House of Commons
Prayers
09:34 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 0 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
12:29 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 32 - Question accordingly agreed to.
12:47 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
We shall shortly begin with new clause 1, but not before I have heard the point of order from Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is stated clearly in “Erskine May” that the vote must go with the voice. Many hon. Members shouted Aye; none voted in favour. Will you investigate the question of whether any Members who shouted Aye then voted No?
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I respect the spirit in which he has raised it. My understanding of the situation is that a Member who shouts Aye must not then vote in the contrary direction, or vice versa. I do not think, although I entirely respect the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s point, that it reflects in this case because a Member is not obliged to vote simply because he or she has shouted. What he or she must not do is shout one way and vote the other. But the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised is an important one, and I thank him for raising it.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on whether there is a modern-day precedent for the use of imperial legislation, as outlined in new clause 1, which looks more like an attempt to prevent stories from appearing about more divisions in the Conservative party over Europe and about the date of referendum being before the general election.
Mr Speaker
I cannot say I am very grateful for that point of order, for the simple reason that, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that is a point that he could and should, if he is so minded, raise in the debate, rather than detaining the House with a bogus point of order now.
Martin Horwood
Mr Speaker, your selection of amendments is obviously correct and beyond reproach, but perhaps you could shed some light on the non-selection of my amendment—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. He has been in the House long enough to know that the Chair is never required to explain or, as he puts it, shed light on the selection of amendments. The hon. Gentleman will have to rest content with the selection. If I were inclined to put it bluntly, I would say that he can like it or lump it.
New Clause 1
Gibraltar
‘(1) An order under section 3(2) or (3) which extends to Gibraltar may—
(a) provide for conduct to constitute a criminal offence under the law of Gibraltar;
(b) extend and apply to Gibraltar, with or without modification, the provisions of any enactment relating to referendums or elections;
(c) modify any such enactment so far as it has effect in relation to any part of the United Kingdom;
(d) modify or apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provisions of any legislation in force in Gibraltar relating to elections, or referendums.
(2) The capacity of the Gibraltar legislature to make law in relation to any matter in relation to which provision may be made under section 3 is not affected by the existence of the power conferred by that section.
(3) Subsection (2) is not to be regarded as restricting the operation in relation to law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to provision made under an Act of Parliament).
(4) “Enactment”, and “modification” have the same meaning as in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (see section 160(1) of that Act).’.—(Andrew Rosindell.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 41, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out ‘and’.
Amendment 43, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(aa) persons who have right of abode in the United Kingdom.’.
Amendment 45, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(aa) persons who would be entitled to vote as electors in a European Parliament election.’.
Amendment 46, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(aa) all persons who are legally entitled to vote as electors at a local government election.’.
Amendment 47, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(aa) all British citizens resident in any of the member states of the European Union.’.
Amendment 48, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, after ‘peers’, insert ‘or prisoners’.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end add—
‘(c) British citizens, regardless of where they are resident, who have registered to vote with a British Embassy or High Commission or with the local authority where they last lived in the United Kingdom not less than six months before the date of the referendum, and the statutory provisions relating to overseas voters shall be disapplied for the purposes of this section.’.
Amendment 44, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
‘(2) Persons aged 16 or 17 on the date of the referendum shall be entitled to vote if they would, save for their age, be otherwise entitled to vote under any of the categories set out in subsection (1) above.’.
Amendment 49, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
‘(c) citizens of the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta resident in the United Kingdom shall not be entitled to vote.’.
Amendment 50, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
‘(c) residents of all Crown Dependencies.’.
Amendment 51, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
‘(c) residents of all British Overseas Territories.’.
Amendment 63, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end add—
‘(2) Provision will be made for all electors included in the Gibraltar register as defined in Schedule 1 to the Government of Gibraltar’s European Parliamentary Elections Act 2004 to vote in Gibraltar in person or by post.’.
Amendment 69, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end add—
‘(c) persons who are citizens of British Overseas Territories.’.
Amendment 80, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert ‘and
‘( ) Commonwealth citizens who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote in Gibraltar as electors at a European Parliamentary election in the combined electoral region in which Gibraltar is comprised.’.
Amendment 81, in clause 5, page 2, line 21, at beginning insert—
‘( ) This Act extends to—
(a) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and
(b) Gibraltar.’.
Amendment 82, in line 1 after ‘Kingdom’, insert ‘and Gibraltar’.
Andrew Rosindell
I am proud to move new clause 1, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) and myself.
On 1 January 1973, the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joined the then Common Market, the European Economic Community, as it was known at that stage, but it was not just the people of the United Kingdom who joined what is now the European Union at that point. It was also the people of the then British Crown colony of Gibraltar, now known as a British overseas territory.
As all Members of the House know, the people of the Rock of Gibraltar are deeply proud of the fact that they are one of Her Majesty’s British overseas territories. They are proud of being British and proud of being part of the British family of nations and territories, but they are also part of the European Union.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it the hon. Gentleman’s opinion that the people living in Gibraltar today are also pleased that they have the right to vote in European parliamentary elections and would therefore wish to take a role in the future of the European Union?
Andrew Rosindell
I was about to come to that very point. It was only a few years ago, in June 2004, that after a very long battle the people of Gibraltar were rightly granted the ability to vote in European elections. It was wholly wrong that part of the European Union was excluded from those elections. The people of Gibraltar, as members of the European Union, are now entitled to vote in those elections, so it is consistent with that argument that the people of the Rock should also be granted the right to vote in any future referendum regarding the European Union.
Of course it is right that we should ensure that the provisions of the Bill before the House today are extended to the people of Gibraltar as loyal subjects of the Crown and as British citizens, to ensure that all 20,000 inhabitants of the Rock are given the right to vote in any forthcoming referendum. As in our own nation, there are divided views about the European Union, but of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South has pointed out many times, today’s debate is not about our future in the European Union. It is about the right of the people to decide and to choose their own destiny. If it is right for the people of the United Kingdom to have that right, it is surely correct that the people of Gibraltar should be extended that same right of self-determination within the European Union.
The people of Gibraltar have a right to vote in this referendum. That is why my hon. Friend and I have tabled the new clause. It is only correct that all the people affected by the European Union are given the right to choose, so why should the people of Gibraltar be excluded from that decision?
Andrew Rosindell
I will not be giving way.
The vast majority of people in Gibraltar, unlike people in the United Kingdom, choose to use their votes. In fact, the most recent European elections saw a 57% turnout—far higher than the turnout in the south-west region of which Gibraltar is a part. It is therefore right that they be given this opportunity. We know that they want the right to make the decision, along with the people of the United Kingdom.
The national anthem of Gibraltar says:
“Gibraltar, Gibraltar,
The Rock on which I stand,
May you be forever free,
Gibraltar, my own land.”
If the people of Gibraltar are to be free, if they are to choose their own destiny, and if it is to be their own land, they too must be given the right to vote in this referendum and in all elections. I commend the amendment to the House.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I served on the Committee, and during our proceedings we looked very closely at this matter. I remind the House that at that time the Government were unaware of, or had forgotten, the fact that the people of Gibraltar were a very special case because, as a European election constituency, they are part of the west of England seat and, as such, should have been included from the very start when this Bill was dreamt up.
Of course, we know that this is very much not a normal private Member’s Bill. I have never, in my experience in the House of Commons, seen a private Member’s Bill where Government Members are on a three-line Whip.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that demonstrates the importance that Government Members attach to giving the British people a say in an EU referendum?
Mr Sheerman
No, I am sorry, but I do not. I think the whole question of a referendum is a very important one that this House should look at, but it is a major constitutional issue that should have been introduced with a Green Paper and had a pre-legislative inquiry. It should have been taken seriously because it would totally change the nature of Europe and our role in Europe. It is unseemly and furtive, and not at the level of great parliamentary democracy, to try to use a private Member’s Bill to bring this forward.
Until we discussed this issue in Committee, the Government seemed unaware that Gibraltar had this special status and had a vote in the European elections. Often when we take part in a Bill Committee, we realise that we do not do a lot that changes anything, but in this case we made the Government aware of the special status of Gibraltar, and that is why this is a common-sense new clause.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend rightly says that Ministers and, indeed, the Bill’s promoter, completely forgot about Gibraltarians in this context. He will remember from his time in Committee that they refused to accept our amendment that would have given Gibraltarians the right to vote in any referendum. Does he have any intelligence as to why there has been this U-turn on the part of the Bill’s promoter?
Mr Sheerman
I have been in this House long enough to be grateful for small mercies, and we did, after all, get a change. As I said, it is very unusual to do something in a Bill Committee that one can remember as being quite creative.
It was an unusual Committee, Mr Speaker. I was in full flow at one stage, and when I turned to look at the Public Gallery, the Prime Minister was sitting in on the proceedings. This is a very special Bill—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is anything unusual either about his being in full flow or about his expectation that the Prime Minister will be listening to him.
Mr Sheerman
I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker.
I will conclude my remarks and hope to be called later in the debate. I am in favour of the new clause, which fits in with the whole tone of the discussion that we had in Committee. The Opposition acted very positively in relation to this Bill in trying to refine it and to be supportive. All of us, as a team, tried to work together. We disagreed, but we disagreed in a rather pleasant way.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I rise to support new clause 1. The absurd proposal in this group is obviously amendment 43, which seems to suggest that everyone across Europe will vote on this issue, whatever their nationality.
As somebody who supports a referendum on our membership of the EU but would probably vote in favour, I think it very important that UK citizens who live abroad should be entitled to vote. Obviously that is allowed, but people who live in Gibraltar also need to vote. We will eventually need to consider the wider issue of what representation the Crown dependencies have, but that is for another day.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) will recall, I intervened on him to raise the issue of Gibraltar when we first gathered here on a Friday to discuss this Bill. I think I am accurate in saying that he was rather dismissive of my concerns about the people of Gibraltar and accused me of merely trying to wreck the Bill. I very much welcome the fact that he has had a conversion along the way from here to the Whips Office to get his instructions and back again, and now supports giving the people of Gibraltar the right to take part in this referendum.
We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is one of the leading experts on the overseas territories. I was slightly disappointed, however, that he did not explain the precise reason why it is vital for Gibraltar to have its voice in the referendum. The reason is that under the treaty of Utrecht, which—he may correct me—took place in 1713, the United Kingdom has ownership of Gibraltar for as long as we and the people of Gibraltar should wish it, but should we ever renounce our ownership of the Rock, ownership automatically passes back to Madrid. Therefore, under the treaty, the people of Gibraltar have no ability to seek their own independence. If they were not given their chance to have a say in the referendum, if the United Kingdom chose to leave the EU, they would be placed in the ridiculous situation of having to choose whether they wished to remain part of the European Union or to become Spanish.
That is why I very much welcome the fact that eventually, after six months, the hon. Member for Stockton South and his colleagues have accepted the argument that I tried to make back in July. I look forward to his explaining why it has taken him so long to come to the conclusion that was obvious to us at such an early stage.
Thomas Docherty
I fully agree. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on Wednesday evening we had a debate about the use of explanatory statements. As I think the House knows, I was a little sceptical about the mandatory nature of that proposal. However, I must confess—as I said, I am not as much of an expert as the hon. Member for Romford—that it would have been helpful in this case, because yesterday there was some genuine confusion about the amendments, with several hon. Members seeking guidance from the Clerks, the Library and elsewhere. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not explain why that particular line was included in the new clause. Does he wish to provide an explanation?
Thomas Docherty
No? I am sorry about that, because it has been puzzling me.
I am keen on giving the people of Gibraltar an opportunity to take part in a referendum that will directly affect them. I regret that it has taken us so long to persuade the hon. Member for Stockton South to accept that obvious point about a flaw that has been in his Bill from the very beginning.
Martin Horwood
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who is right to say that this omission—this flaw in the Bill—was pointed out at a very early stage and that the anomaly of the situation of the people of Gibraltar could have been rectified much earlier. That reflects the nature of the Bill, which in many respects—I am sure we will come on to them—is not very well thought out. It was, in effect, a public relations exercise to cover up the deep division in the Conservative party over the question of whether or not to remain in Europe.
That has been highlighted clearly in today’s edition of The Economist, the front cover of which has a road map that goes onwards and upwards to Great Britain, with a little cul-de-sac off to the right marked “Little England”, accompanied by an image of the European Union symbol with a cross through it. I think that the risk of the little Englander is the real issue behind much of the Bill.
The subject of new clause 1 is Gibraltar. It raises the obvious question of what would happen if Gibraltar exercised an expression of its destiny, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) eloquently put it, and voted to remain in the European Union but the UK voted to leave, perhaps with the votes of people in Scotland, which may by then have voted, in theory, to leave the United Kingdom. I am not clear where that would leave Gibraltar. It is included in the European Union only by virtue of the UK’s membership of the EU. It is represented in the European Parliament, not in its own right, but only by virtue of being a British Crown dependency.
Thomas Docherty
If I may briefly correct the hon. Gentleman on two points, he just referred to Gibraltar as a Crown dependency, but I am sure he meant to say that it is an overseas territory. I am sure he also misspoke when he said that it is represented by the United Kingdom when, of course, it has votes in the South West and Gibraltar constituency of the European Parliament.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was talking about representation and was about to point out that Gibraltar is part of the South West England and Gibraltar constituency, which also includes my constituency of Cheltenham and is ably represented by Sir Graham Watson. The point is that Gibraltar does not have separate representation in its own right in the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right to correct me on calling it a Crown dependency; it is, of course, an overseas territory. It has many of the same special arrangements as various other territories but, uniquely, it is part of the European Union while other overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not formally part of it.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has said he is not clear where this would leave Gibraltar. Is it not obvious that it would leave it between a Rock and a hard place?
Martin Horwood
That will probably get the hon. Gentleman “quote of the day” in somebody’s column, but I am not sure how well it will go down in Gibraltar. I do not think we should make light of the serious issue of Gibraltar’s future in the European Union, but I value the hon. Gentleman’s humorous contribution.
We could end up in a bizarre situation whereby Gibraltar votes to remain in the EU and the rest of the UK votes to leave it. We face the prospect of going to the effort of accepting this new clause and giving Gibraltarians their say and the ability to express their own view on their own destiny, but then expelling them from the EU against their wishes. I am not clear how that gives Gibraltarians a real say over their destiny.
Andrew Rosindell
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is getting this completely back to front. The people of Gibraltar would vote in a referendum, just like anybody else in the United Kingdom. If the people of Essex chose to stay in the European Union—I am not sure that is going to happen—it would make no difference: we are treated as one country in terms of the EU. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the people of Gibraltar will want to stay with Britain.
Martin Horwood
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Gibraltar is not equivalent to Essex in any respect. It is a separate territory and it has self-government. It is not represented in this Parliament. That is a fundamental principle of our relationship with Gibraltar. It is more analogous to Denmark’s relationship with Greenland, which voted in its own right to leave the European Union despite remaining a Danish territory. Greenlanders were given their right to have control over their own destiny, but the Bill does not explain how Gibraltarians would be given that same right should their conclusion in a referendum differ from that of the people of the United Kingdom. The Bill leaves a huge unanswered question, in that it appears, on the face of it, to offer a clear scenario whereby the voters of the United Kingdom could, in effect, expel Gibraltarians from the European Union against their wishes.
Thomas Docherty
I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman and, as a Scot, I do not quite follow his logic. Under the new clause, which seems to have cross-party support, the people of Gibraltar will get a say in the referendum. If Scotland chooses to stay part of the EU, it would still be bound by the collective result and the same is true of Gibraltar, unless it chooses to cease being part of the United Kingdom. I am struggling to understand why the hon. Gentleman does not see it in that way. Perhaps he could explain further.
Martin Horwood
I will explain. The situation is different from that in Scotland, because Scotland, for the time being at least, remains part of the territory of the United Kingdom, has representation in this Parliament and is represented in Europe by virtue of being part of the UK, not of being a territory of the UK. Gibraltar has self-government and that is a cardinal principle of our relationship with it. Should it at any point decide to join the kingdom of Spain, it could take that step without having to leave the United Kingdom. In effect, we are saying that we would expel Gibraltar from the EU even if it voted to remain in it.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman must have misspoken. I think he just said—perhaps I heard him wrong—that Gibraltar could join the kingdom of Spain without leaving the United Kingdom.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing me. I do not think the hon. Gentleman meant to say that. He said that Gibraltar is self-governing. It has self-government on many issues, but not all. We still provide its international relations, Home Office functions and defence functions. I think the hon. Gentleman is misspeaking.
Martin Horwood
No, on this occasion I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right. Gibraltar is a UK territory but, like other overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is not actually part of the United Kingdom. The test is whether there is direct representation in this Chamber.
Thomas Docherty
I really am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity to talk to the many Members throughout the House who have a close interest in overseas territories. Overseas territories have a great deal of self-governance, but they still rely on the UK for many of their functions, including defence and foreign affairs. It is not mutually exclusive to say that they have self-governance but that the UK provides many of their functions.
Would the hon. Gentleman also like to take the opportunity to correct the record? It has been endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that he said that Gibraltar could choose to join the kingdom of Spain without leaving the United Kingdom.
Martin Horwood
The reason why Gibraltar could decide to join the kingdom of Spain should it ever want to—obviously, there is no prospect of that in the near future—without leaving the United Kingdom is that it is not formally part of the UK at the moment. We would respect the wishes of Gibraltarians if they ever expressed that desire. They would not have to leave, because they are not formally part of the territory of the United Kingdom itself. They are an overseas territory.
Martin Horwood
It is a rather semantic point. I feel that we are leading the House down something of an angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead diversion, so we should probably move on to more substantial issues. The substantial point that I was trying to make before being entertainingly diverted by the hon. Gentleman was that we could end up in a situation in which the people of Gibraltar voted to remain in the European Union, but were effectively expelled from it by virtue of a United Kingdom referendum. We can leave the debate about the precise nature of Gibraltar’s detachment from the United Kingdom for another time.
Martin Horwood
I am reluctant to take another intervention on this point, because the Members behind me will be getting frustrated, but I will give way.
Huw Irranca-Davies
My intervention is on a different point. Is not a more powerful argument in support of the new clause that there is a strong argument to make to Gibraltarians that their interests are very well served within the EU, particularly because of the importance of the EU to international global treaties on maritime issues, fisheries issues and so on? That is the strong argument that we should make if the new clause is to be passed.
Martin Horwood
That was a much more constructive intervention and it was typically well made by the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right that there is a strong case for Gibraltar to remain within the European Union, as there is for the United Kingdom to remain within it, not only because of the issues that he mentioned, but because of the fight against cross-border crime and terrorism and a range of other issues.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the most important benefit of the European Union. We have a bully in Spain that has been trying to force its will upon the people of Gibraltar. One of the huge advantages of the European Union, as the people of Gibraltar know, is that it allows them, following the representations of the Minister for Europe and others, to stand up with the United Kingdom to that bully. That would not be happening if they were outside the European Union.
Martin Horwood
I will not rise to that point. It takes us away from the core subject matter of the new clause.
I want to make it clear to Members on both sides of the House that I support the new clause because it aims to correct the anomaly. There are some reassuring parts to it. It is great to know that subsection (2)
“is not to be regarded as restricting the operation in relation to law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to the provision made under an Act of Parliament).”
I am sure that that will be a massive reassurance to the people of Gibraltar. It is a serious point that it will reassure them that the overall constitutional framework is being respected and not changed by the fact that we are passing legislation in this Chamber that relates to the constitutional position of Gibraltar.
I am happy to support the new clause, although I would be interested to hear what the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) thinks the position would be for Gibraltarians in the event of their voting yes and the United Kingdom voting no. Where would that leave them constitutionally? Would they be able to renegotiate their own separate membership of the European Union? If so, would their membership carry on automatically or would they be in the position that it has been suggested Scotland might be in if it voted for independence, whereby it would leave the European Union automatically and have to reapply as an independent country?
I will not go through the raft of amendments that we are considering in this group one by one. I am sure that that is to the relief of Members behind me. However, some of the amendments, although addressing issues that are critical to the future of the UK and its position within the European Union, run the risk of looking a wee bit frivolous. It is important for those of us who are in favour of a debate on Europe and in favour of European Union membership to retain some credibility.
Mike Gapes
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to amendments that you have selected as valid for this debate as “frivolous”?
Mr Speaker
The substance of the amendments is a matter for debate. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who has erred rather seriously once already, is not suggesting that it was inappropriate for the Chair to select the amendments. If he thinks that their content is not up to his high standards of intellectual argument, that is a matter for debate. That they were proper amendments to be selected is not a matter for debate, because I selected them. That is the end of it.
Martin Horwood
Heaven forfend that I should question the selection of amendments once again, having been appropriately chastised at the beginning of the debate.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) if I suggested that he was being frivolous. I am sure that that is not true. I am sure that he was well-meaning in tabling the amendments. What I was highlighting was that those of us who are on the pro-European side of the debate and who want to move on from arcane discussions about the minutiae of referendums to the real issue, which is whether Britain should be in or out, do ourselves no favours if we run the risk of being seen as putting forward anything that might be interpreted as frivolous. If I may put it in those guarded terms, I hope that he will respect my slight warning that we are getting close to dangerous territory.
The one amendment that I will single out is amendment 44, which raises the issue of the voting age. We debated that matter in Committee, but it was not fully resolved. I want to put on the record the long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment to extend democratic voting rights to those of 16 or above. It is important to young people and to the future of our democracy that people who are younger than 18 are given the vote and are engaged in political debate, if possible while still at school. Yesterday, I was at Balcarras school, which is an outstanding comprehensive school in Cheltenham. I had a long, gruelling debate with the sixth-formers, who were really engaged in the issues. It must be a frustration to such well-informed observers of the political scene that they cannot vote. We should take every available opportunity to advance the arguments for votes at 16 and this is a good opportunity to do so.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman as perplexed as I am that the Government can justify reducing the voting age for a referendum in Scotland on the basis that the young people there will be determining the long-term future of their country in deciding whether it should be in or out of the UK, but will deny them that privilege in a referendum that will determine the long-term future of the entire UK in deciding whether we should be in or out of Europe? Where is the logic and consistency in that?
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman is drawing me into commenting on the Scottish referendum, which is rather dangerous territory, so I will leave it at saying that I think that votes should be extended to 16-year-olds.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Amendment 44 does not say that we should extend the vote to 16 to18-year-olds in order that they can vote for staying in the European Union. It would give them the franchise. The jury is out on whether they would vote in or out, but it is important that they have a say in the future because it is their future.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman again makes a good point. It is the future of those young people that we are debating. This issue is even more important in respect of this referendum than in respect of the wider franchise. In elections, people can change their mind after five years and kick out the Government. This decision will last a generation. The more young people we can involve in the decision, the better.
I will draw my remarks to a close. Important issues are finally being tackled in the amendments that relate to Gibraltar, but they do leave questions unanswered.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman has understandably focused the majority of his remarks on Gibraltar on the entitlement of its people to vote. May I bring him back to new clause 1 and the intention of the Bill’s promoter to refer to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in the Bill? Does he think it would be helpful if the Minister explained to the House why it is necessary to have a piece of outdated, colonial legislation in the Bill?
Martin Horwood
I have already invited the Minister to comment on the new clause in general. In fact, I should really call him the right hon. Member for Aylesbury in this context, not the Minister, since he is not speaking on behalf of the Government. We should be mindful of the issues raised by including such colonial legislation in the Bill, although the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) is probably technically incorrect in calling it outdated, as I believe it is still valid legislation. As I said earlier—
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not the case that anyone speaking from the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the Chamber is speaking on behalf of the Government?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That is the situation—a Minister who speaks from the Treasury Bench is speaking for the Government.
Martin Horwood
That raises an interesting issue that perhaps the Government—both sides of the coalition—should reflect on. I stand corrected for the second time in the space of an hour or so, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) for that point of order.
I was drawing my remarks to a conclusion. The key issue is not whether the new clause is right, because I believe it has wide support throughout the House, but the anomalous position in which Gibraltar could be left if it voted to remain in the European Union, but then faced involuntary expulsion from it as a result of the vote of the rest of the United Kingdom—or of the United Kingdom, depending on whether we regard Gibraltar as technically being part of the UK. I should like to hear the Minister’s opinion about that.
Mike Gapes
First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting a large number of amendments that I tabled and for your ruling that they are entirely valid and not frivolous.
It is important that this parliamentary democracy asserts the primacy of Parliament and its democratic processes. I have received a large number of tweets over the past few days from people who seem to believe that we should move to a plebiscitary form of decision making in this country.
I do not want to diverge from the substance of the debate, so I will concentrate on the new clause and amendments in the group. It is important to understand why there are so many amendments on the franchise to be used in a referendum: because this short Bill is woefully inadequate. It would create a referendum held on the basis of the franchise for parliamentary elections, not European elections, even though it would have enormous implications for the 1.4 million British people living in other European Union countries. It would also affect British people who live elsewhere in the world, perhaps working for companies based in the UK, with families still living in the UK. Their prosperity depends on our membership of the EU.
There would also be enormous implications for the 14 British overseas territories and their populations. New clause 1 rightly addresses the question of Gibraltar, and I am pleased that the Government have clarified their position on that in recent weeks. However, it is not sufficient, because people in other overseas territories, such as the Falkland Islands, would be affected. Our relationship with the EU also has implications for the future of people such as the Chagossians who were expelled from Diego Garcia.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill also excludes citizens of other EU countries who may have been resident in this country for many years and have made a huge contribution to its economy?
Mike Gapes
That is absolutely correct, and I will address that point as I talk in detail about each of my amendments.
Thomas Docherty
I do not fully follow my hon. Friend’s logic; I hope that he will explain it better. We do not allow the people of the Falkland Islands to vote in a Westminster general election even though, as he rightly says, it has a big implication for their future. Will he explain in a little more detail why he thinks they should have a vote in the referendum when they do not participate in a Westminster general election?
Mike Gapes
I will talk about overseas territories’ relationship with the European Union later. Along with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I served on European Committee B when we discussed at great length a series of documents about the new relationship between the overseas territories and the EU—I have them with me and may well quote from them. Some overseas territories have become what is called in the jargon “outer areas” of the European Union. For example, the French have overseas territories that not only have the right to be represented in the French Senate, but are defined as territories of the EU. However, the British overseas territories, apart from Gibraltar, are not.
Thomas Docherty
I wrote to the overseas territories a few months ago to inquire about that point, and I know that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and others have been making a case about it in the Foreign Affairs Committee for some time. There is no great appetite for the UK overseas territories to have representation in the UK Parliament. Will my hon. Friend give us his thoughts on why that is the case?
Mike Gapes
I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. In the previous Parliament, we carried out a major inquiry on the overseas territories. They are all different. Some of them are completely depopulated, some have few people, such as the Pitcairn Islands, which I think have 56 or 57 people, and others, such as the Falkland Islands, have a long-standing British population. The people of the Falkland Islands have expressed their self-determination in a vote, but they still suffer serious threats from Argentina.
Gibraltar still has a problem with regard to Spain, which is why new clause 1 is important. The point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham is valid, because if the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, what would happen to the efforts of the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to get the European Commission President to intervene when Spain puts pressure on Gibraltar? If we were on an exit path or had already left the EU, presumably the Commission would not try to help the citizens of Gibraltar when they were suffering blockades, huge queues and all the other problems that have arisen in recent months. I have not yet mentioned the dispute that has arisen over territorial waters, concrete blocks and fishing access.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for setting out his lucid argument. Although I support new clause 1 and many of the amendments in the group, we must consider territories that rely not only on the UK’s voice but, in a diverse and asymmetric way, on the EU’s voice. I am thinking of my area of expertise, which is fisheries, maritime issues and so on. Those territories’ voices will not be heard, and none of the amendments will enable that to happen. We must consider how their voice can be heard in any future vote to leave the EU.
Mike Gapes
I agree, which was why I tabled a series of amendments relating to the overseas territories. We must also consider Crown dependencies such as Guernsey and Jersey.
Steve McCabe
I am curious about what would happen if the people of Gibraltar voted to remain part of the EU, but the rest of the UK voted to opt out. If Gibraltar then found itself in conflict with Spain, where would we appeal for international support for Gibraltar? What would be the EU’s position?
Mike Gapes
My guess is that if we had left the EU, the rest of the EU would not necessarily regard us as a country to which it owed any favours, to put it mildly. Presumably we could appeal to the United Nations, but given the problems we have had in the so-called Special Committee on Decolonisation in the UN over the years, and the way in which countries such as Argentina have behaved with regard to other British overseas territories, we would be in a difficult position. The people of Gibraltar would be in a very difficult position, because if they wished to stay in the European Union, they would presumably have to find some way of getting Spain to sponsor their membership of the EU. Britain would have deserted and betrayed them.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that applies to other British overseas territories that have associate status with the EU and that benefit from trade, sustainable development and regional co-operation. Is he aware, for example, that the Falkland Islands receives, €4 million a year directly through such arrangements? How will their people’s wishes or intentions be considered in this process if they are not included in the franchise?
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that we are considering a private Member’s Bill, but is it in order for its promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), to be taking advice from Foreign Office civil servants in the Box?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is normal for Ministers to approach the Box, and only Ministers. I did not see anyone approach the Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I know where the hon. Gentleman is now thank you, Ms McCarthy, but I am saying that I did not see him approach the Box and I am sure he will not do that. It is supposed to be for Ministers. Having eyes in the back of my head is not a skill I have yet developed, but I am sure the protocol will be observed.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There cannot be anything further to that point of order. I have said that Ministers may approach the Box and nobody else should. I am sure that from now on nobody else will, apart from Ministers or their Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Where were we?
Mike Gapes
I was halfway through giving way, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) concluded his intervention?
Mike Gapes
My hon. Friend has concluded. As an aside, perhaps the solution for the Government would be to appoint the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) as a PPS for today so that such difficulties could be avoided. Perhaps that could be conveyed rapidly to the powers that be.
Steve McCabe
I want to return one last time to the point that my hon. Friend raised about Gibraltar and the situation involving Spain. He said that if the people of Gibraltar wanted to be in the EU but the rest of Britain did not, we might have to appeal to Spain, with whom we would also have some difficulties. He suggested that we would be driven into the arms of Spain. Has he had an opportunity to talk about that to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who moved new clause 1, because he has clearly not foreseen that as one of the consequences of his proposal?
Mike Gapes
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and I have had many discussions, and we were both at the United Nations in Washington last week with the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is my near neighbour; my constituency, like his, is in Greater London and in Essex. I am afraid that we have not discussed the details, but no doubt we will at some point over the next few days or weeks.
Let me return to the reasons behind the many amendments that I have tabled. There is a major problem with the Bill. For example, because the choice has been made to have a franchise based on parliamentary elections, people who would be able to vote in a European election in this country will not be able to participate in the referendum. That means we are in the absurd situation whereby the citizens of some European Union countries will be able to vote in our referendum, but others will not.
For example, a French person living in the UK who is married to a British person and has children at school, growing up, or at university in this country, will not be able to vote in the referendum. Someone from the Republic of Ireland, Malta or Cyprus will be able to vote, however, because Malta and Cyprus are in the Commonwealth, and Commonwealth citizens, along with British citizens, are able to vote in parliamentary elections. Because of our long-standing arrangements with the Irish Republic, even though it is not in the Commonwealth, citizens of the Republic of Ireland are able to vote in parliamentary elections and to stand for Parliament in this country. The measures in the Bill mean that we will exclude people who are settled with families in the UK, and who have a long-standing relationship with this country, from voting on whether to wrench apart the UK from their European country, yet we will be allowing other people who are not British to vote in our referendum.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman’s interesting point raises an intriguing prospect. If the referendum were to be as finely balanced as other referendums around the world have been, it might be the votes of Irish citizens, Scots who may have voted to leave the United Kingdom, Commonwealth citizens and others that actually change the result.
Mike Gapes
Absolutely. A large number of my constituents come from many parts of the world. There are British Pakistanis, British Indians, British Bangladeshis, British Somalis—all kinds of people. When they get British citizenship they can, of course, vote in our elections, but some choose to retain citizenship of another state. I have a close friend who is a local councillor in my constituency. He has a British passport, but his wife has kept an Indian passport, even though they have sons who are in their 30s and they have been living in this country for decades. Because his wife is an Indian citizen, that facilitates them when they go back to India, rather than meaning that there are problems with visas. She is able to vote in British elections and, as a Commonwealth citizen, she will be able to vote in this referendum. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a constituent is married to someone from a non-Commonwealth country, such as Somalia or the United States. They are not allowed to vote in our parliamentary elections, so they will not be able to vote in the referendum. The Government are increasing the number of anomalies. European Union rules allow citizens of any EU country to vote in European elections; indeed, they allow people to stand for the European Parliament in any EU state, whatever their nationality.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution and referring to matters that relate specifically to my family, given that my husband has dual citizenship, as does my mother-in-law. Does he agree that the right of European citizens living in the UK to participate in the referendum is a particular issue for those of us with London constituencies that are home to huge numbers of French, German and Spanish citizens, who perhaps know best about the importance of relationships between countries in the European Union?
Mike Gapes
I might be wrong, but I understand that London is the fifth largest French city. We live in a globalised world. People come to London to give to our country and contribute to our prosperity. One reason for the dynamism and growth in the London economy is that we have attracted the brightest and best people from many European countries, and yet we will not allow them to vote on the future of the place where they have their families and connections, and to which they have made a contribution.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is not just London. An individual in Durham who is an American citizen has lived here for 34 years. He runs a very successful business and his wife is English. Clearly, the Bill will affect his business, but he will not be allowed to have a say on whether the UK is part of the EU.
Mike Gapes
I agree with my hon. Friend. There are huge implications for the economy and our people should we leave the EU. However, the debate is on the Bill and not the wider issues, so I will not be drawn down that path.
Huw Irranca-Davies
My hon. Friend tickled me when he described London as the fifth largest French city—he must not forget the London Welsh contingent. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has turned around from the Front Bench to express sympathy. On a serious point, the forensic analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) applies and the anomalies he exposes make me wonder whether introducing a referendum in the shape of a private Member’s Bill—hon. Members have proposed right-minded amendments—has given the Electoral Commission sufficient time to look at the Bill in detail and raise similar concerns.
Mike Gapes
We will discuss the Electoral Commission’s report on the wording of the question when we speak to another group of amendments. The commission clearly takes a different view from the Government on the question, but that issue is not for this group of amendments. I do not know about the commission’s detailed views on the issues I am discussing, so I will not comment on them.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend misspoke very slightly earlier when he referred to the general election franchise, but that is not quite true, because Members of the other place would have a vote. On a more substantive point, in the referendum that we in Scotland have next year on whether we should leave the EU, European Union citizens will be granted the vote. I did not support that, but given that the Government supported EU citizens having the right to vote on that precedent on that occasion, should they not be given the right to vote on whether the whole of the UK leaves the EU?
Mike Gapes
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why I have tabled amendments that would apply either the local government franchise or the European Parliament franchise. That would meet his point about Scotland.
