We believe that that provision is a violation of article 48 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which was ratified by the Maldives in September 2006. We have raised our concerns about that with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, have urged them to promote religious tolerance and have supported that through funding projects to promote moderate Islam.
Let me revert to the democratic process and the democratisation of the Maldives. The evidence is that more than 85%—how many of us would like to be able to cite that figure for our own constituencies?—of the electorate voted in the presidential elections on 7 September this year, demonstrating their strong commitment to the democratic process. Polls were judged by international and domestic observers to have been fair, free and credible. As the Maldives Elections Commission stated, the election was described by observers as
“one of the most peaceful and best”
that they had seen. That certainly remains our view.
However, it is clear that in recent weeks the commitment demonstrated by the Maldivian people has not been respected by some politicians, whose various manoeuvres, including calls for military intervention, have sought to frustrate and impede the democratic process.
Following what appeared to be a weakly substantiated legal challenge from an unsuccessful presidential candidate, the Maldives Supreme Court voted to annul the election results and ordered a restart of the process. Regrettably, the controversy does not end there. On 19 October, the scheduled re-run was cancelled at the last moment, and the Maldives police service intervened to ensure that the vote could not take place. The cancellation came as a result of the refusal of two candidates to sign the electoral register—one of the 16 onerous conditions imposed by the Supreme Court. That condition in effect allows any one candidate to veto the elections, raising the possibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch says, of further delays.
However, such interference has not gone unnoticed. On 30 October, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said in a statement:
“I am alarmed that the Supreme Court of the Maldives is interfering excessively in the presidential elections, and in so doing is subverting the democratic process and violating the right of Maldivians to freely elect their representatives.”
The statement also rightly noted:
“Judges should act in accordance with the principles of impartiality, propriety, equality and due diligence”.
Navi Pillay also expressed concerns about the reports of intimidation, noting that the Supreme Court had threatened to charge both lawyers and media with contempt of court for challenging the Court’s decisions. Local non-governmental organisations, including Transparency Maldives, have been subject to inappropriate and unwarranted threats of investigation and dissolution. Such attempts to silence dissent must be condemned. Threats against staff at the Elections Commission and Human Rights Commission must be thoroughly investigated and those responsible brought to justice. The current Government and those responsible for the impasse should understand that their domestic actions are not isolated from the scrutiny of the international community.
I raised the troubling situation in the Maldives with my counterparts at the Commonwealth Foreign Affairs Ministers meeting in New York in September. After all, building, supporting and strengthening democratic rights, freedoms and institutions are values fundamental to the Commonwealth. In fact, such is our concern at the Maldives’ disregard for those values that it prompts the question—if the elections do not proceed as scheduled—of whether it is appropriate for the Maldives to be represented at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo.
In addition to what has been done by the UK and the Commonwealth, statements of concern have been issued by, among others, India, the US, the EU, the UN and those with business interests vital to the Maldivian economy, such as Richard Branson, head of the Virgin Group. It is clear that further delays to the elections, and related instability and human rights concerns, will further damage both the Maldives’ international reputation and their economy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch noted, the Maldives’ constitution makes it clear that a new President should be elected by 11 November. With less than a week to go, there are justifiable worries that that deadline will not be met and the Maldives will be plunged into uncharted constitutional waters. The Maldives Parliament—the Majlis—has passed a resolution for the Speaker to act as an interim President if required. We hope that that workable solution can be agreed between the parties.
I stress again that the British Government have taken a robust stance on this issue and continue to contribute to international efforts to ensure that the vote takes place. That is no less than the Maldivian people deserve. The United Kingdom has provided capacity-building support for the Maldives Elections Commission; funded observer education through the United Nations Development Programme; and provided election observers, including Members of this House and the other place.
Karen Lumley
If the elections do go ahead on Saturday and then there is the run-off the week after, will any observers be there from our Parliament to observe the elections?
Mr Swire
So many of our colleagues have gone backwards and forwards like yo-yos to the Maldives in the past few weeks that I am not sure that anyone has the appetite to go again. I have been discussing observers with the secretary-general of the Commonwealth—I shall say something about that in a minute—but I see from the reaction of certain hon. Friends that they are dying to go back to the Maldives, hopefully for the final time for this election.
As I was saying, we have funded observer education through the UN Development Programme; provided election observers, including Members of this House—some of whom wish to go again—and the other place; and encouraged the EU to provide election experts to keep a close eye on proceedings. We also strongly support the Commonwealth’s continued commitment to observing elections and the engagement of the Commonwealth’s special envoy to the Maldives, Sir Don McKinnon.
Our high commissioner to Colombo, who is also accredited to the Maldives, has been in close contact with key figures. He and his staff have visited the Maldives several times in the past two months. He will be there again this week with the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, the Commonwealth special envoy to the Maldives, and his American and Indian counterparts. I have spoken to the Commonwealth secretary-general a number of times, and I shall visit the Maldives on 17 November, when I fully expect to be able to pay my respects to the new, democratically elected president.
We are frustrated and concerned, but not without hope. There are practical actions that can be taken without delay. The voter registers are due to be signed by candidates today. I am alarmed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch has just told me, but a commitment to do that will help to ensure that the elections can take place.
Rosie Cooper
What can be done to help the process? We will have what is substantially a veto if the election lists are not agreed. If, as is thought, the candidates do not agree to those lists, what does the Minister think will happen this weekend?
Mr Swire
We will be somewhere near the impasse that I was so concerned about. We will continue to apply whatever pressure we can, and all the different agencies and countries involved, which I have just mentioned, will continue to do that.
I was about to answer the questions raised earlier by the hon. Member for West Lancashire. I know that she is a vice-chair of the all-party group and has visited the islands. Regarding the capacity of the judiciary, we welcome the visit of the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. Her statement urged the Maldivian Government to address a number of challenges hampering the functioning of the judicial system in the Maldives, such as training, education and transparency. Progress in that area is vital, as the special rapporteur suggested, to strengthen the independence of the judiciary in the Maldives.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch that, in the coming days—despite the news we have just heard, which I think is unconfirmed at the moment—the Government will, together with the Commonwealth, the UN, the EU and international partners, continue to follow developments in the Maldives closely and to make our views known.
As the Foreign Secretary said last month, further challenges to prevent elections from taking place would undermine democracy in the Maldives. The Maldivian people deserve the opportunity to choose their president in accordance with their constitutional rights.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for their continued interest in the subject. I urge them to continue to support the people of the Maldives and the democratic process there in whatever way they can. It is imperative that the rescheduled elections go ahead as planned. Anything short of that will be unacceptable. I say again to those people listening in the Maldives: the world is watching closely and it wants democratic elections, a democratically elected president and no further impediment to that to be created artificially by anyone in that country, which deserves so much better.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
New Debt Management Protocol
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
A new voluntary protocol is now in place for commercial debt management companies, which will provide greater protection for consumers.
A total of 22 companies, who supply more than half of the commercial market, have signed up to the protocol which went live on 1 October 2013.
The firms have agreed not to charge upfront fees and to spread the recovery of their set-up fees evenly over at least the first six months, ensuring that plans are affordable and sustainable for the consumer. They will also have to tell consumers free debt advice and management services are available and that there are other debt relief options. Creditors will also benefit from the protocol as they will have more reassurance over repayment of their debts and will always be told when a customer is in a debt management plan.
The protocol commits companies to:
No upfront fees for consumers
Spreading the cost of setting up a debt management plan over at least six months
Telling consumers that free debt advice is available to them
Providing payments to creditors from the first month
An assurance for creditors that only sustainable plans will be put forward for them to consider, that is where there is a realistic commitment to repayment
Dividing payments pro rata among all creditors
Providing access for creditors to full financial information about customers (subject to compliance with Data Protection Act principles).
This is a major step forward for people using commercial companies to manage their debt problems. They will now have added protections if they use firms signed up to the debt management plan protocol.
It is important that consumers should also know that free advice is available. They can contact the National Debtline on 0808 808 4000 for free and confidential advice. The Money Advice Service can also signpost people to appropriate and free debt advice services and can be contacted on 0300 500 5000.
Sporting Legacy
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
In July the Government and the Mayor of London published “Inspired by 2012”. This report detailed the range of impressive legacy benefits from London 2012 that had been delivered one year on from the games.
As Minister responsible for sport and equalities, I am committed to delivering a lasting sports legacy from London 2012 for all. I would like to update the House on progress with the delivery of the sport legacy action plan since then. The June “active people survey” showed 15.3 million people doing sport at least once a week, every week. That is 1.4 million more people doing sport than when we won the bid in 2005. There was a slight dip in figures for the previous six months, due to the exceptionally cold weather in January and March.
The meta-evaluation of the 2012 games impact and legacy benefits was published in July. Some 36% of children aged five to 10, 52% of children aged 11 to 15, and 25% of young adults aged 16 to 24 reported that the games had motivated them to do more sport.
The annual children participation figures published in “Taking Part” in September remained largely unchanged since 2008-09. While some measures showed a slight decrease, there had been a significant increase since 2010-11 in the rate of 11 to 15-year-olds who had played cricket, dodgeball, rounders, tennis, table tennis, basketball, badminton and taken part in cross-country, jogging or road running and athletics.
Elite Sport
Elite Funding
In June, UK Sport published the medal targets for summer Olympic and Paralympic sports for their targeted competition events in 2013. UK Sport continues to track their progress towards Rio 2016.
As part of the continued Government funding for elite sport to 2016, all funded athletes have been asked to give up to five days a year to inspire children and young people to get involved in sport. UK Sport’s first survey of this activity, published in July 2013, revealed that athletes had given more than 4,000 days to community and school sport since London 2012.
World-class Facilities
Good progress continues to be made on the transformation of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic park. All eight of the park venues, including the five sporting venues, now have operators in place, to manage each of the facilities as the park reopens to the public between now and 2014.
The Copper Box arena reopened in July this year and the London Lions British basketball league team will host 21 games for the 2013-14 season.
Major Sports Events
The UK has had an excellent summer of sport. Major events supported by the UK Sport Gold series include:
June |
International Cricket Council Champions Trophy |
Canoe Slalom, World Cup Series |
Rowing World Cup Series |
European Athletics Team Championships |
Hockey World League |
IPC Para-Athletics Grand Prix Final |
July |
London Anniversary Games Athletics and Para Athletics |
August |
World Youth Netball Championships |
September |
Triathlon World Championship Series Final |
October |
London Grand Prix Badminton |
Rugby League World Cup |
November |
UCI Track Cycling World Cup Series |
We have also secured the right to host the following major sports events:
World Cup Gymnastics | 2013 |
Taekwondo Grand Prix | 2013 |
Triathlon World Championships Series | 2014 |
IPC European Athletics Championships | 2014 |
BMX Supercross World Cup | 2014 |
European Judo Championships | 2015 |
European Wheelchair Basketball Championships | 2015 |
Track Cycling World Championships | 2016 |
European Swimming Championships | 2016 |
We are currently bidding to host more events including:
FINA Diving World Series | 2014 |
European Modern Pentathlon Championships | 2015 |
World Indoor Athletics Championships | 2016 |
World Half Marathon Championships | 2016 |
Men’s Champions Trophy Hockey | 2016 |
Men’s World League Hockey | 2017 |
Women’s Hockey World Cup | 2018 |
Community
Places People Play
Some 1,361 grassroots sports facilities have now benefited from nearly £70 million of Sport England investment.
In August, Sport England announced an extra £40 million to extend the popular Inspired Facilities fund to 2017.
Over 83,408 sport makers are now volunteering regularly in their local communities. The programme officially ended on 30 September, but Sport England will continue to support the volunteers.
Another 30,000 14 to 25-year-olds have completed the 6-8 week Sportivate coaching course, bringing the total number trying new sports to 256,297. Some 80% of these have continued to play regularly since completion of the course.
Youth Sport Strategy
There are now over 1,181 satellite clubs in secondary schools. One hundred of these are for girls only.
More than 102,000 students have tried sport in the past year thanks to Sport England’s Active Universities programme, surpassing its initial target by more than 20,000.
Join In
Join In had a target of supporting 10,000 events, across the UK, with 75% of them focusing on sport organisations and the remainder on community activities. They also hosted the “Go Local” event on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic park which aimed to encourage 2012 volunteers to continue to inspire others to volunteer. An evaluation of the summer is currently under way and will be published near the end of the year.
School Games
Some 18,253 schools have registered for the school games, of which 15,342 are fully engaged in the programme. This is an increase of 16%. Some 2,000 schools have gained a school games kitemark (approximately 183 of these achieved the highest “gold” reward—an increase from 69 schools the previous year). Over 100 county festivals of sport took place during the summer and winter, involving more than 100,000 young participants.
The hugely successful school games national finals took place in Sheffield in September; 1,439 of some of the UK’s best young elite athletes, 15% of whom were athletes with disabilities, took part in 12 different sports. Some 535 volunteers, including 411 young people, supported the competitors and spectators. Once again a delegation of young athletes from Brazil took part in three sports winning 15 medals. In return, the UK will send a team of some of our best young disabled athletes to compete at Brazil’s school Paralympic-style games in November, providing them with valuable experience in competing against high-class international competition at a major sporting event.
PE/School Sport
Some £150 million per year of ring-fenced funding has now gone directly to primary school head teachers to spend solely on PE and sporting provision.
Sport England has provided additional funding to County Sport Partnerships to provide support and advice to schools on accessing the best sporting opportunities for their pupils.
A new cadre of 120 primary school teachers with a particular specialism in teaching PE is being trained through a pilot scheme delivered by the Teaching Agency. Sport England has lowered the ages of their Sportivate and Satellite Club programs from 14+ to 11+ giving all secondary school children more opportunities to participate in community sport.
Ofsted inspectors will report on how well the school uses its funding.
Disability Sport Legacy
On 7 September, Sport England announced a further £8 million of national lottery funding to give disabled people across the country more opportunities to get into sport: £7 million through a second round of the inclusive sport fund and £1 million in “Get Equipped” a new disability fund. Sport England also invested £190,000 into the Special Olympics national summer games in September which saw 1,700 athletes from England, Scotland and Wales competing in 12 disciplines over three days.
International Development
An independent evaluation of the international inspiration programme has confirmed that more than 15 million children have benefited from the programme in 20 partner countries. The programme has helped to promote sustainable change in these countries’ sports systems.
I will continue to provide quarterly updates to the House on progress with delivery of this plan.
Tour de France Grand Départ
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
I wish to inform the House that on 2 September 2013 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport laid a minute recording the Government’s commitment to underwrite the 2014 Tour de France Grand Départ and stage 3 from Cambridge to London. I have arranged for the document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The budget for the event is £27 million. As announced on 10 April 2013, the Government will provide up to £10 million to support the delivery of the event. Leeds city council, on behalf of the Yorkshire local authorities, is contributing £11 million and Transport for London is providing £6 million for stage 3, from Cambridge to London. The Government underwrite, therefore, creates a contingent liability for the Department in 2014 of £27 million.
I am pleased to inform the House that very good progress is now being made to develop robust delivery plans for the event. The event owner, the ASO, announced the route for the whole event in Paris on 23 October. We now have an organising committee in place in Leeds, chaired by Sir Rodney Walker, which is working in close partnership with Leeds city council and Welcome to Yorkshire, as well as all the other host authorities. The volunteering programme has been launched and is already heavily over-subscribed. In addition, Arts Council England has announced £1 million to support a cultural festival in Yorkshire, and Sport England funding is available, via British Cycling, to ensure a strong sporting legacy from the event.
I am confident that planning for the event is now on track, drawing on the expertise and lessons learned from London 2012. Above all, all the key partners are working closely together to deliver a first-class event that allows our cyclists to continue to shine, inspires more people of all ages to take up and enjoy cycling and showcases the best of Britain at home and internationally.
Global Counter-terrorism Call-out Order
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)
With the expiry of the call-out order made on 6 November 2012, a new call-out order has been made under section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out into permanent service to support our wider efforts to counter the threat from international terrorism and piracy, and to assist our maritime security objectives. The order takes effect from 8 November 2013 and ceases to have effect on 7 November 2014. Some 107 members of the reserve forces were called out under this order last year and their continued support is greatly appreciated and valued.
Chief Nuclear Inspector's Annual Report
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
The independent nuclear regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), has today published the chief nuclear inspector’s inaugural annual report, which provides information on the performance of the UK nuclear industry.
The report is published as part of the ONR’s commitment to openness and transparency on an annual basis.
The report is based on the areas that the ONR regulates: safety, security, transport and emergency preparedness. It also includes information relating to nuclear safeguards where ONR has a duty to ensure that the UK’s international responsibilities are met.
Copies of the report can be obtained from the ONR’s website:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/.
Bovine TB
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Successfully tackling bovine TB (bTB) in the badger population is a key element in our strategy to rid England of this disease within 25 years. It is this broad strategy, of which badger control is one component, that was endorsed by the House of Commons on 5 June by a majority of 61 votes.
The two badger control pilots, in Somerset and Gloucestershire, were designed to test that controlled shooting is a safe, humane and effective means of reducing badger numbers.
Today I am announcing to the House that the three-week extension period in the Somerset control area concluded as planned on Friday 1 November. During this period, a further 90 badgers have been removed, giving an overall total of 940 for the first year of the four-year cull. This represents a reduction of 65% in the estimated badger population before culling began. This will deliver clear disease benefits as part of a four-year cull in the area.
Before the extension was licensed by Natural England, the advice of the chief veterinary officer was that a further increase in the number of badgers culled after the initial six-week period would improve the disease control benefits achieved even further and enable them to accrue earlier. With the further removal of badgers seen, the extension has been successful in meeting this aim.
While conclusions will need to await the findings of the independent panel of experts, current indications also suggest that the pilot has been safe and humane.
I would like to pay tribute to the local farmers and landowners who have undertaken the cull, often in difficult terrain and weather, and often in the face of intimidation by a small minority who are determined to stop this disease control policy.
The eight-week extension period in Gloucestershire began on 23 October and I will make a further statement when operations there have concluded.
The independent panel of experts will consider the information collected during the pilots on the safety, effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. This will be made available to Parliament and the public after the culls have concluded and inform my decision on the wider roll-out of badger control in those parts of England most severely affected by this disease.
Achieving our aim of ridding England of bTB within 25 years will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. This Government are committed to tackling the disease in all reservoirs and by all available means.
Ministerial Correction
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
On 31 October 2013, Official Report, columns 1124-25, in the course of my statement to the House during the report stage of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, I quoted a figure for the annual departmental budget for the Department for Transport.
The figure quoted was actually a figure for the Government’s annual capital investment budget.
Woodhead Tunnels
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
The Woodhead tunnels are located on the former Manchester to Sheffield railway line, known as the Woodhead route, which was closed to passenger traffic in 1970 and to freight in 1981. The original single bore Victorian tunnels were replaced in 1953 by a new tunnel when the line was electrified. In the 1960s, National Grid bought the Victorian tunnels and installed high voltage cables to transmit electricity. When the line finally closed in 1981, National Grid purchased the modern tunnel with a view of installing new cables in the modern tunnel and abandoning the Victorian tunnels when cables needed renewing some 30 years later.
In 2007, National Grid began work on this project. This is now close to completion and a contract will shortly be let for the permanent sealing of the Victorian tunnels.
In 2007-08 Ministers received many representations urging them to protect the Woodhead tunnels so that the Woodhead route could be reopened to rail traffic in the future. There was no case then for taking any steps to halt National Grid’s plan but Ministers did agree to consider, at the appropriate time, whether or not to instigate an inspection and maintenance regime on the Victorian tunnels This would leave open the option to move cables back into the Victorian tunnels and reuse the modern tunnel for rail traffic in the future. With completion of the work imminent, that decision needs to be made now before the tunnels are sealed.
Since 2008, much has happened which has helped inform my decision. The Government have committed funding to the northern hub programme. This includes schemes to increase capacity and line speeds on the Hope valley route. A study recently carried out by Network Rail indicates that demand for travel between Manchester and Sheffield could more than double in 30 years. With the planned investment, the Hope valley line and its trains could accommodate this growth. If freight grows, schemes have also been identified which could enable more freight trains to run.
The Victorian tunnels are not in a good condition and would require ongoing funding to keep them in a condition necessary for possible reuse. These costs would fall on the taxpayer or mean less money for other vital rail investment in the north.
If an additional rail route was ever required between Manchester and Sheffield, it is unlikely that even the modern tunnels would be suitable for reuse and, given advances in tunnelling technology even since 2008 as witnessed by Crossrail, the best solution is most likely to be the construction of a new tunnel.
I am therefore announcing that the Government will not be purchasing the tunnels from National Grid in order to instigate an inspection and maintenance regime and I shall be informing National Grid accordingly.
Before reaching my decision, the Rail Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), wrote to over 40 MPs representing constituencies both east and west of the Pennines, and received three replies. He also wrote to other statutory bodies with an interest in the tunnels and Network Rail. In total just seven replies were received by early September but I have given them full consideration.
My decision does not rule the possibility of reopening the Woodhead route to rail traffic in the future, should a new line ever be required.
Also large parts of the closed route are protected from development and will continue to be available for the enjoyment of cyclists, horse riders and hikers passing through the magnificent landscape of the South Pennines.
Child Maintenance Reform
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
On 19 July 2012, the Government published “Supporting separated families; securing children’s futures” (Cm 8399), a public consultation on the draft Child Support Fees Regulations 2013 and the draft Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2013. The consultation ran until 26 October 2012 and attracted a total of 90 responses.
On 20 May 2013, I tabled a written ministerial statement—Official Report, column 58WS—which outlined an initial response to this consultation. Later today, the Government will publish their full response. The response will provide further detail, setting out the main points made by respondents to each of the consultation questions, together with proposed next steps.
We have made a number of changes to our proposals in order to address the concerns raised by some respondents around the charging of fees and the closure of existing Child Support Agency cases.
First, we have reduced the proposed parent with care collection fee from 7% to 4%. Secondly, we have extended the list of organisations to which domestic violence can be reported in order to qualify for the application fee waiver. We have updated our definition of domestic violence to keep it in line with the current cross-Government definition, which includes financial abuse.
We have also changed the proposed order in which Child Support Agency cases will close. Nil-assessed cases will be closed first in order to minimise payment disruption. We estimate that around 50,000 cases could move from being nil-assessed to being positively assessed, should a new application be made to the Child Maintenance Service. Cases with an enforced method of payment in place, or where enforcement action is ongoing, will be closed last. These non-resident parents will be subject to a compliance test before they are allowed to choose the “Direct Pay” option.
We believe that these changes address the concerns raised by respondents, while preserving the Government’s intention to rebalance the overall child maintenance landscape. Our intention is to ensure that parents who are able to make their own arrangements are supported to do so, while a more efficient and more sustainable statutory service is still available as a backstop for those who really do need to use it.
We intend to lay amended draft regulations before Parliament later this year.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Williams of Trafford
Introduction: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
EU: Balance of Competences Review
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will next hold discussions with the Council of Ministers and the European Commission on the current United Kingdom review of European Union competences.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe recently briefed the September General Affairs Council of the European Union on the balance of competences review. This is but one example of the regular conversations that we are having with our European partners and the Commission as the review progresses. Lead departments also regularly engage with the institutions and their foreign counterparts during the consultation period for reports. Ministers will continue to raise the findings from each semester with EU partners and institutions.
Lord Dykes (LD)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. No doubt he would agree that emotional fans of the review of competences were few and far between, but even they would agree with the excellent results of the last EU summit at the end of October and the firm and detailed agreement reached by President Barroso and the Council of Ministers on a secure reform agenda for the future, which has also helped to anchor the United Kingdom membership into the Union even more strongly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am pleased to hear my noble friend echoing the speech that the Prime Minister made to the CBI only yesterday. The balance of competences review is only one of the things that the coalition Government are undertaking on European issues. It is intended to be an evidence- based review, and we have so far had well over 1,000 contributions to the reports published and under consideration.
Lord Barnett (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister tell us how many of these competences he expects the Government to have agreed by 2017?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, it is not a question of which competences we agree. We are asking various stakeholders, and getting very large pieces of evidence from producer groups, about the current balance of competences. I think that the Scotch Whisky Association has produced the most pieces of evidence so far—clearly a stakeholder. As Ministers have said before from this Dispatch Box, the current Lisbon treaty has a lot of headroom on competences, not all of which are currently exercised by the European Union. We are asking stakeholders to say whether they are happy with the current balance, whether there are areas in which they would like the balance to be tipped back towards the national level or whether there are areas in which they would like the balance to be tipped further towards common European policies.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Would my noble friend, who knows a lot about these things, accept that it is not just a question of looking at the balance of competences? It is also about looking at unpicking and unravelling some of the categories of competences, which are now substantially out of date, as they were invented in the last century. For instance, agriculture now embraces all aspects of climate, energy and scientific issues as well; and many aspects of social policy, which used to be centralised, are now much better handled at a very local level. Those are all areas in which it is not just a question of taking the competence as it stands but unravelling and unpicking it to see what aspects are best dealt with at a global, national or local level. Would he take that message back to his ministerial colleagues?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, one thing that has come across strongly to me from the first round—and the second round, which we are currently considering—is the dynamics of globalisation, on which the noble Lord is himself a great expert, and the extent to which the context in which we operate with our European partners in a great many sectors differs fundamentally from the context in which we joined in 1973. As I have stressed before, we are not seeking to arrive at policy recommendations in this review; we are asking for evidence of how far the current arrangements satisfy the various stakeholders and where there is room for improvement, reform or change.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
With regard to the claims by some members of the Conservative Party that we should withdraw entirely from Europe, I suspect that the reaction of the people whom the Government are consulting has been almost unanimously opposed to that extreme view.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech to the CBI that he is interested in a reform and not a repatriation agenda, and that he seeks to use the process of reform as a way in which to convince the sceptical British public that our national interests remain in staying in the European Union.
Lord Waddington (Con)
My Lords, why do we allow the powers that be to translate competences as competences, when in plain English what we are talking about is powers? Why are we not talking about powers?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not a lawyer, so far be it for me to question the sort of language they use, in particular international lawyers.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
As our officials wander around Europe begging for bits and pieces that might be repatriated, does the Minister sometimes worry that the Government will end up generating a good deal of diplomatic irritation without achieving any genuine reconstitution of the relation between Britain and Europe?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
No, my Lords, I do not. I am very struck by the extent to which a number of other Governments are following a similar agenda to ours. I am sure that the noble Lord is familiar with the Dutch Government’s recent study of subsidiarity. In the process of publishing the opening stage of papers, the Minister for Europe and I spoke to Ministers in other European Governments and many of them have very similar views to our own. We are pursuing a reform agenda for which there is a great deal of sympathy in a number of other Governments.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend get the message across to the Europeans clearly and strongly that the British housewife does not consider them competent to tell her how much sugar she should put in her jam?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The other day my wife and I were discussing how much sugar she puts in jam. We have rather a surplus of fruit from our allotment this year. I simply remind the noble Baroness that Britain is also a European country.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, while the Government conduct this interesting and potentially valuable but, in truth, somewhat academic exercise, has the Minister noticed the CBI report published yesterday which shows that the benefit to Britain of our membership is between £62 billion and £78 billion a year—4% to 5% of our GDP? Can he imagine any circumstances in which any British Government would be crazy enough to throw away these benefits, whatever the results of his review of competences?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, academic exercises have their valuable purposes as well. I look forward to hearing the Labour leadership say frequently and openly that they also agree with the CBI’s statement.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, in any future renegotiation, I hope the Government will bear in mind that currently we have a massive imbalance of trade with Europe, equivalent to £80 billion a year. Thus we are creating in Europe 1.5 million jobs more than are its trade with us creates. We also import 800,000 more cars from Europe than it buys from us. All these factors mean that in many respects from a trade point of view Europe needs us more than we need it. I hope that this imbalance of trade will be well remembered in any future negotiations. It is something that the CBI surprisingly missed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, Britain has a trade deficit in goods with a great many countries, including China. I am not sure where the noble Lord’s argument is taking him. We have a surplus in financial services and other services with the European Union and a number of other countries as well.