I was going to come to the question of prisoners later—not prisoners, Members of the House of Lords. [Interruption.] I said prisoners because, under our present law, Members of the House of Lords, lunatics and prisoners are excluded from voting in elections to the House of Commons. The Government propose to modify that to allow peers to vote in the referendum, but not lunatics or prisoners. I have tabled an amendment on prisoners—I was unable to get an amendment on lunatics on the amendment paper. My point is that the Government are making a constitutional change in the relationship between the Houses of Parliament and in the role of Members in the other place. Are the Government proposing that Members of the other place should vote in the referendum? I referred to the Government—I must apologise; I meant the part of the Government that is putting forward the proposal. They need to clarify why they think that it is appropriate to change that long-standing relationship.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is expertly disentangling all the anomalies and contradictions in the Bill and the franchise, but does he agree that in respect of Gibraltar there is another one which has wider implications? A quarter of a million or so British citizens live in Spain. Some may have served this country with distinction fighting in our armed forces; others may have been in receipt of an honour from Her Majesty the Queen; and others may be working for Britain in companies in countries such as Spain. A quarter of a million people living just across the water from Gibraltar will not have a vote, but Gibraltarians will have one. What is the logic of that?
Mike Gapes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no logic to the proposal; it is absurd. As I said in my introductory remarks, 1.4 million British citizens live elsewhere in the EU. Only those who have registered as overseas voters may vote in the referendum. The law says that one must have been away from the UK for no more than 15 years and specifically register as an overseas voter. The figures I have seen show that there were fewer than 20,000 registered overseas voters in December 2012. The future of the 1.4 million British people living elsewhere in the EU could be seriously and adversely affected by the consequences of a referendum that leads to withdrawal, but they will not be given a say.
Some might register, but many may have been living abroad for longer than 15 years. Since I tabled my proposal, I received, on 5 November, an e-mail from Mr Brian Cave, who lives in France. He states:
“I, myself, have lived in France for over 15 years and thereby am disenfranchised. That of course is wrong. To further not be permitted to vote in any IN/OUT referendum is an appalling double insult for any British Citizen in Europe. We, who would be most closely affected, must have a vote in this.”
Millions of people could be damaged. More than 1 million British citizens live elsewhere in the EU—in Spain, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has said, in Portugal, in France or elsewhere. Many are pensioners, but some live in France and work in London. Some have their families in France but contribute regularly to British companies and businesses. It is rumoured—I do not know whether this is true—that even Members of this House sometimes live in France. It is therefore important that we understand that the Government are not allowing a large number of British citizens to have a vote in the referendum. One of my amendments would make it possible for British people living in all EU countries to have a vote in it.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that many people will have sold their houses here and retired to Spain, for example? I am sure a lot of people from Romford have retired to Spain to a better life and winter sunshine. Disfranchising those people is anomalous in the sense that they are the ones who will be directly affected if we withdraw from the EU.
Mike Gapes
That is absolutely true. The Government—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I meant to say the Minister. Given the earlier ruling, I assume he will speak for the Government. He will need to clarify why we are not allowing those British citizens to vote in the referendum. After all, the devolution referendums held by the previous Government in 1999 were conducted under the local government franchise, which allowed EU citizens to vote. My proposal would widen that so that British citizens everywhere could vote.
Steve McCabe
May I take my hon. Friend back to the point he made about the Members of the other place having the right to vote? That raises the concern that several of us have had from the outset about the wisdom of addressing such a constitutionally far-reaching measure in a private Member’s Bill. In particular, has he sought any advice on the implications of the Bill’s consideration in the other place? Will Members there have to declare an interest or say how they intend to vote in such a referendum? Will they have to disbar themselves from taking part in the debate? As far as I can see, this is new constitutional territory.
Mike Gapes
It is difficult enough for me to contemplate the implications of rulings from the Chair in this Chamber without tying myself in knots over how the Lord Speaker would deal with such issues should they be raised with her in the other place. It would be best to put that issue on the agenda for the other place if it comes to consider this Bill. It will have to deal with that issue at that point. I do not have a view on or any detailed knowledge of how it would be dealt with at that time.
I want to be clear about the important differences between the amendments I have tabled. Amendment 43 would allow people with the right of abode in the United Kingdom to vote in this referendum, because it would affect them. Would they be expelled from the European Union? Would they no longer have the right to travel freely to the 27 other member states?
As I have already said, amendment 45 concerns those who are entitled to vote as electors in a European Parliament election, such as all the residents of the UK who are citizens of Austria, Latvia, Estonia, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic or Slovakia—I will not list all the other 27 member states, but there are a lot of them. Some of those people gain the full benefit of our education system and contribute to our society in many ways, just as British people living in other European countries benefit from their systems. We have seen recent reports that say that more British people are on welfare benefits in other EU countries than people from other EU countries living in the UK on benefits. If we were to leave the European Union, what would happen to those British people’s right to reside in those other European countries and benefit from the facilities, social security systems and other amenities of those countries? These are issues of great importance, but British people living in other countries would not be allowed to vote in the referendum, and nor would European Union citizens living in this country. That would be wrong, because the decision would have profound, long-term implications for them. That is why we need proper parliamentary scrutiny of it, which we are beginning here today. I hope that we will be able to continue it over the coming weeks and months.
Amendment 46 relates to the local government franchise, which is the basis for the Scottish referendum. In my opinion, there are no strong arguments against that. I have already covered amendment 47, which addresses the issue of those British citizens resident in any of the member states of the European Union.
Amendment 48 refers to the rights of prisoners to vote. Interesting statements have been made recently by the Government’s senior law officers, but the position is confused on whether some—if not all—prisoners will be given the right to vote. The Bill is silent on that issue, but if the Government’s position changes in the next few months—despite the clear vote of this House against giving votes to prisoners—we would need to discuss it in some detail. There would be implications if the European Court maintains its judgment that some prisoners should be given the right to vote, not just for parliamentary elections but for the franchise for any referendum on leaving the European Union. That is why I have tabled the amendment.
Amendment 8 would clarify the basis on which people would be able to vote. At present, overseas voters can register under the 15-year rule using the address of the local authority area in which they had lived previously. The amendment would allow people to register to vote at a British embassy or high commission. It is deplorable that only 20,000 people living elsewhere in the European Union have the entitlement to vote under the 15-year rule. Some 1.4 million British people live in other European Union countries and we should be trying to find ways to encourage them to register. To reduce the bureaucratic hurdles, the easiest way to do that would be to allow people in Spain, say, to contact the British embassy in Madrid; people in Portugal to go to Lisbon; people in France to go to Paris; and so on. Similarly, if we were to change the franchise to allow British citizens living anywhere in the world to take part in the referendum, we should allow them to go to the British high commissions in Delhi or other countries of the Commonwealth.
I have touched on amendment 44 and I know that other hon. Members will wish to speak on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) mentioned the age at which people can vote in the Scottish separatist referendum, and the UK referendum should be held on the same basis. Young people have a great interest in the future of the European Union. I would hope, therefore, that they would be able to take part.
Mike Gapes
No, I am afraid I want to conclude my remarks, because other Members wish to speak.
The Crown dependencies, including their very important financial institutions, would also be affected, so should be allowed to vote. We have discussed British overseas territories, so I will not spend any longer on that point, and we have also talked about Gibraltar at length. The important point is this: my amendments expose the Bill’s inadequacy and need for proper consideration and scrutiny. I hope the House will provide that and support at least some of my amendments.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
In response to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I wish to make it clear that, in respect of this Bill, as has been the case with at least one or two other Bills since the 2010 general election, the two governing parties have agreed to differ in their approaches to a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
I want to address the various points made about Gibraltar.
Martin Horwood
Given the point of order raised by the sage and right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), will the Minister clarify in what capacity he is now speaking?
Mr Lidington
I am speaking as a Minister at the Foreign Office and, as always, as a member of the Conservative party to make clear my view of the amendments and, in particular, to respond to the points made in Committee by Members representing different political parties about extending the franchise to the people of Gibraltar.
Mr Lidington
I have taken advice on this matter, including legal advice, so that I can be confident of giving the House an accurate commentary on the effects of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton).
Mr Lidington
In Committee, I undertook to review this question, in response to points made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I do not think is in his place any longer, and by other Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members who argued that Gibraltarians should receive the franchise, in view of the fact that Gibraltar was perhaps uniquely affected among our overseas territories by the question of Britain’s membership, or otherwise, of the EU.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
It had better be a point of order, Mr Jones.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Jones, you know full well that that is not a point of order. It is entirely up to the Minister or the Member who has the Floor to decide to whom they give way, but perhaps the Minister could indicate to the House whether he wishes to make some progress.
Mr Lidington
Members from all three main parties have made some serious points about Gibraltar.
Mr Lidington
I intend to continue with my remarks and respond to the points made about new clause 1 and then to respond briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), so I do not intend to give way to those who are seeking to intervene at the moment.
Under the 2006 constitution of Gibraltar, the United Kingdom is responsible for Gibraltar’s external relations, including its membership of international organisations. For example, the United Kingdom would be at risk of infraction proceedings if the Government of Gibraltar failed to implement EU legislation. Gibraltar’s association with the EU is itself founded on the UK’s membership and the terms of Gibraltar’s association are set out in declaration 55 attached to the treaties of the European Union. To those hon. Members who have asked, “What would happen if in 2017 the UK voted to leave the EU?”, the answer is that in subsequent negotiations about the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the future relationship of Gibraltar with the EU and the acquis would have to form one aspect of those considerations.
Mr Thomas
I am following very clearly the Minister’s attempted explanation for why subsections (2) and (3) should be written into the Bill. Essentially, I am struggling to understand why he thinks there might be some problem with Gibraltan law preventing the smooth running of a referendum in Gibraltar. Is not the reference to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 a bit of overkill?
Mr Lidington
No, it is not overkill. This is a sensible piece of legislative drafting designed to put it beyond the risk of any misunderstanding or misinterpretation that the underlying constitutional relationship would remain undisturbed, despite the specific and exceptional provisions of the Bill. I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if he looks back at the Committee proceedings, he will find that his predecessor as shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), was among those arguing and tabling amendments to extend the franchise to people in Gibraltar through the vehicle of this Bill.
Mr Lidington
I am trying to respond to the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, I have reflected carefully on the points made in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr Lidington
No. I have consulted the Chief Minister and have concluded that I should give my support and endorsement to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). It ill behoves Opposition Front Benchers to try to retreat from a new clause that seeks to give effect to something that they themselves were proposing in an amendment, which was extremely technically deficient, in a debate in Committee.
Mr Lidington
No, I will not.
The hon. Member for Ilford South has tabled many different amendments. He acknowledged that they cover a wide range of issues, which are perfectly legitimate, about the extent of the franchise in the UK. He proposed in one amendment that the UK franchise should be extended to prisoners and in another that the franchise—
Mr Lidington
I am replying to the hon. Member for Ilford South. He proposed amendments that seek to—
Huw Irranca-Davies
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. From the start of the debate, I have listened intently to every word. I believe that perhaps inadvertently the Government Front-Bench spokesman has misrepresented the position of our Front-Bench team. However, he is refusing to give way. Is there any recourse for our Front-Bench team to clarify a point not only of debate but of accuracy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I get the gist. It is not a point of order. The Minister has the Floor and is responsible for what he says to the House. Opposition Front Benchers will get their opportunity to speak in the debate. If the Minister does not wish to give way, that is a matter for him. The normal courtesies are that Members give way at some point, but they do not have to do so repeatedly.
Mr Lidington
I am responding to the hon. Member for Ilford South. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) will have a chance to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye in a few minutes if he wishes to go over again the points that were made in Committee.
The hon. Member for Ilford South raised the question of extending the franchise for UK expatriates beyond the 50-year maximum, which would be the effect of at least one of his amendments. He also proposed altering the general election franchise, in effect, to include European citizens as well as UK and Commonwealth citizens. All those are legitimate questions for debate but the purpose of the Bill is to apply the UK’s general election franchise terms to the proposed referendum.
Mike Gapes
Given that we are apparently going to use the UK’s general election criteria, why would there be a major anomaly? The citizens of three EU states would be able to vote in the referendum but others would not. Is that not a strange situation? Citizens of Cyprus, Malta and Ireland would be able to vote but French people living in London could not.
Mr Lidington
It is no more or less anomalous than the situation that applies already at our general elections, where citizens of those European Commonwealth countries who are legally resident here and registered as voters are entitled to participate, whereas nationals of other EU member states who are also lawfully resident are not so entitled to vote in a UK general election. In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, it would be legitimate for him to use the vehicle of a representation of the people Bill at some stage to seek to alter the terms of the UK’s general election franchise in the way he proposes, but it is not appropriate to use the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South to make such a change when my hon. Friend’s purpose, as I understand it, is to apply the UK’s general election franchise to his proposed referendum. For that reason, I disagree with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South and support the general election franchise as set out by my hon. Friend in his Bill.
Mr Bain
I rise to support amendment 69. I would also like to comment on other amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).
Some important points have been raised about the franchise. The first I would take up is the one about EU nationals. I have a regular correspondence with a Danish constituent in the Hogganfield part of my constituency who is married to a UK national, and has the right to vote in a Scottish Parliament election, a local government election in Scotland and European elections in this country. He will have the right to vote in the Scottish referendum, but under the Bill as drafted by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) he will not have the right to vote in this referendum.
That throws up an interesting anomaly. We know that one of the implications of the Scottish referendum is that Scotland would no longer be an EU member state. Therefore, my constituent is being allowed the opportunity to vote once on whether to stay in the EU, but in the event of Scotland’s voting to stay in the UK he would be denied the opportunity to vote a second time on whether to stay part of the EU as a citizen of the UK. Such anomalies show the mess that the hon. Gentleman and the Government are getting themselves into with the Bill as currently drafted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South mentioned prisoners’ right to vote. Of course none of us in the House wants prisoners who have been convicted of serious offences or given long sentences to be given the right to vote, but an important point in relation to the franchise of prisoners in referendums came up in the discussion about the Scottish referendum. It is regrettable that we have not been joined by the Attorney-General because we would have benefited from his good counsel on that point. There is case law from the European Court of Human Rights in 2008. That says that article 3 of protocol 1, which deals with the right to vote and participate in democratic votes, says that that right is qualified, is limited to the choice of the legislature and does not apply to the election of a Head of State or indeed to referendums.
Steve McCabe
I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks it is also regrettable that we have not been joined this morning by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who has responsibility for British overseas territories. He could have dealt with some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. Much as I love to hear the Minister for Europe’s comments, he seemed slightly reluctant to engage with those issues in his contribution.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I wonder what bearing the fairly recent debate and vote that the House had on prisoners’ entitlements to vote will have on the amendment. In the light of the detailed way in which my hon. Friend has explained the difference between referendums and other elections, does that vote have a bearing on whether the amendment should or should not be put before the House?
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the issues that must accompany the referendum debate is the cost and potential cost to the taxpayer. That is why we need a definitive opinion from the UK Government and the relevant Law Officer about whether the ruling in the Polish case in 2008 would apply to this referendum. If it did, that would mean that there would be no money incurred, potentially, through legal disputes raised by prisoners who were not given the right to vote. That is why we need guidance from the Attorney-General and from the promoter of the Bill on the legal position.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been in the House quite a long time, but I have never known a debate on a private Member’s Bill in which, after two and a half hours, the promoter still has not said a word. Is that right that he never speaks, and that the Minister dominates the conversation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
That is not a point of order. It is entirely up to Members to indicate when they want to speak. In fact, I have a long list of Members who have indicated that they want to speak in this debate, and it would be good to make some progress.
Huw Irranca-Davies
A crucial point is the cost of compensation resulting from prisoners mounting challenges under the legislation. Would my hon. Friend be willing to give way if the promoter of the Bill—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is quite enough. If the promoter of the Bill wishes to take part in the debate, he will indicate that in the normal way. I do not require Mr Bain to comment on that. I would like him to speak to his amendment and the other amendments that we are discussing.
Mr Bain
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I fully support the amendment on votes at 16 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South. It is clear that 16 and 17-year-olds will have the right to vote in the Scottish referendum, and I support that right for all elections. It is intolerable that, as Demos showed in 2010, 16 and 17-year-olds contributed £500 million in taxes over the preceding 10 years but are still disfranchised.
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend will remember that, in Committee, I was embarrassed when my name was accidentally attached to an amendment in favour of votes at 16. I was put in the embarrassing position of having to speak and vote against “my” amendment. Is it not amazing that up to this point we have had no debate on this major constitutional change this morning? In my view, we are going down a dangerous path, yet we have not debated the matter until now.
Chris Williamson
Is my hon. Friend aware of the Power Commission, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which spent a considerable amount of time looking into the workings of British democracy? It made an unequivocal recommendation that the franchise should be lowered to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in our elections.
Mr Bain
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. In this Parliament, I and many of my hon. Friends have already voted in the referendum on electoral reform to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. My support for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South is consistent with that line of thinking and with my voting record in the House.
Amendment 69 raises an important question. The Minister has already conceded that there is a need to extend the franchise to the people of Gibraltar, but there is another group of individuals who would be significantly affected by the result of any referendum held under the Bill if it became law. They are the 260,000 people living in the British overseas territories, which include Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Those territories’ relationship with the European Union is connected to our membership of the EU.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) moved the new clause on Gibraltar. Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 26 January 2012, the hon. Gentleman made comments in the press calling for all overseas territories to be represented here at Westminster? I wonder why he now wants to exclude them from this important EU vote.
Mr Bain
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) will be accountable for his own statements, but given the consistent line of reasoning that he takes in his politics, I should have thought that he would want to be consistent by showing his approval of amendment 69 later.
Article 198 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union sets out the relationship between many of the British overseas territories and the EU. That provision allows them to form association agreements and to opt into the provisions on the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment within the EU. All of that would be affected if the result of the referendum were to take the United Kingdom out of the EU.
The British overseas territories are not part of the EU, but EU law applies to them indirectly. It is important in regulating the trade relationships that many of the territories have with the EU, for example. Many of the islands are relatively small, and they are highly dependent on what they can export. Import tariff levels are also a significant factor in their economies. The overseas territory agreements with the EU benefit the territories through non-reciprocal preferential trade boosts and through the most generous form of tariffs. The territories’ associate status could be severely affected by the votes of people in the United Kingdom, but at present the Bill provides no ability for them to consent to such an arrangement. They would not be given the franchise in the referendum. That is a real anomaly, and the hon. Member for Stockton South must address it.
Part 4 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union applies to the British overseas territories. The territories have regular tripartite meetings with the EU, as well as partnership meetings. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, under the current multi-annual financial framework, many of the territories receive money directly from the EU. They could suffer severe financial losses as a result of the referendum, yet the Bill in its current form does not allow them to consent to a change in their relationship with the European Union. The Falkland Islands receives €4 million a year as a direct result of its associate relationship with the EU. Anguilla receives €11.7 million a year and Montserrat receives €15.66 million a year. Does the hon. Member for Stockton South believe that the UK Government should indemnify those territories for the loss of that funding? Has he even raised the matter with the Minister?
These are crucial questions, and the hon. Gentleman and the Minister must satisfy the House that the people of those territories, who will be significantly affected by the Bill, will have an opportunity to be consulted and to have their say; otherwise, a gaping anomaly will remain at the heart of this deeply unsatisfactory Bill.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Amendment 44 deals with the question of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. I am well qualified to speak about that, because I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the UK. About a third of my constituents are younger than 24 and just over a fifth are under the age of 16. As hon. Members can imagine, I have some interesting discussions with sixth formers in my constituency about this subject, which is debated hotly among local 16 and 17-year-olds.
Over the three years since this Government came to power, one issue that has galvanised young people about politics from a parliamentary perspective—many of them were active politically in a wider sense—is the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance, and I was pleased that some Hackney sixth formers came here to speak to a Select Committee about the impact of that. About 80% of that cohort were in receipt of that benefit, so the loss of it made them feel suddenly connected to Parliament, yet disconnected because they did not have a vote.
I have met our local Youth Parliament representative a couple of times. He is very much in favour of this approach, but I have to say that support for votes at 16 is not unanimous among 16 and 17-year-olds—[Interruption.] I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has strong feelings about this in the contrary direction. I think we need to have a reasoned debate about the issue. Scotland is moving in the direction of at least experimenting with this as an option.
When I talk to young people about the subject, some are nervous about it, some are downright opposed and some are very much in favour. Even those in favour sometimes admit difficulties because they feel that they do not know enough. They say, humblingly to me, “But, Miss, we are not informed enough to make decisions.” They have a laudable belief that being informed is a prerequisite to being a political representative or to voting. If every adult in this country had the same view, we would probably have an even smaller turnout at elections than we do now.
I believe that giving people the vote at 16 is the right way forward. It would ingrain voting habits early. It is a bit like learning to clean teeth from the age of two, because if people do something day in, day out, or year in, year out—or five years in, five years out for voting—they are encouraged to keep doing it, and that would be the case for voting. We all know that one reason why the Government have chosen not to touch some issues that would affect pensioners—they are not affected by the bedroom tax or cuts to council tax benefits—is the fact that people of pensionable age are more likely to vote than young people. I do not think that anyone in this place wilfully ignores young people, but we have to recognise that, beneath our national party strategists doing endless work through Mosaic and number-crunching, there is a ruthless look at how people vote. Bringing in votes for people at 16 or 17 could make a big difference to how young people are listened to up and down the country.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some powerful arguments, and she will know that I very much support the move to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in such a referendum. She made an interesting point about whether there is consensus among 16 and 17-year-olds about having the vote. Does she agree that, as these are matters of debate about where the world is going and what decisions need to be made, it is worth looking back to when women were first allowed to vote? There was no consensus among women at that time about whether they should have the vote, but the argument was won, and it was viewed as being in the national interest. No one wants to turn back the clock now.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend’s good contribution included an interesting point about intergenerational accountability. It is our generation that is making decisions on behalf of the nation about the future—about climate change, whether to go to war and so forth—and our decisions will substantially affect the next generation. Is it right for that generation to be denied a vote?
Mr Sheerman
Is my hon. Friend aware that this country has been castigated for allowing young people—as young as 15 or 16—to join the armed forces? Does she not realise that it is the protection of children and childhood that so many of us value, and that that is why we do not want to bring the age of becoming an adult down to 16?
Meg Hillier
Yet 16-year-olds pay tax and can get married, and 17-year-olds can drive. Young people can join the Labour party at 15—[Interruption.] I am advised that they can join the Conservatives at 14, so perhaps we should have a discussion with the leader of our party about that. My own children make decisions and get support when they seek advice, and they are keen to be actively engaged, even when they are under the age of 16. I believe that we take more and more decisions in which young people should be involved.
Meg Hillier
I hear what my hon. Friend suggests, but we could equally look at it as aligning adulthood with the age of marriage and, indeed, military service. People can join the military at 16, but they will not be on the front line until they are 18.
Chris Williamson
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the voting age were reduced, it would act as a spur to the education system to ensure that there was better teaching in our schools about the importance of democracy and the civic duty to exercise the right to vote? Does she agree that our children need a political education to enable them to participate in our democracy?
Meg Hillier
Yes, I have made that very point. All of us in the Chamber have called the Secretary of State for Education to account, and no doubt even he would be keen to ensure that education about democracy was filtering down to our local schools through the national framework. We ask a lot of our schools, but it is important to develop that area of education, and it is right for us to provide an imperative to develop it. Frankly, if something is good enough for the Scots, it is good enough for Hackney’s 16 and 17-year-olds and those from London, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Let me touch on some of the other amendments in the group. We have spent an awful lot of time discussing Gibraltar, so you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not planning to discuss the 20,000 votes of the Gibraltarians, albeit not because that is unimportant. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has tabled significant amendments about British citizens and residents and their right to vote, and I feel strongly about this issue. When I was a Minister, I spent a lot of time dealing with not only issues affecting the UK, but European issues. During my three years as a Minister, I had quite a lot of contact with British citizens in Spain who were interested in and concerned about policies. I was the Minister responsible for identity cards, and those British citizens in Spain were among the greatest cheerleaders for those cards and wanted to be early adopters of the scheme. They have a strong interest in what is going on in their mother country and are keen to have a vote.
If we want to be fair in this referendum, we must unpick the Government's muddle. Why have they chosen the parliamentary boundaries rather than the local government boundaries, which will be used in the referendum in Scotland? There is a confusing message about who is a voter in this country.
My constituency is one of the most multicultural in the country, as well as one of the youngest, so Hackney is certainly up there at the top of what I like to think of as the chart of achievement. I have a large number of European and African constituents, as well as people with leave to remain and naturalised British citizens. Many of those people can vote in different elections, but there is often confusion about in which elections they can vote. Overall, the message from today’s debate is that we must be clearer about who has the right to vote.
Ultimately, in a European election, it is important that those from the wider European arena have the chance to vote. For instance, a French person living in Britain can vote for an MEP either where they live or where they are from—they have that choice. In this case, they would not have that choice. They would not be able to vote in this referendum, despite their links to Europe—this is obviously a European issue as well as a British issue—and to the UK.
I fully support amendment 45, which would enfranchise all those entitled to vote in European elections, including EU citizens. I feel very sore that I cannot vote in the Scottish referendum, as I am a British citizen with strong views about Scotland’s remaining part of the UK so that we stand united as a group of nations in Europe and the world. I do not get a say on that, and I think that that a similar anomaly will occur with this referendum.
On amendment 47, I feel that it is only fair that British citizens living in EU member states should get a say. As I said, I have had contact with those citizens abroad, and they feel that they are British even though they have chosen to live in another part of the EU. They have not gone to Timbuktu; they live in the political and economic union of which we are part. They are EU citizens, but feel that they are British EU citizens wherever they live. We are all EU citizens and we must see the issue in its EU context.
There are good reasons why many of those people would be important voters, and why 16 and 17-year-olds should be voting to support our membership of the EU. Although there is a need for some reform, as I saw at first hand during three years of negotiating on behalf of the British Government in the EU, there are huge benefits to our being part of Europe, especially with regard to justice and home affairs measures. We therefore need to ensure that all people who should have a vote get a vote.
I will not go into those benefits in enormous detail, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I fear your opprobrium if I go too far off the subject, but let us consider some of them. The much-discussed European arrest warrant, for all its faults, still provides major protection across Europe. I commend the Select Committee on Home Affairs for its report that considered all such issues, particularly the European arrest warrant. Without the warrant, we would need 27 separate treaties with EU member states to deal with the problem. It is important that we get the franchise right so that people can vote on such an important issue.
There is also a benefit from the European Union criminal records information system. People repeatedly worry when employing people from an EU member state that does not have our ability to check criminal records, which we do through our vetting and barring scheme, as they are not sure who they are getting. That information system is one way that the situation is being improved through European co-operation. If we cannot opt back into that system, it will be a real concern. I do not want to confuse the debate by going into the opt-ins and opt-outs on justice and home affairs, but those are big issues that affect and benefit Britain. Similarly, the Schengen information system—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Lady is drifting considerably away from the subject. Occasionally saying, “That is why it is important to broaden the franchise,” is not keeping her comments in order. I would be grateful if she would refer specifically to the amendments, rather than the wider debate.
Meg Hillier
As I hinted, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suspected that I would be tempted to drift away. Thank you for reining me in, as my natural enthusiasm for this subject overtook me.
It is important that young people should have the chance to vote on these vital issues. British citizens living abroad should also have that chance to vote, because they will be affected by Britain’s opt-out, wherever they are living in the EU. EU citizens living in Britain also should have the chance to vote. I hope that I have made my points clear. Notwithstanding my concerns that a vote to remove Britain from the EU would be a great mistake, if we are to go down the route of having a referendum, we must ensure that it is fair and that the franchise is as wide as is reasonable to ensure that nobody feels excluded or cut out from this important decision.
Mr Thomas
It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). We have had a really interesting debate, with a helpful opening contribution from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is not in his place at the moment, and similarly helpful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). Indeed, the Minister’s contribution was enlightening on some things, although not on others. Of course, there was the short but rather special contribution from the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), too.
I shall speak to amendment 63, in my name, and to amendments 80 to 82, in the names of the hon. Members for Stockton South (James Wharton) and for Romford. These amendments relate to the electoral arrangements for the people of Gibraltar in the proposed referendum. I welcome the fact that Government Members have belatedly taken steps to address this rather glaring hole in their proposals. An apology might have been in order on behalf of the Conservative party, as it was a rather astonishing omission for Government Members to forget the people of Gibraltar in the referendum equation. Indeed, as the Bill’s promoter and Conservative Members consulted so few people before the Bill popped out of Lynton Crosby’s office, I suppose that I should not be at all surprised that the people of Gibraltar were not consulted before the Bill saw the light of day.
Perhaps this is not the only such occasion that Government Members have allowed the people of Gibraltar to slip their minds, but at least, thanks to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), for Ilford South and for Huddersfield and the hon. Member for Cheltenham, this issue was addressed in Committee. Sadly, despite being awakened in Committee to the concern about the omission of the Gibraltarians from the Bill’s franchise, the Minister for Europe and, indeed, the Bill’s promoter have been silent on this problem in the intervening weeks. So it is only now, thankfully, at this the eleventh hour, that it seems that Government Members have seen the light and are prepared to address this anomaly.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend think it strange that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) moved—belatedly, as my hon. Friend says—the new clause to enfranchise the residents of Gibraltar, but that even though he has called for overseas territory residents to have direct representation in the House, he should not feel it fit to add them to the new clause?
Mike Gapes
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, as late as 23 October, the Minister with responsibility for Africa and the overseas territories gave the impression to European Committee B that he thought that people in Gibraltar would have a vote. He subsequently had to write to me on 30 October to correct that impression and to point out that the Minister was still considering the situation. Even though the issue has been there for some time, my hon. Friend is quite right to say that the Government—I suppose it is the Government who are responsible—have belatedly come to this view.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a helpful contribution by acknowledging the further mistake of Foreign Office Ministers in relation to Gibraltarians.
I have read the reports of the debates on the Bill in Committee, and I say gently to the Minister for Europe that what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East most certainly did not do at any point during those proceedings was to suggest that provisions of an 1865 Act—legislation that was used for bullying the colonials—should be added to the Bill.
New clause 1, on which so little light was shed by either the mover of the amendment or the Minister, took me back to my masters studies at the London School of Economics, where I was fortunate enough to study imperial and commonwealth studies. I cannot remember a seminar touching specifically on the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, which is referred to in subsection (3) of the new clause, so I did a little reading up about that Act over the past 24 hours. The Minister may want to reflect further on whether reference to the Act is strictly necessary.
I ask the House to consider what possible problem there might be with Gibraltar law that would stop the smooth running of a referendum in the way that the hon. Member for Stockton South and others on the Government Benches want. What is there in Gibraltarian law that has sparked the concern that the potential legislative requirements of the Bill might be usurped by anything that the Gibraltarians already have on their statute book? I gently suggest to the Minister and to the promoter of the Bill that including reference to the Act is overkill and a further snub to the people of Gibraltar, after the hon. Gentleman forgot to give them the right to vote in the referendum in the first place.
Mike Gapes
Given the lack of clarity from the Minister when he referred to the matter earlier, would it not be appropriate for the House to divide on new clause 1 so that we can be clear that we are voting for its provisions, in order to avoid any ambiguity for the future?
Mr Thomas
It is for hon. Members in all parts of the House to make their own judgment on that. Given that the Minister has already spoken and has shown no sign of wanting to intervene on me to clarify the position in relation to the 1865 Act, I look forward to the hon. Member for Romford or the promoter of the Bill, when winding up the debate, giving us a little more clarity about what causes such concern that the Act needs to be added.
In my time as a Member of Parliament, I cannot remember another piece of legislation that needed provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 added to it. Perhaps the Minister or the Bill’s promoter could illuminate the House with details of when the Act was last used and when its provisions were last added to a Bill. In that way, some of my concerns and some of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South about the necessity or otherwise of the Act’s provisions might be addressed. The last thing we want is to over-regulate the Bill, as I fear the Minister and the hon. Member for Romford might be seeking to do.
For those in the House not familiar with the situation with regard to Gibraltar, it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife made clear, a British overseas territory which has been ruled by Britain since 1713 under the terms of the treaty of Utrecht. Gibraltarians are British citizens. They elect their own representatives to the territory’s House of Assembly and our British monarch appoints a governor. Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy, and it is home to an important British military garrison and naval base. The particular difficulty thrown up by the Bill is that should a referendum take place under the original terms of the Bill, a vote in Britain to leave the European Union could occur without the people of Gibraltar having any say at all in this huge constitutional change. The people of Gibraltar would be entirely disfranchised—ignored, in effect.
Thanks to the CBI’s work earlier this week, we know that the Prime Minister is willing to risk the possibility of a £3,000 drop in the living standards of the British people were Britain to leave the European Union. I fear that there would be an even bigger hit to the living standards of the citizens of Gibraltar if the Prime Minister’s reckless gamble, all because his party is so divided, were not to pay off. Taking away from Gibraltarians the benefits of European Union membership without giving them any say in the matter would be a cruel act against them by this Parliament.
There is certainly precedent for the inclusion of Gibraltarians in British votes concerning Europe. As I think the hon. Member for Romford and certainly the hon. Member for Cheltenham made clear, the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 provides for Gibraltar to be enfranchised for elections to the European Parliament. As many hon. Members may recall, the Act required the Electoral Commission to propose a region in England and Wales with which the citizens of Gibraltar could participate in European parliamentary elections. The region chosen was the south-west. I understand that in European elections since that Act Gibraltarians have been enfranchised appropriately and have taken part enthusiastically in those elections. Indeed, they will have the opportunity to vote again with the south-west region in the upcoming European elections next May.
Given how deeply divided the Conservative party is on Europe and how little influence Tory MEPs have, I hope that Gibraltarians will vote Labour, and that they will remember that it was only because of the intervention of Labour’s Front Bench in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and certain Back Benchers—I should give an honourable mention in dispatches to the hon. Member for Cheltenham—that their situation got any recognition at all.
After the Committee stage of the Bill had begun, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East wrote to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar explaining why she had tabled amendments to the Bill over the summer. The Chief Minister recently wrote back to her suggesting a slight tweak to the amendments. That is why her amendments were withdrawn earlier this week and I tabled amendment 63 to probe further the intentions of the Bill’s promoter and the Minister. I welcome the fact that, albeit very belatedly, the Bill’s promoter has tabled amendment 80. Given that the Minister for Europe has confirmed his support for that amendment, I do not intend to press my amendment to a Division.
I turn to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred at some length to the amendment, too, as well as to his own similar amendment regarding the position of the citizens of Britain’s overseas territories. Britain has some 14 overseas territories encompassing a diverse range of cultures and communities across the world. They range from the tiny Pitcairn Island, with its 47 inhabitants, to Bermuda, with a population of over 62,000.
Some overseas British territories will be particularly familiar to Members in all parts of the House; others less so. The Falkland Islands, for example, is well known to many in this House and is itself very familiar with the business of referendums. At the referendum on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands this March, 99.8% of its people voted to remain a British territory. An astonishing turnout of 92% meant that only three votes were cast against the Falkland Islands staying with the UK. One could not then argue that Falkland islanders were disengaged with the political process. Yet should this Bill become law, the Prime Minister will be putting at risk the benefits that the Falkland islanders get through Britain’s membership of the European Union. I say again that we know from the CBI’s work this week that the Prime Minister is putting at risk more than £3,000 of every British household’s income in order to try to hold his party together.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend, who is a London MP, takes The Northern Echo newspaper, but I recommend it to him. The Deputy Prime Minister has this morning rightly congratulated Nissan on its new generation of vehicles, but he has also pointed out that if we leave the EU, Nissan’s investment would go, too.