EU: Free Movement of Labour
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the present arrangements for the free movement of labour within the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government support free movement but do not tolerate abuse. We are focusing on work across government to tackle abuse of free movement and address pull factors such as access to benefits and public services. We have consistently raised the issue of fraud and abuse with other member states, and in April the Home Secretary wrote, with Germany, the Netherlands and Austria, to the Council presidency. We continue to welcome the brightest and the best but immigration must benefit the UK.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Given that the economies of the original EEC countries were at similar stages of development and that the 28 economies of the current EU are not, is the policy of free movement of labour compatible with current economic circumstances, and will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister will be raising this matter with our EU partners in the course of his reform negotiations?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can certainly reassure the noble Lord on his latter question. As regards our negotiations with the EU, although we support the principle of free movement we continue to give high priority to preventing the abuse of free-movement rights. The Home Secretary has repeatedly raised questions about free-movement abuse at European level and, as I said, we are getting increasing support for our position from other member states, including Germany.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, the Prime Minister argues eloquently for the completion of the single market and for its extension to services, which would greatly benefit this country, but is there not a transparent inconsistency, and is it not obviously counterproductive, to seek at the same time to modify the free movement of labour, which is one of the pillars of a single market?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I accept that the noble Lord is quite right in saying that free movement was one of the founding principles of the European Union, and we in this Government support it. Although the vast majority of individuals coming to the UK reside here lawfully and make a positive contribution to our society, a small minority abuse these rights by either becoming a burden on their local communities or turning to crime.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in each answer the Minister has spoken of abuse of the system. Does he accept that enforcement of the national minimum wage helps to prevent bad employers undercutting the wage of local workers by not allowing them to exploit foreign workers on lower wages? We know that that is a real problem but only two prosecutions have been brought since this Government took office. To help tackle this issue, will the Minister and the Government support us by giving local councils the power to enforce the national minimum wage and bring their own prosecutions?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness has expanded the Question somewhat into Labour policy and that is not necessarily something on which I can support her. However, I reaffirm the Government’s support for the national minimum wage. Indeed, it has never been part of our policy to do other than to maintain a national minimum wage, and we do so regularly.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government support the findings of the report published this morning by UCL which demonstrates that there are major benefits to this country from economic migrants from the European Economic Area and the European Union? If the Government agree, does he not think that it is more important to concentrate on the practice of free movement rather than the principle?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The principle is important but it is the practical that I have been trying to address. I have not read the UCL report but I have noticed the media comments on it and the key findings. I reiterate that what matters now is that we take steps, through our policy on access to benefits and public services, to reduce the incentives for abuse and to prevent this problem from growing.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, has my noble friend noticed the Ipsos MORI survey which shows that the level of abuse of free-movement rights is far less than Mrs May seems to imagine?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have not noted that particular report. I am concerned that we are experiencing a pull factor in this country, and that is something that we need to address if we are going to get a proper balance between migrants who are coming here to support the British economy and those who, through other purposes, are seeking to abuse our systems.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister recommend that all colleagues study reports on the nature of multinational corporations in this context? Is he aware that many executives and other workers in many industries, including the motor car industry, are moving all the time from, say, a job in Frankfurt to a job in Limoges or wherever? We need Ministers’ assistance to improve the public’s perception of this issue as the tabloids are not going to do it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I agree with the noble Lord that many of the people coming here are essential to the British economy. That is why the Government facilitate their presence here, to support economic activity in the country. As I say, we welcome the brightest and the best.
Health: Local Healthwatch Organisations
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of local Healthwatch bodies whose budgets are less than the amount that has been allocated to the relevant local authorities for that purpose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have made no assessment. We believe that local areas are best placed to make funding decisions to ensure that local needs and circumstances are best taken into account. In total, we have provided £43.5 million to local authorities for funding Healthwatch this year. We believe that transparency on funding is important. We will be requiring each local Healthwatch to publish the funding it receives from local government in its annual report.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that response. I am, however, amazed that he says that he has no direct information on this matter. Is he aware that at least 23 local Healthwatch organisations have budgets lower than those of their predecessor organisation and that one of them—the one covering the Mid Staffordshire area—has a budget 19% lower than its predecessor LINk organisation? Are the Government nonchalant about how this money is being spent and about how patients are to be represented at a local level because they want to ensure that there is no vociferous view from patients about the scandalous way in which local health services are deteriorating as a result of both the top-down reorganisation that this Government have imposed and the real-terms cuts in budgets that have taken place?
Earl Howe
No, my Lords. As the report from Robert Francis identified, the patient voice has to be at the heart of the health and care system, and Healthwatch plays a crucial role in supporting that as the new consumer champion for health and social care. It is very easy to get fixated on the amount of money that is going into Healthwatch. One additional consideration could be the investment that a local authority may be making in other areas to ensure that the voice of service users and the public is heard—for example, through the voluntary and community sector. Surely what matters are the outcomes that are achieved for service users and the quality of those services.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, are good activity and good results really coming out of these Healthwatch groups? In particular, have they done anything to help stroke victims or underprivileged or autistic children? Can the Minister give us an update on what good they are doing and whether they should be continued?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. The first annual report from Healthwatch England was laid before Parliament on 9 October and it outlined some encouraging progress at both a national and a local level. There are already examples of the impact that local Healthwatch is having—for example, the work of Healthwatch in Peterborough, which is looking at how to improve health outcomes for offenders. My noble friend mentioned autism. I am aware that Healthwatch Cornwall uncovered a gap in the services meant to deliver a diagnosis of autism in children. That work resulted in a really practical solution so that families could access a diagnostic service without losses to other services in the area.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Earl acknowledge that, certainly from the point of view of people who are working on the ground, the process we are going through is somewhat different from that set out by my noble friend, with whom I hate to disagree? There are obviously challenges at the moment, particularly in A&E, as the noble Earl is aware, but many of the changes have brought a lot of good news for health trusts, and my own in particular. However, the Healthwatch bodies—certainly locally where my trust is involved with them—need some support and guidance about what they are meant to achieve. It may seem odd but there is still some ambiguity about who is doing what. We are working with them as an acute trust to make sure that we can link with them, but there needs to be more clarity about their role.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She is certainly right that some local Healthwatches have got off to more of a flying start than others. I am aware of many that are working closely with their local clinical commissioning groups and indeed with provider trusts. However, others need encouragement and support, and we have created Healthwatch England to provide exactly that kind of support. That is the route for the Healthwatches which find themselves in some uncertainty about their role.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Healthwatch members working in rural counties have extra travelling expenses and will these be considered? Healthwatch members should not be out of pocket.
Earl Howe
I am very much in sympathy with that thought. However, it is up to the local Healthwatch organisation to organise its funding as it sees fit and in the most cost-effective way possible. I would not want to dictate to them what they should do but, clearly, for a Healthwatch to work effectively, one has to have volunteers who are ready and willing to do the work, which might involve the need to reimburse them for some expenses.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that local Healthwatches retain the power to merge and reconfigure their services with neighbouring bodies if that would make for better outcomes for patients?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
If they are to have a role with regard to complaints following the recommendations in the Clwyd report, will additional resources be provided?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we will be responding to the recommendations from the Clwyd/Hart review in the context of our response to the Francis inquiry, so there is a limit to what I can say today. In answer to the noble Lord, I think that the local Healthwatch has an important role to play as patient champion and it is right that individual local Healthwatch organisations have access to information about complaints so that they can spot the themes and trends that emerge from them.
Israel and Palestine
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they assess the impact of current prisoner releases on the progress of negotiations between Israel and Palestine for a comprehensive peace agreement.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we warmly welcome the courageous decision by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Government to release 26 Palestinian prisoners. We pay tribute to the leadership of Secretary of State Kerry, Prime Minister Netanyahu and, of course, President Abbas for the progress made. We urge both sides to take further measures to build trust and avoid steps that undermine the prospects for peace, including Israel’s recent settlement announcements. Britain stands ready to support efforts to secure a lasting peace.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Will the Government do whatever is possible to help genuine confidence-building measures and to discourage provocation—for example, by preventing attacks and retaliations, and rhetorical and impossible land claims? Does he agree that a calm climate for the long-delayed final-status negotiations is urgently needed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Lord rightly points out, there are unfortunately individuals on all sides of this conflict who seek to derail any attempts at peace. The Government stand with those who are looking to work towards peace between Israel and Palestine, and the UK consistently outlines steps in this regard and raises these issues. Indeed, my right honourable friend Hugh Robertson, the new Minister of State responsible for the region, is currently visiting the region and he will be raising this issue with all sides. Let me once again reiterate that we are calling upon both sides, because the violence we have seen by extremist settlers and the rocket attacks on Gaza are derailing a peace process which really needs to reach a conclusion.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may say straightaway that the Opposition are, of course, at one with Her Majesty’s Government in welcoming the renewed peace negotiations and remain committed to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on a two-state solution and a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state. In that context, will the Minister tell the House what judgment Her Majesty’s Government have come to on the role that the UK might play in the next important few months and what role the quartet might play in that same period?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his words. Of course, irrespective of the colour of its Administration, over the years the UK has been consistent in ensuring that we require a two-state solution, which, as he said, secures the borders of Israel in a secure way and ensures that the Palestinians have a viable state. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that there is no greater global priority for the UK than the search for peace in the Middle East. Let me assure the noble Lord that Britain is working intensively to support all parties in their efforts to achieve a negotiated end to this conflict, which has gone on for far too long.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
While it is very welcome that 26 of the Palestinians internees have been released, there are still many thousands of Palestinians in prison. Does the Minister agree that further steps to release yet more prisoners and perhaps, equally importantly, a pause in the settlement policy, at least while the negotiations are continuing, would be very welcome steps towards the outcome we all want to see?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises two very important points. I reassure her and the whole House that the Government believe that any steps taken by both sides to encourage the peace process are welcome. I state once again that the UK Government retain their position that the settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are classified as illegal and do not help in the process for peace.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, surely the impact of this and other confidence-building measures by both sides can only be positive. This particular prisoner release was painful for Israel because of the nature of the offences committed by these Palestinians. On the best evidence available to the Government, do they think that the rather ambitious timetable set for negotiations is now realistic?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I agree with the noble Lord that it has been a painful process for the Government of Israel. Indeed, reports have suggested that up to 80% of the Israeli population were against such releases. As I have already said, it was a courageous decision on behalf of Prime Minister Netanyahu. On the second point, I think the timetable has been set. Secretary of State Kerry has been clear. We, and the whole international community, must work together to ensure that we reach successful conclusions to these talks by April next year.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
There is plenty of time. If we can go to the Cross Benches then we will come to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Does the noble Lord agree that one of the greatest provocations between Israel and the Palestinians is the building on occupied land by the Israelis in direct contravention of the United Nations resolutions banning such building?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as I have already said, the UK Government’s position is quite clear. These settlements on Palestinian land beyond the 1967 borders—be they in East Jerusalem or in the West Bank—are illegal.
Lord Grocott
In the light of the Minister’s remarks, it seems to me that there is a coalition now about these settlements which includes the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, me and the Government. If that is the case, perhaps he can express the view that seems to me to be crystal clear. We are not in a static situation as we prepare for the peace talks that have been longed for for many years as the Israeli Government are quite deliberately making the situation more difficult by the continual expansion of the settlements. Quite apart from that being in clear violation of international law, is it not also crystal clear that the longed-for, two-state solution, to which nearly everyone at least states themselves to be committed, becomes more and more difficult to achieve so long as that settlement activity continues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I can do little more than reiterate what Secretary Kerry and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary have said. Yes, the window of opportunity is fast closing. That point has been made by my noble friend Lady Warsi from this Dispatch Box as well. We are all working towards finding a two-state solution which guarantees the security of the State of Israel from rocket attacks but also guarantees a viable, economically independent Palestinian state. These peoples share a history but we have to look at the reality on the ground today, and we call upon both sides to recognise that they also share a future—one of peace and economic prosperity.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 104, Schedule 5, Clauses 105 to 109, Clauses 151 to 154, Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clause 11, Schedule 2, Clauses 12 to 86, Schedule 3. Clauses 87 to 96, Schedule 4, Clauses 97 to 103, Clauses 110 to 118, Schedule 6. Clauses 119 to 131, Schedule 7, Clause 132, Schedule 8, Clauses 133 to 150, Clauses 155 and 156, Schedule 9, Clauses 157 to 161.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ramsbotham
That, in the light of recommendations of the 7th Report from the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (HC Paper 601–1), the 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (HL Paper 61) and the 3rd Report from the Constitution Committee (HL Paper 62), and the report on Non-party campaigning ahead of elections from the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, so much of the orders of the House of 22 October and 28 October as relate to Clauses 26 to 35 and Schedules 3 and 4 be vacated, and that those clauses and Schedules be instead committed to a select committee; and that the select committee do report by 13 February 2014.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I should make it abundantly clear from the start, as I have done to the Leader of the House and the Minister, that far from being a wrecking Motion, this is a saving Motion designed to save the Government from doing untold damage to a very precious part of the big society that they claim to champion—namely, the voluntary sector—and to save the vast majority of voluntary sector organisations which have nothing whatever to do with the electoral process. That is why my Motion is confined to a very specific part of the Bill and organisations with which I and, I suspect, every other Member of the House are in regular contact.
I freely admit that it would have been more normal for me to have tabled my Motion at Second Reading, but it was only when the masterly report of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement entitled Non-Party Campaigning Ahead of Elections, under the outstanding chairmanship of my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, was published after Second Reading that the need for urgent preventive action became abundantly clear. The report accentuated the points made by the constitutional Select Committees of both Houses and the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the effect that there are serious flaws in what is being proposed that the Government need to address. However, these could have been exposed had the Government allowed the three-month consultation period that hitherto they had been so keen to promote. By not engaging with the sector and pressing ahead with the Bill, which essentially addresses political matters, the Government appear to be oblivious to what they claim to be the unintended consequences for what I described at Second Reading as one of the “jewels in our national crown”; namely, the vast number of organisations that have nothing to do with the political process.
Last week, when we debated the unfortunate redundancies imposed on members of the Armed Forces within days and weeks of qualification for pensions, I mentioned the damage that this had done to the all-important mutual trust that there should be between government and people. I fear that the way that this Bill is being handled will seriously damage the trust that the voluntary sector has in the Government, which is something that the alleged champions of the big society can ill afford to lose. Indeed, the very clear exposition of the consequences set out in the commission’s report reminds me of the most succinct but unenforceable instruction that I ever saw in the Army: a note pinned to a company notice board which read, “A breach of common sense is a breach of the rules”. I was therefore glad when the Leader of the House contacted me last night, after I had tabled this Motion, to see whether there was a way of avoiding confrontation—which was, I assured him, the very last thing I wanted.
I hoped that a way could be found to mitigate the damage that had been done and to assuage a voluntary sector that is understandably worried and incensed. As it forms such an indispensable and irreplaceable part of our national infrastructure, I have to admit that I was amazed that the Government did not realise the risk they were running in tabling this part of the Bill. At Second Reading, I asked why the Secretary of State for Justice had not complained about the likely damage to those voluntary organisations that he hopes to engage as partners in his rehabilitation revolution. Like me, many Members of the House are wearing the annual symbol of the Royal British Legion, which, along with countless other organisations helping military veterans, is deeply concerned about these clauses.
During the day today I have had meetings with the Leader of the House, the Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the opposition Chief Whip and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, as well as regular contact with the voluntary sector. As a result of that, the Leader of the House has given me his word that he will alter the order of consideration of the parts of the Bill and instruct the Minister to consult my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries over the composition and terms of reference of an examination of the recommendations of the reports of the two constitution committees and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as of the report of the commission, and to produce a report to the whole House before a delayed Committee stage. I know that many in the House and in the deeply suspicious voluntary sector will feel that the Leader’s word is not enough and that what he has offered is less than I was seeking, which was for a Select Committee to be allowed to specify a three-month consultation period to conduct a similar inquiry.
The Leader added that, of course, opportunities still remain for amendment in Committee and on Report. As a soldier, I am accustomed to accepting pledges given by my Government in good faith. Therefore, if I do not press my Motion to a Division, knowing that I shall face the opprobrium of those members of the voluntary sector who do not share my faith, I would be doing so because the word of the Government is on the line. I know that this House and the nation know what to do and to think about those who do not keep their word. If the regulation is felt to need tweaking, by all means tweak it, but not in this way. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for coming to talk to the Leader of the House and me this morning to set out frankly his concerns about the passage of the Bill to date. Following our conversations, and having taken on board his constructive suggestions, I am glad to say that we seem to have an agreed way forward. I believe that we have come up with a way of delivering a pause in our consideration of Part 2 of the Bill so that there can be wide consultation over the coming weeks and so that the Government can try to address the concerns of those involved and interested in Part 2.
One of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was that we could revise the order of consideration to delay our consideration of Part 2. I can undertake to return to the House tomorrow with a revised order of consideration Motion, to take Parts 1 and 3 first and Part 2 last. I understand from the Chief Whip that I can also undertake that the two days in Committee on Part 2 will not be scheduled before 16 December, on the understanding that we need to finish Committee this side of the Christmas Recess. That effectively gives a near six-week pause in our formal consideration of Part 2.
In that period, I and my colleagues in Government responsible for the Bill will consult widely with all the interested parties—Members of the House and the many others outside. We intend to draw on the work of the Commission on Civil Society, chaired so ably by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and to build on it so that the charity sector has a proper opportunity to explain to the Government its concerns not only with this Bill but, as we discovered in our conversations, with the current statute electoral law in this area, in particular the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We can also consider the reports generated by the two Houses. I also hope to facilitate further discussions between the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission about each of their sets of guidance, in the hope of achieving something straightforward and agreed for those who have to work within it.
If the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, could report in three weeks, I am confident that we can find a solution in nearly double those three weeks. I stress that we are listening and that we want to listen. We have already shown willing: we announced this morning that we will bring forward an amendment, the effect of which will immediately be to exempt all smaller charities from the provisions of the Bill. If that listening ultimately proves not to satisfy all the concerns in this House, then there can of course be Divisions in Committee and on Report, as is usual and proper, and the House will have a final opportunity to stop the Bill completely on the Motion that the Bill do now pass at the end of the process. The House will therefore scrutinise the Bill in detail.
I believe that my proposal satisfies the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others hold and offers us a practical way forward this afternoon, one that will better enable the House to go about its scrutiny of the Bill as we all seek to get it right.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for what has been said so far. Obviously, we support the Motion but we consider that this is a decision for the House to take about how it scrutinises the Bill.
We welcome the acknowledgement, albeit somewhat late, of the mishandling—if I may call it that—of the Bill this far. When it was in the other place, the same comments were made and were brushed aside. They were made at Second Reading but it has taken until this morning, I think, to have at least an acknowledgement that further consideration with those people affected by the Bill is necessary.
I will not rehearse everything that has been said about the Bill to date, but “raising significant concern”, “rushed”, “unacceptable”, “unnecessary speed”, “abuse of parliamentary scrutiny”, “lack of due process” and “truncated timetable” are all phrases that have come across all our desks. There was no warning of this part of the Bill. There was no pre-legislative scrutiny. It is no wonder that the Constitution Committee was very critical of the way it was dealt with.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised a slightly different issue from the hurriedness. The lack of effective scrutiny, it thought, had left serious questions about challenges to freedom of association and speech, which needed greater consideration by lawyers as much as discussion with the third sector.
Of course, the recommendation of the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee was for a six-month pause so that serious work can be done, not simply in hearing the concerns but in responding to them. It would be worth keeping the words and for the Government to have a listening exercise if nothing changes at the end of it. What we need is much more of a commitment, not just to listen and engage, important though that is, but to act on what is heard.
There has been no indication that something other than the raising of the threshold is on offer. Not everyone has followed the detail of this Bill. Let us just say that it is one of the many asks that the third sector has but it is not the answer to the problems of the Bill. There is a democratic fear about Part 2—it is not the whole of the Bill—about the threat to freedom of assembly and free speech, which needs more than just consultation to be put at rest. It may be that there is not a problem but we need to be sure of that.
Nowhere is this issue more important than in Northern Ireland, a nation emerging from conflict, where civil society has had a prominent role. Indeed, NGOs’ participation in democratic processes is one of the key components of the peace process. The Assembly and civil society must be consulted—not merely, as the Government said yesterday in their response to the your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, that the Minister,
“wrote to the devolved administrations on the introduction of the Bill … to ensure they were aware of the proposals”.
That is not what we are looking for. That is not due consideration of their special circumstances, nor is the Government’s undertaking simply to provide,
“further clarification of the potential impacts”.
The third sector is not looking just for reassurance; it is looking for change. Amnesty International is concerned about the potential to undermine its vital campaigning on human rights. These are not the small charities that might now be exempted; they are the ones that are basic to our democratic engagement and discussion in this country. The Women’s Institute fears that its legitimate comment on policy could leave it,
“exposed to scrutiny for seemingly promoting a political party”.
We need to engage with the WI to see whether its concerns could be met by more fundamental change than is being suggested today.
Able though my colleagues on this side of the House are, I do not believe that they will be able to come up with amendments by 16 December that would answer those questions. I also point out that the week beginning 16 December is a short parliamentary week, and there may be people in this House who have made other plans for that week. Trying to engage with civil society in the period running up to Christmas and then to get the amendments written in time for Committee still seems a tall order under the offer that has been made.
We need to hear whether the fears of the third sector are founded or not. If they are, we need to respond. The third sector has organisational problems. It may seem simple to people with lots of accountants to change the way they account for staffing costs, travel costs, and all that. For any charity with a small back office, that is a big challenge and they need to be heard on that issue.
It may not have been the Government’s intent to wrap up charities and small organisations in the red tape that, elsewhere, they are taking off businesses. It may not have been their intent to frighten the third sector into thinking that their campaigning would be undermined, but that is the position at the moment. I fear that if we over-hurry this pause—if we make it just a breather, rather than a serious pause—it will not achieve what the Government want.
The NCVO has already heard of the offer being made, and said this afternoon that,
“one small change does not fix this bill, and it is important that any changes are considered as a package”.
In particular, in addition to a rise in thresholds, it is looking for the removal of constituency limits, the end-use of nil reports, the removal of staff costs, the removal of events and public rallies, change to the way coalitions are dealt with—not the one over there, the coalition of voluntary organisations—and a reduction of the regulated period to six months.
The Government may not accept that as a final package, but it is important that there is time to consider that and to ensure that a change in one part of the Bill does not leave effects elsewhere. Time spent now, before the Bill is set in stone, will help the Government to achieve their aims. We would like a pause as suggested—a longer one for the discussions. Having done that, we on this side of the House will do all we can through the offices of the usual channels to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book in the timescale that the Government want. We can work to do that, but without a sensible pause and a proper committee to look at it and report back, and to allow the Government time to change the Bill, we will not achieve what all of us seek.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, first, perhaps I may say how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, tabled this Motion today. I pay tribute to him because he was willing to take the lead on this important issue and for all the hard work that he has done behind the scenes, keeping me and the commission in touch with what is going on. I also pay tribute to the Minister and the Leader of the House, who I know are genuinely anxious to get a real consensus on this issue.
The Minister has basically offered a five-week period of consultation. I remind your Lordships that the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee recommended a pause of six months. The commission believes that six months is unnecessary, but five weeks is a very short period indeed. I can say that the commission will do all it can to help the Government during the consultation period, but if it turns out that five weeks is not long enough to get the kind of agreement that we all want on this crucial issue, I remind the leadership of some new advice which has just come from the Electoral Commission, which states:
“Should Parliament decide that a period of consultation is desirable before the Bill makes further progress, we would recommend that the start of the regulated period for the 2015 general election be delayed by an appropriate period”.
It goes on to say that that would give it good time to draw up its advice and educate the charities. Therefore, if the Minister finds that this five-week period is not long enough, there is an alternative that would still enable the Bill to get through in time for the 2015 election: namely, to heed the advice of the Electoral Commission. Meanwhile, I repeat that the commission will do all it can to support the Minister in this consultation period.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, the question has been posed as to whether this consultation has any effects on other parts of the Bill. This is the time to say that the question of consultation, which has been completely left aside in Part 3, has consequences a fortiori—and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The trade unions have supported and are part of the coalition with the NGOs. The voluntary sector is huge, and trade unions are probably a bigger part of that sector than is the rest of civil society. I want to put the point on record that the time for more consultation should apply also to the trade unions, otherwise they will feel discriminated against.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for the excellent report of his commission, which has performed a service to the whole House and to everybody involved in the debate throughout the country.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for tabling his Motion today. It has performed an extremely useful purpose in concentrating minds, particularly within the Government. I would never say that the Government have been running around like headless chickens, but there has been a great deal of activity over the weekend and into today, to try to find a compromise which will do what a lot of us want. This is no excuse; anybody who heard my speech at Second Reading will know that my views on Part 2 of the Bill are not terribly complimentary.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to serious damage to the relationship between the Government and civil society as a whole. We have an extraordinary position in which on the one hand the Government are saying that black is black and, on the other, pretty well the whole of civil society is saying, “No, it is not. It is actually white”. Who is right in this instance? A great deal of scrutiny and investigation is required. The question is whether it needs a special Select Committee or whether it can be done through the normal processes of this House, augmented by enhanced consultation by the Government with all corners of the House, with everybody outside and with the whole of civil society in the mean time. Is five weeks long enough? Ideally, we would have longer, but we can do the job in five weeks.
We are often told that the purpose of this House, particularly in Committee and on Report, is to scrutinise legislation and revise it. Will my noble friend Lord Wallace give an absolute assurance that, as this scrutiny takes place with the groups in this Chamber and as there is further discussion and negotiation with outside bodies, the Government will be serious and honest—and will not, when we come to Committee, take the typical attitude of all Governments to Bills, which is to defend the status quo and the wording on their Bill, then give way when they are really forced to? As far as Part 2 is concerned, are the Government really going into this with an open mind? It is not just a matter of reassuring the third sector or civil society that the words in the Bill will not harm them, but of taking seriously their view that the Bill will harm them and of looking at ways of changing the Bill so that not only will it not harm them but civil society generally will accepts and be confident that it will not. Are the Government open to change in a serious way on Part 2? That is the fundamental question that we have today. If my noble friend can guarantee me that that is the open-minded approach that the Government are going to take in Committee and on Report, we can be justified in going ahead with the revised schedule, taking Part 2 later on and going to Report in January.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I was very concerned about the Motion that was put down today. I am very glad that a compromise has been reached for dealing with this issue without going ahead with the Motion. It has been said that five weeks is not enough. As we know, these things are not absolutely inflexible, but we know how quickly the Governments can work and how quickly amendments can be produced when there is the political will to do so. I accept the assurances that have been given on behalf of the Government about the spirit in which this is being done.
I was extremely concerned about the idea that we should depart from our ordinary practice for the scrutiny of Bills. As far as I know, one part of a Bill has never been sent to a Select Committee in this way. In my time, the whole of a Bill was sent when an office that had lasted for more than 1,000 years was to be abolished by a press release from No. 10; the House then sent the whole of the Bill to a Select Committee. So far as I know, though, a Select Committee has never been appointed to deal with part of a Bill.
The danger that I see about that is that if it were to be done, it would suggest that we were not confident in our own procedures for dealing with all forms of questions. It would undermine the confidence that exists at the moment in the integrity of the parliamentary process that we have come to know and respect. One thing about this House that I seek to emphasise as often as I can is that anyone who has a point of view that they can persuade a Peer to raise will see it raised in consideration of the Bill in this House, and the Government will have to give an answer. People may not always be very keen on that answer, but at least they can get one. That is a very valuable aspect of our House’s procedure, and I am delighted that it has been preserved in the arrangement that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made with my colleagues.
Another danger here would be if we departed from our ordinary procedure in a particular case in which a lot of Members of this House are particularly involved, as they are in the charitable and third sectors— I am a member of a number of charities, as noble Lords might have thought—whereas, for example, we never subject to special procedure Bills on disabled people or on the particularly poor. I am very relieved that this has been agreed to, and I sincerely hope that it will work. I am sure that the Government can work very speedily, with political will, if that should be necessary.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I assure the House that the Government are open-minded on the possibility of changing a number of aspects of the Bill. One thing we discovered in the course of the consultation is that the language of PPERA 2000, particularly of Part 6, does not meet the needs or requirements of a very large number of those who are now to be affected by it. I hope I will not embarrass my noble friend Lord Greaves if I quote him as having said that he had never previously read Part 6 of PPERA 2000, and now that he has, he does not like it very much. I think that opinion is shared by a number of voluntary organisations outside the House.
Clearly, we will need to look at that in consultation with others. It may well be that we will need a government amendment. That is the process through which we should go on that and a number of other concerns that were set out very well in the Harries commission report: for example, the range of activities covered, the treatment of campaigning coalitions, the reporting procedures requested of campaigning groups and so on. We are open to listening, we are open to adjustment, and we expect that when we come back to Committee and Report, this House will give the Bill the detailed scrutiny that it needs.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I have one narrow point. That was just a list of things that would be considered. One thing was mentioned specifically. It figures very largely in the report. It is the special situation in Northern Ireland. Will that be taken seriously in the five weeks? I was Minister for Northern Ireland for only a year, unlike many Members of this place, but I know that the nature of the third sector there and of its relationship with the political process is completely different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I give an absolute assurance that we will take that fully into consideration. If the noble Lord would like to come to talk to me about it, I will be very happy to hear from him as well as from others.
Lord Ramsbotham
I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in this short response to the Motion. In particular, I paid great attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said. In fact, in preparation for this, I consulted a previous recommendation to a Select Committee, which was made by my noble friend Lord Owen at the time of the Health and Social Care Bill. It was proposed and debated, but it related to a constitutional measure rather that a measure like this. However, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that the processes of the House should be allowed to proceed.
After reflecting on this and, in particular, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her catalogue of things that need to be addressed, which I did not list, I hope that the Minister will be able to exercise the flexibility that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned, and that if, when this consultation and examination gets under way, it is discovered that the work needed cannot be done in the time before the new date for Committee, rather than rush things through, consideration will be given to pushing the Committee date yet further back to enable all the proper consultation and examination. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others said, this is a hugely important matter that cannot be allowed to go by default.
However, in the spirit of the assurances given to me by the Leader of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion withdrawn.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hardie
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I also wish to speak to Amendments 4, 6, 46, 53, 59 to 62, 66, 79, 80, 87, 96, 98, 111, 116 and 117 standing in my name.
Part 1 of the Bill is confined to those who carry on business as consultant lobbyists. This amendment, and related amendments in my name, seeks to extend the Bill’s provisions to in-house lobbyists who endeavour to influence the Government about the matters specified in Clause 2(3). I suspect that the public do not distinguish between consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists. The present proposal for a register of those carrying on business as consultant lobbyists fails to address the equal concerns of the public about the activities of in-house lobbyists of major companies to which the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, alluded at Second Reading. In other amendments which we shall discuss later I have suggested a register of lobbying activities. As the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, implied, a lobbying register might be more effective than a register of lobbyists. I have suggested both but if there is to be a register of lobbyists, it must be a register that includes in-house lobbyists if it is to have any credibility.