Mr Thomas
I apologise to the editor of The Northern Echo because I do not take the paper regularly, although I have heard it is a very good read. I am aware that Nissan’s boss has said that if the UK leaves the EU, the company would have to reconsider its future strategy and investments. It is astonishing that the Prime Minister is willing to put at risk Nissan’s investment. I suspect that if Britain exits the EU the risk for the living standards of Falkland islanders, like those of Gibraltarians, will be even greater than that for British households.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just Nissan’s investment that will be put at risk, but Hitachi’s excellent new investment in the north-east of England for making trains? Does he also agree that it is ironic that, when the groundbreaking ceremony took place at the Newton Aycliffe site last Friday, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) showed up for a photo opportunity? It is blatant that if this Bill progresses and we leave the EU, that investment and those jobs would not be in the north-east.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Obviously, lots of things are said in this Chamber, but I am duty bound to point out that the hon. Member for Stockton South has been present for most of the time and that he informed the Chair that he needed to pop out for a few minutes. Although speculation is rife, I am sure he will be back very soon.
Chris Williamson
I note that my hon. Friend does not take The Northern Echo, but does he take the Derby Evening Telegraph? Just down the road from where the paper is based is the Toyota factory, which was the biggest inward investment in western Europe when it was made. It is clear that, were it not for Britain’s membership of the European Union, that investment would not have come to the UK and to Derbyshire. It has benefitted my constituency and the county and created thousands upon thousands of jobs. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the impact that this Bill and leaving the EU would have on Toyota?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We are talking about the specific amendments, which are about the franchise. I cannot quite see how they stretch as far as Toyota, unless the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) is going to enlighten me.
Mr Thomas
I hope to come to the amendments on the possibility of giving 16 and 17-year-olds—some of whom may be looking forward to a career in Toyota—the right to vote. Let me clarify that I do not read the Derby Evening Telegraph. I happen to think that the Harrow Observer and the Harrow Times are the better newspapers to read.
Seema Malhotra
I could, of course, introduce the Hounslow Chronicle to the competition, but I will refrain from doing so.
On extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, does my hon. Friend agree that they should have a say in this incredibly important debate and referendum, given the importance of the stability of the UK economy for their future? Roughly half the European headquarters of non-EU firms are based in the UK—more than most other countries put together. This issue will have a tremendous impact on youth unemployment and potential jobs in the future.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come to the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds shortly.
The benefits that Falkland islanders enjoy on account of Britain’s membership of the European Union are not insignificant. I was surprised on Monday when the Minister for Europe confirmed to me in a written parliamentary answer that the Government had made no preparations for the UK leaving the European Union. There are no transitional arrangements in case the people of Britain vote no. Presumably, there has also been no thought about the consequences of a possible exit for the Falkland Islands or any other overseas territory. We have the astonishing situation of the Prime Minister sleepwalking towards an exit from the European Union with no thought of the consequences for British citizens or for our overseas territories.
I have spoken about the trade advantages that the overseas territories gain from being linked to the European Union. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is not in his place, because he is certainly aware of the significant fishing interests that the Falkland Islands has in relation to trade with the European Union. As well as the trade advantages, the overseas territories also benefit from the European development fund. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, the 11th European development fund has allocated just over €4 million to the Falkland Islands, with further payments expected to start from early-2014.
Many other overseas territories have benefited from the European development fund. Montserrat, a territory that I have had the pleasure of visiting, has been in need of support ever since the Soufrière Hills volcano, which had been dormant for centuries, erupted and buried the island’s capital, Plymouth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, Montserrat received almost €16 million from the last European development fund for infrastructure and other development. Anguilla has received €12 million, St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha have received some €16.6 million, and the Pitcairn Islands has received about €2.4 million.
In the recent European Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds):
“Have any discussions begun with overseas territories about the possible loss of EDF funding and their beneficiary trade deals with other European countries?”
Bearing in mind that Government Members hope to persuade the British people of the Eurosceptic case for Britain to vote to leave the European Union, his response was that
“talking about hypothetical situations that are years away is dangerous, and asking questions based on assumptions, however real they may or may not be, is not necessarily a good use of time.”—[Official Report, European Committee B, 23 October 2013; c. 20.]
Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State ought to have a word with the Prime Minister, who offered exactly such a scenario when he pledged to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in 2017. That pledge was based on fragile assumptions about negotiations that not only have not started yet, but during which the Prime Minister has no idea what he hopes to achieve or simply will not tell this House what he hopes to achieve.
I am therefore sympathetic to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South that seek to address the problem that the British overseas territories will be excluded from a matter that could have a detrimental effect not only on their income, but on their trading ability. I am interested to hear how the Minister can justify their exclusion. If the Minister and the promoter of the Bill are not minded to accept my hon. Friend’s amendments, perhaps they will consider amendment 70 in the next group, which would hardwire into any referendum the opportunity for the views of our friends in the overseas territories to be heard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South also tabled amendment 44 on the voting age for the proposed referendum. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke in his extremely well-received conference speech in September of the need to make 16 and 17-year-olds part of our democracy. I suspect that Government Members did not see that bit of his speech, because they were at sixes and sevens over another part of it. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend’s clear commitment to the democratic enfranchisement of our young people. It would send a strong signal to young people who are suffering disproportionately under the current Government—people who have lost their education maintenance allowance, whose tuition fees will treble, and who are going through an often disheartening and bleak time searching for a job. Amendment 44 could send a powerful signal of the House’s intent to listen to the concerns of 16 and 17-year-olds.
The Prime Minister once famously asked us all to hug a hoodie. I think that according to the Daily Mail, it is now just “hug a Tory”. I do not suggest such bizarre measures, but I do suggest that we should listen to what young people have to say.
Huw Irranca-Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In fact, in having discussed Crown dependencies, overseas territories and so on, we can look at some of those places, such as the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, for examples of where 16 to 18-year-olds can vote. If we look close to home, we can learn some lessons.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I have not looked at those examples, because I have been spending so much time reading through the Committee proceedings on the Bill. However, I accept that there are other good examples to point to.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend not find it rather strange that 16 and 17-year-olds are not being given a vote under the Bill whereas they are in the Scottish referendum? That seems anomalous and bizarre. Surely they should be given a vote in the EU referendum should the Bill succeed.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point and, in a moment, I will come to an even more bizarre twist related to the Scottish referendum and the rights of 16 and 17-year-olds.
I cannot be alone in having received letters and e-mails over the past few weeks from young people who are undertaking their citizenship coursework. I have received petitions on such meaty topics as euthanasia, homelessness and child poverty, and each time I have been struck by how well informed and engaged young people are with some of the big issues facing the country. If Conservative Members are to be believed, Europe is the single biggest of those issues.
Seema Malhotra
Does my hon. Friend agree that sending a positive message today about votes for 16 and 17-year-olds would be timely given that the UK Youth Parliament will be sitting in the Chamber next week and discussing a range of matters, including votes at 16 and 17?
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend is making a good speech, but he knows that I have a long track record of disagreeing with votes at 16. The most bizarre argument that people make is that we have to introduce the vote at 16, because the Scots are going to have it in the referendum. Since when does Alex Salmond decide this country’s constitutional procedures?
Mr Thomas
I would not want to upset my hon. Friend further, but he makes a good point. I will come to the Scottish referendum in a moment.
I have never bought the argument that young people are not interested in politics, even if, sadly, like the rest of the country, they do not hold politicians in high regard at the moment. As my hon. Friend might recognise, there is a palpable disconnect between many young people and the political process. I believe there is consensus throughout the House that we must address the worrying trend of poor voter turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds, and amendment 44 could help with that ambition. I understand that people in that section of our society are among the least likely to vote. One MORI poll showed that only 39% of 18 to 24-year-olds were likely to vote, which is a worrying statistic.
We know that voting habits are formed at a young age, so if someone votes at the first election for which they are eligible, they are more likely to continue voting for the remainder of their life. Would it not be sensible for young people to have their first voting experience—in this case in a possible referendum—collectively while still at school or college? When I visit schools or colleges throughout the parliamentary year—it is particularly interesting to visit sixth forms and colleges at general election time—I see the excitement of some of those potential first-time voters who are carefully weighing up everything being said and deciding in whom to put their trust. Whenever there is an election or referendum, should we not be able to go into schools, sixth forms and colleges and talk to all those young people over the age of 16, and tell them that we value their views?
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about 16 and 17-year-olds voting, and he is right to talk about engaging people in schools. When I go to high schools and speak to 16 and 17-year-olds, they are much more engaged in the political debate now they know they will have a vote in the Scottish referendum. In fact, they are so engaged in political debate that the vast majority are voting no.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and perhaps I could encourage him to have a further conversation outside the Chamber with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). By including 16 and 17-year-olds in a debate, we would be involving in this discussion about a referendum an often passionate voice. If this issue is of such importance, as Conservative Members seem to believe, should not those with their lives ahead of them and those facing the particular challenges I have outlined—jobs, university fees and so on—have their voice heard too? Without the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, 16 and 17-year-olds will be excluded.
Mr Thomas
Let me make a little progress. There is an old adage that young people grow up too quickly these days, but I think we must consider fairly the responsibilities that already rest on some young shoulders at 16. Young people are old enough to go to work, join our armed forces and have children—they even have to pay full fare on the bus unless they are still in full-time education. If they earn enough, they have to pay tax. With all those responsibilities, we suggest that they should also have the right to vote and have their say along with the rest of the country in any elections and referendums.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you follow the rules of the House closely, and clearly the rules on photography in the Chamber are very strict. As you know, this morning I have been keeping a close eye on the Box, and I was aware that a minute ago one of its occupants was holding up his mobile phone. I do not know whether he inadvertently did not know the rules on filming proceedings, and I ask for your guidance on that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
It is quite simple: photography in the Chamber is not allowed by anybody. I am sure that those on the Treasury Benches are capable of ensuring that that includes civil servants in the Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am advised that we can ask a Doorkeeper to undertake that should it be necessary.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Chris Williamson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this morning, I sought to make a point of order on whether there was a precedent for the use of imperial legislation. I drew the comparison between imperial legislation—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would bear with me a second—[Interruption.]
Chris Williamson
I sought Mr Speaker’s guidance on whether imperial legislation was being used to cover divisions among Government Members. Mr Speaker’s response was that that did not qualify as a point of order, and he suggested that I should—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should bear with me. He suggested that I should make that point during the debate. However, I was unfortunately unable to be called in the debate. I wonder whether Mr Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman can resume his seat. He has already attempted to make a point of order. He has received an answer from Mr Speaker, and he may well have an opportunity at some point in the future to make a debating point during a debate, but it is not a point of order.
Clause 1
Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union
Mr Bain
I beg to move amendment 68, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) Before the appointment of the day on which the referendum is to be held, the Secretary of State shall consult the bodies listed in the Schedule (Organisations to be consulted before a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union) on the merits or otherwise of the United Kingdom remaining a member of the European Union and shall lay before Parliament a report of the consultation.’.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 76, page 1, line 4, leave out subsection 2.
Amendment 21, page 1, line 4, leave out from ‘held’ to end of line 6 and insert ‘on 7 May 2015’.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘before 31 December 2017’ and insert ‘on 23 October 2014’.
Amendment 25, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘31 December 2017’ and insert ‘1 July 2017’.
Amendment 22, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2014’.
Amendment 23, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2015’.
Amendment 24, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2016’.
Amendment 26, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2018’.
Amendment 27, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2019’.
Amendment 77, page 1, line 4, after ‘2017’, insert ‘and not between 31 July and 1 December 2017’.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 58, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) The Secretary of State shall establish a European Union Referendum Commission to consider the date or dates on which the referendum is to be held.
(3A) The Commission shall report to the Secretary of State within 12 months of its establishment.
(3B) The Secretary of State shall by order provide for the date or dates to be implemented as recommended by the Commission.’.
Amendment 59, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3A) The Commission shall consult with and seek to secure agreement from the devolved administrations on the date or dates to be appointed for the referendum.’.
Amendment 62, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) The date shall be appointed in accordance with the conclusions of the Speaker’s Committee for the Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, as established under Schedule (Speaker’s Committee for the Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union).’.
Amendment 28, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘31 December 2016’ and insert ‘7 May 2015’.
Amendment 31, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘31 December 2016’ and insert ‘1 July 2017’.
Amendment 29, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘2016’ and insert ‘2014’.
Amendment 30, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘2016’ and insert ‘2015’.
Amendment 32, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘2016’ and insert ‘2017’.
Amendment 33, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘2016’ and insert ‘2018’.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
‘(3A) Before appointing the day on which the referendum is to be held under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult leaders of the principal faiths represented in the United Kingdom so as to identify days which it would be inappropriate for him to appoint for holding the referendum, and he shall pay due regard to the outcome of those consultations in appointing the day.’.
Amendment 13, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
‘(7) The day on which the referendum is to be held shall not be the same day as—
(a) a general election for the United Kingdom Parliament;
(b) elections to the European Parliament;
(c) a Scottish parliamentary general election;
(d) a Welsh Assembly general election;
(e) a general election for members of the Northern Ireland Assembly;
(f) any local government election;
(g) a mayoral election in London; and
the terms above shall be defined as in section 4 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.’.
Amendment 70, page 1, line 6, at end insert ‘, subject to subsection (3A) below.
‘(3A) The Secretary of State may not appoint a day on which the referendum is to be held until he has published a detailed analysis of the consequences of the United Kingdom—
(a) remaining, or
(b) not remaining a member of the European Union, including—
(i) the economic and social consequences of withdrawal from the European Union for the people of the United Kingdom,
(ii) the consequences for the United Kingdom’s overseas territories,
(iii) the consequences for prevention of crime and terrorism in the United Kingdom,
(iv) the consequences for climate change and the environment of the United Kingdom, and
(v) the consequences for the effectiveness of the foreign policy of the United Kingdom.’.
Amendment 78, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
‘(3A) The date appointed under subsection 1(3) must not be less than 28 weeks in advance of the proposed polling day.’.
Amendment 9, page 1, line 14, at end add—
‘(7) The referendum shall be held on Thursday.’.
Amendment 10, page 1, line 14, at end add—
‘(7) The referendum shall be held over two days on a Saturday and Sunday.’.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 14, at end add—
‘(7) The referendum shall be held over three days on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.’.
New schedule 1—‘Speaker’s Committee for the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union—
( ) There is to be a committee known as the Speaker’s Committee for the Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union (“the Committee”) to consider the day to be appointed for the referendum.
( ) The Speaker’s Committee shall consist of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall be the chair of the Committee, and the following other members, namely—
(a) the Member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons;
(b) the Lord President of the Council;
(c) a Member of the House of Commons who is a Minister of the Crown with responsibilities in relation to foreign affairs; and
(d) five Members of the House of Commons who are not Ministers of the Crown.
( ) The member of the Committee specified in subsection (2)(c) shall be appointed to membership of the Committee by the Prime Minister.
( ) The members of the Committee specified in subsection (2)(d) shall be appointed to membership of the Committee by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
( ) The Speaker’s Committee shall make a report to the House of Commons on the exercise by the Committee of their functions.’.
New schedule 2—“Organisations to be consulted before a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union—
(a) the Confederation for British Industry,
(b) the National Farmers Union,
(c) the Trades Union Congress,
(d) the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux,
(e) the Association of Chief Police Officers,
(f) Universities UK,
(g) the National Council of Voluntary Organisations,
(h) Friends of the Earth,
(i) the Local Government Association, and
(j) other organisations as the Secretary of State shall see fit.’.
Mr Bain
It is a pleasure to speak in the Chamber for the first time under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a delight.
I shall speak to amendments 68 and 70, in my name, as well as new schedule 2, which is also in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). The reason why this group of amendments is so important is that the discussions between the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), and the Government have been in many ways one-sided. It has been an internal discussion within the Conservative party. It is time that that discussion is broadened out to include all the interest groups and all the people of this country who would be affected by the Bill and who would be affected—in my view, very badly indeed—if Britain chose to withdraw from the European Union.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does the Labour party accept the principle that there should be a referendum at all?
Mr Bain
The answer remains the same as on Second Reading: we do not believe that now is the right time to focus on this kind of agenda. The problem is that the hon. Gentleman is in search of a treaty but with no idea about the reform. We in the Opposition know what reforms we want in the European Union, but we have not had support from the Conservatives and the other Government Members. That is the difference between our two positions.
It is interesting to notice that when the House has to rely on the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who once toured the country in a truck proclaiming “24 hours to save the pound,” as any kind of moderating influence on the Conservative party on Europe, it shows what a path of self-destruction that party has embarked upon on Europe.
Amendments 68 and 70 would ensure that there was proper consultation with the CBI, the TUC, the National Farmers Union and many other interest groups across our country that would be seriously affected if there were a vote to withdraw.
Ian Murray
This is the crux of a very important debate not just about the Bill, but in general about membership of the European Union. Does my hon. Friend think the Government will object to the amendment on the basis that they do not want to hear the answers from those august organisations because they disagree with the Government’s position?
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend points to the inconvenient truth for the Government and for the promoter of the Bill that we have already had some of the answers this week, with the CBI setting out that the benefit of being part of the European Union means that every household is £3,000 a year better off and every individual in this country is at least £1,200 a year better off. What is clear from the Bill is that neither its promoter nor the Government have any idea about the consequences of a yes vote, because they cannot say on what terms they wish the UK to remain part of the EU, and even more damagingly, they cannot set out the consequences or implications of a no vote.
Seema Malhotra
Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent London Chamber of Commerce report “Help or hindrance? The value of EU membership to UK business”, which states that the majority of its members believe that exiting the EU would negatively impact on their business and the UK’s economy, and that this supports the view expressed by the CBI?
Mr Bain
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She will know as well as business, the trade unions and many other organisations in this country that as part of the European Union, we are party to 36 free trade agreements with more than 50 other partners across the world. She will also know, as the CBI knows, that we have the prospect of concluding negotiations with Japan, the United States and Canada that will increase the market for our goods in those countries to a potential £47 trillion a year. These are all goals that would be lost if we chose to leave the European Union.
Mike Gapes
My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that a free trade agreement has recently been agreed with Canada. Another was agreed about 18 months ago with South Korea. Both of those are clearly of great benefit to British companies. The South Korean one has led to a massive increase in UK exports to South Korea. Does he agree that by leaving the EU we would put in jeopardy not only the free trade agreement with the US, but the prospect of Britain benefiting from the markets made accessible by EU free trade arrangements with other parts of the world?
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend is right. The prospect of having to renegotiate 130 separate free trade agreements with partners across the globe is a truly desperate and scary one for business and exporters in this country. The reason that we need amendments 68 and 70 and new schedule 2 is to make sure that the Government address systematically the crucial points that the CBI made in its study this week.
What are the implications of a no vote? What are the implications of leaving? The CBI said this week that going it alone as a sole country within the World Trade Organisation, without the collective strength that negotiating power within the EU gives us, would see us lose influence and trade. The CBI said that the Norway option of leaving the European Union but remaining in the European economic area—although, as we know, Norway is a net contributor to the EU budget—was a weaker option, and that the Swiss option of pick-and-choose bilateral agreements was also a weaker option for the United Kingdom. Moreover, it said that the Turkish option of simply having a customs union with the European Union was the worst of all the halfway alternatives.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is quoting the CBI. Is this the same CBI that said that the UK would face economic ruination if it did not join the euro?
Mr Bain
I am somewhat perplexed. The Conservative party has for decades, if not centuries, marketed itself as the party of business, but we now find Conservative Members in complete opposition to what the CBI is saying is in the best economic interests of this country. I think that most people will find that staggering.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am reading the amendment very carefully. It talks about the need to consult before the referendum
“on the merits or otherwise of the United Kingdom remaining a member of the European Union”,
but is that a pretext for us now to have a debate about the merits or otherwise of remaining in the European Union, or should we stick to the amendment?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman is correct to suggest that it is not a pretext. I am listening very carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), and if he strays into the area that the hon. Gentleman has suggested he might, then he will not be allowed to stray further.
Huw Irranca-Davies
It is very good to make my first intervention under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will comply with your very helpful guidance.
I suggest that my hon. Friend’s amendment and the other amendments to do with the timing of a vote are a distraction, because the timing is about what is politically more advantageous. The point is that the National Farmers Union and the Food and Drink Federation, which represents the biggest manufacturing sector in this country, have echoed the CBI’s words. For many people, it is not about timing—it is about getting out of the EU.
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend is entirely right. As a specialist in the common agricultural policy and the needs of our rural economy, he knows that it is incumbent on the Government to spell out the consequences of leaving the European Union—what a yes vote in the referendum would mean and what a no vote would mean.
It is intriguing that the CBI, having requested more information and explored the potential consequences of a vote to leave the European Union, concluded:
“While the UK could certainly survive outside the EU, none of the alternatives suggested offers a clear path to an improved balance of advantages and disadvantages or greater influence.”
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am certain that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) will not use the next few minutes to do what the hon. Gentleman has suggested he might. I am sure that he will stick very carefully to discussing those who will be consulted within the strict terms of his amendment and no further.
Ian Murray
The CBI has consulted its members and said that eight out of 10 of them, including 77% of small and medium-sized enterprises, say that we should remain within the European Union. That is why it is important that this amendment is accepted, so that the number of bodies that are consulted on this very important constitutional change is as wide as possible.
Mr Bain
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
It is interesting to explain the purpose behind these amendments, and I can best do so by contrasting the referendum proposed in this Bill with the referendum that was held in 1975, when two White Papers were issued on the terms of the renegotiation between the United Kingdom and our European partners. That was prior to the Bill’s publication and its being presented to Parliament. When Parliament was asked on that occasion to consider legislation to establish a referendum, it knew the full details of the implications of a no vote and, indeed, a yes vote for the electorate. That is what my amendments seek to put into the Bill, because, as drafted, it simply does not achieve that aim.
Huw Irranca-Davies
In probing amendment 68, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he envisages consulting organisations such as the Farmers Union of Wales, NFU Cymru and the National Farmers Union in Scotland and in England? That would be important because of their specific interests in the European Union and because they have expressed their clear desire not to leave.
Mr Bain
That is correct and I agree with my hon. Friend in his ambition to make sure that when the Government produce proper documents to accompany any referendum, they take into account the interests of farmers and the rural economy. Leaving the EU would have profound implications for this country’s farming industry.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I have received representations from Shropshire farmers who very much want to remain in the European Union, but they will have the chance to be consulted, and to vote, in the referendum. Why do we need a separate process beforehand?
Mr Bain
If I may point out some of the problems with the hon. Gentleman’s argument, the reason for my amendments is that when a similar referendum was held in 1975, this House had had the benefit of two White Papers, a full debate and a full consultation. None of that has accompanied this Bill. It is because the interests of the farming industry, exporters and workers—whose rights at work might be diminished by the renegotiations—have not been considered that we should put the amendments in the Bill. The Government need to consult on the real interests of this country, not simply have an internal conversation within the Conservative party.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Perhaps I have a helpful suggestion with regard to amendment 68. When Wales held a referendum on the Government of Wales Act 2006, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) pulled together wider civic society. A similar action with regard to this Bill would particularly help Wales, which benefits to the tune of roughly £40 of surplus per head as a result of farming and structural funds. We could pull voices together if the amendment is agreed to.
Mr Bain
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
I want to further explain the reasons for and rationale behind my amendments by examining the context of the referendum that will take place on these islands, in Scotland, next year. I may have my differences with the UK Government, but I entirely agree with the way in which they have published a series of detailed, factual accounts looking at the consequences for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom of Scotland’s leaving the UK. They have explored the consequences for macro-economic policy and the impact on trade, financial services and business. The publications have been produced by the Government even before the Scottish Parliament has fully passed its legislation to establish the question for next year’s referendum. If that process is good enough for the referendum in Scotland, it should be good enough for any referendum that the Bill’s promoter and the Government are keen to have.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Is not the key point that the Conservative party cannot even carry the Government, of whom it is a member, to produce a White Paper, because the Liberal Democrats, who are also in the Government, would not support it? The Conservative party is so weak and divided that it cannot even produce its own White Paper.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) will recognise that the intervention, however much merit it might have, is not pertinent to the matter being debated.
Mr Bain
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that this issue receives a similar assessment to what we have seen in Scotland. There should be an assessment of the impact on business of having different technical standards to meet if bilateral agreements have to be made with our EU partners instead of the comprehensive right of free trade that we have at the moment.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The referendum will not be tomorrow, but in 2017. There will be plenty of time for White Papers and consultations with whoever the hon. Gentleman likes, whether it is the CBI or anyone else. Are not his amendments a Trojan horse because he and his party do not want a referendum and do not want to give the British people a say in whether or not we remain in the European Union?
Mr Bain
We are trying to clarify what the Government and the promoter of the Bill want the public to have a say on. They have not said what terms they would accept to stay in the EU and they have not explained what the consequences would be if we had to leave the EU following a referendum. That is the information that we need, but it has been denied to the House and the country so far.
Mr Sheerman
I am certainly not anti-referendum. However, when a Bill is introduced through the back door by manipulating private Members’ business, it shortcuts all the proper procedures and safeguards. We argued in Committee that those safeguards should be introduced into the Bill.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), is it the case that the Bill has received no pre-legislative scrutiny and that no evidence has been taken?
Mr Bain
Sadly, that is correct. Before I became a Member of this House, I watched with great enthusiasm the passage of equivalent pieces of legislation, such as the devolution legislation of 1997, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the House of Lords Act 1999. Those Acts were of prime constitutional importance and they were well scrutinised by this House and the implications were well debated by Members. We have simply not seen that with this Bill.
Mike Gapes
Is not the reason for this strange arrangement that there could be no consultation because it would never have been agreed to in Government? We therefore have the bizarre process of debating a private Member’s Bill that is backed by Ministers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Once again, I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) will recognise that that intervention was not in order because it did not relate to the matter in hand.
Mr Bain
Thank you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is an even stronger parallel to be drawn between the amendment and the Scottish referendum. The Government claimed rightly in January 2012 that setting an arbitrary date four years in the future for a referendum on a plan for Scotland to separate from the United Kingdom would create unnecessary uncertainty for inward investment and business. How can the Government believe that it is appropriate to have four years of uncertainty before a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union? Surely the same argument applies, particularly given that the EU referendum, unlike its Scottish counterpart, would be conducted on the basis of a pre-negotiated treaty to alter the conditions of membership, which the Prime Minister may not even be able to achieve.
Let us not forget that the Prime Minister hopes to pull off the coup of negotiating such a treaty at a time when the UK will hold the presidency of the EU and ought to be prioritising the completion of the single market and boosting growth, jobs and trade; when there will just have been a French presidential election; and in the run-up to the next German federal elections. The window for getting the type of treaty that the Prime Minister believes is possible will be very small.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
It has been a bit of a bumpy ride for me getting to today, to say the least—particularly among colleagues—but I rise to support a 2014 referendum. We Conservatives are completely united in wanting to give the British people a voice on Europe. We would have had a referendum by now if the Liberal Democrats had not held us back in the coalition. It is disgraceful that Labour Members want to gag British people and deny them a say on this incredibly important issue, even though eight out of 10 of our constituents want to have their voice heard on Europe. It strikes me that, at a time when the majority of our constituents—
Helen Goodman
This is a point of order.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to give us his general overview of the political situation in this country when he is supposed to be debating these particular amendments to this particular Bill?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point. At the moment, the hon. Gentleman is giving a general introduction to his remarks, but he will undoubtedly come very quickly to the crux of his argument, and I am quite certain that he will then stick precisely to the amendments.
Mr Sheerman
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have a great deal of time for the honesty of the stand that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) takes on the matter, but I object to his attributing to me and the Opposition attitudes that are not true. We are not against a referendum—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. If he wishes to engage in debate with the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), I am sure he can seek to intervene in due course.
Adam Afriyie
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your wise words. I am speaking specifically about a 2014 referendum, which is proposed in amendment 22 and my amendment 3.
Adam Afriyie
I will take one intervention, but I am trying to get through my speech.
Mr Walker
I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sorry for being one of the bumps in the bumpy ride that he has had. He has taken his admonishment in good grace.
May I suggest to my hon. Friend that if we have a referendum in 2017, as proposed in the Bill, we will have more time to make our argument and persuade the British people of what is in their interest?
Adam Afriyie
As I said, we are completely united as a party in wanting to give the British people a say. There are differences between us on timing, and I will come to that point in a moment.
It strikes me that, at a time when the majority of our constituents want a referendum before the next election, I have never known a period in British politics when the political establishment has been so disconnected from public opinion, and so remote from, opposed to and out of touch with it. Politicians have wilfully kicked the can further and further down the road, and we will be in danger of doing that again if neither my amendment 3 nor amendment 22 is supported.
Adam Afriyie
I will not give way any more, because I am conscious that the Opposition want to talk out the Bill, and I do not want to be part of that process.
Huw Irranca-Davies
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition are trying to talk out the Bill, but interventions are being made by Government Members. May I, through your good offices, ask him to reconsider?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order and that nobody is talking out anything in this Chamber—there is no such action. The only words that will be allowed in the Chamber today are those entirely in order with proceedings.
Adam Afriyie
Again, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your wise words on all matters under debate.
We as politicians have kicked the can down the road for generation after generation, and we are in danger of doing so again today. I ask a simple question: if not in this Parliament, when else can we be sure to secure a referendum? My amendment and amendment 22 offer a way forward. I say in all humility and kindness to my colleagues that, by chasing the EU referendum dream for 2017, we risk losing one in 2014 and throwing away the 2015 election. I urge every hon. Member to listen to their constituents and to try, through one of the amendments, to grant the British people a referendum in 2014.
Mr Hain
May I also express my delight at seeing you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and respond briefly to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) by asking whether he has so little confidence that his party will win the next general election that that is the reason for rushing to an early referendum?
I wish to speak to amendments 77 and 78, which I tabled. Amendment 77 would ensure that if there is a referendum in 2017, as the Government propose, it would not fall during the UK’s presidency of the European Union. It would be absurd to have a referendum process running conterminously with our presidency of the EU. Amendment 78 would ensure that there would be a delay of at least 28 weeks—roughly seven months—between setting a date by order for a referendum, and the referendum itself, to allow for full consultation. That point is the burden of my contribution today.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and new schedule 2, to which I have added my name, which also calls for greater consultation. I am worried that Britain may be sleepwalking into withdrawal from the European Union without realising that that would be the result of circumstances created first by the Prime Minister’s referendum timetable, and secondly by the Bill. An exit would be catastrophic for British jobs and prosperity, which is why any referendum, and particularly any date for a referendum as specified in amendments, should be considered only after the fullest possible formal consultation with the British people.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why an exit would cause the loss of loads of jobs in this country when we have a balance of payments deficit with the EU of some £70 billion?
Mr Hain
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raises that issue as I will deal with it later on and call for greater consultation on the matter. Unless the facts are revealed objectively and all organisations are properly consulted, people will not be in a position to make a sensible decision about whether to vote yes or no in the referendum he seeks.
The great flaw in the Bill is that it proposes no such consultation and there is no obligation on the Government to consult anybody. Other than a campaign that will be compressed into a particular period, and the inevitable media focus at the time, there is no sense that everybody will be involved in the great debate on an historic issue for the future of Britain, and indeed Europe. The Bill sets an arbitrary time limit without placing any obligation on the Government to consult. The referendum itself will be the only “consultation”—by bouncing voters into a decision by the end of 2017 or, if the hon. Member for Windsor gets his way, by October 2014.
For example, the business community needs to be properly consulted—paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 specifies how it could be consulted. The CBI, to which specific reference is made in the new schedule, recently reported that eight out of 10 of its members, including roughly the same proportion of its small and medium-sized enterprise members, said that they would vote for the UK to remain a member of the EU if a referendum were held tomorrow. The CBI should be properly consulted, not simply presented with a referendum on an arbitrary date. Nearly three quarters of CBI member businesses reported that the UK’s membership of the EU has had a positive overall impact on their business. They should be consulted, too, so that everybody, whether employees or management, can transmit their view to the wider community.
Sir Edward Leigh
Labour Members appear to want to consult the CBI, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, which is fair enough, but are they in favour of consulting the British people in a referendum—yes or no?
Mr Hain
Labour has never been afraid of consulting people in referendums. We have called more referendums in our history than any other party. Labour is the only party that ever called a referendum on the EU—the Conservatives took us into membership of the Common Market without one. Labour Members have never been afraid to consult the people, and we have specified the circumstances in which we would hold a referendum.
Despite CBI member companies’ frustrations with many aspects of EU membership, which, as a pro-European, I share, more than half of them—some 52%—say that they have directly benefited from the introduction of common European standards. Only 15% suggested that that had had a negative impact. A consultation would reveal that and enable it to be properly debated, assessed and considered.
Those CBI members believe that UK influence has helped to maximise the openness of the EU. Some 72% of British businesses believe that the UK has a significant influence on EU policies that affect them.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I would have thought that those points of view would come out in the campaign, so why would we need consultation? Surely, in the yes, no or whatever campaigns, the various interests groups would directly lobby the British people, rather than MPs.
Mr Hain
I have taken every intervention that hon. Members have wished to make and I want to make progress, but I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point first. As an experienced politician, he, like all hon. Members, knows that, in the din and pressure of a three-week campaign, with all the focus that that brings, it is very difficult to get all the arguments across. We need a proper assessment so that the British public have the chance to make their minds up, free from the influence of Eurosceptic newspapers, which dominate the debate. They should make their minds up on the facts by consulting the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Directors and other such organisations. Those organisations will want their say, and the way to achieve that is through proper consultation, for which the Bill does not provide.
The City is a significant institution that will need to be consulted, which could be achieved under paragraph (j) of new schedule 2. According to the evidence we have, such a consultation would reveal that the City takes the same view as the CBI—it believes that British membership is positive for financial institutions. Why is the City not being consulted? Are the Government scared of consulting it? Is the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), the Bill’s promoter, scared of consulting it? Some 84% of Britain’s financial sector executives are strongly in favour of staying at the centre of the EU, according to a survey published in October by TheCityUK. Through a consultation, we could drill down into that and see whether it is a proper assessment.
The financial services sector accounts for 13% of gross domestic product and contributes more than £60 billion in taxes. Nearly 80% of all foreign exchange trades in the EU take place in the City, as do 74% of all interest rate derivative trades. The idea that the City would want to be frogmarched out of Europe is complete nonsense, as a consultation would reveal.
Mr Hain
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because I am about to name-check him—and to answer his question.
The City must be properly consulted, as new schedule 2 and amendment 68 would provide, and its concerns, like those of CBI members, need to be understood by the electorate well in advance of a short and compressed campaign so that voters are not bamboozled by newspapers and stampeded into a referendum.
Martin Horwood
The right hon. Gentleman is making important points. I suspect that we probably agree on whether Britain should be in or out of the European Union, but he must accept that we do not really need a formal consultation exercise to find out what the CBI thinks. It said clearly, in a definitive report published on Monday:
“While the UK can certainly survive outside the EU, none of the alternatives suggested offers a clear path to an improved balance of advantages and disadvantages or greater influence.”
The CBI clearly wants us to stay in. Do we really need a consultation to establish that?
Mr Sheerman
Who would we consult about peace? We are coming up to Remembrance Sunday. In 1914, bad newspaper leaders and bad politicians led this country into war. The European Union has maintained prosperity and peace for all these years—are we going to give that up?
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
One consultee that my right hon. Friend proposes is the National Farmers Union. As urban areas are, by their nature, in the majority, those of us who represent rural areas are always fearful that the voice of rural Britain will be left out. Does he agree that it is of pivotal importance that farming groups are consulted?
Mr Hain
I do, and I am about to make that point.
As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, I am a pro-European, but I am also a critical one. That is why amendments 77, 78 and 68 and new schedule 2 are important. I am not a Europhile who cannot see that the EU needs reform or who wants integration at all costs. I am a practical European. I voted yes in the 1975 referendum but, as an MP in 1992, I voted no in the House to the Maastricht treaty—with the hon. Gentleman, among others—because I did not think the foundations on which the euro was erected were the right ones. Time has probably proved that view correct.
As Europe Minister over a decade ago, I was intensely frustrated with what I call the Brussels bubble, which is mainly inhabited by Commission officials, small-country Ministers and European parliamentarians. It exists in a world of its own, forming an elite and making the EU increasingly unpopular among its citizens. But—and this is the point of a proper consultation—none of this means that we should pull out, any more than Scottish frustrations with the Westminster bubble mean that Scotland should withdraw from the United Kingdom, or voters’ frustrations with all the major political parties, including Labour and Conservative, mean that they should give up on parliamentary democracy.
We need systematic consultation with a report that Parliament can properly assess before deciding how to proceed. I am sure that the Royal British Legion, if consulted, would have something to say. Just imagine if, at the end of the second world war, Monnet and others had concluded that 80 years of bitter Franco-German hatred made European unity impossible.
The following 60 years of Franco-German reconciliation and EU achievement would never have occurred. That is a matter that organisations, particularly veterans organisations, should be properly consulted upon, under sub-paragraph (j) of new schedule 2. It is incumbent on our generation to find the means to take Europe forward on the global stage, not to retreat into reactionary isolationism.
Amendment 68, like new schedule 2, would place an obligation on the Government to consult on all these matters. It is essential that we do so. The consultation would also be an opportunity to recognise that Europe’s first achievement was to remove the internal tariff barriers that held back growth and prosperity across the whole continent, including Britain. We accepted that, especially with globalisation, our interests were best served by bringing down barriers, which enabled Europe to act as one unit in trade and become a more powerful, if as yet imperfect, force for trade liberalisation under internationally agreed common rules. Again, we could be talking to the business sector and exporters about that, if the Government had the courage. It makes me wonder why they do not. Have they got a reason to be worried about a proper consultation?
Consultation under these amendments would also give us the opportunity to remind everybody—in particular, it would give the older generation a chance to remind younger citizens voting in this referendum, if it happens—that Europe’s success in reconciling once-bitter foes established and consolidated peace and democracy across the EU. It is important that there be proper consultation, that this be assessed and that Parliament have a chance to reflect upon it. For example, EU enlargement, first to Greece, Spain and Portugal—countries that until relatively recently were fascist dictatorships—and now to former communist states in central and eastern Europe that were also under a form of dictatorship, has amply shown how the zone of stability, democracy and prosperity can be extended right across a continent on which more wars have been fought over the centuries than in any other part of the world.
Similarly, with proper consultation—my amendment 78 suggests a minimum of 28 weeks—we could assess the impact of our being part of association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and of the continuing accession negotiations that the EU is conducting with Turkey. I believe it essential that those negotiations succeed, because Turkey is a vital bridge between Europe and Asia, west and east, Christianity and Islam. If we enter a referendum campaign in the heat and din of a three-week in/out squabble, none of these issues will be revealed, and that is why consultation is essential.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Does my right hon. Friend agree that consultation would also allow light to be shone on the work of the Centre for European Reform, which only this month produced 35 recommendations that were very much in line with his comments and none of which, they argued, needed our exit from the EU?
Mr Hain
Indeed, I think the CER does some very good work, and again I hope that under sub-paragraph (j) it will be properly consulted by the Government. It is a serious analyst. By the way, Eurosceptic organisations should be consulted as well under that sub-paragraph.
A series of other organisations, some of them specified in the new schedule, including the Trades Union Congress, should be consulted, so that people can understand that the EU has brought with it policies to extend social, environmental and consumer rights. Without those, and despite the EU’s faults, we would not have as fair a society as we do today. Organisations such as Citizens Advice and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, specified in new schedule 2, could have their say as well.
Consultation would provide another opportunity to recognise that Europe has its faults but that the remedy is to get in there and argue for a stronger reformed Europe, not for Britain to turn its back and walk away. Although it has become fashionable to criticise Euroland, a consultation would reveal that its productivity per hour worked is far higher than Britain’s. The work force are, sadly, more highly skilled, and public services such as health and transport are superior. Under new schedule 2, whether under sub-paragraph (g) or others, organisations such as the National Council of Voluntary Organisations would be able to express their view and say whether they agree with that assessment.
Consultation would afford another opportunity. The continentals probably have something to learn from our better record on employability and our more flexible market. Equally, it would reveal that we need to acknowledge that our employees are far less protected and subject to much greater job insecurity than those on the continent. Consultation with the TUC and other organisations, including the citizens advice bureaux, would reveal the high social costs of the inferior rights and job security which, sadly, exist in Britain.
Mike Gapes
If there were to be a referendum on the basis that the Government, or at least the Conservative party is proposing, it would be on worse terms in respect of the rights of trade unionists, women and people on maternity leave. It would not be a question of the status quo or leaving. It would be question of a worse position or leaving, as was put forward by the Fresh Start Group and other Conservative Back-Bench groups.
Mr Hain
I agree completely. All that social protection would be dispensed with under the Conservative nirvana.
New schedule 2 and amendment 68 would provide for consultation on the common agricultural policy, a matter that was briefly raised earlier. I would like not only the National Farmers Union to be consulted under sub-paragraph (b) of new schedule 2 but the Farmers Union of Wales and NFU Cymru under sub-paragraph (j), because the CAP is wasteful and works against the interests of the world’s poor. However, a Britain on the margins of Europe would not be in a strong position to reform the CAP—I am sure that that would be revealed by a consultation—and nor would it be able to create more sustainable agriculture and rural communities. Without a full commitment to the EU, we will have less influence, too, on determining European negotiating positions in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. I am sure that farmers’ unions and organisations would endorse the position that I have just advanced in a consultation.
If we exited from the EU, we would have less influence on CAP reform. The fact that we are on the border of the rest of the EU means that we are affected by the CAP whether we like it or not. We would disadvantage our own farmers by not having the ability to influence what was going on in Brussels and the policies that flow from that. A consultation would reveal that. Overwhelmingly, farmers’ unions and organisations would favour remaining in the EU. The consultation would reveal the arguments in detail and test them in a way that will not be possible in a short referendum campaign.
Martin Horwood
I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the way our influence on many of these issues would be reduced if we left the EU. However, if I may draw him back to his new schedule, is there not a problem with such a prescriptive list of organisations? If the NFU is included, why not the Soil Association or the Country Land and Business Association? If Universities UK is included, why not the Russell Group or the Gazelle group of FE colleges? If the Association of Chief Police Officers is included, why not GCHQ—that would be topical? There is a problem with having such a prescriptive list.
Mr Hain
I am at a loss to understand what exactly the Lib Dem role is in all this. If the hon. Gentleman looks at new schedule 2, he will see that sub-paragraph (j) provides for “other organisations”, and that includes all the organisations that he mentioned and many more that I am about to mention.
On the question of a proper, concerted approach to the environment in the whole of the EU, the consultation could seek the views of Friends of the Earth, which is mentioned in sub-paragraph (h), the Local Government Association, which is mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), Greenpeace, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wide Fund for Nature. All those organisations would be able to confirm in a consultation that Britain on its own would be unable to guarantee a sustainable future for our citizens. We are so close to the continent of Europe that clear skies, pure water, clean beaches and a healthy environment can be delivered only through co-operation at European level. A consultation on the environment would reveal the case for staying in the European Union and why the Bill is so irrelevant.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a balanced speech, but will he explain how putting £2 into the European Union for every £1 that comes back to us is a sensible use of taxpayers’ money?
Mr Hain
I was discussing Wales, where there is a surplus of £40 per person in relation to the money contributed to the EU, compared with the money that comes back. I shall not go any further into my answer to my hon. Friend, as that would take me beyond the terms of the debate.
A consultation of the people of Wales, organised by Welsh Government, would overwhelmingly endorse our continued membership of the European Union. More importantly, it would put objective facts before Parliament for us to assess. That is what the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East would provide for.
A full consultation would reveal that the values that the British people have long supported are also fundamentally European values. They are the values of community, solidarity, social justice and cohesion, and a fair chance in life for all. Those British values are also European values, and they are best realised through co-operation with our European colleagues. Consultation under sub-paragraph (j) would allow us to consult the Royal United Services Institute. I think it would say that the idea of Britain pulling up the drawbridge and declaring ourselves alone is nonsense. Anti-Europeanism has no answers to the increasing interdependence of our globe. I am sure that RUSI would endorse that position. I do not speak for it, but it would at any rate have the opportunity through this consultation to express its point of view and it will then be for all of us to make an assessment of it.
It seems to me that we need to emphasise the importance of that to the promoter of the Bill. Why he will not accept these amendments, I have no idea. I have no idea either why the Government will not support them or why the Minister will not support them—unless he is going to surprise me; I hope he does. From the way he is smiling enigmatically at me, it does not look as if he is going to surprise me. I believe that these amendments, however, would enhance the strength of the case for this Bill.
Another opportunity for this consultation would be the laying out of the facts about the consequences for Britain of those who argue that European withdrawal would be replaced by joining the North Atlantic free trade area. If we consulted the CBI, or for that matter the Institute of Directors or independent groups such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, I am sure it would reveal that British trade with the EU was three times that with North America. We have over twice the amount of trade with Holland than with the major south-eastern economies. The rest of the EU buys three times as many UK exports by value as the UK’s next most important export partner, the US—equivalent to 15% of UK gross domestic product. Again, we would be able to assess those facts. No doubt UKIP and others would make their arguments, but without a proper assessment and without the proper consultation for which we are asking, none of those arguments will have a chance to be assessed in the run-up to the short, concentrated, volatile and highly-charged referendum campaign.
Ian Murray
My right hon. Friend is making a strong case showing why these issues need to be examined in great depth. If he reflects on the referendum that is currently happening for Scotland, he will find that the debate has not risen to the levels he mentions, because we have not had the in-depth analysis of issues surrounding the Scottish referendum. The debate has left so many unanswered questions that the people of Scotland are demanding more information.
Mr Hain
As a Scottish MP of high repute in this House, my hon. Friend presents his evidence with some credibility. He is right that the Scottish referendum process reinforces exactly the case we are putting for these amendments.
Those who want us to withdraw from the EU suggest that we can have our cake and eat it by staying within the European single market to retain the great bulk of our trade, which is with EU countries. Once again, this could be assessed through a proper consultation, as specified in amendment 68 and new schedule 2. Those who want to withdraw first argue that we would avoid the costs of membership, which they denounce as too high; secondly, they insist that EU regulations make our economy uncompetitive; and thirdly, they allege a loss of sovereignty that comes with European political union.
Our amendments would enable us to assess what those arguments amount to and how seriously we should take them. They would provide an opportunity properly to consult all the different groups involved and all the different sources of expertise, which would reveal that the facts are rather different. It would reveal first that the price of Britain’s EU membership is rather more modest than the anti-Europeans would have us believe. The Government contributed £7 billion to the EU in 2012, which is around 1%—
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this a debate about the merits of remaining part of the European Union, or not?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I have already explained this morning that I am listening carefully to all Members to ensure that they adhere strictly to the terms of the amendments they are proposing. The right hon. Member is in order in the remarks he is making.
Mr Hain
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I believe that a consultation would also reveal that the Government contributed £7 billion to the EU in 2012, about 1% of total public expenditure and equivalent to 0.4% of GDP—I am sure that the CBI would have something to say about this, because its report seems to suggest the same thing. Although leaving the EU and rejoining the single market would cost Britain less, it would not be much less. We would need to negotiate a relationship like that enjoyed by Norway, the largest of the nations in the European economic area, which we would presumably join.
Mr Hain
I want to make some progress so that others have a chance to speak.
A consultation with the Institute of Directors, the CBI or the independent economic think-tanks would also endorse the notion that joining the EEA would cost Britain about £6 billion. Yes, that is about £1 billion —or 17% less than our membership of the EU—but it is still a large amount in comparison and assumes that our EU partners would, after our departure, be in an open frame of mind to accept us back into some kind of trading relationship. I am sure that the CBI and all the other business organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce, would want to have a say on that.
As members of the European economic area, we would still be bound by the regulations that the anti-EU camp denounce. In return for access to the single market, Norway and all the other relevant countries, such as Switzerland and Iceland, must adopt nearly all European Union legislation relevant to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, together with laws in areas such as employment, consumer protection, environmental policy and competition.
There would, of course, be the chance properly to assess such a move. A report would be placed before Parliament and we would spend days debating on the Floor of the House whether to accept the report and the assessment. We would also be able to assess one point made by the CBI, which would also have a greater chance to have its say than it would during the compressed period of a short referendum campaign. That point is that we would also be bound by future European law in those areas, even though we were outside the European Union.
Mr Cash
Will the right hon. Gentleman address the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) about the date of 23 October 2014, which has not yet been debated? Does he agree that a referendum on that date would get totally entangled with the Scottish referendum, which will take place only a month before? Furthermore, it is dangerous to choose a specific date, as was the case in 2007 when we had to delay the local elections because of the foot and mouth outbreak. There are a whole stack of reasons for not having a specific date for a referendum.
Mr Hain
As in 1992 and 1993, when the hon. Gentleman and I were on the same side of the argument on the Maastricht treaty, I completely agree with him. His logic on this point is absolutely faultless, even if it often is not on many other European matters.
I believe—perhaps I am wrong—that all the business organisations, if consulted, would take the view of the CBI report and dismiss a customs union as an alternative to European Union membership—the “Turkey option”—as the very worst of all the halfway alternatives, leaving the UK with very limited EU market access and zero influence over trade deals.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is very gracious to give way when we are so pressed for time. May I invite him to return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)? If the setting of an earlier date is such a problem, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why amendment 22, tabled by his own colleague, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), suggests the date of 2014? Although I was listening very carefully to the scintillating speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), I am not sure that I heard him address that specific point. I would be very interested to know whether the Opposition intend to vote for that amendment.
Mr Hain
Although I have much respect for the hon. Gentleman, I invite him to wait and see. He might not even find out today, for all I know; that is not in my hands. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has the chance to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye, no doubt the hon. Gentleman’s question will be answered.
Consultation under new schedule 2 would reveal that retaining membership of a customs union only would be an inappropriate economic stance for the UK in the modern global economy. The CBI report suggests that, with non-tariff barriers often replacing tariffs as the major obstacle to trade, a customs union would not be sufficient to support Britain’s trading ambitions in the modern global economy, with its complex supply chains, and could limit UK access to EU markets in areas such as services, on which our economy is so based.
Mr Baron
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I suggest that he does not keep referring to the CBI. After all, it was the organisation that suggested that there would be dire consequences if we did not join the euro.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s wider point about trade, much smaller countries at the heart of Europe, such as Switzerland, do not just survive but thrive outside the EU on the basis of trade. I suggest that he reflect on that, because he is talking down our ability to negotiate trade agreements with the wider world, and doing so is not justified by the evidence or facts.
Mr Hain
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, he will not be surprised to hear. Norway and especially Switzerland are small countries. Britain is a big country, with an historic global role in trade, diplomacy and defence. The idea that we will be a kind of Norway with nukes seems to be no prescription for Britain’s future, holding its head high in the world.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
If we are not going to listen just to the CBI, perhaps we should listen to Nissan in my region as well. Nissan has said today that it would be a real mistake to leave Europe and to exit that door. When we consider that it employs 6,500 in the north-east and has 40,000 people in the supply chain, is it not the kind of organisation we should be listening to as well?
Mr Hain
Indeed. A consultation should be held, and one of the first organisations that should be consulted under paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 is Nissan. With its 6,500 workers in Sunderland, it is a major European car manufacturer. What did its chief executive, Carlos Ghosn, say today? He said:
“If anything has to change,”
Nissan would
“need to reconsider our strategy and our investments for the future”—
that is to say, if Britain were to leave the European Union.
Mr Hain
I will make progress. I have let the hon. Gentleman in a number of times.
The point that I was about to make about consultation is that inward investors, particularly Japanese companies such as Nissan, come into the European Union bringing with them tens of thousands of jobs—direct jobs and indirect jobs—and a great deal of wealth. They come here because they will be part of the single market of the European Union. Again, under new schedule 2 we would be able to consult them. We would be able to consult Ford, which has plants at Bridgend and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Such companies are in the United Kingdom rather than elsewhere in the European Union because we are members of the EU and part of the single market. We would want to consult them, as well as Sony, Toyota—[Interruption.] We would want to consult Airbus, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) reminds me. That is a really important company, right on the Welsh-English border in the north-east of Wales. It would need to be consulted as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman attempts to make further progress, I should suggest to him that although he has been perfectly in order in speaking about consultation, he is in danger of being a little repetitive. It might be as well for him to consider drawing his remarks to a conclusion in the near future.
Mr Hain
I was planning to do precisely that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret having taken so many interventions, otherwise I would have concluded already.
On the argument about sovereignty, under sub-paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 we would consult organisations such as the Royal United Services Institute in respect of our membership of NATO. We have given up sovereignty to be members of NATO, but we have gained extra power and influence. We have given up sovereignty—yes, of course we have—to be members of the European Union, but we have gained extra economic, political and diplomatic influence. If we consulted Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace about the environmental benefits that we have gained by having a say in the policies of the countries right on our border on the continent of Europe, it would be clear that we are a key force in determining those decisions.
All the evidence points to the fact that systematic consultation with all the different parts of our society, all the groups in our society specified in new schedule 2, would give us a great opportunity to go into the debate and decide, if we are to have a referendum at all, when it should be. That would be the great advantage which the Bill, unamended, denies us. More importantly, it denies an obligation on Government to consult and, having consulted over a lengthy period, an obligation to come back to Parliament, and for Parliament to have a considered debate rather than to be stampeded into a referendum next year. For all the reasons given by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others, that would be the wrong choice, in my view.
Without my amendment being accepted, setting an arbitrary date some time in 2017 could conceivably mean that the referendum would be held right in the middle of the United Kingdom presidency. Imagine the nonsense of doing that and leaving us in an entirely invidious position—indeed, a laughing stock if a referendum took place during that six months.
I hope the promoter of the Bill will reconsider accepting the amendments, and I hope that when the Europe Minister contributes to the debate, he will back them. If either of them does not do so, I have to ask what they are frightened of. Are they frightened of the facts and the arguments being revealed, and the British people deciding either that they do not want a referendum at all on the proposed timetable or, if they do want a referendum at some stage in the future, that staying in the European Union is the right thing to do?
Mr Lidington
The amendments in this group fall into three categories: the significant amendment about consultation spoken to by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), the amendments that seek to require the Government to avoid clashes between the referendum and religious holidays or other elections, and the important amendments of various kinds to do with the date in question.
First, I will deal with consultation. I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—his paean to the merits of the European Union and Britain’s membership of it. I find myself in agreement with some elements, such as the successes of the single market, enlargement and Franco-German reconciliation, although he may have underplayed some of the downsides of how the EU currently operates. However, the point is that the Bill does not seek to prescribe whether the United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union but to give the British people the final decision on that question, on which there are perfectly honourable, long-standing differences of view within all the main political parties in this House.
The right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that a massive consultation exercise, which the Government are leading, is already under way on the current balance of competences in the European Union, and it goes far wider than the organisations specified in the Opposition’s proposals. Moreover, the Opposition underplay the fact that in a real referendum campaign there will be the widest of debates involving all the organisations listed in new schedule 2 and many more.
Mr Lidington
The serious work on the reform of the European Union is already under way. I know that my hon. Friend will be delighted by the successful reform of the common fisheries policy, the ban on discarding, the push towards local regional management of fisheries, the cut in the EU budget, and the moves on deregulation that this Government have already achieved, even in coalition.
Mr Thomas
The Minister is just talking about the past. What powers and competences does he think the Prime Minister wants to bring back? The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked a perfectly reasonable question. Will the Minister answer it? What has he got to hide?
Mr Lidington
What I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman and his party is whether they want to give the British people a say in our future in Europe or they are determined to deny them that say.
Given the reality of the debate that will take place, and given that the Electoral Commission would appoint umbrella organisations for yes and no campaigns, this well-intentioned new schedule is unnecessary because there is no need to specify organisations in that way.
The same is true of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) about religious holidays and potential clashes with other elections. These matters already have to be considered.
Mike Gapes
The Minister should be aware that I have not yet had a chance to speak to those amendments, so he is referring to them in the absence of my having done so. I hope that I may get that chance on 22 November.
Mr Lidington
The amendments touch on matters that every Government already have to consider in looking at election dates. Successive Governments have taken a pragmatic approach to those matters, and it would be disproportionate to include them in the Bill.
Mr Thomas
Surely the Minister thinks that the British people are entitled to know what plan B would be if a referendum that the Prime Minister calls leads to a British exit. Why not, then, consult the CBI about the Switzerland option or the Norway option? Why will he not concede that possibility and the need for that consultation?
Mr Lidington
It is already open to the CBI and to any other such organisations to express their views fully and vigorously, and that is what they do at all times, in conversations with Ministers, in publications, and in debates and forums. I know that the hon. Gentleman has only just been appointed to this role, but he ought to wake up and see the debate that is actually going on rather than trying to invoke some kind of Aunt Sally.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We can wake up to the fact that still we have not heard from the promoter of a private Member’s Bill on a private Member’s day. What is going on in this Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Chris Williamson
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Earlier in the debate, he said that the stakeholders referred to in new schedule 2 would be able to make their views known during the course of a referendum campaign. Does he not believe that they have an interest in the referendum date? That is what the consultation is about. Will the Minister deal with that point?
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 22 November.
Planning Regulations (REmoval of Provisions in Respect of Gypsies and Travellers) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014.
Extension of Franchise (House of Lords) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November.
EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November.
Asylum (Time LImit) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November.
Foreign Nationals (Access to Public Services) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November.
House of Lords (Maximum Membership) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November.
Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (1 November), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
A14 Road Improvement and Financing
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is my great privilege to present a petition on behalf of the people of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area. It has been signed by 2,292 people.
The petition states:
The Petition of the people of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area,
Declares that the planned road improvements on the A14, a key route connecting the Midlands with the UK’s leading container port of Felixstowe and designated as a Trans-European Transport Network, will be welcomed by most users of the A14, particularly by residents in Cambridgeshire, and is expected to reduce congestion on this key route for commuters and businesses alike; further declares that this is one of several major road improvements proposed by Her Majesty’s Government though notes that this is the only road improvement scheme proposed to be partially financed by a toll; further declares the concerns of the petitioners that this will have a detrimental effect on the economy of Suffolk.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to remove the planned requirement to toll vehicles on the A14.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001257]
Petitions
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is my great privilege to present a petition on behalf of the people of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area. It has been signed by 2,292 people.
The petition states:
The Petition of the people of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area,
Declares that the planned road improvements on the A14, a key route connecting the Midlands with the UK’s leading container port of Felixstowe and designated as a Trans-European Transport Network, will be welcomed by most users of the A14, particularly by residents in Cambridgeshire, and is expected to reduce congestion on this key route for commuters and businesses alike; further declares that this is one of several major road improvements proposed by Her Majesty’s Government though notes that this is the only road improvement scheme proposed to be partially financed by a toll; further declares the concerns of the petitioners that this will have a detrimental effect on the economy of Suffolk.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to remove the planned requirement to toll vehicles on the A14.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001257]
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of care whistleblower and former care assistant Eileen Chubb, who has fought a long and valiant campaign for justice for whistleblowers and for compassion in our care homes. She believes that current protections for whistleblowers have failed and that there is an urgent need to replace the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 with legislation that properly protects those who speak out.
The petition states:
The Petition of Eileen Chubb of the Bupa 7 whistleblowers, and Director and Founder of the charity Compassion in Care,
Declares that following the Petition of 15 July 2004, in which the Petitioner urged the former government to address the failures of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA), the response was one of ‘No comment’; further that the House should note the report “Breaking the Silence: Part 1”, which is available via www.compassionincare.com and contains evidence of 1500 whistle-blowers who have been failed by PIDA and that the information contained in this report is a damning indictment of any civilised country; and that the Petitioner believes that the report shows that recent changes to PIDA will be entirely ineffective as will the recommendations of the Francis Inquiry.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action by considering the evidence submitted in the report and replace PIDA before any more needless suffering and loss of life occurs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001283]
Public Interest Disclosure Act
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of care whistleblower and former care assistant Eileen Chubb, who has fought a long and valiant campaign for justice for whistleblowers and for compassion in our care homes. She believes that current protections for whistleblowers have failed and that there is an urgent need to replace the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 with legislation that properly protects those who speak out.
The petition states:
The Petition of Eileen Chubb of the Bupa 7 whistleblowers, and Director and Founder of the charity Compassion in Care,
Declares that following the Petition of 15 July 2004, in which the Petitioner urged the former government to address the failures of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA), the response was one of ‘No comment’; further that the House should note the report “Breaking the Silence: Part 1”, which is available via www.compassionincare.com and contains evidence of 1500 whistle-blowers who have been failed by PIDA and that the information contained in this report is a damning indictment of any civilised country; and that the Petitioner believes that the report shows that recent changes to PIDA will be entirely ineffective as will the recommendations of the Francis Inquiry.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action by considering the evidence submitted in the report and replace PIDA before any more needless suffering and loss of life occurs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001283]
Olympic Legacy (East London)
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am glad to have the opportunity to come to this House and talk about the Olympic legacy in London. I will talk in particular about the Olympic legacy that was promised and what has actually happened, with particular reference to east London.
From the time when it was announced that London had got the 2012 Olympics, I made a point of talking to and chasing up Ministers and stakeholders on the question of jobs and employment in the east end. I met the then Mayor on a number of occasions to discuss that subject. I met the London Development Agency. I met the then Olympics Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell).
I concede to no one in my pleasure and excitement at the summer of 2012. For those of us who are born and bred Londoners, the summer of 2012 was one of the most magical summers in London. As a Member of Parliament for one of the east end boroughs, I was privileged to tour the Olympic park, which was a wonderful piece of landscaping. It was a complete regeneration of what had been a very sad part of Stratford. I was even fortunate enough to have a ticket for the 100 metres final. I will refrain from confessing to the House who I shouted for, but I certainly saw the sporting excellence that was on display.
For me, one of the most magical aspects of the Olympics in 2012 was the Olympic volunteers. They were a group of people, young and old, who really looked like London and who brought their enthusiasm and pleasure to the process. Many people who were fortunate enough to visit the Olympic park remember those volunteers above all else.
Even though 2012 was a golden summer, I have not forgotten the promises that were made in the run-up to the Olympics. I remind the House that the five Olympic host boroughs—Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest and Hackney—are among the poorest areas in the country. All five host boroughs are in the 15% most deprived areas in the country and Hackney is in the bottom 5%. Only 55% of people of working age in Hackney are in employment, despite the fact that the population is comparatively young. Few places in the country are in greater need of regeneration and a long-term economic boost. I truly believed that the 2012 Olympics were the perfect departure point for that boost and that regeneration. Although I know that the Olympic legacy process is still in train, it seems to me appropriate, fully 12 months after the Olympics ended, to return to the important issues of jobs, employment and regeneration.
From the time when work began on the Olympic park, I voiced my concerns about the low number of local people who were working on the site. Figures released by the Olympic Delivery Authority in October 2010 revealed that of the 6,423 workers on the Olympic park, just 130 came from Hackney—the lowest figure among the five boroughs—and that only seven of the apprentices on the site lived in Hackney. There have been great outcomes of the Olympics, but unless we are watchful, we will fall far short of expectations on some of the promises for the Olympic legacy.
The promise to London, particularly east London, was that the Olympics would be transforming. We were told that a well planned, well managed environment would be created, which would attract business investment and promote recreational and cultural use in years to come; that communities would be transformed, with 9,000 new homes being built, a large proportion of which would be affordable; and that new sport, leisure, education and health facilities would be provided to meet the needs of residents, businesses and élite sport. Above all, we were told that the Olympics would transform prospects, help 20,000 workless Londoners from the five host boroughs into permanent employment by 2012 and create 12,000 job opportunities in the area of the park post-games.
In the case of transport, an improved and expanded London underground is certainly one of the successes of the games. The London Overground has also benefited, and Stratford must be one of the best-connected sporting venues in the world. I will return to the matter of transport in the months to come, but I wish to say now that prices on London transport remain too high, and that Londoners cannot understand why an underground system that was able to run almost flawlessly during the Olympic games does not seem to be able to do so on a day-to-day basis.
Although we all thrilled at the élite sportspeople— Mo Farah and the rest—the sports legacy of the Olympics is not as good as we would like. Over the past year, there has been a decline in the number of children across all age groups involved in sport. A survey of 2,000 children carried out earlier this year found that a quarter of girls between five and 10 said that they had not taken part in any sport over the past month, up from 17% five years ago. One in seven boys said that they had not. Even walking appears to have declined in popularity. That can come as no surprise given the Government’s school sport reforms, including the abolition of the school sport partnerships scheme. We know that work is being done—in particular, I draw the House’s attention to the Hard Rock Café east London rugby league project—but it is concerning that in a difficult and constrained time of austerity, ordinary people’s level of sporting participation seems to be going down.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
It is brilliant that my hon. Friend has secured the debate. Does she accept that a substantial amount of money has been put into small facilities, particularly in her borough of Hackney? The mobile swimming pool has brought a lot of new people into swimming. Does she also agree that it is important to have a genuine partnership among all the London local authorities, city hall and the Mayor? There is ring-fenced money now, in small amounts but enough to be a catalyst. It is important that people work together; otherwise, in 10 years’ time we will look back and say that there has not been a legacy.
Ms Abbott
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Small amounts of money have been provided, and there are some excellent specific projects, such as the rugby league one to which I referred. The problem is that the overall number of young people participating in sport is drifting downwards. She is right that there has to be a big push to make the money that is available a catalyst for levels of sporting activity to remain constant and then rise. Of course, sporting activity is not just for fun. As someone who has taken an interest in public health in recent times, I know that activity is important for our young people’s health and well-being.
Housing is the area in which we have been disappointed, given the expectations that we had. Assurances were given that thousands of homes would be allocated for social housing. Of the 11,000 homes scheduled to be built over the next 15 to 20 years, the promise was that 35% would be affordable and social housing. However, with the Government’s changed policy on social housing, their refusal to cap rents and their austerity-based economics, it seems that many local people will not be able to afford that so-called affordable housing. Of the 2,818 homes in the Olympic legacy programme, Newham will receive 350 and Tower Hamlets just 27. Just 100 homes will be divided between Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Hackney—an average of 13 homes per borough. What kind of housing legacy is that?
As to the notion of affordable, in the context of the Government’s social housing policy, which means that subsidised properties can be rented at up to 80% of market rates, those homes will be affordable only for people earning £30,000 or more, which is above the average wage in the east end of London. Shelter calculates that the median monthly rent for a two-bedroom house in Newham is £953. That means that a two-bedroom property in the new development could be classified as affordable if advertised to let at £762—beyond the reach of many of the people I represent.
As we know, the Olympic village was sold to the Qatari ruling family’s property company, and the UK property developer Delancey Estates. That deal left the UK taxpayer £275 million out of pocket, and also means that there will be economic and commercial pressure to increase the buy-to-let proportion of those properties. I believe the sum effect will be to drive those properties out of the reach of ordinary Londoners.
I touched on employment at the start of my remarks, as I take a particular interest in that. At the beginning there was a commitment to ensure that 20,000 Olympics jobs went to residents of the games’ host boroughs, but in the end, only 9,700 did—fewer than half. That was a poor start, and things have not necessarily got any better. Given that the 5 Borough Employment and Skills project and the 2012 Employment Legacy programme started after the Olympics, once the big bulge of job opportunities had gone, it is no surprise that both projects have apparently underspent. Given that unemployment remains a serious issue in the east end, we should question how those projects can realistically support sustained employment when they struggled to find local people in the first place.
The Olympics were certainly important for industries such as construction, but when I asked about the number of local people employed on the site in the first place, we found that in 2010, only 20% of workers on the Olympic site were from one of the five host boroughs. It is not evident that local construction companies benefited from the various contracts.
A number of local ventures surrounding the Olympics—notably Westfield shopping centre in Stratford—were meant to benefit locals directly. At that shopping centre, however, of 10,500 permanent jobs created by Westfield, just 2,000 are filled by local people. Those jobs do not require some fantastically high level of qualification and skill; they are jobs in the retail and service industries, yet only 2,000—less than 20%—are filled by local people. Of course the summer of 2012 was magical, and we have seen improvements in transport infrastructure. However, when we consider the billions of pounds invested in the Olympics, and the numbers of people uprooted, we have yet to see what was promised to Londoners.
We know that regeneration will take place over the next 15 to 20 years. The issues are evident now, and it is not too late to make the necessary changes to meet as many of the original commitments of the Olympic legacy as possible. For instance, although the current organisations managing the Olympic legacy have set employment targets, they refuse to set minimum employment targets. If we are to meet our promise to the people of London, and particularly the Olympic boroughs, we must think about setting minimum targets.
Wonderful though some of 2012 was, in my view it was disappointing that so few local people got jobs—as opposed to volunteer opportunities—at the Olympic park. It was disappointing that so few local businesses got business opportunities, and I call on the Minister and the House to ensure that the promises of the Olympic games—increased levels of sporting activity among ordinary people, particularly children, and employment, business, cultural and sporting regeneration—are kept. The people involved in managing the Olympic legacy should not believe that London MPs, particularly MPs for the Olympic boroughs, are not watching what they are doing. The process will take 10 to 15 years. We will watch them every step of the way.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is also a pleasure to stand here united with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), my fellow Hackney MP, to endorse what she said.
I wanted to add a couple of perspectives from my constituency to the point that my hon. Friend made very effectively about jobs. As she said, there are good news stories from the Olympics. Regardless of anything else, 800 new homes are a good thing, but she is right that the Government’s policy is putting that at risk. The homes need to be affordable for local people, and we also need to watch that they are not sold to overseas landlords. We need to ensure that they are owned within the community, or certainly in the UK, even if they are let.
My constituency has a really great legacy in the Copper Box, a multi-sport facility that will host the London basketball team. Events are already happening, so that is a direct legacy. It is run by Better, the organisation that runs the borough sports facilities, so it is accessible to local people. iCITY has brought in BT Sport as the first anchor tenant in the media centre, and it is giving Sky Sports a run for its money. I met BT Sport only this week to push it on the jobs front, and I am watching that closely.
There are some excellent small businesses. Hackney Pearl, a fantastic restaurant and café in my constituency, was an early believer in the Olympics. It has struggled because infrastructure changes have not happened as quickly as they should after the Olympics to give it the boost it needs, but it is an example of the interest of local businesses in the potential legacy that my hon. Friend highlighted.
In the seconds I have remaining, I want to make a point about jobs. The borough is working closely with local companies to ring-fence jobs locally for Hackney residents, including in the construction of any new facilities. The Ways into Work programme is an important step that provides one-to-one support for local people. The support is holistic, involving everything from interview skills upwards.