In introducing the Bill at Second Reading the noble Viscount the Minister acknowledged the role of lobbying in the policy-making process of our democracy. I agree, as did many other noble Lords at Second Reading, that lobbying undertaken in an open, transparent and responsible manner is integral to our democratic system. However, the noble Viscount also said that there had,
“been some concern … that some lobbying activity is opaque and there is a perception that certain powerful organisations and individuals could exert a disproportionate influence on government”.—[Official Report, 22/10/13; col. 893.]
It seems to me that in confining the register to consultants lobbyists the Bill fails to provide the necessary transparency in public life which will deliver to the public the noble Viscount’s promised offer of,
“greater confidence in our political system”.—[Official Report, 22/10/13; col. 892.]
It certainly does not dispel the perception that powerful organisations could exert a disproportionate influence on government. It does nothing to address that particular concern. Such organisations include major British and multinational companies involved in the tobacco, alcohol and gaming industries as well as energy suppliers, and many more listed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, at col. 897. Many of those organisations have in-house lobbyists and will not be subject to this legislation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment 2 due to pre-emption.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendments in this group which seek to achieve the same aim as Amendment 1 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie. I will keep my comments fairly brief as the noble and learned Lord has made the case that I would have made. However, I want to make a few points in support of the thrust of what these amendments seek to achieve. The Short Title of this Christmas tree Bill begins, “Transparency of Lobbying”. That is misleading because the Bill does not contribute to transparency of lobbying. The Bill may result in us knowing who engages in the activity of lobbying—in other words, lobbyists—but it contributes little to knowing what lobbying takes place on particular policies or measures. It could be argued that it is necessary to know who the lobbyists are in order to know what lobbying takes place, but it is certainly not sufficient, and I am not sure that it is even necessary.
The value of a register of lobbyists is far from clear. As I argued on Second Reading, I am not clear what the compelling argument is for introducing a register. The value of the register proposed in the Bill is especially unclear. It is not a register of lobbyists. It is not even a register of professional lobbyists; it is a register of some professional lobbyists. If one is to have a register of lobbyists and, as I say, I am not persuaded of the case for it, one should at least try to make it comprehensive. This entails broadening the class of lobbyists covered in the Bill as well as the class of those being lobbied. This group of amendments deals with the class of lobbyists. We will come shortly to the other aspect of the Bill and its limitations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, powerfully made the case for the measure to be extended to encompass in-house lobbyists. As I argued at Second Reading, I see no case for distinguishing between those who are paid and are external to a company and those who are employed directly by a company.
It is no good saying that in-house lobbyists should be excluded as it is apparent on whose behalf they are lobbying. The fact that someone works for a company as a political lobbyist is not necessarily a matter of public record. They may have a title which masks their activity and may work in a public affairs division rather than a parliamentary affairs unit. If one is truly going to have a register of lobbyists for the purposes of transparency, one should aim, as I say, to be comprehensive and not go for an option that excludes more than nine out of every 10 lobbyists.
My amendments, like those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, are designed to encompass in-house lobbyists. That is the purpose of the whole grouping. I am not particularly wedded to the wording because the aim at this stage is to get the Government to concede that the Bill as drafted will not make any significant difference to transparency in respect of lobbying government. Indeed, Part 1 conflicts with what the Government seek to achieve because it establishes a new regulatory regime at public expense and for no clear purpose. The taxpayer will not get value for money. If my noble friend the Minister argues that extending the definition to in-house lobbyists is too complex or not practically feasible that, I fear, is not so much an argument for rejecting the amendments as it is for dropping this part of the Bill.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 1, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie—perhaps I should say the noble and wise Lord, Lord Hardie, given his masterly introduction. I wish to speak on the last amendment in this group—Amendment 143—in the names of my noble friend Lady Royall and myself, and also on Amendments 2, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 47, and 99, together with various others, on which our names are joined with that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie.
However, Amendment 143 is perhaps the simplest and is the key. It would amend the title of Part 1 to read, “Registration of professional lobbyists”. Establishing a register only of consultants would add nothing to the existing non-statutory register. Worse, it would effectively end that voluntary register, its associated code of conduct and related disciplinary mechanism. As UKPAC says, the Bill risks creating a statutory register with minimal coverage while undermining a voluntary regime that lists several hundred employers such as agencies, in-house lobbyists, public bodies and charities, and more than 1,000 people employed in lobbying.
Indeed, the proposed register—a skeleton rather than a viable thing—would cover only 1% of lobbying meetings, yet would be a heavy financial burden on consultant firms because they would have to fund the whole operation of the registrar. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has said, the register would fail to increase transparency because it would not enable the public to see how outside bodies seek to influence the political system.
On the “Today” programme, which I assume we all listen to, Andrew Lansley said last week that the public should be able to see who is lobbying Ministers. I think we all agree, but the register will not tell you that if you saw only the list of clients and not the particular client on whose behalf even a consultant was meeting a Minister. The register would tell us nothing about the big six energy companies’ discussions with perhaps HMT or DECC officials. Indeed, we would learn about only their meetings with Ministers—and would learn that from the departmental diaries, not the lobbyists themselves.
Most seriously, the proposed register would exclude virtually all business lobbying, whether done by companies themselves or by their trade bodies. The Minister needs to tell the House whether that really is the intention. Does he really want a list that excludes the bulk of lobbying activity? Last year, BIS had 988 meetings with lobbyists, only two of which were with consultants. Under the Bill, only those two meetings would need to be entered on the register. Thus the register would capture fewer than 1% of ministerial meetings and do nothing to shed light on what goes on behind those closed doors in Whitehall.
Big government decisions often involve big business which—quite rightly and with no criticism—want to influence decisions that affect their bottom line. There is nothing wrong with Ministers, civil servants, Bill writers or anyone else meeting those who will be affected by legislation. In fact, had Ministers met those affected by Part 2 of the Bill, we might have saved ourselves half an hour earlier this afternoon and not have been presented with such a dog’s breakfast. More importantly, for the rest of us, for democracy and for good governance, we need to see who is lobbying Ministers and civil servants. Those who will not be covered, in addition to those mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, will include: the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, which recently produced a manifesto for insurance for 2014; the Building Societies Association, which has been lobbying on the Banking Reform Bill; the Mobile Operators Association, which has been lobbying about the electronic communications code; Philip Morris, which sought to delay the tobacco products directive; the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners, with the associated Keep Me Posted campaign; the Save Our Supplements campaign and Holland and Barrett, which makes supplements and spends money on reaching politicians; Fujitsu, which is keen to meet us, whether in Parliament or at party conferences; Forest, which argues for us to keep the freedom to kill ourselves with tobacco; One Hub or None, Heathrow’s campaign for expansion; BAE Systems, builders of killer planes and warships, which are, in its words, “defence solutions”; the CBI; the Nuclear Industry Association; Santander; Canon; and Siemens.
Noble Lords will recognise that list as containing just those whose material has passed over our desks in the past few months. There are also the pharmaceutical companies, and the drinks industries have been mentioned. They contrast with Alcohol Concern, which is too small to have in-house lobbying and thus has to rely on an agency for lobbying assistance. They all use in-house lobbyists and therefore will not have to register. The same is true of virtually every other manufacturer, service provider or audit firm which wants the ear of government. I am not against that dialogue; in fact, I rather favour Keep Me Posted, as my bills come by post so much more slowly than by e-mail.
I am delighted that we were lobbied about this Bill, but that is not the point. The question is: why should only lobbying consultancies, rather than those that do serious lobbying on behalf of their own company, have to register? That is not what was foreseen in the coalition agreement and it is not what the industry itself wants. The overwhelming feedback from the consultation last year was that the proposals lacked breadth and depth and would fail to collect meaningful and sufficient information.
Furthermore, requiring only those employed by a consultancy to register would mean that it would be cheaper for lobbyists to work directly for a company, if only part time. For example, they could perhaps work for 10 companies rather than run a consultancy with 10 clients. If a company wanted to have its dealings excluded from the register, it would only have to pull its hitherto outsourced person on to its own wages bill and then, as an in-house lobbyist, they would be below the radar.
It is not just business lobbyists who want to see a full register. Charities and trade unions, including Oxfam, which has been to see me, have told us that they are very content for their public affairs professionals to be included on a register and to disclose their lobbying meetings.
Therefore, we support Amendment 1 and the production of a proper, comprehensive—the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—and statutory register of all professionals engaged with government and Parliament. Democracy demands nothing less.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, unfortunately I was unable to attend the Second Reading of the Bill due to the fact that domestic committees of the House were meeting and I was otherwise engaged. However, I have read the whole of the Second Reading debate.
It is quite clear that the Government have not really put a case for what they are doing in this very limited form. One speech that struck me from reading the debate was that of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who suggested that a very different approach to the Bill could well be taken. I just wondered whether Ministers had considered the contents of his contribution. His is a sort of halfway-house proposal: it would dilute the value of the register but would ensure that the kind of information that we really need was available. Today, he slightly alluded to his case, and I believe that the questions he raised at Second Reading should be answered during the deliberations on the Bill. I cannot understand for the life of me what is driving the Government down this route, apart from some huge PR effort to convince the public that they are doing something about lobbying in line with their coalition agreement. However, their proposal does not meet the terms of what I understand was agreed.
I have a number of questions that I should like to ask, and I have tabled amendments of my own, to which we will come later. What is the Government’s latest estimate of the number of organisations and individuals that will register? Some work on that must have been done. I have seen some figures published but, in the light of the speeches at Second Reading showing up the deficiencies in the Bill, and recognising that many will not be required to register because they will not meet the criteria for registration—information which, prior to Second Reading, the Government may well not have considered—what is now their estimate of the number that will finally register?
I should like to know more about the discussions that took place between departmental officials and Ministers and the professional associations. Since the early 1970s, in one form or another—I shall give more detail later in the debate on the work that was done in the 1970s and 1980s in this area—a system has been in operation which provides far more information than the Government are seeking the lobbyists and lobbying organisations to provide. It has been suggested in this House and in correspondence that we have received that their efforts may no longer be necessary. Some of them may be inclined simply to discard the work that they have been doing over the years and rely on the Government’s far more limited source of information. Surely that would be totally counterproductive. I wonder whether Ministers or civil servants have been told what the intentions are. I think that the House is entitled to know what the professional organisations intend to do in the event that this register is set in place.
Finally, on in-house lobbyists and their exclusion, it is simply not credible to call a Bill the name given to this Bill when it excludes the vast majority of lobbyists in the United Kingdom. It is not credible; it is a joke. Inevitably, there will be some scandal which will draw attention to the deficiencies in the registration system that has been set up by the Government. It may be for a future Government to find themselves defending the indefensible. I hope that the Minister can answer some of my questions prior to my moving my amendments.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I had to go abroad on the day of Second Reading and I very much regret that I was unable to make a contribution. I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech. However, I should declare a couple of interests. Some years ago I wrote a book on lobbying. It is a very small interest because it is out of print and no one can buy it. It was a do-it-yourself book on how to lobby and was intended specifically for the voluntary sector. The other interest I want to declare is that I spent some years until coming into this House as chief executive of the Refugee Council. Indeed, one of the things that I did most was to lobby. The organisation did quite a lot of lobbying on refugee policy.
I cannot for the life of me understand why that activity should not be incorporated in the register. If we had had the money, we could have hired a firm of lobbyists, which might have had to be on the register. The fact is that we did not have the money and I simply carried out that activity myself. It took me to all three party conferences: going to the Lib-Dem and Tory party conferences, as well as the Labour Party conference, is a subject for another day. I lobbied quite blatantly and I had two members of staff who also did quite a lot of lobbying. I hope that the Minister can tell me why that activity should not be covered in the proposed register.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, let me start by stressing that lobbying is a normal, valuable, regular aspect of any healthy democratic political system. The question is one of transparency and certainly not one of trying to reduce the level of lobbying in this country. Part 1 was designed to address the problem of consultant lobbying firms entertaining and going to see Ministers without it being clear who they were representing. The Government have dealt with the question of employed lobbyists—members of charities and others—through their arrangements for transparency. Every three months, I and others have to declare who we have met and what organisations employ them, including anyone who happens to be an old friend, perhaps from student days: I have to list “the Information Commissioner” or whoever it may be because a meeting has taken place.
We have looked at other systems, in particular the Canadian one, which adopts the universal system of wishing to take on board every single lobbyist. It is a very large and expensive system and unlike what we propose—I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Norton—it is funded by the public purse and costs the equivalent of £3 million a year.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister talks about the system he has to use. Did he listen to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, at Second Reading? I think it was he who recalled how very complicated the current system is, how you often have to trawl through hundreds or even thousands of documents, and that it is almost impossible for the general public to have access to that kind of material. It is just too complicated. Does he take that on board?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I take that on board. The question of designing a system that is easily accessible to everyone, including if one has such a very large register as that which the noble Lord and some others are proposing, is one with which we all have to deal. The Government are indeed looking at making the ministerial diaries more readily and more rapidly available. At present we submit them every three months, so they are sometimes three months or more in arrears. We are aware of that problem. However, we are much more transparent than previous Governments in this respect and are, to that extent, moving forward.
Looking at the Canadian system, we are not persuaded that we need a comprehensive register in which everyone who might be said to be lobbying as a matter of their employment would be included. The Canadian system was introduced in response to a system in which it was felt that there was no information about who Ministers were meeting. We have dealt with the issue of who Ministers are meeting by other means.
Lord Tyler (LD)
If wonder if I can help my noble friend, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. There is a specific amendment which I hope will help with the point he raised. It is not necessary therefore to include every in-house lobbyist because they are already going to be recorded in those meetings and it is fairly obvious why they are there.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are more persuaded from other countries that have the light-touch system we are proposing that it is more effective at addressing the problem than the large, expensive and comprehensive system the Canadians have gone in for.
There are a large number of amendments in this group. I will try to address as many of the issues as I can.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, before the Minister goes on to the detail of those, I think he has not answered the point—it was made more at Second Reading—of why the existing publication could not simply deal with this. If any Minister meets a consultant lobbyist they name the organisation on behalf of which they have met that consultant and the purpose of it. I still do not understand why that would not meet the objectives there seem to be for the register.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, there was considerable concern while the previous Government were in office that consultant lobbyists were a powerful element in our political system, that we did not know who they represented and that it would be better if the public were informed who their clients were. The noble Baroness has, on a number of occasions, stressed the point that perhaps one should also add what subjects they are discussing with the Government. I am very happy to take that away and perhaps on a belt-and-braces principle that should be tied in. However, I do not think it takes away the issue that for transparency of the democratic process it is desirable to know who consultant lobbyists are representing and who therefore is paying them.
Perhaps I may move on to answer some of the questions. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asks what our assessment is of the number of lobbying organisations that will be required to register. Our current estimate is that it will be somewhere in the order of 350. We have held a number of constructive meetings with representatives of the industry at which we discussed the voluntary register and the code of conduct, and we have talked with the three main industry bodies concerned. They were able to give a reassurance that many of the concerns regarding the application are being met by that.
I turn now to the details. As I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, if the tobacco industry lobbies on behalf of its own industry, we know what is going on. If it is a consultant lobbyist lobbying on behalf of the industry, that is a great deal less clear. That is the underlying distinction between a consultant lobbyist and a professional lobbyist. Because I am concerned with the EU balance of competences exercise, over the past nine months I have read a great deal of evidence produced by the Scotch Whisky Association. I know exactly where the association is coming from and what it is lobbying about. If it were a consultant lobbyist, that would be a different situation. That is the distinction we are making.
On the question of whether we extend this to professional lobbyists, I cannot see the justification for excluding charities from it. As a Minister, I have met a number of charity representatives who have lobbied us on policy issues. That is quite properly a part of what charities themselves do.
Lord Hardie
Does the Minister not accept that charities would be exempt in terms of the schedule because what they do would be incidental to their other activities?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am not sure that I do accept that. I am a member of the National Trust. Yesterday I received an e-mail from the trust which talked about the National Trust’s “vital” campaigning and advocacy work. I have to admit that I did not actually join the National Trust primarily in order to support its campaigning and advocacy work, but it regards that work not as an incidental part of what the trust is for. Noble Lords should look at the most recent announcement made by Oxfam. It is changing its internal organisation so as to put more stress on its campaigning dimension. Campaigning is at the centre of what Oxfam regards as its entirely appropriate charitable activities. Part of campaigning is, of course, lobbying Governments. I therefore do not accept that distinction.
We see the Canadian example as one that suggests overregulation, and therefore distinguish between professional lobbyists and consultant lobbyists. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I were at a conference over the weekend. At one point we were both sitting with a senior executive from BP, and indeed one consultant lobbyist was there. I forgot to ask him precisely who his clients were, and perhaps I should have done. However, when you are talking to a representative of a company, you know who you are talking to and what you are talking about. I came away from the conference much better informed about BP’s involvement in the Southern Corridor pipeline project than I had been, and I trust that that will inform me in future discussions with those Governments through whose territories the pipeline will go.
Transparency is about knowing who these consultant lobbyists are representing. A number of amendments in this group address that point. The Government are not persuaded, but of course we are open to further discussions about particular areas where noble Lords feel that there is an overlap between consultancy and professional lobbying, although I do not entirely see how a particular lobbyist, being employed part time by five or 10 different companies, would somehow get around this legislation, as has been suggested.
Lord Wigley (PC)
A little earlier, the noble Lord mentioned that the Government favoured a light touch. In case the light touch does not work as effectively as he or the Government expect it to, can he amend the Bill in any way as it goes through to provide for adjustments to be made that do not need further primary legislation? It will be years before we come back to this and if we do not get the outcome that many people wish to see, it will be a lost opportunity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That is, again, a fair point, which the Government will look at. We are extending regulation into lobbying here and are reluctant to go too far too quickly. There may be a means of considering further extension on review. The noble Lord will know that we now have a regular practice of having a five-year review of legislation. If whichever Government are then in power decide that this is inadequate, we will see what can be done.
Lord Norton of Louth
I come back to my noble friend’s point about who would be included in the register. He gave the figure of 350. Does he know how many of those would be caught who do not already reveal who their clients are?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that stretches my expertise very considerably. I will have to consult and write to the noble Lord about that. It is a good academic question. The Government have been quite clear that there is no exemption from the requirement to register for large multidisciplinary firms that conduct consultant lobbying. We refined the exception provided in paragraph 1 by amendment in Committee in the other place to clarify that it will not be enjoyed by organisations such as, for example, law firms if they run consultant lobbying operations and lobby in a manner which is not incidental to their other activity—even if consultant lobbying is not their primary activity. As such, they will be required to register if they meet the other criteria outlined in the definition of consultant lobbying. The provisions outlined in paragraph 1 provide an important and effective exemption for those whose limited involvement in lobbying is in a manner which is merely incidental to their normal professional activity. However, it brings within its scope those that provide consultant lobbying as a major part of their activities and firms for which consultant lobbying is a significant part of their activity.
Opposition Amendment 39 provides a long list of exemptions from the Opposition’s definition of professional lobbying. Exemptions are provided for constituents contacting their Member of Parliament, persons making communications on their own behalf, persons responding to government consultations or an invitation to submit evidence to a parliamentary committee, persons acting on behalf of government, persons not receiving remuneration, and those responding to a court order. That is a very large and unwieldy list of exceptions partly because once one extends this to professional lobbying, the question of definition itself becomes much more difficult. That is, again, partly why we have stuck to consultant lobbying in our approach.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, asked about sovereign powers and the Government of Taiwan. It is very helpful that he has raised Taiwan but it would probably be better, to be absolutely sure that I am correct, that I offer to write to him on that specific point. I would like to reassure him as far as I can.
I hope that I have managed to answer most of the points in these amendments. I have outlined why it is not necessary to extend the register to those who lobby on their own or their employer’s behalf, because it is clear whose interests are being represented. Our proposals will deliver a focused, problem-specific register and, as such, we believe that these amendments are not necessary. I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Is a consultant lobbyist somebody who has more than one client? Is that what constitutes a consultant—somebody who has at least two clients? So far as “professional lobbyist” is concerned, I am not too clear in my own mind so far—no doubt it is my fault—as to what exactly is meant by a professional lobbyist. For example, if a company has engineering matters that it wants to deal with, it might send along an engineer to tell the Minister what it is all about. He might not be described as a professional lobbyist but, being an engineer, at least he knows about the subject matter. Does a professional lobbyist have to have some professional qualification or does professional mean something else? I am rather befogged.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that is a very fair intervention. That is one of the reasons why we hesitate to include people whose main responsibilities within the charity or company for which they work is to contact government. The public affairs departments of major companies are the ones dealing with government, trying to interface between the company and the political process, and it would be the public affairs departments of many companies with which one would therefore logically deal. I know many people who have gone to work in the public affairs departments of companies—I am sure we all do. It is very often where people who have been involved in politics go afterwards to earn what they failed to earn in politics.
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely correct to say that in the exact definition of a professional lobbyist we are talking about people who are employed by a company, campaigning group or charity and pursue its interests in its relations with government. A consultant lobbyist is someone who lobbies on behalf of someone else apart from their own company. Theoretically, I suppose it is possible to imagine a consultant lobbyist all of whose income comes from one external client but the majority of consultant lobbying firms provide assistance, advice and lobbying for a large number of clients. That is the industry with which we are all familiar and with which those of us in government often interact. That is the distinction we make.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, responds, my noble friend has really not addressed the distinction between those who do the activity and the activity itself. The Government are supposed to be trying to provide transparency about the activity, not simply listing those who may engage in it—in this case, only some who engage in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to what I said at Second Reading about what is in effect an alternative to this rather clunky mechanism being proposed by the Government. What I was proposing gets fairly comprehensively at the activity of who is lobbying on each measure that the Government bring forward. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, may wish to note that my Amendment 115 is intended to get at that. It is an alternative to what the Government are proposing and it would actually deal with that particular problem. My noble friend may wish to bear that in mind in responding to the amendments because I am not sure he has established that there is a need for this part of the Bill, certainly not compared with the alternative that I am putting forward, which actually gets at the nub of ensuring transparency of lobbying.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If I might add to that, particularly if there are only 350 registrations.
Lord Hardie
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate and to the Minister for his reply.
To answer the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the definition of professional has been slightly widened over the years. I imagine that those who undertake lobbying activity for a living would probably prefer to be called a profession rather than a trade. Therefore, those who lobby, whether they are lobbying as employees on behalf of employers or as consultants, might be described as professional lobbyists.
As the Minister pointed out, consultant lobbyists might well have only one client, although that might be a rare case. Indeed, the Bill itself recognises that the consultant is a person who,
“makes communications … on behalf of another person or persons”,
so the singular is certainly envisaged.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and want to reflect on his comments about charities and the exemptions—if they are exempt. I note that he said that he is open to further discussion and that the Government will look in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, at possible further extensions without further legislation. Those matters ought to be and will be explored between now and Report. I may come back at Report with a more focused amendment, but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, my amendment would inject the words “of government” after the words in Clause 1(1):
“A person must not carry on the business of consultant lobbying”.
I should make it clear that I am amending a part of the Bill which I believe in principle to be totally inadequate to deal with the problem of the lack of transparency; I am only amending what is on offer.
Amendment 3 would clarify in the first clause of the Bill exactly the intention of the Government behind the legislation. The Bill restricts its remit and reach to limited areas in the institution of government. My amendment would make it clear that at this stage, the Government’s intention has been deliberately to exclude other important areas of government influence over public policy and decision-taking from the reach of the Bill. I tabled this amendment last Thursday to draw on the wider debate about those bodies that were being deliberately excluded—namely, government in its wider form, and Parliament—since when, on Friday, my noble friends Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Hayter of Kentish Town tabled their Amendments 18 and 22, which more roundly deal with the issue of Parliament. I therefore yesterday withdrew the reference to Parliament in my amendment and will leave that to them to deal with.
My amendment would bring under the Bill government as a whole, as against the cherry-picked sectors which the Government propose. My case is that executive agencies, which are staffed by civil servants, non-departmental public bodies, which are staffed with a mix of non-civil servants and civil servants, and non-ministerial departments are all crucial parts of government.
The document Categories of Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments, of December 2012, sets out each of the three areas of government to which I have referred. Non-ministerial departments are described as,
“government departments in their own right—but they do not have their own minister”.
They include the Charity Commission for England and Wales, the Food Standards Agency, HM Revenue and Customs, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education and Children’s Services and Skills, Ofwat, the Office of Water Services, and the UK Statistics Authority.
Executive agencies are defined in the document as,
“business units headed up by a chief executive … often supported by a management board. Executive agencies carry out executive functions, with policy set by ministers”.
They include HM Courts and Tribunals Service, the Identity and Passport Service, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the UK Border Agency. Finally, there are non-departmental public bodies, which are described as carrying out,
“a wide range of administrative, commercial, executive and regulatory or technical functions which are considered to be better delivered at arm’s length from Ministers”.
All these bodies are part of government and deal with contracts as set out in Clause 2(3)(c)(i). Some deal with grants and “other financial assistance”, as set out in Clause 2(3)(c)(ii), and some grant licences and other authorisations, as set out in Clause 2(3)(c)(iii). In other words, they are very much at the heart of government and carrying out the functions described in the Bill, and which the Bill is intended to catch. My amendment, which at this stage is a probing amendment, asks the Government why these bodies are to be excluded. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 24, which is in this group. In doing so, I wish also to speak to Amendment 52 and, with the leave of the House, Amendments 56, 57 and 58, which are in a different group but are all consequential on the main amendment.
Clause 2(3) applies only to communications to,
“a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”,
second Permanent Secretary or persons serving in government offices as listed in Part 3 of Schedule 1. My amendment seeks to extend the class of persons. As many noble Lords observed at Second Reading, lobbyists will not confine their activities to Ministers or the senior civil servants listed in these provisions. Indeed, their involvement with such people is likely to follow lobbying activity involving civil servants of a lower grade. This is clearly the case when one considers the word “government” in paragraphs (a) to (d) inclusive of Clause 2(3), which has to be construed in accordance with paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1. That construction extends the definition of consultant lobbying to Ministers or their equivalent, and officials at the highest level in devolved Governments and local authorities in the United Kingdom, and in any institution of the European Union.
When I was in practice at the Scottish Bar, I was initially standing junior to the City of Edinburgh Council then, when I was appointed Silk, I became standing senior to that authority. From that experience, I am aware that local authority officials of a lower grade than senior management prepared policy documents for consideration by senior officials, then elected members. Those junior officials had considerable expertise within their own professional competence and a significant influence on the terms of policy documents that were ultimately submitted to elected members. Any lobbyist worth his salt who wished to influence policy would communicate with these officials at an early stage. I suspect that the same is true in central government and devolved Governments in the United Kingdom. If this provision is to be of any significance, it should be extended to include communications with any civil servant. Equally, there is a perception that political advisers can have a significant influence on government policy. Why should they not be included in the definition of persons to whom communications are made?
Amendment 34 sets out the definition of “political adviser” but, on reflection, the approach taken in the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, is more appropriate in referring to “special advisers”. That avoids reinventing the wheel.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 23, some of whose content has been covered, and 26. Before I do so, however, I would like to jump back for a moment because I was reluctant to intervene on the welcome statement that the Minister made at the beginning of our proceedings. I hope that when he comes forward tomorrow with the timetable, Part 4 will actually still be Part 4—that is, after we have finished Parts 1, 2 and 3. It is no good doing Parts 1, 3 and 4 and then trying to fix in Part 2. Part 4, on commencement and everything else, has to come at the end and remain as the final part of the Bill. I hope that that will be the order that we will get tomorrow.
I shall share this with the Committee: I have made a bit of a list, although I agree, frankly, that the route taken by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth is much more satisfactory. Like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I am amending what is on offer; I am not trying to rewrite the Bill. It is fairly obvious that a Minister of the Crown has to be covered, and it is an open-and-shut case that special advisers should be covered.
What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, has just said about Parliamentary Private Secretaries is absolutely true. To be honest, I had an effective PPS only for my first four years as Minister when I was in the other place; to have a Lords Minister with a Commons PPS is a complete waste of time—not much help at all. Nevertheless, the PPS that I had for two years in MAFF and then for two years at the DSS—the same person—did not attend all meetings but certainly once or twice a week was sitting around a table with officials and myself and other Ministers, along with the Secretary of State’s PPS. That was normal; there was nothing suspicious about it. It worked perfectly okay. It was very useful. That person therefore has to be covered by such legislation, not in their role as a constituency Member of Parliament but in their role as a minor functionary in the Government. They can be dismissed by the Prime Minister or indeed appointed with the Prime Minister’s permission. Effectively, for practical purposes, those decisions are made by the Chief Whip but it is the same thing: the head of the Government sanctions these appointments and dismissals—as I found out to my cost when I got sacked as a PPS in 1977. I had voted the wrong way on a Bill. So PPSs have to be covered, and the Government have covered Permanent Secretaries.
I come to the issue of non-ministerial government departments. On the latest count that I have, there are 23 ministerial government departments and 21 non-ministerial departments. One thing that is unique about them compared with the non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies—it is a cast-iron cert—is that they are all separately funded by the Treasury. They are government departments. They do not have a parental department. When one looks at the Cabinet Office list on the web for November last year, they are all listed. For executive agencies, the list gives the parent department. For non-ministerial departments, there is no parent department but a post-box department that answers PQs and debates. It has no role whatever in policy and no authority. Most non-ministerial departments are set up by primary legislation. They have their own Act of Parliament to set them up—obviously, I declare an interest, having just done four years as chair of the Food Standards Agency.