However, the key thing that my hon. Friend highlighted, which I reiterate to the Minister, is that we and others are watching what is happening. We need an audit of employers who have promised to recruit and employ local people, because without that, they will not do so. There were scams in Olympic employment. It took me a while to uncover them, and by that time it was too late to do anything about them. For example, people pretended to be local.
Meg Hillier
If I had time, I could detail more scams, but there certainly were scams. I know that this is not the Minister’s remit, but it is vital that he takes the point back to his colleagues. There needs to be an audit of where people came from. I will happily give him more details, but I am anxious, as my hon. Friend is, to hear the Government’s official response.
My hon. Friend and I agree that there have been some great benefits from the Olympics, but jobs and skills are the real prize. It is the legacy that we are both watching like hawks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
This is the first time I have served under your speakership, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are all novices, but you are doing a fantastic job.
I am delighted to respond to the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for her contribution, and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who made an intervention.
I am delighted that the House has the opportunity to debate the Olympic legacy. I echo the words of the hon. Ladies that there is a lot of good news, but it is incredibly important that we keep a close eye on progress. I recognise where the project is going well, but we should always ask, “Can we do better?” I want to suggest constructive ways in which we might do so, and I take the speeches made in that spirit.
If I may, I shall talk a bit about the wider legacy in east London, and in particular about what has happened to some of the venues. I echo what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said: I, too, thoroughly enjoyed the Olympics and Paralympics. I am not sure that we will ever grow tired of saying that they were possibly the best Olympics and Paralympics the world has ever seen, and the nation as a whole was immensely proud.
It is also worth emphasising that this was a cross-party triumph. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) persuaded the then Government to bid for the Olympics. They were won by the previous Government and executed by this Government, and two different Mayors were also involved. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington also spoke about transport, the sporting legacy, housing, and employment and jobs, all of which are very relevant.
Since last autumn, the Government and the Mayor of London have been working together to ensure that we deliver a single and joined-up legacy from the games. Our priority is to ensure that, as well as investing in infrastructure, we secure an economic and social legacy for people living in east London. We want to provide access to education, training and jobs, as well as greater opportunities to take part in sport, physical activity and, of course, volunteering, which was a huge aspect of the games that people perhaps had not expected. We are determined to ensure that the levels of community engagement and civic pride experienced during the summer of 2012 can be sustained.
As I am sure hon. Members know, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is the lead Minister responsible for the overall co-ordination and delivery of the legacy. She is deputy chair of the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Cabinet Committee, which is chaired by the Prime Minister. Its meetings are also attended by Lord Coe, in his role as the Prime Minister’s legacy ambassador, and the Mayor of London, who has lead responsibility for east London regeneration.
In April 2012, responsibility for legacy in east London was devolved from the Department for Communities and Local Government to the Mayor. The London Legacy Development Corporation was established as the first ever mayoral development corporation and, in September 2012, the Mayor became chairman of the legacy corporation. There are therefore well-established governance structures in place to provide a robust framework for effective legacy implementation in east London.
As a demonstration of progress towards a lasting legacy, I want to give the House an update. We have secured the future of all eight venues on the Olympic park—the stadium, the Copper Box, the aquatics centre, the press and broadcast centre, the ArcelorMittal Orbit, the east village, the Lee Valley hockey and tennis centre and the Lee Valley velo park. That is a significant achievement. I shall not single out any previous Olympics, but I cannot think of many other Olympic host cities that have achieved such a turnaround in such a short space of time.
To give credit where it is due, one of the key aspects of the Olympics was that legacy was at the forefront of people’s thinking from the moment the games were won. Operators are now in place to oversee the transition and management of all the park venues in legacy, and this is the first time that has been achieved by a host city within one year of the games.
The Queen Elizabeth Olympic park started to re-open in summer 2013 with major events at the Copper Box. The Copper Box is now open to the general public, including the east London community, with individual gym sessions available from £3. The re-opening of the park venues will continue in spring 2014 with the velo park and hockey and tennis centres, operated by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, and with the aquatics centre and the ArcelorMittal Orbit.
We have also secured major events that should provide employment opportunities, such as the rugby world cup in 2015, the European hockey and swimming championships in 2016 and the world athletics championships in 2017, and iCITY has been confirmed as occupiers of the press and broadcast centre, with tenants including BT Sport, Loughborough university and Infinity.
As the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington mentioned, housing and infrastructure is coming on stream fast. We are going to build up to 11,000 homes in and around the five neighbourhoods and the park, including 3,000 new homes in the east village, which we hope will form the bedrock of a fantastic new and vibrant community in east London. It will be a huge part of the legacy of London 2012. In fact, the first residents are expected to move into their new homes in the east village later this month. Furthermore, the ODA has converted almost 3,000 of the athletes’ homes to create a new neighbourhood for London, including almost 1,500 affordable apartments and almost 1,500 apartments at market rents, as well as a new school, a health centre, parklands and roads. I therefore think we are making significant progress on housing.
The hon. Lady rightly talked about jobs. Plans for the park will create capacity for 10,000 new jobs, of which 4,500 will be at iCITY in the press and broadcast centre. iCITY has told us that it wants to recruit new staff from the local community. I understand that it is working closely with Hackney community college to support local people into new jobs as they become available. Furthermore, the park transformation programme has created 2,500 construction jobs in east London. I heard what she said about Westfield and whether people from her local community were getting the jobs, but nevertheless that development has created 10,000 new jobs, with the capacity for another 25,000 in the international quarter on the park.
On Hackney community college, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch mentioned the Ways into Work programme, which is working at the heart of Hackney. The London Legacy Development Corporation is also working closely with borough partners to ensure that training and job brokerage programmes help local people into work. The corporation has exceeded its target of recruiting 25% of the work force from the local area, and the proportion for construction jobs is now more than one third.
As a result of the games, investor interest in east London is huge, and the Government are working with the Mayor and London Legacy Development Corporation to secure private investment for the park. We are determined to ensure that the people of east London benefit from new events, visitor attractions and the new international profile of the area. In addition, the Government continue to invest nationally in a range of priority areas, committing more than £1 billion of funding over four years to youth and community sport, and ring-fencing £150 million of funding each year for school sports over the next two years. Join In has been established as the charity to support games makers and others inspired by the games to continue volunteering in their local communities. In addition, more than £9 billion of international trade and investment was won on the back of the games, and tourist numbers to the UK have increased, with visitors now spending more than £19 billion a year.
We can safely say that we are making excellent progress with the legacy overall. As I said, we have managed to transfer all the venues and find new uses for them. Jobs have been created on a significant scale and new housing is now coming on stream. The Government continue to work closely with the Mayor and the London Legacy Development Corporation to deliver a sustainable legacy that will benefit the communities of east London, and we are committed to securing the future of the park as a national asset.
I will take away the points made by hon. Members. In particular, I will ask the Sports Minister to consider the auditing of employers, although London is obviously a place where people move around quite frequently, so sometimes it will be difficult to establish these things, and clearly employers will be employing people who are new to the borough. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch used the very strong word “scam”, and I will certain ask the Minister to respond to that. If the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington wants to set forth a proposal for minimum targets, I am sure that we could look at that, too.
Finally, on behalf of the Government, I can say that we welcome the scrutiny of hon. Members. They are the ones who so effectively represent their constituents in their constituencies and boroughs, and they are the ones on the ground who can keep the Government informed if they think the legacy programme is not working as effectively as it should.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Property Data Survey
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
I wish to inform the House of the latest position regarding the property data survey—the condition survey of all school buildings.
In 2007, the previous Government abandoned the systematic collection of information on the condition of schools. Some local authorities sensibly continued to survey their schools but many did not. The last time we had a national picture of the condition of our schools was in 2005—now eight years ago.
In his review of education capital, Sebastian James, recommended that we put this right. He proposed that we gather all existing local condition data into a central database. In July 2011, I announced that we would start work immediately to collect up-to-date information on the condition of school buildings by re-surveying the estate.
My aim was to complete this by autumn 2013. In order to make this achievable we looked to use locally prepared data where it was believed to be up to date and of good quality. Approximately 90 local authorities submitted local condition surveys for analysis on that basis.
Our quality assurance process identified however that locally produced survey data were, in some cases, not accurate and, in others, inconsistent.
I have now instructed my Department to extend its central surveys to cover all schools for which local authorities have supplied data. This means undertaking an additional 8,000 surveys, which will take approximately a further eight months to complete. By next summer we will have collected up-to-date, reliable and validated condition information for the entire schools estate. My intention remains to target funding to where it is most needed and I will use the information from the surveys to do that from 2015-16.
Proceeding in this way means that, in 2014-15, I will be allocating maintenance funding using the same methodology as I used in 2013-14 and I will set out the detail of all the allocations and the technical basis on which they were made when I announce them.
Common Agriculture Policy
(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)
Today, I am announcing the Government’s decision on the allocation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) budget for the period 2014-20 within the UK. This will set out how the funds allocated to the UK for direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) and rural development (pillar 2) will be divided between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Under the EU budget deal agreed by the European Council in February, the UK has, in principle, been allocated €25.1 billion in nominal terms in direct payments (pillar 1) and €2.6 billion in pillar 2 over the period 2014-20. It will deliver very significant sums of money to UK farmers and other CAP recipients.
Before making a decision on how to divide the funds between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I sought and considered the views of Agriculture Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations. I also sought and considered views from stakeholders across the UK.
As the UK’s pillar 1 funds will be reduced over the next budgetary period, the Government have decided that the most appropriate way of allocating this cut is through an equal proportional reduction to the financial ceilings across the four regions. This means that, over the next CAP programme, subject to final confirmation of the EU budget, the Administrations will receive:
England | €16,421,5 million |
Scotland | €4,096.2 million |
Wales | €2,244.5 million |
Northern Ireland | €2,298.8 million |
Similarly, the Government have decided that the change in our pillar 2 allocation should be distributed equally among the four regions. This means that, over the next CAP programme the Administrations will receive:
England | €1,520.0 million |
Scotland | €477.8 million |
Wales | €355.0 million |
Northern Ireland | €227.4 million |
This announcement gives clarity to each of the Administrations as they plan how to implement the 2014-20 CAP. In England we are currently consulting on the details of implementation.
Forensic Science Regulator
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
A consultation on strengthening the powers of the forensic science regulator has been launched today.
The regulator’s role is to set the quality standards expected of organisations providing forensic science services to the criminal justice system. These standards help ensure the accuracy and impartiality of forensic evidence used in police investigations and in court, protecting the innocent from wrongful convictions and ensuring criminals are brought to justice. To date, the regulator has been successful in securing uptake of these standards on a voluntary basis.
However, our discussions with the police, commercial forensic service providers and the regulator, taken alongside market developments and changes in legislation, have indicated there is a risk that voluntary quality standards might not, in the future, provide the high level of assurance required for forensic evidence. For that reason we now propose introducing stronger powers, including putting the regulator’s codes of practice, which set out the quality standards for forensic science providers, on a statutory basis. It would then be mandatory for every organisation carrying out forensic analysis for the criminal justice system, including commercial providers to the police and to defendants, and the police themselves, to meet these standards. There has been support from the regulator, many commercial providers and the Science and Technology Select Committee for these proposals. This consultation is an opportunity to seek wider views, before determining the most effective and proportionate regulation system for forensic science.
A copy of this consultation will be placed in the House Library and it will also available on the Home Office website: www.gov.uk.
The Government’s response to the Science and Technology Select Committee report on forensic science is also being published today 8 November. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
Written Parliamentary Questions (Correction)
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
The search parameters used to draw down historic information for three written answers given on 11 June 2013, Official Report, column 278W, on 14 May, Official Report, column 180W and on 18 July 2013, Official Report, column 900W to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) did not capture a series of data sets which should have been included.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked:
a) the Secretary of State for International Development, how much her Department currently spends on contracts with Capita; and how much was spent in each year since 2008.
The full answer is as follows:
The table below gives details of spending on contracts with Capita since 2008. Current year spending (as of 31 October 2013) is £764,349.
Year | |
|---|---|
2008-09 | £127,528 |
2009-10 | £1,321,234 |
2010-11 | £642,963 |
2011-12 | £3,396,178 |
2012-13 | £2,273,771 |
b) the Secretary of State for International Development, what the current level of expenditure by her Department is on contracts with G4S; and how much was spent by her Department on contracts with G4S in each year since 2008.
The full answer is as follows:
The table below gives details of expenditure on contracts with G4S since 2008. Current year spending (as of 31 October 2013) is £285,185.
Year | |
|---|---|
2008-09 | £233,144 |
2009-10 | £377,439 |
2010-11 | £398,943 |
2011-12 | £582,995 |
2012-13 | £480,750 |
c) the Secretary of State for International Development, how much her Department spent on contracts with (a) Deloitte, (b) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (c) KPMG and (d) Ernst and Young in each year since 2008.
The full answer is as follows:
Supplier | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deloitte | £3,361,372 | £5,002,133 | £5,143,026 | £5,288,518 | £4,075,911 |
PwC | £4,895,396 | £6,639,842 | £12,727,736 | £24,422,792 | £40,525,793 |
KPMG | £13,714,587 | £29,214,769 | £37,775,720 | £39,522,961 | £29,059,515 |
Ernst & Young | £301,324 | £447,577 | £331,884 | £2,940,179 | £3,041,053 |
This table shows the amount paid to the supplier. DFID systems cannot currently automatically break this down into how much is retained in fees and how much is spent on the project they are managing.
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This written ministerial statement confirms that the sponsorship role for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) and responsibility for contact services and activities will transfer from the Department for Education to the Ministry of Justice on 1 April 2014.
House of Lords
Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL]
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL], have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s statement, which means that I can now proceed.
Before I get into the substance of the Bill, noble Lords might be interested to hear that I found out recently that an ancestor of mine, the third Earl of Berkeley, who was later the First Lord of the Admiralty, was a leading member of something called the Kit-Cat Club. I do not know how many noble Lords know about the Kit-Cat Club but in the early 18th century it was one of those organisations—largely a Whig one—which were united in their belief in the authority of Parliament over the monarchy. One has to consider how much has changed.
This Bill proposes comparatively small changes to the relationship between the monarchy and Parliament, and perhaps starts the process of what I hope will be quite a long discussion over the coming years. There are three clauses in the Bill. The first one amends the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 in respect of royal travel. This is a serious issue because there is a question over how many royals and royal duties should receive taxpayer-funded travel, as well as the scrutiny that Parliament has over these arrangements. I have been following this for some years, as noble Lords will probably know, and have noted that Parliament gets less and less detail of how many journeys there are by air and rail and how much they cost.
I noted that Prince Andrew flew to Jeddah for a funeral, chartering his own aircraft at a cost of £86,000 to the public purse, when the return fare for two people, first class, would cost four grand. Is there an argument for having your own plane to go to a funeral when there is a scheduled direct flight? At the other extreme, Princess Anne does an awful lot of good for transport particularly, but I noted that she took a helicopter to visit two gymkhanas in one day. That is fine if you are horsy but is it really necessary that the taxpayer pay for it?
What worries me is that the arrangements seem to have become open-ended. They used to be confined to 12 members of the Royal Family, but I got a Written Answer on 3 September that said:
“It is for Her Majesty The Queen to decide which members of the Royal Family receive support from the Sovereign Grant to meet travel costs”.—[Official Report, 23/9/13; col. WA 441.]
However, there seems to be no proper independent scrutiny where taxpayers’ money is involved. That obsequiousness seems to affect many of the dealings between Parliament and the royal family, and needs to change.
Clause 1 suggests that the costs should be kept under control and scrutinised. Six members seems a good number. Many years ago, when the Queen was a princess, there were probably only six members of the family performing royal duties; should there be any more? Royal travel arrangements, if funded by the taxpayer, should be scrutinised by Parliament in the same way as Ministers’ travel.
Clause 2 addresses two issues. The first is comparatively minor. It seems reasonable that the heir to the Throne should inherit the title of the Duke of Cornwall, whatever their sex. We debated that when discussing the Succession to the Crown Act, and it seems perfectly reasonable.
Turning to the second half of the clause, as a resident of Cornwall, I hear a lot of views about the Duchy, some good, some bad, but there is an awful lot of correspondence. I see the second half of the clause as tidying up some history. I suggest that the present status and structure of the Duchy remains pretty feudal, and that it is intentionally so, as it seems to suit all those involved not to rock the boat and incur what one might call royal displeasure.
We start with a big debate about whether the Duchy is in the private or the public sector. There is secrecy, obfuscation, Crown immunity and a failure to respond to questions. It is worth going back a bit in history. The Duchy has been around for a very long time, but I discovered that the Duchy of Cornwall Act 1860 states:
“All the provisions of the said Act of the ninth year of King George the third now applicable to Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, shall be extended and be applicable to the Duke of Cornwall, in like manner as if the same were re-enacted and the Duke of Cornwall were throughout mentioned or referred to where the ‘Kings Majesty’ or ‘His Majesty’ is in the said Act mentioned”.
That means that the Duke of Cornwall is effectively in the position of King of Cornwall. We can debate whether that appeals to the people of Cornwall, but it is confirmed in a preliminary statement by the Duchy of Cornwall in a foreshore dispute in 1856. It suggests that the three Duchy charters are sufficient in themselves to vest in the Duke of Cornwall not only the government of Cornwall but the entire territorial dominion.
It is also interesting to note that, whereas the sheriffs of the counties of Britain swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign, the Sheriff of Cornwall swears an oath of allegiance to the Duke of Cornwall as sovereign of Cornwall. Those examples appear to provide strong confirmation that the Duchy is a public body and, as such, subject to environmental, housing and other laws. That was confirmed in a judgment concerning Port Navas on the Helford river on the question of whether the Duchy should be subject to environmental legislation. The Duchy lost the case, perhaps influenced by evidence from the Duchy which said that,
“the Duchy is not democratically accountable in any meaningful sense”.
The Duchy is appealing; that appeal is still pending, but it must be comforting for it to have the free advice of the Treasury Solicitor. The man who made the original complaint has to fund his own legal costs; we are funding the Duchy's costs.
There is an issue of tax. The Public Accounts Committee published a report last week which, I thought, was very deferential. I am sure that if I or any other noble Lord had been questioned by the Public Accounts Committee about not paying tax, we would not have received the response that, yes, there ought to be a bit more investigation by the Treasury. The Treasury responded even more deferentially. That was an opportunity lost to get things on a proper footing. Then there is the question of Crown immunity. The Duchy does not pay capital gains tax or corporation tax, and Duchy income is taxed on a voluntary basis. Would not we all like to be taxed on a voluntary basis?
The Duchy accounts state that, in accordance with the memorandum of understanding of 1993, the Prince of Wales pays rent on Highgrove, his house in Gloucestershire. There is no lease in place and, as I understand the evidence given by Sir Bertie Ross for the Duchy, the Prince is entitled to the income from the Duchy, so it would be a matter of the Prince taking money from one pocket and placing it in another, so he does not actually pay rent. He can claim tax relief on that proportion of the rent which relates to Highgrove being used for public purposes, so it appears that he is claiming tax relief in respect of rent which is paid in theory but not actually paid or which, having been paid, is returned to him. I hope that noble Lords can follow that.
On the issue of housing, Mr Alan Davis, who lives in the Isles of Scilly, wants the right to buy his leasehold property from the Duchy. He is challenging the Prince on his decision in the Prince’s Council to resist that because the Leasehold Reform Act does not apply to the Duchy because of Crown immunity. There is an awful lot of confusion and documents have been lost. Mr Davis’s case comes before the tribunal in Truro, so I shall not comment on it further. It seems wrong that people who live in houses leased from the Duchy cannot buy their own houses in the way that other people can because the Duchy claims that it wishes to manage the built and national environment. There is legislation to do that. The Leasehold Reform Act may not be perfect, but the exclusion of the Duchy from it is a matter of concern.
The next issue is the rents that the Duchy charges for its properties. According to Richard McCarthy, who is chair of the Duchy Tenants Association, average Duchy rents in 2011-12 were £130, whereas council rents averaged £70 and housing association rents averaged £100. The average household income on the Scillies is just £277 a week, compared with the national average of £390, so those rents are very hard for tenants in the Duchy to afford.
My last example is something called bona vacantia. It applies to people who die in Cornwall without a will. Their estate then goes to the Duchy. It is worth about £500,000 a year. I think that the people of Cornwall think that that money should be spent on good causes in Cornwall, but it appears from the Duchy accounts that it is distributed to Strata Florida in Wales, Gordonstoun School, which Prince Charles attended, and a Kennington residents’ association. Because the money came from Cornwall, there is a feeling that the funds should be distributed to good causes in Cornwall.
I have been able to give just a snapshot of the obfuscations, uncertainties and spurious claims by the Duchy of being in the private sector or in the public sector and having Crown immunity, which seems to vary on the time and the subject, all coupled with the secrecy from both the Duchy and, sad to say, the Government, whose obsequiousness sometimes seems more appropriate to a feudal era, when the Prime Minister would get his head chopped off if he did not do whatever the sovereign or the heir to the Throne wanted.
I have had lots of support from the people of Cornwall about this; many of them fear that they cannot speak out, and one can understand why. So my solution is to separate the Duchy estate from any historical link with the monarchy and turn it into a public trust for the benefit of the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There is over 600 years of history to unravel and that is not easy, so this would need secondary legislation and perhaps some primary as well, but the opportunity should be taken to clear up all the anomalies about the status of the Duke of Cornwall and his rights. In this context, my Bill would ensure that the Prince of Wales should no longer be King of Cornwall in the feudal sense. I think that he should retain his links with Cornwall as he does with Wales—but he does not own Wales. That is the purpose of that clause.
Clause 3 has rather been overtaken by events. It concerns the issue of consent from the Queen or the Prince of Wales before a Bill receives Royal Assent. The Minister kindly indicated the consent at the start of this debate. I do not need to go into this topic in any particular detail because, in evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on 31 October, the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament basically said that Parliament could change that; it would not need any legislation but if it wished to stop this, it could do it. To demonstrate why we need to change the current arrangements, I have a couple of examples of cases where approval was not signified for a Bill. The Clerks’ evidence is that this has happened twice. Although the legislation was not refused—this is a deferential way of “not saying no but meaning no”—two Private Member’s Bills were affected. One was the Second Reading of the Military Actions against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill on 16 April 1999, in which Tam Dalyell tried to require Parliament to give approval of declarations of war, which did not go ahead because the Prime Minister of the day almost certainly advised the Queen that it would not be a good idea to go ahead, perhaps because he might want to bomb Iraq without getting the approval of Parliament —we can debate that. The other was the Third Reading of the Pig Husbandry Bill on 3 May 1991. I do not know whether the Royal Family keep pigs in Windsor Castle, but why that did not go ahead I also do not know. All I can do is quote John Kirkhope, a public notary and chartered insurer who has given me a lot of help with this information:
“I am surprised Parliamentarians tolerate this situation which means, in effect, if you introduce a Bill to Parliament someone taps you on the shoulder and says you need the consent of the Duke of Cornwall because it may affect his private interests!”.
So I hope that when the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee reports it will be a lot more robust and less deferential, and will recommend the end of this feudal period.
In conclusion, there is much that needs doing, sorting out and cleaning up in many areas of the relationship between the monarch, the Prince of Wales and Parliament. I hope that the constitutional monarchy survives and prospers but at the moment the Prince of Wales in particular is put in an impossible position in seeking to do what he believes is best in a kind of feudal environment that started 600 years ago but in the 21st century is not appropriate. Change is necessary, but we have to get away from this deferential relationship of obfuscation and silence that is hampering the debate. I hope that the Bill, covering only a small part of that relationship, will start an open debate and eventually some very necessary change. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I suppose you could call that a Duchy original. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is a very genial man outside this Chamber, but I have to say this morning he reminded me of that wonderful character from ITMA, Mona Lott, in that it is being so cheerful as keeps him going. What we have had this morning is an extraordinary series of disconnected accusations and observations. He referred to Clause 3 of his Bill and said that legislation was not needed. I would say that legislation was not needed on this particular subject, full stop. While I yield to no one in my admiration for the noble Lord and recognise that he is the last person that anyone would dare to call obsequious, nevertheless I think that today he has got it wrong.
The noble Lord has a reputation for being a fine engineer. I am sure that he is. As a fine engineer, though, he knows that precision is very important. He knows that if you are called out to repair something, you do not go along to repair modern machinery with a bag of wooden tools. That is in fact what he has been doing today.
I would just make a few points to your Lordships in opposing the Bill, which I am delighted to do. Yesterday we were debating Magna Carta and the importance of the rule of law. Earlier, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth had an interesting debate in the Moses Room on commencement orders, to which my noble friend Lord Gardiner, sitting on the Front Bench, gave a most excellent reply. The theme of that debate was that legislation must be demonstrated to be necessary and designed to solve a specific problem or provide a proper remedy, and then it must be properly enforced. One of the underlying themes of that debate, particularly emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, was that pre-legislative scrutiny was really a necessary precondition wherever possible—one accepts terrorism legislation sometimes, and things like that—for all legislation. If ever there was a need for pre-legislative scrutiny, it is here.
I do not believe that legislation is necessary, and I certainly do not think it should be embarked upon without the most careful examination. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that what we should be doing is referring some of the matters that give him concern to the Constitution Committee of this House and there should be a proper, thorough and objective examination. Merely to base one’s case on a number of isolated examples, as happened towards the end of the noble Lord’s speech, is no way to proceed to legislation in this House, particularly on a very sensitive matter.
I refer again to the noble Lord’s career as an engineer—a very illustrious and successful one. He knows as an engineer that a delicate mechanism can be thrown completely out of gear by the removal of one apparently insignificant part. One often finds this quoted particularly in the case of clocks and watches. If there was ever anything that was delicate and needed the most careful handling, it is our British constitution. It is not a written constitution. Some may wish that we had one, as some did in last night’s debate, but we do not. We therefore have to look very carefully at what we are doing when we come to constitutional reform.
This Bill is, in a sense, the son of the Succession to the Crown Bill, because during the passage of that Bill the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, moved amendments, referred to his concerns about the Duchy of Cornwall and advised the House that, at some stage in the future, he would seek to introduce legislation. On 14 May, he was as good as his word when he produced a Bill which had its First Reading on that day.
Many of us were concerned about the Succession to the Crown Bill because we believed it had not been sufficiently thought through. There were implications for the Church of England—the established church—which concerned the Bench of Bishops. Indeed, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who had charge of that Bill in this House and handled it with great skill and sensitivity, was at pains to ensure that, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, certain correspondence with the Roman Catholic church was published.
Those of us who felt that that Bill had perhaps been a little rushed were not against the essential principle about the succession of a woman—of course not—but we were concerned about some of the implications. It was suggested that because the Duchess of Cambridge was with child, it would be as well to get this Bill through quickly. Of course, the child arrived, the child was a boy, there was great rejoicing, and the sense of urgency—if ever there was one—disappeared, so there is no urgency about this. That underlines the point I made a few moments ago, that if these subjects are to be looked at, they need to be looked at carefully and deliberately, and if there is to be legislation of any sort, it needs the most careful pre-legislative scrutiny. The whole issue would benefit very much from the considered observations of the Constitution Committee of this House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I have been thinking about my noble friend’s watch analogy. Does he not think there is something of an irony about a hereditary Peer given a life peerage attending a House which is not subject to democratic accountability and in which we are given tax-free allowances complaining about tax privileges and a lack of accountability?
Lord Cormack
My noble friend Lord Forsyth, not for the first time, puts his finger on a number of interesting issues upon which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, might reflect. When he is contemplating the illustrious past of his family, and its contribution to the Kit-Cat Club, the portraits of whose members hang in Brooks’s Club to this day, he might just wonder whether, in fact, he has not been guilty of a little inconsistency.
There is one part of the Bill that I find particularly niggardly. It is the part dealing with travel. The noble Lord wants to restrict those who can have official travel to six members. He bases this on the fact that the Succession to the Crown Bill specifically mentions the six next in line who have to seek the permission of the sovereign to marry. We had debates on this and amendments were moved, including, if I recall correctly, by my noble friend Lord Lang, to extend the number to 12, but the Bill went through with six in it. However, there is no analogy. One has to realise that there are many members of the Royal Family who give unstinting public service and whose presence at public events is greatly welcomed. I do not want to be invidious and give a long list, but I single out particularly the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. The Duke of Gloucester is punctilious in fulfilling a range of engagements. I have attended a number of engagements which he has attended. The pleasure that he gives by going and the interest that he takes in the people he meets are of enormous value and worth. I believe that it would be niggardly in the extreme to say that only six members of the Royal Family should be allowed to travel to fulfil their official duties at the taxpayer’s expense.
In his concluding remarks, the noble Lord referred with what seemed a less than enthusiastic endorsement to constitutional monarchy. I believe very passionately in our constitutional monarchy. For well over 60 years now, Her Majesty the Queen has served this country absolutely impeccably. I believe that we are all enormously in her debt and that of members of the Royal Family, and I do not believe that now is the time to be nitpicking about the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy of Cornwall goes back 600 years. That, in itself, may be a reason to say we should have a look at things, but it is no reason to embark with a rather blunt instrument on an attack on an institution that has served us very well.
It is good to have debate in this House, and it is important that when issues such as this are raised, there is an opportunity to comment on them from both sides of the argument. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has this morning made a case for this legislation. I believe it would be hasty and ill considered and that, if we are to look at these subjects, they need to be looked at in detail and in depth, dispassionately, objectively and carefully. All those qualities can be brought to bear by your Lordships’ House. They should be brought to bear. There should be no question of letting this Bill proceed anywhere near the statute book. I am confident that it will not.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am very proud to be a resident of Cornwall. I represented Cornwall, together with the Isles of Scilly—which are mainly a Duchy possession and are very proud to be separate from Cornwall—in the European Parliament and was a member of the unitary authority for Cornwall when it was first established in 2009.
What has come over from the speeches from noble Lords so far is an argument about the position of royalty and the monarchy, and all that rather contentious area. I am sure that that was intended by both noble Lords. I rather support the Bill because it covers a number of very sensible issues in a very short way. I do not necessarily agree with all of it, but there are certain areas where changes make an awful lot of sense. Such changes would, ironically, probably strengthen the monarchy in the way that it operates in the future. I shall very briefly look at a couple of points that are brought up in the Bill.
The first is consent. I was interested to read the excellent briefing put together by the House authorities. I had never realised that it is a convention that both Houses of Parliament consult the monarch or the Duke of Cornwall on legislation that would affect their interests. I find that quite strange. I was pleased to see that the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons made clear that there is no need for legislation, as this could be changed by resolution of both Houses. Having said that, I think it is a good issue to bring up. It is strange, and most people would find it quite at odds with the way that a sovereign Parliament would be expected to act. The issue is well worth pursuing, and I would be very much in favour of removing the requirement of consent. It seems to unnecessarily put a question about the way that the sovereign or the Duke of Cornwall acts before legislation comes before Parliament. I would have thought that it would be useful to everybody if that process no longer happened.
In terms of who the title of Duke of Cornwall can pass to, Parliament has decided that the royal succession should now be gender-neutral, and it is obvious to me that that principle should be applied to the Duchy of Cornwall. It seems to be a complete anomaly. I understand absolutely why the Government did not include that in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, because they needed to keep that Bill as narrow as they could to meet the needs of other Commonwealth nations that have the Queen as head of state. However, I see absolutely no reason why we should not move forward on that. In fact, that would be extremely positive.
The future of the Duchy of Cornwall estate is perhaps far more contentious. As it is currently, it does not sit comfortably. Particularly in the Isles of Scilly, there is the practical issue of residents feeling that they are in quite a difficult position in terms of how the Duchy operates, the agent and all the issues which affect the lives of the islands’ citizens and families. I am not sure that it is as comfortable or correct as it should be. In a constitutional monarchy, it makes sense that the heir to the Throne and the sovereign should have similar or identical budgetary and financial procedures. I do not see why we should have a separate Duchy of Cornwall estate any longer. Having said that, I am absolutely sure, knowing Cornwall very well indeed, that even if the estate went into a public trust, that would not send away all the arguments about it and about how the money should be used. Would it stop my honourable friends in the other place, including my own MP, from receiving letters about how this money is used and assets are distributed, disposed of or developed? I am absolutely sure that it would not. It would certainly not be a silver bullet. However, it would be an improvement. These areas all deserve further investigation. They are sensible suggestions and would in fact strengthen the constitutional monarchy in this country, which is perhaps ironic for the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
One thing I will say, from my experience in Cornwall, in business and as an elected politician, is that the Prince’s Trust, which I have worked with a number of times, has been absolutely excellent. The work that it undertakes is extremely good, in terms of helping younger people enter business and make a much greater contribution to society. Those programmes have been excellent and most successful. The issues in the Bill need looking at, although how important they are is perhaps another matter. I suspect that the Bill will not take up a huge amount of the House’s time between now and the next election. The issues are important in principle.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, we owe my noble friend Lord Berkeley a vote of thanks for raising an issue of this nature. It has not been an easy debate for him to launch, but he has struggled on with it. As he said, he has been following these issues for some years. The note from the Library which came around earlier certainly exemplifies that, with the number of questions that he has been asking and the detail that he has been trying to dig out.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, obviously takes a different view and did so in his very interesting style. As somebody on these Benches said to me, it was a speech that could have been made at any time in the past 400 years. There is credit in that; it is a compliment, not necessarily an attack. He referred to yesterday’s debate on Magna Carta, which was extremely interesting because, among the issue that we talked about—how Parliament would celebrate Magna Carta in June 2015—there was a current about the constitutional issues.
There is no doubt that Magna Carta in its original form and various manifestations since then—something like 14 different charters were issued until it died out in the mid-15th century—was and is a particularly important document for the way we organise and run our society. Is it a constitutional document? Almost certainly, and two clauses in it are still extant in our laws. However, the point is that we do not really understand where our constitutional documents lie. People often ask for a written constitution. As I said yesterday, that is a mistake: most of the constitutional arrangements are written down, but the difficulty is that they are not brought together in a codified form. Even if that were to happen, as I strongly believe it should, difficulties would remain with the royal prerogative and other areas of our constitution which are not as well exposed as they could be.
That is my point about this Bill. My noble friend Lord Berkeley makes a number of specific proposals, but the general point is about trying to throw a light on activities which affect individuals up and down the country, but particularly in Cornwall. That plays to a larger concern about the extent to which those areas of our constitutional arrangements which are not as well scrutinised as they might be can sometimes affect particular aspects of the process of government in which we are all involved. It may well be that pig husbandry is not the most important issue. However, this is probably not the only Bill—there was another one—in respect of which thought was given to whether, if put forward in its present form, it might need to be changed later. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is pointing up, in this section of the Bill, the hidden areas of activity which make up the law-making and governing of our country.
Other parts of the Bill will apply in other ways to different areas. However, it seems to me and these Benches that we should not miss the chance to have a good look at some of these areas and the specifics that my noble friend has raised in his Bill. We should be concerned about whether or not this is the right way of proceeding with this sort of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is right to say that all legislation would be better if it were subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I wish his party could put more effort into that—I am thinking in particular of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which is a classic. The noble Lord nods well, but I wish that he would join us in discussion sometimes. I look forward to seeing him on those Benches on Monday when we will talk about Part 3, which was subject to no consultation whatever before being introduced. Is this the way to govern a country? No, it is not.
We accept pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill has not been subject to that, although it is hard to see how it could be, given that it is a Private Member’s Bill. To the extent that it could be discussed, we wish it well.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is the second of two Private Members’ Bills we have had in this Session which attempt to “tidy up”, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, our history. I have mixed views on this. The noble Lord himself holds a feudal title which is old enough to descend along the female line. As a liberal, in many ways, I am thoroughly in favour of a rational and written constitution. I think I am right in saying that the Act of 1863, one of the first of the modern Acts which regulate the Duchy of Cornwall, was passed under a Liberal Government at the same time that that Government proposed for the first time that the Law Lords should be separated from the House of Lords—something which took only 160 years to carry to its conclusion.
The Duchy goes back nearly 700 years. I have a sense from debates on Lords reform that there is not an enormous appetite in the Chamber for rationalising our constitution. I have myself come up against some interesting historical anomalies. Many years ago, when I was first in this House, I asked some questions about the Crown dependencies. The chief executive of Jersey came to see me the following week and started by saying very vigorously, “I hope you understand that we were promised in 1204 that the Channel Islands would be a low-tax jurisdiction”. Some while later I asked to see the charter which had promised that and was told that it has been lost in the late 13th century. If one starts trying to rationalise the constitution, a number of issues come into play.
I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said about the good work of the Duchy of Cornwall—the Prince’s Trust. There was a remarkably positive article in the Financial Times last weekend about Poundbury and how, in spite of all its critics, it is a working local community with a great deal to offer, particularly in environmental terms, as a place for people to work as well as live.
The Bill has three separate parts. The first proposes restrictions on the use of the sovereign grant for travel. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a number of pointed criticisms of current members of the Royal Family, which in some ways we should as a House regret as they got relatively personal. Her Majesty the Queen asks a number of members of her family to stand in on her behalf as engagements demand and some of these, as has been said, are members of the Royal Family who are lower than sixth in the line of succession. The Royal Family carries out a large number of public duties and the sovereign is well placed to assess who can best take her place at functions—particularly as she still carries out a great many duties but obviously not as many as she was able to do some 20 or 30 years ago.
The second part proposes amendments to the Duchy of Cornwall estate. The Duchy of Cornwall is an interesting anomaly. It is a private estate that funds the public, charitable and private activities of the Prince of Wales and his family but, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has commented, it is nevertheless governed by a number of Acts passed in the past 150 years, the combined effect of which has been to place the Duchy’s assets in trust for the benefit of the present and future Dukes of Cornwall and to govern the use of the assets. Many of the assets are in Cornwall but quite a large number of them are outside Cornwall. Mention was made in this debate of the Kennington estate.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall is entitled to the annual net income of the Duchy. He is not entitled to the proceeds or profits from the sales of the Duchy’s capital assets, which are retained in the Duchy to provide income for the Duke and future beneficiaries. Since it was established in the early 14th century, the Duchy’s main purpose has been to fund an income independent of the monarch for the heir apparent. The current Prince of Wales chooses to use a substantial proportion of his income from the Duchy to meet the costs of his public and charitable work. At present the Duchy funds the public and private lives of four members of the Royal Family—the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, Prince William and Prince Harry. The Bill’s proposal to place the assets of the Duchy of Cornwall in public trust is an unacceptable encroachment on private property rights as currently established. If the Duchy were to be taken away from the heir apparent, it would still be necessary to fund their activities through the sovereign grant.
The next part touches on succession to the Duchy of Cornwall and this overlaps with the previous Bill we were discussing on the succession to the Crown. I have some sympathy with the anomalies at stake and the peculiarity of this charter. There are many peculiarities in succession. I was talking to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, yesterday about the succession to her Earldom and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, himself benefits from a particular sort of succession. Rationalising all of these may be part of what we need to do in the 21st century and I recognise that, when it comes to the Royal Family, this is a particularly interesting issue to attack. However, if we look back at recent history there have been long stretches when there has been no Duke of Cornwall and the Duchy has continued to manage its affairs well. There is nothing to stop a female heir having an active role in the running of the Duchy should the sovereign so wish. I can also reassure the House that a female heir apparent will not find herself at a financial disadvantage because the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 broadly ensures that financial provision equivalent to the income from the Duchy is made for the heir apparent.
Then we come to the removal of the Queen’s and Prince’s consent—a rationalisation of one of the ancient practices of the two Houses of Parliament. It is a long-standing parliamentary requirement that the consent of the Queen and the Prince of Wales should be given for certain Bills. The parliamentary authorities decide which Bills require that consent, not the Government. Signifying the consent of the Queen and the Prince of Wales for certain legislation is a parliamentary requirement and the Government will continue to do that for as long as Parliament requires it. The Government’s role is to ensure that consent is sought for government and Private Members’ Bills when it is required by Parliament. This requirement reflects the unique relationship between the sovereign and the legislature which is rooted in the historical royal prerogative and provides for a formal parliamentary process by which the sovereign can be informed of, and consulted on, legislation which affects the sovereign’s prerogative and interests. The Government will generally seek consent for Private Members’ Bills even when they oppose the Bill on the basis that Parliament should not be prevented from debating a matter on account of consent not having been obtained.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been a very interesting debate and, unsurprisingly, not everyone has agreed with each other or with my Bill. I am not going to respond in detail to all the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but he said that pre-legislative scrutiny for something like this was essential, which is not very different from my purpose in moving the Bill. We need to have a discussion. We can decide how it is done but we certainly need to debate it further. I have looked into the Duchy of Cornwall in a bit of detail and there is no way that a Private Member’s Bill could ever seek to change what is there because of all the historical issues that have been discussed today and probably many more. My purpose was to start a debate on it and I think we have had a good debate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his support. He said that if the Duchy was converted into a public trust it would not stop the debate. He is absolutely right. It would continue between all his different Members of Parliament in Cornwall, but at least there would be a public debate, which is one of the most important things.
It was not my intention to say that we should not do anything until we have a written constitution. It gives the impression of opening a can of worms almost and that is always a danger in doing something like this. Something could probably be done about the Duchy and some of the other issues if there was a will to have further discussion, which could happen rather more quickly.
Finally, the Minister said that the Duchy was a private estate. From the information I have, this has never been debated and it has never been tested in court and I do not think there is any legislation to say whether it is. I think that probably needs to be reviewed because out of it—I tried to give a few examples—come a number of anomalies that need sorting out. We have had a very useful debate which I wish to continue.
Health and Social Care (Amendment) (Food Standards) Bill [HL]
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests, which are in the register. I am the executive director of two companies, Cumberlege Connections Ltd and Cumberlege Eden & Partners Ltd. I thank noble Lords who are taking part in this debate, in particular my noble friend the Minister, who I know is sympathetic to the cause. I hope that I will not be too disappointed. He may be interested to know that many other noble Lords very much wanted to take part in this debate. However, Friday is a difficult day for your Lordships as we are a voluntary Chamber, and many noble Lords have commitments that they fulfil on Friday when the House does not usually sit.
I thank the hospitals I visited, which generously, and perhaps with some courage, allowed me to see and taste the hospital food and to talk to patients. On the whole, I was disappointed. When the food is frozen and has to travel from Wales to hospitals in England and is then reconstructed by steam, is it surprising that fish and chips are soggy and that other food is not quite what you anticipate it will be? Finally, I thank the excellent briefings I have had from the Campaign for Better Hospital Food, whose supporters exceed 5,000 individuals and many other organisations.
At the age of eight I was sent to boarding school, and the most precious item in my trunk was my ration book. School food in post-war Britain was not good. Fish on Fridays was no surprise, because you could smell it at 10 in the morning. Jam was either red or yellow, and made with mangels, and resurrection pudding lived up to its name. After decades of prosperity, however, British food has now changed enormously and beyond all recognition. For instance, whatever happened to gravy? Gravy now masquerades as jus, and leek and potato soup is now vichyssoise.
Virginia Woolf said,
“One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well”.
When in hospital we do not expect to dine well, but expect to have delicious, appetising and nutritious food—food that aids recovery. In the past 20 years successive Governments have spent more than £50 million of taxpayers’ money issuing guidance to hospitals about how to improve patient meals. When I was a junior Minister I was one of those who tried. I was responsible for food—that was before the Food Standards Agency was established—and introduced the nutrition task force, which in turn set up a hospital catering project team that produced nutrition guidelines for hospital food. Those were launched by the celebrity chef Albert Roux. In the foreword he wrote:
“Food should be regarded as an integral part of hospital service and treatment … Food provides us with the nutrients essential to our existence and general health … In providing comfort, food can also help to make patients feel more at home, reduce stress, and actively contribute to an ambience that can enhance the quality of medical treatment”.
Despite my efforts and those of successive Governments, in many hospitals the food is unappetising, non-nutritious and does nothing to aid recovery. Six out of 10 patients say that they rely on family and friends to bring them food because the food is of such poor quality, and sometimes barely edible. At many hospitals patient meals are viewed as a bureaucratic necessity and not as an integral part of care. Hospital life is boring. When in hospital, patients want three things. They want to go home, they want visitors and they want good nourishing food, because it is food which punctuates the day. That should be something to look forward to, but many patients dread it. The Francis inquiry into Mid-Staffordshire was deeply concerned about the attitude by staff towards meals, mealtimes, nutrition and dehydration. The witnesses’ comments are heartbreaking. I could quote many but will quote only one:
“On examining the food and fluid intake chart, mum had only had half a cup of tea over the last 20 plus hours. Some days nothing was marked as being taken, today there were three cups of fluid on the table, all of which were full. She couldn’t have drunk them if she tried because all three of the cups were placed way outside her reach”.
I do not underestimate how difficult it is to serve meals to large numbers of sick people three times a day. People who choose a meal one day are discharged the next, so that an incoming patient is welcomed by a meal they may detest. Some people may have uncompromising diets or have an appetite which changes from day to day due to the medication they receive. Hospital food is complicated, but there are hospitals where they really think through these issues, have a love of food and organise it well—while in similar hospitals in the same city, of the same size, almost in the same catchment area, the food is simply appalling. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me, and I know that the majority of people in this country find it unacceptable for hospital food to be unhealthy. However, much of the food served to patients is of a poor nutritional standard.
In 2012, a nutritional analysis of commonly served hospital meals showed that they often contain more saturated fat and salt than meals served at fast-food restaurants, including McDonald’s and Burger King. Hospital food which is high in fat, sugar and salt, is not helping to nourish patients, and much of it is wasted. Government figures suggest that as many as 50,000 people a year could be dying with malnutrition in NHS hospitals in England, and at least one in every 10 meals is thrown into the bin uneaten.
The British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition estimates that three out of four patients are not eating enough during their hospital stay, and that the majority of them lose weight while in hospital. This problem is particularly rife among elderly patients. Only today, the Campaign for Better Hospital Food published new data showing that hospitals in England spend more on nutritional supplements for patients than on the meals served to them during their stay. While of course I recognise that nutritional supplements are vital in the cases of some patients, should they have become the routine prescription given to patients who are unwilling to eat hospital meals, or failing to gain nourishment from them? Patients should be nourished with enjoyable food rather than by nutrient and vitamin pills administered as medicine.
We look forward to hearing later in this debate from my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Dormer, who has expertise in this area and chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Food and Health Forum, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, the previous chairman, and other noble Lords who have experience or knowledge of this issue. I suspect that my noble friend might be tempted to address in his reply the subject of foundation trusts in the context of mandatory standards for hospital food, which is the purpose of this Bill. Both Scotland and Wales now benefit from mandatory standards for hospital food.
The Government have given hospital trusts greater control over how they manage and care for patients and have given them the opportunity to influence the shape and direction of the NHS. That is absolutely right, and I strongly support it. However, it is no less important to have a safety net to ensure that the NHS does not fall below acceptable levels and that standards of care are regularly monitored and enforced. Standards are not goals; they do not restrict a hospital’s freedom. They provide basic levels of assurance for organisations commissioned to provide healthcare. So we are not setting a precedent; there is an abundance of standards already in place in the NHS, which reflects the important role that they play, including employment standards; care standards for patients with specific ailments, such as diabetes; and standards for financial auditing, to name but a few. Standards for hospital food should be no exception.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to appoint a body of experts to draft hospital food standards and make it mandatory for all patient meals to meet those standards. The Care Quality Commission and the Chief Inspector of Hospitals will be required to check that the standards have been adopted and are met. If they are not, it gives the CQC power to act, ultimately by withdrawing a hospital’s registration. The CQC is working hard to increase the regularity and effectiveness of its monitoring exercises, and is ensuring that patients participate in them. The CQC already evaluates patient satisfaction with meals, so this Bill would require only that monitoring is carried out to assess adherence to more specific standards. This solution does not in any way necessitate burdensome regulation, and does not require the Government to take greater administrative control over the provision of hospital meals. In fact, patients themselves are likely to take a leading role in monitoring hospital food, as more and more of them sign up to join inspection teams, as encouraged by the Care Quality Commission’s new Chief Inspector of Hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards.
Finally, I address the issue of cost. At the moment, taxpayers are being doubly charged for poor hospital food. Not only are they paying for the cost of patient meals but they are funding the associated costs that bad hospital food incurs, such as food waste, malnutrition and longer recovery times. I frequently hear people say that good hospital food is expensive and costs too much for hospitals to afford, but the facts do not bear this out. It has been shown that there is no correlation between the cost of patient food and its popularity with patients. Many of those hospitals serving the best food, produced and prepared to very high standards, are actually paying less for it than are hospitals where patients are dissatisfied with what they are being served and where food is wasted. For example, according to data from NHS Estates, Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust spent an average of £13.59 on food for each patient per day in 2012, yet less than half of patients at the hospital surveyed by the Care Quality Commission rated the food as good. In contrast, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London spent £5 on food for each patient per day in the same period, and more than seven out of 10 patients surveyed by the Care Quality Commission described the food as good. So those public sector organisations that have set standards for their food have done so without incurring extra cost.
In 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs carried out an extensive evaluation of the costs of introducing government buying standards for food served in central government, including prisons and government departments. The standards mandate was that organisations buy more organic food, more fresh fruit and vegetables, and sustainable fish. The evaluation concluded that the organisations would not pay more—and, indeed, they do not now pay more—for higher quality food. If patient meals contain high-quality ingredients and are cooked by highly skilled caterers, they are more popular with patients, more likely to be eaten and therefore less likely to be wasted.
In conclusion, this Bill has widespread support from the public and from 97 national organisations, including Age UK, the British Heart Foundation, the Hospital Caterers Association, the Royal College of Physicians and thousands of members of the public. I contend that hospital food standards must be made mandatory if all patient meals are to be of a sufficient high quality, are to be nutritious and made to minimum standards of production.
This is a modest but sensible Bill with widespread support, and I urge my fellow Peers, as well as my noble friend as the Minister responsible on behalf of the Government, to support it. I look forward to my noble friend’s sympathetic response. I beg to move.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on claiming this spot in a very busy parliamentary calendar to raise a subject that is very important to so many people. Her work in and knowledge of the National Health Service, its triumphs and drawbacks, make her the perfect person to raise the issue of hospital food. I am not an expert in this area, but I have over recent years been a patient.
People are taken into hospital at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives. They become patients in a second, and face the illness itself, the shock of hospitalisation, disorientation and the feeling of being alone to face sudden and apparently insurmountable problems. For many of us, it is a traumatic and frightening experience, even for those of us who are usually confident and sure of what we are about and how to react to what is happening around us. At such a time, we need comfort; food should be part of that comfort and something to look forward to—but, alas, too often it is not.
I am pleased to say that I have not spent much time in my life in hospital. I had been reasonably lucky with my health over the years until about three years ago, when I was diagnosed with leukaemia. For the first period of my illness, I had to remain in hospital in a room set aside from the main ward, because I was very vulnerable to germs and needed a sterile environment. The medical care that I received was second to none; I am still receiving it, and it is wonderful. The problem arose when I was confronted with what I can describe only as “food from hell”. I did not expect cordon bleu cookery, but I expected to eat nutritional food and some thought being given to which foods patients may fancy—especially as medicines can affect appetite and change taste buds.
The food in my hospital was brought in each day by the catering company employed and reheated on the premises. It looked, smelled and tasted awful. There was a choice of food, but not an appetising one. The soup was more water than soup powder; the main courses bore little resemblance to what they were supposed to be; and the sweets were just that—sickly sweet beyond belief. On one occasion, the Irish stew, as it was described, was so awful that, had I been Irish, I would have been tempted to sue the hospital on the grounds of the insult to the Irish nation. When I first went into hospital, there was a choice of cheese and biscuits, but it was quickly removed on the grounds of cost. There was no fresh fruit offered, and the vegetables were cooked to a uniform standard of what I can describe only as grey mush.
Since 1992, successive Governments have introduced more than 20 initiatives, which have all failed to improve hospital food in England, costing the taxpayer more than £54 million. Such initiatives have relied on hospitals to adopt voluntary food standards rather than such standards being mandatory. The result is that one in every 10 meals served to patients is returned to the kitchen uneaten. A BBC programme in 2008 that investigated the unhealthy state of hospital food revealed that £1 million worth of food each year is wasted.
Among eminent people who have attempted to improve hospital food have been Simon Rimmer, who sought to revamp food in Liverpool hospitals, and Jamie Oliver, the latter stating that the failure to provide the nutrients that could help the healing process seemed completely crazy to him. It does to me also.
The Soil Association has drawn public attention to the sorry state of hospital food, saying it was more likely to contribute to a disease service than a health service. This is a cause for national concern and yet it need not be so. This was proved when James Martin, a well known and respected TV chef, recorded a programme about Scarborough General Hospital, where he undertook to improve the food in both nutritional value and presentation. He first won over a very sceptical workforce in the hospital kitchens. He then explained and taught about nutritional requirements for vulnerable patients and, finally, produced menus that were practical and popular.
This Bill is not asking for the moon. Most food served in our public sector institutions has to meet mandatory standards, including that served in hospitals in Scotland and Wales. All the Bill asks for is the same standards in our English hospitals, together with a body of experts to specify hospital food standards, and the CQC to ensure compliance with those standards. I hope that the Minister agrees with that.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege not only for her excellent presentation of the Bill, but for all the work that she has done in preparing for today’s debate and in pursuing this matter over the years.
I also pay tribute to the Sustain organisation, which plays an important part in the Campaign for Better Hospital Food and has provided us with a lot of information and briefings. That organisation deals with every aspect of food from growing and procurement to sourcing local food. The campaign to make us healthier and keep us healthy through eating healthier food is one element of what that body does.
Amid all the gloom about the failure of voluntary initiatives in this area over decades, there are a few shining examples of good practice. I first came across one of them when I was a Somerset county councillor and the council was looking at food procurement. The Royal Cornwall Hospital took a very different approach by procuring its food locally, thereby ensuring that it was fresh and that it contributed to the local economy. It also commissioned a completely different approach to hospital kitchens by putting catering staff at the heart of making people better. As a result, the hospital’s food became much more appetising and the amount of waste went down. Food waste is still a tremendous issue. I think that that hub now supplies three other hospitals in Cornwall. It is an amazing example of what can be done when the will is there and the leadership of the hospital makes that effort. However, voluntary initiatives are not always sufficient, given that the Royal Cornwall Hospital initiative was introduced back in the early years of this century and if other hospitals had wanted to follow that example they would have done so by now. That is why I think the Bill is very important because unless we have mandatory standards nothing will happen. The Campaign for Better Hospital Food summarised the history of the past two decades as one in which every year a high-profile initiative is introduced by either a Minister or a celebrity chef, but one, two or three years later it bites the dust.
The people to whom I have spoken about the Bill have found it jaw dropping that there are no mandatory standards for hospital food. They find that incredible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned, I have the privilege of chairing the Food and Health Forum. Back in January 2012, we listened to presentations on this subject and I was struck by two points in particular. One of the presentations was given by members of the Royal College of Nursing, who forcefully made the point that hospital food contains too many harmful elements—salt, sugar and saturated fat have been mentioned in the debate—and far too few of the elements that provide good nutrition. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, mentioned the lack of fresh fruit. We listened to another presentation from the charity Heart of Mersey, which seeks to combat heart disease. That charity has campaigned very hard to improve hospital food because diet is very much implicated in hospital admissions for people with heart disease. How on earth are they meant to get better if hospital food exacerbates their health problems?
Clause 3(b) of the Bill is very important. The Government may say that it is too onerous to impose requirements relating to good procurement and other issues. However, the clause asks only that account is taken of the food chain, animal welfare, fair trade and food waste. Those are all very important elements. The example of good practice I cited at the Royal Cornwall Hospital proves that these issues can be addressed.
The status of catering staff is a key issue. All too often they are seen as being at the bottom of the food chain, if noble Lords will excuse the pun. However, they play a key role in ensuring that patients recover. When I was talking to my husband about this debate, he reminded me that he is one of the closest living relatives of Florence Nightingale. She ensured that one of the key elements in her nursing regime was to give soldiers hot food every day instead of the old, putrid food they had received hitherto. That was a key element in improving the mortality rate in the relevant hospitals.
This small, modest Bill is absolutely key in this area. I hope that the Minister will welcome it as the efforts of medical staff are often undermined by the poor hospital food being given to their patients.
Lord Rea (Lab)
My Lords, not only the Members of your Lordships’ House but the whole country should be grateful to the noble Baroness for securing this debate.
For too long the topic of hospital food has been a running sore. It has a reputation for being of poor quality and indifferently served, as borne out so clearly by my noble friend Lady Gibson. Often too little help is given to those who have difficulty feeding themselves. This is not to say that nothing has been done about it. As all the previous speakers have said, a large number of initiatives have been launched over the years at considerable cost but with, by and large, disappointing results. Governments of both political persuasions have launched initiatives and guidelines but these have all been on a voluntary basis with no sanctions for non-compliance. Although there have been a number of successes where good standards have been reached, as has been mentioned, many more remain far from satisfactory. Many of us are grateful for the briefing provided by Alex Jackson of Sustain, co-ordinator of the Campaign for Better Hospital Food, which has been referred to. He has drawn up details of no fewer than 21 voluntary initiatives since 1992 which have come to nothing after initial fanfare, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said.
At least four celebrity chefs have been called in to advise the Department of Health. Sadly, their hard work has not had a lasting effect. Albert Roux, for example—to continue the quotation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—said:
“If we have learned anything from the last 20 years it is that meetings, speeches and gimmicks do not work—what we need now is change to the whole hospital food system, starting with the introduction of food standards for every patient meal”.
This lack of progress is shameful when the results of a number of studies demonstrate that good nutrition has a beneficial effect on patients, thereby speeding recovery from infections and other diseases as well as from surgery.
Good, enjoyable food, as has been pointed out, boosts morale, which in itself has healing qualities. A surprisingly high proportion of NHS in-patients have some signs of malnutrition—around 40% by several estimates; an amazingly high number—which delays recovery and lengthens hospital admissions. There is evidence that this has improved little over the years. Good nutrition is likely to save the NHS a lot of money. A recent international study published in the Lancet has shown that faulty or inadequate nutrition plays a part in 40% of deaths world wide. That applies not only to the developing world but to our main problem—chronic, non-communicable disease, which is also very much diet-related.
Another important possible benefit from good nutrition in hospital is that it could act as an example of good practice, or a beacon—an overused word—demonstrating the principles and practice of providing a nutritionally sound diet. In other words, good nutrition could play an educational role in helping patients and their carers to improve their diet after they are discharged. This would be an appropriate task for any institution looking after the nation’s health.
Of course, providing for large numbers of patients in an average-sized hospital on a limited budget is not easy; the logistics of the operation can be formidable. Quality tends to be inversely proportional to the size of the hospital. However, there are examples of good systems in large units that work. Earlier this year I spent a week in UCLH having a knee-joint replacement, and it was clear that thought had been applied to the catering on offer. For one thing there was a choice of menu, although you had to decide on this a day in advance. The food was unexciting and rather too substantial for my post-operative appetite, but was of fairly good quality, courteously served and adequately hot, having been reheated on the ward. A healthcare assistant was on hand to help those with a problem feeding themselves. I am not too sure of the food’s nutritional credentials, however. I found that the halal choice was the most attractively presented and tasty, though a bit too spicy for a westerner. But the experience of friends and relatives in NHS hospitals has not been so good, as my noble friend Lady Gibson most graphically pointed out.
The ward kitchen has an important role. While it is mostly not used for the actual preparation of meals, it is important in their presentation to patients. Its role could perhaps be expanded to include the preparation of simple meals such as a boiled egg or piece of toast for those unable to eat the main meal provided. Perhaps ambulant patient should be able to use the kitchen, when convenient, with the help of their visitors, relatives and friends. They could make a cup of tea, for instance, when they felt like having one.
Sadly, poor nutritional standards are still to be found in some hospital food, as has been graphically pointed out. Recently, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned, one hospital meal was found to have a higher fat and salt content than a Big Mac. As we all know, the diet of many people in England is far from optimal and contains too much sugar, saturated fat and salt, and too few of the vitamins and trace elements found in fresh vegetables, fruit, fish, lean meat and eggs. Dietary intake is more often than we realise too low in many older people. In hospital there is a captive audience, an ideal population on whom to demonstrate how well cooked good food can be attractive, delicious and not too expensive. The food will taste better and may have better nutrient value if it comes from sustainable sources with good animal welfare standards. I am glad that there is provision for that in the Bill.
Why have so many initiatives failed? My guess is that hospital food is of low priority on the agenda of hard-pressed managers who are often struggling to meet targets and stay within budgets. The effects of poor diet do not show up in most hospital statistics, whereas mortality rates or waiting times can easily be measured, and executives and clinicians held to account. The considerable benefit that good nutrition can have is not fully appreciated. Poor ward diets are often complacently tolerated by management because their quality and acceptability is often not monitored. The introduction of mandatory standards with strong sanctions for non-compliance would eliminate any complacency because the relevant manager would be held to account. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, other public sector institutions and schools are now required to conform to and have adopted mandatory nutritional standards, as has the National Health Service in Wales and Scotland. Interestingly, Compass, probably the largest catering firm in the country, has said that it supports mandatory standards because they level the playing field among suppliers and caterers while maintaining a high standard.
I am puzzled as to why the Government have been so reluctant to adopt mandatory standards for hospital food. A response to Sustain’s hospital food standards campaign was published by the Department of Health in September this year. It does not directly give the reasons for the Government’s reluctance, given that mandatory standards have been widely adopted elsewhere in the public sector. However, I hope the noble Earl can report that the Government are coming round to the idea and will agree to support the Bill.
Before sitting down, I have one question for the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Clause 1(6) states that the Bill,
“applies to … food provided to patients at a hospital”.
Does this apply to a private hospital as well as an NHS one?
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for bringing to your Lordships’ House this Bill to:
“Make provision for the regulation of food standards in hospitals”.
I feel that the least solution is to have a minimum standard.
I must declare an interest. I have had to spend some time in hospital at various times and can say from first- hand experience that if it had not been for high-protein drinks and blood transfusions, I would have spent much longer recovering. The hospital was Stoke Mandeville; it gives excellent care but is let down by the food, which is so unappetising and tasteless that it is often discarded. I am not surprised that around 30 million hospital meals in England are not eaten each year.
On one occasion when I was doing my visit as a member of the board of visitors of a young offender institution, the inmates were complaining about the food, which happened to be a rather good-smelling macaroni cheese. I said to them, “You should spend a week in the hospital I have just been in and then you would have something to complain about”. There was silence.
This Bill is long overdue. There is a desperate need for regulation of food standards across the country as there is so much variation in hospitals. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with this statement:
“It is crucial that patients receive tasty, nutritious food as part of their care. Although the NHS is spending more on patient meals, there is still too much variation across the country”.
The Government say that the NHS should be a patient-centred health service. Accepting this Bill would help to demonstrate their sincerity and prove that it is not just a matter of words.
Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, of which I am a member, said that the huge disparity between low and high spending on food in hospitals could not be justified and that the best patient meals are often those that are freshly cooked in a hospital’s own kitchen. Patient meals cooked in this way are often also the cheapest to make because they give hospital cooks the option to find the best deals from local suppliers. I am told that the Royal Brompton Hospital falls into this category.
There should be flexibility in hospitals over the availability of food and the giving of medication. This is necessary for people with Parkinson’s disease, when medication should be taken before meals, and patients with diabetes, who should not go without food for long periods. Nurses should learn how important food is for the health of patients.
One of my nephews spent a month in Glenfield Hospital in Leicester after a heart operation and he praised the food. I have not heard such sentiments about the food at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. There, the patients’ food is pre-cooked in Wales and brought to the hospital, where it is reheated and served up to patients in an unappetising and tasteless state, which does nothing for their morale and recovery. An example of that concerns one of our spinal injury members who was very ill. A few days before he died, he telephoned a friend asking for some decent food which he could eat. His friend could not get there but arranged for one of the doctors, who was sympathetic, to bring him something he could eat and enjoy. I dedicate my contribution today to Stephen and all ill patients who need good, nourishing hospital food.
Yesterday, one of your Lordships told me about the time when his mother was in hospital. It was a teaching hospital here in London. When her food was brought in, it was put down and left, but she needed help to eat it. So concerned was her son that he arranged to come in at meal times so that he could help her, but some people do not have friends or relatives who can do this. On one occasion, my husband was in the local hospital, which had just changed over to a housekeeping service. The housekeepers brought the food to the patients. I told the housekeeper who brought my husband’s lunch that he had a problem with swallowing and I explained his condition. She was very interested and told me that nobody had ever told her anything. She wanted to help.
I am sure that the arrangements for feeding patients who need help should be much better organised. Kind, responsible people may be better than nurses, who very often seem too busy to help. There should be a foolproof system so that all patients get fed with care and compassion. Maybe there should be an amendment to the Bill in Committee so that there is a foolproof system for patients who need help with feeding and drinking.
I wish the Bill a speedy and successful journey through Parliament.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this Bill. There are many people out there who believe that she deserves a medal, and I would certainly subscribe to one for her for having introduced the Bill.
Ever since I started working as a young doctor in the NHS in the 1950s and 1960s, 50 or 60 years ago, hospital food has been something of a joke—a joke that is not particularly funny for patients, many of whom either refuse to eat it because it looks so unappetising or, having tasted it, can eat very little of it. No one who listened to my noble friend Lady Gibson and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, could possibly doubt that. It is hardly surprising to find that many patients lose weight in hospital and that there is enormous waste as so much has to be thrown away. I fear that it is becoming pretty obvious that I, too, have read the excellent briefing that has been placed before us.
However, that is not for want of trying to improve matters. According to the report by the Campaign for Better Hospital Food entitled Twenty Years of Hospital Food Failure, there have been numerous government initiatives, over many years, urging hospitals to pay attention to the standards of their food. There have been no fewer than 21 different initiatives in 20 years, which is more than one a year and two for each of the 11 Secretaries of State for Health who have held office during that time.
Each of those initiatives has urged a voluntary improvement by hospital trusts but these seem to have fallen on deaf ears. We are just as bad as ever, according to reports from Age Concern and the Royal College of Nursing. And it is not just the appearance and attractiveness of meals that are wanting; the nutritional value is even more problematic. Insufficient fresh fruit, vegetables and fish, and too much fat and salt, as we have heard, are far too commonplace. It is hardly surprising that patients often rely on family and friends to bring in food for them, and this is all happening despite efforts to enlist the help of a number of celebrity chefs. Sending now for Jamie Oliver without some form of regulation or legislation will simply not work.
It is the case that fewer than half the meals are cooked on site and that only a minority are made from British produce. There is of course an additional problem which is not tackled in the Bill and that is the complaint made, in too many places, of either food and drink being placed out of the reach of infirm patients at the end of their beds where they can see it but not reach it, or perhaps the food is within their reach but they need help to cut it up and spoon it into their mouths. Age Concern found that over 40% of patients needing this sort of help actually got it. That problem has to be solved by better training and the culture change that we keep banging on about in this House.
So far as the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is concerned, there seems little doubt that voluntary initiatives have not worked and that we desperately need something more. We need to mandate better food and catering, and it is clear that this will not cost any more. We also need a proper inspection system. It is interesting to note that food standards are mandated in prisons and schools but not in our hospitals. It is even more interesting that there are mandatory standards for hospitals in Scotland and Wales, and that much of the food offered in English hospitals would not meet their standards. We need also a robust inspection regime, although perhaps not too robust. Perhaps the CQC in its regular inspections could simply sit down to lunch or dinner with the patients and make an assessment. That should not impose too much bureaucracy. It might cause some nausea.
I am strongly in favour of the Bill. We have spent far too long on voluntary initiatives. They just do not work. We must do more to correct this dangerous and seemingly everlasting problem. As my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who I met when coming in this morning, said, “It is a no-brainer”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for this comprehensive Private Member’s Bill and I commend all speakers in this knowledgeable debate. Clearly, despite many initiatives and endeavour over a long period of time—it has to be said that there has been some improvement in the quality and nutritional value of hospital food because of the focus of the previous Government and this—this Bill and this debate show that there is still a great need for improvement. The Library note about the Bill was immensely helpful, as was the publication, Twenty Years of Hospital Food Failure, in February 2013 by the campaign group Sustain, an alliance of organisations. It outlined government hospital food initiatives since 1992. As my noble friend Lord Turnberg mentioned, an enormous number of initiatives have been taken.
I read with interest the Government’s guarded response to that report. The report said that,
“public spending on government voluntary initiatives has failed”,
and called on the Government to set mandatory health and sustainability standards for hospital food in England. The Department of Health issued a response to Sustain’s hospital food standards campaign, which states:
“The government’s preferred approach remains to encourage the adoption of Food GBS”—
government buying standards—
“within the NHS through incentives, signposting and assessments”.
That does not sound to me to be consistent with the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill and the tone of this debate.
I volunteered to speak on this issue, partly because when I was appointed to a ministerial job in January 2008 as the health Whip, my first question in your Lordships’ House concerned nourishment and nutrition in hospitals. I can still recall my nervousness at the time but the House was kind to their new Front-Bencher and I survived. We all know that the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, is very concerned with these issues and she asked the Government:
“How they will respond to the recent reports about the levels of malnourishment of patients in NHS hospitals”.
At the time, I spoke about the fact that the then Government had published in October 2007 Improving Nutritional Care: A Joint Action Plan to outline how nutritional care and hydration should be improved in NHS hospitals and had introduced protected mealtimes and focused on nutritional screening. I concluded:
“There are three strong mechanisms for assessing the quality of food and nutritional care: the Healthcare Commission’s annual health check, in-patient services, and the annual Patient Environment Action Team inspections. These show how seriously the Government are taking the issue”.—[Official Report, 30/1/08; col. 619.]
I wonder whether the Minister is about to say something along the same lines in his response to this debate.
I was very struck by the huge list of initiatives over 20 years that have tried to raise the standards and quality of hospital food. My noble friend Lady Gibson told us a sorry and miserable story. Her example of Scarborough Hospital was most heart-warming. Recently, I met the head of catering for a hospital who explained to me how it produces high-quality meals, how it uses hotel nutritional and food standards, how much of its food is locally sourced and how much as it could possibly manage was freshly prepared.
My noble friend Lord Rea spoke about changing the whole hospital food system and he is right. We know that those beacons of good practice exist and that it is entirely possible to achieve a satisfactory outcome for patients and their families. My most recent experience of hospital food was when my daughter had a short stay following the birth of our first grandchild. I suppose that, because there are lots of relatives on maternity wards who bring food, cakes and all sorts of things, there might not be quite the same problem. However, I was very impressed by two things. First, there was access to the kitchen on the ward for patients and their families to make toast, warm drinks and so on. Secondly, the food was very plentiful and nourishing, and a lot of fruit was available. I am referring to a very large London teaching hospital. If large teaching hospitals can achieve that, I cannot see why any other hospital cannot do so.