Let us take the first one on the list: the Charity Commission for England and Wales. It is the independent regulator of charitable activity. In the advert for a new chief executive that I saw at the weekend—I am not quite sure what has happened there because I thought the former chief executive was reappointed in August—the word “independent” is used. Non-ministerial departments are set up to give them a degree of independence. In fact, most members of the public do not know that they are government departments. That is the benefit. They are genuinely treated as independent regulators. Half the food industry does not understand that the Food Standards Agency is a copper-bottomed, 100% central government department, but it operates under its own legislation as the independent regulator for the sector. It answers to Parliament, like all government departments, and all the staff are civil servants, as in all these 21 non-ministerial departments.
Although there are 21 non-ministerial departments, only one is covered in the legislation: HM Revenue and Customs. The reason is that it is the only one of the 21 where the chief exec is a Perm-Sec-status civil servant. In all the others, the chief executives are either directors-general or in some cases, directors, who are very senior civil servants, but not at the top. There is a difference in their status. The one exception is HMRC, where there is a Perm Sec, and that is covered in Schedule 1.
Non-ministerial departments are set up in the way they are to keep them away from the sticky fingers of Ministers on a day-to-day basis. I know it looks like Topsy, and it is a very unsatisfactory arrangement with the hierarchy of different bodies, but each one was set up for a reason: to keep Ministers away from the day-to-day activity. That is obviously the case in Customs and regulating charities and, certainly, in food. Not having Ministers involved in the day-to-day working on a hunch has been a big success. That is the reason for setting them up as freestanding and funded by the Treasury, unlike executive agencies or non-departmental public bodies. They are quite different, but they are central government departments and are all staffed by civil servants, and the heads, including the chairs of boards—I will come to that in a moment—are all approved on appointment by the Prime Minister, after they have gone right through the interview process with Civil Service commissioners. They are government departments for all practical purposes, but they do not have a Minister walking the floors day to day. Ministers do not like it because they do not have any policy levers over these government departments, but they answer PQs and debates, and it is a very satisfactory and British way of dealing with an issue.
So are they subject to lobbying? Ha! You only have to look at the list. Of course they are subject to lobbying. Who is subject to lobbying? The chief execs are. So far as I know, they all have governance boards with a chair to deal with the governance aspects and they are all non-execs. I have not gone into that, but I think most of the boards are completely non-exec. In the case of the Food Standards Agency, it certainly is, and long may it remain so.
The question is whether they are subject to lobbying as government departments. They are operating, by the way, without phone calls from the Perm Sec or Minister of another department. They are told that it is a no-go area: “Take your tanks off my lawn. The legislation says that I am responsible for this policy. We, as the agency”—it may be a regulator; most of them are, but there are other functions—“are responsible under the law for these areas of policy”. Ministers therefore do not have a role. They do not sit around the table deciding on the policies. The agencies and non-ministerial departments do that, and the board deals with the strategy and governance, so you can bet your bottom dollar that the chairs and chief execs are subject to lobbying and, as such, should be treated in the same way as the Government say that Ministers and Perm Secs should. It naturally follows.
The other matter I listed was that of a chief scientific officer to a government department. The Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser is of course listed in Schedule 1. That is not good enough. They are incredibly influential in the departments. By definition, they are all now part time; that was part of the change some years ago to have all the chief scientists out in the real world. They have got to have a chair somewhere or be part of another organisation, and give three to four days to the department. That is certainly the case with Defra and the Food Standards Agency, as was. That was laid down: they would have another role and be tied to academia or outside science. Are they subject to lobbying? You can bet your bottom dollar they are. Should they be covered? Most certainly. They should be covered for their own protection. It is not a question of saying that they cannot be trusted, but these bodies are independent and this applies to all government departments, whether they are ministerial or non-ministerial.
I do not want to labour this—I think I have made the point—but my other point relates to Clause 26. With the charities part of the legislation, we have this new rule of one year before the date of the fixed-term election; now we have that fixed date you can do things that you could not do before. Different rules will come in. Well, frankly, the salaried leader of the Opposition and the financially publicly supported members of a shadow Cabinet, six months before the election—and they could be the Government after those six months—ought to be covered. There ought to be some kind of rule which includes the Opposition for their protection. Again, I am not casting aspersions; it is for their protection. The reality is that all kinds of accusations will be made during the election period. First, Ministers will be publishing their diaries and all that during the election. There are bound to be some people causing trouble, asking questions and things like that. Within that final six months, the official Opposition, salaried out of public finds, trying to be the Government, ought to be covered. That is a crucial period. I have not discussed this with anybody, by the way; I just came up with a bit of lateral thinking the other day.
If the Government are genuine about the transparency of the lobbying they have to cover as many arms of government as they realistically can. I deliberately did not include every single civil servant—the bottle washers, cooks, cleaners, engineers and whatever. That would be going too far and would be impractical. We need a tight list that could be practical and both understood and accepted by the lobbying fraternity, government, customers outside government and the staff concerned. The staff would want to be involved because it is about their protection. All kinds of allegations would be bandied about when things go wrong. It is much better if you can always say, “We are open and transparent”. The greatest protection people have is openness and transparency. Most of the press do not read the open and transparent stuff until something goes wrong. Then they make all sorts of accusations, saying that they have discovered this, that and the other, while things were already there, open and transparent. However, that means that you do not get the full scare stories of the press or the leaks, and openness is a good idea. In this case that ought to be shared by the Opposition. It would obviously be to a limited extent, because they do not issue contracts. All kinds of lobbying activities will go on, and it will be useful for everyone else to know who was being lobbied, who was doing the lobbying, and what they were lobbying about.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 25, which is in my name and that of my noble friend, and is a very specific amendment. Before I do so I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I have a very open mind about the wider additions that have been proposed in different parts of the House, and I shall listen with great interest to the noble Baroness—whichever noble Baroness that will be—when she speaks to Amendment 18, as that may well clarify our minds.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, makes a very interesting point about non-ministerial government departments, precisely because they are not in the hierarchy of any department. They have a different relationship to the Permanent Secretary and the Minister from all the other civil servants. While I would be very worried about going too far down the list of civil servants—down the hierarchy—he makes a very valuable point and I shall look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on it.
Rather late last night, after leaving the House, I renewed my acquaintance with a very interesting book, Dr Andrew Blick’s history of the special adviser in British politics, published nine years ago in 2004, which is entitled People Who Live in the Dark. That is a quotation from Clare Short that some of my noble friends may recall. Very many distinguished Members of this House, on both sides, are of course former special advisers, and I do not in any way intend what I have to say to be a slur on their reputations. Of course, it is also true that some important Members of the other House have been special advisers, not least Mr Ed Miliband and Mr Ed Balls, both of whom feature very prominently in Dr Andrew Blick’s account of how the Treasury clique operated under Gordon Brown. Then, of course, there was the “special special adviser”, Mr Alastair Campbell.
No sooner had I got myself to sleep last night by reading Andrew Blick—it was rather late—than I woke up again at 4am. I usually find that a good book sends me straight back to sleep, but unfortunately Dr Blick’s book is so interesting that I was awake for several more hours this morning. Therefore, if I am slightly less articulate than usual, that is entirely his fault. I will quote from page 313:
“The Thatcher years had a centralised, private-sector flavour, with individuals making a great impact. In Major’s premiership, temporary civil servants were less remarkable, subject to more formal regulation and perhaps more intrigue-prone. Finally, the Blair period saw expansion in terms of significance and numbers, and the exercise of pronounced managerial and media roles, leading to high levels of publicity”.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord is quoting from a book, but I point out that recent figures showed just last week that the number of special advisers has risen quite extensively under this Government as compared to the previous Government.
Lord Tyler
I am absolutely aware of what the noble Baroness has said, and I will come to that very point. Of course, it is not just a question of the numbers but about the role they play. I am trying to demonstrate that this is not a new problem but is certainly a central issue for the Bill and hence for my amendment.
Dr Blick goes on to say:
“If there was a change over time, it was in aides becoming more firmly established and accepted, and, to a limited extent, officially defined”.
Therefore they are recognised there and so they should be recognised in this legislation.
Then, as now, these political appointees acted as gatekeepers for senior Ministers. Then, as no doubt now, too many lobbyists found their way to the top decision-makers by this route. It was their particular way forward. If the spad did not feel that it would be politically helpful for the lobbying exercise to reach his or her Minister, it often failed at that hurdle. However, in many cases that was and is the gate through which the lobbyist has to go. It is certainly true in the present Government—I endorse what the noble Baroness said.
With both Labour and Conservative Ministers, we know that this was the route taken by representatives of the Murdoch media empire. Since 2010, there have been two serious scandals involving lobbying at this level that resulted in resignations. In one case it involved a spad and in another an adviser who clearly thought that he was a sort of special spad—a sort of spadoid. As I indicated at Second Reading, it would be ridiculous to exclude those extremely important decision-makers who are outwith the normal hierarchy of responsibility to the Permanent Secretary.
The advantage of the amendment is that it is simple to add spads into the regime. Consultant lobbyists who approach them should have to register, and the spads should have to publish details of their meetings with all external organisations, in precisely the same way, I am glad to say, as the coalition Government have now insisted that Ministers should do. I understand the arguments for extending the scope of transparency still further down the Civil Service chain, but the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a very valid point. It will be difficult to know where to stop, if you go down the departmental hierarchy. The cases that he mentioned are not within that hierarchy, of course. If we went further down that hierarchy, there would be a substantial administrative burden; for the move to be effective, hundreds and perhaps thousands of civil servants would have to publish their diaries. As it is, the Permanent Secretary is responsible for what happens at lower levels.
I welcome the fact that this Government have, for the first time, introduced very considerable transparency in terms of the meetings that take place. As I said at Second Reading—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to this—there is an amendment that would address the particular difficulty that the public, the media and parliamentarians have at present in identifying, in precise terms and quickly, when a meeting has taken place of this nature, with whom and on what subject. Therefore, it is extremely important that we have that clarity and access. Adding hundreds more people into the declaration regime would risk giving an excuse for delay in the publication of details about meetings with those who strongly influence decision-makers, and those who really do take those decisions—who must surely be the political appointees, special assistants and senior Ministers.
As we have heard in this debate, the lobbying register proposed by the Government is limited.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Did I mishear the noble Lord when he said that adding hundreds to the list would lead to delay? Surely, if he supports the position taken by my noble friend Lord Rooker, that is precisely what will happen.
Lord Tyler
I referred specifically to the non-ministerial government departments, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a very valid point, because they are not within the hierarchy of departments responsible to the Permanent Secretary, in the same way as other civil servants. So I do not accept that. The addition to which he specifically referred would have considerable merit. I would look at that very carefully, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will, as well.
Unlike others, I accept that we are making a limited addition to the transparency of the whole process with the register. Far more important is to make sure that the meetings that take place with whoever is lobbying are as transparent, timely and accessible as we can make them. What surely should not be limited should be the encounter with such critical political decision-makers and their advisers as the special advisers attached to senior Ministers. Therefore, I hope that my amendment will find favour with the House and with my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I have amendments in the grouping as well. My amendments have similar aims to those of the noble Lords, Lord Hardie and Lord Rooker, and of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Hayter. I was very attracted by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because of the breadth of what it covers. However, I also noticed an omission; it does not encompass senior members of the Civil Service but confines itself to Permanent Secretaries. I think that there is a problem there.
When this Bill was considered in the other place, the point was well made that it appears to have been written by people who do not understand lobbying—clearly people who have not read the book by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. If it helps, I have a copy of his book on my shelf.
There are a number of problems but, as has been identified, Clause 2(3) is particularly problematic as it is so narrow. If you are going to lobby, the target is normally the Minister, and you therefore have to focus on the channels for reaching the Minister. The Permanent Secretary is not a significant channel for this purpose. Other officials will deal with that particular policy area—or a special adviser or the parliamentary private secretary. In saying that, I have nothing against special advisers; they play an extraordinarily valuable role from which Ministers and civil servants benefit. Parliamentary private secretaries also play a valuable role, so both should be included in the measure.
I know the objection as regards PPSs will be that they are private members, but increasingly they have been drawn within government. They are now mentioned in the Ministerial Code and are subject to certain requirements under it. Therefore, they are particularly good channels for reaching Ministers. We should encompass within the Bill’s remit all those who are being lobbied for the purposes of affecting public policy. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, does a valuable job in that regard, but one could add to it. I suspect that between now and Report we could come up with an amendment that brings together the various points that have been made and ensures that if we are to go down this route—and I am not persuaded that we should—those who are lobbied with a view to affecting public policy will be included in the Bill.
As it stands, Clause 2 is too narrow and, as I say, Permanent Secretaries should not feature significantly in it. I commend the various amendments that seek to widen the provision, so that if the Government go down this route at least they will do so effectively.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, provided that “government” is defined not as it is in the Bill but as it is in the amendments standing in the names of the baronial opposition Front Bench, by which I mean Amendments 33 and 43.
I approach all this with a certain bemused detachment. I have to intervene because the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, appeared to imply that Permanent Secretaries are not important, although I am sure that he did not mean to do so. I say “bemused detachment” because none of this would ever have applied to me—not the Bill as it stands or with any of the amendments, even the wide-reaching, admirable amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I was never a civil servant. I was a Permanent Under-Secretary but I was never a civil servant. The Diplomatic Service is a separate service. I apologise for making a rather pedantic—indeed, possibly, pompous—point, but there is something wrong in the drafting. I was a public servant but not a civil servant.
When I was a Permanent Secretary I never met a consultant lobbyist, thus proving the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. They do not come to see Permanent Secretaries. If you are Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, the people who come to see you are CEOs or chairmen of companies that are in trouble and want the help of an embassy or high commission somewhere around the world. They do not send government affairs people, so widening the definition would not bring in Permanent Secretaries—they come themselves. They certainly do not send a professional consultant lobbyist to see the Permanent Secretary or, I think, the Minister. I think they do to see special advisers, so I think that is a very important addition which has to be brought in. They tend to see the relevant desk or the Under-Secretary. They do not come near the Permanent Secretary.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I was a Permanent Secretary for some 10 years and, unlike him, was a civil servant. I do not remember in that period ever being lobbied as a Permanent Secretary, but of course lobbying went on among the grades immediately below mine. This debate has therefore shown that these matters must be the subject of a new amendment on Report that resolves the various difficulties that have been mentioned.
I was attracted by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, which referred to senior civil servants and special advisers. It probably needs to go further. Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, goes wider than it needs to in its references to “Ministers or officials” and then to civil servants; however, that is for her to discuss. I very much hope that this issue will be looked at and that the definition will be widened. It need not go beyond including a senior civil servant, as defined by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, because any lobbyist would think that lobbying below that level was a waste of time, and it is therefore not likely to happen.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I was a very junior Minister in Northern Ireland and, of course, was being lobbied all the time. Such activity would, of course, be covered by the Bill, except to say that most of the people doing the lobbying were not consultant lobbyists but from a range of organisations. Perhaps I may make a few brief points.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker about shadow Ministers. It is clear that any lobbyist worth their salt will pinpoint those who will be of influence, should there be a change of Government after an election, and make a beeline for them. That is an important issue. I also agree with my noble friend about government agencies. There were a large number of government agencies in Northern Ireland, which were a bit closer to government than the ones in England. Nevertheless, the point my noble friend makes still applies—I am quite sure that a lot of lobbying of those government agencies went on, and goes on, which would not be covered by the definition of a Permanent Secretary.
However, I should like to make another general point about civil servants. As I said earlier, although I had lots of meetings and was being lobbied, that activity would be covered because I was there. But of course civil servants are lobbied to secure access to a Minister, and that is a crucial part of the process. They need not be very senior civil servants but be senior enough to say to whoever is doing the lobbying, “Yes, I will get you a meeting with the Minister”. The Minister has to agree to such a meeting but in the way things are that nearly always happens. Civil servants who are not that senior can therefore be quite influential. Indeed, in all my meetings with civil servants during that time and when people lobbied me, I do not think that the Permanent Secretary of one of the two departments I represented was there on more than a handful of occasions. It was all done at a less senior level. I am bound to say that I cannot work out where the cut-off point should be, although there clearly has to be one. One of the considerations should be to include those civil servants who are senior enough to assist in the process of gaining access to a Minister. That might be a helpful way of looking at this issue. Someone said that Permanent Secretaries are ultimately responsible. I would say, “if they know”, because, in the nature of things, so much is going on I do not believe that a Permanent Secretary could possibly know about all the contacts made by lobbyists with more junior civil servants. There is a bit of a problem there.
Lastly, I should like to comment on advisers. I was not senior enough to have an adviser, although the Secretary of State had one who helped all of us. I very much agree with noble Lords who said that political advisers are crucial in the process. They open doors, can be extremely influential and give advice to their Ministers, having been lobbied in turn. I am therefore puzzled. I understand that the Minister has said—we had meetings on this before Second Reading—that transparency is what he is after, but I am puzzled as to why the Government are taking such a narrow view of the way in which the lobbying process works. We are talking about a process that seeks to influence legislation and public policy, and the scope of the Bill should be a bit wider to cover people who lobby in that manner.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to the whole debate thus far this afternoon and I confess that I, too, remain baffled by the logic behind this part of the Bill. It is something of a relief to find that I am in the distinguished company of others such as my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, with whose remarks I very much agreed. That is despite the efforts of the Minister to explain the logic. As I understand it, the problem is that Ministers are not clear whom consultant lobbyists represent. I find that astonishing. If that is so, why not ask?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, told us that two out of 988 meetings with Ministers at BIS were with consultant lobbyists, so that is not a huge number. One of the briefings that we have had from the professional lobbying bodies—from the PRCA—tells us that rarely do consultancies speak directly to Ministers on behalf of clients, especially without the client being present, in which case I imagine that it is fairly clear for whom they are speaking. Furthermore, speaking to Permanent Secretaries is pretty much unheard of, as has been confirmed by a number of former Permanent Secretaries in your Lordships’ House. In addition, the professional bodies tell us that their estimate of the number of organisations likely to have to sign up is around 100. Therefore, I fail to understand how this is likely to improve transparency. Indeed, it seems to me that there is a real risk that it could reduce the incentive to sign up to some of the voluntary registers which exist and which are also linked to codes of good practice.
The Bill as it stands seems to fall between two stools, and I am not sure which one to rest on in order to form a view on these amendments. It seems to me that if we are to have a register, it has to be a broader register that on the one hand covers a wider range of people who are undertaking lobbying and on the other hand covers a wider range of people who are being lobbied. I agree that if we are to have a register, it should extend to many of the bodies and individuals that other noble Lords have mentioned.
However, if we are not going to do that, it seems an incredibly expensive and elaborate approach to set up a register and a registrar if we are going to cover just 100 consultant lobbying firms, together with Permanent Secretaries, who are never lobbied by them, and Ministers, who are rarely lobbied by them. I would be much more attracted by the sort of approach that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, mentioned at Second Reading, in which the reporting system on the receiving end is improved to make sure that it records those particular interactions.
Therefore, I confess that I am totally confused. I should be very happy to support some of these amendments if I thought that that was what the Bill was going to do. If it is not, then I do not know at all what the Bill is trying to do and I hope that I will receive further enlightenment as I sit here for longer.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, correctly, he feels that more restraint should be put on special advisers, and I agree with him. I have already said in this House that it was absolutely appalling that in the previous Government the Prime Minister’s special adviser went about the business of blackening, or seeking to blacken, the names of the family of a member of the Cabinet. That was absolutely disgraceful. He then went on to have the absolute brass neck to write a book. When he was interviewed, he said, “Well, you see, when I left I did not get any money, so I have to get some money somewhere”. I say: welcome to the real world. I had constituents who were in employment for less than two years and they did not get any redundancy money, but they did not seek to brag about the bad things that they did.
I mention that because this individual was there on taxpayers’ money. To my shame as a practising Catholic, he went on to work for an organisation called CAFOD. Fellow Catholics, like me, are expected to give to missions on what is known as Mission Sunday, and they do so very generously. The poorest of the poor set aside funds that they have worked hard for to give to that organisation, and it really amazes me that someone gave that individual a senior job there. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that I feel strongly that if these people are employed by the Government and paid for by the taxpayer, they should be accountable in every possible way.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I rise, with my very messy notes, to support Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and to speak to Amendments 18, 22, 29, 32, 33 and 36. I do so while congratulating the Government on their unique feat of uniting transparency campaigners and the lobbying industry against the Bill—including on the issue that our amendments seek to address, namely the scope of those who are lobbied. I speak as someone who has been lobbied as a Back-Bench Peer, as a Minister and as a member of the shadow Cabinet. All the while I was a legislator, but I have also been a special adviser, albeit to the leader of the Opposition. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker that it is important to include members of the shadow Cabinet in such legislation. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Martin, has said about the fact that they do not have the infrastructure that is properly accorded to a Minister of the Crown. However, these people aspire to be in government and perhaps within the next year they might be in government. Therefore, for their own protection in many ways, they should be included.
As regards PPSs, again I hear the rightful concern and warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Martin. These people are perhaps fairly new to Parliament but they have real access to power. We should consider properly whether they should be covered by the legislation. The fact that the Bill confines the scope in Clause 2 to,
“oral or written communications made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”,
demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the lobbying industry. In evidence to the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Gavin Devine, chief executive of MHP Communications, stated:
“The only conclusion one can reach about the Bill is that the Cabinet Office has no understanding of what companies like MHP Communications actually do”.
I hear the Minister when he says that there has been interaction with the lobbying industry about this part of the Bill, but perhaps there has been a dialogue of the deaf. I do not mean to be rude but I do not think that there always has been proper listening; otherwise we would not be confronting some of the issues that we now face.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said that,
“the Permanent Secretary is probably … the last civil servant to be lobbied in a controversial situation”.—[Official Report, 22/10/13; col. 979.]
Listening today to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Armstrong, it is clear that the Permanent Secretary is always the last civil servant to be lobbied, and not only in a controversial situation. The speeches made today by the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong and Lord Kerr, were very important. We should also read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said about the Diplomatic Service. The whole industry of lobbying our Diplomatic Service should be looked at. The lobbying of government is not just about Bills in play but also about future policies.
On special advisers, I welcome and support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. However, I do not think that it goes far enough. One has only to think of the demeaning tale of Adam Smith and the News Corporation lobbyist Fred Michel, who would not have been touched by this Bill—and yet that case was one of the catalysts for the Bill. It is interesting to note that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has today published a report on lobbying. One of the recommendations from that body is that special advisers to Ministers should be subject to tighter rules about their contacts with outsiders, which probably is something with which the majority of this House would agree. I hope that the Minister will move on that swiftly.
The lobbying industry itself has said many times during discussions about this Bill that,
“we do not make personal representations to Ministers or Permanent Secretaries”.
So one has to ask: what is the Bill trying to do? The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked some incisive questions. Indeed, the House of Lords Constitution Committee points out that,
“even those who consider that ‘transparency in lobbying is a significant problem’ do not appear to be of the view that the specific matter of consultant lobbyists meeting ministers and permanent secretaries needs legislative correction. Indeed, some witnesses told the PCRC that if this really is the problem that needs addressing, it does not require legislation to fix it and could be dealt with simply by the Government changing the rules that apply to ministers and permanent secretaries”.
However, as we have this golden opportunity of the Bill before us, we are obliged to do whatever we can to ensure that there is a healthy and transparent relationship between government and lobbying and to resolve the problems that we have seen over the past months and years.
In their response to the Constitution Committee, the Government said:
“Ultimately, it is ministers and permanent secretaries that are responsible for the decisions taken within their departments and the focus of the register is therefore on communications with those key decision-makers whose meeting details are published”.
Yes, ultimately, the responsibility for decisions is taken by those at the very top. However, we know that the influencing of policy-making and of legislation occurs at a much lower level.
I certainly agree with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker and the scope that he mentions in his Amendment 23. The exposé that he gave of non-ministerial government departments was very important. I hope that the Minister will look at that very closely. These bodies, and those who work in them, are extremely influential in terms of governing in this country.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, mentioned the devolved institutions, which, again, need to be looked at. While I fully recognise that devolved institutions make their own rules and regulations pertaining to this issue, it would be terrific if we could get to a situation where the rules pertaining to all the governing bodies of the United Kingdom were similar. That would make it much easier for the Governments of the nations and for those who are doing the lobbying.
Our Amendment 18 would widen the scope phenomenally to Members of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that many Members of this House would think that that perhaps widens the scope of the Bill too far. However, we should reflect on that because we all recognise the important role that lobbyists play and the invaluable information that they provide. We should also recognise that in lobbying they have a profound effect on us as legislators and on the laws that we pass. We therefore need to keep that in mind, because it is a matter of being open and transparent so that the public know what or who has influenced the laws that we are making all the time. As everyone’s inboxes in relation to this Bill will testify, we are heavily lobbied.
My noble friend Lord Rooker raised an important point about the revised order of consideration. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the revised order will be Parts 1, 3, 2 and then 4. That would be the proper and logical way of doing things.
The right honourable Andrew Lansley suggested on Report in the Commons that to extend the scope of those lobbied would be too bureaucratic. He imagined 5,000 senior civil servants all publishing their diaries. I believe that that is a poor excuse because we all know that the system does not have to depend on the publishing of diaries. I very much welcome what the Government have done in publishing ministerial diaries but perhaps we could look at some other way of ensuring that there is a less bureaucratic means of having an open and transparent way for the public to know who is being lobbied and on what issue. Now that we have longer before Report on this Bill I hope that the Government will look at that problem and perhaps come up with a way of ensuring there can be a system that is not overly bureaucratic and provides the openness and transparency required.
Transparency in the 21st century means that the public not only want to know who is being lobbied but, I believe, that they have the right to know. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, pointed out, this Bill is indeed entitled “Transparency of Lobbying”. It presents us with an opportunity to address the concerns of our citizens who have lost trust in the political system to the detriment of our democracy. They rightly want to know who is being lobbied and what power is being lobbied. We all know that power does not just reside with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. I trust that the noble Lord will reflect on these points.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I will first answer some of the specific questions raised. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that Part 4 will be taken in Committee after Part 2, as is logical in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, suggested that the Diplomatic Service is not part of the Civil Service. When I was a young academic people talked about the Home Civil Service as opposed to the Diplomatic Civil Service, which I understood was the overseas Civil Service.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Both of those services were as opposed to the military service—and I am not sure that I would think of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as particularly military.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked who needed to know. It is not Ministers who need to know primarily. Transparency is about the public being better informed, and campaigning groups and civil society organisations making the information easy to obtain.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that perhaps if the information was easier to obtain we would not have newspapers any longer claiming that they had discovered such and such. As I listened to him, I recollected that yesterday in the Daily Mail, I think that I read the same “We have discovered” story for about the third time in about four years. Newspapers have a tendency to claim that they have discovered something that was all there already. Indeed, many years ago when I criticised the financial services industry in the Channel Islands, the local press announced that it had discovered that I was a French spy. Its evidence for this—that my wife and I had both been decorated by the French Government—came from that deeply obscure publication, Who’s Who. I am sure the press will go on “discovering” things that could already have been found out easily. Again, that is the way the press behave.
As I have listened to this debate, I have been thinking about the debate we had in the Cabinet Office about the mistake previous Governments made in going for really grandiose IT projects, trying to put absolutely everything into what they were doing and eventually coming unstuck. The Cabinet Office has now decided that incremental change in IT is easier to control. If we are moving towards transparency we have to be careful that we do not say we want absolutely everyone to be included. The best can be the enemy of the good here. The first target is lobbyists rather than every single representative of government that they meet in all circumstances. The definition of who they meet in government was adopted as “those within government who now have to publish their diaries: their lists of whom they meet”.
Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in many ways stands on its own. We need to think about it in a different context from the others here. Other amendments extend the register to parliamentarians, Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, other civil servants, special advisers, all Members and staff of Parliament, all non-ministerial departments, parliamentary private secretaries and so on. We are talking about, I suspect, between 15,000 and 20,000 people. There are 5,000 members of the senior Civil Service—Permanent Secretaries, directors general, directors and deputy directors. The figure in my head for the number who work in Parliament is more than 6,000, and then we have to include non-ministerial departments. How fast and how far we go certainly needs to be considered.
Lord Rooker
There is an organisation in the Civil Service that they all want to belong to—the Top 200. It is an official classification. The figure the Minister has just given for the kind of people who will be covered as the decision-makers and opinion formers is preposterous. I am not saying it is limited to 200, but within the Civil Service being a member of the Top 200 means you are there. It is not just the Permanent Secretaries but the directors general as well. You are not talking about thousands. They are the chief executives of some of the departments I referred to.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I take that. I was about to say that the issue of proportionality—how far we go—is a really difficult one here. However, if one is talking about who gives you access to a Minister perhaps we need to include diary secretaries for example. Who we include and who we do not is itself a matter of some difficulty.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Perhaps we need to discuss between Committee and Report which definition of senior civil servants Ministers and various Members of the House wish to adopt. I was adopting my own understanding of the senior Civil Service, which is the 5,000 I mentioned.
I will be interested to hear from the Opposition whether they also need to be included in this. Again, that is something that perhaps the Opposition Front Bench and the Government should usefully discuss between Committee and Report. I come back to say that the best can be the enemy of the good in requiring too many people to be brought within the context of this Bill. I take the very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about non-ministerial departments to mind. I also take some of his other points about particular senior civil servants. We will consider all these points and, in that light, I trust that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I do not understand my noble friend’s point about numbers. It is irrelevant in the sense that it is the consultants who are doing the lobbying to those people. It does not matter how many they are. It is merely the fact that they are engaging with some of them that requires them to register.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The register is of lobbyists. If we wish to include in the register every single Member of Parliament and others with whom they interact, we would get into a very complicated business. The question is who you wish to define as a consultant lobbying—as Amendment 3 says—to government.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, we have had a very wide-ranging debate which has fully revealed the flaws and inadequacies of the Bill. In Amendment 3, I drew on the 2012 document which dealt with categories of public bodies. It is worth noting what it says about them:
“The landscape for public bodies is undergoing significant reform to increase transparency and accountability … Those public bodies retained will remain at arm’s length from Government, but will be expected to become more open, accountable and efficient”.
The Bill as it stands does precisely the reverse.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker, who drew on his very considerable experience in the Food Standards Agency to strongly reinforce my case. The Government would be very wise to heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who argued that an amendment should be tabled on Report to widen the definition of those civil servants who should be covered by the Bill. I hope that the Minister has taken on board that suggestion, and that the Government will wish to bring forward their own amendment to deal with those issues.
Finally, I want to say a word about the position of Permanent Secretaries. It has been argued that Permanent Secretaries almost appear to have little influence over what happens in many areas. However, there is of course one department where Permanent Secretaries have a major influence and could well be subject to substantial lobbying, and that is the Ministry of Defence, to which I do not think any of the former Permanent Secretaries who spoke today referred. In that department it is crucially important that they are included.
On the basis of the response given by the Minister and in the hope that he will respond to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Royall, I shall speak also to Amendment 93. I would expect a Bill on lobbying to do two things. First, it should show who is lobbying whom over what, which was the issue of the first two groups of amendments. Secondly, it should raise standards in the industry to help make it a profession, with all that that implies for ethics, training and good practice. As I made clear earlier, I am not against lobbying. Like many other noble Lords, I spent too many years seeking to influence civil servants and politicians, sometimes with success and sometimes with none, but always, I hope, by employing honest arguments and with the most open of motives and the cleanest of hands. For me, it is particularly sad that the golden opportunity for this Bill to introduce a requirement for registered lobbyists to abide by a code of conduct has been lost. A code is absolutely key if we wish to raise standards.
We are not arguing for a code to be spelt out in the Bill—far from it—but we are arguing that the registrar, after discussion with representatives of the industry, should be able to adopt or approve a code; and that, if it was shown that someone had breached it, that would lead to a sanction. It would signal to the industry how the registrar judges any misdemeanours. It would be a code rather like the one that noble Lords sign at the Table as we take the Oath, and anyone putting their name on the register would also have to sign up.
The Sheila McKechnie Foundation states that,
“an effective register would include an obligatory code of conduct for all registrants, along with clear sanctions for non-compliance or breaches”.
Indeed, we need to be able to prevent the worst offenders from continuing to practise by removing them from the register, but without a code and the power to judge someone in reference to it, how will we see offenders taken out of this industry?
Understandably, the Government do not want a statutory code written into the Bill. Nor do we, but neither that nor their response to the Select Committee report explains why they do not want to make it mandatory for the registrar to give approval to a code that she or he has drawn up or endorsed in consultation with the industry and other stakeholders. Just as the royal charter does not itself set up a press regulatory body, but simply ensures that whatever is established is up to standard, so the Bill should simply require the registrar to endorse and lay before Parliament the code against which she or he would judge the behaviour of anyone on the register. The code would set the standard for the behaviour of those who seek to influence the Government of this country. I beg to move.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, Amendment 78, tabled in my name and those of my noble friends, attacks—if that is the appropriate verb to use—the same point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has addressed, but in a slightly different way. We have heard a lot about the need for a statutory code of conduct for lobbyists both in the debate on Second Reading and, to some extent, in our debates today. However, the Bill is not about regulating lobbying but about trying to make lobbying more transparent. My own amendment maintains that spirit. There is a genuine concern that the Bill, by setting out in law some of the things that consultant lobbyists must do, could imply by omission that there are some things that we do not expect them to do. Hence, it is important to make some reference to the existing codes.
I confess that although I have not been involved with the lobbying industry for many years, when I had a real job before politics, I headed up a public affairs consultancy. In those days I do not think we even referred to it as lobbying. It was thought to be simply informing decision-makers about important issues and so on. I can see noble Lords opposite observing that there is hardly any distinction between the two activities. However, I appreciate very much the extent to which the lobbying industry has improved its transparency and its codes of conduct, of which I understand there are several. It is important that we should refer to the voluntary codes of conduct that various professional associations and their membership bodies have now signed up to.
The UK Public Affairs Council has said that,
“the range of membership bodies, trade associations, companies and other organisations involved to a lesser or greater extent in lobbying makes a single self-regulatory code unobtainable for the foreseeable future”.
That is a realistic position, but surely it does not mean that we should ignore what is already in place. UKPAC went on to say that,
“effective self regulation can nonetheless be achieved if everyone in a business or employed in a capacity which involves lobbying subscribes to an appropriate Code of Conduct”.
The Bill can only do that for consultant lobbyists because, as we have heard, it is not about a telephone directory-style register of everyone who ever lobbies. However, it should ensure that those whom it does cover are encouraged to continue their compliance with existing voluntary codes by requiring that they are transparent as to whether they do so or not. All concerned—those on the receiving end of lobbying, those who engage these services to lobby on their behalf, the general public and we as parliamentarians representing them—would then be aware of whether they have subscribed to the voluntary codes. Our amendment deals simply with that objective.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Opposition’s proposed amendment would prohibit lobbying unless the person had signed up to the registrar’s code of conduct. Their new clause would require the registrar, after consultation with relevant stakeholders, to produce a code of conduct which would include a provision that any inappropriate relations between lobbyists and parliamentarians were strictly forbidden. Amendment 108, which has been grouped elsewhere, would enable the registrar to impose civil penalties for breaches of the code of conduct. The Government are not persuaded that a statutory code of conduct is appropriate, and I suggest that the proposed amendments are based on a miscomprehension of the role of codes, either statutory or voluntary, in the regulation of lobbying. The Opposition appear to suggest that such codes are in existence and are operating successfully in other jurisdictions. Perhaps I may draw their attention to international examples of statutory codes of conduct, of which there are very few.
The Australian statutory code of conduct establishes a statutory register of consultant lobbyists and prohibits the lobbying of government on behalf of a third party without registration. That is exactly what this Bill provides for and, if that is what the Opposition are seeking to achieve, the amendments are not needed. In Canada, the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct promotes three principles—integrity and honesty, openness and professionalism—and requires that lobbyists act transparently, that they respect confidentiality, and that they avoid conflicts of interest. That code is not a statutory instrument and there is no sanction for non-compliance other than a report from the registrar outlining the lobbyist’s misdemeanour. That is appropriate, because determining non-compliance with these very broad principles is a challenging, uncertain and subjective process.
We have not been able to identify any international precedent for the type of code the Opposition propose. Indeed, even the overwhelmingly high-regulation system in the USA, which requires a 900-plus page handbook to aid compliance, does not incorporate a statutory code of conduct of this sort. Perhaps the fact that the Opposition have been able to propose just one provision for their code of conduct illustrates why such an approach has not been adopted elsewhere.
The Government recognise the industry’s efforts to improve lobbying practice by introducing its own codes of conduct and are confident that that will continue. Those codes promote the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry. The codes contain laudable principles and good practice guidance, but their translation into statute does not seem sensible or feasible.
Amendment 78, in the name of my noble friend Lord Tyler, would instead amend Clause 5(4) so that regulations could be made to enable lobbyists to include details in their information returns of the voluntary codes of conduct that they had subscribed to; but no other additional types of information unrelated to voluntary codes of conduct could be so specified. My noble friend appears to agree with the Government that a statutory code of conduct is not necessary and that the existing voluntary codes should be endorsed and promoted. I am happy to tell my noble friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that the statutory register complements the existing self-regulatory regime.
A specific reference on the statutory register to the voluntary code to which a lobbyist has subscribed is an interesting proposal that the Government are willing to consider further. However, we are not persuaded that the power under Clause 5(4) should be restricted so that it could be used to make regulations only in relation to voluntary codes, which is the—perhaps unintended—effect of my noble friend’s amendment. We will consider this further. Meanwhile, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and my noble friend not to press his.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I fear that that reply was written before I made my speech. I made it very clear that I do not want a statutory code of conduct. The reply that the Minister gave was about why we should not have a statutory code of conduct: I agree, and we did not ask for it. What we are asking is for the registrar to endorse a code of conduct. I assume that it would be based either on the format of five principles that other professions use or maybe on the existing voluntary code. That would be a matter for the registrar, but I very clearly said that we did not want a statutory register.
I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is in her seat as she will remember very well discussing whether the regulation of letting agents should be statutory or—as it is now—voluntary. The letting agents had a very good voluntary code but if you did not obey it and were taken to the ombudsman, you could simply say, “I will leave the code, walk off and not remain signed up to the voluntary code”. All the good boys were signed up to the code but—guess what—the cowboys were not. If anyone was caught breaking the code they just resigned. The noble Baroness did at one point ask me to stop thanking her for this but I will never stop doing so because, through her work, we agreed the amendment that makes it compulsory for letting agents to belong to an ombudsman scheme. As part of that, there will be a code, overseen by the ombudsman, by which will be judged any misbehaviour by letting agents.
Effectively, that is what we are asking for here. Once you have a register of consultants, they should have to sign up to some code of good practice or ethical principles against which it will be judged whether they should be taken off the register. I am not asking for a statutory code, although it was very nice to hear the Minister make a speech against it. What we want is, if you like, a blessing to the voluntary code that says more than simply, “Please read it”. If you are on a register, I imagine it would become quite a kitemark. People would say, “I am a registered consultant lobbyist” —or, if our amendment were passed, a proper lobbyist, not just a consultant. It would be a kitemark to be on the register. However, if it implies no requirement to keep to an ethical code or a code of good behaviour, the kitemark could itself be quite misleading.
We will definitely return to this and I hope that the Minister has heard what we are really asking for: not a statutory code but a requirement that the registrar should have a code that anyone on the register would have to sign up to. I will leave that until Report for the moment—whenever that will be—and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rooker
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I have a few probing amendments in this group: Amendments 10, 12, 15, 30 and 51. I am not in any way criticising the Minister here, as we are in Committee and the idea is to get some detailed answers to some of these issues so that we can decide whether or not there are issues of substance to come back to on Report. I hope he will feel free to give us some detailed responses to some of the points being raised as, otherwise, we will not get the benefit of Committee stage. It was always planned that Report would be after Christmas anyway—there is no change there, as I understand it—and this is important.
Amendment 10 says,
“leave out ‘and in return for payment’”.
I want to know what happens if the lobbyist is acting for free. What is the situation when they are not doing it for payment? There might be ways of people organising their affairs such that they can undertake lobbying but not actually get paid for it. I want to know what the effect would be of removing the words “in return for payment”.
Amendment 12 has a degree of substance. I have not brought it with me, because I do not want to make big speeches in Committee, but this is based on paragraphs 18 and 19 of the report from Graham Allen’s constitutional reform committee in the other place. The reality of life is that lobbyists, in return for payment, provide professional advice on how to lobby but do not lobby themselves. That is, to a great extent, the evidence that was given to the Select Committee in the other place about the way that professional lobbyists work. They go to a company and say, “You have a problem and this is the way to solve it: deal with it this way and approach these people. Do it all yourself and we will guide you through”. That is perfectly respectable—I am not criticising it in any way—but it is not covered by the Bill. The industry itself says that is the main way that it works. There has to be a response to that. I did not follow the details in the other place but the Select Committee report criticised the Bill as an object lesson in how not to legislate. This is an important point.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have pondered this myself. I wonder what interest it really is anyhow of anybody what a lobbyist advises a client. Why is there a need to register that person? If he is simply advising his client as to what to do, why should that original lobbyist register?
Lord Rooker
The point behind this is that the Bill is addressing an issue that does not really arise. The vast majority of the work that takes place is lobbyists training and advising others how to do their own lobbying. They will not get caught by this. The reality is that the Bill will not cover anybody. The numbers are going down all the while. We will end up with a register with nobody on it; there will be no fees to run the register. I am not criticising this; it is a perfectly respectable way to work. I do not want to criticise people who train others how to lobby; it is a bit like training others how to legislate. But that is what the industry told the Select Committee in the other place about how the industry works. This Bill is a complete waste of time and does not address the issues the Government set out to address. That is what is behind Amendment 12, simply the way it works.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend if I misunderstood slightly what he was driving at. But it begs the question as to whether the 350 companies that the Minister referred to at the Dispatch Box include some of those companies that my noble friend was arguing were excluded from the legislation. The Minister might want to provide for us a more detailed analysis of how that list of 350 was drawn up so that we can see whether it includes some organisations that we believe are excluded under the legislation.
Amendment 17, which was in the first group, and Amendment 19, which is in this group, are in my name and deal with essentially the same issue. Amendment 19 stems from an unease I harbour about how some lobbying works in practice. I want to make it clear that I understand the vital role lobbying plays within our system of government. What I worry about is how people interpret the word “lobbying”.
Clause 2(3) defines lobbying as “oral or written communications” but there are oral communications and oral communications. This came out during an interview on the “Andrew Marr Show” on 7 October this year. The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, was asked by Andrew Marr whether he had been lobbied by Lynton Crosby, the Conservative Party strategist, on the issue of tobacco. He replied, after the question had been repeated, that Lynton Crosby “has not intervened”. It was a curious construction of the language. You got the feeling that some wriggling was going on. I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no idea where the truth lies. I am sure that Mr Crosby is a perfectly excellent gentleman; that is not the point that I am making. I am simply drawing on that as an example of how there can be a wriggle on the use of the term.
The answers given by the Prime Minister during that interview reminded me of the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, during the famous Paxman interview. It also brought memories back of the many conversations we had in the Select Committee on Members’ Interests in the 1980s during the course of our inquiry into lobbying nearly 30 years ago, under the chairmanship of the late Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith. There was endless discussion on formal as against informal discussion—formal as against informal lobbying—the word in the back of the cab as against the discussion across the table in the department with civil servants or a Minister present; the word on the golf circuit as against the formal response to a consultation.
The issue is where you draw the line. To this day I do not know, and I have asked Ministers over the years where they draw the line and there has always been much ambiguity as to where that line is to be drawn. When is an intervention not lobbying? When is lobbying not an intervention? This is a probing amendment to tease out some guidelines on where that line is to be drawn.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I read with interest Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because there is a serious point here, although I am not sure that that is the right way to approach it. As I mentioned earlier, way back in the 1980s, I headed a public affairs consultancy. I recall that on many occasions I and my colleagues would advise clients. They were not, on the whole, commercial clients. They were usually trade associations, local authority associations, environmental groups, the Countryside Commission, the Rural Development Commission, and so on. Ministers and their senior team would always rather hear from the horse’s mouth, not from me as an intermediary. I had some experience; I had previously been a Member of Parliament; but it was far more effective for bodies of such reputation to speak directly to Ministers. So there is the definition suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that not just those who are themselves making representations but those who, in return for payment, provide professional advice on how to lobby should be within the subsection.
However, we may be losing the effective target for the legislation. It would not be appropriate to deal with the next group of amendments in great detail, but the critical issue is who meets who when and what is discussed. In those days, I may have advised a client to take a particular line, think about the implications, talk to particular people in whatever context or perhaps given them bullet points as to what to say. For example, I recall advising a client on what approach they should take when talking to the then Prime Minister about which of the options should be supported by the Government for the Channel crossing. We went into detail about exactly what should be said. We did not go to see the Prime Minister in No. 10, and Sir Nicholas Henderson, who was the leader of that particular team, did not take a great deal of advice from me—he was far too experienced at dealing with Prime Ministers, not least Mrs Thatcher.
The critical issue is the details of the meeting: who, when and how? That is why, in the next group of amendments, we will address that to a greater extent. It is important that we concentrate on that. I give credit to the present Government because they have made that a great deal more transparent than it has been in the recent past. That is a real step forward, and we must make sure that the Bill builds on that.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I support these probing amendments from my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Campbell-Savours, and certainly look forward to the Minister’s response. On Amendment 30, I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker that such an amendment would afford important protection to the Minister and his office but, as he acknowledged, that should be a matter of good practice, and I am not sure that one can always legislate for good practice. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s views.
My noble friend Lady Hayter and I have tabled Amendments 21, 28 and 48 to 50. There are three essential issues: the inclusion of electronic communications; the inclusion of lobbying about European legislation; and the exclusion of parts of the schedule that limit the definitions of lobbying. In the 21st century, I think we would all accept that electronic communications are probably the principal way by which we all communicate, yet the Bill defines communications as “oral or in writing” and fails to make clear whether electronic indications are also included. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that. If electronic communications are not included, I hope that the Government will consider that issue and, if not, I will certainly come back with an amendment at a later stage.
Apparently, the Australian register of lobbyists states that communications with a government representative includes oral, written and electronic communications, and the USA register provides that the term lobbying contact means any oral or written communication, including an electronic communication. Were electronic communications not to be included, there would be a loophole. I am sorry to keep banging on about this, but Jeremy Hunt’s texts to News Corporation lobbyist Frederic Michel about Rupert Murdoch’s proposed takeover of BSkyB were in electronic form. It is important that that should be captured.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for the detail of the various amendments. I will take them all back and consider them. First, on Amendment 10, it was absolutely the intention of the Bill to capture consultant lobbyists who lobby as a profession, not the neighbour who is lobbying for a friend about a housing development, or whatever, for no payment. That is part of informal campaigning, which is different from the professional consultant lobbyists with whom Part 1 is intended to deal.
I clearly need to have a long tutorial with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I promise that I will give him a good deal of my time, but I hope that that gives him some comfort. I also take the noble Lord’s point, which I had noted in the committee report, about not only direct lobbying but the sort of indirect lobbying that comes through professional advice and the danger that public affairs companies will retreat from saying that they are lobbying to saying that they are merely providing advice. We clearly need to ensure that we cover that.
On the question of VAT, the Government were looking for a simple means to exclude the very small fry from the Bill. It was felt that whether or not a business has a large enough turnover to have to register for VAT was the simplest and easiest method to exclude the small fry and include the large ones. That is the intention. If the noble Lord has a better way to do it, I look forward to discussing it, but there is nothing more intended by that provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, had an interesting thought about whether communications include interventions. I am advised that interventions are communications, but, again, we will consider in detail the subtle differences that may occur. I am certainly advised that it is established practice in legislative drafting that the now ubiquitous nature of electronic communications is accepted as being included in the term “writing”, except in cases where the context specifically demands otherwise. The Bill therefore makes no distinction between a handwritten note, a typewriter-produced letter—if such still exist—a dot matrix-printed telegram, a fax, an e-mail, a text message, a personal tweet or a BlackBerry messenger conversation, so I assure the noble Lord that the amendment is not necessary.
On the inclusion of “European” in the Bill, I understand that the intention is that lobbying the UK Government in respect of European legislation will be captured. Our understanding is that lobbying with respect to government policy, including government policy towards the European Union, is covered by the Bill but we will look at that to make sure that it is fully covered.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, that is very welcome but would that include our officials who are working in Brussels?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Let me take that back and be absolutely sure. We are all conscious that, as has been said, Brussels is the seat of lobbying on the largest scale, after Washington. We need to make sure that the interaction between those huge American law firms based in Brussels, which have large lobbying activities, and others is not excluded from the Bill. I will certainly take that back.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am grateful for what the Minister says. The other point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was about level. When you are looking at UKRep and thinking about Brussels, it would be best to think not just about the Permanent Representative and the Deputy Permanent Representative, because in many ways those are figureheads. The real work is done in working groups by quite junior public servants. Some are diplomats and some civil servants but they are often in their early 30s and, in those working groups, they are doing serious legislation. They certainly are beset by lobbyists from outside all the time, so if you are going wide then you need to look down in seniority a bit, well below the top brass.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, in answering these amendments I set out to avoid reading out any of the note prepared beforehand, in order to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. However, let me read out the paragraph I have on that. I can assure noble Lords that any lobbying of the UK Government in relation to European legislation is indeed captured by the Government’s provision at Clause 2(3)(a), which captures communications in relation to government policy. Communications in relation to the development, adoption or modification of the Government’s policy on any element of European legislation would therefore be captured by the definition of lobbying as drafted.
The overlap between what happens in Brussels and London is, I appreciate, a slightly more subtle issue than that. The question of what happens when everyone is abroad is a constant of globalisation, and one which the British Parliament may find it a little difficult to cover entirely by legislation.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The question is of how policy develops in response to a development in the negotiation. Policy is not an artefact made in London, whole and entire, which stays like that all the way through a negotiation. Policy has to take account of what others do or what amendments emerge from the European Parliament. The process of legislation in Brussels is very much ongoing and the key figure is often the young man or woman who is sitting in the relevant working group. Yes, they will be contacting London but they will also be contacting their opposite numbers. The chances are that most of the decisions on how we react in a war of movement will be taken on the ground, without reference up to Ministers. Of course the Ministers will see every night how we are getting on but, over there in Brussels, the lobbyists are very close to this. If you are to take an interest in contact between lobbyists and UKRep, do not cut it off at the Permanent Representative and Deputy Permanent Representative.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the political process flows through a whole series of meetings. Capturing every single dimension of the political process may be beyond the wit of man or woman to achieve. We are looking here at making lobbying more transparent and capturing the main actors involved. The Bill specifically includes the lobbying of Ministers wherever they are: in London, Brussels or Washington. How far down the chain of officials we go, outside the United Kingdom as well as inside it, is a matter that we need to consider under the issue of proportionality and how far we think we need to cover absolutely everything.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which is on note-taking. Perhaps recording rather than note-taking is what we might now be considering. As the noble Lord said, the question of how far one can legislate for good practice under all circumstances is very difficult but, again, I will take that back and discuss the matter further with him.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 51 takes us back to the definition of directly employed lobbyists versus consultant lobbyists. As I said on a previous grouping, Part 1 is intended to deal fundamentally with consultant lobbyists—lobbyists for hire—rather than those directly employed in the public affairs departments of multinational companies. From my own experience, perhaps I may say that companies and banks based in London often operate directly with government and we know who they are. Consultant lobbyists are often representing companies based abroad, foreign Governments or others who are not used to knowing how the British political system works. That is one reason why they come to consultant lobbyists, who are specialists. They advise them and then often lobby for them. That is part of what we want to catch in a globalised political system where non-British actors, so to speak, are taking an active part in our political process.
Having, I hope, answered some of the points raised and repeated that I am open to further conversations off the Floor with those who have tabled these amendments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his response. What the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said in his intervention regarding Brussels is absolutely right. It so happens that about 95% of the legislation affecting food in this country, and which is implemented by the government department—the Food Standards Agency—is actually European. It starts in Brussels. At the point when I joined the FSA in about 2009, my predecessor had already decided to embed someone in UKRep because we were too often too slow. If you are not there when the conveyor belt starts, you cannot influence it and we were too far down it.
Look at the evidence of what happened with the way that the food information regulations were dealt with in Europe. There was massive lobbying against some of the things that we wanted to do, such as traffic-light labelling. I will not criticise people from other countries but the international lobbying was massive. We got a first-class individual, exactly as described by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I will not name them. There are negotiations and meetings while they are trying to get this stuff ready for the Parliament, which has more interference now—I meant more contact and should not have said that; parliamentarians should interfere but the EU Parliament has a different role now in this area—but there is no way that you would get all that detail back for Ministers and perm secs. The decisions would be done, so it is on a different level completely.
I wanted to reinforce that from my own little window of experience from the last few years. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 10.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, Amendments 54 and 74 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Royall. We support an independent registrar, which means independent of the industry as well as working independently of the Government. However, the matters over which the registrar must judge, the standards that he or she sets and the objectives set for the office have an importance to Parliament and to our standards and expectations. We believe that that requires an organic link to Parliament, not just to the Government of the day.
We think it appropriate that that link is to the elected House, which by its nature is responsive to the outside electorate and their concerns and interests. We recommend that the Minister, in making the appointment, should consult the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place and that, in similar mode, the registrar should report back to that committee on an annual basis.
We recognise the strength of the other amendments in this group, and we trust that the Minister will similarly do so and agree to take these away and bring back his own amendments on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, the principle in Amendment 74 of the registrar reporting is important. In my view, though, rather than reporting to a particular committee, it would be more appropriate to oblige the registrar to produce an annual report to Parliament itself. If it were going to be confined, I would not just confine it to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place; I hear what the noble Baroness says, but there would also be a case for the Constitution Committee of you Lordships’ House being included as well. My preference would be for a report to Parliament, but I wholly support the principle that there ought to be a report. As the noble Baroness said, bringing the registrar within the scope of Parliament is entirely appropriate.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, my Amendment 63 comes within this group. It is an extremely important amendment and one that is so central to the Bill that I hope there will be general agreement with its purpose. It may not be in perfect form; that is a different matter.
The amendment would insist that, alongside, there would be a central database of meetings between Ministers and external organisations, as recorded under the Ministerial Code. As the Minister said earlier, and as has been said on other occasions, not least at Second Reading, there is wide agreement across your Lordships’ House that the movement towards more transparency on meetings, with reports from various Ministers about what meetings have taken place with outside organisations, has been a major step forward under the present coalition Government. In fact, I was astonished to learn that this is the first Government to proactively publish the details of such meetings.
There is nevertheless a concept known among transparency campaigners as “hidden in plain sight”. That means that important information about who is bringing influence to bear in government may be published but may still be obscured by the form in which it is published. That is the issue to which I made reference at Second Reading and to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made reference earlier, when we had a brief exchange. That is critical to making progress in this direction.
To find out who Tesco has met in government over the past 12 months, you need to go manually to each of 26 different departmental websites, and then you have to look at spreadsheets for each quarter. There are therefore 104 spreadsheets that you need to find, and you then need to download them—just to get one simple bit of information: who has Tesco been talking to over the past 12 months? You will probably find that one or two departments have not even got around to publishing for the latest quarter, so it is not in real time. Indeed, by the time that department does publish that information, the influence that has been exerted over important legislation might have come and gone, right through Parliament. There is simply no opportunity to see what has happened.
You might find that one or two departments have broken or defective links that lead nowhere; we discovered that when we looked at some of the relevant spreadsheets. Surely it should not be necessary for a citizen, journalist or indeed parliamentarian to spend days looking for such simple information. The technology is there. Having made such a good start, this Government should surely not be hiding what is happening at this level simply because the systems that they are using are not up to the job.
If the Government took up the suggestion in our amendment, a simple and searchable central database for all their meeting data would mean that we could take the sting out of the calls, here and elsewhere, for an enormous lobbying register. We would have immediate access. This would fulfil my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth’s objectives: we would have the information, very accessibly, at our fingertips very quickly. It would not matter whether the lobbyist was a professional consultant or an in-house one, a charity or some other organisation; the information about who was talking to whom within the governmental system would be available relatively accessibly.
In my office we started to try to put together the spreadsheets for different departments. We just did two or three departments for one quarter in order to see if this experiment could be undertaken by anyone—parliamentarians or people outside. Excel itself can then produce a list of external organisations that have met Ministers. Quickly we could see who had met Ministers in more than one department, right across Whitehall. Surely that should be the objective that we all have. If we can do that in my office, there is no reason why departments and the Government collectively should not and could not do so. If it was done professionally, the data would then need to be parsed to ensure that if a meeting with BT came up, for example, it was indicated whether the meeting was registered as with BT, with BT Group or in other formats. Clearly there has to be some moderating intervention, but in this day and age that is surely not too difficult or expensive a task to ask of Government in the interests of transparency, which is surely what this initiative is all about. Then the result will be a fully searchable database, online, for all to examine—interested citizens, organisations outside Parliament, journalists and us. We could see what exactly had happened in the process of influencing legislation or executive decisions.
To make it more effective still, government departments should surely be able to publish these data at least on a monthly basis. Previously the Minister explained that he records very carefully all such meetings. Why should other Ministers not do so on a monthly basis rather than a quarterly basis? Surely that is no more difficult than doing so on a wider time basis. Anyone who has tried to influence the Government knows that time is critical. Get in at the right moment, or you fail. Given the way in which legislation, particularly statutory instruments, can go through both Houses of Parliament relatively speedily, if you do not know who has talked to whom within a matter of a few weeks after their meeting has taken place, the exercise becomes purely academic.
We need to see when people have been exerting influence at the same time as that influence may have had effect, not three or six months later. These would be very simple but very significant improvements. I hope that the Government, who have now created a more transparent system for meetings—the first time that any Government have attempted this—can see that this is the way to be more transparent still, and that surely is precisely what Parliament should be asking in the context of this legislation.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I support what my noble friend just said. It seems rather silly to have done what is required in order to be transparent without taking the necessary steps to make it easy for other people to access that transparency. For example, ministerial diaries will be done on a daily basis, I assume, or possibly on a weekly basis, in advance, I hope, so the basic structure is there almost immediately. I cannot see why the diary cannot immediately be put out. Obviously, the diary sometimes has to be corrected, because even ministerial diaries sometimes do not actually transpire as intended, but an immediate correction could be made to make sure that it is accurate. I cannot see why it could not be done immediately, on a daily basis. Certainly, weekly would seem perfectly possible. If not, having made what one might regard as an important step towards transparency, the Government are losing the full benefit of that transparency by the difficulty that people have in accessing it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Ministerial diaries need to be secure about the future. There are security considerations about ministerial movements. The future is quite different from the past. I do not see any reason why ministerial diaries should not be available the following day. I agree that they need to reflect not what the Minister planned to do, but what he actually did, and therefore the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is quite right, but that can easily be done within a few hours. I see no reason why they should not be out the following day. I think the Foreign Secretary’s diary used to be, until a slightly embarrassing moment in the time of Ernest Bevin. When he was planning to go to the cinema, the diary said, “Night of love with Mrs Bevin”.