My noble friend Lord Turnberg pointed to the problem of the voluntary approach so far. We know that voluntary approaches can work but they will work only if management and hospitals have the will to make them work. The issue that we face with this Private Member’s Bill is whether we have reached the end of the road of the voluntary approach on this matter.
I can understand why the noble Baroness exempts outlets in hospitals that sell food, including cafes, shops and such like. I wonder whether we might find ourselves in a similar position to that of Jamie Oliver when he introduced nutritional standards to school meals and stopped children from going out to buy their lunches. We then saw parents pushing burgers and pizzas through the railings of the school.
I have a serious question to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the Minister. Is this Private Member’s Bill and its proposal consistent with this Government’s resistance to statutory regulation, the setting of standards and the administration and monitoring of those standards in other areas of the NHS? I draw the attention of the noble Baroness and the Minister to the Government’s resistance to statutory regulation of healthcare assistants, which we believe would have a beneficial effect for patient care in the NHS. Will they explore the consistency of their arguments in this matter?
Finally, why is this Private Member’s Bill about only hospitals? Why is it not inclusive of the other areas, such as care homes, under the aegis of the CQC? I ask that question particularly given the campaigns of organisations such as Age UK on the nourishment of older people, people with mental health problems and such like in places of residential care.
On these Benches, we welcome the Bill. We believe that we have to keep pushing on this issue until we have it cracked and sorted. I hope that the noble Baroness will have some words of encouragement from the Minister in his response to her Private Member’s Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend on securing the introduction of this Bill, which seeks to set standards for healthy and sustainable food in hospitals. The Government warmly welcome the role that my noble friend’s Bill has played in bringing this important issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House. Few subjects matter more than food and drink. Poor diet can cause serious illness and even increase the risk of early death. My noble friend has a supporter here when she talks about high standards. We both want nutritious food that meets the recovery needs of patients and the health needs of staff and visitors, and sustainable food that supports our farmers and accounts for the needs of our livestock. Above all, we want tasty food that that looks good and is available whenever it is needed. My noble friend and I are at one on this.
We agree that more needs to be done to be certain that hospitals comply with high standards. We are proposing a series of measures that include instruction, incentives and inspection—the three Is. These build on the work announced last year by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and will raise awareness and increase transparency so that there can be no excuse for poor food.
The cornerstone of this approach will be our hospital food standards panel, under the chairmanship of Dianne Jeffrey, chairman of Age UK. The panel, which I can tell my noble friend Lady Miller includes Sustain as well as patient representatives and others, will start with the needs of patients, especially older people. It will look at nutritional quality, mealtime experience and the help given to patients to eat. It will check the evidence on food production systems to understand how a meal can leave the kitchen as an attractive, tasty dish, but arrive at the patient cold and unappetising. Noble Lords who share my own frustration when struggling with a sachet of sauce or pat of butter, will be pleased to hear that the panel will not let such small details escape its scrutiny.
The panel will also consider sustainability. This year, around 80% of food commodities purchased through NHS Supply Chain will be UK-produced, but the panel will look at how we can further reduce our environmental impact, including waste from food and food packaging. The panel will also consider animal welfare.
In this way, we address my noble friend’s main concerns. However, our ambitions go further. We have asked Dianne Jeffrey to consider food served to staff and visitors, including food sold in vending machines. Noble Lords may be surprised to learn that less than half of the food served in hospital is eaten by patients. The majority goes to staff and visitors. We must not neglect their needs.
We have a serious obesity problem in this country and so have a responsibility to help people make healthier choices. That does not have to mean banning chips and fizzy drinks, but should certainly mean delivering healthier options to make it easier for people to choose healthily as well as simple to understand information and labelling on food—using the calorie labelling and front-of-pack schemes increasingly evident on our high street and in supermarkets.
This is not about undermining personal autonomy. What freedom exists in choosing between two meals if both are high in saturated fats and salt? Where is the freedom in choosing between a standard chocolate bar and a king-sized one? We are asking the panel to examine how the NHS can increase choice, not reduce it, and enable informed choice.
Twenty-one trusts have committed to measures for encouraging healthier restaurants, vending outlets and buffets under the responsibility deal’s pledge on healthier staff restaurants. We want more to do the same. How will we make all these things happen? Like my noble friend, we have been frustrated to see continued variation in food standards across our NHS. That is not because hospitals do not know what good food looks and tastes like. Good guidance and standards already exist, and the best hospitals are using them. For instance, government buying standards for food and catering were introduced in 2011, covering nutrition, sustainability and animal welfare. We have the British Dietetic Association’s guidance on nutritional content of patient meals, and we have our own guidance on healthy eating. So rather than produce new standards or guidance, our panel will identify which existing guidance should apply as a matter of routine, which should be aspired to as best practice and which should be left for local determination.
Standards are important but compulsion, in our view, is not. There is no evidence that making standards mandatory in Scotland or Wales has led to food that is any better than in England. Indeed, patient satisfaction ratings with hospital food in Scotland have actually gone down in recent years. Nor should standards relate to whether food is prepared in-house or not. Each NHS provider must decide for itself how to deliver its food services. What matters is not who provides the meals or how but that they are of high quality and meet the needs of patients. We are unaware of any clear relationship between the quality of food and whether it is cooked on-site or delivered frozen or chilled and regenerated. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on that point. There are many ways to produce food in hospitals. All can deliver good food.
We are determined to make sure that this happens. However, this Government have committed to creating new regulation only as a last resort, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, observed. Because of that, we have identified other, highly transparent ways of delivering the change that my noble friend wants to see. Of course, legislation has a role. All healthcare organisations must register with the Care Quality Commission, whose powers are enshrined in law. The department is updating the CQC’s registration requirements to include new fundamental standards of care that all providers have to meet, and the CQC is developing compliance guidance. We will ensure that the work of the panel aligns with that.
Crucially, we have asked NHS England to amend the NHS standard contract so that it helps to deliver improvement. In the new contract, due out next month, hospitals will be required to have regard to guidance on the provision of catering services, including government buying standards for food and catering. We will work with NHS England to ensure that the panel’s work is appropriately highlighted in later contracts and technical guidance. Commissioners of NHS-funded services have the power to require remedial action to be taken where there is clear evidence that providers are failing to meet the terms of the standard NHS contract.
There are also incentives for excellence. Under the system of commissioning for quality and innovation, which we call CQUIN, commissioners can reward providers for delivering high food standards. For instance, providers might be rewarded for improving food quality, or meeting external standards such as those of the Soil Association’s Food for Life Partnership.
My noble friend also calls for a new inspection regime. We can respond to her call in the following way. The CQC has appointed Professor Sir Mike Richards as Chief Inspector of Hospitals and he is establishing a robust system of registration, regulation and inspection. The programme is not a rigid one-size-fits-all process, but a more measured, risk-based approach. This requirement has all the power of the Health and Social Care Act 2008—we do not need further legislation.
The Care Quality Commission has pledged to start rating NHS acute trusts and foundation trusts from December this year and aims to complete this process before the end of 2015. It will introduce a more specialised inspection model with a greater focus on culture and leadership and teams that include clinical and other experts and people with experience of care. It will use information and evidence in a more focused and open way, including listening better to people’s views and experiences of care in order to predict and respond more quickly to services that are falling short.
However, we need strong monitoring. We now review the food served in every single NHS hospital via annual patient-led assessments of the care environment —we call them PLACE inspections. This year, a small army of more than 5,000 patient assessors, including a patient who is a member of our panel, took part in PLACE assessments, including tasting the food on offer. If the vegetables were overcooked, or the gravy was cold, they reported it. If the custard was lumpy or the sandwiches dry, they reported that too. Their feedback directly helps hospitals to improve. As my noble friend said, there is no evidence of a direct link between cost and the quality of food. We are looking further into this to see if we can establish any link. Our PLACE inspections have given us detailed information directly from patients, which will help us understand how good food can best be produced without wasting money.
We also use PLACE to record whether hospitals comply with recommended guidance. We already ask about the government buying standard for food, and next year we will ask about the Soil Association’s Food for Life catering marks. Once the panel has reported, we will include a question about other recommended standards. Commissioners and providers together can use this information to improve services.
We know that this approach can work. In 2011, government buying standards for food and catering services were launched. They were compulsory for central government departments, but voluntary within the NHS. Yet already around half of all hospitals comply, with another quarter pursuing compliance. My colleagues at Defra are reviewing these standards, and members of the panel are involved in that.
My noble friend also asked for action where hospitals fail to comply with standards. The CQC already has these powers and can take action through civil enforcement or under the criminal law. As I said, commissioners can also act where the standard contract terms are breached by requiring providers to take remedial action and, in the case of serious failures, they can escalate that action. However, it is not just about punishment. What my noble friend wants, quite rightly, is improvement. Our approach is designed to achieve this, which is why PLACE requires hospitals to publish an action plan to show how they will address any problems. This has already started. In Sheffield, hospitals already score well on food but plan to increase menu choice with a £7 million capital development of their catering infrastructure. East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust plans to review ordering systems and improve service delivery by opening a second food production belt. It is also reviewing its vending machines. These are tangible improvements, identified by patients and planned and delivered locally. They are evidence of success.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, spoke about the sourcing of food, a subject I mentioned a moment ago. He may like to know that some 60% of the food ingredients supplied to the NHS is procured under contracts negotiated at a national level by the NHS Supply Chain. It requires suppliers to provide information on product quality and provenance and to have a verification process in place. It is working with its contracted food suppliers to identify products that meet the food GBS and make the information available through its website. However, it is important to remember that, under public sector procurement rules, the NHS cannot promote or appear to promote a buy-British policy.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to the use and cost of nutritional supplements. It is always better if patients can get the nutrients they need from proper food rather than supplements—there is no argument about that—but some patients cannot digest normal food, or need extra calories, and they need supplements. The cost of £320 million that noble Lords may have read about is actually related to spend in the community, not in hospitals. It also includes the provision of real food such as gluten-free bread or low-protein biscuits. I would not want noble Lords to be misled by any press reports they may have seen on that score.
Malnutrition has many causes, a theme that was taken up to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, but it is most often seen in conjunction with other illnesses. The British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition estimated the cost in 2007 at more than £13 billion, but it did acknowledge that some of these costs may be unavoidable. This is because serious illness and injury will always result in loss of appetite associated with changes in the body’s metabolism, which in turn results in tissue breakdown and muscle loss. These costs are linked to malnutrition rather than being direct costs, so they cannot be assumed to translate into potential savings in the cost of care.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to unhealthy foods being served to patients, such as foods that are high in fat and salt. The best food does no good if it is uneaten. For very ill patients who cannot eat large amounts, it may be better for them to eat high-calorie, higher-fat food. Our panel will work hard to strike the right balance between long-term health needs and the short-term requirement for high-calorie food. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, referred to the problem we hear about so often of food being left out of reach and patients not being given the help they need. It is unacceptable for food to be left out of reach. Where a patient is at risk of malnutrition, specific plans of care are introduced such as serving food on a red tray, which signals to the team that extra support is required. We support the notion of protected mealtimes whereby all non-essential clinical practices are avoided during those periods. Family members and volunteers who have had additional training are often invited to help patients with their meals.
Success is what we want. This Government want food that boosts health and recovery, that tastes good and impacts lightly on our environment. Our approach rests on what I referred to earlier as the three Is: instruction, incentives and inspection. Instruction is provided through registration standards and the NHS standard contract, incentives via the CQUIN scheme and inspection by PLACE and the CQC. These, we believe, are the way to success.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howe for his comprehensive reply. What the Government are doing is extremely encouraging, but I am still not convinced that all this voluntary work and the emphasis on guidelines will achieve what we want. We will need to press for some mandatory standards. I want briefly to comment on some of the very knowledgeable contributions that have been made by noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, started by saying that she is not an expert, but in her contribution she showed real clarity about her expertise as an expert patient. There is nothing more compelling than personal testimony. She did say that this is not asking for the moon, and I agree with that. It is a simple Bill and, indeed, a modest one.
It has been clear throughout the debate that noble Lords have been diligent about reading their briefing, and pretty well everyone described the 21 initiatives that Governments have put in place over 20 years as being extraordinary. In no way do I underestimate the concern and commitment of successive Governments, and we have heard about that again today. All Governments want to improve hospital food, but it is a question of how that is done: how do we make it happen? We know that the NHS is very good on policy, on discussions and on—what do they say?—paralysis by analysis, but it is the implementation that it is weak on, and that is what particularly concerns me about hospital food. I have a quote from one of those years: “It is good food, not fine words, that keeps me alive”.
My noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, gave us some shining examples of the good food being produced in hospitals. I am pleased to see that because it is very good for patients, and I would bet that it raises the morale of the staff as well. The Royal Cornwall Hospital was highlighted. I have not had time to visit that hospital, but I know that my noble friend Lady Jolly speaks of it often. I understand also that the Royal Brompton Hospital and others are good. However, my noble friend Lady Miller said that what really makes a difference within a hospital is the will to do well and good leadership; that is very important. Today, I am asking the Government for a bit of strong will and the leadership to bring in this legislation.
Catering staff are, of course, key to this. One of the things I have noticed when visiting hospitals is that different institutions approach this differently. That is great and I am all for them using their initiative and seeking their own ways of doing things. Some places have integrated nursing and catering staff, while in others there are dedicated catering staff who have an absolute love of food, and you can see the difference. There are merits in each of the different ways of approaching this, and that is right. Having talked to nurses and to catering staff, I am interested in the following question: where are the doctors? I am delighted that the doctors are here today and I thank them both, the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Turnberg, for their contributions.
It is very interesting to look at the obesity plan that the Royal College of Physicians has produced; hospital food does not seem to enter into it. Bariatric surgery does, and the need for more nurses to be trained in bariatric surgery—all those things—but surely doctors should be looking much more closely at the whole condition of their patients, what they are receiving and how they are getting better.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that sanctions are missing and the lack of progress has been shameful—I so agree. This is an opportunity to improve, as he was saying, not only the quantity and quality of food in hospitals but the education so that people can better understand food in general. I was asked whether the Bill includes private hospitals. No, it does not; it applies to the NHS.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, very much. I know that Stoke Mandeville is seared on her heart. I am very pleased that I have escaped on my visits there but she certainly told us a great deal about how disappointing the food is. I was interested in what she said about having kitchens on the wards and in hospitals generally, and not food brought from Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, also made that point.
There is a very nice quote from Elizabeth David, that great pioneer of good cooking:
“Good food is always a trouble and its preparation should be regarded as a labour of love”.
When the food is produced on an assembly line in Wales, frozen and then reheated on the ward, how can the people who are producing that food love it? They never see a patient. Whereas if hospitals have their own kitchens, you see chefs going round and asking the patients what they like, what they do not want, what size of portion they want—all the rest of it. That is the labour of love.
I was very distressed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, say that many patients lose weight in hospital. He also went on to say that celebrity chefs are not the answer. I agree: that is another thing we have tried and tried and it does not work.
I was interested to think about how patients can use their power to improve hospital food. We have tried and tried. Age UK tried the “Hungry to be Heard” campaign, which was all about food in hospital. As nothing happened, it revamped it as “Still Hungry to be Heard”. I really do not think that across the country the food has improved that much, despite some of the good examples we have been given. It is interesting that two-thirds of staff would not eat the food given to patients. That says everything, as far as I am concerned.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for volunteering for this debate. I had no idea she had such a long-standing interest in this subject. Her contribution was outstanding. I agree with her: I am afraid we have reached the end of the road on volunteering and now we need to really grip this subject. She asked me about the consistency of government policy. I fear it is not consistent and I fear that will be our struggle. I am trying to think of other ways in which we can perhaps introduce something if this Bill does not get through the House of Commons. The noble Baroness also mentioned care homes. I was very conscious that in the NHS you really need to focus on the subject to get it done and I thought that if we went much more widely, we would certainly fail.
Finally, I am delighted that I and my noble friend the Minister are at one in that we want to support high standards and we agree that more needs to be done. The Government are certainly not inactive and I have been impressed by the response he has given us today, starting with this new panel he has set up. It has a huge task ahead. He highlighted the remit of the panel and what it will do. It looks very ambitious. I hope it succeeds. When will it report? How can we monitor progress? We need to see that this is not the 22nd initiative that the Government have produced in 20 years. We really want it to succeed.
On the question of staff and visitor food, I appreciate that less than half the food in hospital is served to patients: it goes to visitors and staff. I visited a hospital and asked to see the kitchens. They said, “Why do you want to see the kitchens? The food is brought in from miles away”. I said, “I still want to see how you are going to regenerate it”. As I went into the kitchen area, I met two chefs. One chef was cooking for private patients. I thought, “That’s fine, they’re paying for it; fair enough”. The other chef was cooking for the staff. I went into the staff restaurant, which was superb. You could have chosen anything; the food looked lovely. Then I tasted the hospital food given to patients—I say no more.
It has been a very interesting debate. Again, I thank my noble friend for his summing up. I understand that there are a lot of initiatives; it is how they work in practice that concerns me. I will certainly keep an eye on this Bill. I am not totally persuaded. I want to continue. I commend the Bill to the House.
Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL]
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, my Bill is designed to raise this country’s unusually low age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. At present, in England and Wales, children are deemed to be criminally responsible from the age of 10. That means that children who are too young to attend secondary school can be prosecuted and receive a criminal record. A 10 year-old who commits a “grave crime”—that includes serious violent and sexual crimes but can also include burglary—can be tried in the Crown Court. A child of 10 or 11 who is accused with an adult will also be tried in the adult Crown Court.
At 10 years old, the age of criminal responsibility in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is the lowest in Europe. In Ireland, in 2006, the age was raised to 12 with exceptions for homicide, rape or aggravated sexual assault. In Scotland, in 2010, legislation provided that children cannot be prosecuted below the age of 12. Outside the British Isles, the age of criminal responsibility is invariably higher. In France, Greece and Poland, it is 13. In Germany, Spain and Italy, Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, it is 14. In the rest of Europe, it ranges between 14 and 18.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly stated that our minimum age of criminal responsibility is not compatible with our obligations under international standards of juvenile justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In a statement in 1997, the committee said:
“States parties are encouraged to increase their lower minimum age of criminal responsibility to the age of 12 years as the absolute minimum age and to continue to increase it to a higher age level”.
I do not wish to be misunderstood on this point. Of course, taking 10 or 11 year-olds out of the criminal justice system would not mean doing nothing with children who offend. It would mean doing what other countries do with 10 and 11 year-old offenders. It would mean doing what we do with delinquent nine year-olds. In other words, it would mean dealing with the causes of those children’s offending through intervention by children’s services teams. In the minority of cases where court proceedings are necessary, it would mean bringing children before family proceedings courts, which can impose compulsory measures of supervision and care. In the most serious cases, that can mean long-term detention in secure accommodation, but that would be arranged as part of care proceedings, rather than as a custodial punishment imposed in criminal proceedings.
Those who oppose increasing the age of criminal responsibility often argue that children of 10 and 11 are capable of telling right from wrong, as though it automatically follows that they should be dealt with in criminal courts. That does not logically follow at all. Most six year-olds have a sense of right and wrong, but no one suggests that they should be subject to criminal proceedings or prosecution.
The point was made very well in 2012 in a report by the Centre for Social Justice, which was set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith. The centre produced a report on the youth justice system in 2012 entitled Rules of Engagement: Changing the Heart of Youth Justice. It states:
“There is now a significant body of research evidence indicating that early adolescence (under 13-14 years of age) is a period of marked neurodevelopmental immaturity, during which children’s capacity is not equivalent to that of an older adolescent or adult. Such findings cast doubt on the culpability and competency of early adolescents to participate in the criminal process and this raises the question of whether the current minimum age of criminal responsibility, at ten, is appropriate”.
The evidence from international research is overwhelming. Anyone who has sat in youth justice courts or family courts and knows that it is clearly demonstrated. It shows that children of 10 and 11 have less ability to think through the consequences of their actions, less ability to empathise with other people’s feelings and less ability to control impulsive behaviour. That does not mean that children aged 10 or 11 have no responsibility for their actions—that is not what I am trying to say—but on any reasonable interpretation of the evidence, they must be regarded as less responsible than an older adolescent or an adult.
It cannot be right to deal with such young children in a criminal process based on ideas of culpability which assume a capacity for mature, adult-like decision-making. There is no other area of law—whether it is the age for buying a pet, the age for paid employment, the age of consent to sexual activity or the age for smoking and drinking—where we regard children is fully competent to take informed decisions until later in adolescence. The age of criminal responsibility is an anomalous exception. Ironically, a 30 year-old who had a mental age of a 10 year-old child would probably be regarded as unfit to plead and yet, by some twisted freak of logic, a child of 10 is seen as capable of participating in the criminal justice process. How absurd.
It is sometimes argued that there is no need to raise the age of criminal responsibility because the number of 10 and 11 year-olds who receive youth justice disposal is small—we are given the figure of about 2,000 a year, a very small number. Even though this represents a small proportion of those going through the criminal justice system, however, what happens to 2,000 vulnerable children can hardly be regarded as a matter of little importance. The fact that the numbers involved are relatively small is in fact a strong argument for the Bill; it means that it will not be a huge burden in terms of resources to make alternative provision through welfare interventions and, where necessary, family court proceedings for the children who would otherwise have been charged and prosecuted.
Nor can it be argued that dealing with these children through non-criminal processes would put the public at risk. On the contrary, dealing with 10 and 11 year-old children through non-criminal procedures would be more effective than using the criminal justice process. The evidence shows that children who are dealt with through the criminal justice process are more likely to reoffend than those who are diverted from the criminal justice system and dealt with in other ways. Children who are officially labelled as offenders often react by trying to live up to the label and acting in increasingly delinquent ways to achieve status in front of their friends. As the Centre for Social Justice report put it,
“raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility would achieve important changes. Young children would not be tarred with the stigmatising ‘offender’ label which the evidence shows can exacerbate delinquency and would more likely have their victim status and welfare needs addressed, which the evidence suggests are currently often neglected”.
This is a particularly important point, as children who go through the criminal process at a young age are often young people from chaotic, dysfunctional and traumatic backgrounds involving some combination of poor parenting, physical or sexual abuse, conflict within families, substance abuse or mental health problems. The prospects for diverting the child from offending will be far better if these problems are tackled through welfare interventions than by imposing punishments in a criminal court. A welfare approach would avoid unnecessarily giving children a criminal record, which can make it harder for them to gain employment when they reach working age. As unemployment increases the chances of reoffending, this is another way in which criminalising children can increase rather than reduce the likelihood of future crime.
Of the 10 and 11 year-olds who are charged and prosecuted each year, the number who receive a custodial sentence is normally in single figures. However, although the number of serious child offenders is small, the public will of course want to be assured that raising the age of criminal responsibility will not increase the risk from these young people.
Some people who generally support raising the age of criminal responsibility argue that an exception should be made for the most extreme cases, such as homicide or serious sexual offences. I am willing to consider this point in Committee but at this stage my inclination is to resist making any changes or exceptions. The most serious child offenders invariably have the most complex welfare needs. Their backgrounds include experiences of serious physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect, parental mental illness, rejection and abandonment by adults, traumatic loss, conduct disorder and serious emotional disturbance. They need a welfare-based approach, in secure care if necessary, to help them to face their unresolved trauma, to develop and mature emotionally, to reach an appropriate sense of guilt and to learn to control their emotional and aggressive impulses.
Noble Lords will recall the trial of the boys who killed James Bulger, who were aged 10 at the time of the killing and 11 when they were tried. Most foreign commentators were amazed that children of that age should be dealt with by a trial in an adult Crown Court. They questioned whether such young children could really understand the complexities of a lengthy criminal prosecution and trial, whether they should have appeared in the full glare of media coverage, whether they understood all the issues and language of the trial, whether they could give sensible instructions to their lawyers and whether their decision not to give evidence was simply because they were frightened of speaking in such a setting.
Exposing such youngsters to a criminal trial is no way to achieve justice. Moreover, the case took nine months to come to trial, during which time the defendants received no treatment or therapeutic help in case it prejudiced their pleas. That is a completely unacceptable way to deal with young defendants and one that would be unthinkable anywhere else in Europe. It should be equally unthinkable here. The two boys should have been dealt with in family proceedings and detained in secure accommodation, without all the ill effects that resulted from a public Crown Court trial. I repeat that I am prepared to consider the possibility of exceptions in Committee, but the House will understand the reasons why at present I am inclined to the view that there should be no exceptions.
I commend the Bill to the House. The simple proposition that it contains, if enacted, would be an important step towards dealing with vulnerable, difficult and disturbed children in a way that befitted our civilised society. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for introducing this Bill and for his long advocacy on this issue. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Michael Sieff Foundation, a child welfare charity.
I noted what the noble Lord said about the evidence base. Dr Eileen Vizard, the eminent child psychiatrist, and Professor Sue Bailey, the current president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, produced a paper on the age of criminal responsibility for the royal college which made very clear that the evidence shows that the current age for criminal responsibility is too low.
As treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children, I highlight that in its recent report, the group recommended that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised. In what I say, I will draw on my experience as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Looked after Children and Care Leavers. I reinforce what the noble Lord said: these children are often the most damaged, the most traumatised and the most abused in our society, as well often the most troubling and destructive.
I strongly support the Bill. The current age reflects a lack of confidence in parenting in this country. Parents who lack confidence are often harsh and overly punitive towards their children. The current age is counterproductive and unkind to often our most vulnerable children. These children are often already overwhelmed by feelings of guilt. For the state to reinforce those feelings of guilt in young children is unhelpful and unkind. It is most encouraging that recently there have been indicators that we are becoming more confident parents. This Government have sustained the increasing reduction in the incarceration of children. There has been a very impressive drop in the number of children locked up in recent years. There has been a clear consensus that too many of our children were being locked up. Furthermore, the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith MP and Graham Allen MP have driven forward a much increased awareness of the importance of early years and attachment to their parents in young children and infants. Andrea Leadsom MP and Frank Field MP have led a cross-party campaign to increase support during pregnancy and in the months after birth to help build strong family bonds. Her Majesty’s Government have charged Louise Casey to meet the needs of trouble families, and the results have been very successful. I feel that we are becoming more confident about our ability to parent our children.
I shall remind noble Lords of who these children are. They are likely to be from working class families and to be growing up without a father in the household. They are quite likely to experience local authority care, to have a parent addicted to alcohol or drugs and are probably going to join a gang, if they have not done so already. They are more likely to be black than white, and it is probable that they have witnessed domestic violence. Looking at these children, it is hard for me not to think that this is a case of seeing the mote in the other’s eye and missing the beam in our own.
It seems that the worse a nation is at caring for its children, the lower the age of criminal responsibility. For instance, among the countries with the highest rates of absent fathers are the United States and the United Kingdom. Two-thirds of black boys in the US are growing up without a father in the household and, according to the OECD, we have an even higher rate of children growing up in lone-parent households than the US. We also have a low age of criminal responsibility compared with most of our neighbours. As the noble Lord said, ours is 10, and in the United States the age in most states is seven. Looking at the better performers, Denmark has an age of criminal responsibility of 15, and Germany of 14. Both are also among the countries with the lowest percentage of lone-parent families.
I remind noble Lords of the experience of the corporate parent. Does the same pattern hold true? Are poorer corporate parents more punitive? I am thinking particularly of local authorities caring for children in care. There has been much concern over the care of children in our children’s homes. I pay tribute to the Government for their focus on improvement here. I pay particular tribute to the previous Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton MP, and the current Children’s Minister, Edward Timpson MP. They are doing a good job for these children. However, they start from a low base.
Dr Claire Cameron and others based at the Thomas Coram Research Unit at the Institute of Education conducted comparative research on children’s homes internationally. They found that 90% of staff in Danish homes had a relevant graduate qualification; that 50% of staff in German homes had such a qualification; and that only 30% of staff in English homes have that qualification. Yet the children in our English homes have much higher levels of need that those in both Germany and Denmark, because they use residential care more widely there; it is only the most vulnerable children who end up in children’s homes. I hope that that information is indicative of the problem of those countries that are less confident in their parenting tending to criminalise younger children.
I ask the Minister a side question. The Association of Chief Police Officers produced a draft protocol on the kind of circumstances in children’s homes when police would be obliged to report a crime; there is a long-standing concern about the criminalisation of children in children’s homes here. That draft protocol has been sitting in a government department for some months now. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at what has happened to that. We do not wish children in children’s homes to be criminalised unnecessarily, and this would help. I have recently tabled a Question for Written Answer on this.
Why is it unhelpful to have such a low age of criminal responsibility? What does it matter that so few children are being placed in custody now that the Government have done welcome work to reduce custody use? Part of the reason it is harmful is that it reinforces the sense of guilt that these children have. For instance, many of these children will not have a father in their families. They may well feel responsible for the loss of their father. I heard yesterday of one of these children’s parents having committed suicide. The question the children were asking was, “What did we do wrong? How did we cause this?”. In my own experience, I had a dearly loved housemaster at school who had to move on to a new job. I remember wondering what wrong I had done to drive him away. It is plain from my experience of looked-after young people that many of them carry a heavy sense of guilt for things for which they were never responsible. When one listens to adults who have been through such experiences, they often have a sort of internal monologue by which they are told, “You are worthless. You can never do anything right”. If they do something well they will find fault with it because they have a deep sense of guilt, perhaps because if a parent does not love a child for whatever reason, the child will not think, “Well, the poor old parent is addicted so they cannot be around for me”. They will think, “There is something deeply wrong with me that causes my parent not to love me”. It is deeply unhelpful to reinforce children’s sense of guilt at such a young age.
Of course, the younger children are when they get caught up in the criminal justice system, the more likely they are to reoffend. I visited Feltham young offender institution some time ago and met a young man who was in for the third time. We do not want to perpetuate that.
I am sorry to have spoken for so long. In closing, I bring your Lordships’ attention to a recent visit to Parliament by a police officer, Police Constable Storey. He was one of a number of officers attached to schools. There is a programme of this kind. He told the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children of his experience. His wife said that he really must take the job working in a school. She said, “You’ll be a natural for this”. We heard from the deputy head who said, “In the few months that this police officer has been in the school, he has turned around some of our children and he has helped teachers who were despairing of their relationships with some young people to mend those relationships. He has made a huge difference in just a few months”. Two of the boys spoke to us. One said, “The difference for me, in my experience with the police officer, is that in my first contact with him he asked me if I was all right”. He took an interest in the boy’s welfare. The officer said that he came from a very similar background to the boys and, “There but for the grace of God go I”. He really understood where they were coming from.
A discussion about mentoring and how important it is for young people came from that. I know that much good work goes on in mentoring but there needs to be a strategic lead from government given the very high number of boys, particularly, growing up with absent fathers. Under the aegis of the big society, we should be co-ordinating efforts so that many of our young people, particularly young men, get an interested adult, who is reliable and gets to know them over months and years, to help them make the transition to adulthood.
To conclude, I feel we are being unkind to these children, who are often extremely vulnerable. I fear we are shooting ourselves in the foot because, by making them feel more guilty, we are maybe leading them to hopelessness where they think, “All I can do is wrong. I am bad to the bone if the state says that I am”. We should not be visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons. The evidence is very clear that absent fatherhood is a key factor in contributing to criminality.
I wish this Bill every success through Parliament and I look forward to the Minister’s response, which I hope can be sympathetic.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for introducing this topic and I heartily endorse all that the noble Earl has said. This is a very complex issue, and we are having this debate in a national context in which public opinion wants justice to be seen to be done. A strong scapegoating mentality exists which indicates that there is also a high level of anxiety in society. The key people to be scapegoated tend to be criminals and immigrants. We have to take that part of the context seriously in having this debate. A second context, as we have heard, is the UN recommendation on the rights of the child, that the age of criminal responsibility should be at least 12. Many countries, as we have heard, go even higher than that. A third context is that there are suggestions, as there is in Ireland, of raising the age to 12, but of allowing some flexibility in dealing with serious crimes. So this is a very complex issue in an anxious society which is nervous about seeming to give positive signals to bad behaviour and social deviancy.
We have a variety of lines of approach. The Government, as I understand it from the briefing papers, are minded to stay with 10 years because of the argument that children at that age know what is right and what is wrong. That is one way of looking at it. Opponents say that the evidence of emotional and intellectual development means that children are too immature at the age of 10, even if they know what right and wrong are. The noble Earl eloquently mentioned the growth in maturity. I suggest that one of the dangers in this whole debate is treating children as individuals—which, of course, is a modern disease. Life is much more complex than about any of us being an individual. The Centre for Social Justice begins to recognise this. One of the arguments in its book on raising the age is about the need for what it calls a “whole family approach”, seeing the child in context.
However, as we have heard, family is not a positive context for many of the children who become offenders. We have to consider the context of the child as the key criteria for making an assessment, not treating them as an individual. The noble Baroness talked in a previous debate about her grandchild. My daughter has a young child who, as Christmas comes, is more and more targeted through television adverts as an economic unit at a very young age. That is just a little example of how children are seen as individual people and economic units.
However, of course no one is an individual—that is a modern myth. Each human being is a person who is who they are because of their relationships with others. Crime is when relationships go wrong or are handled destructively. Human beings are formed through relationships. I suggest that the key in assessing children and in finding an age on which to hook criminal responsibility is not to treat them as individuals, whether they have measureable psychology and development or whether they know right or wrong. It is to look at what I call the science of social formation, which is about where they are made a person, where they negotiate that, or where they work out their frustrations at not being the person they think they would like to be. We need to consider a number of sites of social formation in a debate such as this.
The first site of social formation is the family. Tragically, as we have heard, that is a weak link for many young people. The second site is the school. Certainly in my work with schools in the city of Derby, many young people who get drawn into crime have a very uneasy relationship with school, so it ceases to be a good formational site. Schemes of rehabilitation try to create opportunities for social interaction, but they are undermined by lack of resources. As we have heard on the mentoring of young men, the voluntary sector has an important part to play. In that sector we can create sites of social formation that are more fluid and flexible than the family or the school, and which can operate in much more informal ways.
I will give a small example of this. Last night I presented awards to choristers who had achieved a certain standard of singing in church choirs, many of whom were young people and children. We all know that to sing in a choir is about learning discipline and accountability and having a sense of achieving something for others. As we know, young people get drawn in to gangs and peer groups, but that needs to be put in a broader and bigger context. The voluntary sector has a lot of resources to offer young people that broader context—often an intergenerational one—which is a site of social formation that is more mature, richer and more likely to help young people develop responsible relationships.
We should not, therefore, look at this age issue only in terms of the young person being a moral agent or in terms of their maturity. We should look at how they progress in terms of social relationships and where there is support for that, and measurement. For instance, in the church the age for confirmation is generally 11. Being the Church of England, we allow all kinds of exceptions one way or the other; some people might be in a strong Christian family at a younger age of nine or 10. However, confirmation generally takes place at age 11 and above because people are then in a secondary school environment, which is a much richer social formation environment than primary school—a much richer, more complex, more challenging one. That is where young people need to be helped to grow and to be accountable.