Lord Campbell-Savours
It seems to me that there is a bridge between the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, at Second Reading and the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, today. That is the way forward, but what it really needs is courage. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will recall that in the previous Parliament I had to lead a rebellion against my own Government on political funding. We won. We defeated the Labour Government. I, a Labour Peer, was behind that rebellion.
It may well be that because what is being advocated here is so very different from the approach being proposed by the Government, it needs a bit of bottle and a bit of courage for the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, or the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to take on their Government on the Floor of the House of Lords and in the Division Lobbies in the hope that they will have the support of the Official Opposition for the amendment. That is the only way we are going to be able to reshape the legislation whereby there is a far greater element of accountability in the way the noble Lords suggested in their contributions during this debate and at Second Reading.
Lord Hardie
I support this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to coming forward with an amendment on Report to give effect to this. This may well not only meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, but also the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, at Second Reading that an easier and perhaps more effective approach to lobbying issues might be to require the person in government who is lobbied by discernible commercial interests to declare that in a lobbying register. That would perhaps go slightly further than the amendment, but I think the amendment meets the concerns expressed then. The amendment would have the added advantage that it would enshrine in statute this admirable initiative taken by the Government so that it would apply not just to this Government on a voluntary basis, but to all future Governments so that Ministers would be obliged to disclose their activities and they would appear alongside the details in the register.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I am slightly worried about the speed which is being talked about by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Tyler. I have no objection to getting up-to-date information but, if I understand correctly, we are talking about the information going out the following day. There have to be security implications. When I held of the office of Speaker, I was warned that there are fixated individuals who watch, stalk, make a pest of themselves and can be even more dangerous than that. The information would not only show up who the Minister was meeting but could well show up the venue, the place where the Minister was meeting. If it showed on a regular basis over a number of weeks that a meeting was taking place at a certain venue—let us say that the Minister by preference wanted to meet in his or her native city and said, “Make it a Friday at my constituency central office”—it could throw up a pattern of where the Minister was every Friday or every Monday for that matter, before they moved down to Westminster. I put that in as a word of caution. If the information says that the Minister met a representative from BT or Centrica, I would not be too unhappy, but if it showed a Minister meeting at a certain venue, I would worry about that.
Lord Tyler
I think I should make it clear that I suggested monthly. The present arrangement is three-monthly, but sometimes it is three months beyond that. I am less in a hurry than the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is much more radical. I am modest on these matters.
Lord Norton of Louth
I add my support to my noble friend’s amendment, but it does not go far enough. Partly for the reason he just mentioned, I would be more ambitious, along the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. There is no reason why you cannot have a rolling publication after the event excluding, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, the venue because that is not really germane. It is the substance of the discussion that matters. I would be more ambitious than my noble friend Lord Tyler.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours said, the amendment links to what I am arguing. It moves us in the right direction, so I am fully in support; it is just that I want to go further because this is a database of meetings between Ministers and external organisations and we need to extend it in terms of who is being seen. Just confining it to Ministers creates problems, so we need a larger database, or we certainly need to be able to identify those who are being lobbied.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am fascinated to hear this great outbreak of revolution in transparency. We thought that we were set out on a constructive step forward on transparency. I am not sure that I want all Ministers’ and civil servants’ diaries published the day after they meet anyone, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, was beginning to suggest.
I will try to answer the various probing amendments. A number of them, starting with Amendment 54, are about stiffening the independence of the registrar. Amendment 54 would require the Minister to consult with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee before appointing the registrar. I am not aware whether that has yet been requested by the committee itself, but it is an interesting proposal.
The amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, would prevent any person who had been a civil servant or a political adviser in the previous five years being appointed registrar. This is also thoughtful, and designed to provide assurance regarding the independence of the registrar which, of course, the Government are entirely committed to establishing and maintaining. Under the Bill, the registrar will be appointed according to the public appointment principles of open and fair competition and the Minister will be able to dismiss the registrar only where they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that he is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of his office. If thought unreasonable, any such decision by a Minister could be challenged in the usual way, by judicial review. The registrar will be independent of the lobbying industry and the Government, and will have a clear remit to operate independently of the lobbying industry and the Government.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, seeks to extend the positions that will not be eligible for appointment as registrar to capture those officials who would be required to submit information to him or her under his new clause. The Government are not persuaded of the case for the noble and learned Lord’s additions, and would therefore resist this amendment.
The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the registrar is independent. We are confident that our proposals secure that, but are grateful for these suggestions and will of course consider whether they should be pursued further.
Amendment 63 has attracted a considerable amount of support. It would require that, in addition to the statutory register of consultant lobbyists, the registrar would be required to keep and publish a central database of ministerial meetings with external organisations.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When the Minister responded to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, I heard him say that the Government would consider the amendment; he will find that that is what he said in Hansard. If that is the case, can we be assured, then, that the chairman of that committee in the Commons will be consulted so that there can be discussion in the committee about to what extent it thinks that it is a realistic possibility for it to carry out that function, so that Ministers at least have the view of the committee when they make a judgment as to whether to accept my noble friend’s amendment?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not going to give that commitment now because there are larger questions about how many public appointments should be overseen by Commons committees. That is a much broader issue than this appointment alone. I will take that back and consult with others but, as I said earlier, the Government are not currently persuaded of these amendments.
I return to the central database issue, which raises some large issues about the role of the registrar and whether or not ministerial appointments should be handed over, so to speak, for collation by an independent body associated with the Government. We have listened to those who have asked that the reports be available from one central location and have responded by migrating all meeting reports to gov.uk, where they can be readily accessed as both PDF and open-format CSV files. We have responded to those that suggested that the timeliness of reporting could be improved by committing to publishing all meeting information in the quarter immediately after that in which the meeting took place. I note the pressure to go further. The Government are committed to the principles of open government and we continue to investigate how we can further improve the value of the information that we make available to the public. However, we are not at present persuaded that we should be going as far as the noble Lord suggests.
Opposition Amendment 74 would require the registrar to submit an annual report to the PCRC on the operation of the register. Again, this is not a provision that I understand that the committee itself has sought—perhaps because it recognises that the registrar is already required by the drafting to submit their annual accounts to Parliament and that the committee will be perfectly entitled and able to call the registrar to provide evidence at any time. I would have thought that that would be enough to hold them to account.
The new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is by far the most ambitious amendment. It would require the Government to publish alongside any statement on a matter of policy, legislation or a contract or grant, records of any oral or written communication directed to a Minister, the Minister’s parliamentary private secretary or special adviser, and any departmental civil servants relating to that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, provides exemptions from the requirement to publish for commercial or security-sensitive material. This is certainly an intriguing proposal but, I suggest, neither a feasible nor proportionate one. At a time when our focus should be on ensuring more efficient and effective government, a statutory requirement that every oral or written communication received by every civil servant, special adviser, PPS or Minister be recorded, collated and published in parallel with any relevant statement would appear ill advised. It would of course be an absolute goldmine for an academic researcher.
Not only would such a system impose an unwelcome bureaucratic burden on the public sector, it would likely impose information overload on the members of the public—perhaps even academic researchers. The volume of information that the Government would likely be required to publish in relation to a Budget Statement or a Queen’s Speech would be so overwhelming that any transparency value would be entirely undermined by the inaccessibility and quantity of the information. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who talked about “hiding in plain sight”. When there is too much information provided, it is sometimes hard to weed out what is crucial.
The Government’s objective is to provide the public with valuable information which they can utilise to scrutinise our actions and hold us to account. The focus should be on the value of information and the insight it can provide, not on the volume. The Government already publish unprecedented amounts of information about decision-making, and the register is intended to extend that transparency to those who seek to influence decision-makers. It is already standard practice that responses to government consultations are published in full and in summary, and if the public require further information about certain policies or decisions then they have a right to request that information using the Freedom of Information Act.
I recognise that the noble Lord is urging the Government to extend our information publication regime a good deal further. We will continue to consider how enhanced transparency can best be achieved. I suggest, however, that a statutory requirement of this nature is not the most appropriate manner in which to do so. I therefore resist that amendment, and urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this has turned into a more interesting and wide-ranging debate than we had anticipated. There are two parts to it. One is about this database. On the idea that there is too much for us and therefore the Government do not want to put it out there—they should try harder than that. The House knows I have a certain thing about alcohol misuse. I just want to know how many drinks companies lobbied the Government about tax before the Budget. It ought to be possible to know that. I do not want all the other submissions. Someone who is interested in the environment or any other issue will just be focused and want to drill down to one thing. If it is a good system, an awful lot of noise out there will not matter.
When I am not spending my time here at 7.30 pm I am quite often at the National Theatre. You can go there with a tiny card and you have ordered perhaps four different lots of tickets for different nights and different theatres. You put in your little card and you get them all back. Its computer system can do it very easily. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man—even men—to produce a similar system for this database, which is currently completely unsearchable. It is not, in the words of the Minister readily available. I have tried to search it, although I did not try for quite as long as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—in future I will come to his office when I am trying to find this out. However, it is not searchable or rapid, and is therefore almost irrelevant, so late is it. I cannot see why it cannot be available the next day. If there was a will, there would certainly be a way.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
From time to time Parliament does change the structure and the nomenclature of its committees. I think the Government would be a little hesitant to write the current structure of committees into legislation.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The words “relevant select committee” could be used.
Lord Norton of Louth
On that point, legislation does write in the name of committees or the equivalent, so it is quite possible to do that.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Not only does the noble Lord, Lord Norton, supply me with his wonderful Hull students to help me with my work, but he comes up with answers to my questions, for which I thank him.
What seems like a small amendment about writing the committee in is an important signal. I am sorry that we keep hearing the words “not persuaded” from that side. Having had the earlier discussion about Part 2 of the Bill, we very much hope that the Government will be persuaded by what they hear. I had hoped that some of that might have bled into Part 1 of the Bill and that the Government might have been persuaded by some of the things we said. However, we will leave it here, although we may want to come back to some of it at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Armed Forces: Civilian Life
Lord Craig of Radley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Transition Mapping Study published by the Forces in Mind Trust in August into understanding the transition process for armed forces personnel returning to civilian life.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister and her evident versatility to the Dispatch Box. We debated medicine labelling 10 days ago and transition mapping tonight—that is surely a very broad canvas for her skills.
Due to redundancy programmes in the Armed Forces, more than the usual annual numbers of personnel are making the transition from service to civilian life. The Transition Mapping Study, published by the Forces in Mind Trust last August, is therefore a timely and important new look at this subject. It is a new look into the many issues and problems that may arise for some, but by no means all, who leave the forces and seek to establish themselves in a new civilian career or occupation.
I will first remind your Lordships of the Forces in Mind Trust. It is a new charity, which owes its genesis to the inspiration and determination of Air Vice-Marshal Stables, then chairman of COBSEO, to set up a charitable organisation that would be complementary to and supportive of the many service charities that already exist. Some might argue that there are enough already, so why have yet another one? Time is too short to explain in detail. Briefly, however, Stables was able to persuade the Big Lottery Fund to make a grant of £35 million to set up the Forces in Mind Trust, and the Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry has given partnership support. Those are surely two very resounding votes of confidence in the concept, place and value of this new charity.
The trust aims initially to concentrate on transition, a term used to describe the process whereby service men and women, as well as their families and dependants, make their individual preparations to leave the Armed Forces and return to civilian life. For the majority who leave each year this is a successful process. However, there are a significant number who have faced or are facing a difficult transition, and the trust has focused on that group. The trust’s patron is the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who would have wished to take part in this debate but unfortunately has a speaking engagement elsewhere this evening.
The Transition Mapping Study report, which is the trigger for this short debate, is well worth study. Some recurring themes emerge from it—for example, transition experiences vary greatly, and much depends on the individual’s attitude to his or her transition. The differences between military and civilian life are often underestimated; cultural differences, for example, can come as some surprise, and even as a shock. Families matter; the extent to which the service leaver’s family is supportive and able to help is a strong indicator of likely transition success. Financial awareness is also important. For many it differs greatly between their service experience and forthcoming civilian life. The quality and consistency of the transition process within the services has improved but remains uneven. After transition the safety net that could be provided by service charities is hard to navigate. Not everyone who leaves the Armed Forces is entitled to resettlement support. Even among the entitled, some lack educational qualifications. Others are required to serve their final months deployed overseas or distant from their chosen civilian life. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, says in his foreword to the report, such individuals are at particular risk of failing to make a successful transition.
I will draw attention to some guiding principles identified in the report, from page 78 onwards, to aid those assisting with transition. These have been distilled from interviewing stakeholders, analysis of existing research and the research team’s own work and modelling. For example, how can one best comprehend and encompass the whole context of the experiences of a service leaver? Moving from a service environment to a civilian one is not simply about a change of job; it involves a change of lifestyle and culture, maybe moving home, establishing new friendships, new schools for the children, greater personal administration and responsible management of personal affairs. It involves not only the individual service man or woman but also the immediate members of their family.
Each case will be different, so it is not simply a matter of identifying or adopting a broad systemic approach. Rather, how should support organisations tailor and direct their services to meet the needs and aspirations of the individual in a more personally structured way? As he or she joins the forces, that individual faces the inevitability of transition and its related financial, emotional and cultural changes and experiences. So how soon, and with what help and guidance, should the individual and their immediate family start to prepare? Problems with mental health and alcohol abuse may have a direct bearing on making a successful transition. Some who are leaving the forces today have been exposed to the traumas and tragedies and operations in a way that may, months and even years later, lead to mental stress and related illnesses. Those individuals will surely need additional help.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, also mentions in his foreword to the report, there is a clear, evidence-based economic case for some change in the current arrangements. Failed transition cost the state upwards of £113 million in 2012. The financial cost to the charity sector and individuals will be many times more, not to mention the quality of life cost to the individual of ill health, family breakdown and even imprisonment. The report lists 10 categories of failed transition—for example, homelessness, imprisonment, class A drug treatment, family breakdown and unemployment. Through an algorithm, it calculates that the cost to the state in benefits, treatment and loss of revenue adds up to that figure of £113 million for 2012. Those are stark symptoms of transition breakdown, which must not be ignored or brushed under the carpet.
I shall be interested to learn from the Minister how the MoD and the Government are reacting to the work of the Forces in Mind Trust. Do they accept the thrust of its analysis and recommendations? I acknowledge that the MoD has introduced some new transition arrangements, but does the Minister agree that further change is acquired? Is not a more cost-effective approach to this important aspect of the support of the Armed Forces and the practical value of the Armed Forces covenant required? I look forward to her response.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I quickly point out that timings for this debate are quite tight.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for introducing this debate and offering an opportunity to consider the issues around members of the Armed Forces returning to civilian life. The timing is particularly appropriate as we approach Remembrance Day, when the nation pays tribute to all those who have laid their lives on the line in the service of the country.
As the noble and gallant Lord said, and as was mentioned in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, last week, military life is not just a job but a way of life. Leaving the military can mean personnel and their families leaving work, homes and communities, each of which will impose disturbance and uncertainty. In addition, as the insightful survey by the Forces in Mind Trust makes clear, there are very varied cultural differences between military and civilian, in forms of behaviour, language and expectations.
The transition to civilian employment has been greatly improved since the days when the military ran its own training programmes with its own, often somewhat mystical, accreditation. During the many years when I worked for City and Guilds, we saw expansion in demand from the military for NVQs and other vocational qualifications. New recruits sometimes needed basic literacy and numeracy qualifications. Advanced skills, such as those called for by REME, with its technical and mechanical prowess, by nuclear submariners in the Royal Navy, or aeronautical engineers in the Royal Air Force, and many other forms of skills could be recognised in a way that would be understood and valued by civilian employers. City and Guilds also worked with higher command and staff courses to award degree-level qualifications. Over the years, increasing numbers of personnel have been offered opportunities to gain university degrees—again, placing them in a better position for civilian life. So whatever the rank or length of service, all should now leave with a profile of achievement which equips them for the employment market. Creating transferable skills is one of the recommendations in this report.
But there is more to the transition, of course. Ray Lock, the chief executive of the Forces in Mind Trust, which generated the survey, has flagged up the importance of practical skills to cope with everyday life. Military personnel who have spent their service life in barracks or mess accommodation may have little experience of managing their personal finances. If food, accommodation, heating and uniforms have all been provided, it can be a steep learning curve to have to sort out everyday needs for oneself. As he says,
“soldiers, sailors and airmen can join up as young as 17 and are cocooned from civilian life when they are in the forces. As well as missing the camaraderie and identity of the Armed Forces, they can struggle to deal with rent, bills and planning”.
The study found that the worst affected were often young veterans who had left early. They may have joined up with few coping skills and, in a short period in service, not managed to build up self-sufficiency. An essential part of any transition process will include learning the responsibilities of everyday life. Critical to that is financial literacy, which should be part of every school leaver’s education and one of the many areas in which the Armed Forces are doing considerable work to try to improve the skills of those serving. Another theme of the report is to create independence.
The challenges faced by single people are matched by those with dependent relatives. In my 30 years, when my husband was a serving RAF officer, I became very involved in welfare matters, particularly in respect of wives and families; this was before the days when partners were officially recognised. The military community has always been resourceful and capable of innovative self-help projects. I remember that, through the station executives, it was possible to set up opportunities, albeit limited, for families to access learning and training, which would give them some skills and confidence to continue learning, both during and after their service life. Those were embryonic schemes, and much progress has been made since then, with official engagement with the family, which is another theme of the report. It is important to do this at the earliest stage.
The transition for families can be as demanding and traumatic as for the members of the Armed Forces. Measures that enable dependent relatives to be supportive rather than burdensome at this time bring all-round benefits. I pay tribute to the work of families federations, which have raised the profile of military family life, identified problem areas and offered supportive solutions. Would my noble friend the Minister, whom I welcome to her role within the Ministry of Defence, be able to say something about government support for the Army, Navy and Air Force families federations?
Many of the qualities and skills called for in military life are entirely transferable and will prove valuable throughout society—not just professional skills, but the ethos of public service, teamwork and respect for others. Plans to recruit troops into teaching, for instance, are beginning to bear fruit. Other public and private sector employers would do well to look out for these new entrants to the civilian market.
In your Lordships’ House, there is enormous expertise and support for the Armed Forces. In addressing the transition brought to the fore by the redundancy programme, I trust that the Government will take positive action to take full account of the military covenant and be generous in support of the invaluable members of the Armed Forces during these testing times. I look forward to the other contributions and to my noble friend’s response.
Lord Walker of Aldringham (CB)
My Lords, I apologise most profusely to the House and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for being absent at the very start of this debate. I declare two interests. I am a trustee of Veterans Aid which aims through a caring and non-judgmental approach to care for veterans in crisis and contribute to their return to society. I am also president of Stoll, a housing organisation which supports vulnerable veterans in the hope that they can live as independently as possible.
I would like to address two areas this evening. One is to do with the Forces in Mind transition study itself and the second is a wider point affecting the veterans sector in the UK as a whole. It is a great pity that the study did not address the singular and very knotty problem of foreign and Commonwealth personnel as they transition to civilian life here. There are about 8,500 such folk in the Armed Forces—some 5% of the total. It is not known how many of them aspire to British citizenship, but the annual number of foreign and Commonwealth veterans who have sought help from the Veterans Aid charity has increased exponentially over the past seven years and now constitutes some 22% of those who were seen by the charity this year.
This may be due in part to the successful resolution of the Lance Corporal Baleiwai case. Your Lordships may remember that he was a Fijian soldier who had served with distinction for 13 years, including on operational tours in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan, but, because he had had a barrack room fight with another soldier, was threatened with deportation. Following a petition and a relaxation of the rules by the Home Office, he and his family were allowed to stay. The publicity surrounding this case may well have given more of those likely to encounter such problems the courage to seek help. However, if there is a belief that because of interventions such as that the problem has gone away, that is not the experience of the charity. If anything, the situation is worse than it has ever been and the problems do not relate just to citizenship but to applications for indefinite and further leave to remain in the country. Many of those affected are service men and women who have served for less than four years and have been discharged on medical grounds or made redundant through no fault of their own. They believe that they have a fair claim to stay, but often do not. Public perceptions of the wider immigration issue also work to the detriment of this cohort. Indeed, they are further disadvantaged by the £1,000 cost of an application to regularise their status, which is not refundable if it fails.
A recent case is that of a former Royal Engineer from Nigeria who left the Army in September after two years of service, having been medically discharged. He had lived in the United Kingdom for six years but had never applied for citizenship. After leaving his Army quarters, he had nowhere to go. When he went to see the charity, he was sleeping in a garage and his 18 month-old daughter and pregnant wife were sleeping in a cupboard. The charity provided immediate intervention but this is not a long-term solution and the outcome remains uncertain.
Discretion can be exercised in these cases, but although there are guidelines they are by no means clear. They are further confused by the bureaucracy surrounding the applications, which is very complex, even for those with legal training, and virtually impenetrable to the lay soldiery. Not everyone can be helped, of course; there are clear cases where the actions of an individual make him or her ineligible. On the other hand, a single error on a form can generate rejection or critical delay.
Things are happening. A Private Member’s Bill in the other place seeks to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 so that foreign and Commonwealth citizens in the forces who want to apply for naturalisation as British citizens are not disadvantaged because of time served overseas. Current law states that foreign and Commonwealth citizens must have been in the UK for five years prior to making an application, and those who have spent time serving overseas, albeit on active service in Afghanistan, may have to wait longer to apply than non-service personnel or those who have spent their entire military career in the United Kingdom. It is clearly a well intentioned Bill that was introduced to ensure that the military covenant is delivered in practice as well as in spirit, and it should be applauded. It will, however, address only a small part of the wider problem.
This brings me to my wider point, which concerns the veterans sector as a whole. There are currently three studies relevant to this issue—the mapping study itself, the study of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, and a study being conducted by the Centre for Social Justice. The latter two have yet to report. We should await the outcome of these studies before any action is taken. However, coupled with the recent enshrinement into law of the military covenant, high expectations have been raised in the veteran community and the many charities involved.
We should not forget that the vast majority of those leaving the Armed Forces manage the transition to civilian life well. Those veterans in crisis or real need constitute a relatively small but none the less important cohort. At the same time, the veterans sector is comparatively well provided for. The Charity Commission calculates the net assets of Armed Forces charities at about £1.1 billion, with an annual gross income of nearly £750 million. However, there are currently some 2,050 Armed Forces charities from which these totals are aggregated. This seems a staggeringly high number and suggests that there is a charity for every 10 members of the Armed Forces. I suspect that many of them are unsustainable in the longer term and that many, too, are donor-led rather than needs-led, with good folk having what seems a cracking good idea and starting up a charity without serious analysis of the need. The marketplace is, indeed, very crowded.
Therefore, I suggest that, however well intentioned all these studies are, the time has come for a much more radical look at the veterans sector. We should revisit the notion of an independent veterans’ champion or ombudsman, or whatever would be the best title to describe him. The Ministry of Defence is the principal department with responsibility for veterans and has, through no fault of the individuals, had something like seven Secretaries of State and seven junior Ministers handling the veterans portfolio in the past eight years, which is not a recipe for focus and continuity. This is a source of concern for the ex-service charity world and begs the question of whether it is not time to look at the Canadian model of a fully fledged department of veteran affairs with an enshrined veterans’ charter. Working with the Charity Commission, this official or department should be able to bring a better coherence to the veteran sector while encouraging needs-led rather than donor-led activity and provisioning. It should also allow the sector to get the biggest bang for its buck, which is certainly not the case at the moment. It would have a much clearer focus on the issues across the board and across government and would have the independence to recommend courses of action to the Government, untrammelled by departmental agendas.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on securing this important debate. I want to concentrate primarily—at least initially—on personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Battlefield medicine has improved dramatically. Consequently, the survival rate of members of the Armed Forces who receive very severe injuries while on active service is much greater than would have been the case some years ago. As welcome as that is, the net effect is that many very seriously injured personnel are returning to this country. These young men and women will require perhaps 60 years of help and welfare.
I tabled a Question on this issue last December and was given the relevant figures at that time. I am sure that the noble Baroness who is to reply will have access to that information. There is a growing number of very seriously injured service personnel returning to this country who will require a career path to be worked out for them. If they are able to undertake work, that is extremely therapeutic. I know of a ranger in my own home area who is doing telephony work in a barracks, although it remains to be seen how permanent that will be. There are many special needs cases among these returning personnel. I hope that the noble Baroness will refer to them in her reply.
I also want to mention another development. A few weeks ago my party, the Ulster Unionist Party, put forward a proposal at home for a world-class trauma centre that we would like to be developed as part of our local mental health strategy, which is based on the Bamford review published a few years ago. It is the case, sadly, that because of our experience with Operation Banner and our Troubles over 40 years we have many people who served in the Armed Forces or the police, or their reserves, who are even now, after 30 or 40 years, presenting with clear illness only at this stage and requiring substantial aid and assistance. I just wonder how prepared we are to deal with such people.
Given that around the world there are cases such as all the shootings in American universities, the Norwegian experience and people returning from wars, including our service personnel, a huge number of people require help and assistance in dealing with the mental health effects of such terrible circumstances. Our idea is therefore to create in Northern Ireland a centre of excellence based partly on 40 years of experience but which would be opened up internationally, because people from, for example, the United States and the European Union have been helpful to us, and because, with our experience, we think that as well as receiving help we can perhaps give something back to the international community. That is why we are pursuing this. There was a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly yesterday on a Motion from our party that was passed unanimously, seeking support for the implementation of a strategy to deal with the trauma that had been created.
The military covenant was referred to. Given the commitments that Parliament and the Government have rightly made, we have to give a lot more attention to these issues than perhaps has hitherto been the case. Figures were quoted from the report and have been in the press. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, that those figures only scratch the surface, because it is impossible in many cases to put a financial value on some of the downstream consequences of these traumas, particularly when many ex-service personnel have multiple amputations and very severe injuries. The truth is that we do not know in this country what the consequences of these situations are going to be and we cannot estimate the cost.
I asked the Ministry of Defence in a Question last year whether the National Health Service was prepared and resourced to deal with these matters. I ask the Minister to address that issue. What provision is being made? We have large numbers of troops returning who are going to be interfacing with a transition process. Within that number will be a percentage who, over time, will present with post-traumatic stress and related conditions. I should like to think that we as a country will put some resources into helping research and development into these conditions, which would have an international application. Perhaps this is one area in which those in Northern Ireland who have had significant experience can give a lead—which is certainly our intention.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley on securing time for this debate, which is very timely in view of the period in the year in which we find ourselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, pointed out.
I was much impressed by the statement on page 15 of the Transition Mapping Study that the difference between a manageable transition and a poor one can come down to resources when the safety net provided by charities for ex-service personnel either works or fails to work, and by the point that the safety net is hard to navigate, even by those who understand it. I was impressed because I find this assessment of the efficacy of the safety net in present circumstances quite disturbing.
My initial contact with the services was some 55 years ago when I was called up for national service in the Army. Perhaps I was unusually fortunate, but two features of the Highland regiment that I joined impressed me at the time and are relevant to this debate. The first was that the regiment had strong links with particular areas in the Highlands and certain areas in the north of England from which traditionally it had drawn its recruits. The second feature was that the regiment maintained strong links with those areas by means of a network of regimental associations that were very active in looking after the interests of those who had left the service but were in need of support. We were all encouraged to believe that although we had gone back into civilian life, we were all still members of the regimental family. This applied especially to the regular soldiers who had been in the service for a long time. It was appreciated that they, too, would be likely to need support. That was why the associations were set up and why the retired officers of the regiment took such a strong interest in them.
I left the Army just as the process of amalgamations was starting. To begin with, the association system could cope with that. The regimental family was enlarged but was still a family. That all changed when all the surviving Scottish infantry regiments were gathered together into a single body, the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I make no criticism of the decision to reform the Army in Scotland in that way, but it has had the unfortunate consequence that as the links with particular recruiting areas and the associations that went with them were broken, the old families have almost entirely disappeared. That kind of support is not there any more. It will take time to build up a replacement.
I mention this because I suggest that it makes it all the more important that the Government pay very close attention to the points made in this study. The old system, when the regiments could do so much to provide the support and guidance that was needed in their own areas, has gone. Of course, as the study points out, there are strong differences between the culture of the different services, and indeed between the various units in the Army, too. The system which I have been describing was suited to the way the infantry regiments, each with its own cap badge, were organised. However, I suspect that the process of slimming down has made itself felt across all three services in a similar way. This increases the need for positive action by the Government, and it is a point that I think this study is making about the provision of resources.
At this time of the year one thinks, of course, of the Royal British Legion and of Poppyscotland, its Scottish counterpart whose unique poppy I wear. I am troubled by the suggestion that ex-servicemen find the charity sector, in which these organisations play such a prominent part, hard to navigate. I doubt whether this can be attributed to lack of effort by the charities. Each year Poppyscotland helps thousands of ex-service men and women and their families to overcome physical, emotional and financial difficulties. It also supports other veteran charities which provide specialist help and it has a high profile. Help is available to those who need it if they know where to go and can bring themselves to seek it. I am quite sure that Poppyscotland would not be alone in feeling disappointed if the route to get help from it were difficult to navigate. That is the last thing it would wish to happen. There are, however, as we all know and as has been mentioned by my noble and gallant friend Lord Walker, very many charities in this field, and one can understand that it may be a bit difficult for those who are in trouble to know where to turn to because, as the study points out, there is no central conduit for finding one’s way about.
Therefore, there seems to be much force in the points that the study makes, in recommendations 4.6 and 4.7, that there is a clear need for a central tool to be devised and provided. That would seem to be an important practical step that the Government might take to address this worrying situation, and I, for my part, would be very interested to learn from the Minister what assessment has been made of the possibility of taking it.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, to her defence brief as a Minister and extend to her our congratulations.
I, too, should like to express my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for securing this debate and for providing the opportunity to discuss some of the issues raised in the Transition Mapping Study, published nearly three months ago by the Forces in Mind Trust. The study reviews how the transition process from military to civilian life currently works, and how it is viewed by stakeholders and recent service leavers. That information has then been used to develop an economic model that calculates the cost to the United Kingdom as a whole of the impact of unsuccessful transition.
As has already been said, the report points out that the cost to the state last year of Armed Forces personnel not making a successful transition into civilian life at the end of their service is estimated at upwards of £113 million. On top of that are the financial costs to the many relevant charities which become involved and to the individuals and their families who are directly affected. The report makes 26 recommendations for addressing this issue. It goes on to state that the cost of implementing many of the recommendations would be but a small fraction of the £113 million cost figure for last year, when there were just under 20,000 service leavers.
The figure of £113 million for the costs of poor transition is broken down in the report. Alcohol misuse makes up the biggest single figure with a cost of £35 million, followed by mental health issues at £26 million. Unemployment costs come in next at £21 million, with the costs of family breakdown being put at £16 million. The cost of homelessness is assessed as being £5.5 million and ending up as a prison inmate £4.4 million. There are then the more limited costs related to other matters reflecting poor transition, which bring the total figure up to the £113 million.
The report recognises that over the past 13 years there has been an increased awareness of the issues involved in servicemen and servicewomen transitioning from the Armed Forces to the civilian world, starting with the formal statement in 2000 under the previous Government of the notion of the Armed Forces covenant. This spelt out why, as a society, we should ensure that those who have served in the military are not disadvantaged by their time in the services.
In 2003, the processes necessary to improve transition from the services to civilian life were initially outlined under the Ministry of Defence’s Strategy for Veterans, and this was further developed as part of a Command Paper published in 2008. The 2003 Strategy for Veterans laid down the objectives that transition to civilian life from the Armed Forces was intended to achieve. It set out three key pillars, the purpose of which was to ensure that veterans received excellent preparation for the transition to civilian life following service, support from the Government and the voluntary sector where needed, and recognition of their contribution to society.
Until 2011, the Armed Forces covenant was an informal understanding, but in that year the core principles of the covenant were, as we know, enshrined in law for the first time, and provided that no current or former member of the Armed Forces, or their families, should be at a disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services, and that special consideration was appropriate in some cases, particularly for those who had been injured or bereaved. As we know, the Armed Forces Act 2011 laid down, too, that the Defence Secretary should provide an annual report on the covenant.
The 2011 Act also set out two key principles. The first is that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from membership, or former membership, of the Armed Forces and the second is that special provision for service people may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the Armed Forces.
In the document, The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow, published in May 2011, the Government set out the measures that they were taking to support the principles of the covenant in the immediate and longer term, drawing also on work already done, including by the previous Government. In respect of the general expectations and aspirations implicit in the covenant, the document said in relation to transition that support should be provided to all service personnel to assist in their transition from service to civilian life. It went on to say that provision should include training, education, and appropriate healthcare referral and job-seeking preparation and assistance, and that this should include information and guidance on housing and financial management and the support that is available from government departments and the voluntary sector.
Under the previous Government and this Government, real progress has been made in acknowledging and in seeking to address the issues involved in the transition process for service personnel returning to civilian life and their families, whether it be through, for example, training courses, civilian work attachments, help with job-hunting and house-hunting, financial advice, or advice on the importance of seeking medical help, including the ability to access mental health services.
Tremendous work continues to be undertaken by military charities and welfare organisations. Through community covenants, local authorities, local businesses, organisations and charities, along with the Armed Forces in their area, are encouraged to promote understanding and awareness of issues affecting the Armed Forces community, including the sacrifices they have made, and encourage activities which help to integrate the Armed Forces community into local life. A great many local authorities have signed up to the community covenant scheme. There are also many examples of local initiatives designed to help ensure that there is a successful transition process.
However, what the Transition Mapping Study published by the Forces in Mind Trust in August reminds us is how much there is that can still be done and needs to be done while in service, as part of resettlement and in the transition to civilian life itself. The study makes 26 recommendations and it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government are or will be considering adopting and implementing any of those recommendations in order to build on the work and progress that has already been made.
Perhaps I may also raise one specific point about a proposal that was put forward during the discussions on the Offender Rehabilitation Bill that there should be what were described as veterans courts under which former members of the Armed Forces who pleaded guilty to or were found guilty of an offence would receive specific and positive help with rehabilitation, not least through the provision of a mentor. Is this a matter that the Government are considering since one indication of a failed transition can be a court conviction?
We often express our gratitude in this House to our Armed Forces for the courage and commitment they show and for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. We do so again today. We recognise that members of our Armed Forces and their families face particular problems that are not experienced by others in having to make the transition back to civilian life—problems that can arise from the very nature, demands and culture of military life, from the work and responsibilities that our Armed Forces are expected to undertake and from the experiences with which they can be confronted. We all want to make sure that the move back into civilian life is made as successfully as possible for all service personnel. The Transition Mapping Study is a very useful document in helping us to achieve that objective.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on securing the important debate on the Transition Mapping Study undertaken by the Forces in Mind Trust. I am aware of his long and illustrious career in the Royal Air Force, which spans some 40 years and is reflected in his interest in our Armed Forces personnel today. I thank noble Lords for their kind words to me on this, my first, defence debate. For me, it is a rather a poignant occasion because a few years ago my husband left the Royal Navy after more than 30 years’ service as an officer. Therefore, I have been on the receiving end of what was old-style transition.
Let me begin by first acknowledging the work that the Forces in Mind Trust is undertaking to enhance UK-wide support and advocacy for service personnel, veterans and their families. As your Lordships will know, the transition we are interested in today is the process of a service person, and in many cases their family, leaving the Armed Forces and settling back into civilian life. The aim is to see them in gainful employment, if that is what they want, and with no accommodation, welfare, health or domestic concerns.
As reflected by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, a great majority of Armed Forces personnel who leave the services each year do so successfully. This is, in part, due to the resources invested in them during their service life but also through their own determination and desire to succeed. Employers recognise these qualities. However, a majority is not enough. We must concern ourselves with those who find the transition from military to civilian life difficult and may require some state support.
Your Lordships may find it useful if I set out the transition support already available to those who leave the Armed Forces. While in service, Armed Forces personnel receive accreditation for their professional training. This provides them with formal qualifications to help them to compete with their civilian counterparts on transition. In addition, they are provided with the opportunities and financial support to conduct vocational as well as professional advancement.
Prior to leaving, all Armed Forces personnel are entitled to some form of resettlement assistance. This is provided by the MoD-funded Career Transition Partnership with the amount of support based on length of service. Those who have served six years or more and all those medically discharged or made redundant, regardless of how long they have served, are entitled to a full resettlement programme. This includes a three-day career transition workshop, use of a career consultant, a job-finding service, retraining time and a retraining grant. Those who have served between four and six years are entitled to a package focused mainly on employment support with a bespoke job-finding service and a career interview.
Until this year, those who left prior to four years’ service, often without completing training, were only signposted to support services. Research has suggested that some of these early service leavers needed more. For some, the inability to make a success of a service career comes on top of a background of social issues.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, asked about foreign and Commonwealth personnel. They are valuable members of the Armed Forces. I will ask my noble friend the Minister to write to the noble and gallant Lord on the specific entitlements of these personnel and how we respond to their specific needs.
In 2013 the Ministry of Defence decided that following the successful Forces in Mind Trust pilot in Catterick, early service leavers would have access to transition support. This recent improvement provides them with financial, housing and employment support, including linking them to a Jobcentre Plus. Separate to these structured packages, all service leavers can access lifetime job-finding support through either the Officers’ Association or the Regular Forces Employment Association.
In 2012 the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, was appointed as a veterans’ transition special representative, a need highlighted by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker. In this role he will provide the Ministry of Defence with valuable advice on how we can further support those leaving the Armed Forces. It is expected that the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, will produce an interim report to the Secretary of State for Defence by the end of 2013, with more comprehensive recommendations being made during 2014. He is expected to focus on housing, health, welfare, employment and education.
In addition to the independent review, the Chief of Defence Personnel is undertaking an internal review of the Armed Forces personnel transition programme. In 2015 the contract with the Career Transition Partnership is due to be re-let. This is therefore the right time to assess whether any changes need to be made. While the support offered to service personnel is extensive and largely effective, there may well be areas which could and should be improved. This work will take into account the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, the Forces in Mind Trust and the Centre for Social Justice. I will pass on the helpful comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker of Aldringham, to the MoD.
I turn now to the Transition Mapping Study report, Understanding the Transition Process for Service Personnel Returning to Civilian Life. Although the Ministry of Defence did not commission the report, it has acknowledged the good work of the Forces in Mind Trust and supports its desire to improve the transition process for Armed Forces personnel on their return to civilian life. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, referred to the contents of the report and its recommendations, but for those noble Lords who are not familiar with them, I shall highlight some, although I do not intend to list all 26.
The report is helpfully split into three distinct areas covering all aspects of service life: in-service, resettlement and transition. For those still in service, the recommendations include: profiling potential Armed Forces personnel for their aptitude for personal development; increasing the alignment of military vocational training with civilian skills; financial awareness training; and reducing the intensity of deployment. During resettlement, it was recommended that an assessment be made of an individual’s needs to support them to make a successful transition. The possibility of conducting work experience in a civilian environment was also raised, as was providing more resources, particularly for early service leavers. Finally, during transition itself, the recommendations include engaging the family, reviewing post-services housing provision, improving informal one-to-one support and improving the research and monitoring of former Armed Forces personnel after leaving.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others raised the issues of mental health, homelessness, imprisonment and those who are wounded in service. I hope to be able to address some of those matters. Some recommendations have already been addressed by the Ministry of Defence and were in train prior to the report being published. The early service leavers initiative, although in effect only since 1 October 2013, was implemented early following the positive evaluation of the 2012 pilot scheme. In addition, noble Lords may have seen the media launch in September of MoneyForce, the new training programme and website to help improve the financial awareness of UK Armed Forces personnel. Several noble Lords highlighted this as a serious issue. For the first time ever, personnel will receive structured financial education during basic training to equip them and their families with the best information and tools to make informed financial decisions about their future. MoneyForce is an excellent example of the Armed Forces covenant in action.
The Secretary of State for Defence recently announced the Forces Help to Buy scheme, which will come into effect in March 2014. It is designed to help Armed Forces personnel who want to buy their first home. The scheme aims to address low levels of home ownership in the Armed Forces and overcome the disadvantages that mobility brings, in line with the principles of the Armed Forces covenant. It will support greater lifestyle choice and the retention of personnel. These two financial initiatives are the first step towards creating a through-service awareness of transition. The aim is to create a level of personal independence in Armed Forces personnel that will enable them to make a future successful transition.
In December, officials will meet representatives from the Forces in Mind Trust to discuss its report and look at opportunities for further research to better understand why some individuals do not undertake transition successfully. Regardless of whether the recommendations put forward by the trust have already been implemented or not, the evidence and recommendations made will be used to inform the department’s future work on transition.
I want now to address the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Garden. The three service family federations play a crucial role in ensuring that we know what service families are thinking and allow us to discuss ideas and problems as they arise. We maintain a range of formal and informal contacts with the three federations. For example, the MoD hosts a biannual families working group, which brings together the family federations, the Children’s Education Advisory Service and welfare policy officials to discuss the key issues. The family federations have also had direct contact with Ministers as necessary, including through attendance at annual conferences. Each individual service interacts with its family federation differently, but the three services provide financial support to ensure that this vital link is maintained.
As part of our ongoing commitment to mental health, over £9 million from LIBOR fines has been awarded to programmes supporting mental health in the service community. Mental health among service personnel and veterans is as good as, and in some cases better than, that among the civilian population, and significant effort is put into preventing the onset of mental health problems and providing effective support and treatment when required. Service personnel being discharged from the Armed Forces on mental health grounds are managed by a robust transition care process. I am sure that the Minister will highlight further issues around mental health.
I will move quickly on to homelessness. The majority of service leavers make a smooth transition to private accommodation. The 2012-13 figures reported by the Combined Homelessness and Information Network indicate that 3% of those found sleeping rough in north London claim to have served in our Armed Forces. On leaving the service, the need for social housing becomes a local authority matter. The MoD is working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure the fair treatment of service families in need of social housing and to ensure that they are given proper priority on the waiting list.
It is important that injured personnel are given the support that they need to make a successful transition from service life. Armed Forces personnel who are deemed no longer fit for service as a result of their medical status will be assessed individually and personally. No one will leave the Armed Forces until they have reached a point in their recovery where leaving the Armed Forces is the right decision, however long it takes.
This has been an interesting debate and I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. The Minister will write to any noble Lords whose questions have not been answered.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) Before dismissing the Registrar, the Minister shall consult the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker in the House of Lords.”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 55, I apologise to the House for not having been in the Chamber for the debate immediately preceding the dinner break, where some aspects of the position of the registrar of lobbyists were discussed—how he will be appointed, who can be appointed and some method for reporting on his performance. My amendment is, at this stage of course, a probing amendment, and is concerned with the other end of the appointment, the question of dismissal.
Paragraph 3(6) of Schedule 2 says:
“The Minister may dismiss the Registrar if the Minister is satisfied that the Registrar is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of the office”.
Those are quite big words, capable of pretty wide interpretation. Rather gratifyingly, after I had tabled this amendment, I was written to by a number of groups that are interested in this: the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and a group called Spinwatch, which said it thought this was an issue worth probing.
As I said at Second Reading, the registrar of lobbyists will have a pretty key role in the efficient functioning of the new system. From time to time, for he or she to be effective, he or she will be required to be disobliging—to lobbyists, of course, but also to be prepared to speak truth to power, which can be quite uncomfortable. As I have just explained by reading out the clause, the Minister has summary powers as far as the removal of the registrar is concerned.
I reflected on what might be done to provide what might be described as a little air cover for the registrar in the work that he is doing. I looked at two examples. Both are bodies that have some connection to this Bill. First is the Charity Commission. Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 1 to the Charities Act says:
“Before removing a member of the Commission the Minister must consult … the Commission, and … if the member was appointed following consultation with the Welsh Ministers, the Welsh Ministers”,
so he has no power to remove the head of the Charity Commission without at least having to go through an iteration with fellow members of the commission. More specifically, the Electoral Commission, the other body with which we are concerned, has a considerably higher threshold. Paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act says:
“An Electoral Commissioner may be removed from office by Her Majesty in pursuance of an Address from the House of Commons”.
I thought that, at least to get the discussion going, it would be helpful to put down here that the Speakers of both Houses would have to be consulted.
This is wider than the Electoral Commission because lobbying concerns both Houses, whereas of course the Electoral Commission is concerned with elections, which, at least to date, do not concern your Lordships’ House. I am not wedded to these specific proposals. I do not suppose for a moment that the Government will accept them in their present form, but it is worth exploring how we are going to make sure that the registrar, who has this important role to play, has some protection if he or she wishes to carry out his or her work in a way that the Government of the day may find disobliging. I beg to move.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord put this amendment down in good faith. I can see the negative aspect of consulting with the Speaker and the Lord Speaker. First, the legislation states that the person who shall appoint the registrar is the Minister, not the Speakers of both Houses. There is an old saying that if you hire the person, the unpleasant task of firing them is also yours. Things would need to get very serious indeed for a Minister to find that the registrar was so unfit that he or she would have to be removed.
There is a danger, which has happened with other appointees to the House, where the individual concerned could appear on the face of it to have a good personality and to be a likeable person; they strike up a rapport with the media and use the media against the authority that has decided to remove them. It is easy for the media to indulge in a good person/bad person scenario.
I think that the question that the media would ask is: have the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Lords been consulted? The Minister might find it quite easy to say, “Yes, they have been consulted”. If dismissal is to take place, it goes without saying that the Speakers of both Houses have agreed with that proposition. If the responsibility is given to the Minister via the Bill, any difficulties should be left at the Minister’s door.
I think that the parliamentary commissioner, whom we have for both Houses, is appointed for either four or five years nonrenewable. That is a satisfactory way to deal with the matter: the registrar gets a five-year nonrenewable appointment—I know that that is not what the amendment provides. Then, when there is a parting of the ways, there are no hard feelings, whereas the Bill talks about a third renewed appointment. I have not looked fully into the responsibilities of the registrar, but I know about the parliamentary commissioner. If the third reappointment is not given, it would be considered a slur on the incumbent.
I understand that in the 1950s and prior to that, no one bothered the Speaker or the Lord Chancellor—they did not have a Lord Speaker. In recent years, the Speaker has been attacked for many reasons, and he or she is an easy target because the rule for a Speaker is that you do not respond to a press attack. That makes him or her a very easy target. I would be happier if the Minister who made the appointment made the decision. It would take a genius of a registrar to get things so badly wrong as to get him or herself sacked. In such a controversial situation, we should leave both high offices out of the legislation.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, in a sentence, I oppose the amendment. The registrar is not an officer of Parliament. If the registrar had been an officer of Parliament, I would be in favour of the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that this amendment, like some of those we were discussing in the previous group, is concerned with reinforcing the independence of the registrar in appointment, accountability to parliamentary committees and obstacles to what might be challengeable dismissal. Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring the independence of the registrar. The registrar’s ability to operate independently is clearly essential for the successful operation of the register.
The amendment specifically concerns potential dismissal. The Government are confident that the provisions as drafted will assure the independence of the registrar without those reinforcements. We will, however, continue to listen to and explore all suggestions for reiterating and firmly establishing that independence. Having given that assurance, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reassuring response. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, for raising some of the practical issues. I tabled the amendment just to have a discussion about who can provide some back-up to the registrar, if needed. I think that the Minister has shown a willingness to listen. I am grateful for that and, in the circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 65 I shall also speak to Amendments 67, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77 and 113, which are in the names of my noble friends Lady Royall and Lady Hayter. This is an extensive group of amendments but the main focus is to expand greatly the amount of information that the register holds. For example, one of the key amendments in the middle of this group concentrates on the detail of spending by lobbyists. This is important as, without these details, it is possible only to build up a very limited picture of the lobbying activity taking place because, as Unlock Democracy says in its briefing to noble Lords:
“A good faith estimate of what it being spent on lobbying would also show scale, disparities and trends in lobbying”.
Compare the current, limited proposals in the Bill with the level of transparency in place in the United States, where it is relatively easy to find out how much is being spent, and by which companies and sectors, using publicly available information. For example, the Senate record of spending shows that Boeing spent $15,440,000 on lobbying in the US in 2012. General Electric spent $21,200,000. These are very significant sums and they are spent by in-house lobbyists. As we know, this can have a marked effect on policy and the discussions around it. For example, an IMF working paper from 2009 draws a direct link between the amounts of money spent in lobbying by financial services firms and high-risk lending practices before the financial crisis. Ameriquest Mortgage and Countrywide Financial, both of which were at the heart of the crash, spent $20.5 million and $8.7 million respectively in political donations, campaign contributions and lobbying activities from 2002 to 2006. The IMF paper concludes that,
“the prevention of future crises might require weakening political influence of the financial industry or closer monitoring of lobbying activities to understand better the incentives”.
This is still pertinent here. As recently as 2 July, the head of the Prudential Regulation Authority was reported in the FT as saying that he was going to draw up rules to prevent the banks lobbying parliamentary officials against new requirements for leverage. Under the proposals in the Bill, we will not get any of the same transparency when it comes, for example, to lobbying by the big six energy companies. It has been reported that Ministers from the Department of Energy and Climate Change have met representatives from the energy giants on 128 occasions since 2010, yet have held talks with the main groups representing energy consumers only 26 times during the same period. We need much more information about what is going on here.
Amendment 65 would exclude the option of an individual residence being listed as the address of a lobbyist. Our concern is that this seems to represent a potential loophole, which we urge the Government to reconsider. The effect of the Bill, if passed in its current form, is that the level of transparency for the register is limited to the individual name and address of a main place of business or, if there is no such place, the individual’s residence. This is surely a loophole that would bar us from knowing who the individual works for. That concern fits into the wider point raised by our Amendment 67: that an increase in transparency should allow us to see who is lobbying on behalf of a company and which members of staff are engaged in that lobbying.
There are also a number of amendments in this group in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie. We should be very grateful for the way in which he has gone through the Bill with such forensic attention to detail. His amendments have similar intentions to ours and we support them. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 115 is in this group. From my point of view, it is the core amendment in terms of shifting the emphasis of the Bill. As I have drafted it, the clause is designed to be integrated in the Bill, but essentially it seeks to advance an alternative to what the Government propose. If the Government insist on the current provisions of the Bill then, as today has increasingly shown, it will achieve little by way of making lobbying of Government transparent; if anything, we are establishing that it may serve to obscure rather than enlighten.
As we have heard, the focus of Part 1 as it stands is on those who lobby. As I argued at Second Reading, a more comprehensive approach, achieving transparency without the need for a clunky bureaucratic framework, is to focus on those who are lobbied. That would shift the emphasis far more to the actual activity. My amendment is designed to give effect to what I argued at Second Reading.
If one placed a statutory requirement on Ministers when making statements of the sort enumerated in Clause 3 to publish at the same time details of those who lobbied them on the matter, that would ensure that the public were aware of all those who had lobbied the department. I stress the department because the amendment encompasses civil servants, special advisers and PPSs. Any representations made to anyone in the department would be shown. It would not matter who the lobbyists were: full-time independent lobbyists, in-house lobbyists, part-time lobbyists or individuals making representations on that particular issue—all would be caught. We would thus have true, comprehensive transparency. That is the key point, and it is important that we establish the principle.
I know what the Government’s response will be because the Minister kindly replied to my amendment earlier, before I had spoken to it. It is clear what the Government’s position is: “We believe in transparency as long as it’s not too much trouble”. That is essentially what was advanced. Yet we have already heard today a fair amount of material that suggests that it is doable. My noble friend Lord Tyler has made a powerful case for a database and has explained how it could be done—it is manageable. My amendment would take us somewhat further than that in terms of the amount of information that would be produced, and perhaps the time when it was produced because it would be drawn together at a particular point, but, as my noble friend has demonstrated, putting that material together is not that difficult.
At Second Reading I made the case, and I will revert to it, about what Select Committees do. The Minister was saying, “When a Minister brings forward a Bill, good heavens, he might receive lots of representations. If he had to produce and publish those, my goodness, the workload would be horrendous. How could it be achievable?”. Well, what would happen if a Select Committee received lots of representation, perhaps in three figures, when it was conducting an inquiry, and then when it was doing its report actually had to list those who had made representations and then publish the evidence? Oh, my goodness—it already does. Select Committees manage that sort of exercise on very lean resources, so the Government should be able to undertake a similar exercise with the resources at their disposal. As my noble friend Lord Tyler has indicated, it is no longer a case of putting together lots of papers from different sources; much can be done electronically, such as recording meetings for the database and publishing Ministers’ diaries the day after the event, so we are already getting there. That is not the obstacle that the Minister was suggesting, so it is not really credible now to argue that it is not doable; it is.
The problem is not the practicality but the political will. If the political will were there to achieve it then it could be done, and it would achieve the Government’s stated aim in a way that Part 1 simply does not do. As it is drafted, it would not achieve a great deal at all; it would create a burden of bureaucracy that would not add much by way of transparency. If we believe in the transparency of lobbying—in other words, if we actually want to give effect to the first words of the Short Title—then this is the route to go. I look forward to the Minister’s second response.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I support wholeheartedly the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, although I have slight reservations as it is debatable whether PPSs should be included.
I shall speak to Amendments 68 and 69, which stand in my name in this group. Amendment 68 is to press Ministers on whether they feel the Bill adequately covers the possibility that lobbyists may, for whatever reason, seek to hide the name of the recipient of the payment. There is a reference in Schedule 1, Part 2 to the beneficiaries of payments, but I do not think it is absolutely clear what the intention is there. A person lobbying may be acting on behalf of another whose identity as a lobbyist is not to be revealed, but where the person whose name or company name is not to be revealed is the recipient of the financial consideration. There may be circumstances where a lobbyist has been subcontracted by another lobbyist to carry out work where the subcontractor has an expertise which the main contractor lacks, but where the main contractor does not wish to lose their client account due to a lack of expertise. There may be circumstances where a lobbyist subcontracts the work for a particular client to avoid revealing to another client that the main contractor lobbyist has other clients in the same commercial sector. There may be circumstances where a lobbyist hires a subcontractor for Client A to avoid revealing to his or her client that he is also representing Client B, whose interests are diametrically opposed. These are but a few scenarios that could include the avoidance of registrar penalties, potential disqualification as a registered person or even matters relating to liability to the Inland Revenue.
Amendment 69 brings us to the heart of the legislation. It dominated debate in the Commons. It would require the name of the person lobbied and the subject of the lobbying, which we have been dealing with extensively this evening. It follows broadly the case made by Graham Allen MP, chair of Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, in his Amendment 100 during Report stage in the Commons. His committee had recommended:
“The information that the registrar requires to be listed should be expanded to include the subject matter and purpose of the lobbying, when this is not already clear from a company’s name. To be clear, this should not involve the disclosure of detailed information about the content of the meeting—just a broad outline of the subject matter and the intended outcome”.
The Government’s response to that recommendation is just not credible. It talks of the availability of information, which I raised on an earlier amendment on ministerial diaries. We know that that system does not work because it is a congested system. The truth is that we have a huge gap in transparency and, sadly, the Government are doing very little to bridge it. The register is useless if all it does is list a few names that are already on the lists of the professional bodies. We need real hard information on who is lobbying, when they lobby, on what issue and on whose account.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. If the Government are not willing to go for a comprehensive register covering a wider range of lobbyists and those who are lobbied than currently envisaged, this seems a much simpler and more sensible approach that will be cheaper for the public purse and for the relatively small number of consultancy companies that would otherwise have to bear the not-insignificant costs of the registration system.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, I welcomed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, goes further and I welcome that even more. In Amendment 81 I go even further. Noble Lords will see that it would introduce a register of lobbying activities. It gives statutory effect to the welcome initiative of the Government in requiring Ministers and Permanent Secretaries to publish on a quarterly basis details of meetings they hold with external organisations. This statutory register would ensure that this practice continues under future Governments. It would also include details of lobbying activity submitted by lobbyists. The public would obtain from this register a clear picture of lobbying activity within any quarter.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord—I am having a total blank.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My apologies. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for making the comparison with the United States. We are, of course, concerned to avoid British politics being invaded by the scale of money there; indeed, that is partly what Part 2 responds to, as I said at Second Reading. We make comparisons with the scale of lobbying in the United States but, thankfully, that problem has not yet arisen.
I am slightly puzzled by the Opposition’s Amendment 65, which would remove the requirement for lobbyists to provide a residential address in the absence of any registered address. That seems to us to provide a basic element of information. The consequence of the amendment would be that where there is no registered business address a lobbyist would not be required to provide any contact details. The information to the public would thus be reduced, and the registrar’s ability to investigate compliance and to enforce the registration requirements would be undermined.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
It will be worth clarifying this so that we understand each other. You may forget my name, but surely you will understand what I am trying to say. This is a probing amendment, so we do not expect that the wording will necessarily be accepted. However, if it is possible for someone simply to record themselves as a lobbyist on the register and give only their private address, the information that should be available—which business they are acting for—will be missing. One would hope that they would put in their business address, but if the current phrasing is adopted that will be a loophole. We are simply asking the Minister if he will take this away.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I will certainly take it away, and I am very happy to do so.
An amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, would alter Clause 4 to require lobbyists to disclose the recipient of the payment for lobbying and the focus and subject of lobbying activity. The Opposition’s further amendments would require that lobbyists disclose the approximate value of spending on lobbying activity during a quarter. I suppose that I should welcome the pressure that is coming across the room for even greater transparency than we propose in the Bill; that is a splendid step forward. Under the previous Government there was some considerable resistance to this level of transparency.
We have been very clear that the objective of the register is limited, in our view, to the identification of the interests that are represented by consultant lobbying firms. Consultant lobbyists should therefore be required to disclose their clients. We are not yet persuaded that the burden that would be imposed on both the industry and the regulator of requiring further information—for example, spending and financial data—is justified by the limited insight it will provide. That sounds to me like something else we may discuss in the Corridors. However, we are not yet persuaded that that provides a proportionate approach to the problem identified. It is not necessary to require the disclosure of the subject or target due to the Government’s transparency regime, whereby Ministers’ and Permanent Secretaries’ meetings with external organisations are already declared.
I compliment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, on the detail and care with which he has prepared a large number of amendments. His new clause proposed in Amendment 81 would establish a second register—the register of lobbying activities, as he has explained—which would run in parallel to the register of lobbyists. He has tabled a number of consequential amendments with that. The register would record information both from lobbyists and from public officials in receipt of lobbying communications.
The Government are not persuaded that a register of lobbying activities is necessary, nor do we think it necessary to require that both the maker and the recipient of a lobbying communication submit a report on that activity. The noble and learned Lord’s register would duplicate existing information—that provided in government transparency reporting—and the information requirements of the register appear to duplicate each other: both the lobbyist and the recipient of the lobbying would have to report any interaction. Even the American system does not come close to imposing such onerous requirements on industry and public officials. The administrative cost of complying with such a scheme would be high, both for industry and for public bodies. The cost of regulating it could be ever more expensive—costs which would surely fall either on the industry or the public purse.