I make a plea that we not be intimidated by the scapegoating mentality of the wider society in which we sit, which forms a backcloth that might make the case for seeming to be tough, which will mean that children will pay the price. I am asking that we do not just objectify children as individuals, whether economic units, moral units or developmental units. Children above all human beings need to have taken seriously the fact that we grow through relationship and social formation.
The Christian gospel highlights the miracle of forgiveness, which we need to remember in this debate—the possibility to join in a different kind of set of social relationships that are more wholesome, nourishing and flexible. For children, the promise and possibility of forgiveness is very important. We have all done things when we were small that we needed the chance to recover from, and that needs to be a very important part of our calculations. If we are going to resist scapegoating and objectifying and take the social context of the formation of children seriously, and know that that, love and forgiveness and another chance are what grow people into full human beings, in the context of those things, I am minded to support the noble Lord’s suggestion to move from 10 to 12 years, and I can see lots of advances in perhaps raising the bar even higher one day.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on introducing this Bill and on the impeccable way in which he presented his case. I remind the House of the 1985 Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, which were endorsed by the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The rules say that each state party must enforce a single minimum age of criminal responsibility at the minimum age of 12, although somewhere within the range of the 14 to 16 age range is the most desirable. There we are, with the age of 10, at the bottom of the league table that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, read out, with Brazil at 18 and China and Russia at 14.
I have often quoted Winston Churchill in this House. On 20 July 1910 he said in the other place that the way in which it treats its crime and criminals is a true test of the civilisation of any country. I was thinking about that when my noble friend shot my fox by mentioning the report written by Professor Sue Bailey, who once briefed me on the situation regarding the two people publicly pilloried over the years for the killing of Jamie Bulger. Both boys were aged 10, but Professor Sue Bailey told me that they had a developmental age of four. Bearing in mind the background from which they came, that confirms everything that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said about the context in which these children are brought up.
In thinking about that, I wonder whether those responsible for producing the last confirmation of the age of 10 in the Green Paper Breaking the Cycle had really paid any attention at all to the huge amount of development in evidence of the neurodevelopment of children since that date. Here I don my hat as the chairman of the Criminal Justice Acquired Brain Injury Interest Group, members of which have been responsible for a great deal of this development. I am going to deliberately focus on that and spell out some of the things to which, I suspect, the Government paid no attention, any more than they did to the United Nations obligations that I have spelt out already, when drawing up that confirmation of the age of 10.
The emerging picture of adolescence is of a period in which individuals may be near mature levels of competency in some areas while far from those in others. Understanding neurodevelopment is of direct relevance to three questions that must be asked when examining them in the context of improving the youth justice system. We should remember that the aims of that system are the prevention of offending, safeguarding the public and the delivery of justice. The relevant three questions are as follows. How culpable are young people for the unlawful behaviour in which they engage? How competent are they to participate in the criminal and youth justice systems as individuals alleged of having committed a crime? What is the impact of involving them in the criminal justice system as a whole? I think that there are developmentally informed answers to each of these questions, combined, as I have mentioned already, with an understanding of the children’s rights that the United Kingdom has agreed to protect. Examination of these issues confirms that the current age of 10 is far too low to achieve either the stated aims or to satisfy the logic of neurodevelopment.
Three domains undergo substantial development during adolescence, which I will not examine in detail—executive functioning, emotional processing and social cognition. First, I want to focus on executive functioning: that is, the skills involved in the control and co-ordination of thoughts and behaviours, including working memory, selective attention and inhibition of emotional responses. They are used in everyday tasks such as decision-making, problem solving, long-term planning and social interaction. The evidence says that maturation of these is not completed until the age of 18, and that on the way to that maturation there is the likelihood of impulsivity, sensation seeking and risk-taking behaviours —all the things that we experience in our own children and grandchildren. As other noble Lords have said, that does not mean that young people bear no responsibility for their behaviour but it does mean that they are likely to be less responsible.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, rightly mentioned the ability to take part in the legal process, what is described as adjudicative competence, fitness to plead and effective trial participation. We should think through what that actually means. It means understanding the court processes, charges, defences and their possible consequences, deciding how to plead, challenging jurors, instructing lawyers, giving evidence and responding to cross-examination. That is not just a list that I have drawn up, it is the official list as laid down for adjudicative competence. Pre-adjudicative competence was listed by the Home Office in 2008 as including fitness to be interviewed and understanding the purpose of interviews, the questions asked and the significance of answers given. Do any of us think that at the age of 10 anyone is capable of going through all that? What worries me about the present Government is that not only is the age of 10 the age of criminal responsibility but next week we start work on an anti-social behaviour Bill which could, if carried, mean that I could take out an injunction for nuisance and annoyance against my 10 year-old grandson for having refused to eat the boiled egg that I cooked for him last weekend. I say to the Government, “Come on, wake up”.
As other noble Lords have said, there is a very high level of correlation between juvenile offending behaviour and the multiple disadvantage that is the lot of too many juvenile offenders. All this suggests to me that the prevention of offending, which is the aim of all this, depends, at least in part, on effective action to tackle those deep-seated and complex needs. To my mind, that points to addressing the welfare and well-being of these young people rather than focusing first of all on the punitive approach. As someone who cares very deeply about the reputation of this country in the world, I wish that the Government would listen to the sentiments and wise words of their late leader.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on introducing this Private Member’s Bill. I also congratulate noble Lords on their contributions to the debate. They have taken us on a commendable tour of the international, national, social, political, neurological and academic arguments on this matter. This is an admirably short and concise Bill. In a way, its very clarity belies the actual complexity of the issue we are dealing with and the public debate that would be necessary for such changes to take place.
Noble Lords have produced for us and explained powerful evidence for change. However, perhaps with the exception of the right reverend Prelate, they have not produced or articulated the powerful feelings on both sides that this proposal produces whenever it is put forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Rambotham, reminded us, we have to remember the statements that Denise Fergus, the mother of James Bulger, makes whenever the issue of criminal responsibility is raised and realise that this is not a straightforward matter at all. The right reverend Prelate was quite right when he mentioned scapegoating in relation to this issue.
Without doubt a serious debate is to be had, which is to be welcomed. This Bill is part of and will lend impetus to the important discussion that needs to take place across the nation. The experts who make the powerful case for change need also to convince those who feel that it is not a right and just way forward. It is without doubt a very important matter indeed and noble Lords have made the case most powerfully. I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and to the further debates that will take place about the age of criminalisation as this Bill moves forward.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dholakia for introducing the Bill and for giving us a further opportunity to debate this important issue. I align myself with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who said that this is a serious matter and a serious debate, and it is right that we in this House, with our clear expertise, discuss this from both sides of the argument. I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work in this area and his continuing interest in it.
Let me say at the outset—and the right reverend Prelate mentioned this—the Government currently have no plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. We believe that children aged 10 and above are able to differentiate between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing and should therefore be held accountable for their actions. When a young person has committed an offence, it is important that they understand that it is a serious matter and will be dealt with as such. The public must also have confidence in the youth justice system and know that offending will be dealt with effectively.
As several noble Lords have said, serious crimes committed by children are mercifully rare and we do not want to see all 10 and 11 year-olds prosecuted for minor offences. However, it is important to ensure that serious offences can, where appropriate, be prosecuted and the public protected. We are aware that offences committed by young people may have a devastating effect on both victims and the wider community, and it would be wrong to ignore this. The tragic case of the murder of Jamie Bulger—which we all know so well and which my noble friend mentioned—immediately comes to mind in this context.
It is of key importance that the youth justice system retains its ability to respond flexibly and effectively to offences committed by young people, and this must include the ability to make use of robust sanctions in the event of serious offending. This includes the use of custody as punishment and to protect the public where appropriate. Indeed, between 2002 and 2012, 13 10 and 11 year-olds received a custodial sentence. However, setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 10 does not lead to the prosecution of a large number of 10 and 11 year-olds. For example, in 2012 only 262 10 and 11 year-olds were proceeded against at court, compared with 859 12 year-olds. Of those 10 and 11 year-olds, 147 were given community sentences, and the others were found not guilty, fined or given an unconditional or conditional discharge.
Not all crimes committed by those aged 10 or over will result in prosecution. We are keen to ensure that, whenever possible, children are not prosecuted. The principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent young people offending. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the importance of early intervention. I reflect back to my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House, which was on this very issue. I join the noble Earl in paying tribute to the important work that people such as Graham Allen are doing in this respect. The Government take note of it and consider it at all times. I also align myself with the noble Earl’s comments about the work of both the previous Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, and the current Children’s Minister, Edward Timpson, and I will certainly convey his remarks to them. I thank the noble Earl for his kind remarks in this regard.
My noble friend Lord Dholakia asked an important question about welfare. Legislation requires courts to have regard to the welfare of all under-18 year-olds. Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides that every court, in dealing with a child or young person brought before it, shall have regard to their welfare. This is reinforced by detailed guidance contained in the sentencing guideline Overarching Principles—Sentencing Youths, which sets out for the courts the principles to be followed when sentencing under-18s. This places a strong emphasis on the need to take into consideration welfare issues and to use interventions that are most likely to prevent reoffending.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, in his most thoughtful contribution, raised the concept of the science of social formation. He talked about the importance of the three pillars of family, school and rehabilitation. As a person of faith, I associate myself with the sentiments that he expressed on the concept of forgiveness. He also referred to his family and talked of his daughter’s child being an “economic unit”, becoming a more active economic unit when Christmas comes. I say to the right reverend Prelate that I have two economic units at home, and they persist as such throughout 12 months of the year and not just at Christmas. However, that is perhaps a discussion that we can have outside this debate.
My noble friend Lord Dholakia talked about mental capacity. The sentencing guideline Overarching principles —Sentencing Youths, to which I referred, ensures that proper regard is had to the mental health and capability of the young person, and to the learning disability, learning difficulty, speech and language difficulty or any other disorder, any of which is likely to affect the sentence. The guideline must be followed by the courts.
Maintaining the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years of age also enables offenders to be identified at an early stage. This allows multi-agency youth offending teams, which include representatives from health, housing, children’s services and education, to become involved with the aim of putting interventions in place to address the child’s behaviour. These interventions can include addressing their attendance at, and attitude to, school, referral to a speech and language therapist if there is an identified issue with communication, and, finally, youth crime prevention programmes, which work to keep young people away from crime.
If an out-of-court disposal is considered to be appropriate, as is usually the case for a first-time offence, the police, in consultation with the youth offending team—and, for indictable-only offences, the CPS—may offer a youth caution or a youth conditional caution for a young person aged 10 to 17. We also introduced this new out-of-court framework for under-18s in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which came into effect for offences committed from 8 April 2013. This new framework simplified and rationalised the previous framework to provide a flexible approach which allows for professional discretion to apply the most appropriate disposal. That did away with the escalator in the previous reprimand and warning scheme, which forced further offending up the criminal justice system regardless of the seriousness of the offence.
The youth caution may be given for any offence where the young offender admits an offence or there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction but it is not in the public interest to prosecute. Youth cautions aim to provide a proportionate and effective resolution to offending and support the principal statutory aim of the youth justice system of preventing offending by children and young people, a sentiment with which I know all noble Lords who have participated agree.
Where a youth caution is given, the police have a statutory duty to refer the young offender to the youth offending team. For a second or subsequent youth caution or where a young person has previously received a youth conditional caution, the youth offending team has a statutory duty to carry out an assessment of the young offender and to consider putting in place an intervention programme aimed at preventing reoffending. The youth offending team may carry out an assessment and offer a rehabilitation programme for a young person who has never received a youth caution or youth conditional caution at their discretion.
Youth conditional cautions require young people to take responsibility for their actions, including agreeing to conditions that require them to put things right or seeking help for their behaviour. They provide an opportunity in appropriate cases to achieve an early positive response for those young people who are willing to admit their offending and to comply with certain conditions. Like youth cautions, they aim to support the principal aim of the youth justice system, which, again, I reiterate, is to prevent offending by children and young people. For example, they allow for a proportionate response in appropriate cases, for offenders to make swift reparation to victims and communities, and for offenders to be diverted at an early opportunity into rehabilitative services, reducing the likelihood of reoffending. The conditions that can be attached to a youth conditional caution must include one or more of the objectives of rehabilitation, reparation and punishment.
Rehabilitative conditions may include attending one or more of a range of interventions available to the youth offending team for addressing offending behaviour. Reparative conditions may include apologising, repairing or otherwise making good any damage caused, provided of course that that is acceptable to the victim. Punitive conditions may include attendance at a specific place to undertake an agreed activity. However, I stress that in any case where the police or CPS are considering offering a youth conditional caution or a second or subsequent youth caution, the case must be referred to the local youth offending team to provide a check on the appropriateness of the disposal and the interventions that should go alongside.
Where a person aged between 10 and 17 pleads guilty and is convicted for the first time of an imprisonable offence, the court must pass in most cases a referral order. A referral order is based on the restorative justice principles and may be between three and 12 months in length. The offender is referred to a youth offender panel made up of two specifically trained community volunteers and a member of the youth offending team. The panel agrees a contract with the young person, which may include reparation and interventions to address any risk of reoffending. By holding the young offender to account for their actions, the young person can find the process very challenging. In addition, parents are also required to attend this panel, which means that they are directly engaged in the sentence and take responsibility for their child.
Restorative justice, which has been shown to be effective for young people, is increasingly used as part of a referral order and funding has been provided to youth offending teams to allow panel members to be trained as restorative justice conference facilitators. That allows the panel to include a structured restorative justice group conference involving a facilitator, the offender, the victim where they indicate that they wish to participate, professionals such as social workers and, possibly, representatives of the wider community.
Custody is available for 10 to 11 year-olds only if they commit a grave or serious crime—normally one where an adult would be liable to a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment or more. A child of this age who is sent to custody would only be placed in a secure children’s home with a strong focus on addressing their particular behaviour and their family’s needs as well as their offending behaviour. There are also restrictions on custody for 12 to 14 year-olds who become eligible for a detention and training order only if the court considers the offending to be not only serious but that custody is necessary and that they are persistent offenders. Otherwise, custody becomes an option only where the offence is grave or a serious crime, as for 10 to 11 year-olds.
Legislation introduced in November 2009 alongside the youth rehabilitation order—the main community sentence for under-18s—requires courts to consider a youth rehabilitation order with a high intensity requirement before they can make a custodial sentence. This clearly signals our compliance with the UNCRC principle that custody is the option of last resort for an under-18, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also referred to. As noble Lords will also be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor in the other place has announced his intention to introduce a new form of youth detention accommodation—secure colleges—which are focused on delivering education in detention. We maintain that education is the best means of preventing reoffending.
I now come to a few of the additional questions that I have not yet covered. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which I am sure many noble Lords are looking forward to discussing in the coming weeks, and IPNAs. IPNAs may now be coined as the boiled-egg syndrome. But it is a matter for him whether he takes out an IPNA on such an occasion. But the Bill that we will be discussing next week is a serious one. It is designed to allow police to intercede where a person's behaviour is having an unacceptable impact on another person. Guidance will be provided for police and practitioners. As I said, I am sure that we will be having many discussions in this area.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also raised rules of engagement, which were raised by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith. I am not able to clarify whether a formal response was provided, but I shall write to the noble Earl in this respect. The noble Earl raised the issue of the ACPO guidelines and the 2010 report, which I know the Ministry of Justice is currently working on with colleagues at the Home Office. We will of course share the outcomes of that review with noble Lords as he requested.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby raised the issue of mentoring. Mentors are used frequently in our criminal justice system and there is a great emphasis in the current process of offender rehabilitation to look at mentoring across the board. It is something that works. It has been shown to produce the results that we require and, most importantly, it ensures that people become productive citizens at the end of that mentoring. It is something that we are seeking to do within the rehabilitation programme. If someone is given a custodial sentence, a needs analysis is conducted and mentoring continues not just during that sentence but, most importantly, when they come to the end of their custodial sentence.
I pay particular tribute to the work that the noble Earl does across several APPGs relating to children. The Government look with great interest and take note of the findings and reports that they make. He referred to Police Constable Storey. I did not meet the particular officer concerned, but from what the noble Earl said, it appears that it was a very moving occasion, which demonstrates the importance of mentoring.
We have seen a significant fall in the number of under-18s being dealt with in the criminal justice system in recent years. A clear contributory factor to that fall was the doing away in 2008 with the police target introduced under the previous Government for offenders brought to justice. Since 2008-09, 54% fewer younger people have been coming into the youth justice system, 32% fewer in custody and 14% fewer reoffenders.
In conclusion, the Government firmly believe that the current age of criminal responsibility allows the necessary flexibility to deal effectively with young people who commit offences and accurately reflects what is required of our justice system. Reference has been made by several noble Lords to the raising of the minimum age in Scotland and the reviews in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, the Government are continuing to look at those areas. We have no plans to raise the age from 10, but we continue to watch with interest the developments in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We believe that the argument which has been put forward by successive Governments to keep the age of criminal responsibility at the age of 10 holds. It allows us to intervene early and prevent robustly further offending. Most importantly, it helps young people to develop a sense of personal responsibility for their behaviour. In closing, I would like to say that while taking on board and listening carefully to the contributions of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, as I always do, for the reasons I have outlined, the Government do not support the Bill.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to the debate. Every time I prepare my contribution, the first thing I write mentally is the speech that the Minister is supposed to make, and he has not disappointed me. Perhaps I can say very simply to him that if this is good enough for the rest of Europe—many countries and international examples have been cited—I think he needs to look seriously at why we are falling behind on this issue. I will not be making an inroad on the time of the House on a Friday afternoon when there is another debate to come, but I want to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have contributed.
The contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on matters relating to children and young people is unique in the House and we should take serious note of what he says. In regard to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, every time he speaks I am sure that at the least I will agree with what he says, and in many cases I will follow him into the appropriate Lobby. He has never been wrong in identifying these issues and I thank him for his contribution. It was also very nice of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby to speak in the debate. You cannot be wrong if God and the church is your side, and I welcome his contribution to the issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was absolutely right in what she said about public opinion.
Let me put it this way: there are other issues that the Government and this country are going to have to face. Those include prisoners’ voting rights, which will come before noble Lords before long. Sometimes it is necessary for the Government to give a lead rather than follow public opinion, and this is one of those times. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Unsolicited Telephone Communications Bill [HL]
Lord Selsdon (Con)
My Lords, over my years in this House, I have found that two subjects always come to the front and the back of my mind at the same time. Those are privacy and freedom. If we are not careful, we will find that legislation can handicap and control us, bureaucracy takes over, and we lose that most critical quality of individuality. For me, privacy in one’s own home is as important as anything. It is for this reason that, over a period of 10 years, I introduced a Bill on powers of entry, not necessarily to produce new legislation, but to bring forward regulations that would forbid someone to go into a person’s home without permission or without a court order.
I find, too, that if you want to do something here, you start with a Starred Question, and you have a little debate. Then you table a Question for Written Answer, but not like the leaders, who may ask hundreds of questions a year. You are seeking information. If you do not get it, you try a Private Member’s Bill, which effectively opens up the issue for discussion and debate. That is the purpose today. I am very grateful to the Government for giving me permission to speak and to introduce the Bill. Its objective is not necessarily to pass into law but to raise issues for open debate.
Unsolicited telephone communications are commonly known as a nuisance phone calls. I do not know who thought of the term “nuisance” first, but that includes unsolicited live direct marketing calls, automated recorded message calls and silent, abandoned calls. That is as if people were entering your home without permission unless they have said who they are. Many of these calls cause considerable distress. They come under the control, indirectly or directly, of Ofcom. Recent research by Ofcom of UK adults with landline phones found that 82% had experienced a nuisance call over the four-week period of that research. More than 54% reported experiencing a silent call and an estimated 17% an abandoned call. Other research drew attention to the stress and anxiety caused to many recipients by that invasion of privacy, as one might call it, including a report that more than 3 million people were left with a fear of answering the phone and worry about debt selling or payday loans.
That is easily soluble by regulation. We have to bring in this great thing, the European Economic Community. The principle at the moment is that if you use Ofcom, you have a chance to say that you do not want nuisance calls, but that does not actually help you very much. The purpose of the Bill is to say that if you want to receive calls, you register with Ofcom; if you do not want to receive calls, you do not do anything. EC Directive 2002/58 states that it is up to member states to decide whether they have an opt-in or an opt-out policy for marketing phone calls. Therefore, the Bill does not contradict the EC directive, which states:
“Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that, free of charge, unsolicited communications for purposes of direct marketing, in cases other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, are not allowed either without the consent of the subscribers concerned or in respect of subscribers who do not wish to receive these communications, the choice between these options to be determined by national legislation”.
I am saying that to stop this invasion of your house or your home, we change the rules, which we can do quite simply in this House—domestically—so that only those who want those calls opt in and everyone else is protected.
The Bill reverses the relevant regulations in the privacy and electronic communications directive. We can do that domestically. Your Lordships will probably be aware that one of the most informed institutions in the world on EEC matters is your Lordships’ House, because of its numerous EU committees. I am advised that it is a simple matter to change the implementation of the EC regulation here in the United Kingdom so that this proposal works.
At present, Ofcom keeps a register of people who have opted out. The principle of leaving Ofcom in control is therefore accepted. Your Lordships have considerable experience here, and from discussions, I have a feeling that officials may say that this is not possible, whereas the Public Bill Office, for which I have great respect, feels that it is. With his wise judgment, my noble friend the Minister will make a decision one way or the other in a few moments.
There is also the fear factor. I never realised how invading your home with telephone calls caused stress. I do not see why one cannot get a response. If we have had 82% receiving nuisance calls over a four-week period, one wonders how many there are.
Which bodies approach you depends on what people are trying to sell you. However, there is a reverse factor here: if you want to speak to any bank these days, normally you are referred directly or indirectly to a call centre, wherever it may be on the face of the earth. How do you know who is at that call centre? You will usually get a Christian name given to you. Now, is that Christian name the name of the young lady who is answering or is it the name of the telephone post? I have found, on many occasions when I have rung on various financial matters, that I get “Tracy” with a different name. Or you have your offshore organisations, where you may ring Calcutta but you have no idea whether or not you are ringing a respectable body. Telecommunications as such have created a great degree of uncertainty.
I hope that your Lordships will accept that I am not trying to do anything complex. I am advised by the Public Bill Office that this is easy and will be almost a stroke of the pen. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for not giving him warning that I would speak in the gap. I have, however, informed both the Front Benches. I was not certain that I would be here in time today, which is why I was not able to put my name on the list. I apologise to the House for that.
I speak because of a particular interest of mine arising from my earlier role as vice-chairman of the Financial Services Consumer Panel. We were dealing with PPI and pressed first the Financial Ombudsman Service and then the FSA very hard to take action on its mis-selling. We thought that we had achieved a lot when it was realised that, while the product was not necessarily bad in itself, it was being mis-sold. It took a long time to persuade people of that, but when we had it was clear that a number of them would get redress. I was therefore not ashamed but immensely disappointed to discover that the unintended consequence of that was this absolute barrage of phone calls; many noble Lords, many of whom may not be here today, have recounted stories of being offered money back that they had never actually spent.
As the House will know—there was an exchange on this just yesterday—we are quite chuffed that we have now got a similar move forward on the ability of tenants and landlords who might have been mis-sold something, or mistreated by a letting agent, to take that to an ombudsman. That will become legislation and will come into force some time in the coming year. However, I fear that the same lot of people will again be after rich pickings and will start phoning up tenants and landlords in the same sort of way. We cannot just deal with this problem issue by issue.
The Bill therefore seems extremely timely. I myself have opted out but I still get these calls, mostly from abroad, which do not seem to be caught by the opt-out. One is also not able to trace the number to call back and make complaints. Partly personally, but partly on behalf of those consumer groups that do so much to get things such as redress and then find that that leads to this sort of nonsense, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the Bill and I wish it well.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for introducing the Bill. It comes at a particularly interesting time because it comes on the back of a number of other reports and suggestions for change on this issue. I draw particular attention to the all-party group that has been set up on this issue, of which I am sure he is well aware. Reading what it has said this week, I was struck by how much it chimed with much of what the noble Lord has been saying. It has a list of 15 or 16 recommendations that seem extremely good. If the Bill is to proceed, it would be worth having a further discussion with the officers and that committee to get the benefit of where it has got to in its evidence and support.
In supporting the Bill and wishing it well, I must pick up on something my noble friend Lady Hayter suggested. There are one or two things about the existing arrangements that might be picked up in the debate and discussions, and I would welcome a further session with the noble Lord, if he is happy to do that, because, speaking in my capacity as chair of the StepChange debt charity, I have some thoughts about some of the ways in which those who market and sell financial products prey on vulnerable customers. The noble Lord does not include that in his Bill in particular, but it is an area we might explore together to see whether there is room for movement.
As the Bill is currently drafted, there might be concern about how individuals will grant consent to being on the “can be contacted” list. The essence is straightforward, but if it is to be done by a third party or through an agency such as Ofcom or the TPS, the Bill will have to deal with its rights and responsibilities. It may increase the number of unsolicited calls because being on the list would make an individual’s number available to anybody who wants it. We might have to think through the implications of that.
The downside of making the Bill very restrictive is that there might be problems for those who currently market in that way. One would have to think about how that is calibrated. It is important to recognise that denying consumers the opportunity to receive calls that they might want is an area that we might have to consider with care.
The Bill does not solve the problem that my noble friend Lady Hayter mentioned. If you are currently registered under the TPS, that does not prevent you receiving calls that originate outside the UK. This is a well known gap, and it is something that government has looked at from time to time. When the Minister replies, I hope he will say where we are on this. It is a bit useless to have a situation that prevents calls originating within the UK but does not prevent the very large number of calls that come from abroad.
The Bill does not address firms getting access to consumer lists, whether they are opt-in or opt-out. It may be worth looking again at that. On the one hand, we want to make data available for marketing purposes but, on the other, those data have a marketable value and it is not unknown for these lists to be sold for other firms to make use of them. Perhaps that is where one might want to act to stop unscrupulous firms.
There is a difficulty in the current legislation about issuing monetary penalties. We are not against monetary penalties. They are very useful, and they can be quite sizeable. They ought to be a very effective way of cleaning up this area, but unfortunately the threshold that you have to reach before you apply them is too high. It is something that the Bill could look at.
At the moment, redress is, ironically, very difficult for consumers who are receiving calls, even if they are on opt-in basis. If the caller becomes a nuisance or is acting illegally, there is no redress scheme. My noble friend Lady Hayter made a good suggestion about an ombudsperson.
One of the key problems of the current system is that the ICO and Ofcom share responsibility for regulating this area. That can be okay, but the problem of who has responsibility is compounded by the fact that the ICO is relatively short-staffed and underresourced and Ofcom has similar but different difficulties in this area. Between them, they carve up the field, but they are unable to take on the full range of responsibilities that they would like to take on. If we were to go further on this Bill, it might be worth thinking about how best to arrange the regulation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I make it clear from the outset that the Government very much welcome and appreciate the efforts and concern that my noble friend has shown in highlighting this important issue. I am sure that, for many consumers, my noble friend reflects the feeling that something more needs to be done to deal with this problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, also raised the points about consumers and the redress and improvements we all seek. The Bill is welcome in that it is a timely opportunity for further discussion.
The resolution of this issue is more complex than at first sight it might appear. It requires industry, government and consumers to collaborate if there is to be any chance of success. Unsolicited telephone marketing nuisance calls are certainly topical and have been the focus of vast amounts of correspondence, many Parliamentary Questions, a Select Committee inquiry in the other place and an inquiry led by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Nuisance Calls, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, whose report was published last week.
These reflect the clear fact that, despite the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 being in place, unsolicited marketing nuisance calls are a source of great annoyance and inconvenience for consumers. Indeed, when I pick up a message which starts, “That’s right!”, I am pretty certain that it is not. I also may well ignore being instructed to press a certain number to get further information. To many, however, and especially the elderly and more vulnerable, as all noble Lords have said, this causes confusion and great anxiety. I wish that there were a magic wand that could be waved to eradicate the problem but, sadly, that is simply not possible.
I assure noble Lords that we are absolutely determined to take action on this issue. That is why the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries has initiated and led a serious of meetings over the past 18 months which have brought together the key interested parties to press for change. Unsolicited calls and texts are a problem, but we have to be careful that, in dealing with this issue, we do not harm the direct marketing industry, which is a legitimate industry that provides employment and opportunities in support of our economy. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made precisely that point. Direct marketing can be beneficial for consumers—for example, calls from telecoms or energy companies advising on better deals or tariffs potentially save consumers money. An opt-in register, as in the Bill, would severely constrain such activities. We must therefore consider the matter carefully.
What action are the Government taking? From those meetings, we now have clearer and improved guidance and information for consumers, to help ensure that they are aware of where to go to register complaints on regulators’ websites. I realise that, of course, to many of the elderly this may not be an option, but this information is now more consistent and readily available. The consumer organisation Which? has also been engaged in the meetings and has developed a useful mechanism on its website by which consumers are automatically directed to the right place to access information as well as to make complaints.
On enforcement, we have ensured that the monetary penalties that the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom can use have been increased and, equally importantly, used more frequently to fine companies which break the regulations. We have made clear in tasking regulators that, through robust action, they must send a clear signal that those who flout the rules will be caught. We are pleased that, since January 2012, more than £2.3 million has been issued in fines and would want to see more.
Persistent offending companies are also now named and shamed on the Information Commissioner’s Office website, so that those who engage in poor practice are made known to the public, as informed consumers are safer consumers. There is also greater collaboration between regulators, sharing knowledge and expertise to improve compliance throughout. However, we are fully aware that much more needs to be done. That is why our future proposals for nuisance calls were set out in our strategy paper published on 30 July. These include legislating to ensure that Ofcom can share information more easily with the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will be implementing this through a statutory instrument that will be laid shortly, with a view to it coming into force by 6 April 2014 at the latest, if not sooner.
We are also actively considering the scope to legislate to lower the legal threshold the ICO needs to demonstrate before issuing a monetary penalty, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, mentioned. We are assessing the business case and the cost before we take action on this. In view of the large number of nuisance calls relating to the payment protection insurance sector, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to, we are also working closely with the Claims Management Regulator. It is welcome to see that the CMR is taking action against claims management companies which fail to comply with the rules.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The Government have made no progress yet on the funding of the claims management ombudsman. If the Minister is not able to answer now, I hope he can come back and maybe give a report to the House on that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
It is probably best if I write to your Lordships so I can give chapter and verse on that matter.
The main issue in this Bill is changing from the current opt-out requirement to an opt-in system for unsolicited direct marketing calls. There is a feeling that this is unlikely by itself to make an impact on the present situation, as calls to consumers who are registered with the Telephone Preference Service, provided they have not given explicit consent to receive such calls, are already outlawed under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations. Germany has an opt-in system but, according to a study in 2011 by trueCall Ltd, complaint levels are broadly similar to those in the UK. The Government’s view is that those breaking the law by calling consumers registered with the Telephone Preference Service are just as likely to ignore the law, regardless of whether there is an opt-in or opt-out system. Tackling nuisance calls would be better addressed by focusing on improving enforcement rather than changing the nature of the register; legislation of this nature is unlikely to be the answer.
The Government will continue to work with regulators, network operators, consumer group representatives, interested Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships’ House to find solutions. A combined effort by all parties is needed. This is now beginning to happen and we are ensuring that work by the industry is also under way including, for example, the ability to trace calls where the calling number is deliberately withheld or spoofed. This will also help contribute towards achieving more long-term solutions. We welcome the fact that TalkTalk last week launched a network-level solution for its customers and that BT will be displaying full call-line identification for incoming international calls, where available, on its network by next autumn. Last week, the Telephone Preference Service launched its accreditation scheme, TPS Assured, which seeks to improve best practice among companies. We know that there are already products on the market which can help consumers filter calls. We are keen for the UK to take a lead in developing the solutions that put the power in the hands of consumers. We are aware that, as part of the joint action plan to tackle nuisance calls and messages, which was launched by Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office in July, research is being undertaken to see what further improvements can be made to the Telephone Preference Service. All this is extremely welcome.
We take the issues raised in this Bill very seriously and very careful consideration needs to be given to them. The reservation we have about my noble friend’s Bill is not that we do not share the intention to remedy the matter but that we think there is a more effective route to securing what my noble friend’s Bill seeks to achieve. We already have regulations in place that protect consumers, so the focus needs to be on better enforcement in support of them. In addition to the measures noted earlier, we are actively considering proposals for further reform. The recommendations of the report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Nuisance Calls, published last week, and the forthcoming report of the recent CMS Select Committee inquiry will be useful in informing further our thinking in this area. The work is ongoing, and the Government will publish their action plan on nuisance calls later this year. I hope that your Lordships will understand that this reflects the importance and urgency of this issue.
The practical way to solve this issue is to get industry and regulators to work together. Like my noble friend, I am eager to find effective solutions, both legislative and non-legislative. In doing that we need to balance the right of business to conduct legitimate direct marketing while strengthening the regulatory framework and industry best practice to target companies that flout the rules. In view of the work, legislative and non-legislative, I assure your Lordships that we are progressing efforts to counter the issue of unsolicited marketing of nuisance calls with vigour.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. It is so nice to have more support on the opposition Benches than on one’s own. I say nothing against my noble friend, but he is too young to remember those signs on gates outside houses, which said, “No hawkers, no circulars”. He will, of course, know that the reason that I am in your Lordships’ House is to do with telecommunications, because my grandfather was the longest-serving Postmaster General in the past 100 years.
I will give my noble friend a little help and refer him to the wonderful report from the House of Lords Library. However, that report is effectively banned from outside circulation because of information that is deemed as not approved for use elsewhere. Will he give very serious consideration to the all-party group that he mentioned last week? Will he also consider: the DCMS written evidence; the report submitted to the House of Commons nuisance calls inquiry of 10 September 2013; the ICO and Ofcom joint action plan, “Tackling Nuisance Calls and Messages”, of 31 July 2013; the Ofcom landline nuisance calls panel research of 17 May 2013; the House of Commons Library Note, Nuisance Calls: Unsolicited Sales and Marketing, and Silent Calls, of 10 July 2013; and StepChange’s “Got Their Number” campaign of 29 October 2013. I want to make sure that this goes into Hansard so that other people can read it
I can therefore assure the noble Lord that I have at my disposal perhaps as much information as, or possibly even more, than his officials. Therefore, on that expression “foot-dragging”, I never know whether it means you drag the whole of your foot or just your toe when you do it. I would be grateful if he would give consent to perhaps having a small group meeting as quickly as possible so that we can work out the solutions. One of those solutions would be the amendment of that EC directive or part thereof. Maybe his officials might meet with the Public Bill Office upstairs to see how this could be done.
In the mean time, we find that most of the people who suffer the greatest are not electronically enabled. They do not have PCs; they are not “press button to answer” people. They cannot even work an answerphone. However, they feel very insecure when, out of the blue, comes a voice they try to answer but which gives no response. They do not know what these calls are. This is about the uncertainty and anxiety that is created. I thought, for a bit of fun, that I would make a threatening message; I will not repeat it to your Lordships, but I recorded myself so that I could press a button when anyone did that to me and leave them in fear of their life. However, that would probably have got me into serious trouble.
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who is a very good chap, and will do what he said. I took the liberty—I probably should not mention this in your Lordships’ House—of speaking to his officials. We know that officials are pretty good but, although they often try to direct their Minister, we always work better when Ministers direct their officials. I beg to move.