Amendment 112, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, would provide that the subscription charge be set as a percentage of the lobbyist’s turnover. The noble Lord does not specify at what percentage the charge should be set and instead provides that the level could be set in regulations. As outlined in our impact assessment, we anticipate that the charge will be approximately £650. That figure should not prove too burdensome on any organisations that undertake professional consultant lobbying. Indeed, it compares favourably with the fee charged by the host of the industry’s voluntary register. The fee will be set to recover the full costs of the registrar’s activities—including those in relation to enforcement—and will ensure that the register is not funded by public money.
The noble Lord may be concerned that such a charge should be minimised for the smallest businesses. However, as I commented earlier, the VAT exemption is intended to exempt the smallest businesses from the requirement to register.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the Minister accept that, if the charge is going to be £650, some companies may well simply deregister and the professional lobbyists’ lists may no longer exist? In so far as those lists have more information than what is currently provided by the Bill, would that be helpful to the issue of transparency?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I think that that is unlikely, but this is obviously something on which we should perhaps consult informally with the industry, to see whether there are any serious concerns. I am not aware that there are and, as I have said, the current voluntary register is in the same league but slightly more expensive.
Amendment 113, from the Opposition, would amend the reference to the setting of the subscription charge from one that requires the Minister to seek to recover the full costs to one that would require the Minister to ensure that the charge is set so as to recover the full costs of the registrar’s activities. I recognise that it is intended to emphasise the importance of ensuring that the charge recoups completely the cost of the register, but assure the Opposition that the Government are very well aware of the importance of ensuring that the register is fully funded by the industry.
We expect that the register will cost around £200,000 a year to run and that that cost will be borne not by the taxpayer but by the lobbying industry. The register that the Opposition have suggested would cost a great deal more—possibly nearer the £3 million that it costs to operate the Canadian register. Perhaps they would like to consider how they would ensure that those costs were recovered from the much larger number of individuals and organisations that they intend to capture.
The Opposition’s Amendment 114A would remove subsection (2) from Clause 24, thereby affecting the regulation-making powers under that part. The Joint Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has recently published a very thorough and thoughtful report on the delegated powers included in the Bill. The Government are giving the committee’s recommendations careful consideration and will respond formally shortly.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that I responded to his Amendment 115 before he had spoken to it. Rather too many meetings over the past day left me less well organised than ideally I should have been. I took him down as saying that the Government believe in transparency but not too far. I would say that the Government believe in transparency, but want to be proportionate in our approach. I fear that some of the amendments that have been floated today have suggested that we move from a situation of extremely moderate transparency to one in which there will be a very burdensome set of regulations, which would go further than we need to at this time.
Lord Norton of Louth
My noble friend is now talking about moderate transparency rather than transparency, so he is already limiting it. He is very keen on “proportionate”, I have noticed; it has come up a number of times today. I am just wondering how proportionate it is to introduce a register of perhaps 350 companies when we have not established how many of them already publish their client list. If most of those who are going to be registered already publish their client list, it is proportionate at the wrong end, because there is no point, really, in doing it. It is not good enough just to establish how many would be covered by the register; we need to know whether it would actually add anything to our knowledge of what those companies are doing and who their clients are. There may not be any point in doing it.
My point is that, if you are going to do it, do it properly; if you want transparency for lobbying and you are going to be comprehensive, there will be a cost to it. If you are going to do it properly and have a register, I am afraid that you have to go down the Canadian route. My argument is that you can avoid doing that by going down my route, whereby you get transparency of lobbying, not simply listing lobbyists.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, as regards my noble friend’s reference to the Canadian system, the Government consider that that system is onerous, expensive and more than we need. My task in Committee and on Report is to convince this House that the proposals in the Bill are proportionate and provide additional transparency. However, I will check and get back to my noble friend on how many of the current lobbying companies on the voluntary register publish their clients’ names, as that is clearly an excellent question that deserves an answer.
Lord Hardie
I would like to clarify the following point. First, does the Minister accept that there would be benefit in enshrining in statute in some way—whether by accepting the measure proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, or my extreme proposal for a new clause—the practice that the Government have introduced of disclosing information to the public? The Government could claim credit for that initiative and could ensure that future Governments of any colour would be bound by the statute unless they sought to amend it. Secondly, can the noble Lord tell me what consideration the Government have given at any stage—either before the introduction of the Bill or after Second Reading—to creating a lobbying register?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord; I should have answered his question about the noble Lord, Lord Lang. I am not aware that the Government have investigated that issue in detail but I will write to the noble and learned Lord as soon as I have the answer.
Lord Hardie
I am sorry; the noble Lord has not answered my first question: namely, whether he sees any advantage in enshrining the good practice to which I referred in statute.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Let me take that away and speak to the noble and learned Lord further. I understand his concerns and I am very grateful for the detailed interest that he is taking in the Bill. We will make sure that we have adequate answers for him.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very full coverage of the points, although it is becoming clear that he is expending considerable effort in trying to give no more commitments on any of these questions than are in his brief, except to welcome occasional points that he will take back. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is right to say that it is not worth discussing the Bill if it does not deliver—either directly or through voluntary means—something more than we have at present. The wicked thought occurred to me that perhaps the amendment we ought to be tabling and debating is whether the Title of the Bill should be changed to “The Proportionate and Moderate Transparency of Lobbying Bill”.
What is going on here? Does the Minister really believe that this Bill will add very much to what we have at present? If not, why on earth are we wasting our time on it? We are discussing Part 1, but I am afraid that the same questions will come back to haunt him in Part 2. He may well be able to escape the Bench on Part 3, but they will be there in Part 3 as well. This Bill does not add very much to the effectiveness of what most people in the country, and certainly Members around this House and in another place, would like to see happen. When we were in power, we moved forward on this. We did not move very fast because it is a difficult issue, as the Minister would accept, but we would not have got into the position where the Minister is today—that is very clear.
While I thank the Minister very much for taking back my proposal that we should look again at the possible loophole in Amendment 65, I do not think that he has given clear answers to my questions on Amendments 70, 71, 75, 76 and 77 about the money. Having said that the money is important and that we do not want to go the way that the Americans and those in other territories have gone, he also said that we could not possibly put a burden on those who have to participate in the system that would cause them difficulties. However, in Parts 2 and 3, burdens are being sallied out to charities and trade unions without any shame at all, as far as I can see. Apparently, what is meat for one is not meat for the other. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, had it right in a very brief but salient interjection. Transparency is not capable of being moderated. Something is transparent or it is not. This Bill is heading towards having no transparency at all.
Finally, we were intrigued by the announcement about the likely fee of £650, if I correctly took down the figure. Why is there no variation on that figure between small and large firms? The scale in this sector is substantial, so even if we are going to have a register, the costs of which are met by those participating, it seems absurd to charge some of the large companies the same amount as those firms with one or two persons working in them. Perhaps the noble Lord can think about that. We on this side are not at all clear why our proposals for a more expanded register that would work only if it delivered full transparency—I understand that point—will cost so much more. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to explain how his calculations arrive at figures in the millions of pounds, when the figure for the current register is so modest. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
“( ) A person, company or partnership (including a limited liability partnership) listed on the register of consultant lobbyists shall not in any communication issued use the image of the portcullis or any other image representing Parliament.”
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, this amendment is about the use of the portcullis. This is an issue that concentrated the minds of Members of the House of Commons Select Committee who considered the issue of lobbying during the 1980s, nearly 30 years ago. That inquiry followed the previous inquiries of 1969 and 1974 by the Select Committee on Members’ Interests (Declaration). At that time in the 1980s, we had been considering a register for those in the industry who had access to Parliament, not government. In an attempt to think through the consequences of adopting such a register, we visited Canada, a country that at the time had only recently introduced a system that included registering lobbying activity, thereby going further than the Government’s current proposals.
What quickly became obvious to us during the course of our inquiry and from what we learnt in Canada was that many in the lobbying industry saw registered access to Parliament as a marketing tool. As Sir Trevor Lloyd-Hughes, a leading influence in the industry at the time, said in his evidence:
“Some of the PR people may announce claims in their glossy brochures of all kinds of entrée to the House of Commons and their ability to do this and that and the other, which I think are almost against the fair trading description legislation”.
He went on to say that he did not do that himself, although he added:
“If you are in business, surely you are entitled to say, we can do this and in my case as quite a few of you know I have been here since 1949. I say I have got experience and contacts. I have. It is true”.
Now I recognise that we are not talking here about Parliament but about government. However, there is an element of overlap. The moment that an organisation receives registration approval, that approval will bring with it an element of public recognition. The assumption will be made, particularly abroad, that a code exists and standards are being met. For many, government and Parliament will be indistinguishable. They will be regarded as the same, perhaps even by some here at home. I am in my amendment simply seeking, in the absence of a proper code of conduct, to lay down a requirement that at least the portcullis, a symbol of Parliament, is not used to promote a particular lobbying operation or organisation.
As Gavin Devine, chief executive of MHP Communications, said in his evidence to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee during its inquiry:
“There is a real danger that a register by itself may make the situation worse, since it is likely those on the register will describe themselves as a ‘registered’ or ‘approved’ lobbyists, without having to meet at least some minimum standards. In short, there is a risk that the register will give a kitemark or endorsement to some who do not deserve it”.
Again I say that I recognise that Parliament is tangential to the Bill. Nevertheless, we need to make it clear in the Bill that we will not tolerate the use of the portcullis as a marketing tool in what, in effect, is to be an unregulated marketplace. I beg to move.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 73 but, before doing so, I wish to say that I fully endorse the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in relation to Amendment 72. He may recall that one particular Member of Parliament decided to publish a book—an act of fiction—on the front cover of which was the portcullis. It was clearly there to try to give the impression that the book was authorised by the House. The Member would not listen but the publisher did, to the extent that the royal crown—I think it was the prince’s crown—was taken off the second edition, although the portcullis gate was left on. That, at least, was something. It is right and fitting that the portcullis should be the symbol of both our Houses and not of any individual organisation.
Turning to Amendment 73, I recall the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, saying in an earlier debate that you have to know whom you are dealing with. That has to be clear. Those who hold press cards in the House of Commons are very well looked after, but it is the taxpayer, not their newspaper, who provides them with a desk and facilities. In fact, I believe that some journalists do not even have a place to hang their hat at their newspaper’s head office. I recall that only about five years ago the health and safety situation here was so bad for journalists—some of the senior reporters were using portakabins—that it was put to me that it was time we did something. Both Houses paid a share of £8 million to refurbish the Press Gallery. We even opened a restaurant, which is named after a highly respected journalist called Chris Moncrieff—it is called Moncrieff’s bar. We did all that and it is lovely. I was there to officiate at the opening, and so was Chris Moncrieff. I said, “It’s not bad that two teetotallers have opened up a drinking place”.
There was not one bad piece of publicity about that £8 million but nor was there one good piece of publicity about it. Nothing was said about it. Even now, I get very angry when I read pieces by journalists who are taking cheap shots. I also hear them doing it on Sky News. They say, “Oh, they’re getting subsidised drink”, but they do not tell you that they are partaking of the subsidised food and drink.
That brings me to my concern, which is dual membership. You have to know whom you are dealing with. I could be in one of the cafeterias here having a cup of tea or whatever and bump into someone who I think is a journalist. If we enter into a discussion, I know whom I am dealing with. However, it would not do if the journalist were both a journalist and a lobbyist. You might ask whether that is possible. It is. Some people in the Press Gallery have been there for years and years, and they are entitled to be there, but sometimes their newspaper will say, “We’re sorry but you’re no longer required. You’re redundant”. That must have happened to the boys on the News of the World and there are others in that category. Some of them get to like this place so much that they will go to a regional newspaper or a publication and say, “I will be your reporter”. That would allow them to retain their press status, although not the salary.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I want to reinforce the contributions that have been made on these two amendments, particularly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, about the relationship between a constituency Member of Parliament and any representatives of any interests in that constituency. As I understand it—as I recall, this was reinforced in the other place on Report—there is nothing in the Bill that in any way impedes the opportunity and the responsibility of representing the people of one’s constituency in any way that may be appropriate. It is very important that we reiterate that principle now. I am very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Martin, make that point again.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I will be very interested to see whether anyone reports the words of the noble Lord, Lord Martin, about the Press Gallery.
I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because he makes a very important point—I am surprised that it has not come up more in our discussions on the Bill—and that is this point about a kitemark for lobbying firms. Lobbying has always been a contentious activity. When I was writing about lobbying in the 1980s I made the point then that quite often the problem is not in the relationship between the lobbyist and the parliamentarian. Parliamentarians know perfectly well when they are being lobbied and essentially where it is coming from and can assess what is happening; if you like, they know the quality of the lobbying. The real problem, I argued, was between the client and the lobbyist, because clients would not necessarily know the quality of the firms they were employing to make representations. Lobbying firms are very good at making grand claims for their success rates.
Therefore, there is an issue of lobbying firms wanting to portray themselves in a certain way. My concern here is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours: you will get firms on the register using that to promote their interests to potential clients—putting on the notepaper something such as “Registered lobbyist, regulated by the Registrar of Lobbying Companies”, as a way of giving themselves the seal of approval. I fully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is trying to do in his amendment but I think that it raises that broader issue which he has touched on and which we need to be very much aware of. I am surprised that we have not considered that to a greater extent. It is just one of the problems if you go down this particular route of having a formal register, especially if there is no code attached to it.
Lord Hardie
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for the same reasons. I also support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Martin of Springburn but for a different reason from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. The example the noble Lord gave of meeting the employer in the company of someone who was both a lobbyist and a newspaper reporter highlights the need for a code of conduct. What is there to stop the lobbyist in that situation from sitting in on a meeting and then rushing away and phoning his newspaper to tell them he has a scoop—or whatever it is called nowadays—that the factory in Springburn has or has not been saved. More subtly, he could tell one of his fellow reporters. Therefore it is important that the distinction is maintained. Of course, if there was a code of conduct I would hope that that would be contrary to the code and the lobbyist could be deregistered, or whatever the appropriate word is.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I support this issue. If you are regulated by the Financial Services Authority you have to mention it. There is a very substantial series of penalties and enforcement procedures if you fail to comply with the authority’s regulations. We need to be clear in our own mind whether this is going to be seen as the kitemark, whether it is going to be permitted as the kitemark and, if it is, how we make sure the kitemark standards are achieved.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord for initiating what has been an interesting debate. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that parliamentary images should not be used inappropriately. At present the use of the Crowned Portcullis is governed by the following statement:
“The principal emblem of the House is the Crowned Portcullis. It is a royal badge and its use by the House has been formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty the Queen. The designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House. The House symbol is primarily used to authenticate communications from Members”.
It is clear that the use of parliamentary images is the prerogative of the House authorities, and for that reason the Government do not wish to intrude on the existing arrangements, although I understand entirely the point that the noble Lord is making.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, is the Minister saying that the House is in a position to enforce an arrangement whereby the symbol is not used?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My understanding is that, if someone was wrongly using the emblem, following this statement, they would certainly be taken to task for using it inappropriately.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry, but that does not answer my question. Can the authorities enforce the non-use of it? If the Minister does not know, I understand that, and I am sure that he will find out. However, if the authorities do not have the power to enforce it, my amendment stands.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I think it is important to get chapter and verse for the noble Lord and, indeed, for myself, because I would not want to mislead him in any way. That is the reason the Government, having thought about this particular point, felt that the House authorities should have continued to have the prerogative.
I turn now to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Martin. Again, it is designed to address the problem he has identified in relation to accredited parliamentary lobby journalists, specifically that some are acting as lobbyists and/or are servicing all-party groups. As my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie observed in his letter to the noble Lord following his intervention in the debate on Second Reading, matters relating to the conduct of accredited lobby journalists and to the administration of all-party groups are the prerogative of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I understand, however, that a core requirement of many of the voluntary codes of conduct that lobbyists currently already sign up to require that they do not hold parliamentary passes.
I also understand that, pursuant to a resolution of the other place, holders of photo-identity passes as lobby journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting are required to declare relevant interests on the register of journalists’ interests. That register is compiled and maintained by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The commissioner also has responsibility for the rules governing all-party groups and hosts the register of groups recognised by Parliament, who their officers are, and information about the source and extent of financial and material assistance received by groups from outside Parliament.
Given the oversight of these matters by the House authorities, I suggest that it would not be appropriate for the Government to legislate quite in the manner that the noble Lord has presented in his well meaning amendment. However, I will consider the points made by both noble Lords on their amendments and I shall certainly clarify the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. In the circumstances I have outlined, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, is the Minister telling me that I have the option of going to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner if I find it to be the case that someone who is holding a Parliamentary Press Gallery credential is also holding a lobbyist’s credential? Is that what the Minister is saying? I find that difficult to take in because the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner must work within the rules and regulations of the House. He might say to me, “I am sorry, but there has been no breach of the rules. Reporter A can be a lobbyist as well as a journalist”.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My understanding, as I have said and as is set out in the letter the noble Lord has received from my noble friend the Minister, is that pursuant to the resolution, holders of photo-identity passes as lobby journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting are required to declare relevant interests on the register of journalists’ interests. The letter also suggested that if the noble Lord had concerns, he should perhaps consider approaching the assistant registrar. However, I would like to take up the point that the noble Lord has posed to me because I want to be absolutely certain that what I am suggesting is correct. I want to clarify it because clearly that is the most important thing of all.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The point is that my noble friend’s amendment would require that they could not do both—they could do only one. The Minister is saying that they can do both as long as they register it. He is not answering the point in my noble friend’s amendment. The answer is, “No, we are not prepared to legislate, we are prepared to carry on allowing journalists to act as lobbyists as well, as long as they register it”. That is not my answer but it is the Minister’s answer and he should be blunt at the Dispatch Box and spell it out in that form.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The prudent thing to do is to reflect on what both noble Lords have said. I will come back to them.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I do not want to delay the House. I think I heard the Minister say that he was going to consider our amendments. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Campbell-Savours
“( ) If the Registrar has reasonable grounds for believing that a registered person is not (or is no longer) fit to act as a consultant lobbyist, the Registrar may decide that the registered persons shall be removed from the register.”
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, in moving Amendment 88, I will also speak to Amendment 90. The Bill as it stands sets out a series of offences under Clause 12. The offences include “inaccurate or incomplete” registration and failing,
“to submit an information return under section 5”.
The Bill then goes on to propose penalties in the form of fines. What the Bill does not do at this stage is set out the arrangements for removal from the register, which is what my amendment is intended to deal with. Under the heading “Guidance”, Clause 21 states:
“The Registrar may give guidance about how the Registrar proposes to exercise the functions under this Part”.
Under Clause 21(2)(c), it is proposed that the guidance may indicate,
“the circumstances in which the Registrar would … remove a person’s entry from the register”.
My amendment flags up what I believe these circumstances should be.
The first circumstance is bringing Parliament into disrepute. I recognise that the professional associations have their own codes of conduct, but their codes are not written by Parliament—they are written by their legal advisers and approved, I presume, by their members. Parliament, in conditions of a statutory register, although not included in the Bill, needs to seek protection against being itself brought into disrepute through the actions of lobbyists who are not subject to a code. We will all be aware of the well documented and publicised scandals of recent years and that a small minority of lobbyists can abuse their relationships with Members of Parliament. The same applies with civil servants: if a lobbying operation is found to have compromised the integrity or independence of a civil servant, it is not just the civil servant who is necessarily at fault; a heavy burden of blame inevitably falls on the lobbyist. We need to be sure that the lobbyist concerned loses his or her official seal of approval, which is effectively what registration provides.
As to the wider issue of offences under Clause 12, there can be no circumstances in which a lobbyist who commits an offence under this clause should be allowed to remain on the register. We need more than guidance at this stage. We need to place firmly and clearly in the Bill our view as Parliament on what the circumstances for deregistration are. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie
My Lords, Amendments 89, 103, 109 and 110 stand in my name. Amendment 89 is concerned with Clause 6. Your Lordships will note that Clause 6 empowers the registrar to do a number of things, including, under Clause 6(6)(b), to decide whether a person’s entry should be removed from the register:
“If the Registrar has reasonable grounds for believing that a registered person is not (or is no longer) a consultant lobbyist”.
It is important to bear in mind that under Clause 1, a person cannot be in business as a consultant lobbyist unless he or she is registered. The decision of the registrar to remove someone from the register effectively stops that individual from operating in business. As far as I can see, there is no right of appeal against the decision of the registrar, which seems fundamentally unjust. Anyone who is aggrieved by a decision to remove him or her from the register ought to have a right of appeal to the tribunal, and that is what this amendment seeks to do.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I did not want to tie the Order Paper down with a very long amendment but if I had done more homework I would have introduced an element of appeal. I was simply floating the principle and I am sure that, were the Government to accept it, an appeal procedure would be introduced into the Bill.
Lord Hardie
I take the noble Lord’s point. I am not criticising his amendment; I am criticising the Bill. The Bill does not contain any right of appeal. My Amendment 89 introduces such a right for someone who is aggrieved by the registrar’s decision.
Not only does the Bill deprive someone of the right to a livelihood, perhaps, but Clause 12 creates an offence: it is a criminal offence to lobby if you are not on the register. Not only do you deprive someone of their livelihood but you subject them to the possibility of criminal proceedings and a fine. Clearly there ought to be a right of appeal. There is a tribunal in existence so there is no difficulty about that.
I have already referred to Amendment 103, which creates similar offences in relation to the register of lobbying activities, so I will say no more about that.
Amendment 109 relates to Clause 16, which concerns the ability of the registrar to impose civil penalties. The level of the penalty is fixed at £7,500. I have suggested that that should be reduced to £5,000. The civil penalty is an alternative to prosecution and, if you are prosecuted, the maximum summary fine in Scotland is £5,000 so I do not understand why the civil penalty is half as much again. There may be a reason for that; if there is, I would like the Minister to tell me; if there is not, there should be equivalence of penalties.
My final amendment is Amendment 110. It relates to Clause 18, which states:
“The Registrar may not impose a civil penalty on a person in respect of any conduct … at any time after criminal proceedings … have been instituted … and before they have been concluded, or … after the person has been convicted of an offence under this Part”.
My amendment introduces, after the word “convicted” in subsection (1)(b), the words “or acquitted”. Once we get to that stage, the individual has gone through a criminal trial and a court has decided that he or she is not guilty. Unless we include the words “or acquitted”, a court may have acquitted someone but the registrar could still impose a civil penalty of £5,000. Again, that is unjust. That is the reason for that amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, in supporting Amendments 88 and 90, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I will speak in particular to Amendments 107 and 108, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Royall.
The four amendments comprise the framework that would enable the register to be more than just a limp piece of paper. Taken together, they provide that if someone on the register breaches the code of conduct or the Bribery Act, or is found unfit to be registered as a lobbyist—for example, if they have brought Parliament into disrepute—the registrar would have the power either to remove them from the register or to impose an appropriate civil penalty. That is perhaps rather closer to what was suggested earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, which is what happens under what is now the Financial Conduct Authority’s list of recognised people. So this is an important combination of amendments.
Of course, we agree that someone should have the right of appeal to a tribunal, as with any such threat to the removal of one’s profession and employment. As the noble and learned Lord said, there is already a well established tribunal that deals with appeals from the pensions regulator and other similar bodies.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Perhaps I may ask a question about the amendment. Is there some special significance to the word “breached”, as opposed to,
“convicted of an offence under”,
or is that just the drafting of the amendment?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I think that it is to cover breach of the code. The criminal term would not be appropriate for that. If the Government accept the amendments, I would be more than happy to accept any final tweaks, but the wording is designed to cover non-criminal matters such as breaches of the code of conduct.
In recognising and supporting the amendment dealing with an appeal, that is symbolic of our intention that lobbyists, like financial advisers, pension trustees, lawyers or accountants, should aspire to being members of a profession, with all the obligations of maintaining standards.
We know that the vast majority of lobbyists agree with that objective. They want their profession to be valued and acknowledged and therefore want us to ensure that anyone misleading the registrar or breaching the code should have no place on an approved register. We hope that the Government accept the intention behind the amendments and will respond accordingly. If not, we fear that there will be no mechanism other than sanctions for late filing to keep the register of lobbyists to a high standard.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, when considering the most appropriate sanctions in respect of non-compliance with the register, Ministers considered the option of removing a person from the register, thereby prohibiting them from continuing to operate as a lobbyist. However, we concluded that such a sanction would represent too extreme a penalty, as it would essentially take away their livelihood.
I am conscious that I speak on the edge of my expertise, but a number of professions have disciplinary procedures and appeals within those procedures, some of which are very complex. I was once approached to join the General Medical Council but once I understood what it did, I rapidly said no. The issues of due process and dismissal, judicial review et cetera are ones that we are reluctant to enter into in this respect. The sanctions regime that we have designed is therefore more limited and designed to provide on appropriate deterrent against, and punishment for, non-compliance with the register’s provisions.
As the Committee will know, breaches of the Bribery Act are punishable by unlimited fines, up to 10 years’ imprisonment, or both. I am not convinced that an additional sanction—that of being prohibited from carrying on a certain profession—should be added to those already significant penalties. Further, breaches of the Bribery Act must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal court, yet the Opposition’s amendment would enable the registrar to draw his or her own conclusion as to whether the Act had been breached, and to impose sanctions on the basis of that conclusion. I suggest that such a power or responsibility is not a suitable one for the registrar of a new register, but instead that breaches of the Bribery Act should continue to be determined in court.
Amendment 89, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, would enable a person to appeal against the registrar’s decision to remove them from the register as per Clause 6(6). We do not envisage that the registrar would remove any person from the register unless they were confident that that person no longer engaged, or wished to engage in future, in consultant lobbying. The removal power is not intended as a sanction but rather as an administrative housekeeping measure to enable the registrar to maintain the accessibility and relevance of the register.
Lord Hardie
Does the Minister accept that while I do not dispute that the registrar would be operating in good faith, he may genuinely make a mistake—and if he does, it has the effect of removing someone from the register. Is there to be no appeal to the tribunal for that? There may not be many appeals at all. It is only if the person is aggrieved that he has a right of appeal.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that seems unlikely, on the face of it, but I am very glad to go away and consult officials to make sure that there is not a lacuna here. I appreciate where the noble and learned Lord is coming from, with a genuine concern on this issue. If one were to accept some of his other amendments, the case for writing into the Bill the appeal to the tribunal would be stronger. If a person were to object, under our scheme, to the registrar’s decision they could advise him or her accordingly and reregister without difficulty. We do not therefore consider that appeals to the tribunal should be necessary in those circumstances.
The Opposition’s proposed amendments, Amendments 101, 105 and 106, appear designed to ensure that the provision of misleading information is captured by the offence outlined in Clause 12 and, as a consequence, by the civil penalty power provided for in Clause 14. I am advised that “incomplete or inaccurate register” also covers the question of “misleading”. I can therefore confirm that the provision of misleading information in any of these instances would be captured by the concept of,
“information which is inaccurate or incomplete in a material particular”,
as provided in subsections (2)(b), (3)(b) and (4)(b) of Clause 12.
The offence outlined in Clause 12 is designed to be applicable in both the civil and criminal systems. We anticipate that the provision of inaccurate or incomplete information due to administrative oversight will be sanctioned by the imposition of a civil penalty. If, however, inaccurate or incomplete information had been provided in an attempt to deliberately mislead, we could expect such non-compliance to be prosecuted in a criminal court.
The Opposition’s Amendment 108 would enable the registrar to impose civil penalties for breaches of the code of conduct. The establishment of sanctions, whether civil or criminal, requires detailed and measured consideration. The Opposition have been able to identify only one of the provisions to be included in the statutory register. I suggest that the provisions with which lobbyists would be required to comply should surely be identified before it was determined whether they should be liable to a civil penalty in the event of a breach.
Amendment 103, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, would impose an offence on those who failed to submit lobbying activity reports as and when required. We recognise that this amendment is consequential to his other proposals so I will not address it further. His Amendment 109 would amend Clause 16(3) so that the maximum amount for a penalty notice would be reduced from £7,500 to £5,000. I note that his point of comparison is the Scottish civil penalty. In setting the maximum amount for a penalty notice at £7,500, the Government were mindful of comparable regulatory regimes, such as the fines imposed by the Companies Act in relation to the late filing of accounts, and we took that as our comparator. The Government are confident that the proposed limit of the civil penalty is thus an appropriate one and are not persuaded that it should be reduced, although of course the registrar is able to issue civil penalties of any amount up to £7,500, so not in every case would it be the amount.
The noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 110 would prevent the registrar from issuing a civil penalty to a person if that person had been acquitted of an offence under this part in relation to their conduct. We then get into interesting questions; as a non-lawyer, I am not entirely an expert on the difference between the evidence required to prove a criminal case and that which is required to produce a civil one. Perhaps we might consult on that off the Floor to resolve that very delicate distinction. Having answered some of those extremely interesting and detailed probing amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Before that happens, may I just be assured that I have understood that even if someone is convicted under the Bribery Act in a criminal case, they could still stay on the register?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The register is not intended to have sanctions on it, but let me take that away and come back. I appreciate that we are in an area here where the question is how much the register is intended to be one which you go on to if you are engaged in this activity, or whether the register should begin to develop a disciplinary dimension, which raises some of the questions that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, in particular has pursued.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House. We have now been talking about amendments for some five and half hours but the Government have conceded nothing. However, the Minister has repeatedly said that he intends to take some of these amendments back to his department for further consideration. Let us hope that when we further consider them on Report, we have far more flexibility from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.